Luke 19:8 - Coke's Commentary on the Holy Bible

And Zaccheus stood,— Stood forth;—in order to make the noble declaration following. By the half of his goods, he probably meant his income. Εσυκοφαντησα, which we render taken by false accusation, properly signifies any kind of oppression, especially under any pretence of law; and therefore would be more properly rendered, "If I have taken any thing wrongfully, by injurious charge, or oppressive claims in my office." See Ecclesiastes 4:1; Ecclesiastes 5:8. LXX. One great reason of the odium which followed the occupation of a publican, was the injustice which many of that denomination practised in their office. This verse may be either considered as a declaration of what Zaccheus had been accustomed to do, agreeably to the force of his expressions which run in the present tense, I give, I restore, not in the future, I will give, I will restore, and likewise agreeably to the testimony with which Jesus honoured Zaccheus, that he was a son of Abraham;—or, we may take it as a declaration of his resolution, with respect to his future conduct. That Zaccheus was a Jew, appears from his name, which is the same with Zaccai, Ezra 2:9. Four-fold was the utmost which the Jewish law required, even in cases of a fraudulent concealment and conviction; (unless where an ox had been killed or sold, and so its labour lost to the owner, and its discovery rendered more difficult, Exodus 22:1.) for the phrase of restoring sevenfold, Proverbs 6:31 seems only proverbial, to express making abundant satisfaction: but if a man, not being legally convicted or accused, voluntarily discovered the fraud he had committed, besides his trespass-offering he was to add to the principal only a fifth part, Leviticus 6:5. Zaccheus therefore shews the sincerity of his repentance by such an offer. Some commentators have remarked, that oppressive publicans were by the Roman law required to restore fourfold; but this was only after judgment obtained, where they had been guilty of extortion by force; whereas, before conviction, it was enough to make restitution of what had been taken; and even after it, in common cases, all that the law required was restoring twice as much. Archbishop Tillotson justly observes, that, "had more than an eighth part of Zaccheus's possessions been unjustly gotten, he could not have been able to make such restitution, after having given away half of what he now had to the poor, even though he had stripped himself of all."