BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 14
June, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
"And I also way to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it" (Matthew 16:18).
Matthew 16:13ff. has historically been one of the most oft-cited passages of Scripture. Throughout the Middle Ages, it was used to support the claims of the papacy against all challengers. The Reformers delved into this passage to refute their Papist opponents. This long and varied usage has made it difficult for contemporary readers see certain remarkable features of the text. Readers come to the text with historically conditioned questions, either to support or refute the Leonine interpretation. More recently, scholars have examined this passage for insight into the relationship between the Church and Kingdom.
My purpose in this brief essay is to attempt to examine the text on its own terms, with as few preconceived questions as possible, except to determine what precisely Jesus is saying. I shall focus on verse 18, quoted above.
A careful reading indicates first Jesus used a striking mixture of metaphors. On the one hand, he spoke of "building." As the Greater Solomon, Jesus came to construct a new and more glorious temple. Yet, He did not say that He would build His "temple," but His "Church." Ekklesia (translation of the Hebrew qahal) refers throughout the LXX to the assembly of God’s holy ones for worship. It never refers to a building. Indeed, as far as I can determine, the Old Testament never employs the idea of "building" the "assembly." Instead, ekklesia and qahal are used in connection with verbs like "gather," "call," and "assemble."
(Two passages that use "assembly" in close proximity to "build" are 1 Kings 8:13-14, where Solomon speaks of building the temple, and blesses the assembly, and 1 Chronicles 28:2-3, where David tells the assembly that he intended to build a house for Lord, but was not permitted to do so. Neither of these, however, uses "assembly" as the object of the building.)
How, then, could Jesus speak of "building" a "church"? Should we conclude that Jesus had begun already to use ekklesia in a different sense from the Old Testament? This is a priori implausible, and is made impossible by the fact that none of the New Testament writers use ekklesia as a synonym for "temple." Surely, if Jesus had used ekklesia in this sense, His apostles would have followed suit; but we find that the New Testament writers used ekklesia in more or less the same sense as the LXX did. Should we then conclude that in this statement Jesus used both temple and assembly imagery? It does seem to be the case, as so often in Scripture, that we have a mixed metaphors, in particular a mixture of architectural and political metaphors. Jesus says He is engaged in a building process, but what He builds is not a Temple, but an assembly.
The "building" metaphor makes the most sense in the context. Peter had just confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the anointed Son of David who would build the house of the Lord (cf. Ps. 2; 2 Sam 7:14). Jesus answered by assuring Peter that He was indeed the promised Son, and that He had come to build.
It is the use of ekklesia that is intriguing. Jesus seems deliberately to have been drawing attention to some connection between "temple" and "assembly" by His use of this mixed metaphor. The "assembly" is, in general, the gathering of God’s people for worship, and the "temple" is the dwelling place of God. Perhaps Jesus intended to imply that the assembly of the Lord for worship is in fact the true temple of God. By drawing together two OT types, Jesus was drawing attention to the fact that God dwells not in temples built by hands, but among His assembled people. God’s dwelling, Jesus implied, would no longer be localized in a brick-and-mortar temple, but would be identical with the worshiping assembly of God’s people (cf. Jn. 4:23).
The already complicated imagery is made more so by the fact that Jesus added a military metaphor. The "assembly" that Jesus promised to "build" is also in conflict with the "gates of Hades." This is not an entirely inappropriate image; ekklesia and qahal are sometimes used in the Old Testament in reference to military assemblies. Again, it is the connection of "building" and "assembly" that makes this image complex, for while the assembly might be assembled for war, a building cannot go to war. The introduction of the military imagery suggests the possibility that Jesus meant to imply that He was not building a temple, but a fortress. This interpretation, however, breaks the links between Peter’s confession (of the Christ) and Jesus’s promise (that He would build the promised temple). The military imagery is most directly connected to ekklesia. It thus seems appropriate again to interpret Jesus’ statement as an overlapping of images used to indicate overlapping realities. Hence: The temple of God is the worshiping assembly of God is the army of the Lord (cf. 2 Chron. 20). By mixing metaphors, Jesus was able to summarize concisely various dimensions of the work of His people.
One final question must be dealt with. It is curious that Jesus spoke of His assembly-temple-army as being engaged in conflict with the "gates of Hades." Two interpretations are suggested. In one, Jesus was picturing the Church as a fortress-temple, which is able to withstand the onslaught of the soldiers of Satan. This interpretation is problematic because we must imagine that Hades is equipped with advancing gates. The second interpretation is that Jesus was picturing His Church as an advancing army against which the gates of Hades cannot stand. This interpretation is problematic because it requires that the Church-Temple that Jesus will "build" upon a "rock" is mobile. Jesus’ metaphor would seem on the contrary to emphasize not the mobility but the stability of the Church. While the Church is here pictured as an army, she is not pictured as an advancing army, but rather as an assembled army.
Both of these interpretations fail, it seems to me, because both ignore the Old Testament imagery of gates. A gate is a place of judgment. Jesus was saying that the judgments of Hell will not be effective against the Church. The warfare of the Church with Satan is judicial warfare, a legal contest. Satan is, after all, the "accuser." This is not only in keeping with the Old Testament imagery of gates, and with what we learn about Satan elsewhere (cf. Job 1-2; Zech. 3:1-5), but with the immediate context of Matthew 16:18. In the very next verse, we find that Jesus granted the keys of the kingdom to His apostles. The keys were the apostles’ weapons against the accusations, the legal warfare of the gates of Hell. And they are our weapons today.
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 14
June, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
One of the important themes of the synoptic gospels is Jesus’ rejection of Israel and the transfer of God’s favor to the New Israel, the Church. A clear statement of this theme is found in the parable of the vineyard owner in Matthew 21:33-46. Jesus explained the meaning of the parable: "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it" (v. 43). Because she rejected the Word of God brought by the prophets and by Christ Himself, Israel was deprived of the kingdom.
The transfer of the kingdom from Israel to the Church was a central issue in the New Testament Church (cf. Rom. 2-3, 9-11; Galatians; Hebrews), and indeed remains a subject of considerable debate even in our day. An important question that arises in connection with this theme is the meaning of the kingdom: What is this "kingdom" that can be taken from one people and given to another? What does it mean for the Church to be "granted" the kingdom of God (cf. Lk. 22:28-30)?
Some light may be shed on these questions when we recognize that a transfer of privilege from one people to another occurred within the nation of Israel itself under the Old Covenant. In Psalm 78:67-68, we are told that "[God] also rejected the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which He loved." The verb "reject" (Heb., ma`as) is also used in 2 Kings 17:20 to refer to God’s judgment of the Northern Kingdom. Thus, the word can refer to the rejection of a previously chosen people.
But when was the tent of Joseph, the tribe of Ephraim, chosen? In Genesis 48:8-22, Joseph brought his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, to his father for blessing. Ephraim, the younger, was on Israel’s left, but Israel crossed his hands, and blessed Ephraim with his right hand upon his head, giving him the blessing of the firstborn (vv. 18-19). Then, in chapter 49, Joseph was singled out as preeminent among his brothers (v. 26). Ephraim and Manasseh, as the sons of Joseph, were together treated as the firstborn of Israel, and Ephraim in particular is singled out as preeminent (cf. Jer. 31:9).
What privileges did the tribe of Ephraim enjoy as the firstborn? One privilege was authority over his brethren. After the Exodus and wilderness wanderings, Joshua, who was from the tribe of Ephraim (Nu. 13:8), became Israel’s leader. Thus, it was under the leadership of an Ephraimite, whose name was "savior," that the people of Israel conquered the land of Canaan. When the land was divided, Ephraim, along with Manasseh, received the firstborn’s share — a double portion (Josh. 17:17-18). These verses also indicate that the Abrahamic promise of a numerous seed was particularly fulfilled in these two tribes. The tribes of Joseph were already, however, showing signs of unfaithfulness; unlike Joshua, who trusted fully in the Lord, the "sons of Joseph" were fearful of the Canaanites’ iron chariots.
Parenthetically, it is interesting that when the 12 spies reported back from their investigation of the land, only the representatives of Judah (Caleb) and of Ephraim (Joshua) gave a good report, and urged the people to trust the Lord for victory. This event anticipated the later division of the nation into Northern (Ephraimite) and Southern (Judahite) kingdoms.
Several of the judges were also sons of Joseph. Deborah set up her court in the hill country of Ephraim (Jud. 4:5). Gideon was the son of Joash the Abiezrite (Jud. 6:11); the Abiezrites were from the tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 17:2). Samuel, a transitional figure between the period of the judges and the kings, was born to an Ephraimite, or perhaps to a Levite living in the hill country of Ephraim (1 Sam. 1:1; but cf. 1 Chron. 6:22-28).
It was during the early period of the divided monarchy, however, that the tribe of Ephraim reached the height of its power. When the kingdom was divided, the tribe of Judah ruled in the South, and initially Jeroboam, an Ephraimite, ruled in the Northern Kingdom (1 Ki. 11:26). God selected Jeroboam to wrest ten tribes from Solomon, and promised him an enduring house if he was faithful (1 Ki. 11:26-40). Once he had secured control of the North, however, Jeroboam quickly established idolatrous Egyptian worship (1 Ki. 12:25-33), and his idolatry became the standard of evil by which all the subsequent kings of Israel were judged (1 Ki. 15:34; 16:31; 2 Ki. 3:3; 10:29; 13:2; 14:24). "Following the sins of Jeroboam, son of Nebat" was a code-phrase for idolatry. Jeroboam, like Adam, was promised the kingdom, but rebelled.
Jeroboam was succeeded by his son, Nadab (1 Ki. 14:20). But Baasha, of the tribe of Issachar, killed Nadab after only two years (1 Ki. 15:25-27), thus ending the Ephraimite hegemony in the North. God "cut off" every member of Jeroboam’s household (1 Ki. 14:6-16; 15:23-30). Just as the sin of Jeroboam became a by-word in Israel, so also God’s judgment against Jeroboam, and His subsequent judgment against Baasha, were repeated against other rebellious Northern kings (1 Ki. 16:3; 21:22; 2 Ki. 9:9).
Yet, throughout the prophets, the Northern kingdom is referred to as "Ephraim." Even into Isaiah’s day, the tribe of Ephraim apparently remained the dominant tribe in the North, though it had lost the kingdom (Is. 7:1-9, esp. v. 9). Hosea especially uses "Ephraim" in reference to the Northern Kingdom. The sins of Ephraim are well-known (Hos. 7:1). Ephraim has intermarried with the nations (7:8), hired lovers (8:9; cf. Ezk. 16, 23), and multiplied altars (8:11). Therefore, the Lord threatens to come like a moth and a lion against Ephraim, and against Judah as well (5:12, 14).
What does this tell us about the New Testament theme of the transfer of the kingdom? First, it indicates that God transfers kingdom privilege from one people to another as a judgment for idolatry. When Jesus appeared, Israel as a whole had become like Ephraim, and she refused to listen to the words of Jesus, from the tribe of Judah.
Second, a study of Ephraim’s role in redemptive history suggests that the grant of the kingdom includes a grant of the right to rule. For a time, Ephraim was given the kingdom, but proved unfaithful. Likewise, Israel was throughout the Old Covenant pre-eminent among the nations. When Israel rejected her King, God transferred the right to rule to another people. Jesus brought this out clearly in Luke 22: the grant of the kingdom includes the right to eat and drink at His table (a place reserved for the King’s advisors), and to sit on thrones of judgment. To receive the kingdom means, among other things, that we are seated with Christ on thrones in heavenly places.
Finally, we should take to heart Paul’s warnings in Romans 11. God broke off the branches of Israel for their unbelief (v. 20). Gentile Christians, however, should "not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you" (v. 21).
BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 14
June, 1990
Copyright 1990, Biblical Horizons
11. There is a type of person [a generation] who curses his father, And does not bless his mother. 12. There is a type who is pure in his own eyes, Yet not washed from his filthiness [manure]. 13. There is a type — oh how lofty are his eyes! And his eyelids are raised [in arrogance]. 14. There is a type whose teeth are swords, And his jaw teeth knives, To devour the afflicted from the earth, And the needy from among men.
The words of Agur the Sojourner in Proverbs 30 reflect on the theme of humility and arrogance. Here is a description of the arrogant man. The verses each begin: "A generation who," which is a general way of speaking in Hebrew. We could paraphrase it this way, "There are people around who curse their fathers, etc." I have rendered it "There is a type of person who, etc."
This proverb is a set of four descriptions arranged climactically. The first three are seemingly "minor" or at least private offenses, but they describe the normal behavior of this type of person. The fourth is the punch: This kind of person destroys the lives of the poor and helpless. This kind of person is much more horrible than appears at first glance.
First, this is the kind of person who dishonors his parents. The word for "curse" here is the same as in verse 10, and it means "dishonor, degrade, cut down." This kind of person calls his father "the old man" and his mother "the old lady" in a disparaging tone of voice. He treats them lightly, dishonoring them. If we let our children get by with this — if fathers allow children to degrade their mother — they will grow up with teeth like swords.
Those who went too far in "cursing" their parents were to be put to death in Israel (Ex. 21:17). The Bible gives two examples of this, one in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 and the other in Mark 7:9-13. As I put it in my book The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21-23 (photocopy available from Biblical Horizons for $19.50), "Repudiating parents could mean a settled, publicly manifest disposition to reject Godly household rules. It could mean a refusal to care for them in their old age. It could mean reviling and cursing them. For the death penalty to be applied, however, there would have to be evidence that would stand up in court. The small boy who wants to appear tough to the fellows may call his parents `the old man’ and `the old lady.’ He is not guilty of a capital crime, though he is in sin nonetheless." (Law of Covenant, p. 107.)
Secondly, this kind of person is pure in his own eyes. He won’t take criticism. He knows it all. He’s never wrong. Yet the proverb says that it is apparent to others that he smells like dung. He has not cleaned himself after using the bathroom, is what the proverb literally says. Self-righteous people often stink to others, even if they smell like "pure" incense to themselves (Ex. 37:29). If we let our children grow up without driving this kind of attitude out of them, we raise them to have jawteeth like knives.
Third, this kind of person has lofty eyes, with eyelids raised in arrogance. In the Bible, the eyes are a seat of judgment. This begins in Genesis 1, where repeatedly God "saw" what He had made and pronounced it good. Seeing is judging. The same is true of eyelids. As Psalm 11:4 puts it, "The Lord is in His holy temple; the Lord, His throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men." The man with lofty eye and eyelids is a man who has set himself up as judge of other people. He looks down on them. He divides the world up into good guys and bad guys, and is ruthless towards those he dislikes.
These three verses describe a type of person very visible during the Viet-Nam war era in the United States, a time when I was in college (1967-71) and when I constantly saw just this kind of person. They had contempt for all authority, not trusting anyone "over thirty." They knew it all, and were the most self-righteous people I’ve ever come across. You could hear the self-righteousness in the whine of their voices as they talked on television every night.
Few bathed. Many of them did not use toilet paper. The New Left underground press used to have articles complaining about the stench of their communes, with humorous cartoons instructing the New Left hippies on how to use toilet paper.
They were arrogant beyond belief. With little or no knowledge of history, economics, or world affairs, they divided the world into good guys and bad guys, and were savage in their assaults on those they termed bad guys. They were a degraded generation. They were the spoiled children of liberal parents, who had failed to restrain them, and who had consequently raised a brood of vipers that cursed its parents.
Such people care only for themselves. They do not care about the poor, about history, about the future, or about anything else. Thus, they destroy society when given a chance.
Such people, says the Bible, are destructive especially to the poor and needy of the earth. Their ideological crusades work to tear down the existing organic matrices of life in the interest of new abstractions, and this wrecks the provisions that have grown up over time to protect the poor. When society is torn up, it is always those on the bottom who suffer the most.
This is the sorry truth about rebellious youth. It is not a laughing matter. It was armies of youth who tore up China in the Great Cultural Revolution, and armies of youth who massacred the population of Cambodia. Youth have always been the leaders of revolutions. The Bible says to respect age, the whited head, the elders. Those young people who respect age will grow to be wise and charitable.
I believe these verses describe Esau. This is just what Esau was like. Esau did not respect his parents, but repeatedly married pagan women, who vexed them. He was selfish and vicious. His descendants, the Edomites, described in Obadiah were the scum of the Near East, delighting to sink their sword-like teeth and their knife-like jaws into helpless and defenseless people.
A couple of comments on the Church and I’m done for this month. When I was in seminary, this anti-authoritarian trend had died down somewhat, but there was still some of it around. I saw men who did not respect tradition or age, who knew it all and who were always right in their own eyes. Some of these men have grown up to become ecclesiastical terrorists. Unfortunately, the lack of real eldership in the post-1970s churches has made it hard for such people to be dealt with as they should be.
