MATTHEW & CHRIST

MATTHEW

Mat 9:9-13

Mark 2:14-17

Luke 5:27-32

        Of the identity of Matthew and Levi there can be no doubt. It is evident that his name was Levi, and that he was the son of Alphaeus. The name, Matthew, indicates the fact of a change. Possibly and personally, I would even say probably, Jesus made the change. He changed Simon's name. He surnamed James and John, Boanerges; and it is more than likely that He gave Levi his new name. At any rate the name is in itself significant, meaning the gift of God. It is conceivable that if the Lord did thus change his name, in the change He indicated the value of this man to Himself, the gift of God. Necessarily this was not true of Matthew only, because as we remember in the final words of intercession recorded in John 17:6, our Lord spoke of all the apostles as of those whom the Father had given Him.

        This man is introduced to us by the three evangelists. They all tell us of the fact that our Lord saw him as He passed by. Matthew and Mark simply say that Jesus saw him, using the Greek word eido, which had two values. It is often used of the fact of casual seeing; but it is also used in the sense of seeing and understanding. Luke, who, as we have so often pointed out, claimed that his record was the result of careful investigation, tells us that Jesus saw him, but he does not use the same word. Our revisers have rendered the word employed by Luke, "beheld." It is a word which suggests a close, penetrating look.

        Again, Mark in introducing him, named him Levi. Luke described him as a publican, and also named him Levi. Matthew giving his own account does not say that Jesus saw Levi. He does not say He saw a publican. He says "He saw a man," whose name was Matthew. Notice that he employed the name Matthew, not Levi. Moreover in the account, he did not refer to the fact that he was a publican. Writing at this point his own history, he went back in memory to the day when Jesus called him, and said that "He saw a man."

        Perhaps it may be considered that that is an unnecessary emphasis, and yet to me it is very suggestive. That is what our Lord always does, He sees a man. He knew this man was a publican. He knew his name was Levi. He knew he was the son of Alphaeus, but that which attracted Him, as ever, was the fact that he was a man. It becomes the more significant when it is remembered that Matthew's calling brought him into contempt with his contemporaries. Despite all these limitations, Jesus saw him as a man, and that Matthew records. It is true that later when he is giving the list of those called to the apostolate, he referred to the fact that he was a publican. In that connection it is at least interesting to notice that in the names of the twelve given by Matthew, by Mark, by Luke, and again by Luke in the Acts, this is the only man whose calling is referred to. We know that others were fishermen, and in the case of some, certain political preferences were referred to. This man, however, is placed m the list, and his calling is declared, and this by himself, not by Mark, or by Luke. We now follow our method of attempting to see the man himself, and then watch our Lord's dealing with him.

        In some ways the account of Matthew is very meager, although no name is more familiar to us today. That familiarity is undoubtedly due to the Gospel which bears his name.

        We have only two incidents in which he appears, and they are recorded in close connection by each of the three evangelists. They are those of his calling; and of the feast in his house. Here again it is interesting to observe that Matthew does not tell us that this feast was in his house, except by implication. Neither does Mark. But Luke tells us distinctly that he made a feast for Jesus and his fellow publicans, and sinners. We see him then when he was called, and at the feast in his house. So, therefore, we hardly see him except through the fact recorded by Luke that he made the feast and that immediately.

        Again it is remarkable that we have on record no single word that Matthew ever spoke. When Jesus said to him, "Follow Me," we are not told that he said anything. He gathered the company into his house evidently with a definite purpose, but we are not told that he expressed a welcome to Jesus in words, or to anyone else. Andrew was a quiet man as we have seen and Philip a slow man; but we have the record of something Andrew said, and something Philip said. At any rate it is important to remember, whatever value there may be in the fact, that he seems to appear to us as a quiet man with very little to say. Yet he was a writer, and has become the chronicler of the King, drawing the portrait of our Lord for us in the terms of Kingship, in full and final authority.

        We know then three things about him; first that he was a Hebrew; second, that he was a publican; and third, that he was a deeply religious man.

        First, he was a Hebrew. It is possible that he was a Jew but I do not personally believe that he was. His name Levi suggests not membership of the tribe of Judah or Benjamin, but of the tribe of Levi. It is more than probable that he was a renegade Levite or priest. The fact that he was a Hebrew however means that he was characterized by a justifiable pride, and an understandable narrowness. These things were true of all the Hebrews. It is true of the Hebrew people today. Every Hebrew is proud, justifiably so, of his race, of his history, of all the marvelous past. It stands out as an amazing fact that whatever may be the tyranny employed against him, the neck of the Hebrew is never bowed or bent. Of all these things Matthew, in common with his people was justifiably proud. In view of his situation and the situation of his people and race at the time, he was understandingly narrow. That, in certain ways, is an excellent quality. We are cursed today with a passion for breadth. A little more narrowness would strengthen the whole host of the people of God.

        The fact that he was a publican had also a distinct bearing necessarily upon his character. As we look at him we see him "sitting in the place of toll," at the head of the Lake, by Capernaum. Day by day, there, he demanded and received the dues from the fishermen as they brought in their fish, and from the merchants as they brought their goods across the sea by boat. He was in the tetrarchy of Herod. Herod was a vassal of Rome. All the tolls collected were for him as tetrarch, but they were arranged by Rome itself. It was part of the Roman Empire, and this man, held in contempt by his fellow countrymen, nevertheless knew that behind him was the whole Roman government. That, of course, is the secret of strength in government, this knowledge that its meanest officer has behind him all the strength of the Empire. It may be said in passing that that is our element of strength. If you attempt the crossing of a road, and you see the policeman hold up his hand, you stop, not merely because one man is doing it, but because the whole country is behind that uplifted hand.

        Then his calling demanded that he should be a careful recorder and renderer up of accounts. These publicans, all under Roman rule, had to gather payments according to a fixed Roman tariff. It is quite evident that they often extracted more than their due, and by so doing became rich; but they had to be men who knew how to keep accounts, and give reports.

        The question may be asked, what has all this to do with Matthew? In reply we may say that it has a great deal to do with him and his character. He was a man living in the atmosphere of government. We may use our more modern phrase and declare that he was familiar with things stately. With his consciousness of the power of the Roman government behind him, it is probable that he was somewhat careless, in common with his class, about the hostility of his own countrymen. All these things entered into his mental make-up. A man's calling does react upon his outlook and character in a very remarkable way. Matthew then was a Hebrew, justifiably proud, understandably narrow, with a consciousness of an authority under which he served, and of responsibility for accuracy in the keeping of records.

        But the utmost thing about this Matthew, which perhaps does not appear upon the surface, is that he was evidently a profoundly religious man. Saying this I am speaking of the man before Jesus called him. The proof of the fact is found in his remarkable familiarity with the Scriptures of the Hebrew people; more familiar, if we may argue from his method than either Mark, or Luke, or John or Paul. It is impossible to study his Gospel without noticing this fact. His quotations from the Old Testament were more, not only than that of any one of the evangelists, but more than that of all the other three put together. To make an approximate mathematical statement, we find in his Gospel no less than 99 direct references to the Old Testament Scriptures. Moreover he quoted from every division of the Hebrew Scriptures, from the Torah, or the law; the Nebiim, or the prophets; and the Kethubim, or the writings. Further, we see as he traced the account of Jesus he applied this knowledge. He applied it to all the history from the birth to the death, constantly referring to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. He has a peculiar formula which occurs 9 times in the process of the account, "That it might be fulfilled." At least it is worthy of note that Mark never used it, neither did Luke, nor John. In his writing he told the account of Jesus as the result of his own intimate relationship with Him, and all the way he puts that account against the background of Old Testament Scripture, showing his familiarity with the Hebrew religious writings. Thus, though he may have been looked upon by his contemporaries as a renegade, he was no renegade from the Hebrew religion. He had studied their writings in a remarkable way, and we may safely deduce the fact that he was a profoundly religious man.

        The two incidents referred to reveal one fact about him. When Jesus called him he responded immediately. Having thus been called, and having obeyed, he, with equal promptness, began to gather together a group of his own calling to meet Jesus. He was therefore a man of quick and decisive action.

        We turn, then, to watch our Lord's dealings with this man. We notice first that He found him "sitting at the place of toll" in the midst of his work. We can readily understand that all the brooding of his mind lay behind the outward activity of the tax collector. There is every reason, too, to believe that being there in Capernaum, or in close proximity, he knew very much about Jesus. Our Lord had made Capernaum the base of His operations at this time. We also know from the writings, that by this time all the countryside was talking about Him. It is quite conceivable that sitting there at the place of toll, he had listened to Jesus as He had talked from the boat or to the crowds about the shore. As he listened, his trained mind in the Old Testament Scriptures would discover much in harmony with them. I cannot read the account of his immediate response without believing that there had been this previous mental activity and attraction. Then one day there came a critical moment. Jesus passed him, and as He passed, He said to him, "Follow Me." It is easy to believe that the crowd, who, perhaps, heard the words, would hardly understand them. Dr. Alexander Maclaren of Manchester once described that word of Jesus addressed to Matthew, as a command. It certainly was that. It was sharp, decisive, and authoritative. He did not speak to him as He had done to others. He did not ask him as He asked Andrew, "What seek ye?" He did not declare to him that He knew him, and his father, and that he should become Rock, as He had done to Simon. He did, however, use exactly the same formula He had employed in speaking to Philip. To Matthew the call meant that he must sever himself from his relationship with Herod and Rome that he was to leave behind him his means of livelihood that he was to yield himself in complete submission to Jesus. It is best to remember here as in other cases, that whereas the word "Follow Me" was a command; it was also an offering of fellowship. He called this man not only to leave everything, but to find a Comrade for the coming pathway. Submission undoubtedly was demanded, but fellowship was offered.

        And yet it meant even more than that. To travel with Him was to enter upon His enterprise. In this formula of Christ addressed to the soul, all these things forever merged. The call brought Matthew face to face with a sharp crisis, a crisis resulting not merely from the call itself, but almost certainly from the process that had been going on in his mind as he had pondered the Sacred Writings with their hopes and aspirations, their songs and their teaching, their history and their prophesying. In Matthew we have a man who almost certainly, had been thinking through these things; and then with the stories about Jesus coming to him, had been wondering whether in Him was to be found a fulfillment of the national hope, and the soul's deep need. Thus the first call of Jesus crystallized his thinking, and created for him a crisis.

        The result is self-evident. He rose, left everything then and there, and went with Jesus. I do not hesitate to insist that the account of the action of Matthew is dramatic, as without the slightest hesitation, in quick, decisive obedience, he abandoned everything in obedience to the call of Christ. He left his table and his money left Herod and Rome, and ventured out upon the new way along which the Lord was leading.

        As we have seen, it is Luke who tells us that Matthew at once made a feast in his own house, gathered together men of his own class. It was in the best sense of the word an skillful movement on the part of Matthew. We know today that men can often be gathered to a feast, which would not come to a Prayer Meeting.

        It is good therefore, to have a feast, if we are always careful in the motive behind the invitation.

        In this connection we see our Lord first, accepting the invitation. He went into the midst of that unwashed crowd.

        By unwashed, necessarily I mean now, as they were looked upon by the rulers, religiously and ceremonially unclean. He went to the feast in authority. He went in companionship and co-operation with the man who had left all to follow Him. How evident it is that Matthew had already discovered the straight highway into the Heart of Jesus. He knew that that Heart was set upon the depraved and the degraded. So with the quickest intuition, born, shall we not say, of his familiarity with the Scriptures that had foretold the coming of One Who should preach release to the captives set at liberty them that are bruised; the gathering of this company was the creation by Matthew of an opportunity for the carrying out of those great purposes of grace.

        This, moreover, was the occasion when the Lord used for Himself the word that is the keynote to all this series of considerations, as He referred to Himself under the figure of the Physician. He was criticized by the rulers for violating the sanctions of their traditions, as He sat eating with these people, looked upon as polluted and depraved. It was in answer to such criticism that our Lord, under this figure of speech, revealed the whole purpose of His life and mission. He declared that He had not come on behalf of good people, or holy people, or righteous people. He had come to reach sinners, morally sick folk; and He had come as the great Physician. As our Lord uttered these words in vindication of His attitude and activity, Matthew must have been conscious of a great satisfaction, that he had indeed understood the heart of Jesus, and that in his action his discipleship was vindicated as travelling on the way with his Lord, his action was in accord with His purposes.

        We may then ask what was the outcome of the finding of this man. The answer is found in his Gospel, wherein he became the Royal recorder, and wrote for his own people especially and through them for all men for all time the account that tells of the Redeemer Who is King, of the King Who is Redeemer; of the One Who came to regain the territory that had been blasted by sin, and bring it back into the place of beauty and of glory.

        In all these stories there are particular and peculiar applications, and it would seem to me that the first value of the account of Matthew is one for those who have been brought up in the atmosphere of religion, who have come to know very much about God and about Christ, but who have never committed themselves to Him and to His enterprises.

        There are crowds of such people around us in the world today. They are familiar with all the great facts of religion, familiar with the account of Christ Himself; yes, and in very many cases more than familiar. They are reverent, and oftentimes more than reverent, they are thoughtful and wondering.

        To such we declare that Christ is as actually passing by as He was in the case of Matthew. Moreover He is saying to every such halting man or woman, "Follow Me", cease your wondering, cease your questioning, cease your intellectual debating. Come and travel with Me, and find the answer to all your questionings in My comradeship.

        Thus the call of Jesus brings people face to face with all the processes of the past, which excellent in themselves, have yet led to nothing like finality of value or of power. It brings such processes to a crisis. When at the crisis there is quick and ready response, and obedience, complete surrender to the Lordship of Christ, then there follows such discovery as will lead on to an entirely new experience of life in all its power and all its glory.