Magness, J. Lee

English

Pepperdine Digital Commons

LeavenVolume 5Issue 2 Luke-Acts Article 31-1-1997Who Cares That it Was a Sycamore? ClimbingTrees and Playing on Words in Luke 19.1-10J. Lee Magnessjlmagness@milligan.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leavenPart of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought,Theology and Philosophy of Religion CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Religion at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Leaven byan authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact Kevin.Miller3@pepperdine.edu.Recommended CitationMagness, J. Lee (1997) "Who Cares That it Was a Sycamore? Climbing Trees and Playing on Words in Luke 19.1-10," Leaven: Vol. 5:Iss. 2, Article 3.Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol5/iss2/3Luke-Acts 5Most recent scholarly attention on the Zacchaeus nar-rative, Luke 19: 1-10, has focused on verse eight: "Beholdhalf my possessions, Lord, I give to the poor, and if I ex-torted anything from anyone I repay fourfold." The debateis whether Zacchaeus is defending himself or repenting;describing his customary behavior or making a resolve forthe future. The question is just as important for all stu-dents of the Gospel of Luke. Can we use this story as amodel of repentance and salvation, or not? The alterna-tive-a story vindicating Zacchaeus' virtue-is very ap-pealing. There is something attractive about a conversionin which we are only challenged to describe or defend ouralready virtuous behavior. Do not pass repentance; go di-rectly to redemption; collect salvation.But there are several factors in this text that point totrue repentance on the part of the tax collector. And if so,we have one more reason to take repentance (more) seri-ously in the process of salvation. One of those factors isthe significance of the sycamore tree in verse four. Thequestion is, Who cares that it was a sycamore?It was not a sycamore, of course. Sycamore is but anunfortunate transliteration camouflaging "fig tree." But whocares that it was a fig tree? From one perspective, we shouldnot be at all surprised that Luke specifies a fig tree. Eco-nomically, fig production pervaded Mediterranean agricul-tural life. There were over sixty Greek words related tofigs, fig trees, and fig cultivation.'But from another perspective, the mention of the typeof tree into which the diminutive publican climbed seemslittle more than an insignificant botanical cipher. Commen-tators are almost universally content to discuss such mun-dane matters as how the Egyptian fig tree differed fromthe European or American sycamore; how the fig tree isrelated to the mulberry; whether or not the sycamore wasthe same as the sycamine of Luke 17:6; whether or not thefig tree grew along roadsides; how its fruit, although ed-ible, was only eaten by the poor; and, most often, how itssturdy trunk and low-spreading branches made it amenableto climbing. Hence its role in our story. But to what end?Who cares that it was a fig tree?Some commentators see the mention of the fig tree asa mere "anecdotal detail." One century-old commentaryventured an explanation for its presence: "St. Luke who isgenerally indifferent to geographical details, thus preservesthe local colouring,'? But these assessments merely reframethe question, or raise it with new urgency. Why would Luke,contrary to his own custom, include a botanical trivium atthis point? If it is local color, why suddenly and uncharac-teristically resort to this device? Wouldn't it have beenenough to know that he climbed a tree?"A reading of the Greek text of this narrative revealsthat the tree Zacchaeus climbed (sukomorea) shares a lexi-cal root with what he confessed to be, a sukoohantes (de-frauder or extortioner). The possibility of an intentional1Magness: Who Cares That it Was a Sycamore? Climbing Trees and Playing on WPublished by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 19976 Leaven, Spring 1997It is possible that whereZacchaeus was (in the fig tree)points to what Zacchaeus was(an oppressive defrauder), andthat what Zacchaeus waspoints to what he has beencalled to be (the righteous one).play on words has been entertained before, but not widelyor seriously. According to Vincent, "it is an odd coinci-dence, nothing more, that the fig-mulberry (sycamore)should occur in connection with the fig-shewer (syco-phant)." But I disagree, for two reasons. First, Luke's otherreferences to figs are neither meaningless ciphers nor merelocal color. They are thematically significant and integralto his theological and ethical agenda. Second, the connec-tion between fig trees and extortioners is not coincidentalin Greek literature. A play on words based on these termsappears at least four other times.First, there is the significance of Luke's own use offigs and fig trees. Luke 6:43--45 records Jesus' teaching ontrees and fruit: "for they do not gather figs from thornbushes." The point is that "a bad tree does not producegood fruit," or, to put it more positively, "the good personout of the good treasure of the heart produces good fruit."The fig signifies the good spiritual fruit that we expect tocome from a good tree. Elsewhere, the parable in Luke13:6-9 has a farmer planting a fig tree, coming to pickfigs, and finding none. Once again the fig tree symbolizesspiritual fruitfulness, corning as it does in the context of acall to repentance (13: 1-5). Finally, Luke 21 :29-31 recordsthe saying, "Behold the fig tree and all the trees, wheneverthey are already putting forth leaves, you see for yourselvesand know that summer is near." Fig leaves symbolize theeschatological signs that "your redemption is drawing near"(21 :28). In each case, Luke's use of figs and fig trees ishighly and specifically symbolic oifruitfulness, preciselyin the context of repentance and in the light of salvation,justifying our expectation of a symbolic function for thefig tree into which Zacchaeus climbed.The wordplay fig tree (sukomorea) / extortioner(sukophantes) adds yet another layer of signification. Theverb meaning "to cheat, to extort, to defraud" (literally, toshow figs) may derive from the practice of collecting figsas public revenue in ancient Athens. 5 Lysias of Athens sup-plies an illustration of its use: " ... from the prisoners ofwar whose loss he himself had caused, he extracted a bribe(esukophantesen) of 30 minae, by declaring that he wouldnot obtain their release unless they supplied him with thissum from their own pockets" (26.24). The Septuagint, theGreek translation of the Old Testament, employs the termsin much the same way with some added emphasis on thegeneral concept of oppression. Take, for example, Prov-erbs 28:16: "The king who lacks revenue [from taxes] is agreat oppressor (sukophantes)." The only appearances ofthe terms in the New Testament are in Luke-in our pas-sage and earlier in Luke 3: 14, where John the Baptizerorders soldiers not to defraud the people. The double bladeof economic extortion and political oppression would havebeen wielded whenever soldiers received kickbacks forforcing people to pay exorbitant taxes to fraudulentpublicans.The concepts involved in this "defraud" word familyare clear and consistent. The offense was not only com-monly referred to in Greek literature, including theSeptuagint, it was clearly a concern of Luke's as well. Butis there a play on words? Is "fig tree" of verse four actu-ally highlighting "I defrauded" in verse eight? Several in-stances in Greek literature support the likelihood. InAristophanes' The Plutus, a character named Sycophant issuddenly robbed of his ill-gotten wealth. As the defrauderis stripped=-cloak, shoes, and all-the main character,Karion, calls to another character, "Give me your old cloakso I might wrap this defrauder (sukophanten) in it" (935-36). To this, Sycophant replies, "IfI should get some com-rade, even a fig-wood comrade (sukinon), I would bringthis strong God to justice" (945-47). In The Birds,Aristophanes writes of a foreign nation, "[W]ith its tongueit sows and reaps and gathers ... figs, ... foreign syco-phants who flock to Athens and earn their living with theirtongues" (1699). Other examples of the play on wordsappear in the Scholiast of line 873 of The Plutus and inCratinus, Fragment 69.I am convinced that we have the same phenomenon inLuke 19. An otherwise inexplicable feature, a detail in atext that avoids such details, an apparent coincidence us-ing words that Luke does not use coincidentally begins tomake sense as a pointer by means of a play on words. Thepoint is not where Zacchaeus was but what he was, andwhat he was was highlighted by where he was.While exploring the background of "defraud(er)" inthe Septuagint, I came upon another play on words that2Leaven, Vol. 5 [1997], Iss. 2, Art. 3http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol5/iss2/3offers added insight. As noted above, Luke seems espe-cially sensitive to the Septuagint's use of the term to meanoppression, broader than but not disconnected from theconnotations of extortion and fraud. What I began to no-tice was that time and again words of this "defraud" fam-ily appear as antonyms of the word family related to "righ-teous." In Leviticus 19:11-13, the command not to defraudone's neighbor is reworded as "do not deal unrighteouslywith your neighbor." In Amos 2:6-8, the unrighteous who"sell the righteous for a pair of shoes" are those who "drinkthe wine of oppression." Psalm 119:121-22 (LXX118: 121-22) says, "I have done what is just and right; ...let not the godless oppress me." Or take this passage fromProverbs 14:31-32: "Theone who oppresses a poor manprovokes the one who made him, ... but the one who trustsin his holiness is righteous." In fact, of the fifteen appear-ances of the "defraud" family in the Septuagint, ten ap-pear in contexts where the "righteous" family are the di-rect antonyms (Leviticus 19:11-13;Amos 2:6-8; Job 35:7-8; Psalms 119:121-22; 119: 134-38; 72:1-4; Proverbs14:31-32; 28:1-3; 28:16; Ecclesiastes 5:8).The reason that this correlation is of interest to us isthat the name Zacchaeus means "righteous." Commentar-ies are fond of pointing out the meaning of the name andeven the incongruity of this extortioner named "Righteous."But most tend to reject any significance in the correlation.There are reasons, however, for taking it seriously. Thereis the Septuagint's connection of oppression and righteous-ness, there is the unusual appearance of a proper name atall, and there is a curious construction in 19:2 that signalsadded significance for that name.Luke appears to place special emphasis on the nameZacchaeus by means of the emphatic repetition with whichhe introduces it: "by name, being called." The designa-tion "by name" appears twenty-seven times in Luke-Acts;some form of "being called" appears nine times. Only in19:2 does Luke combine these two common idioms, creat-ing a deliberate redundancy that calls attention to the nameand, I suggest, to the meaning of the name.It is possible, then, that by a second play on wordsLuke directs our thoughts not only from fig tree to oppres-sor but also from oppressor to righteous one. It is possiblethat where Zacchaeus was (in the fig tree) points to whatZacchaeus was (an oppressive defrauder), and that whatZacchaeus was points to what he has been called to be (therighteous one).?Thus this passage bears a cluster of interrelated ideasreinforced by multiple wordplays: first, the sound of theLuke-Acts 7Greek word for "fig tree" pointing to "defrauder"; second,the Old Testament concept of fraud/oppression calling at-tention to its antonym "righteous"; and third, "righteous"in turn being the meaning of Zacchaeus' name. That sucha cluster should occur in Luke is neither surprising norWho cares that it was asycamore-or that his namewas Zacchaeus, for that matter?I'd say the author of the thirdgospel did, and with goodreason.insignificant. The triad of concepts created by this doubleplay on words weaves together three prominent strands ofLukanthought.First, in the symbolic use of the fig tree we see theculmination of the theme of fruitfulness. The fig is a goodfruit from a good tree (6:43-45), and so now is Zacchaeus,contrary to the erroneous evaluation of the blind guideswho see him only and ever as "sinner." The fig tree mustnot be fruitless when the farmer comes to seek and to pickthe fruit of repentance (13:6-9); Zacchaeus clings to a figtree, plucked by the One who came to seek and to save oneripe for repentance. When the fig tree leafs out, redemp-tion is drawing near (21 :29-31); for Zacchaeus, salvationwould come to his house that day."Second, the wordplay between fig tree and extortionerreminds us of Luke's warnings against wealth and oppres-sion. Zacchaeus was everything that the prophet John hadwarned against (3:11-14). He was the rich man with mul-tiple tunics and plenty of food who needed to share withthose in need. He was the tax collector who must ceasecollecting more than required. And he was, like the sol-diers, an extortioner who must not oppress the poor. ButZacchaeus had also become, through contact with theChrist, everything John had called the people to be: a truechild of Abraham, not raised up from the stones, but in thiscase plucked from a fig tree.Third, in the interplay between oppression and thename Zacchaeus, we see the theme of righteousness, whichin Luke is frequently contrasted precisely with theunrighteousness of tax collectors. In a large crowd of taxcollectors, Jesus pronounced that he had not come to callthose who were righteous in their own eyes, but sinners torepentance (5:29-32). In Luke 7:29, "All the people, eventax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, recognized3Magness: Who Cares That it Was a Sycamore? Climbing Trees and Playing on WPublished by Pepperdine Digital Commons, 19978 Leaven, Spring 1997God's righteousness." In the company of tax collectors,Jesus climaxed his sheep's tale by saying, "There is morerejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than overninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent"(15: 1-7). And it was to those "confident of their own righ-teousness" that Jesus told the story of the repentant taxcollector who, like Zacchaeus, went home righteous be-fore God (ch 18).Who cares that it was a sycamore--or that his namewas Zacchaeus, for that matter? I'd say the author of thethird gospel did, and with good reason. The story ofZacchaeus provided him with a pattern of salvation in whichan unrighteous person responded to a confrontation withthe person and proclamation of Jesus with genuine (ac-tive) repentance. It is the same for us. The text offers usthe opportunity to preach confidently the necessity of re-pentance in the call to conversion; to teach people that thereis a difference between who they are and who they aremeant to be, between the lifestyles of the unrighteous andfraudulent and those of the redeemed. And the story servesas a reminder to all of us that repentance and righteous-ness are related as much to the way we treat the lowly as tothe way we trust in the Lord.J. LEE MAGNESS is Britton Professor of Bible, MilliganCollege, Milligan College, Tennessee.NotesIH. G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (Ox-ford: Clarendon, 1843, 1940), 167(}-71. There is the fig tree itself (suke,sukaminos, sukomoros, and sukomorea). There is the fruit (sukon, etc.).Then there are the verbs meaning "to gather figs," the adjectives mean-ing "having to do with figs," and an odd assortment of derivatives in-cluding "fig-yard," "fig-plucker," and "fig-sandaled."2W. B. Jones, St. Luke's Gospel, The Bible Commentary (NewYork: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887).lSomeone might well suggest that Luke received this account wholefrom the tradition. But since the account is unique to Luke, it is difficultif not dangerous to delineate between tradition and Luke's own contri-bution here. Besides, the account is so thoroughly consistent with Luke'sthemes that we can, I think, assume the highest degree of the author'sinfluence."Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Grand Rap-ids: Eerdmans, 1887), 1:409.5Liddell and Scott, 1671.6Marshall (I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NGTC [GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1978]) has recently admitted to the potential sig-nificance of this "deliberately pleonastic" construction. O'Hanlon (JohnO'Hanlon, "The Story ofZacchaeus and the Lukan Ethic," Journalforthe Study of the New Testament 12:2-26) calls it "odd and unique."Some commentators see it as an insignificant Hebraism. But the ques-tion remains: Why employ even an insignificant Hebraism only here, ifnot to draw special attention to this particular name?7} am not suggesting that Luke intends to playoff the meanings ofall the proper names he records. But it is hard to imagine, for example,that he would have missed the significance of "God is my help," themeaning of Lazarus in the only parable with a named character.8Interestingly enough, the most famous fig tree passage in theGospels, the cursing and withering of the fig tree, is not recorded inLuke. The Zacchaeus account may in fact replace it as Luke's climacticconnection between figs and spiritual fruitbearing-a narrative substi-tuted for a parable.4Leaven, Vol. 5 [1997], Iss. 2, Art. 3http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/leaven/vol5/iss2/3

Who Cares That it Was a Sycamore? Climbing Trees and Playing on Words in Luke 19.1-10

https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1816&amp;context=leaven

Who Cares That it Was a Sycamore? Climbing Trees and Playing on Words in Luke 19.1-10

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Pepperdine Digital Commons