111. Chapter 52 - Jericho

Chapter 52 - Jericho Matthew 20:29-34;Mark 10:46-52;Luke 18:35-43;Luke 19:1-10 Earlier Campaigns?

Since Jericho is on the main line of travel to the capital from both the east and north, we conclude that Jesus must have been in Jericho many times. The fact that this is the only time we have any record of a visit to Jericho or of any sermons or events in this city leads again to the conclusion that our Gospel narratives give only a fragmentary account. But how are we to explain the excited effort of Zacchaeus to get to see Jesus if He had been here a number of times? Certainly Zacchaeus seems to have been a fixture in Jericho, well known to all. Jesus had been baptized by John near Jericho. This was now in the somewhat distant past, and Jesus’ immediate disappearance into the desert would have prevented any effort to see Him. When Jesus returned from the temptations to the scene of John s ministry, the location of his campaign was near the Sea of Galilee. Jesus may have passed through Jericho a number of times unobserved. Since He had carried on both an earlier and later Judaean ministry of considerable length, we would expect a preaching ministry in Jericho. Zacchaeus might have been in Rome or Caesarea in connection with his tax collecting business at such times. The excitement began to surround Jesus as He approached the capital. Swarms of pilgrims headed for the Passover feast were now suddenly inflamed by the miracle of healing blind Bartimaeus. There are startling variations in the narratives as to where this miracle occurred. Two-source Theory advocates are utterly helpless to explain these variations in the light of their theory. For years critics have declared that these accounts are hopelessly in contradiction and cannot be harmonized. By their own argument then, the accounts certainly cannot have been copied from one another. While the differences can be harmonized, no conceivable explanation can be offered as to how such differences could have arisen, if the narratives were copied from one another or from a common source. If the narratives were written independently by eyewitnesses or upon the testimony of eyewitnesses, then such variations are the natural result of independent narration; but, if the narratives were copied from one another, what writers could have been so stupid or perverse as deliberately to have changed the record thus?

Location of the Miracle

Mark says, “As he went out from Jericho”; Matthew agrees. Luke says, “As he drew nigh unto Jericho.” The possibility that we have here a scribal error in which one preposition was changed to another (eis for ek) is faced with the added difficulty that the verb used by Luke is engidzo, which means to draw near. Several explanations have been offered as to what caused the authors to offer such seemingly contradictory accounts. (1) As Christ entered Jericho, Bartimaeus cried out for help too late to be heard, since Jesus was in the forefront of the crowd, and the blind man did not realize His presence until He had passed. Not to be defeated, he circled the town, and, having been joined by another blind man, appealed to Jesus as He left the town, and was healed. John Calvin seems to have originated this explanation. It has been adopted by many, including J. W. McGarvey. The Two Jerichos

(2) The Jericho captured by Joshua was in ruins, but two others are identified today and referred to in the Old Testament, Josephus, and the New Testament. They lie a short distance apart directly in Jesus’ path whether He came across the Pilgrim’s Ford from Peraea or had crossed the Damieh Ford near the mouth of the Jabbok River and was traveling south on the western bank of the Jordan. He would thus have passed through the older Jericho and, crossing the plain, would have entered the new Jericho, the luxurious city which Herod the Great had constructed. Matthew and Mark refer to the older city in telling of his departure; Luke is thinking of the new city in his account. Macknight seems to have originated this explanation, which has been widely adopted (by A. T Robertson, among others). Plummer objects to this theory on the ground that we have no evidence that Old Jericho was still inhabited or would have been called Jericho without some epithet attached. But this objection is based purely on the argument from silence — on our lack of documentary evidence which may have abounded. The fact that these two Jerichos were in existence offers the most plausible explanation of the difference in the accounts. The Crowd As one approaches Jericho, various highways converge into the main road to Jericho. The terrain was so forbidding all travelers to the capital would from this point follow the one highway. Pilgrims coming from all directions would be joined by a larger throng. At this time Jesus probably emerged from privacy with His apostles; and, hence, we have the immediate mention of the great crowd. The preceding day had been spent in swift and solitary travel, as Jesus walked ahead, and the disciples followed at a distance. One could readily travel bypaths in the rough hills of Peraea and he alone, and could join himself at will with the crowd on the main highway. Weiss, Holzmann, and Keim attack the record of Luke, saying he must have deliberately changed the miracle from the departure to the entrance to Jericho in order to account for the great crowd that hindered Zacchaeus. This is without foundation, however, for all three Gospel writers specifically describe the presence of a great crowd before the miracle. The fame of Jesus was so great that no other explanation of the crowd is necessary. That He was evidently going up to the Passover in Jerusalem despite the public threats of the hierarchy would create intense excitement. The Blind Men

Matthew states there were two blind men, while Mark and Luke tell of only one. This omission of the second blind man, doubtless, was because one was a forceful leader and the other less conspicuous; the one led in addressing Jesus, and the description of his healing was duplicated in tile other. Mark alone gives the name of the blind man. Bartimaeus means “Son of Timaeus.” The fact that he was a son of Timaeus may have been mentioned because the latter became a well-known disciple. This blind man shows faith, courage, and persistence; he reminds one of the blind man in the ninth chapter of John.

“And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou son of David; have mercy on me” (Mark 10:47). He showed his faith by his cries for help, by the title he used, by his persistence amid the protests of the crowd, and by his obedience to Christ. He must have heard of the claims and miracles of Jesus. The healing of the blind man at Jerusalem had doubtless stirred this whole section. He declared that Jesus was the Messiah when he saluted Him publicly as the “Son of David.” He probably expressed the growing conviction of most of the wavering crowd who saw Jesus starting up to Jerusalem to face His enemies. All realized that a final crisis was at hand. The blind man could have heard the tramp of many feet and the sound of a multitude of voices which indicated the presence of a great crowd. Lack of vision intensifies the hearing. He thus would have realized the presence of a great multitude before many had passed by. As in the triumphal entry, some of the crowd were in front of Jesus; some surrounded Him, and others followed. Upon learning from the vanguard what the excitement was about, he began to cry out for help, and was rebuked by those who were going before Jesus. If the theory of John Calvin be correct, the narrative of Luke divides at Luke 18:37; the man learned of the presence of Jesus too late to make an appeal to Him as He entered Jericho. The man then circled the city, awaited His departure from Jericho, and made the appeals found in Luke 18:38, Luke 18:39 as Jesus left. Under this view, Luke has condensed his account, placing the events concerning the blind man all together in order to preserve the unity of the account of the miracle. But it is more probable that the miracle took place between the two Jerichos and that this explains the difference in the accounts.

Effort to Silence the Blind Man

“And many rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me” (Mark 10:48). The following suggestions have been made to explain the efforts of the crowd to silence Bartimaeus: (1) Jesus was teaching as He walked amid the crowd, and they resented such interruption by a mere beggar.

(2) The crowd planned to stage a triumphal presentation of Jesus as the Christ when they entered Jerusalem; they tried to silence any premature demonstration such as the blind man was starting.

(3) The crowd was full of materialistic ideas of the kingdom. Being filled with delight at the prospect of Jesus marching straight into Jerusalem where they hoped to see Him destroy His enemies, they resented the appeals of Bartimaeus as likely to turn Jesus aside to a healing ministry again.

(4) The Pharisees and other enemies of Jesus tried to silence the blind man because they resented His publicly proclaiming Jesus as the Son of David.

(5) The crowd, hardhearted and cruel, tried to silence him simply because they did not want to be annoyed. Oversimplification is apt to result when a person tries to reduce the motives of a large number of people in a crowd to a single status, even when they are saying or doing the same thing. Those who joined in trying to silence the blind man may have been of different character, with different ideas and motives.

Independence of the Accounts The independence of the three accounts is most pronounced in describing how the miracle was performed. They each tell different details, but their accounts are not contradictory. Matthew reports that Jesus touched the eyes of the two blind men; Luke says that He gave a command, “Receive thy sight,” i.e., “Look up”; Mark gives a comforting word: “Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole.” Thus each narrator records a detail of the miracle which the others do not.

“And Jesus stood still, and said, Call ye him. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good cheer: rise, he calleth thee. And he, casting away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus” (Mark 10:49, Mark 10:50). Those who addressed the blind man and told him of the summons from Jesus certainly did not give any evidence of being hardhearted, cruel, or hostile. They spoke in a kind and sympathetic manner. They do not seem to have been the ones who had been carrying on the shouting contest with the blind man. The more they shouted for him to keep still, “he cried out the more a great deal.” When Jesus stopped and put an end to the shouting contest by summoning Bartimaeus, it is possible that some of those who had rebuked the blind man and ordered him to keep still now veered with the wind and changed their attitude to suit the turn Jesus had just given to the situation. It seems more probable that these were persons more sympathetic in nature and more understanding in regard to Jesus’ spiritual program. The two blind men had evidently been seated, begging by the roadside. From this position Bartimaeus had been crying out to Jesus with all his might. The moment he was summoned, he responded with the utmost energy: “And he, casting away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus” (Mark 10:50). His cloak was his most precious possession. It was his protection against the cold and rain in winter, and his warm covering at night, as he slept. Yet he cast his garment aside as if it were nothing and sprang up with abounding energy. The Miracle

“And Jesus answered him, and said, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? And the blind man said unto him, Rabboni, that I may receive my sight. And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole” (Mark 10:51, Mark 10:52). Jesus did not ask this question for His own information. He “answered” the appeals the man had been shouting for Jesus to “have mercy” upon him. Jesus was also testing the man’s faith and making plain to all the great multitude the miracle which was about to take place. Many in the great crowd undoubtedly had only heard shouting going on at this spot without knowing its cause or significance. In the great stillness which settled over the entire scene, the conversation between Jesus and Bartimaeus would have been plain to most and passed on quickly to those at a greater distance. The answer of the blind man was very respectful, and full of faith. Rabboni has a little touch of tender emotion: My Master, rather than the standard, Rabbi. The other blind man was evidently standing alongside allowing this strong character, Bartimaeus, to speak for both. Jesus commanded the blind man, “Go thy way,” which would probably in most cases have led such a person straight home. To this blind man, however, it carried the freedom to go where he chose, and he chose to go with Jesus.

“And straightway he received his sight, and followed him in the way” (Mark 10:52). The blind man may have had no home ties to bind him or call him back. His gratitude would have led him to want to he in Jesus’ company. It would have been a great privilege to go up to Jerusalem, see the temple, and enjoy the Passover feast with eyesight restored. The great excitement attendant upon the deliberate public entrance of Jesus into the midst of the national leaders who had vowed to kill Him, would have swept him on to the capital in the midst of this excited multitude. What a witness for Jesus this man must have given in Jericho that day, as Jesus was in the home of Zacchaeus, and on the journey up the mountain, and at the triumphal entry. “And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw it, gave praise unto God” (Luke 18:43). The power of Jesus was so evidently from God, all that Jesus did caused people to give glory to God. This miracle made such a profound impression that the hostile and worldly elements in the crowd were inclined to sink into the background. Nobler people would naturally have their thoughts turned into more spiritual channels. In Jericho

“And he entered and was passing through Jericho” (Luke 19:1). This emphatic statement may be Luke’s way of showing that Jesus was now leaving Old Jericho and entering New Jericho. Observe how the geographical solution also fits Mark’s statement: “And they come to Jericho: and as he went out from Jericho.” If Luke’s reference is now to entering the New Jericho, then the suggestion is that Jesus did not halt but for a moment for such an exciting miracle as had just occurred. Nor would He have halted from His steadfast march to the capital for such a considerable city as Jericho, except that conduct of an outcast publican caused Him to tarry and to have mercy upon him. The Publican

“And behold, a man called by name Zacchaeus; and he was a chief publican, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the crowd, because he was little of stature” (Luke 19:2, Luke 19:3). Zacchaeus means pure. That he was a Jew is shown by the name he wore and by the fact that the crowd would have complained against Jesus not merely for going into the home of a publican, but for eating with a Gentile. The natural interpretation of Luke 19:9, “for he also is a son of Abraham,” indicates that he was a Jew. The word chief publican occurs only here in the New Testament, and its exact meaning is not clear. It was an official title of some kind, indicating his very high rank in the tax system. Jericho, the point of entry for caravan routes and highways from the north and east into the final perilous stretch of mountain travel to the capital, would have been a likely location for an important official in the tax bureau. It was natural to mention the great wealth of Zacchaeus which would have been the consequence of the position he held. The chief motive is to give a clear portrait of the man and to show the difficulties he had to overcome in accepting Christ. Luke had just offered extended description of Jesus’ encounter with another rich man and of a sermon He preached on the peril of riches. The rich young ruler and Zacchaeus are thrown into immediate contrast, and the possibility of saving even a very rich man is illustrated. His Motives

If Zacchaeus had been seeking to see Jesus in any mood of condescension or from curiosity, his efforts would probably have been ignored just as Jesus ignored the desire of Herod Antipas to see Him. The entire reputation of Jesus, the excited multitude now deeply stirred by the miracle of healing the blind man, the national crisis, and perhaps the fact that Jesus had been reported as everywhere gracious to publicans helped to stir his great desire to see Jesus. Who he was seems to indicate that he had never seen Jesus before. If Jesus had campaigned in Jericho before this time, Zacchaeus probably had not been present in the city. He was anxious to form his own estimate of the great Prophet of Galilee. That Zacchaeus was a very determined man is shown in his persistence. The great desire of his heart is also shown. The excitement of the crowd would have influenced him.

“And could not for the crowd.” Some would translate this, “He was not able to free himself from the throng.” This is a possible rendering of the Greek text, but is plainly contrary to the context. This is precisely what he did do; he freed himself from the throng and ran around by back streets to get ahead of the throng. “He was not able to see from the crowd,” i.e., he was not able to separate or distinguish Jesus from the crowd or was not able to see Jesus because the people around him shut off his vision. Knowing the evident situation of Jesus and that He would probably follow the main line of travel through the city, and knowing all the side streets and alleys, he was able to outrun the slow-moving crowd. Trench holds that he was so ashamed of his past he wished to hide; hence, he ran ahead and climbed the tree. He maintains that the call for him to come down was like the insistence of Jesus on the woman with the issue of blood that she make herself known. But the text gives no suggestion of such a motive. He was not daring to seek a special blessing from Christ unknown to Him; he wanted to see Jesus and climbed a tree to get a good view. He was not hiding in the tree, but looking from it. Some suggest that he had to endure the derision of the crowd. There is no suggestion of this in the text. The derision came later, when Jesus showed such mercy upon him. As Jesus was passing along, everyone was too much interested in seeing Him to have paid much attention to this little man up a tree. He had been crowded out by a selfish multitude which was too in tent on their own desire to see Jesus to give any heed to this publican. He did have to sacrifice his dignity and make a spectacle of himself, but in such exciting times this stirs little comment. He was more of a “forgotten man” than a derided man until the signal honor which Jesus conferred upon him aroused the anger and derision of the crowd. The tree into which Zacchaeus climbed was a “fig-mulberry” tree, which has fruit like the fig and leaves like the mulberry, and is very different from the sycamore tree we know. Tristram describes it as similar to the English oak with heavy shade, short trunk, and wide, lateral limbs which would have made it convenient to climb. It is disputed whether the sycamine of Luke 17:6 is the same as the sycamore (fig-mulberry) or whether it is the mulberry.

Jesus’ Summons

Plummer inconsistently argues that Jesus did not know Zacchaeus’ name by miraculous insight, but that His proposal to stay in his house that day did show supernatural knowledge of the man’s heart. He says that Jesus might have heard the people calling to Zacchaeus or that He may have inquired his name. This not only is not indicated in the text, but it upsets the whole dramatic character of the interview. It contravenes the continual proof of miraculous foresight which Jesus constantly used to challenge the faith of those He met. So far as the text indicates, Zacchaeus was up in the tree unnoticed by the crowd, who were concentrating their attention upon Jesus. With divine insight and authority Jesus paused, when He came to the tree, looked up, and addressed this man by his personal name — this man whom others delighted to insult with such epithets as “accursed traitor,” or “dog of a tax collector.” Zacchaeus had been in great haste to climb the tree, but now Jesus commanded him to make haste and come down, “for this very day” He must abide in his house. In the Home of Zacchaeus

Luke records the instant obedience of Zacchaeus and the fact that “he received him joyfully” (Luke 19:6). The joy of the publican is quite understandable. He had only hoped to get a distant view of the great Prophet, and he was overwhelmed with the gracious manner in which Jesus honored him by declaring before the entire multitude that He had selected him to be His host for the day. The two verbs used, I must abide and He is gone in to lodge, do not necessarily mean more than taking a long rest at a place. Jesus may have spent the night in the home. He would hardly have started the long, difficult climb up the mountain to Jerusalem late in the day. Having spent most of the day in the entry into Jericho and in the home of Zacchaeus, it is more probable that He also spent the night. This does not necessarily follow, however, because so large a crowd would have changed the lonely, perilous road into a dense highway, and the overnight stop might have been at the traditional scene of the Good Samaritan rescue halfway up the mountain, where there would have been abundant leisure to deliver the Parable of the Pounds. The Crowd

“And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, He is gone in to lodge with a man that is a sinner” (Luke 19:7). Here is the dissident element in the crowd once more creating one of those sudden fluctuations common in excited crowds. The Pharisees evidently had had a part in trying to silence the blind man, and they now led the crowd to criticize the course of Jesus. The Zealots also would be quick to express disgust at these two disappointing turns to His spiritual ministry and away from the worldly, military leadership for which they hoped. The people of Jericho with stolid hatred for the high commissioner of taxes would have readily joined in the criticism. The crowd in general, eager to get on to the capital and see the final climax of exciting drama unfolding, would have added their voices of frustration and disappointment. A delay in an exciting journey is always unwelcome and wearisome. To have to stand around all day in front of the home of a tax collector, while Jesus preached to the household within, was enough to disgust the worldly-minded.

Jesus’ Sermon

We are not told the topic or the text of the sermon in the home of Zacchaeus. We can be sure that Jesus did preach, for this is the very purpose for which He came from heaven, and the unchanging procedure of His entire ministry. It is also evident from the results of the sermon, which Luke records. What a sermon it must have been as they sat about the banquet table, and Jesus continued the discourse which He had been presenting all during the time that the banquet was being prepared. How Jesus must have pictured that the wages of sin is death; how He must have reminded Zacchaeus of the days of innocence in childhood before greed and lust marred his life and scarred His character; He must have unveiled the gate of heaven through which no man has ever taken any houses or lands, any bank notes, or gold, or silver, or even a pinch of diamond dust. Surely every single person seated about the table must have been in tears.

Zacchaeus’ Surrender

“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” (Luke 19:8). There is something very manly, as well as deeply moving, about the manner in which this little man stood up to make his confession of faith in Christ as the Son of God and to surrender his life. He declared both his faith and his repentance, as he vowed a new way of life. His address of Jesus as “Lord” matches all that the Gospel narratives put into that divine title. He had heard of the mighty conflict which was shaking the nation. He stood up to declare himself, and to dedicate his life to Christ and all that He claimed, taught, and commanded. The participle having stood indicates the taking of a set attitude, which was the result of his deliberate high resolve. It evidently took place at the close of the sermon Jesus preached. The word Behold is used by Zacchaeus to emphasize the sudden resolution and the sweeping change of life which he now announced. Some suggest that the cynical remarks of the crowd, milling around in the street, caused him to do this in order to prove that he was not such a great sinner after all. Anyone who takes such a shallow view shows that he too cannot see Jesus for the crowd. The personality and the preaching of Jesus is thrust into a secondary place where crowd pressure takes the place of divine attraction. It was Jesus’ love, presence, example, and message that led him to such heroic action. “I will draw all men unto me.” The comments of the crowd are recorded by Luke to contrast their ignoble attitude to the divine love of Christ, who was forever seeking the lost and thrusting His lantern into the darkest corners to find some soil who might be brought back to the Father’s house. His Vow The verb give is present tense, indicating his immediate action: “I am giving here and now.” He was not making a vague promise to do this at some future date, which might be forgotten or broken when Jesus was gone. He made a public pledge which all might hear, and witness his immediate fulfillment. Godet would render “I am in the habit of giving,” but this misreads the entire account and changes Zacchaeus from a publican brought to repentance to a Pharisee boasting of his goodness. Moreover, the noun used means capital, not income, and hence does not fit “I am in the habit of giving.” The second verb must harmonize with the first, “I am restoring here and now.” He would not have been in the habit of deliberately defrauding people and then restoring fourfold. To have him declare he had been in the habit of restoring fourfold any accidental mistakes would have made him an incredible boaster. We cannot tell how much guilt of defrauding rested on Zacchaeus. The form of the condition in the Greek implies a frank confession on his part. He did not say, “If I ever should have,” but, “If I have.” This fourfold restitution had been commanded in the law where there had been intentional, destructive robbery (Exodus 22:1; 2 Samuel 12:6). Sevenfold was sometimes restored (Proverbs 6:31). Stolen property which could be returned undamaged was to be repaid double (Exodus 22:4, Exodus 22:7). Voluntary confession and restitution called for a fifth to be added (Leviticus 6:5; Numbers 5:7). A Faithful Steward

Zacchaeus did not pledge to sell all he had and give to the poor. In case he had defrauded anyone, such a course would have left him unable to repay and would have amounted to his giving away to the poor what really belonged to someone else. Jesus did not tell Zacchaeus that his proposal was inadequate and that he must sell all and give it to the poor, because Zacchaeus gave evidence of being master of his possessions, and not a slave to them. The only hope of bringing the young ruler back to God was to get him to give up completely the riches he worshiped. Jesus did not oppose private ownership of property. He taught stewardship of possession. Zacchaeus proved now that he was a faithful steward by his decisive action.

Salvation

“And Jesus said unto him, Today is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:9, Luke 19:10). The poor to whom Zacchaeus was now giving one-half his fortune and the wronged who would receive fourfold restitution would be blessed, but their blessing would be nothing compared to the one that came to Zacchaeus in yielding himself to Jesus and undertaking to prove his devotion by such heroic giving. Jesus did not command him to follow Him on this journey to Jerusalem, as He had commanded the rich young ruler. Any persons who had a charge of defrauding to bring against Zacchaeus might take this as evasion after an empty promise. If Zacchaeus did follow on up to the capital, he undoubtedly established an office force first to take care of the complaints which might be brought in. Jesus read the hearts of the others in the household as He declared that “salvation is come to this house.” Jesus knew that they all joined Zacchaeus joyfully in expressing their faith and repentance, and pledging their obedience. Publicans were regarded as having forfeited their birthright as sons of Abraham, but Jesus pointed out that this Jew had now become truly a son of Abraham by his noble repentance. It is His gracious way of expressing the forgiveness granted to Zacchaeus. It also suggests the spiritual birthright which now is open to him as a disciple of Jesus and a member of the spiritual Israel.

Broken Barriers

Luke 19:1-10 I. The barriers which separated Zacchaeus from Jesus (Luke 19:1-4) A. Sin: “He was a chief publican” (Luke 19:2).

Associating publicans and sinners together suggests their outcast condition. He realized he was an outcast and that a great chasm separated him from the great Prophet of Galilee. Sin is always a separating factor between man and God and between a man and his fellow men.

B. Wealth: “He was rich” (Luke 19:2).

1. Wealth tends to separate a man from God by leading to such concentrated efforts to gain more wealth as to leave no time for spiritual things, or by making him feel self-sufficient and independent of God.

2. Wealth tends to separate a man from his fellows by causing him to think himself better than his fellow men, or to isolate himself from fear that men will steal his wealth.

C. The crowd: “He could not [see] for the crowd” (Luke 19:3). The very people who were following Jesus and praising Him prevented Zacchaeus from seeing Jesus. Their selfish attitude was a constant barrier. The familiar cry today of “hypocrites in the church” shows that someone cannot see Jesus for the crowd.

D. His diminutive stature: “He was little of stature” (Luke 19:3).

If Zacchaeus had not been such a little man, he would have been able to see over the crowd. The people who try to hide behind hypocrites today confess by their action they are smaller than the hypocrites behind whom they would hide.

II. How the barriers were broken down (Luke 19:5-10).

A. Zacchaeus sought to see Jesus (Luke 19:3).

1. He wanted to see Jesus in order to form his own opinion.

2. He made an earnest effort, but was balked by the crowd.

3. He refused to be discouraged, and continued his efforts (Luke 19:4).

B. He secured a higher viewpoint (Luke 19:4).

1. He climbed up higher.

2. He could now see over the heads of the crowd.

C. Jesus welcomed Zacchaeus (Luke 19:5).

1. Faith comes by hearing.

2.No one ever sought to see Jesus earnestly and found Him other than eager and willing.

3. Jesus halted to confer with Zacchaeus, and the entire crowd was forced to wait (Luke 19:5).

4. Jesus showed His love and gentleness by calling Zacchaeus by name (Luke 19:5).

5. Jesus entered the home of Zacchaeus. The supreme tact of Jesus is shown here. It would have been futile to talk to Zacchaeus before the crowd. Social fellowships help to break down the barriers for soul winners.

D. Jesus preached to Zacchaeus.

1. There is no mention of the sermon.

2. Jesus’ life purpose and ministry make it certain He did preach.

3. There were glorious results of the message (Luke 19:8).

III. Breaking down the barriers between Zacchaeus and his fellow men.

A. Zacchaeus accepted Jesus.

1. His original purpose had been to see Jesus so he could form his own estimate.

2. Jesus’ constant desire and effort led Zacchaeus to Him.

3. Zacchaeus’ acceptance of Jesus plainly is implied. a. Zacchaeus, statement (Luke 19:8). b. The closing declaration of Jesus (Luke 19:9, Luke 19:10).

B. Zacchaeus acted in accordance with his new faith.

1. He cut loose from his wealth (Luke 19:8).

2. He imitated Jesus in loving service to the needy (Luke 19:8).

C. Zacchaeus acted to break down the barriers between himself and his fellows.

1. Broken barriers between man and God always mean the breaking of barriers between man and man.

2. The barrier of wealth was removed by sacrificial giving (Luke 19:8).

3. The barrier of sin was removed by restitution (Luke 19:8).

D. Jesus proclaimed the salvation of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:9, Luke 19:10).