Luke 5, Part Two

The calling of Matthew and the banquet at his home (vs. 27-32)—This story is also related in Matthew 9:9-12, and I’ll post my comments from there in just a moment. Luke refers to him as “Levi”; Matthew apparently liked calling himself “Matthew.” His name was obviously Matthew Levi. Some people had two names, others had one; usually, to distinguish individuals, they would be called “son of,” which would be “bar” or “bin.” “Simon bar Jonah” is the name Jesus used to refer to Peter in Matthew 16:17. Jesus would be known as “Jesus bin Joseph.” Or, as sometimes, the location of where they lived: “Jesus of Nazareth.” The problem with the latter is the “Jesus” was a pretty common name among the Hebrews; it could also be translated “Joshua.” So there was probably more than one “Jesus” in Nazareth. But He became so famous that people would know of whom they spoke when they referred to “Jesus.”

Anyway, back to the call of Matthew Levi. Here are my comments from Matthew 9:9-12: “Matthew was a tax collector, a despised profession to the Jews, who hated paying taxes to the Romans. Yet Jesus perceived something good in him, and called him to be an apostle. Matthew then made a great feast (Luke 5:23), and invited some of his friends—also tax collectors and “sinners,” to the Pharisees. Those self-righteous hypocrites couldn’t figure out why Jesus would eat with sinners. Jesus very logically responded that it is the sick who need healing—sinners are the ones who need salvation. He then quotes an Old Testament passage to them (Hosea 6:6): “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” As I discussed in detail in the Sermon on the Mount, inward purity, not outward ceremonialism is what God looks for. Those who are inwardly pure will indeed be obedient in all matters, including the “ceremonies.” But “ceremonialists” are not always pure in heart, indeed, in their own eyes, they don’t need to be. That was the Pharisaic problem, front and center.”

Fasting and the new law (vs. 33-39)—This is also found in Matthew 9, verses 10-13. Luke’s account is essentially the same but I have little to add to what I wrote in Matthew 9, which goes like this: “’Why don’t your disciples fast?’ Jesus was asked. Fasting was a vital part of the old law, but not of the new, and Jesus is trying to teach that here. Don’t try to put a new piece of cloth (the New Testament) on an old garment (the Old Testament). The same with new wine and old wineskins. They won’t match. Christianity is something new, not an extension of Judaism.” That last statement is the one that will eventually cause the rejection of Christianity by the mass of Jews. If the apostles had been willing to allow the rituals of the Law of Moses as part of Christianity, more Jews would doubtless have accepted it. But there was a clear break, as indicated by Paul’s writings—and Jesus’ statement here.