The Birth of the Church

[Augustine3]

The CCC is correct. The Church was born at the foot of the Cross. At Pentecost, it is given it’s missionary calling, but it began at the Cross.

And, when one thinks about, it makes sense. Christ would not leave His faithful without His Body, the Church. He does not leave us alone, without Him.

And one of the reasons, is Mt 18:17. There HAD to be an authority, a source of Truth and Salvation between the Ascension and Pentecost. And that source was the Church founded at the Cross

Thanks for your post but it still does not answer the question. How could the birth of the church be at the foot of the cross when in Matthew 18:17 prior to his crucifixion on the cross, Christ spoke as if the church had already been established ?

God bless,

 

[Augustine3]

Does anybody know?

 

[Gorgias]

Matthew only uses the word ekklesia (‘assembly’ or ‘church’) twice in his gospel – here, and in chapter 16, when he tells Peter that “on this rock I will build my church.” So, in one sense, there’s your answer already – Jesus knows that the Church is coming, so he’s already prepping the apostles for how they should act within the structures of the church.

However, if you want to delve a bit more deeply, you need to start thinking about the context in which the Gospel of Matthew was written. Generally, scholars believe that the Gospel of Matthew was written in about the timeframe of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 AD. There had already been tensions brewing between the Jewish and Christian communities, and the fact that the Christians didn’t help out in the Jewish revolt (remember, they were looking at Jesus’ prophesies that this would happen, so when the signs came, they ran for the hills!)… well, let’s just say that it really hurt Jewish-Christian relations. Matthew has a number of references that seem to reflect this tension – he calls the synagogues “their synagogues”, for example.

So, with this in mind, it’s possible to suggest that this wording (“ekklesia” instead of “synagogue”) comes from the writer of the Gospel as a means of demonstrating that Jesus was talking about His Church and not the Jewish ecclesiastical structures. In other words, it’s a word choice that’s made in 70 A.D. or so, based on what Jesus said.

 

[Augustine3]

I agree with all that you said, however in Matthew chapter 18 Jesus speaks as though the Church had already been established which seems to be contrary to the teachings of the church that says the church was born at the foot of the cross. Chronologically Matthew chapter 18 was obviously before the cross.

How do we reconcile this?

 

[Gorgias]

No need to ‘reconcile’. Jesus is offering a hypothetical situation, for use in the future: if ‘this’ happens, then do ‘that’.

Let’s say that you and I are planning on starting a company with a group of friends. Suppose I say, “ok – if there are any grievances, take them to the HR department.” Would you say, “excuse me? what are you talking about? There’s no HR department! How do you reconcile the fact that there’s no HR department with the fact that you’re talking as if the HR department already existed???”

I would probably stare at you like you were kidding, and say, “umm… there’s gonna be a company, and there’s gonna be an HR department. when the time comes, go to them, ok?”

Christ was planning for the Church, so his statements were anticipating it.

 

[Reuben_J]

The physical church (for lack of word) can be said to start with the Pentecost. The apostles, the witnesses, only could start and transform to build the Lord’s Church after been empowered by the Holy Spirit that was promised by Jesus.

 

[Ignatius]

Glad it helped. I just read the books and pay attention at Bible study. All the credit goes to God and the theologians who write this stuff.

I’m just a good parrot.

-Tim-

Kudos! I pray that I may be at least half as good!