THE MAN WHOM ALL MEN HATED

THERE was never a more unlikely candidate for the office of apostle than Matthew. Matthew was what the Authorized Version calls a publican; the publicani were tax-gatherers, and were so called because they dealt with public money and with public funds.

The problem of the Roman government was to devise a system whereby the taxes could be collected as efficiently and as cheaply as possible. They had done so by auctioning the right to collect taxes in a certain area. A man bought the right to collect the taxes within a certain district; he was responsible to the Roman government for an agreed sum; anything he could raise over and above that he was allowed to keep as commission. Obviously this system lent itself to grave abuses. People did not really know how much they ought to pay in the days before newspapers and wireless announcements and the widespread diffusion of news; nor had they any right of appeal against the tax-collector. The consequence was that many a tax-collector became a wealthy man through his illegal extortion. This system had led to so many abuses that in Palestine it had been brought to an end before the time of Jesus, but taxes still had to be paid, and there were still abuses.

There were three great stated taxes. There was a ground tax by which a man had to pay one-tenth of his grain and one-fifth of his fruit and vine to the government either in cash or in kind. There was income tax, which was one per cent of a man's income. There was a poll-tax which had to be paid by every male from the age of fourteen to the age of sixty-five, and by every female from the age of twelve to sixty-five. These were statutory taxes and could not well be used by tax-collectors for private profit. But in addition to these taxes there were all sorts of other taxes. There was a duty of anything from 2 ½ per cent to 12 ½ per cent on all goods imported and exported. A tax had to be paid to travel on main roads, to cross bridges, to enter market-places and towns or harbours. There was a tax on pack animals, and a tax on the wheels and axles of carts. There were purchase taxes on goods bought and sold. There were certain commodities which were government monopolies. For instance, in Egypt the trade in nitrate, beer, and papyrus was entirely in government control. Although the old method of auctioning the taxes had been stopped, all kinds of people were needed to collect these taxes. The people who collected them were drawn from the provincials themselves. Often they were volunteers. Usually in any district one person was responsible for one tax, and it was not difficult for such a person to line his own pockets in addition to collecting the taxes which were legally due.

These tax-gatherers were universally hated. They had entered the service of their country's conquerors, and they amassed their fortunes at the expense of their country's misfortunes. To use a modern term, they were quislings. They were notoriously dishonest. Not only did they fleece their own countrymen, but they also did their best to swindle the government, and they made a flourishing income by taking bribes from rich people who wished to avoid taxes which they should have paid. Every country hates its tax-gatherers, but the hatred of the Jews for them was doubly violent. The Jews were fanatical nationalists. But what roused the Jews more than anything else was their religious conviction that God alone was king, and that to pay any taxes to any mortal ruler was an infringement of God's rights and an insult to His majesty. By Jewish law a tax-gatherer was debarred from the synagogue; he was included with things and beasts unclean and Leviticus  20: 5 was applied to them; he was forbidden to be a witness in any case; "robbers, murderers and tax-gatherers” were classed together. When Jesus called Matthew, He called a man whom all men hated. Here is one of the greatest instances in the New Testament of Jesus' power to see in a man, not only what he was, but also that which he could be. No one ever had such faith in the possibilities of human nature as Jesus had.

A CHALLENGE ISSUED AND RECEIVED

CAPERNAUM was in the territory of Herod Antipas, and in all probability Matthew was not directly in the service of the Romans. He was in the service of Herod. Capernaum was a great meeting place of roads. In particular the great road from Egypt to Damascus, the Way of the Sea, passed through Capernaum. It was there that it entered the dominion of Herod for business purposes; and no doubt Matthew was one of these Customs Officers who exacted the duty on all goods and commodities as they entered and left the territory of Herod.

It is not to be thought that Matthew had never seen Jesus before. No doubt Matthew had heard about this young Galilean who came with a message which was breathtakingly new, who spoke with an authority the like of which no one had ever heard before, and who numbered amongst His friends men and women from whom the orthodox good people of the day would have shrunk in loathing. No doubt Matthew had listened on the outskirts of the crowd, and had felt his heart stir within him. Perhaps Matthew had wondered wistfully if even yet it was not too late to set sail and to seek a newer world, to leave his old life and his old shame and to begin again. So he found Jesus standing before him; so he heard Jesus issue His challenge; and Matthew accepted that challenge and rose up and left all and followed Him.

We must note what Matthew lost and what Matthew found. He lost a comfortable job, but he found a destiny. He lost a good income, but he found honour. He lost a comfortable security, but he found an adventure the like of which he had never dreamed. It may be that if we accept the challenge of Christ, we shall find ourselves poorer in material things. It may be that the worldly ambitions will have to go. But beyond doubt we will find a peace and a joy and a thrill in life that we never knew before. In Jesus Christ, a man finds a wealth beyond anything that he may have to abandon for the sake of Christ.

We must note what Matthew left and what Matthew took. He left his tax-collector's table; but from it he took one thing with him - his pen. Here is a shining example of how Jesus can use whatever gift a man may bring to him. It is not likely that the others of the Twelve were handy with a pen. Galilean fishermen would not have much skill in writing or in putting words together. But Matthew had; and this man, whose trade had taught him to use a pen, used that pen to compose the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus, which must rank as one of the most important books the world has ever read.

When Matthew left that tax-collector's table that day he gave up much in the material sense, but in the spiritual sense he became heir to a fortune.

Jesus did not only call Matthew to be His man and His follower; He actually sat at table with men and women like Matthew, with tax-gatherers and sinners. A very interesting question arises here - where was this meal where Jesus ate with tax-gatherers and sinners? It is only Luke who definitely says that the meal was in the house of Matthew or Levi (cp. Matthew 9: 10-13; Mark 2: 14-17; Luke 5: 27-32). As far as the narrative in Matthew and Mark goes, this meal could well have been in Jesus' house, or in the house where Jesus was staying. If the meal was in Jesus' house, Jesus' saying becomes even more pointed. Jesus said, "I did not come to invite the righteous, but sinners." The word that is used for to invite is the Greek word kalein, which is in fact the technical Greek word for inviting a guest to a house or to a meal. In the Parable of the Great Feast (Matthew 22: 1-10; Luke 14: 15-24) we well remember how the invited guests refused their invitation, and how the poor, and the lame, and the halt, and the blind were gathered together from the highways and the byways and the hedgerows to sit at the table of the King. It may well be that Jesus is saying, "When you make a feast you invite the coldly orthodox and the piously self-righteous; when I make a feast I invite those who are most conscious of their sin and those whose need of God is greatest." However that may be, whether this meal was in the house of Matthew or in the house where Jesus was staying, it was to the orthodox Scribes and Pharisees a most shocking proceeding. Broadly speaking, in Palestine people were divided into two sections. There were the orthodox who rigidly kept the Law in every petty detail and regulation; and there were the people who did not keep the petty regulations of the Law. The second were classed as the people of the land; and it was forbidden to the orthodox to go on a journey with them, to do any business with them, to give anything to them or to receive anything from them, to entertain them as guests or to I be guests in their houses. By companying with people like this Jesus was doing something which the pious people of His day would never have done.

Jesus' defence was perfectly simple; He simply said that He went where the need was greatest. He would be a poor doctor who visited only houses where people enjoyed good health; the doctor's place is the house of those who are ill; it is his glory and his task to go to those who need him. Diogenes was one of the great teachers of ancient Greece. He was a man who loved virtue, and a man with a caustic tongue. He was never tired of comparing the decadence of Athens, where he spent most of his time, with the strong simplicities of Sparta. One day someone said to him, " If you think so much of Sparta and so little of Athens, who don't you leave Athens and go and stay in Sparta? " His answer was, "Whatever I may wish to do, I must stay where men need me most." It was sinners who needed Jesus, and amongst sinners He would move.

When Jesus said, " I did not come to invite the righteous, but sinners," we must understand what He was saying. He was not saying that there were some people who were so good that they had no need of anything which He could give; still less was He saying that He was not interested in people who were good. This is a highly compressed saying. Jesus was saying, " I did not come to invite people who are so self-satisfied that they are convinced of their own goodness and that they do not need anyone's help; I came to invite people who are very conscious, of their sin and desperately aware of their need for a saviour." He was saying, " It is only those who know how much they need me who can accept my invitation."

These Scribes and Pharisees had a view of religion which is by no means dead.

(i) They were more concerned with the preservation of their own holiness than with the helping of another's sin. They were like doctors who refused to visit the sick lest they should be injured by some infection. They shrank away in fastidious disgust from the sinner; they did not want anything to do with people like that. Essentially their religion was selfish; they were much more concerned to save their own souls than to save the souls of others. And they had forgotten that that was the surest way to lose their own souls.

(ii) They were more concerned with criticism than with encouragement. They were far more concerned to point out the faults of other people than to help them to conquer these faults. When a doctor sees some particularly loathsome disease, which would turn the stomach of anyone else to look at, he is not filled with disgust; he is filled with the desire to help. Our first instinct should never be to condemn the sinner; our first instinct should be to help him.

(iii) They practised a goodness which issued in condemnation rather than in forgiveness and in sympathy. They would rather leave a man in the gutter than give him a hand to get out of it. They were like doctors who were very much concerned to diagnose and to recognize disease, but who were not in the least concerned to help to cure it. They were much more concerned to look down with contempt rather than to help in sympathy.

(iv) They practised a religion which consisted of outward orthodoxy rather than in practical help. Jesus loved that saying from Hosea 6: 6 which said that God desired mercy and not sacrifice, for He quoted it more than once (cp. Matthew 12:7). A man may diligently go through all the motions of orthodox piety, but if his hand is never stretched out to help the sinner and the man in need, he is not a religious man.