My thoughts on “The Little Messiah: Jesus as τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρός in Luke 19:3” by Isaac T. Soon

I just read Isaac Soon article “The Little Messiah.”[1] I was curious about how Soon was going to demonstrate that Luke could be saying that Jesus was the one who was short and not Zacchaeus, based on Luke 19:3, “And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small in stature.”[2] Is “he” Zaccheaus or Jesus? Is Zacchaeus the short one or is it Jesus?

The whole issue here is that “he was small in stature” can be referring to either Jesus or Zacchaeus. I agree with Soon to a certain degree because reading Luke 19:3 in English or some other languages may cause that issue. In fact, in Spanish can be understood either way, “trataba de ver quién era Jesús; pero no podía a causa de la multitud, ya que él era de pequeña estatura.”[3] The pronoun “él” can be referring to Jesus or Zachaeus. One final example, the Korean can also bring that ambiguity, “그가 예수께서 어떠한 사람인가 하여 보고자 하되 키가 작고 사람이 많아 할 수 없어.”[4] “하되 키가 작고” does not necessarily indicate if the adjective is referring to Jesus or Zacchaeus.

Soon, therefore, explores many kinds of literature to see if it is clear that Zacchaeus is the short one, as is universally agreed, or if there is a possibility that Luke was describing Jesus as the short one. Soon is very thorough reviewing historical material from different kinds of literature. He compares with works of different Greek philosophers, Roman Historians, and Philo to make the case that not all ancient documents necessarily described their main subjects, but many did give a description.

Soon also argues that Luke has given some descriptions of Jesus. Scripture says that there are descriptions of his feet and knees and Jesus having flesh, bone, and blood. However, he also acknowledges that those descriptions have a purpose. Since Jesus’s height is not relevant to his ministry theologically, it is possible that none of the gospel writers considered it necessary to give a description. In fact, it could be assumed that the listeners of the early church would consider Jesus to have looked like any average Jew of that time.

Soon finishes his article by saying that he has given exegetical and historical reasons for the plausibility to understand that Jesus could be the subject of “he was small in stature.” However, I am not convinced that he gave enough exegetical evidence. He has a section in which he disagrees with Mikeal C. Parsons in that Zacchaeus is the subject of all the verbs.[5] Soon argues that there are verbs that are Jesus’s actions, not Zachaeus.[6] It is disappointing, nevertheless, that this section is all his exegetical work.

J. Alexander Findlay seems to be an important source for evidence of the possibility of Luke describing Jesus as the one short in stature. Howard Marshall, in his commentary on Luke, also mentions Findlay.[7] Therefore, I looked for Findlay’s commentary. I was disappointed to see that Findlay also did not give any exegetical evidence to his claim that Jesus could have been the short one.[8]

In Greek, Luke 19:2-3 reads, “Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι καλούμενος Ζακχαῖος, καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ἀρχιτελώνης καὶ αὐτὸς πλούσιος καὶ ἐζήτει ἰδεῖν τὸν Ἰησοῦν τίς ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἠδύνατο ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ὅτι τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρὸς ἦν.”[9] Now, I am not a New Testament scholar. However, any seminary student who has a notion of basic koine Greek will be able to understand what I am about to say, and hopefully, they will agree with me.

First, verse 3 is not enough in our Greek grammar analysis. We need verse 2. Keep in mind that the Greek does not dive these sentences with punctuation signs. Koine Greek did not have punctuation signs. For this reason, punctuation signs differ from translation to translation. Punctuation signs are provided in the NA28 for modern readers. Subjects are provided as needed in the translation to understand the grammar of English or other languages adequately. Therefore, a more strictly literal translation would be, “And, behold, a man called by the name Zacchaeus, and he was a chief tax collector, and he was rich, and he wanted to see who Jesus was, but he was not able because of the crowd, for he was short in stature.”[10]

Second, having set the whole sentence in Greek, we can see that “Zachaeus,” Ζακχαῖος (Zachaeus), is in the masculine/nominative/singular form, while “Jesus,” Ἰησοῦν (Iesun), is in the masculine/accusative/singular form. Now, “short,” μικρὸς (micros), is in the masculine/nominative/singular form. According to the rules of grammar of the Greek language, adjectives must agree with their nouns in gender, case, and number. Therefore, “short,” μικρὸς, agrees with “Zachaeus,” Ζακχαῖος, and not with “Jesus,” Ἰησοῦν. For “short” to modify “Jesus” should say, “μικρὸν,” masculine/accusative/singular. Luke should have said, “τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρὸν ἦν” to indicate that Jesus was the one who was short in stature, not Zacchaeus.

As I mentioned before, I am amazed to see that Soon did not do his homework in analyzing the grammar. My expectation when I started to read the article was for Soon to give a compelling grammatical argument. As I mentioned, I am not a New Testament scholar. I thought Soon was and would give some grammatical insight that I missed as I read the Greek text.

Now, I wonder, am I overlooking something? Is my grammatical analysis correct? If I am missing something, please point it out.


[1] Isaac T. Soon, “The Little Messiah: Jesus as τῇ ἡλικίᾳ μικρὸς in Luke 19:3,” Journal of Biblical Literature 142, no. 1 (2023): 151–70.

[2] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations in English are from ESV.

[3] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations in Spanish are from LBLA.

[4] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations in Korean are from NKRV.

[5] Soon, “The Little Messiah,” 156.

[6] Soon, 157.

[7] I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press, 1978), 696.

[8] J. Alexander Findlay, “Luke,” in The Abingdon Bible Commentary, ed. Frederick Carl Eiselen, Edwin Lewis, and David G. Downey (Nashville: The Abingdon Press, 1929), 1052.

[9] Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations in Greek are from NA28.

[10] My translation.

“Why Motivating People Doesn’t Work… and What Does” (an opinion)

Just finished reading this book by Susan Fowler. The title was interesting and look at the subtitle: “More breakthroughs for leading, energizing, and engaging.” Therefore, I decided to see what the author has to say. However, I was disappointed.

Fowler’s point is that people have already a motivation to work. The work of the leader is to help them understand what motivates them. She is against the idea of incentive through reward system because it is not sustainable. Once the rush for the incentive is gone, people return to their common habits. Therefore, it is better for a leader to make people feel that they have a choice, that they are cared for, and they are effective and are flourishing, then people will naturally do their jobs.

Fowler gives some good insights. She gives examples of people who do not want economic incentives, or not need them. Rather, their motivation comes from having more time to spend with family, for example. In this way, the author’s advice is to dig dipper in people’s self-realization.

Another helpful comment was to point out that the purpose of a company is not to make money. Making money should be part of what a company does, but it is like eating and breathing for a person; the purpose of life of a person is not eating and breathing. The purpose of a company, then, should be to serve others.

I agree with her positive thoughts. However, they are not necessarily innovative. I felt kind of deceived by the title of the book. At the end, what Fowler is saying is that old style motivation, through incentives, is not effective. What works is to motivate people to follow their motivation. Therefore, motivation works, just the right kind of motivation.

Now, a breakthrough for leading, energizing, and engaging? The church has been teaching these things like forever. The Bible teaches us that humans were created with a purpose. Only when we can fulfill our purpose of life, we can be truly happy. The first question of the Westminster Catechism asks, “What is the chief end of man?” and the answer is, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.” When a person has a restored relationship with God, then she can know her true purpose of life, to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.

How is glorifying God and seeking to enjoy him forever the true source of motivation for humans? Paul said, “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ” (Col 3:23). When we glorify God and seek to enjoy him forever, we know that we are doing all things for God’s glory, not for men. Then, we will do all things the best we can.

For the ungodly, probably the fact that discovering their purpose of life is a motivation fuel is a breakthrough. In this point, I must acknowledge that it is in part the church’s fault. It is the church fault not to be more carrying in preaching the gospel and teaching good doctrine.

Would I recommend this book? Maybe, but probably not. I would recommend reading the Bible and going to church. Discover what God has planned for your life, and you will live a happy, flourishing, fulfilled life, which will fuel your motivation to do your best in everything you need to do. Otherwise, keep being amazed by discovering what the church already has been teaching for millennia what the Bible says about God and us, human beings.