Before the call of Matthew, Jesus had resided at Capernaum, had left it, and had gone back to it (Mk l-i- ^» 2') ; and it is .safe to conclude that Matthew, a dweller in or n.ear the city, had heard the fame of Jesus, and perhaps he may have been among those who souglit Kim (Mk 1^). Jesus, too, may have noticed the publican, and the fact may have led to the call. According to the narra- tive of that call, which is almo^rt identical in the Synoptics, Jesus said to him, ' P'.llow me,' and he arose and followed Him (Mt 9^). After the call and the answer there was a feast, fvobably to cele- brate the new departure in the life of the publican, at which Jesus met him and his friends.
Certain critics (of. Keim, Jems of Xazara, iii. 268 n.) take the words ?itKs ly-viTo oLvTov ctyocxuLciiou Ev TY, olxtct Qil^i "^^^) as indicat- ing that the house was that of Jesus'; but the/ can bear this interpretation only if taken in connexion with the preceding words, xa.1 avao-Tot; viXi>.ouf)r,irit ocuru. It is, however. HOt necGssary to establish this connexion, as the writer may sdniplv have made a sudden transition to a paragraph beginning xa.i iy'.y.ro.
* Le\i's father was not the father of James the Little (nf. Zahn, Einleitung, ii. 263).
^klATTHEW (GOSPEL)
MATTHEW (GOSPEL)
U3
If, on the other hand, the connexion must be made, then it is possible to take the narrative as recording that Matthew rose and followed Jesus to the house which belonjjed to Jesus. Jlk. does not indicate the o^xTiership of the house, while Lk. says distinctly that it was Levi's. If we accept the description of Mk. or Lk., we need not conclude that the feast followed imme- diately after the call, since it may ha\ e taken place just before the assembling: of the Twelve (Jlk 3i^, Lk &"), in the period between that event and the calling of the individual disciples.
At the feast were Jesus and His disciples, and at the table with them were many puldicans and sinners. These disciples were also many in num- ber (Mk 2'^), and they must therefore liave included others beyond the individuals who had been specially called. The sinners mentioned along with the pub- licans at the feast were those who violated the Law, or did not try to keep its innumerable com- mands as set forth by the scribes or interpreted bj- the Pharisees. Certain scribes and Pharisees' had been s^jectators of the feast, and they asked the disciples concerning Jesus' eating and drinking with sinners ; and Jesus Himself, answering them, declared that He had not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. The call of Mattliew and the feast with publicans and sinners were the comment of Jesus on Pharisaic separatism ; but the action itself did not prevent the separatism which showed itself in the primitive Church, and which involved the rebuke of Peter by Paul.
Beyond the call and the inclusion of the name in the list of the Twelve, there is no mention of Matthew in the NT. On the question of the authorship of the First Gospel, see following article.
LiTERATCRE. — Expos. Tinies, \-iii. [1897] 529 ; Expos, i. i. [1875] 36, III. i.\. [18S9] 445, v. \-iii. [1898] 37; Keble, Ckr. Year, 'S. Matthew the Apostle ' ; W. B. Carpenter, The Son of Man, p. 141 ; J. D. Jones, The Glorious Companij of the Apostles, p. 150.
John Herkless.
MATTHEW, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO.—' The
power of God unto salvation — to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.' — The Gospels of St. ^Matthew and St. Luke may be characterized respectively as the_JiQSEel_of the Jew and the Gospel of the Greek. St. Xuke gives us the conception of the Christ as His Person presented itself to the Greek Churches of the West. To them Christ was the Saviour of the world, the Di^-ine Redeemer, whose Good News was equally available for all the children of men, regardless of distinctions of race, or class, or sex. St. Matthew, on the other hand, presents to us the Christ as He was conceived by the Jewish Christians of Palestine. To them Christ was the King of Israel ; and the glad tidings of His coming Kingdom were intended first for the Chosen People. It was true that He had foretold the coming of many from the east and the west to sit down in the Kingdom of God (8"), and had bidden His Apostles baptize all nations (28^^) ; but then it had always been a part of the Divine plan to sutler aliens to enter as proselj'tes into the fold of Israel, and to partake of the bless- ings promised to the Chosen People. So it was to be with the new Israel. In the period of pre- paration for the Kingdom, the gospel was to be preached to all nations for a testimony (24^^), and those who entered by baptism into the Christian Chiu'ch would Ijecome members of that new Israel, which in the days of the Kingdom should be judged and governed by the twelve Apostles as viceroys of the King Messiah (19^).
Ot course the distinction here drawn makes itself felt in two respects. First, in the selection of material by the two writers. Each Evangelist has a certain amount of matter peculiar to himself ; and it Avill be found that whilst in the First Gospel this is very largely matter which lends itself to the Christianity of one who was glad to emphasize tire prior claim of the Jew to the blessings of the