 The repentance of Zacchaeus. I wouldn't have picked this story so soon in the series but a few weeks ago Brother in Christ asked me if I would share my thoughts on it. The story of Zacchaeus is used as a proof text that repenting of sins is required for salvation and it's an interesting case because it doesn't actually use the word repent. It doesn't strictly say that he repented. You may remember that in video 22 when we looked at repentance in the Greek I briefly talked about the repentance of Esau. When the New Testament describes him as being unable to seek repentance, not about salvation obviously, the Genesis account that he's referring back to never actually uses the word repent. So we can still describe somebody as repenting or not repenting even if the story doesn't technically say that they repented or repent not. So we can say that Zacchaeus repented in a manner of speaking. Furthermore in this story Jesus literally mentioned salvation. Now there are some YouTubers in three gray circles who explain various repentance passages as not being about salvation particularly even though most legalists would claim that they are. Well this is a passage that doesn't strictly mention repentance but it does mention salvation. So Jesus said to Zacchaeus in Luke 19, 9-10, this day is salvation come to this house for so much as he also is a son of Abraham for the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. Now some people again in an attempt to defend grace may say that this is just a physical salvation only. So it's not about eternal salvation or going to heaven. You know it's about chastisement or right fellowship with God. Well my personal rule of thumb is to assume eternal salvation unless we can clearly prove that it isn't just to be safe. Now when the Bible says he that injures to the end shall be saved we can prove in the context that that's about physical salvation. He's got nothing to do with maintaining your eternal salvation and we can prove that it's really a hope rather than a commandment. The story of Zacchaeus is not clear enough to prove physical salvation in my view. Now you could try the son of Abraham judgment on Israel destruction of the temple explanation but I think that's a bit of a stretch. I think that's far too conjectural. So just to be on the safe side I'll answer it from the eternal point of view just so that we've left no stone unturned. But in order to consider and understand the repentance of Zacchaeus and its role if any in eternal salvation we do need to lay some ground rules for interpretation. So the first rule is that as mentioned the passage does not explicitly say that Zacchaeus repented. So even though salvation is mentioned in the passage we cannot directly apply this passage as the definition of repentance for salvation as say John the Baptist preached it or Jesus preached it or Peter or Paul preached it. When John the Baptist preached repentance we don't have any follow-up to those who confess their sins and were baptized. We don't know if they made any amendments after they were baptized. Likewise when Peter preached repentance well we do have some follow-up to those who were converted that they shared their possessions and were in one accord but we don't know how extensive this was and we don't know if they made amendments for all of their sins. So when John the Baptist or Peter said repent and be baptized we cannot ascertain that their instruction has any relation to what Zacchaeus did in Luke 19. So it's not absolute proof text defining what biblical repentance is for eternal life. Otherwise we could just pick any random verse from the Bible and just make up our own definitions like the legalists do and as you remember previously in this series I attacked great comfort for doing that. Rule number two is don't add narrative to the story that it doesn't say. It doesn't strictly say that Zacchaeus had salvation come on to his house because he committed to give his wealth away or pay back fourfold those he had wronged. Nor does it say that his commitment was proof of his salvation. We cannot know how his conversation with Jesus would have turned out if he had not committed to doing this. I would Jesus have saved him anyway. So nobody can say that the story of Zacchaeus is proof that you turn from your sin or have a changed life to be saved because his changed life is not directly implied as being the causation or the result of his salvation. Now correlation perhaps but there are no shortages of gospel presentations in the Bible where people did get saved but there's no correlation with their works or what happened after they were saved. Rule number three is that we don't know if Luke the writer of the gospel account had any particular motive for the order in which he grouped the stories but if he is taking us through a trail of thought from start to finish then we should consider that this story happens after Jesus calling sinners to repentance after Jesus discourse on the joy over one sinner that repents and after the story of the rich young ruler who did not inherit eternal life. So before proceeding with this study video I think it might help if you haven't watched them already in the series to look at number seven video number seven when I talked about Jesus calling sinners to repentance and video number eight when I talked about the joy over one sinner that repents and also maybe number twelve where I talked about denying self because I briefly mentioned the rich young ruler whose story is presented in Luke shortly before Zacchaeus. So you read a story of a rich man not getting saved but then you just flip the page and you get to a story of a rich man getting saved. In video number seven and video eight we saw that Jesus was dining with publicans. In Luke chapter five he was dining at Levi's house. He was also a publican and in Luke chapter 15 he was presumably eating with publicans although the exact circumstances weren't quite specified and Zacchaeus is a publican and so we're getting quite a repetitive theme here in Luke's gospel account. So without further ado let's look at the passage. So in verses one to four you hopefully already understand this bit of the story that Jesus was passing through Jericho. There was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a short man and couldn't see Jesus to the crowd of people. He was a chief among the publicans and rich so probably quite a high ranking publican so some kind of government official for the Romans perhaps. So he climbed up a tree to see Jesus pass that way. So I just want to emphasise the very little information that we have here about Zacchaeus' motivation. Thus far we only know with certainty that Zacchaeus wanted to see who Jesus was. We don't know how much he actually knew about Jesus, the healings, his preaching on the gospel of salvation or whether he was the Christ etc. We don't know if he already wanted an audience with Jesus. We don't know if he was excited or just curious. He was not unique. There was a whole crowd of people trying to see Jesus which is the very reason why he had to even climb up this tree. Verse five and six go on to say when Jesus came to the place he looked up and saw him and said unto him Zacchaeus make haste and come down for today I must abide at thy house and he made haste and came down and received him joyfully. So Jesus knew to look up. He already knew his name and called him out by name and demanded an audience with him to dynat his house. Jesus did not wait for Zacchaeus to approach him first. Jesus did not ask for permission or suggest to be invited to dinner with Zacchaeus rather he commanded it. Zacchaeus was very quick to come down from the tree and joyfully received Jesus to dinner. You may have noticed then some parallels here between this story and the parables that we've seen earlier in Luke's account in the previous videos that I mentioned in the series like the joy over once in a that repentance for instance. Zacchaeus wanted to look at Jesus for whatever his motivations were just as the prodigal son wanted to return to his father's house but for his own reasons. But then rather than approaching Jesus first Jesus actually approached Zacchaeus first just as the father saw the prodigal son from afar off and ran towards him. Jesus called out Zacchaeus by name not too dissimilar to the parable of the lost sheep and the lost coin how they illustrate Jesus claiming what he already knows belongs to him anyway his property. So as with the prodigal son's return Zacchaeus had some reason to look towards Jesus or approach him or see him but it was Jesus himself who took the decisive intentional action as it worked. Jesus took the actual initiative here. Jesus did the work if you like. Zacchaeus seemed quite happy with this amen. We carry on reading then and it says when they saw it they all murmured saying that he has gone to be a guest with a man that is a sinner and Zacchaeus stood and said unto the Lord behold Lord the half of my gods I give to the poor and if I have taken anything from any man by false accusation I restore him fourfold. And then Jesus said unto him this day of salvation come to this house for so much as he also is a son of Abraham for the son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost. So let's focus on verse seven first. Remember there was a crowd of people here. Lots of people came to see Jesus in Jericho. Jesus singled out Zacchaeus specifically so the crowd murmured at this and their accusation is very similar to previous exchanges in Luke's gospel. In Luke 5 30 the scribes and Pharisees murmured against the disciples for eating and drinking with publicans and sinners when Jesus died with Levi. In Luke 15 1 and 2 the scribes and Pharisees murmured against Jesus for receiving sinners and eating with them because the publicans and sinners drew near to hear him. Likewise now in Luke 19 Jesus is dining with a publican and the people of Jericho are murmuring because he is eating with a sinner. Now when Zacchaeus gave his pledge to the Lord we don't know for sure if this was before during or after the meal. During is the most plausible because we assume that there is some reason why Luke bothers to tell us that he stood. So before speaking this was probably you know he stood at the dinner table presumably. In any case we are clearly lacking a lot of dialogue here. We don't know what Jesus said to Zacchaeus leading up to when he committed to make restitution and when Jesus commended his salvation. Perhaps Jesus only told Zacchaeus to believe for everlasting life. Zacchaeus believed this then as a believer he was further edified and made his commitment but we can't assert this because we don't know. Perhaps Jesus considered Zacchaeus to already be a believer given his foreknowledge but then brought up this sin issue but we can't assert this because we don't know. Perhaps Jesus never mentioned Zacchaeus' wealth but Zacchaeus simply felt prompted to make such a commitment but we can't assert this because we don't know. Perhaps Jesus gave Zacchaeus a powerful discourse on the importance of heavenly things and the triviality of earthly things and simply knowing this information that he had so great and eternal inheritance he immediately lost all interest in his possessions and wealth but we can't assert this because we don't know. Lord Shippers and other legalists may tell you that Jesus was prompting Zacchaeus that he needed to prove his repentance was truly genuine and that he would deny himself and take up the cross since the demons believe in tremble but they can't assert this because they don't know. So ultimately we don't know what Jesus said to Zacchaeus before this so as far as Luke's gospel account goes we jumped straight from the people of Jericho murmuring against Jesus and Zacchaeus and labelling Zacchaeus' sinner to Zacchaeus giving away half of his possessions and giving back anybody that he had wronged. So given that we have no record of Jesus commanding Zacchaeus to do this Luke as the author makes it look like Zacchaeus really did this of his own accord almost like you might say maybe it was his free will or whatever it was his commitment if you like. It wasn't something that Jesus made him do particularly. So given that Luke's gospel goes straight from the people labelling Zacchaeus as a sinner to him pledging to give away half of his goods and give back everything he took by wrongful accusation the purpose of Luke's account here is not to say that Zacchaeus earned or validated his salvation but rather that the person who was judged and condemned by all the other people ended up looking better than them in his outward works. This story somehow ends up making Zacchaeus look good and the other people look bad even though they accused him Zacchaeus was not the only person who wanted to see who Jesus was there was a whole crowd of people who went to see Jesus but Jesus and perhaps you want to say this is through his foreknowledge or because he knows the hearts of men or perhaps because salvation is just unmerited and he just chose the despised of this world here. He singled out Zacchaeus among this entire crowd chose to dine with him and so it would be Zacchaeus's house to which salvation would come. So let's deal with his works first then let's deal with his salvation. So if Zacchaeus had taken money by false accusation and he had a lot of goods it's highly likely that he was that taking money wasn't the only thing he was guilty of. I mean it's not like he just amassed all this money and just sat on it. You know if you have a pile of cash you would at least spend some of it at least so maybe he spent some of his money on alcohol or fine dining or maybe even prostitution but we don't know we can't say for sure. The point is that Zacchaeus could not make up for everything that he did or turn from all of his other sins from what we have to go on here. He could not possibly or realistically pay back every single thing that he ever took from wrong accusation that would be really impossible for him. He already spent some of it at least so he couldn't meet those demands of the law even with his pledge and giving back fourfold was one of the requirements of the law but for certain particular things. We can't just say that it was a works wrote in faith thing there was some aspect of the law here as well. Now this is where they come out of the woodwork and say well repentance doesn't mean being perfect but it does mean a lifestyle change well again the problem with this is that we don't have any of Zacchaeus's lifestyle here. He says he's going to do something we don't know if he's going to carry it carry it. Now yeah sure Jesus knows fine but we have no follow-up to verify what Zacchaeus actually did. All we have here is a verbal commitment that's it but apparently you know it's not enough to just confess or say that you're going to make it right you've got to do it right even though we have barely any examples in the bible of people doing this. We can't make any assertions on how this conversation would have gone or whether Jesus would have still said salvation has come to this house or invited himself over if Zacchaeus did not make this pledge what if Zacchaeus would have held on to his goods and wealth would salvation have still come. Nobody knows because it just doesn't say but to reiterate there is no evidence that Jesus told him to do this or preached against his behaviour to him. The story therefore impresses on us that Zacchaeus did this presumably of his own accord. Now let's consider Zacchaeus's salvation then we've dealt with the work so let's look at salvation. So consider Jesus's choice of words here that salvation is come to this house. So Jesus did not say salvation is manifest in this house or something like your faith has saved you. Salvation is come to this house so salvation is described as a thing that has been visited or brought to not Zacchaeus himself but his house. Well we already have the literal illustration of this in this same chapter. Jesus came to Zacchaeus's house and it's Jesus that gives salvation so salvation has come to this house. Jesus brought salvation to the house by commanding Zacchaeus to bring him for dinner. Now why? Why would Jesus do this? Well the answer is simple because Jesus came to seek. Jesus came to save. It was Jesus that brought salvation to this house. The house didn't seek Jesus. The house didn't participate with Jesus in salvation and Jesus also describes Zacchaeus as being the son of Abraham. I didn't feel the need to particularly do a focus of study on the fact that he calls him a son of Abraham but just to summarise the children of Abraham. We already see in the gospels that Jesus and arguably the John the Baptist start to make a separation between the fleshly sons of Abraham and the true sons of Abraham with John saying you know God can raise up children of Abraham from these stones for instance. Jesus said to the people who thought they were the children of Abraham that they would be thrust out of the kingdom and that they were the children of the devil. Paul later builds on this same idea you know he teaches extensively in Romans that the true children of Abraham are by faith not as the Jews who sought it by works. Therefore we cannot be consistent with the rest of the Bible if we say that Zacchaeus's works contributed to him So let's make a division between Zacchaeus's works and his salvation. So who carried out the important action? Well regarding his salvation Zacchaeus only saw Jesus but Jesus sought and came. Zacchaeus can't really take any credit for going out to see Jesus because lots of people did but it was Jesus who sought him out specifically. It was Jesus who brought salvation to his house saving him. Now regarding his works it was Zacchaeus who made a commitment of his own accord as far as we can tell. Jesus didn't command him to do these things that we know of. We can't even clearly assert from this story that his faith or the spirit prompted him to do it just that Zacchaeus himself said that he would do this. Now of all the people who labelled him a sinner again let's go to his salvation. Jesus could have picked anybody in the crowd but he singled out Zacchaeus. Jesus offered his grace and mercy to the one that was despised and judged by everybody else who labelled Zacchaeus a sinner. Regarding his works Zacchaeus made a commitment to give to the poor and to restore what he wrongfully took. The people offered no such commitment they just complained and murmured when Jesus brought salvation to Zacchaeus. So funnily enough when you say that salvation is by grace it's by Jesus seeking and saving that which is lost it's not by giving away your money and making a pledge of a lifestyle change. Of course people will come against you and attack you and say you're still a sinner you just love your sin so much. You want salvation without any works and these lazy derelicts who bang on about works and lecture me about doing works. I click on their youtube channel No Content for the Kingdom of God so they come and lecture somebody about works. I'm doing more work than these people it's absurd. I could give you loads of examples like this. These people attack others who are doing more work than they're doing and they and they just sit there murmuring behind their computer screen about grace without works and what a terrible idea it is that salvation could come to the house of these filthy sinners. I think there is an uncammy resembled between Zacchaeus's story and what a lot of us who believe salvation by grace have to put up with isn't there. So in conclusion lots of people came to see Jesus including Zacchaeus but Jesus took the initiative to invite himself over for dinner. Jesus sought Zacchaeus and brought salvation to his house. There is no evidence that Zacchaeus's works were part of any causality behind Jesus choosing him or saving him. We don't know what motivated Zacchaeus to make such a commitment. We don't know if he had any other sins in his life other than wrongfully taking wealth for himself and we don't know if he carried it out so it must not be important to the story if Luke doesn't tell us. But the sinner who was despised by the people he is the one whom Jesus chose to save for by grace God's unmerited undeserved favour you are saved and he is the one who actually offered to do some useful work while all the judgmental people murmured and complained about him being a sinner dining with Christ. And yes you could say that Zacchaeus repented. In fact you could even say that he repented of some of at least his sins but the Bible doesn't explicitly state that he repented. It makes no obvious connection between what Zacchaeus did and repent and be baptized or repent and be converted or repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand or repent for the remission of sins. We have no clear connection between these concepts. This is no nonsense Christianity reminding you that nowhere in the Bible does it say the count of your sins to be saved.