Navigation: Index >> Additional Resources >> Previous >> Next >> Home

Let us linger a while in Matthew 16—such a deeply interesting and instructive scene. Verse 18 contains the first direct allusion in the volume of God to the subject of the Church, or assembly, of Christ.

Though familiar to many it may present a difficulty to some who believe that the saints of the Old Testament belonged to the Church.¹ They maintain that there is no difference; that all form one body; all stand on one common ground; that representing Christians as being in a higher position, or endowed with higher privileges than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a delusion. They assert that Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and Moses belonged to the Church—were not members of the body of Christ—were endowed with the same privileges as born again believers now. Trained from childhood to believe that all God's people, from the beginning to the end of time, stand on the same ground, forming one common body, they find it impossible to even consider that there could be a difference. To them it seems presumption for Christians to assert that they are different from God's beloved people of old—those blessed worthies mentioned in Hebrews 11, who lived a life of faith and personal devotedness—now in Heaven with their Lord.

But the all-important question is, "What saith the Scripture?" It would be a waste of time and a worthless endeavor to indulge in personal opinions and thoughts; personal reasoning and conclusions, since the Holy Words of God are available. It is a fairly easy matter for men to reason, with apparent force, point, and cleverness, about the notion that Christians are in a better, higher, and more privileged place than God's people of old.

But, is this the proper way to approach this subject? Is it a question of the difference personally between the Lord's people in different periods? If it is, then where among the ranks of Christians, can we find anyone to compare with an Abraham, a Joseph, a Moses, or a Daniel? If it is a question of simple faith, then where, in the entire history of the Church, do we find a better example than the father of the faithful? If it is a question of personal holiness, then where do we find a brighter illustration than Joseph? Or, for intimacy with God and acquaintance with His ways and mind, who among us can best Moses? For unswerving devotedness to God and His truth, where can we find a brighter example than the man who went down into the lions' den? It is not a personal question, or a comparison of people, but of dispensational position.

If any one had spoken to Abraham about being a member of the body of Christ, would he have understood? Could that honored and beloved saint of God have had the most remote idea of being linked by an indwelling Spirit to a living Head in Heaven? How could he be a member of a body that did not exist? And how could there be a body without a Head? And when do we first hear of the Head? When the Man Christ Jesus, having passed through death and the grave, ascended into the heavens, and took His seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Then, and only then, did the Holy Spirit come down to form the body, and link it by His presence to the glorified Head above.

If any one had spoken to Moses about a body composed of Jews and Gentiles—a body whose constituent parts had been drawn from among the seed of Abraham and the race of Canaanites—what would he have said? May we not safely assert that his whole moral being would have shrunk with horror from the thought? What! Jews and Canaanites— the seed of Abraham and uncircumcised Gentiles—united in one body? How could the lawgiver take in such an idea? The reality is clear; if there was one feature that strongly marked the Mosaic economy, it was the rigid separation of Jew and Gentile. "Ye know," says Simon Peter, "how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or to come unto one of another nation."

Under the Mosaic economy, it would have been a flagrant transgression to climb over that middle wall of partition which separated Israel from all other nations. The more faithful a man was to the existing order of things under the law, the more opposed he must have been to any such thought.

Based on this Scriptural fact, was the Church known in Old Testament times? Is there a difference between the position of a Christian and that of an Old Testament believer? The fact is, even Simon Peter found it extremely difficult to take in the idea of admitting Gentiles into the kingdom of Heaven . Though entrusted with the keys of that kingdom, he was nevertheless reluctant to use them for the admission of Gentiles. Before Peter was prepared to fulfill the commission (Matt. 16), he had to be taught by a heavenly vision.

The truth of the Church was not, could not, be known in Old Testament times. It was, as the inspired apostle tells us, "hid in God"—hid in His eternal counsels—

not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets² by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel (Eph. 3; emphasis added).

The only way to reach the great mystery of the Church is by walking over the broken-down middle wall of partition.

Wherefore remembers that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in ordinances, for to make in Himself of twain one new man, making peace; and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father (Eph. 2:11-18).

It is now clear why our Lord, in His Word to Simon Peter, spoke of the Church in future tense. "Upon this rock I will build My Church." He did not say, "I have been," or, "I am, building My Church." No; because it was still "hid in God." The Messiah must be rejected, crucified, and slain, in order to lay the foundation of the Church. It was utterly impossible that a single stone could be laid in this new and wondrous building until "the chief Corner-stone" had passed through death and taken His place in the Heavens. It was not in incarnation, but in resurrection, that our Lord Christ became Head of a body.

Simon Peter was not prepared for this. He did not understand one jot or tittle of it. He could understand setting up a kingdom in power and glory, and restoring Israel to pre-eminence. This he could understand and appreciate—he was looking for this. But a suffering Messiah—a rejected and crucified Christ; this he could not hear. "Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall not be unto Thee." These were the words that drew the withering rebuke, "Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art an offence unto Me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

From the severity of our Lord’s rebuke, we can understand the gravity of his error. Peter had much to learn, much to go through, ere he could grasp the great truth which His Lord was putting before him. But he did grasp it, by the grace of God, and confess it, and teach it with power. He was led to see not only that Christ was the Son of the living God, but that He was a rejected Stone, disallowed of men, but chosen of God and precious; and that all who through grace come to Him must share His rejection on earth as well as His acceptance in Heaven. They are perfectly identified with Him.

Footnotes:

¹ For more information regarding the Mosaic economy of the Old Testament, see The Tabernacle in Additional Resources section of StudyJesus.com.

² The "prophets," in this passage, are those of the New Testament. This is evident from the expression, "Now revealed," He could not speak of a thing being "now revealed" to men who had been dead for hundreds of years Besides, had the apostle meant Old Testament prophets, the order would assuredly have been "Prophets and apostles." We have a similar expression in the New Testament, ''Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." He does not say, "prophets and apostles" (Eph. 2:20). The truth is that the apostles and prophets formed the first layer of the foundation of the Church of which Jesus Christ is the chief Corner-stone, and this is an additional proof that the Church had no existence save in the secret counsels of God until our Lord Christ, having accomplished the work of redemption, ascended into the heavens, and sent down the Holy Spirit to baptize believers—Jews and Gentiles—into one body. “Now to Him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and he preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the he mystery which was kept secret since the world began but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:25, 26). The phrase, “. . . scriptures of the prophets . . .” shows that the mystery was embryonically revealed in the prophetic messages of the Old Testament (as, for example, in the matter of the calling of the Gentiles); but the complete understanding of those oracles did not arrive until the Savior appeared upon earth.  Paul, it seems, was the very first to realize and comprehend fully the totally new nature of the church and the abrogation that fell automatically upon the entire old institution; and yet that truth was surely there, embedded in the Old Testament through long centuries, despite the fact that God’s people in the Old Testament seemed never to have had the slightest suspicion of it.