Does Matthew 28:20 really guarantee that the early Christian Church would not go a stray?

[josephback]

I’m most certainly not a scholar of Biblical Greek and only used a few links to put forward my argument. However, I did refer to the original Greek “completion of the age” from the interlinear website.

Several verses in the Bible refer to a future falling away from the truth.

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock

2 Thessalonians 2:2,3 not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,” or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition

2 Timothy 4:3,4 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

Regarding why Jesus would support his church for a only finite period of time we can turn to Revelation 2 where the Ephesians are warned to repent or they would suffer the consequences of their wickedness.

Revelation 2:4,5 Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

People will fall away and there will be heresies in every age, but Mormonism says that the Church ceased to exist and had to be restored (correct me if I’m wrong), which is a very serious thing indeed. Understand that I don’t mean what I say as a personal attack(I’m going through a cynical flippant stage), but serious claims demand extraordinary proofs. If what Joseph Smith or any other restoration type leader has claimed actually happened, it would sooner disprove Christianity than prove the veracity of that particular sect. It’s not personal.

 

[tamedlion]

When you take a word written in another language and apply all the meanings of it to a sentence w/o proper knowledge, you end up in a mess. That’s why Christ left one church until the end of time to make proper interpretations until we enter into eternity and time is no more.
The same problem is caused by the word “until” in the case of blessed mother Mary’s virginity after the birth of Our Lord. There are countless denominations today that have formed just because of this little “until” word.

 

[John_Martin]

Is not God the Author of the Bible as the humans were inspired, inerrant Word of God?

To answer the OP, I understand Matthew 28:20 to be a promise given to His followers (Christians) after the Great Commandment to be with them/us that He will be with us to the end of the age. That, in context with verses 16-19, He will be there for us. He doesn’t promise that our lives will free from strife, rather, because of the authority given to Him in heaven and the earth, He will be with us, as we work to follow through on His commandment teaching and baptizing others in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You are Lutheran, following the teachings of a man who took the Bible with him upon leaving the Church and modified its contents for you, thus “rewriting the book to his own reasons” -

The authority of the content of the teaching of Christ was granted to his apostles with the promise of the Holy Spirit to them, to bring to remembrance all Christ taught them. And it is they, the Church, and they only who have the correct understanding. What did the Ethiopian say to Philip? “How can I understand unless someone explains it?” And Philip explained (the Church explained to this man who was outside the Church, and then was granted entrance into the Church by Baptism). The disciples on the way to Emmaus - Jesus appeared and explained to them from the Law and Prophets how it was necessary that he should suffer, die, and rise - (The Head of the Church explains to them, and then they understand the true meaning of the Bible)

If they Bible were, as you say it is, then why do you not read Wisdom, or Tobit, or Judith, or Maccabees, etc.? What “authority” do you claim for knowing what is part of the Bible? You have none prior to 1520 AD

Jesus himself is the only Word of God, and his Body put together its Scripture as moved by its Head, and only his Body can correctly interpret its meaning as moved by its Head.

 

[Lucretius]

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18).

Whatever else we argue this means, it must mean that the true Church will never be completely destroyed.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

We should be careful not to literally translate a Greek/Aramaic idom. For example, in the Glory Be in Latin:

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

In saecula saeculorum literally translates to “in the ages of ages” but what they actaully mean in English is something like “for ever and ever.” Be careful with literal translations: we might have a similar issue with Christ’s Words here.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I would ask you Gazelam, did Hell prevail over the body of Christ? That is, did Hell prevail over Christ’s bride the Church?

When it comes to the idea of a great apostasy I really do question God’s wisdom in choosing men (apostles) who would fail in the task of establishing the Church. We see the apostles going around establishing communities, appointing Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons, being very concerned with how the churches ought to organize themselves. That hand of the apostles was felt by the second century church who tried to live according to what they had received.

That in the end wasn’t good enough apparently and the Church quickly apostatized (if Mormonism were true) it seems by the time of the death of John. We were then completely devoid of any spiritual blessings which mean something, devoid of sacraments, devoid of apostolic authority, devoid of truth until Joseph Smith came 1800 or so years later.

Is it unfair to ask why God didn’t see it fit to preserve what he established directly with Christ and his apostles but now sees it as necessary to establish what he has established not with Christ, but with an inferior Prophet who had (as many Mormons would admit) great moral and theological errors in his own practice of the religion?

Mormons have not recognised this implication because it challenges the very core of their religion.

 

[TonyBS]

Nonsense. Jesus clearly warned us of false prophets. Mat 24:11. And Mat 24:14 said plainly “this gospel of the kingdom…will be preached to all nations; and then the end will come.” As you can see, there is no room for other gospels from then till the end. Anyone not preaching “this gospel” is hence a false prophet. Mohammed is not preaching “this gospel”.

Yes many accept Nonsense as Gospel Understanding.

It is Good Muhammad cleared up The misconceptions that many still hold to.

As you can see, always at least two sides to a story and you have chosen your path to which you stand before God with. As per the OP, it is not guaranteed your stance is the right one.

Regards Tony

 

[spedteacherita]

You are Lutheran, following the teachings of a man who took the Bible with him upon leaving the Church and modified its contents for you, thus “rewriting the book to his own reasons” -

The authority of the content of the teaching of Christ was granted to his apostles with the promise of the Holy Spirit to them, to bring to remembrance all Christ taught them. And it is they, the Church, and they only who have the correct understanding. What did the Ethiopian say to Philip? “How can I understand unless someone explains it?” And Philip explained (the Church explained to this man who was outside the Church, and then was granted entrance into the Church by Baptism). The disciples on the way to Emmaus - Jesus appeared and explained to them from the Law and Prophets how it was necessary that he should suffer, die, and rise - (The Head of the Church explains to them, and then they understand the true meaning of the Bible)

If they Bible were, as you say it is, then why do you not read Wisdom, or Tobit, or Judith, or Maccabees, etc.? What “authority” do you claim for knowing what is part of the Bible? You have none prior to 1520 AD

Jesus himself is the only Word of God, and his Body put together its Scripture as moved by its Head, and only his Body can correctly interpret its meaning as moved by its Head.

Wow. I didn’t realize that the question in the OP was intended to have my answer be dismissed summarily just because I’m a Lutheran. I answered the question honestly and, I knew that it would not be one that the Roman Catholic Church would teach. I’m not here to argue but to learn. My faith in Jesus is very important to me - I believe that I am to be sharing Jesus to others and that, as He states in Matthew 18:20, He will be with me and all others who work to share what He did for all of us on Calvary. I look forward to the day that all of us who are followers of Christ will finally be home with Him in heaven.

God be with you, me and all other Christians as we work to spread the message of the Word. Blessings to you,

Rita

 

[ericc]

Yes many accept Nonsense as Gospel Understanding.

It is Good Muhammad cleared up The misconceptions that many still hold to.

As you can see, always at least two sides to a story and you have chosen your path to which you stand before God with. As per the OP, it is not guaranteed your stance is the right one.

Regards Tony

You are the one that brought up Mohammed in the Bible. You offer nothing to support your claim. Instead of bringing the OP in ,why don’t you defend YOUR side of your story. I have searched through the Bible, and there is no mention of Mohammed. The words of Jesus as I have shown has no place for the gospel of Mohammed. Mohammed’s words are actually anti-gospel as he denies Christ resurrection. How can he clear anything up by teaching denial of Christ resurrection? All Muslim exegesis on Christ resurrection is to deny that Christ died and rose again on the third day. All Muslim exegesis deny Christ is God. How can the Bible deny itself? That is the basis of our faith. That’s why I said your proposition is nonsense. Are you aware of what Mohammed taught about Christ? I am sure you do.

I guarantee nothing. I am just quoting what Jesus said in the Bible. If you think what I quoted is wrong, I welcome your rebuttal. My original response to you is to dismiss any possibility of Mohammed in the Bible. You think he is there, prove it.

 

[Servant19]

Paul refers to a later “fullness of times”.

Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ, in heaven and on earth

Here’s wikipedia on the topic: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensation_of_the_fulness_of_times

Note the Bible commentaries for Ephesians 1:10: biblehub.com/ephesians/1-10.htm

Here is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on the fulness of times: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Dispensation_of_the_Fulness_of_Times

Thank you

Yes, Christianity has forgotten that which is written in Ephesians 1:10

The fullness of times is an age where unification happens in heaven AND on earth.

Unfortunately the Mornon commentary considers this dispensation of the fullness of times as the “final dispensation” which defeats the purpose of the use of the word “dispensation”

If God is “dispensing” something to humanity, it is a prescribed period and further dispensing must follow. God never leaves humanity without a guiding dispensation.

What are your thoughts?

.

 

[Duane1966]

I’m most certainly not a scholar of Biblical Greek and only used a few links to put forward my argument. However, I did refer to the original Greek “completion of the age” from the interlinear website.

And you admitted that completion of the age could mean end of the universe, which is the end of time as we know it, or forever. You ignore one of the options you listed as a viable interpretation!

Several verses in the Bible refer to a future falling away from the truth.

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock

2 Thessalonians 2:2,3 not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,” or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition

2 Timothy 4:3,4 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

And yet not one of those verses can give you a clue if the apostasy has already happened, or if it is yet to happen.

Regarding why Jesus would support his church for a only finite period of time we can turn to Revelation 2 where the Ephesians are warned to repent or they would suffer the consequences of their wickedness.

Revelation 2:4,5 Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

So the Ephesians make up the whole Church? Nor do we know if the Ephesians repented, and the lamp stand still stands in it’s place.

But let’s say for the sake of argument you’re right, an apostasy did happen. When? Saying it happened in the early church really does you no good. It might have happened before the New Testament was compiled. We have no way of knowing if a church that apostasized did not put together a phony set of books and say they are inspired.

And perhaps you are right about Jesus withdrawing His support. But maybe He withdrew His support to His Apostles! After all, He never told them to write a thing. Maybe He got mad at them for writing things down!! Man, that’s a lot of maybes.

 

[TonyBS]

You are the one that brought up Mohammed in the Bible. You offer nothing to support your claim. Instead of bringing the OP in ,why don’t you defend YOUR side of your story. I have searched through the Bible, and there is no mention of Mohammed. The words of Jesus as I have shown has no place for the gospel of Mohammed. Mohammed’s words are actually anti-gospel as he denies Christ resurrection. How can he clear anything up by teaching denial of Christ resurrection? All Muslim exegesis on Christ resurrection is to deny that Christ died and rose again on the third day. All Muslim exegesis deny Christ is God. How can the Bible deny itself? That is the basis of our faith. That’s why I said your proposition is nonsense. Are you aware of what Mohammed taught about Christ? I am sure you do.

I guarantee nothing. I am just quoting what Jesus said in the Bible. If you think what I quoted is wrong, I welcome your rebuttal. My original response to you is to dismiss any possibility of Mohammed in the Bible. You think he is there, prove it.

Please consider I do not need to “Defend” anything, it is not my story that has unfolded, it is all Biblical. I have by pure dumb luck found the story and pursued it. Revelation Chapter 11 is a good place to start. As this is not “Current” Christian thought, it does tie into the OP to mention it, but it is no place to debate it. Thus I give you a thought and there is ample places to search for further information.

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth.” These two witnesses are Muhammad the Messenger of God, and Ali, son of Abu Talib. [1 Rev. 11:3.]

reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-11.html

Regards Tony

 

[John_Martin]

Wow. I didn’t realize that the question in the OP was intended to have my answer be dismissed summarily just because I’m a Lutheran. I answered the question honestly and, I knew that it would not be one that the Roman Catholic Church would teach. I’m not here to argue but to learn. My faith in Jesus is very important to me - I believe that I am to be sharing Jesus to others and that, as He states in Matthew 18:20, He will be with me and all others who work to share what He did for all of us on Calvary. I look forward to the day that all of us who are followers of Christ will finally be home with Him in heaven.

God be with you, me and all other Christians as we work to spread the message of the Word. Blessings to you,

Rita

How quickly your forget your own summary dismissal by using a non-biblical catch phrase of protestants, hoping to extinguish in readers all thought of what I had written…:

Is not God the Author of the Bible as the humans were inspired, inerrant Word of God?

When you contradict someone, be ready to be challenged;

 

[spedteacherita]

How quickly your forget your own summary dismissal by using a non-biblical catch phrase of protestants, hoping to extinguish in readers all thought of what I had written…: When you contradict someone, be ready to be challenged;

It was not my intention to “extinguish” in readers all thought of what you had written. I’m sorry you took it that way. The question came from me - I have not heard it from other non-Catholics before.

 

[ericc]

Please consider I do not need to “Defend” anything, it is not my story that has unfolded, it is all Biblical. I have by pure dumb luck found the story and pursued it. Revelation Chapter 11 is a good place to start. As this is not “Current” Christian thought, it does tie into the OP to mention it, but it is no place to debate it. Thus I give you a thought and there is ample places to search for further information.

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth.” These two witnesses are Muhammad the Messenger of God, and Ali, son of Abu Talib. [1 Rev. 11:3.]

reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-11.html

Regards Tony

Oh yes, the 2 witnesses from Revelation. I have asked about them before in other threads. I have asked a few times where does the Bible say these 2 are Mohammed and Ali? Names have been plucked from the air. I have asked why not Mohammed and Abu? Or some other names. So if you are claiming these 2 witnesses are Mohammed and Ali, show that the Bible identify them as such. If not, please stop using our Bible to promote other faiths at our expense. Those not well-read about the Bible may be lulled into thinking that the Bible actually identified these 2 when in fact it doesn’t.

And there are other problems with the 2 witnesses. Problem is the history of Mohammed and Ali does not correspond to Revelation 11:6 - 12 at all. Proponents have to rely completely on imagination fit their explanation.

Apologies to OP but when claims are made about the Bible to legitimise other faiths, I need to make sure that these claims are true. One can quote the Bible,but please don’t add anything to it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Threads addressing the LDS view of Early Christian apostasy inevitably result in one or more references to Matthew 28:20 as scriptural proof that the early Church could not fail. The verse states:

teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.

“age” in this verse comes from the greek word “aion”, which can mean at times either

a) for ever, perpetuity of time, eternity
b) the worlds, universe
c) period of time, age.

(For more info see here: blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=KJV&strongs=g165

Those who claim that in Matthew 28:20 “aion” means “forever” or “eternity” run into a logic problem because neither “forever” nor “eternity” have an end. The phrase “the end of forever” simple does not make logical sense because forever does not end. Therefore “aion” in this case must refer to a finite period of time which fits the logic of the sentence.

Note that Matthew 13:39,40 (see below) twice uses the phrase “the end of the age”. In both cases were “aion” interpreted to mean eternity the verse would not be logical because the harvest would never occur.

Matthew 13:39,40 state:

*and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. Just as weeds are collected and burned [up] with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. *

The interlinear website showing the translation of Matthew 28:20 from Greek to be “completion of the age” in place of “end of the age”, which clearly indicates a finite period of time. See biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/28-20.htm

The interlinear website shows the same translation from Greek for Matthew 13:39,40. See biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/13-39.htm and biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/13-40.htm

What is your reasoning to support the traditional interpretation of Matthew 28:20 that Christ would never ever abandon the early Church no matter what? Or, do you also support this interpretation that Christ will support the early Church for a finite period of time?

We can look to other passages to determine the intent and meaning. For example:

Matthew 13:

36
Then, dismissing the crowds, he went into the house. His disciples approached him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”
37 He said in reply, “He who sows good seed is the Son of Man,
38 the field is the world, the good seed the children of the kingdom. The weeds are the children of the evil one,
39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 Just as weeds are collected and burned [up] with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.
41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom* all who cause others to sin and all evildoers.
42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears ought to hear.

The age then, an aion of time, is the time between Jesus ministry and the final judgement, when Jesus returns. That age is the age we live in, and it is the age of the Church.

Beyond picking apart the meaning of “age”, Matthew 28:20 says “always”. Logically, if Jesus says He will be with us always, until the end of an age, the end of the age is when He returns and He is with us.

The phrase “until the end of the age” is only found in Matthew 13:40, 49; 24:3; 28:20).

Matthew 24:3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately and said, “Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Again, the term “end of the age” is referring to Jesus’ return.

Since this is the meaning in all other passages, it is logical to conclude that the intent and meaning, by the author of Matthew, is that Jesus will be with us until His return.

 

[TonyBS]

Oh yes, the 2 witnesses from Revelation. I have asked about them before in other threads. I have asked a few times where does the Bible say these 2 are Mohammed and Ali? Names have been plucked from the air. I have asked why not Mohammed and Abu? Or some other names. So if you are claiming these 2 witnesses are Mohammed and Ali, show that the Bible identify them as such. If not, please stop using our Bible to promote other faiths at our expense. Those not well-read about the Bible may be lulled into thinking that the Bible actually identified these 2 when in fact it doesn’t.

And there are other problems with the 2 witnesses. Problem is the history of Mohammed and Ali does not correspond to Revelation 11:6 - 12 at all. Proponents have to rely completely on imagination fit their explanation.

Apologies to OP but when claims are made about the Bible to legitimise other faiths, I need to make sure that these claims are true. One can quote the Bible,but please don’t add anything to it.

Appears you did not read the link, as verses 6-12 are fully explained.

But please do and say as you wish. That is why we have free will, again it does not make the stance right. One would.have to also consider that stating “Our Bible” is always proof one has strayed from the Word. Gods Word is for all.

Regards Tony

 

[John_Martin]

Appears you did not read the link, as verses 6-12 are fully explained.

But please do and say as you wish. That is why we have free will, again it does not make the stance right. One would.have to also consider that stating “Our Bible” is always proof one has strayed from the Word. Gods Word is for all.

Regards Tony

Your link only shows that you also are thinking you can understand this book apart from knowing the mind of its author, the Catholic Church - the Catholic Church wrote the book of Revelation to its members (St. John, Apostle of the Catholic Church, to the seven Catholic Churches in Asia, who kept this book for use within the Catholic Church, wherein it was joined by the Catholic Church to the other Catholic Scriptures for use and teaching of Catholics by Catholics) The Church only can tell you what it means. When you read it, you are looking inside the Catholic Church from your position outside where there is no understanding of it, unless you come into the Church asking “What does this mean?”

Your link is someone in the futility of speculation similar to children playing at being adults, giving all kinds of humorous explanations of why adults do the things they do. But adulthood is unknown to them until they become adults, and the meaning of Revelation will be unknown to this linked writer and to you until you become Catholic and ask the Church, “What does this mean?”

 

[ericc]

Appears you did not read the link, as verses 6-12 are fully explained.

But please do and say as you wish. That is why we have free will, again it does not make the stance right. One would.have to also consider that stating “Our Bible” is always proof one has strayed from the Word. Gods Word is for all.

Regards Tony

You didn’t read my response. The information in the link are all based upon imagination, allegories. The Bible says something, and that link weave a meaning to it without providing the methodology of how that meaning was ascertained. That verse means this, that verse means that. My question is how was that meaning determined to be true? The link that you provided just claim those meanings. Who exactly determined those meanings? Is he qualified to determine that? FYI the Church that gave us the Bible NEVER claimed those meanings.

But the crucial bit is when challenged where is Mohammed and Ali mentioned in the Bible, all I get is evasive/nil response. So let me ask again, where did the Bible mention Mohammed and Ali? For the 3rd time I believe. If it is not there, please don’t use our Bible to say something that simply isn’t true.

And when I asked why Ali and not Abu Bakr or even Umar, no one has the courage or initiative to answer.

Of course you have the freewill not to respond to those questions. You also have the freewill to continue to say that the Bible says Mohammed and Ali are in there when in truth it doesn’t.

It is not a matter of whether my stance is correct or not. The reality is this. You made a statement regarding Mohammed and Ali in the Bible. All I ask is you support this claim. Unnamed witnesses do not automatically assumed names. If you can’t, at least admit that the Bible never mentioned Mohammed and Ali at all.

God’s Word is for all. I fully agree. But that doesn’t permit anyone to change/substitute his Word for something else. Do forgive me, but I am particular when God’s Word is being “adjusted” to suit other gospels that is clearly not his.

 

[eddie_too]

if the early christian church went astray, then no one currently knows what Jesus taught.

if no one knows what Jesus taught, then His teachings were pointless except for those who heard them before His personally chosen and educated apostles allowed the Church to abandon His teachings.

why would God Himself render His own teachings meaningless as the original question implies?

that is the real question being asked by the OP. that is the question the doubters need to study and answer.

since i do not believe in any way that the early Church lost the meaning of the Lord’s teachings, it is not a question i can or need to answer.