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

[benhur]

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.

Hi G

Just a quick observation. Don’t think anyone denies “wolves” and “apostasy” . It is just that we view ‘others’ as fulfillment of that, and certainly not our own churches. For that there is plenty of scripture also, that of a faithful remnant. That remnant must be many, for that many certainly came out of great tribulation, washed in the Blood of the Lamb.

Again, the Catholics might see the reformation as part of that “apostasy”, or reformers might see the Catholic Church of their time as that. Maybe the Protestants see JW’s, or even yourselves as part of the falling away or having strange doctrine. Not too mention what may be in the future.

I do believe in absolute truth (“men might be liars/mistaken, only God is true”), but when finger pointing, many just see the three other fingers pointing back.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

The Bible is authored by the Catholic Church, who is its authority (Paul, as a Catholic after Christ, wrote his letters; Moses as a Catholic before Jesus and preparing the way for Jesus, wrote the Torah, etc; and the bishops of the Church bound them together into a book for use by all Catholics to use). If you are reading a Bible, it is not your book, but was taken from Catholics as if it were some ordinary book. And you read it as if you think you could understand. But this book was meant to be explained to Catholics by Catholics. If you wish to be Catholic, you will then be taught what it means by the Body that wrote it and compiled it. That is the authority, the Author, Christ in his Body the Church.

Hi JM,

Not sure , but it might be possible that your stance is a bit what Vat 2 was trying to tone down for its divisiveness. That it might be better to proclaim the Bible as a gift from God to the world, and secondarily as thru the Church. Not to mention that anyone with a proper baptism, is a member of the Body of Christ, even the Church.(Lumen Gentia).

As far understanding God’s Bible, I like to say like Augustine, though he loved the preacher and the church and Holy Writ as truth carriers, the finality is that Jesus is the teacher to the human heart and spirit. Also Elihu, in the book of Job, says the same and more. If I may paraphrase, “Though age should teach wisdom, it does not always. God is not a respecter of persons in this, and gives understanding to a man, as He chooses”.

Blessings

 

[MT1926]

Also Elihu, in the book of Job, says the same and more. If I may paraphrase, “Though age should teach wisdom, it does not always. God is not a respecter of persons in this, and gives understanding to a man, as He chooses”.

Blessings

Hi Ben,

Your last statement really got me thinking. I’m not really directing this to you, I guess I am more directing towards my son who is now an Evangelical and hoping you can give me some insight.

First let me state, I am not that man. I might be a quick learner but I am not the one that is going to understand on my own. So based on the fact age doesn’t always teach wisdom why would I want to learn from someone, as he does, that studies the bible with modern glasses? He does not acknowledge nor look towards the history of the early church or the early church fathers for any insight. Also, since I know I am not that man, how would I ever be able to recognize who is that chosen man?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

 

[gazelam]

The verse guaranteeing the Church would not fail is Mat 16:18 “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it”. The Holy Spirit will guide them “into ALL the truth” Jn 16:1 and will be with them FOREVER Jn 14:16. Hence the Church is guaranteed against failure.

Logically, till the end or close of the age would point to his second coming. Because after that, kingdom of heaven (aka new heaven/new earth) is forever. And therefore, “forever” is the correct terminology. There is no break of Jesus or Holy Spirit presence from that time till forever. In the new earth/heaven, God is always there.

I fail to see your problem. Perhaps you forgot to tag on the kingdom of God after the end of the age. Which is a continuous event anyway.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[gazelam]

Nicely said.

I haven’t gotten deep into Revelation yet. However, I just wanted to point out that Joseph was speaking about the church, where as Revelations 2 is speaking to the people of Ephesus.
Revelation 2:4 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

4 But I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first charity.

If you continue reading to Revelation 2:7 St. John further defines what this first charity is:
Revelation 2:7 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

7 He, that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches: To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God.

The message I get from reading Revelation 2 is that we need to listen to the church, which the Spirit protects.

I also liked this verse:
Revelation 2:5 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

5 Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance, and do the first works. Or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.

It says to remember from where we are fallen from. As we read on it says to do penance and the first works. What are the first works? But more importantly why doesn’t St. John say to “have the first faith”? I am not scholarly in all other forms of Christianity but from my studies it seems the Catholic church is hammered on every time we mention confession or works.

God Bless

I appreciate your response.

 

[gazelam]

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

I appreciate your response. The “gates of Hades/Hell” verse could merit a whole separate thread. The only point I would make is that gates form a barrier and are not offensive weapons. So the most rational meaning would be that the Church won’t be kept out of Hades/Hell (and from an LDS POV that would be to do redemptive work there). Gates don’t search and destroy.

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.

Couldn’t the same thing be said about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem? Moses started with the Tabernacle in the wilderness and later prophets of God instructed the people to build a Temple/House of God in Jerusalem. It was clearly part of ancient worship. But toward the end of His ministry Christ did not refer to the temple as His anymore. Matthew 23:38 (KJV) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Do you also question God’s wisdom in choosing men who would fail to keep the temple a holy place?

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.

Nobody likes having the core of their religion challenged.

 

[TonyBS]

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.

Dear Eddie, the responses above just further prove man can get it wrong, all the while thinking they are Righteous and full of good deeds.

God always brings us back to the understanding He doeth as He Willeth. We are but servants to His cause.

I will leave all to Their chosen knowledge, the world continues on its path of rejection.

Regards Tony

 

[TonyBS]

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…

The explanation given was proof enough. History shows that to be so. The 1260 of Revelation the greatest proof for this.

This is CAF, if one goes to far to proves what one is saying, one gets banned or the thread is shut down

Eric has a difficult job, as he has to dish out justice within the boundary of truth as he sees it.

Not to worry, I will leave it there.

God bless and regards Tony.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I appreciate your response. The “gates of Hades/Hell” verse could merit a whole separate thread. The only point I would make is that gates form a barrier and are not offensive weapons. So the most rational meaning would be that the Church won’t be kept out of Hades/Hell (and from an LDS POV that would be to do redemptive work there). Gates don’t search and destroy.

Couldn’t the same thing be said about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem? Moses started with the Tabernacle in the wilderness and later prophets of God instructed the people to build a Temple/House of God in Jerusalem. It was clearly part of ancient worship. But toward the end of His ministry Christ did not refer to the temple as His anymore. Matthew 23:38 (KJV) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. Do you also question God’s wisdom in choosing men who would fail to keep the temple a holy place?

Nobody likes having the core of their religion challenged.

The same could be said of the temple and Judaism, if Judaism became totally apostate by the time of Christ and was in no sense true. That is, 1900/1800 years of utter falsehood would be an equivalent. Yet Jesus addresses the people as if their faith meant something, it was incomplete, since it was without them but he does not say their creeds or beliefs are an abomination. The Priesthood of the temple while corrupt was to be listened to and obeyed during Christ’s ministry, though following their example was not. Jesus accepted the faith of the common people who awaited the Messiah, hence there was a true faith in Israel till the time of Christ. Mormons do not believe there was true faith anywhere on earth, except maybe america, after the death of Christ and that for only a short time.

In terms of the Church and the gates of hades, Christ specifically mentions the gates themselves prevailing not against the Church. That indicates an element of attack, not merely of reception. Your interpretation would also question the nature of the Church’s ability to be kept out of those gates since the Church inevitably went into it, that is into false doctrine, practice, loosing all spiritual blessings of meaning. Christ established his apostles who established communities who tried to fortify people to live for the faith. That failed, the Church was dissolved and unable to respond to false doctrine. The apostles for some reason were unable to appoint successors (even though we know they were alive when others were dead, like Saint John).

It seems to me the Church Christ established, the community, walked into those gates then and on earth there was no Church. Hence I think the assertion rings true, the gates of hell prevailed against the Church.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Your last statement really got me thinking. I’m not really directing this to you, I guess I am more directing towards my son who is now an Evangelical and hoping you can give me some insight.

First let me state, I am not that man. I might be a quick learner but I am not the one that is going to understand on my own. So based on the fact age doesn’t always teach wisdom why would I want to learn from someone, as he does, that studies the bible with modern glasses? He does not acknowledge nor look towards the history of the early church or the early church fathers for any insight. Also, since I know I am not that man, how would I ever be able to recognize who is that chosen man?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut

HI MT,

When you say you are not that “man”/person do you mean that God has not given you personal understanding ? I would think He has, to the extent you have proper understanding. That is, any rightness in thought and action is from Him, and to His glory.

But I think maybe I should explain further. By understanding coming from God, I do not mean you “learn on your own” necessarily. Rather God will help one to discern,understand your “teachers”. That goes from your parents and family, teachers, pastors/priests, Holy Writ, church magisterium, history ,nature etc. “For behold wisdom crieth from the rooftops”. No man will be without excuse.

It is a bit like the famous discourse where St. Peter boldly proclaims for the rest,’‘Thou art the Messiah! Son of the living God ". Jesus says, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you, but the Father who is in heaven”. It was quite personal (the Father to Peter) , but it was also quite corporate (involving many other “teachers”). That is ,Peter was not in a vacuum. Jesus was asking who do you say that I am. Flesh and blood had given many answers(Elijah, John the baptist etc). Peter had to weigh absolutely everything he had ever been taught and experienced, from his parents, to his rabbis, from Writ to tradition, even to walking with Jesus for a time. It was only by the quickening of the Spirit, by the gift of God, that Peter saw the puzzle of his experiences coming together and answered correctly. Remember also , Peter was going against his rabbis, his "church and magisterium’’, the staus quo filled with tradition, with such a proclamation

I think I now understand your question. Who is that man, that preacher, that church that should be listened to, that has proper understanding from God ? All I know for sure is that faith is a gift. And we all certainly have heard His Word, from many sources. Only God can really sort it out. One must be quickened by the Spirit, be born again (flesh and blood, a spirit dead in sin can not see /understand God). Nicodemus was very holy and religious and an esteemed man, in the one, true faith of the time, yet was spiritually dead, blind,unregenerated.

“My sheep know my voice”.

FBI counterfeit agents do one thing first, study the real money first, till they see it in their sleep. They are then ready to discern truth from falsehood.

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. You meet Him today, hear His voice, and the puzzle of all (name removed by moderator)uts, including history, and patristic fathers, and tradition, comes into place. First things first.

I would say your son, like myself, can look back into history, and early writings, and tradition, and feel one with it, being able to discern the good, the bad ,and the ugly of it, just like today. Remember however that the same thing that melts wax hardens clay. It is in the eye of the beholder, the heart must be anew.

He does not have on modern glasses. He might be like St. Francis, who forsook the spiritual status quo and wealth that could be his, and went 'old fashioned", with scripture( a tradition), and a very personal revelation of Jesus Himself (yet still pat of the church, but in a very different manner than his contemporaries).

I would also think if you raised him Catholic, the seeds of his faith were planted deeply, just like Peter. Just that an institution (Israel/Judaism/Church) or a rite (circumcision/baptism) is not our salvation in and of themselves, but only when we meet the Christ, the Father, in new spiritual birth. Not all that were circumcised in the OT were regenerated later on, and not all that are baptized are indeed born again." By the works of righteousness is no man saved" it is a gift of God, lest any boast of this or that.

Bottom line, may your son be eternally grateful for that good which that you planted in his heart, and for all those saints who faithfully went before us

Blessings.

 

[gazelam]

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?

.

Even though LDS believe there was no priesthood authority on the Earth between the time of the death of the Apostles and the restoration with Joseph (and therefore no Gospel dispensation existed during that time), LDS do believe that God has influenced and continues to influence the inhabitants of the Earth in all cultures and places for good to the extent that each people is able to receive that influence.

 

[gazelam]

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.

Thank you for this well-reasoned response. Nice job tying the different verses together.

 

[gazelam]

Hi G

Just a quick observation. Don’t think anyone denies “wolves” and “apostasy” . It is just that we view ‘others’ as fulfillment of that, and certainly not our own churches. For that there is plenty of scripture also, that of a faithful remnant. That remnant must be many, for that many certainly came out of great tribulation, washed in the Blood of the Lamb.

Again, the Catholics might see the reformation as part of that “apostasy”, or reformers might see the Catholic Church of their time as that. Maybe the Protestants see JW’s, or even yourselves as part of the falling away or having strange doctrine. Not too mention what may be in the future.

I do believe in absolute truth (“men might be liars/mistaken, only God is true”), but when finger pointing, many just see the three other fingers pointing back.

Blessings

Thank you for making these points.

 

[benhur]

Thank you for making these points.

Your welcome. Blessings

 

[truthseeker32]

Matthew 28:20, in Greek, reads:

διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

A more accurate translation of “πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας” would be “all the days” since “πάσας” means “every” or “all” and “ἡμέρας” means “days.” A transliteration would read “…lo, I am with you all of the days, even to the end/completion of the age.” This removes the supposed conflict the OP presented.

 

[TonyBS]

Matthew 28:20, in Greek, reads:

διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν: καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

A more accurate translation of “πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας” would be “all the days” since “πάσας” means “every” or “all” and “ἡμέρας” means “days.” A transliteration would read “…lo, I am with you all of the days, even to the end/completion of the age.” This removes the supposed conflict the OP presented.

If the end/completion of the age ended in 622AD, then the OP is again open for consideration.

Also consider even though Jesus the Christ is with us Always, man has a tendency to neglect or misunderstand His Words.

Regards Tony

 

[truthseeker32]

If the end/completion of the age ended in 622AD, then the OP is again open for consideration.

Sure, if the OP wants to engage in unfounded speculation, and to posit that Christ established his church only to take off and leave it to the wolves.

Of course, but the idea that God would step back and let his church go to **** without intervening doesn’t fit the biblical narrative. From Adam onwards God has constantly been with his people. Once again, interpreting Matthew 28:20 in this way is baseless and implausible. We can talk about all sorts of hypotheticals. Maybe Jesus was an extraterrestrial. Maybe everything is an elaborate computer simulation. The question is, given the entire context, what is the most likely interpretation?

[/QUOTE]

 

[TonyBS]

Sure, if the OP wants to engage in unfounded speculation, and to posit that Christ established his church only to take off and leave it to the wolves.

Of course, but the idea that God would step back and let his church go to **** without intervening doesn’t fit the biblical narrative. From Adam onwards God has constantly been with his people. Once again, interpreting Matthew 28:20 in this way is baseless and implausible. We can talk about all sorts of hypotheticals. Maybe Jesus was an extraterrestrial. Maybe everything is an elaborate computer simulation. The question is, given the entire context, what is the most likely interpretation?

How is it Unfounded, the Koran tells us this was so. God speaking through Muhammad did warn us.

Could it not be that the rejection of Muhammad had the repercussions that have unfolded over time. Those repercussions from our unfounded actions against God and His Messenger are now apparent in today’s world.

Of course you can consider the Christian Faith has not contributed to the state of the world today, but reality shows that not to be so.

Regards Tony

 

[truthseeker32]

How is it Unfounded, the Koran tells us this was so. God speaking through Muhammad did warn us.

Could it not be that the rejection of Muhammad had the repercussions that have unfolded over time. Those repercussions from our unfounded actions against God and His Messenger are now apparent in today’s world.

Of course you can consider the Christian Faith has not contributed to the state of the world today, but reality shows that not to be so.

Regards Tony

Of course that is what Muhammad said. It wouldn’t make much sense to start a new religion if the true faith was already alive and well.

That is besides the point, though. The question is what the most likely interpretation of Matthew 28:20 is, not whether there are people who believe in apostasy.

 

[MT1926]

HI MT,

When you say you are not that “man”/person do you mean that God has not given you personal understanding ? I would think He has, to the extent you have proper understanding. That is, any rightness in thought and action is from Him, and to His glory.

But I think maybe I should explain further. By understanding coming from God, I do not mean you “learn on your own” necessarily. Rather God will help one to discern,understand your “teachers”. That goes from your parents and family, teachers, pastors/priests, Holy Writ, church magisterium, history ,nature etc. “For behold wisdom crieth from the rooftops”. No man will be without excuse.

When I first started reading I was like, wow I am really not that man I had no clue what that verse meant. . I do agree I do have personal understanding, it is the biblical understanding I was referring to, as you mentioned lower.

I think I now understand your question. Who is that man, that preacher, that church that should be listened to, that has proper understanding from God ? All I know for sure is that faith is a gift. And we all certainly have heard His Word, from many sources. Only God can really sort it out.

Thank you for the honest answer. When I ask my son this question he always says he knows if they are preaching the true gospel by checking to see if what they say lines up with what he reads in the bible. If they’re preaching doesn’t line up with his interpretations then they are wrong. But some how doesn’t believe he is only listening to people that preach what he wants to hear. I have much more respect for someone will to say “All I know for sure”…than I do for my own son that continually tells me he is not wrong on his interpretations, even the ones other Protestant scholars have shown to be incorrect.

Sorry for the rant. Thanks for your response.