Is Levi from Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 referring to the apostle Matthew

Question

Both Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 mention a tax collector named Levi:

27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, 28 and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.

---

14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

It sounds like these could be referring to Matthew and I've seen some footnotes that offer that as a possibility (or even as likely) but are there any good reasons to believe that this is or is not referring to Matthew?

Answer 1

It is almost certain that this person is Matthew. In the parallel account of this narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, we see that Levi appears to be "renamed" Matthew.

Matthew 9:9 (NIV)

⁹As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.

It is unknown why Levi is called Matthew in this gospel. Like all the gospels, Matthew is actually an anonymous document, and our attribution of it to Matthew is based on the consensus of Church Fathers in the 2nd century. However, it appears that whoever wrote the gospel (hereafter called the evangelist) wants to show that Levi is the Matthew listed in the Twelve (cf Matthew 10:3).

This could be "...because the writer believed that Levi was or should have been one of the twelve, or is it perhaps because in writing of himself he preferred the name Matthew to his own pre-conversion name, Levi?" [Hagner, Introduction, lxxvi].

Though there are theories that claim the evangelist is playing with names, it must be said that it is very unlikely that he would get away with substituting the name Levi for Matthew if they were not the same person. It is not unusual for individuals in 1st century Israel to have more than one name. For example, it seems that another member of the twelve is known by two names: Jude, was also known by the name Thaddeus. (See Mark 3:16-19 vs Luke 6:14-16)

Suffice it to say, that the vast majority of scholars suggest that the "Levi" of Mark 2 and Luke 5 is indeed the Matthew of Matthew 9. Why the evangelist sought to enlighten his readers to this is speculative.

---

Sources:

Hagner, D. A., Word Biblical Commentary - Matthew 1-13, Nelson, 1993.

Cole, A., Mark, IVP, 2008

Nolland, J., Word Biblical Commentary - Luke 1-9:20, Nelson, 1989

Answer 2

It's more likely Matthew and Levi were different disciples than the same. A number of the disciples had other names like we do today, however, the Gospels refer to James the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18) as a different disciple from Matthew (Mark 3:18). The Bible also mentions a disciple : "Levi the son of Alphaeus" (Mark 2:14). It's more likely this James and Levi are the same person rather than Matthew and Levi.

Recall, the Gospels also mention "Simon the Caananite" as well as "Simon Zealotes". It is from the different lists of the twelve that we know they are the same person.

So I believe that there were two "receivers of the custom" amongst the disciples because Levi the son of Alphaeus is also mentioned as sitting at the "receipt of the custom" (Mark 2:14).

Answer 3

It is highly unlikely that Matthew and Levi were the same person.
Richard Bauckham goes into more detail on this in his book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" but I will summarize it. It is true that a lot of people had two names in this historical context, but they were usually used for two reasons:

1. Having a Greek/Latin name next to a Semitic name
2. A person having an uncommon nickname next to his common name to differentiate himself from the other people with the same name.

"Levi" and "Matthew" are both very common Semitic names. It practically never happened elsewhere that a person bore two common Semitic names and it wouldn't make much sense because it wouldn't distinguish the person in any way.

Answer 4

Even if "Matthew" is a semitic name, it doesn't negate the possibility of name changing. The name changing from a semitic name to another one is not unusual. We recognize the name changing of Abram to Abraham and Simon to Cepha. Why not Levi to Matthew (Mattija? = Gift of Yahweh)?

Moreover, the fact that the name Levi was mentioned only once in the story of his calling, and never again, it doesn't necessarily means he quit. A lot of names were mentioned only once in the Scripture, and among them, Jesus' disciples. To name a few: Joseph of Arimathaea, Simon and the other disciple from the Emmaus journey, most of the deacons. Even the three siblings: Martha, Mary and Lazarus only appear in the gospels.

Answer 5

Mark, the first New Testament gospel to be written, mentions both Levi and Matthew separately, referring to Levi, son of Alphaeus, as a tax collector whom Jesus called to follow him (Mark 2:14). So, we can identify Levi from two facts, that his father was called Alphaeus and that he was a tax collector (publican). As in Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27 also says Levi rose and followed Jesus, but he is never again mentioned in either gospel. The two gospels introduce the twelve disciples (Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:14-16), including Matthew, Thaddaeus, and James, son of Alphaeus, but there is no mention of Levi. These lists do have a son of Alphaeus, although this disciple's name is James, but they do not have a tax collector (publican).

Matthew first appears in both gospels in the full list of disciples (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), but neither gospel says he was a tax collector, or that he was the son of Alphaeus and therefore brother of James, son of Alphaeus. Mark sets a precedent by describing another James and John as brothers, and Luke follows suit also mentioning Simon and Andrew as brothers in the same list, making the failure to mention that Matthew and (the second) James were brothers a puzzling omission if that were the case. The conclusion to be drawn at this stage is that Matthew was not the son of Alphaeus, although we know Levi was, so one possibility is that he changed his mind after first following Jesus.

Disciples are not meant to change their minds when called by Jesus, an issue that the author of Matthew recognises and then creates a solution. The anonymous author resolves Levi's unexplained absence among the disciples simply by not mentioning Levi at all, and by having Matthew as the disciple who was a tax collector, in the parallel account at Matthew 9:9, then including him as "Matthew the publican" in the list of disciples at Matthew 10:3. What Matthew fails to do is portray Matthew as the son of Alphaeus, or the brother of James the son of Alphaeus. The only possible reason for Matthew's portrayal of Matthew as a tax collector is one of apologetics, to resolve the continuing absence of Levi, but I believe this is unconvincing. Either Matthew was the son of Alphaeus and brother of James or he was not, and Matthew's author does not suggest that when you could expect him to have done so. Almost two thousand years of tradition have followed Matthew in holding that Levi and Matthew must be the same person, but this happens only in Matthew's Gospel, not in either Luke or Mark.