I wrote this for our parish bulletin for this weekend. The weekend's readings are here.
Tax collectors were reviled because the taxes they collected could push taxpayers into penury. Worse, amid the poverty they helped induce, tax collectors enriched themselves by keeping, as their fee, a portion of the taxes collected. Thus, tax collectors climbed financially by pushing others down. Zacchaeus, as the chief tax collector of the district, personified this unjust and exploitative system. Surely he was widely hated.
As he often did, Jesus defied social expectations, this time by inviting himself to this chief climber’s house. We may forgive the outrage on the part of the onlookers who muttered, “He has gone to stay in the house of a sinner”. They hoped for a Messiah who would overturn the exploitative social order. But Jesus now was associating with the very man who symbolized the people’s oppression. It may have appeared to them that Jesus was ‘going over to the other side’. Often, when people consorted with someone like Zacchaeus, they were currying favor in order to be rewarded with a position that would enrich them. The people may have feared that Jesus was joining the system, rather than overturning it.
Yet in the event, Jesus did not climb up; rather, Zacchaeus came down, transformed by the encounter. Jesus didn’t use Zacchaeus to climb to a wealthier social status. Zacchaeus “came down” to Jesus, giving away half his wealth and restoring fourfold anything he had extorted. The exploitative climber had become a generous repairer of past sins.
The story of Zacchaeus reminds us that the essence of being a follower of Jesus lies, not in doing good deeds, but rather, like Zacchaeus, receiving Jesus in joy. The demands of discipleship – loving those who are hard to love; asking forgiveness from those whom we have hurt; forgiving those who have hurt us; swallowing our pride and taking the lowest seat at the banquet; staying faithful to our promises – all these become easier when we let Jesus abide with us.
Jesus is beckoning to us today. Rather than trying to climb, let us “come down” to Jesus.
A SOCIOLOGICAL HOMILY
ReplyDeleteThis story is a great illustration of the multi-dimensional nature of social status, that people have different rankings on different measures of social status, and that the same person may have discordant rankings on different dimensions of social status.
Discordant social status offers great potential for personal and social change.
On the dimension of power, Zacchaeus was the most powerful person in the village because as a tax collector he represented greater powers beyond the village who could easily upend the entire village if they so desired.
On the dimension of wealth, Zacchaeus if not the most-wealthy person in the village was likely among the wealthiest persons. There may have been others of similar or greater wealth. The fact that the villagers’ do not make a path for Zacchaeus to approach Jesus, suggests as much. Zacchaeus has the respect of a powerful man but not that of a wealthy man.
On the dimension of religion, Zacchaeus is a sinner who has betrayed his people to serve foreigners who serve foreign gods. He is shunned. Only the respect necessary for his role as tax collector is given. People would not even go to his house for dinner, they likely did not ask for his help if they were poor. Anyone who did so would likely have been shunned.
Where is Jesus in all this? Well, he has the status of a visiting religious dignitary.
He is inclined to pass the village by. He appears not to be impressed by either their religiosity or the wealth of their wealthiest citizen. He certainly did not have to worry about their tax collector. Nor does he appear attracted by anyone’s potential for personal or social change.
Until Zacchaeus climbs the tree.
Zacchaeus sees in Jesus the opportunity to change his discordant religious dimension, to cease to be a sinner. Moreover, when Jesus invites himself to Zacchaeus house, he knows what he must do, not only give half his money to the poor but repay four times all those whom he has cheated. Note that the wealthy are often willing to give some of their money to the poor, but rarely try to undo the evils they have done on their climb to wealth.
A great personal change for Zacchaeus, and a great potential change for the entire village!
Was this sufficient to quiet the grumbling of the villagers? Maybe not! After all, Jesus did not see a great potential for conversion of the village; he was going to pass it by. I suspect after staying with Zacchaeus he continued on his journey letting the village and Zacchaeus to work out their new relationship.
Yes, Jesus seems to have attracted a lot of people that the Jewish establishment rejected as beyond the pale. Jesus was Zacchaeus's last chance to redeem himself.
DeleteMy husband was on to preach the homily yesterday. He said some of the same things Jim did, and also made mention of John Newton, the author of the hymn Amazing Grace. He also had a Zacchaeus moment. Most of you have probably heard his story, about how he was involved in the Atlantic African slave trade. He was not a religious person, but was moved to ask God's help during a frightening storm at sea, in which it seemed the ship might sink. It didn't, and he left his former occupation behind, becoming a Church of England clergyman involved in ministry to the poor.
ReplyDeleteI suppose many of us have seen the film "On The Waterfront". The film's writer, Budd Schulberg, adapted his screenplay into a highly-readable novel which was published in the 1950s. It goes into more depth than the film is able to on the social problems facing the dockworkers. Their union boss, Johnny Friendly, was not only a corrupt mobster in cahoots with a shipping tycoon; he also ran a loan shark racket which kept the dockworkers perpetually in debt to him. The dock work assignments were controlled by Friendly and his goons, so they could determine who was allowed to work and who wasn't. The workers' wages didn't cover their rent and other costs of living, so Friendly's loan sharks would lend them money to tide them over. The lending activity happened on the sidewalks of the fictional town, Bohegan, outside the taverns where the men gathered in the evenings.
ReplyDeleteI mention this because there are possible echoes of how Zacchaeus may have done business in his chief tax collector role. One of our priests, in his homily yesterday, explained that, in order to get a tax collector role, the tax collector had to pay the amount owed to Rome up-front, at the beginning of the taxation period. So Rome, like the shipping tycoon in Waterfront, always got its cut. It was then up to the local tax collector to reimburse himself by collecting from the locals. Anything collected above the amount already paid to Rome was profit for the collector. It's not difficult to imagine that someone like Zacchaeus may have had his own goon squad. The Gospel translation we use at mass is up-front that Zacchaeus extorted the locals.
I haven't seen the film "On the Waterfront". Sounds like it could be good. For some reason I thought it was based on a Hemingway novel. But it sounds like the movie came first, then the book.
DeleteIt's a wonderful movie.
DeleteI like thinking of Zacchaeus as a Johnny Friendly who had a change of heart and transformation. In a more humorous vein, my favorite conversion movie is Brother Orchid, with EG Robinson, a mafiosi who hides out in a monastery.
I don't think most of us have Zacchaeus's kind of conversion now, meeting Jesus as we must these days through Scripture and intermediaries who often tell us what we're supposed to think about it all and what rules we should be following (I think pretty much all denominations do this.)
But those who met Jesus in the flesh ... that must have been pretty powerful.