The "Fig-Show-er" in the Fig Tree to Bear Fruit

Notes for the Ekklesia Meeting
Sundays @ 10:00 a.m. Info: (651) 283-0568 www.dtminc.org Today’s Date: January 22, 2006

The "Fig-Show-er" in the Fig Tree to Bear Fruit
by Dan Trygg

"And there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. 3 And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small of stature. 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way. 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, ‘Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.’" Luke 19:2-5

Last time, we left Jesus traveling between the ancient site of Jericho and the newer Roman city by the same name. He had just healed the two blind men by the road, and was proceeding again on His way toward Jerusalem, with the newly healed men following in the rejoicing crowd. In Luke 19, He entered the Roman Jericho and was passing through the city. A man named Zacchaeus was the chief tax collector in the area, and he was seeking to see Jesus, but the size and density of the crowd made this impossible, since he was short of stature. Being a resourceful man, he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree, so that he would be able to see Jesus when he came by. When Jesus came to the spot, however, looking up into the tree, He addressed Zacchaeus by name, and told him to hurry and come down. "For today it is necessary for Me to stay in your house." Zacchaeus was overjoyed, but "all" the crowd was put off by this, grumbling throughout because Jesus was going to be the guest of a notorious sinner.

Digging down to another level, being a "chief tax collector" meant that Zacchaeus was in charge of the tax collecting enterprise of that entire area, and undoubtedly had a number of other tax collectors working for him. The way tax collecting was set up in those days was very different than our system. The Roman government did not wish to be in the tax-collecting business, but the empire needed a steady stream of revenue to support its troops, government officials and to provide the services it did hold dear (e.g., extensive road building, publicly supported stadiums and other architecture, etc.). The Roman solution was to outsource the distasteful function of tax collection to others. People who were willing to become tax collectors would have to bid for a revenue contract for a certain geographical area. The government expected a certain amount of revenue, and the tax collectors were permitted to take a profit over and above that amount for their services. The idea was that the competition would foster efficiency and would be better for the people than an entrenched government beauracracy. In actuality, however, it fostered a system of corrupt and abusive practices. The tax collectors were given troops to enforce their collection practices, and they regularly used threat of force and high-handed techniques to get what they wanted. They also regularly abused their authority to take more than they contracted for. The bidding system was rife with bribery and favoritism. As long as the money came in, and the public outcry was manageable, the government simply looked the other way.

To become a tax collector, a person was usually motivated by greed, and he was willing and able to play the political game. For a local person, it meant becoming a collaborator with the "enemy", the occupying Roman army. Add to that the fraud, abuse and strong-arm tactics that these men often employed, and it is easy to see why they were so hated. Like modern day pimps or drug dealers who drive fancy cars and wear jewelry to show off their wealth, these men would often build large and ostentatious homes, living in splendor and luxury. Their outward show of wealth was a testimony not only of their prosperity, but also of the fraudulent and oppressive practices they employed. They were outcasts from Jewish society, and despised. To be "chief tax collector", a person would typically have to be one of the "worst of the worst" in that he had to be able to meet revenue quotas consistently, and had to be able to garner influence enough (usually through bribery, intimidation or political "connections") to obtain the position. Then, he would take a cut from those working for him, adding further to the tax burden of the common people.

With that in mind, we can see why the crowd reacted as it did when Jesus chose to fraternize with a man such as Zacchaeus. The rejoicing, exultant multitude was reduced to instant grumbling, once they realized what Jesus was doing. Zacchaeus was also well aware of their feelings. The contrast between the crowd’s reaction and Jesus’ willingness to come to his house could not have been more stark. Furthermore, Jesus was a Man on a mission. He was inviting Himself to Zacchaeus’ house, not responding to any offer by the tax collector. Jesus’ language is very specific. "It is necessary for Me to stay at your house." This implies an agenda behind His statement. This is not just a social visit. There is a definite purpose for His coming. The fact that Jesus called him by name out the tree indicates that the Holy Spirit was initiating this divine appointment. The two did not know each other before this day (Zacchaeus was trying to see who He was.). Yet Jesus called him out of the sycamore tree (Gk. sukomorea) by name, and spoke of a purpose, that "it is necessary" for Him to come to his house. This was a "word of knowledge" given by the Holy Spirit to penetrate a person’s defenses to show them that God cares for them personally (cf. I Cor. 12:8; e.g., Jn. 4:16-18).

Zacchaeus the manipulator, …Zacchaeus the unscrupulous opportunist and political animal…, would have jumped at the chance to palaver with the possible future King of Israel. He would have tried to make connections, possibly to make arrangements to curry favor with a new regime. Instead, disarmed by grace, all of that was pushed aside. He knew what Jesus stood for. He knew He had been preaching the good news of the kingdom of God, that someone like himself, by faith and repentance, could start fresh with God. His hard shell of defense was cracked open by grace. Now he was pricked by the grumbling of the crowd, and stood to make his repentance known to Jesus, "Behold, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody (Gk. sukophanteo) out of anything (and the Greek implies that he had), I will repay it fourfold." This was real repentance, a change of mind and heart toward his past behavior, and a desire to make it right (II Cor. 7:11). He did not pull this proposal for making amends out of the air. What he said he would do was exactly what the Law said regarding making restitution for a stolen animal (Ex. 22:1). He was submitting himself to God’s word. Jesus recognized this genuine change of heart and affirmed that "salvation has come to this house". Then He mentioned the overarching purpose for His life, "the Son of Man has come to seek and save that which was lost." Indeed, He had come for people who were lost. He had come to seek them out and deliver them from the bondage of their sin. It was scandalous what the grace of God could do, reaching the most unlikely and undeserving of people. But that is what grace is, the undeserved, unearned favor of God (Rom. 11:6), the gift of another chance at life, and another chance for relationship with Him.

Lest the crowds or Zacchaeus misunderstand, however, Jesus picked this moment to tell the parable of the minas, a parable about using grace well, instead of wasting it. In the parable, a nobleman was called away by the emperor to be appointed king, and then return. Before leaving, he gave ten of his servants a mina, a sum of money equal to about 100 days’ wages. They were instructed to trade and do business with this until their master returned. When he left, some who did not like him sent a delegation to try to appeal to the emperor to prevent him from being appointed king. Nevertheless, he received his kingship and returned. When he called his servants to account, the first had multiplied his mina into ten by his diligence and skill. The new king affirmed him, and placed him in authority over ten cities. The next had increased his mina to five, so the master appointed him over five cities as a reward for his diligence and ingenuity. A third servant, however, had done nothing with his mina. The king rebuked him for his laziness, and commanded that his mina be taken away from him and be given to the one who had multiplied his into ten. When the bystanders protested that this didn’t seem fair, since the man already had ten, the king stated a principle by which we shall all be judged, "to everyone who has shall more be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he has shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence." We must be careful when interpreting parables not to make them say more than intended. It would seem that the main point is that we who are stewards, who have received the gift of grace, are expected to do something with it, to "work with it" and multiply it in the lives of others. Those who do nothing with grace are "worthless" as servants, and even the little they have will be taken away. As for those who refuse to come under the Master’s rule, their resistance will cost them their lives. Those who want to please their Master will work hard to multiply what they have been given. Upon the King’s return, they will receive a correspondingly greater reward. Partly to address the scandal of Zacchaeus’ conversion, and partly because some were thinking that the kingdom was going to come immediately, Jesus used this parable to prepare His followers for His departure to a "distant country" and the evaluation that will take place upon His return. None should judge a Zacchaeus. He was given the same grace that was available to any of them. The point is not just that the lost be found, but that they make use of the grace they have received to be found productive for the King upon His return.

There is another hidden connection that is somewhat of an irony. The Greek word for "fig" is sukon. The word that came to mean "defraud" was sukophanteo, which literally meant a "fig show-er". The story behind this was that years before, in Athens, the Greeks had a problem with people smuggling figs out of the area, without paying the proper duties and taxes. A sukophant was someone who was hired to be an informant to "show the figs" to the authorities. Unfortunately, many of these "fig-show-ers" chose to blackmail those who were attempting to smuggle the figs. They were extortioners and the term came to be tied to this meaning as an idiom, or slang term. Thus, Zacchaeus, the sukophant, climbed up a sukomorea, a fig-mulberry tree. Literally, Jesus found the lost "fig-show-er" in the "fig-tree", and called him to a new life bearing fruit for his new Master.