INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I. LIFE OF ST MATTHEW. LEVI the son of Alphæus1 was a tax-gatherer at Capernaum. His special duty would be to collect tolls from the fisheries on the Lake, and perhaps from the merchants travelling southward from Damascus. One day Jesus coming up from the Lake side passed near the custom-house where Levi was seated in Oriental fashion, and He saith unto him, Follow me, and he arose and followed Him (ch. ix. 9). That Jesus ever addressed Levi before, we are not told; but it is reasonable to suppose that he was expecting the summons, that he was already a disciple of Jesus, and prepared as soon as Christ gave the word to leave all for His sake. At any rate, Levi must have heard of the Great Rabbi and of His preaching, and have already resolved to adopt the view of the kingdom of God which Jesus taught. When Levi became a follower of Jesus he changed his name from Levi to Matthew2, which means "the Gift of God," and is the same as the Greek name Theodore. This practice was not unusual, and may be illustrated by the instances of Saul and of Simon, who also adopted new names in the new life. The same day Matthew made a feast-perhaps a farewell feast to his old associates-to which he invited Jesus and His 1 Alphæus being also the name of the father of James the Apostle it has been conjectured that James and Matthew were brethren. This is of course possible, but can hardly be called probable. 2 This is indeed an inference, but one which is accepted by the best commentators to harmonize the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels with the "Matthew" of the first Gospel. disciples. We may conceive what a joyous banquet that was for Matthew, when for the first time as an eye-witness he marked the words and acts of Jesus, and stored within his memory the scene and the conversation which he was inspired to write according to his clerkly ability for the instruction of the Church in all after ages. After this Matthew is not once named in the Gospel history, except in the list of the Twelve; in the other Gospels he appears seventh on the list, in his own Gospel eighth-the last in the second division. In his own Gospel again-a further mark of humility-he designates himself as "Matthew the publican." His nearest companion seems to have been Thomas (whose surname Didymus has led to the belief that he was Matthew's twin-brother), and in the same group or division were Philip and Bartholomew. Such are the scanty details which the Gospels record of St Matthew. These few notices however suggest some inferences as to the religious position, character and teaching of the Evangelist. Since Capernaum was in the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, it may be inferred that Levi was an officer in the service of that prince, and not in the service of the Roman government, as is sometimes tacitly assumed. This is not unimportant in estimating the call and conversion of St Matthew. A Hebrew who entirely acquiesced in the Roman supremacy could hardly have done so at this period without abandoning the national hopes. Jesus alone knew the secret of reconciling the highest aspirations of the Jewish race with submission to Cæsar. But to acknowledge the Herodian dynasty was a different thing from bowing to Rome. Herod was at least not a foreigner and a Gentile in the same sense as the Roman. Idumea had coalesced with Israel. It is therefore conceivable that a Jew who was waiting for the Messiah's reign may in very despair have learned to look for the fulfilment of his hopes in the Herodian family. If it was impossible to connect Messianic thoughts with an Antipas, or even with the more reputable Philip, still might not a prince hereafter spring from that house to restore the kingdom to Israel? Might not God in His providence fuse in the Churches and nations of Christendom than others of his co-apostles, or even than many saints, whose services to the Church of Christ have been infinitely less. None of the great Churches of Christendom have been called by his name, no guild or fraternity, no college in our great Universities, no state or nation, has chosen him for a patron. Scarcely one famous picture has taught the lesson of his call. The personal memory, like the personal life of St Matthew, withdraws itself from the observation of men. CHAPTER II. AUTHORSHIP, ORIGIN AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL. 1. The authorship of the first Gospel has been ascribed by an unbroken tradition to the Apostle Matthew. 2. The date is uncertain. Irenæus however states that St Matthew wrote his Gospel when SS. Peter and Paul were founding the Church in Rome: and the fact that it was published first of the written Gospels rests upon early and uncontradicted testimony. The date of publication then should probably be fixed not many years after the Ascension. 3. St Matthew's Gospel was primarily intended for the use of the Jewish converts in Palestine. It is this fact that gives its special character to this Gospel. No other of the evangelists has so completely developed the idea that in Christ the nation lived again, that towards Christ all prophecy moved, that in Him all national aspirations were centred and satisfied. No other inspired writer has pictured so vividly the critical interest of the Messianic days as the meeting-point of the world's past and future. According to St Matthew Jesus is from first to last Christ the King, the King of whom all the prophets spake in the past, but He is also the one figure round whom the historical interest of the future was destined to gather. Hence the twofold aspect of this Gospel; on the one hand it is the most national and the most retrospective of the Gospels; on the other it is the most b ST MATTHEW universal and the most prophetic; in one sense St Matthew is more gentile than St Luke, in another he is truly a Hebrew of the Hebrews. The very depth of St Matthew's patriotism impels him to glory in the universality of the Messianic reign. The Kingdom of God must over-pass the limits of the Chosen race. Hence it is no matter of surprise that the Hebrew historian should alone commemorate the coming of the Magi and the refuge in Egypt, and that he and not St Luke should tell the story of the Canaanitish woman. The following points confirm the received account of the origin of this Gospel and indicate its special reference to the Jews. (1) The numerous quotations from prophecy. (2) The appeals to history as fulfilled in Christ. (3) The rare explanation of Jewish words and customs. (4) The strong and special denunciation of the Jews and of their rulers. (5) The special reference to the Law in the Sermon on the Mount. (6) The Genealogy traced from Abraham and David. (7) The Mission of the Seventy omitted. (8) The absence of Latin words, with very few exceptions. (9) The prominence given to the Jewish thought of a Kingdom of Heaven: (a) in the general scope of the Gospel; (b) in the parables; (c) in the account of the Passion. 4. The style of St Matthew's Gospel is sufficiently distinctive in the use of special words and idioms, in constructions and transitional particles1, to mark it as an original work, though in part derived from sources common to the other Synoptic Gospels. St Matthew has preserved faithfully and sympathetically the poetical beauty of the discourses of Christ; but in the descriptive passages his manner is less vivid and picturesque than St Mark's, more even and unvaried than St Luke's, whose diction is greatly influenced by the various sources whence he derived the details 1 A list of such peculiarities is collected in Smith's Bib. Dict., Vol. II. p. 277. |