Was The Apostle Matthew Excommunicated?

[Duncan]

There I was reading the Bible Dictionary when lo and behold I was reading the subject heading on Publicans, which reads

"Men who bought or farmed the taxes under the Roman government were called publicani. The name is also used to describe those who actually collected the money, and who were properly called portitores. Both classes were detested by the Jews, and any Jew who undertook the work was excommunicated. Many of the tax-gatherers in Galilee would be in the service of Herod and not of Rome"

 

We know that the Apostle Matthew was a tax collector, so do you think he would have been excommunicated?

[The Nehor]

If he was not then he was when he became a Christian.

[Uncle Dale]

There I was reading the Bible Dictionary when lo and behold I was reading the subject heading on Publicans, which reads

"Men who bought or farmed the taxes under the Roman government were called publicani. The name is also used to describe those who actually collected the money, and who were properly called portitores. Both classes were detested by the Jews, and any Jew who undertook the work was excommunicated. Many of the tax-gatherers in Galilee would be in the service of Herod and not of Rome"

We know that the Apostle Matthew was a tax collector, so do you think he would have been excommunicated?

Kinda depends on what you mean by that word.

Once a Jew, always a Jew -- was (and is) the popular maxim. Supposing

there was a Jew named Matthew, he probably did not qualify for admission

to the Temple anyway. It was not the sort of privilege a pious Jew would

have given up, just to serve the Romans.

Would he have been shunned? -- probably by many Judeans.

Would he have been cast out of his home village? -- possibly.

Would he have been denied admission to a synagogue? -- depends.

He could have lingered at the synagogue door, along with the

interested Gentiles.

Other "disreputable" Jews would have traded with him, rented him

a place to live (if he had not inherited one), and provided company.

But -- suppose he had been among the followers of John the Baptizer,

or had an affiliation with the Qumranim, or with the Essenes -- would

such sects have "excommunicated" him? Maybe so.

There really were no "Christians" back then -- unless we skip ahead

in history to the period after Paul had established congregations in

places like Antioch.

Would "St." Paul have excommunicated an actual, in-the-flesh, disciple

of Jesus? The sort of fellow Saul/Paul would have called a "Judaizer?"

I wouldn't put it past him...

UD

Edited April 27, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[bluebell]

Excommunicated from the Jewish religion? If he had been the scriptures probably would have alluded to it but who knows for sure.

[Duncan]

Excommunicated from the Jewish religion? If he had been the scriptures probably would have alluded to it but who knows for sure.

 

yeah, it seems like one of those things where the record doesn't say specifically but other sources say this and so we infer that he was exed but he may not have actually been

[katherine the great]

I don't think Jews practiced excommunication in that a person would have their "Jewishness" removed. If his mother was Jewish and then he was Jewish. I think probably as uncle Dale said there would have been restrictions on his ability to participate in Jewish religious life.

[halconero]

I can try to find the source once I get home, but one thing to consider is that save for one or two groups, most Jewish traditions stem from Rabbinc Judaism, which have the Pharisees as their forebears. Previous to the temple's destruction, Judaism consisted of several disparate schools of thought, the synagogues, schools, and meetings of which WOULD excommunicate people from them. It should not be seen as an equivalent of our form of excommunication. In fact...almost the opposite. Whereas we would consider their covenant abrogated, but encourage them to remain, the excommunication practiced by these Jewish schools of thought would consist of barring participation on the synagogue's activities.

[Glenn101]

I can try to find the source once I get home, but one thing to consider is that save for one or two groups, most Jewish traditions stem from Rabbinc Judaism, which have the Pharisees as their forebears. Previous to the temple's destruction, Judaism consisted of several disparate schools of thought, the synagogues, schools, and meetings of which WOULD excommunicate people from them. It should not be seen as an equivalent of our form of excommunication. In fact...almost the opposite. Whereas we would consider their covenant abrogated, but encourage them to remain, the excommunication practiced by these Jewish schools of thought would consist of barring participation on the synagogue's activities.

I think that the Sanhedrin was the only Jewish authority that could excommunicate a person from the faith. The Grand Sanhefrin had supreme legal and religious authority among the Jews. The Pharisees and Sadducees could presumably declare who could be in their particular sect, but not who could be a member of the faith.

 

I imagine there might have been repercussions from the Romans if all of the Jews who worked for the Romans had been excommunicated. However, emotionally and socially shunning a person was probably just as effective.

 

I could be wrong about this. I am no expert on Jewish history.

 

Glenn

[Robert F. Smith]

I think that the Sanhedrin was the only Jewish authority that could excommunicate a person from the faith. The Grand Sanhefrin had supreme legal and religious authority among the Jews. The Pharisees and Sadducees could presumably declare who could be in their particular sect, but not who could be a member of the faith.

 

I imagine there might have been repercussions from the Romans if all of the Jews who worked for the Romans had been excommunicated. However, emotionally and socially shunning a person was probably just as effective.

 

I could be wrong about this. I am no expert on Jewish history.

 

Glenn

Sects such as the Essenes (Theraputae) had very strict rules of admission and membership and would very quickly excommunicate if certain rules were broken.  Any synagogue could apply the same supervision of members.  Conversion to all Jewish sects was by immersion baptism (mikveh) and circumcision, rules which also applied in early Christianity (since it was a Jewish sect at first).

[Bob Crockett]

Sects such as the Essenes (Theraputae) had very strict rules of admission and membership and would very quickly excommunicate if certain rules were broken.  Any synagogue could apply the same supervision of members.  Conversion to all Jewish sects was by immersion baptism (mikveh) and circumcision, rules which also applied in early Christianity (since it was a Jewish sect at first).

Why do you sign on to the term "excommunicate"?   Did the Jews offer communion?

[Uncle Dale]

Why do you sign on to the term "excommunicate"?   Did the Jews offer communion?

I suppose that Christians developed their own concept

of "communion," but in late second temple Judaism,

the nearest concept would have been continued

socialization under the Mosaic covenant. There were

also periodic feasts and rituals that an "excommunicated"

Jew might have been barred from attending.

Besides experieces reserved for inside of the temple

enclosure, there was also the annual Passover meal

and a somewhat similar ritual meal participated in

by relatives and friends of a deceased Jew. This is

mentioned in Jeremiah -- as in the Christian Holy

Communion, the bread is taken before the wine. An

"excommunicated" Jew would not have been accepted

at such periodic gatherings.

On the other hand, if there really was a Jesus, and

there really was an "excommunicated" Matthew, it

seems safe to assume that he would have been

invited (and probably himself hosted) any remembrance

meals held in Jesus' honor.

If that is what is meant by "communion," then a Matthew

would have enjoyed table fellowship with the only

sub-community of Jews that was important to him.

Same goes for Passover, etc.

UD

[Hillel2]

As pointed out above, once a jew by maternal lineage or halachic conversion, always a jew. In theory one can break every rule in the book and remain a jew although the penalties in this world and the world to come would be very severe. The Bible speaks of "keret" or "being "cut off" from one's people. It could be incured for eating leavened breach during the feast of unleavened bread or for violating the family purity laws, e.g. The penalty was incurred ipso facto or, imposed formally by a jewish court. In the middle ages the rabbis would impose the "kherem" or "ban" as in the ban on canaanite cities. Last person i recall being banned was baruch spinoza who got too free wheeling with his theorizing. In any event keret and kherem are not common practices against individuals and would require a trial. We are not to lend money for interest to our own people. If Matthew did this it could have been seen as a violation of Torah but formal exclusion would have taken some time. Moreover, once invoked, it is social death. Think of the meidung among the Amish. Matthew would not have been able to function in a jewish millieu. What is the greek for the above cited term? I think it might be a term not equivalent to english "excommunicated."

[Robert F. Smith]

Why do you sign on to the term "excommunicate"?   Did the Jews offer communion?

It is the traditional Jewish term.  For example, Baruch Spinoza was excommunicated on July 27, 1656, in Amsterdam.  Following is a translation of the council's formal declaration in Spanish:

 

“The members of the council do you to wit that they have long known of the evil opinions and doings of Baruch de Espinoza, and have tried by diverse methods and promises to make him turn from his evil ways. As they have not succeeded in effecting his improvement, but, on the contrary, have received every day more information about the horrible heresies which he practised and taught, and other enormities which he has committed, and as they had many trustworthy witnesses of this, who have deposed and testified in the presence of the said Spinoza, and have convicted him; and as all this has been investigated in the presence of the Rabbis, it has been resolved with their consent that the said Espinoza should be anathematised and cut off from the people of Israel, and now he is anathematised with the following anathema: 

 

"With the judgment of the angels and with that of the saints, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and of all this holy congregation, before these sacred Scrolls of the Law, and the six hundred and thirteen precepts which are proscribed therein, we anathematise, cut off, execrate, and curse Baruch de Espinoza with the anathema wherewith Joshua anathematised Jericho, with the curse wherewith Elishah cursed the youths, and with all the curses which are written in the Law: cursed be he by day, and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lieth down, and cursed be he when he riseth up; cursed be he when he goeth out, and cursed be he when he cometh in; the Lord will not pardon him; the wrath and fury of the Lord will be kindled against this man, and bring down upon him all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law; and the Lord will destroy his name from under the heavens; and, to his undoing, the Lord will cut him off from all the tribes of Israel, with all the curses of the firmament which are written in the Book of the Law; but ye that cleave unto the Lord your God live all of you this day! 

 

“We ordain that no one may communicate with him verbally or in writing, nor show him any favour, nor stay under the same roof with him, nor be within four cubits of him, nor read anything composed or written by him.”

[mfbukowski]

Good grief!

[mfbukowski]

Why do you sign on to the term "excommunicate"?   Did the Jews offer communion?

Certainly we "commune" with each other in an effort to "communicate" with others in our "community", and find others with whom we have something in "common", without having any implications of anything associated with the Eucharist.