Smoodock's Blog

Matthew’s call is noted by the other Synoptics, as it is here, However, he’s called Levi, the son of Alphaeus in Mark (Mark 2:14) and Levi, the publican in Luke (Luke 5:27)! How do we know this, and, if it is true, how certain are we of its veracity? First of all, all three records agree to the circumstances of the call, but differ only in the name of the man. Secondly, it isn’t surprising that folks were known by different names. For example, Jesus surnamed Simon, the son of Jonah, Peter (John 1:40-42; Matthew 16:17), and most folks know him by Peter, not Simon. Yet, in formal gatherings he was still known as Simon or Simeon (Acts 15:7, 13-14).[1]

Some critics balk at the calling of Matthew, because he so suddenly and willingly left all he had (Luke 5:28) to follow Jesus. They conclude that what Matthew did was a rash act, changing his course of life to follow someone he hardly knew. Yet, there is no reason to believe this is so. Matthew was under the employ of Herod Antipas and was stationed at Capernaum, where Jesus lived. Not only would Jesus have paid his taxes at his toll booth, but both men lived in the same city. If the multitudes knew and followed Jesus around looking for another miracle to be performed, it is hardly unreasonable that Matthew would have been the only person in Capernaum who never heard of Jesus, assuming, of course, that they didn’t know each other prior to Jesus’ public ministry and Matthew’s call, which the critics only assume and, so, lack evidence for their claims.

Furthermore, it is hardly unreasonable that Matthew never witnessed one of Jesus’ teaching sessions. It is evident that Matthew was a learned man, and curiosity over the unexplainable miracles might be something he wanted to investigate and perhaps disprove. Certainly, the learned scribes and Pharisees didn’t like admitting to Jesus’ miracles. The fact that Matthew was a publican and, therefore, virtually ostracized by Jewish society, seems to imply he was not a religious man, and we all know how irreligious folks like to find fault with religious people today; the two are natural enemies. However, although logical, if my interpretation of the text is correct, making Matthew a converted enemy of Jesus is also an assumption. Yet, all of the above are possibilities, and no one, including the critics, have a right to be dogmatic about any of it, but one of these explanations, or something similar, must be true, if the Gospel narrative is true.

Perhaps, just about as important as any of the questions above, why single out Matthew’s call? He is mentioned only here and in the four lists of the twelve Apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The name, Levi, is found where Jesus calls him (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), and Luke adds that it was Levi who made a feast for Jesus (Luke 5:29). So, why was his call more important or noteworthy than the call of Thomas, Bartholomew or Simon the Zealot, or even Judas. Wouldn’t it be interesting to know the circumstances surrounding his call?

Once again, we cannot be dogmatic, because nothing is mentioned in the text that would enlighten us about those circumstances. Perhaps, we find details of Matthew’s call, because folks who were asked to believe the Gospel of Jesus should know about the person who narrates Jesus’ public life and deeds. Certainly, today, we put something “about the author” in just about every book sold in bookstores. Therefore, Matthew may have inserted his call, as a way of introducing himself, as a “for what it is worth” explanation, vis-à-vis he was a publican, whose Gospel narrative was written particularly to Jews to prove Jesus was the Messiah! Once again, we can’t be dogmatic about this, but it is a reasonable explanation.

______________________________________________________________

[1] I have three names by which I’m known by certain classes of folks, and sometimes the one group doesn’t know the names I’m known by with the folks of other groups. My given (legal) name is Edward (Ed to most folks), but my father gave me the surname Murph. I grew up with a cousin who was my age, and we attended the same class at school. Some of my schoolmates from other classes didn’t know my given name, but everyone at school knew me by my surname, which my Dad gave me. I was called Murph by my family and friends. I have another surname, Boomer, which I received under negative circumstances at work. Some folks hired after me didn’t know my given name but everyone at work knew me by Boomer.