ZACCHAEUS AND THE PHYSICIAN

ZACCHAEUS

Luke 19:1-10

        It is arresting to go through the full account of our Lord's ministry, and to observe how often in connection with some apparently casual event He uttered some great word which we have no record of His having repeated. In the case of Nicodemus He said: "Except a man be born from above, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

        The truth is of universal application, but is once uttered. On another occasion He said to His disciples: "The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many."

        In these words we have a revelation of the underlying principle of all His life and work.

        So in the account we are now to consider, that of Zacchaeus. In connection with that He uttered words which reveal the meaning of His mission in the world: "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

        The account ends with this great declaration, and illuminates it in a remarkable and perhaps unexpected way. In the account we discover what our Lord meant by seeking, and saving. We glory in the declaration, and it is best to have it thus interpreted by the incident which called it forth.

        Moreover, the account of Zacchaeus is the more interesting because it is the account of one of the last men that Jesus gathered to Himself before His Cross. That He was on the way to the Cross now definitely and positively, and very soon to reach it, is self-evident. In subsequent studies we shall meet with Bartimaeus and the dying thief. It is evident, therefore, that this was among the very last.

        The events recorded took place in Jericho, that great city as it was at the time of at least one hundred thousand inhabitants, that city which still in the thinking of the Jew remained under the curse of God which had long rested upon it. The city had become, strangely enough, a dwelling-place for priests and Levites, who traveled up and down the road constantly between it and Jerusalem. On His way to Jerusalem our Lord passed through that city. Taking all the narratives and combining them, we may see Him approaching the city, entering into it, staying for a little while, and then passing out of the gate that led to the road for Jerusalem, all the way moving towards His Cross.

        We begin by looking at this man Zacchaeus. The account is a very old and familiar one, and we all seem to know him. It is important, however, that we should look carefully at him. His name Zacchaeus was purely Jewish, and unquestionably he was a Hebrew. In passing it is at least interesting to observe that his name meant pure. One wonders whether in the early days, on the occasion of his circumcision, his mother and father had given him the name expressive of their hope and desire for him. That, of course, cannot be proven, but it is interesting, for these Hebrews gave names generally for some reason.

        Luke tells us that he was a chief publican, and it is of the greatest importance that we should understand what is meant by that definition. We all know that a publican was a tax-gatherer. There were many such, and the rank and file of them was under the direction of chief publicans. Zacchaeus was one of these. The district was under Roman rule and over the tetrarch Herod was king. The method of taxation would be Roman. That method was that of placing a whole district under a chief publican. It was, to use a very modern term that of farming out a district to someone thus definitely and imperially appointed for gathering therefrom the taxes. Rome fixed the rate of taxation and handed the schedule of the same to the man so appointed. Rome fixed the rate per capita. The chief publican was required to remit according to that regulation the amount represented by the population. Then Rome closed its eyes. So long as the chief publican rendered the right amount, that is all the imperial government asked. He was left free as to his method of gathering. The rank and file of the publicans acted under his direction. He was highest in authority and in responsibility.

        It is self-evident that these men, both the chief publicans and those who served under them, were in disfavor with the Jewish people. For this there were two reasons. The first was that in many cases the men themselves were Hebrews, and yet were representing the Roman power. The Hebrew people hated that power, and never willingly surrendered to it. This in itself would create a feeling of resentment against the publicans as a class.

        But there was another reason for that resentment. It is notorious that these men in collecting the taxes extorted more than was due, and so enriched themselves. We remember when the publicans went to John the Baptist and said to him: "Master, what must we do? He said unto them, Extort no more than that which is appointed you."

        That is exactly what they were all doing. For those two reasons they were held in contempt. Whenever a man hired himself to Rome he was banned by his fellow-religionists, and disliked because of the method of extortion by which they gathered the taxes.

        It is interesting to observe as a sidelight in this connection that the Talmud declared that there were three persons to whom it was perfectly legitimate to lie: a murderer, a thief, and a publican. In the application to the publican we are not yet entirely free from guiltiness. If you would cross the Atlantic in either direction you would be amazed to see people who otherwise are perfectly honest, resorting to all sorts of tricks to dodge the Customs of the countries.

        As we look at Zacchaeus we discover in the light of all these facts that he was a rogue. That declaration will very possibly be challenged. My reason for saying so is found in the statement of Luke: "He was a chief publican, and he was rich."

        That settles it. Now let it be carefully observed I am not declaring that because a man is rich he is a rogue. But no chief publican farming an area on the basis of the Roman arrangement, could possibly become a wealthy man. If he simply gathered what was due, and received his commission, he was well cared for, but he could not amass wealth. All those who in the course of this function became wealthy, had extorted more than was their due. Such was the case with Zacchaeus.

        Turning to look at him very carefully, we discover that he was a man mastered by curiosity, and therefore a healthy-minded man. Curiosity and investigation are of the very essence of sanity. His curiosity is revealed in the declaration: "And he sought to see Jesus, who He was; and could not for the crowd, because he was little of stature."

        That statement has often been too hurriedly read, and the revealing nature of the phrase "Who He was" has been lost sight of. It has been said that he was an questioner, one waiting for Jesus to come along, wanting to see Him, having heard about Him. Such, indeed, was the case in many instances, but not here. A great crowd was surging down the streets of the city, and Zacchaeus, keen to find out its meaning, and who it was that was thus attracting attention, climbed the tree for the very purpose of seeing "Who He was." This is evidence of his curious and questioning mind. He ran on before the crowd, and climbed the tree in order to have that healthy curiosity satisfied.

        It is evident; therefore, that he was a man of determination. He was little of stature, and could not see over the heads of the thronging multitudes; but he overcame this physical disability by climbing. Here was evidence of his determination.

        The next revelation of the man is found in the statement made about him after the invitation of Jesus had reached him. Luke says that when he heard that, "he made haste and came down, and received Him joyfully." He did not know Him, but something in the look of Jesus, and in the tones of His voice, and in the very invitation itself arrested him, and in his quick response we discover him to be a hospitable man. Thus the man is seen to be an interesting personality, curious, determined, and hospitable.

        Is that all? No, there is much more. And the more is the high thing. He was lost! Nothing he said suggested that condition. No one in the crowd would have used such a word concerning him. They might have described him as a sinner, for it was their habit to link publican and sinners. When at this point however our Lord had dealt with him, and interpreted what He had done, He said: "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

        In that declaration we have the truth concerning Zacchaeus. It is an arresting word that is here employed and translated "lost." It does not merely mean lost in the sense of being mislaid. Something lost in the sense in which the word is used here may still be possessed, but be of no value. That is exactly its intention. Zacchaeus as he was living, in his outlook on life, in his habits, in his character, was of no value to God in this world. Moreover, he was lost in that sense as to his fellowmen. It may be that I have possessed a watch of real value, but its main-spring is destroyed; then it is lost. It is impossible to tell the time by it. It is valueless. That is the sense of the word here employed concerning Zacchaeus. This man named Pure, with a lapse of years had become a tax-gatherer for Rome, which was a perfectly legitimate calling, in spite of objection to it; but in carrying out his work he had employed methods which had destroyed his honesty. He had no vital interest in righteousness, but a great interest in revenue. He was lost, of no value, I repeat, to God, of no value, to man; contributing nothing having purpose and power in the procedure of life, contributing nothing to the well-being of his fellow-man; and so by the calculations of eternity, he was spiritually and morally lost.

        It is important now to remind ourselves that when we speak of a lost man or woman, the final emphasis in our thinking should not be on the lost person, but on the one who has lost that person. When we speak of a man being lost, do we think most about his suffering, or of the suffering of God? The tragedy of a lost soul in the last analysis is that God is robbed. In thus connection I have sometimes used a very simple and personal illustration. Many years ago when my youngest boy was about four years old, he was out one day with his mother in a clothing store. When his mother turned to see where he was, he was wandering through the clothes racks. For the moment the boy was lost to his mother. Who suffered most in those moments? There is no doubt that my boy was afraid, but his mother, left for a few moments standing there, and unable to find him, knew the most of suffering. Let us remember this when we think of any man as lost, and think of it so as we look at Zacchaeus.

        Turning to the contemplation of our Lord's dealing with this man, we are first arrested by a very simple phrase, and it is that as Jesus passed by, He looked up. On the human level, if you are walking along, in the midst of a procession, a man in a tree looking down, may easily be missed. But not by those eyes. He was watching, and watching as He ever did for lost things.

        Then He called him by name, as He said: "Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for today I must abide at thy house."

        He knew him, and all about him. That statement carries us back to our earliest study, when John tells us that He knew all men, and needed not that any should tell Him what was in man.

        Nevertheless on the human level it is interesting to notice that He did know him and named him. There is a great legend that I read concerning this. When conducting meetings at Birmingham, in Alabama, one Dr. George Stuart, a great Methodist preacher and saint, George Stuart said: "You know, Zacchaeus was a publican, and so was Matthew. When Matthew began to follow the Lord, one of the first things he did was to gather together those of his own class. I often think that probably he said to his Lord, Master, if one day You should happen to be passing through Jericho, I wish You would find a man named Zacchaeus."

        That legend can be forgotten, but it is at least an interesting one.

        Then observe that our Lord commanded this man's hospitality. Of course, it would be perfectly accurate to say that He asked for it. There is only one other occasion on record when He did so, and that was in the case of the woman of Samaria. Here, however, we see Him seeking hospitality from a man who was a notorious rogue.

        When I said a moment ago He commanded it, I did so, recognizing the Kingliness of our Lord. Kings do not ask for hospitality, but command it. That is so even in England and other countries of such today. It was equally true in the East, and therefore I look upon the word of Jesus to Zacchaeus as the command of a King.

        Moreover, the command was issued in the terms of necessity. Said Jesus, "I must abide at thy house." That "must" is revealing. We remember the word is used about Him on other occasions. It was used before He asked hospitality of the woman as it is written, "He must needs pass through Samaria." In dealing with that account we considered the meaning of the "must." The surroundings are different. Here we have a man, not a woman. Here we have not a woman outside the covenant, but a man failing within it, and lost. We ask, why must He abide at the house of this man? And the answer is found in the great statement to which we have referred at the end of the account: "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."

        In spite of all adverse opinion concerning Zacchaeus, Jesus must carry out His mission, and so find His way into this man's house.

        We glance for one moment at the house. It would almost certainly be on the Eastern pattern, with its rooms gathered round a central court. If one entered by the principal entrance right opposite to it, perhaps elevated a few steps, would be the guest chamber. There is no doubt that Jesus entered by that door, and found His way into that guest chamber. As He did so we hear the voices of His critics saying: "He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner."

        The word "lodge" is arresting. It is a verb derived from a noun. We find that noun in one place in the New Testament where it is said there was no room for Him in the inn. That word for "inn" is kataluma, a sheltering place, a lodging place. From that noun this verb is derived. He has come in to the shelter and the lodging place of this notorious rogue.

        The next statement is that "Zacchaeus stood," found in verse eight. Between the end of verse seven and the beginning of verse eight there is an interval. How long it lasted we have no means of knowing, and what happened in that guest-chamber has not been told us. It is quite certain that in that interval, while the people waited outside, Jesus and Zacchaeus had a private interview.

        After that interview, Luke says, "Zacchaeus stood." That means that he came into visibility, standing in the court where the people were, and then saying something to Jesus, but saying it publicly. This is what he said: "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have-wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold."

        It is of the utmost importance that we understand that in these words Zacchaeus was not telling the Lord what had been the habit of his life, but what he was now about to do as the result of that interview. Something had taken place in that period of personal dealing between himself and Jesus. A radical change had taken place in the man. The habit of his life might have been expressed in the words, "I get." He now is saying "I give." He had entered, mastered by greed. He came out, mastered by grace. Had he been honest, he would have spoken of the past by saving "I rob." He is now saying, "I restore." He went in, in the grip of roguery. He came out, possessed by righteousness.

        What, then, had happened? The answer is found in the declaration of our Lord.

        "Today is salvation come to this house."

        This is the true interpretation of salvation. During recent years we have heard men very often declare that the next revival would be an ethical revival. My objection to that statement is that it suggests that previous revivals have not been ethical. Yet look about for a moment. The revival under Whitefield and Wesley was evangelical, but it was ethical. Indeed, if the evangelical be absent, the ethical never results. The ethical change in Zacchaeus was wrought by a spiritual change by grace. This is of the very essence of the Gospel.

        This, then, is salvation, and this is what our Lord came to do, to seek and to save that which was lost.

        That was His mission. It is still His mission.

"Down in the human heart, crushed by the tempter,

Feelings lie buried that grace can restore;

Touched by a loving hand, wakened by kindness,

Chords that were broken will vibrate once more."

        Jesus entered into the house of Zacchaeus, and laid His hand upon the broken chords, and they vibrated with the music of a restored soul.

        Thus salvation is the word that tells the whole meaning of the mission of Christ. He has come to proclaim the possibility of the salvation of the most unfit, in order to the survival of the first. There is no room in the enterprise of Christ for unfit men. But His mission is to take the unfit, and make them fit. To lost Zacchaeus salvation came, and expressed itself in the complete revolution of his life, for: "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."