3. MATTHEW THE PUBLICAN
Matt. 9:9-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:27-32.
The call of Matthew signally illustrates a very
prominent feature in the public action of Jesus, viz., His utter disregard of
the maxims of worldly wisdom. A publican disciple, much more a publican
apostle, could not fail to be a stumbling-block to Jewish prejudice, and
therefore to be, for the time at least, a source of weakness rather than of
strength. Yet, while perfectly aware of this fact, Jesus invited to the
intimate fellowship of disciplehood one who had pursued the occupation of a
tax-gatherer, and at a later period selected him to be one of the twelve. His
procedure in this case is all the more remarkable when contrasted with the
manner in which He treated others having outward advantages to recommend them
to favorable notice, and who showed their readiness to follow by volunteering
to become disciples; of whom we have a sample in the scribe who came and said,
"Master, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest."[3.1] This man, whose
social position and professional attainments seemed to point him out as a very
desirable acquisition, the "Master" deliberately scared away by a gloomy
picture of his own destitute condition, saying, "The foxes have holes, and the
birds of the air have nests,[3.2] but the Son of man hath not where to lay His
head."
The eye of Jesus was single as well as
omniscient: He looked on the heart, and had respect solely to spiritual
fitness. He had no faith in any discipleship based on misapprehensions and
by-ends; and, on the other hand, He had no fear of the drawbacks arising out of
the external connections or past history of true believers, but was entirely
indifferent to men's antecedents. Confident in the power of truth, He chose the
base things of the world in preference to things held in esteem, assured that
they would conquer at the last. Aware that both He and His disciples would be
despised and rejected of men for a season, He went calmly on His way, choosing
for His companions and agents "whom He would," undisturbed by the gainsaying of
His generation--like one who knew that His work concerned all nations and all
time.
The publican disciple bears two names in the
Gospel history. In the first Gospel he is called Matthew, while in the second
and third Gospels he is called Levi. That the same person is intended, may, we
think, be regarded as a matter of certainty.[3.3] It is hardly conceivable that
two publicans should have been called to be disciples at the same place and
time, and with all accompanying circumstances, and these so remarkable,
precisely similar. We need not be surprised that the identity has not been
notified, as the fact of the two names belonging to one individual would be so
familiar to the first readers of the Gospels as to make such a piece of
information superfluous.
It is not improbable that Levi was the name of
this disciple before the time of his call, and that Matthew was his name as a
disciple,--the new name thus becoming a symbol and memorial of the more
important change in heart and life. Similar emblematic changes of name were of
frequent occurrence in the beginning of the Gospel. Simon son of Jonas was
transformed into Peter, Saul of Tarsus became Paul, and Joses the Cypriot got
from the apostles the beautiful Christian name of Barnabas (son of consolation
or prophecy), by his philanthropy, and magnanimity, and spiritual wisdom, well
deserved.
Matthew seems to have been employed as a
collector of revenue, at the time when he was called, in the town of Capernaum,
which Jesus had adopted as His place of abode. For it was while Jesus was at
home "in His own city,"[3.4] as Capernaum came to be called, that the palsied
man was brought to Him to be healed; and from all the evangelists[3.5] we learn
that it was on His way out from the house where that miracle was wrought that
He saw Matthew, and spoke to him the word, "Follow Me." The inference to be
drawn from these facts is plain, and it is also important, as helping to
explain the apparent abruptness of the call, and the promptitude with which it
was responded to. Jesus and His new disciple being fellow-townsmen, had
opportunities of seeing each other before.
The time of Matthew's call cannot be precisely
determined, but there is good reason for placing it before the Sermon on the
Mount, of which Matthew's Gospel contains the most complete report. The fact
just stated is of itself strong evidence in favor of this chronological
arrangement, for so full an account of the sermon was not likely to emanate
from one who did not hear it. An examination of the third Gospel converts
probability into something like certainty. Luke prefixes to his abbreviated
account of the sermon a notice of the constitution of the apostolic society,
and represents Jesus as proceeding "with them"[3.6--the twelve, whose names he
has just given--to the scene where the sermon was delivered. Of course the act
of constitution must have been preceded by the separate acts of calling, and by
Matthew's call in particular, which accordingly is related by the third
evangelist in an earlier part of his Gospel.[3.7] It is true the position of
the call in Luke's narrative in itself proves nothing, as Matthew relates his
own call after the sermon; and as, moreover, neither one nor other
systematically adheres to the chronological principle of arrangement in the
construction of his story. We base our conclusion on the assumption, that when
any of the evangelists professes to give the order of sequence, his statement
may be relied on; and on the observations, that Luke does manifestly commit
himself to a chronological datum in making the ordination of the twelve
antecedent to the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount, and that Matthew's
arrangement in the early part of his Gospel is as manifestly unchronological,
his matter being massed on the topical principle, ch. v.-vii, showing Jesus as
a great ethical teacher; ch. viii and ix, as a worker of miracles; ch. x, as a
master, choosing, instructing, and sending forth on an evangelistic mission the
twelve disciples; ch. xi, as a critic of His contemporaries and assertor of His
own prerogatives; ch. xii, as exposed to the contradictions of unbelief; and
ch. xiii, as teaching the doctrines of the kingdom by parables.
Passing from these subordinate points to the call
itself, we observe that the narratives of the event are very brief and
fragmentary. There is no intimation of any previous acquaintance such as might
prepare Matthew to comply with the invitation addressed to him by Jesus. It is
not to be inferred, however, that no such acquaintance existed, as we can see
from the case of the four fishermen, whose call is narrated with equal
abruptness in the synoptical Gospels, while we know from John's Gospel that
three of them at least were previously acquainted with Jesus. The truth is,
that, in regard to both calls, the evangelists concerned themselves only about
the crisis, passing over in silence all preparatory stages, and not deeming it
necessary to inform intelligent readers that, of course, neither the publican
nor any other disciple blindly followed one of whom he knew nothing merely
because asked or commanded to follow. The fact already ascertained, that
Matthew, while a publican, resided in Capernaum, makes it absolutely certain
that he knew of Jesus before he was called. No man could live in that town in
those days without hearing of "mighty works" done in and around it. Heaven had
been opened right above Capernaum, in view of all, and the angels had been
thronging down upon the Son of man. Lepers were cleansed, and demoniacs
dispossessed; blind men received their sight, and palsied men the use of their
limbs; one woman was cured of a chronic malady, and another, daughter of a
distinguished citizen,--Jairus, ruler of the synagogue,--was brought back to
life from the dead. These things were done publicly, made a great noise, and
were much remarked on. The evangelists relate how the people "were all amazed,
insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this?
what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth He even the unclean
spirits, and they do obey Him;"[3.8] how they glorified God, saying, "We never
saw it on this fashion,"[3.9] or, "we have seen strange things today."[3.10]
Matthew himself concludes his account of the raising of Jairus' daughter with
the remark: "The fame hereof went abroad into all that land."[3.11]
We do not affirm that all these miracles were
wrought before the time of the publican's call, but some of them certainly
were. Comparing one Gospel with another, to determine the historical
sequence,[3.12] we conclude that the greatest of all these mighty works, the
last mentioned, though narrated by Matthew after his call, really occurred
before it. Think, then, what a powerful effect that marvelous deed would have
in preparing the tax-gatherer for recognizing, in the solemnly uttered word,
"Follow me," the command of One who was Lord both of the dead and of the
living, and for yielding to His bidding, prompt, unhesitating obedience!
In crediting Matthew with some previous knowledge
of Christ, we make his conversion to discipleship appear reasonable without
diminishing its moral value. It was not a matter of course that he should
become a follower of Jesus merely because he had heard of, or even seen, His
wonderful works. Miracles of themselves could make no man a believer, otherwise
all the people of Capernaum should have believed. How different was the actual
fact, we learn from the complaints afterwards made by Jesus concerning those
towns along the shores of the Lake of Gennesareth, wherein most of His mighty
works were done, and of Capernaum in particular. Of this city He said bitterly:
"Thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down unto
Hades: for if the mighty works which have been done in thee had been done in
Sodom, it would have remained until this day.[3.13] Christ's complaint against
the inhabitants of these favored cities was that they did not repent, that is,
make the kingdom of heaven their chief good and chief end. They wondered
sufficiently at His miracles, and talked abundantly of them, and ran after Him
to see more works of the same kind, and enjoy anew the sensation of amazement;
but after a while they relapsed into their old stupidity and listlessness, and
remained morally as they had been before He came among them, not children of
the kingdom, but children of this world.
It was not so with the collector of customs. He
not merely wondered and talked, but he "repented." Whether he had more to
repent of than his neighbors, we cannot tell. It is true that he belonged to a
class of men who, seen through the colored medium of popular prejudice, were
all bad alike, and many of whom were really guilty of fraud and extortion; but
he may have been an exception. His farewell feast shows that he possessed
means, but we must not take for granted that they were dishonestly earned. This
only we may safely say, that if the publican disciple had been covetous, the
spirit of greed was now exorcised; if he had ever been guilty of oppressing the
poor, he now abhorred such work. He had grown weary of collecting revenue from
a reluctant population, and was glad to follow One who had come to take burdens
off instead of laying them on, to remit debts instead of exacting them with
rigor. And so it came to pass that the voice of Jesus acted on his heart like a
spell: "He left all, rose up, and followed Him."
This great decision, according to the account of
all the evangelists, was followed shortly after by a feast in Matthew's house
at which Jesus was present.[3.14] From Luke we learn that this entertainment
had all the character of a great occasion, and that it was given in honor of
Jesus. The honor, however, was such as few would value, for the other guests
were peculiar. "There was a great company of publicans, and of others that sat
down with them;"[3.15] and among the "others" were some who either were or were
esteemed, in a superlative degree, "sinners."[3.16]
This feast was, as we judge, not less rich in
moral significance than in the viands set on the board. For the host himself it
was, without doubt, a jubilee feast commemorative of his emancipation from
drudgery and uncongenial society and sin, or, at all events. temptation to sin,
and of his entrance on the free, blessed life of fellowship with Jesus. It was
a kind of poem, saying for Matthew what Doddridge's familiar lines say for many
another, perhaps not so well--
"Oh
happy day, that fixed my choice
On Thee, my Saviour, and my God!
Well may this glowing heart rejoice,
And tell its raptures all abroad!
'Tis done; the great transaction's done;
I am my Lord's and He is mine;
He drew me, and I followed on,
Charmed to confess the voice divine."
The feast was also, as already said, an act of
homage to Jesus. Matthew made his splendid feast in honor of his new master, as
Mary of Bethany shed her precious ointment. It is the way of those to whom much
grace is shown and given, to manifest their grateful love in deeds bearing the
stamp of what a Greek philosopher called magnificence,[3.17] and churls call
extravagance; and whoever might blame such acts of devotion, Jesus always
accepted them with pleasure.
The ex-publican's feast seems further to have had
the character of a farewell entertainment to his fellow-publicans. He and they
were to go different ways henceforth, and he would part with his old comrades
in peace.
Once more: we can believe that Matthew meant his
feast to be the means of introducing his friends and neighbors to the
acquaintance of Jesus, seeking with the characteristic zeal of a young disciple
to induce others to take the step which he had resolved on himself, or at least
hoping that some sinners present might be drawn from evil ways into the paths
of righteousness. And who can tell but it was at this very festive gathering,
or on some similar occasion, that the gracious impressions were produced whose
final outcome was that affecting display of gratitude unutterable at that other
feast in Simon's house, to which neither publicans nor sinners were
admitted?
Matthew's feast was thus, looked at from within,
a very joyous, innocent, and even edifying one. But, alas! looked at from
without, like stained windows, it wore a different aspect: it was, indeed,
nothing short of scandalous. Certain Pharisees observed the company assemble or
disperse, noted their character, and made, after their wont, sinister
reflections. Opportunity offering itself, they asked the disciples of Jesus the
at once complimentary and censorious question: "Why eateth your master with
publicans and sinners?" The interrogants were for the most part local members
of the pharisaic sect, for Luke calls them "their scribes and Pharisees,"
[3.18] which implies that Capernaum was important enough to be honored with the
presence of men representing that religious party. It is by no means unlikely,
however, that among the unfriendly spectators were some Pharisees all the way
from Jerusalem, the seat of ecclesiastical government, already on the track of
the Prophet of Nazareth, watching His doings, as they watched those of the
Baptist before Him. The news of Christ's wondrous works soon spread over all
the land, and attracted spectators from all quarters--from Decapolis,
Jerusalem, Judea, and Persia, as well as Galilee:[3.19] and we may be sure that
the scribes and Pharisees of the holy city were not the last to go and see, for
we must own they performed the duty of religious espionage with exemplary
diligence.
The presence of ill-affected men belonging to the
pharisaic order was almost a standing feature in Christ's public ministry. But
it never disconcerted Him. He went calmly on His way doing His work; and when
His conduct was called in question, He was ever ready with a conclusive answer.
Among the most striking of His answers or apologies to them who examined Him,
were those in which He vindicated Himself for mixing with publicans and
sinners. They are three in number, spoken on as many occasions: the first in
connection with Matthew's feast; the second in the house of Simon the
Pharisee;[3.20] and the third on an occasion not minutely defined, when certain
scribes and Pharisees brought against Him the grave charge, "This man receiveth
sinners, and eateth with them."[3.21] These apologies for loving the unloved
and the morally unlovely are full of truth and grace, poetry and pathos, and
not without a touch of quiet, quaint satire directed against the sanctimonious
fault-finders. The first may be distinguished as the professional argument, and
is to this effect: "I frequent the haunts of sinners, because I am a physician,
and they are sick and need healing. Where should a physician be but among his
patients? where oftenest, but among those most grievously afflicted?" The
second may be described as the political argument, its drift being this: "It is
good policy to be the friend of sinners who have much to be forgiven; for when
they are restored to the paths of virtue and piety, how great is their love!
See that penitent woman, weeping for sorrow and also for joy, and bathing her
Saviour's feet with her tears. Those tears are refreshing to my heart, as a
spring of water in the arid desert of pharisaic frigidity and formalism." The
third may be denominated the argument from natural instinct, and runs thus: "I
receive sinners, and eat with them, and seek by these means their moral
restoration, for the same reason which moves the shepherd to go after a lost
sheep, leaving his unstrayed flock in the wilderness, viz. because it is
natural to seek the lost, and to have more joy in finding things lost than in
possessing things which never have been lost. Men who understand not this
feeling are solitary in the universe; for angels in heaven, fathers,
housewives, shepherds, all who have human hearts on earth, understand it well,
and act on it every day."
In all these reasonings Jesus argued with His
accusers on their own premises, accepting their estimate of themselves, and of
the class with whom they deemed it discreditable to associate, as righteous and
sinful respectively. But He took care, at the same time, to let it appear that
His judgment concerning the two parties did not coincide with that of His
interrogators. This He did on the occasion of Matthew's feast, by bidding them
go study the text, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice;" meaning by the
quotation to insinuate, that while very religious, the Pharisees were also very
inhuman, full of pride, prejudice, harshness, and hatred; and to proclaim the
truth, that this character was in God's sight far more detestable than that of
those who were addicted to the coarse vices of the multitude, not to speak of
those who were "sinners" mainly in the pharisaic imagination, and within
inverted commas.
Our Lord's last words to the persons who called
His conduct in question at this time were not merely apologetic, but judicial.
"I came not," He said, "to call the righteous, but sinners;"[3.22] intimating a
purpose to let the self-righteous alone and to call to repentance and to the
joys of the kingdom those who were not too self-satisfied to care for the
benefits offered, and to whom the gospel feast would be a real entertainment.
The word, in truth, contained a significant hint of an approaching religious
revolution in which the last should become first and the first last; Jewish
outcasts, Gentile dogs, made partakers of the joys of the kingdom and the
"righteous" shut out. It was one of the pregnant sayings by which Jesus made
known to those who could understand, that His religion was an universal one, a
religion for humanity, a gospel for mankind, because a gospel for sinners. And
what this saying declared in word, the conduct it apologized for proclaimed yet
more expressively by deed. It was an ominous thing that loving sympathy for
"publicans and sinners"--the pharisaic instinct discerned it to be so, and
rightly took the alarm. It meant death to privileged monopolies of grace and to
Jewish pride and exclusivism--all men equal in God's sight, and welcome to
salvation on the same terms. In fact it was a virtual announcement of the
Pauline programme of an universalistic gospel, which the twelve are supposed by
a certain school of theologians to have opposed as determinedly as the
Pharisees themselves. Strange that the men who had been with Jesus were so
obtuse as not to understand, even at the last, what was involved in their
Master's fellowship with the low and the lost! Was Buddha more fortunate in his
disciples than Jesus in His? Buddha said, "My law is a law of grace for all,"
directing the saying immediately against Brahminical caste prejudice; and his
followers understood that it meant, Buddhism a missionary religion, a religion
even for Sudras, and therefore for all mankind!
This document (last modifiedSeptember 17, 1997) from Believerscafe.com
Home | Bible versions | Bible Dictionary | Christian Classics | Christian Articles | Daily Devotions
Sister Projects: Wikichristian | WikiMD
BelieversCafe is a large collection of christian articles with over 40,000 pages
Our sponsors: 
