Grace as subversive surprise: a reading of Psalm 130 and Luke 19:1-10

Ecumenical Review, The, July, 2004 by Gosbert T.M. Byamungu

(10) To appreciate this, one can look at the four times the verb is used in the aorist, in the whole of the New Testament. In Matt. 5:17 katalusai is used with the meaning of "abolish": "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (RSV). In Matt. 26:61 it is used to convey the meaning of "destroy": "and they said: 'This fellow said "I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days"'(RSV). One sees the author's attempt to put the act of destroying and of building again. The last reference in the NT is in Acts 5:39 in the speech of Gamaliel: "But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!" (RSV). In Luke 19:7 the verb is used to convey all the nuances together, really fulfilling the messianic mandate of "destroying" the old temple of the yoke to establish the new one of freedom and love. Zacchaeus's house is symbolic of this, and we shall now see what really happens.

(11) It is interesting to see how Zacchaeus's salvation refers to a conversion which transcends the private sense. "Not only is his household involved, but also the poor who will be beneficiaries of his conversion, as well as those people whom he may have defrauded. His salvation, therefore, has personal, domestic, social and economic dimensions". Cf. F.B. Craddock, Luke: Interpretation, p.220.

(12) There is controversy among scholars over the translation of these verbs in the present tense. Viewing the present tense as futuristic presents Zacchaeus as saying that he is no longer a sinner; that he resolves to change his ways. If one views the present tense as iterative or customary, then Zacchaeus is arguing that he is not a sinner because it is customary for him to be generous and just. In the latter interpretation Jesus in v. 9 would be vindicating the good reputation of Zacchaeus. Hence the first interpretation is to be preferred, because the second interpretation reduces the depth of the soteriological statements of vv.9-10, for it says Zacchaeus has achieved salvation on his own and makes Jesus extraneous to salvation.

(13) In Lev.6:5 and Num. 5:7 legal restitution demanded that he give back the original amount plus 20%, when restitution was voluntary. Compulsory restitution called for doubling the original amount, and in some cases repaying four or the. Cf. Ex. 22:1, 3-4; 2 Sam. 12:6. Cf. also Craddock, p.219.

(14) For the identity of the Abran4Abraham dichotomy see Neh. 9:7; 1 Chron. 1:27.

(15) Cf. Ross Kinsler and Gloria Kinsler, The Biblical Jubilee and the Struggle for Life, Maryknoll NY, 1999, p.66.

(16) Ibid., p.67; J.M.Bonino, "Oikumene and Anti-Oikumene, 1984", in M. Kinnamon and B.E. Cope eds, The Ecumenical Movement: An Anthology of Key Texts and Voices, WCC Publications, 1997, pp.227-30.

(17) Cf. D. Smith-Christopher, Text and Experience: Towards a Cultural Exegesis of the Bible, Bible Seminar 35; Sheffield, 1995, p.111.

(18) Cf. Hom. iii, 63. Cf. also N. Geldenhuys, Commentary, p.471.