Wednesday, June 3, 2020

F. Henry Edwards on Matthew 16:17-19

Commenting on Matt 16:17-19, F. Henry Edwards, (1897-1991), a British leader in the then-Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (now Community of Christ), and at the time of publication, a member of the RLDS First Presidency, wrote the following:

 

The interpretation of this conversation has occasioned commentators considerable difficulty. It is clear, however, that the church was already in process of being built, and for this reason as well as for many others, we cannot interpret the passage to mean that the church was to be founded on the man, Peter, as though he were a rock strong enough to provide a sure foundation for such an edifice. Nor can the foundation have been the understanding which Peter now possessed that Jesus is the Christ, for this understanding was to be enriched on subsequent experience; especially at the first Easter and during the period of the ascension. It seems, therefore, that the only tenable interpretation is that the church is built on the conviction born in the souls of men by the revelation of God that Jesus is the Lord’s anointed, that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), that in him “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28), and that he therefore has rightful and final authority in the lives of good men by reason of their own wiling surrender to his direction. Such a revelation as this is an adequate foundation, for it is renewed in the lives of successive generations, and quickened as experience is enlarged and interpreted under the influence of the Spirit of God. Such a conviction as this holds men close to the heart of God and makes possible the progressive achievement of his purpose among men.

 

There is a sense in which the church of Jesus Christ is a new Israel, and in much the same sense ancient Israel that was the prototype and forerunner of the church of Jesus Christ. It is in this sense that Stephen referred to “the church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38). This already existent church, the people of God was not completely discountenanced by Jesus. Instead, it was caught up in a new movement and was thereby fulfilled in much the same way as the old law was caught up and fulfilled in the law of the gospel. The Jews had proved rebellious, for they had refused to hear the words of Jesus. The Master therefore said to them: “I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew 21:43). All the authority and excellencies attaching to the old covenant were transferred to this new “nation” so Paul could later write: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second” (Hebrews 10:9) and “if that which was done away was glorious, much more than which remaineth is glorious” (2 Corinthians 3:11). On this point Dr. Smith says:

 

From the illustrations adopted by St. Paul in his epistles, we have additional light thrown upon the condition of the church. Thus the Christian church is described as being a branch grated on the already existing olive tree, showing that it was no new creation, but a development of that spiritual life which had flourished in the patriarchal and the Jewish church. (Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1:454)

 

It is important that we understand this combination of continuity and discontinuity between the people of Israel and the church of Jesus Christ. The church was a continuation of Israel in the sense that here the purpose of God which and been pursued in Israel was pursued still further and on a larger scale. The church was a discontinuance, on the other hand, in the sense that the authority of the old was transferred to the new, and that those who persisted in rejecting Jesus as the Christ were themselves rejected, and their authority annulled, and their law superseded. The Christian church from the first believed itself to be the old Israel reconstituted. Paul boldly appropriated the ancient Jewish heroes as the “fathers” of the new movement (1 Corinthians 10:1 or in his argument in Galatians 3:16 and Romans 9:6 and 11:5, 16) in much the same way as a naturalized American regards Washington and Lincoln as belonging to him as well as to native Americans. The same assumption lies behind the ministry of James (Acts 15:14-18), Peter (1 Peter 1:1) and John, the letter to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation. James addressed the Christians as the “twelve tribes” (James 1:1).

 

The reconstituted church, the one which Jesus told Peter he would build on the sure foundation of his revealed and rightful leadership, was being brought into being during this period. There was evidently a time when the two overlapped for Jesus himself said that John was outside the kingdom (Matthew 11:11), yet he himself was baptized by John and so were many of his disciples. The crisis between the old and the new seems to have been reached somewhere about the time of murder of John the Baptist. By that time Jesus had set forth the good news of the kingdom throughout Galilee and he had been rejected by the Jews as a whole and by their leaders. Either they would not accept him at all, or they would accept him only on their own terms. All this took place just before the conversation at Caesarea Philippi, the scene of Peter’s confession and the promise of the Lord Jesus, and from that time forward it is clear that Jesus gave himself with the utmost care to the training of the twelve as his apostles, rulers and pastors of the Israel that he was to be.

 

One of the chief reasons why the people of ancient Israel were about to be rejected and their place taken by the new Israel, was that their leaders had “made the word of God of noneffect by their tradition” (Mark 7:13). Quite naturally, therefore, Jesus followed his statement that he would now build his church by provision for the authorized leadership of that church saying: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). The Jews well understood that Jesus meant by this authority to “bind” and to “loose” the official right to prohibit or to permit, the right of government in harmony with the terms of their appointment. This right was confirmed on the apostles after the resurrection (John 20:21-23).

 

It is possible to read the statement of Jesus to Peter with several different emphases, each of them tending to stress a different aspect of what the Master here undertook to do. First we may read: “I will build my church,” emphasizing the fact that the church of Jesus Christ must be built by Jesus, the Lord, and can be built by no other. All who assist in the building are his agents only, and act in his name. Or we might read the sentence as, “I will build my church,” in which heaven we stress the determination of the Master to build against all kinds of opposition. Such an interpretation is particularly appropriate in view of the implacable opposition of the conservers of the status quo, the leaders of the Jews who were determined that the new Israel should not come into being. It is also possible read this promise as, “I will build my church.” If we do so, we stress the determination of Jesus to bring his church into being as a wide master builder, organizing every part in relation to every other, setting the whole structure on a good foundation, and thereby making it safe from the winds of passing circumstance. Or, finally, we may stress the fact that Jesus was to build his church: “I will build my church.” This is a particularly appropriate emphasis today, when some who claim to represent the Master and to be his ministers have so far lost faith in his church as a divinely ordained instrument in the building of the kingdom, that they have turned from it, even while retaining the title of “church” and have applied that title to a philosophic society, a social organization, or some other caricature of the body of Christ.

 

There is no doubt that Jesus did organize his church and authorize and train his apostles to lead that church after his own earthly ministry had ceased. There is a sense in which the church as thus conceived is completely identified with the kingdom (Matthew 11:11, 12; Luke 7:28; Luke 16:16, etc). Jesus used the present tense quite definitely in the Beatitudes, e.g. “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). Other sayings of the Master indicate that the kingdom is essentially progressive, and is to be achieved gradually (Mark 4:26, 32; Luke 13:18, 19); while yet again the kingdom is referred to as a future and perfect (Mark 9:1; 14:25; Luke 13:28, 27). The reconciliation of these divergent uses of the term “kingdom of God” seems to be that the church at its best does merge into and become the kingdom, but that the kingdom in its richest and finest sense lies ahead as a goal to which the church is always progressing. The kingdom must come to gradual maturity, just as Jesus himself did. As the church realizes her destiny, and a greater portion of its members are “born of the spirit” as well as being “born of the water” (John 3:3-5) the church will become more and more truly the kingdom of God. (F. Henry Edwards, Studies in the Life and Ministry of Jesus [Independence, Miss.: Herald Publishing House, 1957], 128-31, italics in original)

 

 


Blog Archive