There is little doubt that the they in the text at Luke 19:7 refers to the Pharisees and possibly scribes who might also have been curious enough to watch what Jesus did, as he passed through Jericho. Certainly, both groups were critical of Jesus in the past (Luke 5:30; 6:7; cf. 11:53), and there is no reason to believe Jesus’ critics were the common people (John 7:26). The Greek word used for murmured (G1234) is used only in Luke and then only at 15:2 and 19:7, and at Luke 15:2 it points to the scribes and Pharisees. However, this same Greek word is used in the Septuagint for those who murmured against Moses and Aaron (Exodus 15:24; 16:2, 7-8; 17:3; Numbers 14:2). It is also used of those who brought back a bad report of the Promised Land (Numbers 14:36), so the murmuring on these occasions was done by the leaders of Israel.
No doubt the scribes and Pharisees objection against Zacchaeus (besides being in league with Rome) was that he was always unclean because of his office. Being a publican, implied association with the gentiles. He did business with them, exchanging money for local currency etc., and he may even be expected to have dined with the elite of their number. This was simply unacceptable for Jews who practiced the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:3, 5; cf. Luke 5:30; 7:37-39; 15:1-2).
Therefore, it was in this context that Zacchaeus stood up and spoke (Luke 19:8), That is, it seems as though he knew what they (Luke 19:7) were saying. If Zacchaeus didn’t actually hear the murmuring, he may have known it had to have occurred, and was even presently going on. He was a Jew and was painfully aware of the customs of his people, whether or not he practiced all of those customs. Even the Roman centurion knew that Jesus would have undergone some type of persecution, had he entered the centurion’s dwelling (Luke 7:6-7). Therefore, Zacchaeus stood up and justified Jesus’ entering his home by causing the poor to rejoice (Luke 4:18-19; Isaiah 29:18-19). The fact that Zacchaeus gave half his goods to the poor shows he believed Jesus was the Messiah, and Zacchaeus submitted both himself and all he had to his Lord.
In Luke 18:18 Luke spoke of another rich man, and this one was a ruler of the Jews, possibly a member of the Sanhedrin, but at least a ruler of the synagogue. The young ruler was considered righteous. Indeed, he thought of himself as righteous (cf. Luke 18:20-21). Yet, he was unable to part with his goods in order to honor God by following Jesus as his Messiah (cf. Luke 18:22-23). Luke 19:8 shows that Jesus’ command in Luke 18:22 was both fair, in terms of it being the command of the Messiah, and doable. That is, the command wasn’t so outlandish that no one in Jewish society would even consider doing such a thing.
Zacchaeus may have had the name of being righteous (Zacchaeus = Zachariah, which means righteous), but he was believed to be an unrighteous man by the religious leaders of the Jewish community. Yet, he gave half of his goods to the poor. Why would he do such a thing? Why would a man who is unrighteous do what is righteous? How could an unrighteous man do such a good thing (Luke 19:8), especially since a righteous man found it too difficult to do the very same thing (cf. Luke 18:22-23)? Of course, Zacchaeus’ act proved his repentance and his willingness to submit to God.
Another matter to be considered in Zacchaeus’ testimony is that he promised to repay anyone whom he may have cheated, not only according to what the Law demanded (Leviticus 6:5; Numbers 5:7), which was the value of the stolen item plus 20 %, but Zacchaeus made himself the worst kind of thief—a violent and deliberate man who covered up his deed, whereupon that one had to pay fourfold (Exodus 22:1). Zacchaeus implied his office and rank in the community would have been powerful enough to silence anyone who thought he was cheated. Therefore, he considered any such act, a violent one, which left the victim without recourse (cf. 2Samuel 12:6). Such was the repentance of the one good folks thought of as unrighteous, and he did it publicly in order to vindicate Jesus’ act of dining in his home. This was something even the righteous found too difficult to do (Luke 18:22-23).
Smoodock's Blog 