Luke 19:8

And Zacchaeus stood and said unto the Lord, 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.

Conclusions of scholars with reference to this verse are radically different, some insisting that this refers to what Zacchaeus promised to do on that occasion and in the future, and others being equally certain that it refers to a rule of life that Zacchaeus had already long followed, the latter view being preferred here. As Bliss said, "(This view) has in its favor the present tense of the verbs - `I give, I restore.'"[12] Since the Lord Jesus himself made a momentous argument for the immortality of the soul to turn on the tense of a single verb (Matthew 22:32f), they must be rash indeed who set aside the present tense in this passage in favor of future tense.

Nevertheless, it has been quite popular to do this. As Clarke said, "(The passage means that) probably he had already done so for some time past, though it is generally understood that the expressions only refer to what he now proposed to do."[13] Spence has the following:

The chief publican's words do not refer to a future purpose, but they speak of a past rule of life which he had set for himself to follow, and probably had followed for a long period. So Godet, who paraphrases thus: "He whom thou hast thought good to choose as thy host is not, as is alleged, a being unworthy of thy choice. Lo, publican though I am, it is no gain with which I entertain thee."[14]

H. Leo Boles also concurred in this interpretation: "It seems that he was expressing what he had done and that which he proposed to continue doing."[15] Furthermore, the arguments against this interpretation are unconvincing, as noted below.

1. "There is the absurdity of giving half one's goods and remaining rich."[16] This is an argument from preconceived guesses regarding how rich Zacchaeus actually was. Besides that, the meaning could not possibly be that on regularly stated occasions Zacchaeus delivered half his estate to charity, but rather that total of half his goods had been expended in such activities.

2. "He would then be justifying himself (like the Pharisee in the temple), and Jesus would not have stated that he was saved."[17] The weakness of this is that it could be applied with even more force to a statement of what Zacchaeus merely PROPOSED to do. If there was self-justification in his statement of what he had already been doing, why would not there also be even more self-justification in bragging about what he INTENDED to do?

3. "No one will extort anything from anyone if he knows that afterward he will have to compensate him fourfold."[18] This argument leaves out the consideration of Zacchaeus' position as "chief' of the Jericho tax administration. Through improper action of subordinates, it would have been, as Spence noted, "easy to commit involuntary injustice."[19] In view here is a godly administrator of the tax revenues, who, when a case of injustice had been brought before him, habitually restored, not merely the amount exacted, but fourfold. With such an administrator, there would not have been many violations; and therefore, we must reject the notion that "There was not one (in that vast concourse of people) who had not been robbed by this chief publican through exorbitant taxes."[20]

4. Summers insisted that this verse should be translated, "Since I have defrauded," thus making Zacchaeus here confess that he was a defrauder; but while it is true that such a conditional statement in Hebrew idiom as "If I have defrauded" might be understood as an affirmation of the thing suggested, there is no evidence that such is the case here. Such conditional statements are often used in their primary sense of being conditions. Thus Paul said, "If (Timothy) come shortly, I will see you" (Hebrews 13:23).

5. Some have sought to support their views by the allegation that the murmuring of the crowd proved Zacchaeus to be a public robber, inferring that if Zacchaeus had been accustomed to give great wealth to the poor and make fourfold restitution of extortion, the crowd would not have murmured against Jesus' association with him. However, that was not a Jericho crowd, but was made up of many pilgrims from all over Galilee and other provinces on the way to Passover. They would have known of Zacchaeus only that he was a publican.

6. "Today has salvation come to this house ..." "TODAY confirms the conclusion that Zacchaeus' financial resolution had just been made."[21] The error in this conclusion is in the idea that, if Zacchaeus had already been doing such charities, he would, therefore, have been saved already. It was not his giving money that saved this man, however; it was his joyful reception of Jesus Christ into his home and heart. Regardless of former charities, the event of that reception had just taken place, and thus Jesus quite accurately said, "Today, has salvation come."

We have pursued this far enough, somewhat more than necessary, because of the interest intrinsically attached to it. Those who desire to look at this incident differently may do so, dogmatism not being possible in a situation where so many students of God's word have been unable to agree; but the preferable view here is that of Clarke, Boles, Godet, Spence, Dean Plumptre, etc.

[12] George R. Bliss, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press, n.d.), Vol. II, Luke, p. 278.

[13] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1829), Vol. V, p. 476.

[14] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 135.

[15] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Luke (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1940), p. 360.

[16] George R. Bliss, op. cit., p. 278.

[17] Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1951), p. 472.

[18] Ibid.

[19] H. D. M. Spence, op. cit., p. 135.

[20] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 270.

[21] Anthony Lee Ash, The Gospel according to Luke (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1972), II, p. 94.