Truth Unites - The Most Misused Verse Against Protestantism

Episode Date: August 2, 2022

Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18, "I will build my church, and the gates  of hell shall not prevail against it." This promise is often wielded  against a Protestant view of church history. Here I recount two assumptions that are often made in such argumentation. Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai. SUPPORT: Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

A verse that's often wielded against Protestants is Matthew 1618. Jesus makes this promise, I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And sometimes this is because people have adopted a caricature of Protestantism as though we believed that the church died and then was resurrected with the Reformation, the Protestant Reformation. But I've talked about this a great deal in various videos. You know, it's a reformation, not a resurrection. The church never died. All the Magisterial Reformers.

affirmed a doctrine called the preservation of the church and so forth. But even if one has a more accurate understanding of what Protestantism is, namely a reform effort because the church fell into particular errors rather than revival or resuscitation or something like that because the church died, still, even against that more accurate understanding of Protestantism, this verse is often wielded against Protestants, as though the possibility of significant error coming into the church is at odds with Jesus' promise here. But what does Matthew 1618 actually say?

This is going to be a brief video where I just want to address one very specific point here. There's a lot in the context of this verse that I've addressed in other videos about Peter being the Rock and things like that. You can see that in my other videos. Here I just want to point out that there are two assumptions that are often smuggled in, in and unexamined in the usage of this verse, which even if they were right, they would need to be demonstrated, not simply assumed. The first is what does the word church mean? And the second is, what does it mean for the gates of hell to prevail against or overcome or overpower the church? So let's just address those two points really quickly. First, the word church. So this word is the

Greek word eclaysia, which is used only two times in the gospels here and then in Matthew 1817, When it's used throughout the New Testament in the Book of Acts, in the epistles, usually it will refer to either one particular local congregation or all of the churches in a particular geographical region, or all the Christians in a geographical region, or all Christians, the entire sum of Christian believers, like Ephesians 5, for example, Christ loved the church and gave himself for her. Often what is assumed in the usage of Matthew 1618 is not any of those meanings, but actually a particular hierarchical leadership within the church. It's talking about, it's assumed that what is being talked about is bishops basically, and

not just all bishops, but particularly the bishops gathered in an ecumenical council. So for example, take Nicaea II as an example, the seventh ecumenical council, 7-86. This is the council that affirms the veneration of icons. There were 308 bishops present at Nicaea 2. And we come to call this council ecumenical for various reasons. That's a really complicated question. At the earlier council of Hyerea in 754, which took the opposite view,

which affirmed more of an iconoclast view, opposition to the usage of icons, there were 338 bishops present, 30 more, though none of the major five patriarchs were present. And then after you have Nicaea II, you've got lots of councils opposing it. And in the West, there's a big council convoked by Charlemagne that had about 300 bishops present as well, the Council of Frankfurt in 794. And there were legates from the Roman bishop at that one.

So all of these are huge councils. I mean, you know, over 300 people. and Frankfurt opposed Nicaea II as well. It took a more moderate view saying it's okay to use icons and religious imagery for education, but you shouldn't venerate them. You shouldn't bow down to them or kiss them and that kind of thing in the context of religious worship. And so, you know, in other words, when we say that Nicaea II was an ecumenical council, we don't mean that it was representative of every Christian alive at that time or anywhere near that time.

There is significant waves of iconoclasm after Nicaea II. In the east, it's this power struggle. It's bloody. It's brutal. It's this seesaw back and forth, whichever way the emperor leans or the Empress leans, the church tends to go that way. And it's terrible, the story of that. And then there's opposition in the West to Nicaa II for centuries in certain regions.

And I've talked about this in my video on venerating icons where Martin Keminitz points out the medieval historian Nicetus coniatus. I don't know if I'm pronouncing that. I'll put up his name so you can see it right. I didn't know of him until Kemenis pointed out to me. But anyway, he's a medieval historian who talks about how until around 1160, the use, the adoration of images in churches was illegal in Germany. So that's an example of where just, and then you've got all the opposition from the proto-Protestant groups like the Lawlards and the Waldensians and so forth. So here's the point. When the Protestant says venerating icons is wrong and the Catholic or Orthodox Christian says, ah, but Jesus said, I will build my church, the gates of hell will not prevail

against her. What is being assumed by the word church there is Nicaeatu versus Frankfurt or Hyeria. These bishops were right and those bishops were wrong because we call this council ecumenical and those councils were not ecumenical. Now that could be right. I think that's a highly eccentric definition of the word church. I don't think that's what Jesus had in mind in Matthew 1618. But if he did, that would need to be demonstrated. Too often that simply assumed that that's what the church means in that verse. But secondly, and more to the point and even more decisively, we have to probe the meaning of this phrase, gates of hell prevailing. What does it mean for the gates of hell to prevail against the church? Often it seems to be assumed that

this means that the hierarchical structure within the church or some hierarchical teaching apparatus within the church will not fall into error. So, you know, God wouldn't allow Nicaea II to be wrong, for example, that God will protect his church from error in that way. And then this verse is appealed to for that. But that would, again, a lot's being assumed there. That would at least need to be elaborated from the verse, because certainly it doesn't seem to be a straightforward rendering of the gates of hell prevailing against the church. So the verb prevailing here can be translated overpower or overcome or prevail against. It's used in Luke 2323 when the chief priests are demanding that Pilate crucified Jesus and it says, but they were urgent demanding with loud

cries that he should be crucified and their voices prevailed. It seems to be talking about winning or conquering or overcoming, you know. So, you know, imagine a coach telling his wrestler, I promise that your opponent will not prevail against you. That does not mean that his wrestler won't make any mistakes. It means he will ultimately win. And that's what seems to be in view in Matthew 16, 18, with this phrase, that ultimately in the fight of the gates of hell versus the church, the church will not be defeated or prevailed against. That obviously is not the same thing as saying the church won't make any errors or won't fall into erroneous practices, idolatist practices, doctrinal errors, etc. Let's just examine this phrase a little bit,

gates of hell. So in the phrase, gates of hell or gates of Hades, gates in the ancient world were essential for the military defense of a city, and Hades is the realm of the dead. And this phrase is used all the time throughout the Old Testament and throughout other literature. Let me read D.A. Carson. He's an outstanding biblical scholar, New Testament scholar, and biblical commentator. Here's how he puts it. Gates of Hell, or very similar expressions, are found in canonical literature, non-canonical literature, and seem to refer to death and dying. Hence the RSV, the powers of death shall not prevail against it. Because the church is the assembly of people, Jesus Messiah is building, it cannot die. I'll put up some of the verses that he just references there.

Job 1716, will it go down to the bars of Shaul? Later in Job, have the gates of death been revealed to you? In the Psalms, you who lift me up from the gates of death, they drew near to the gates of death. In Isaiah, I am in the middle of my days, I must depart. consigned to the gates of death. It's talking about the realm of the dead. If you go to the gates of the death or the gates of Shewell, and then there's these non, these, you know, in Homer, there's these other references with this phrase that's talking about dying. That's what it's talking about. It's going to the gates of death or the gates of death prevailing against you means you die. You go to the realm of the dead. Now, if someone has an alternative interpretation of what it means

for the gates of hell to prevail against you, then that would need to be argued. That would need to be extrapolated out. You can't just assume that that means, oh, gates of hell will not prevail against the church. Therefore, Nicaea too, has to be right. And Charlemagne and those 300 bishops at the Council of Frankfurt were wrong. There's a significant movement from the verse to that verdict that often isn't drawn out. So to sum up, I would just say that Protestants can fully affirm the glorious promise of Matthew 1618. The gates of hell never have, are not currently, and never will prevail against the church. But for it to be a problem for the Protestant interpretation of, say, medieval church history, the verse would need to say more. It would need to say, I will build my church,

and doctrinal errors will not enter in to a hierarchical teaching structure within her and become mainstream, or stick around for a long time, or be widespread. But that's how the verse is often assumed to be taken. Final point. I told you this was a very limited video. its purpose. Just as a point of comparison, if it helps induce sympathy and understanding here, because a lot of the point of my videos is to help our dialogue, not necessarily to try to conquer the other side, but try to say, hey, see how another way of looking at it. Consider the promises given to the nation of Israel, which are, to my way of thinking, pretty comparable in their exalted nature to the promises given to the church. Think of the seven components of the

promises of Genesis 12, 2 to 3. I'll put some of these verses up where at the calling of Abraham this promise of great blessing to the nation of Israel and in you, all the families of the earth shall be blessed and then just trace out all the promises from then all the way to the post-exilic literature that God gives to the nation of Israel. The repeated refrain, I will be your God, you will be my people. That may be the linchpin of it all, which is then picked up even in the New Testament in Revelation 21. So that goes all the way. specific aspects of God's people, the Davidic monarchy. In 2 Samuel 713, God says, I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Jeremiah 3317, David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne

of the house of Israel. Think about the temple after King Solomon's prayer of dedication in 1st Kings 8. God says, I have consecrated this house that you have built by putting my name there forever. My eyes and my heart will be there for all time. And you go forward in the post- exilic literature, you have all these incredible promises of future restoration. Zechariah 823 talks about 10 men from the nations grabbing the robe of a Jew saying, let us go with you. We have heard that God is with you and so forth. Now, we could stack up many other kind of exalted promises of God's commitment to do his work through the nation of Israel in those ways and many others. None of that meant that Israel doesn't fall into idolatry. In fact, over and over.

over and over. I mean, this is the story of the Old Testament. Take a book like judges, for example. You see the cyclical pattern over and over. Fall into idolatry, need restoration, need salvation. In some books of the Old Testament, like the book of Kings, I've done a lot of work in the book of Kings. I love that book. It's almost all a downward spiral. You just have a few moments of reform along the way with Josiah, Hezekiah, and others. But most of it is downhill into more and more idolatry and division and error and not being faithful to the Lord. None of that is at odds with the promises God gave to his people. None of that, you know, the Babylonian exile happens.

It's like an atomic bomb gets dropped in the middle of the biblical narrative. Seems to disrupt everything. It's massively confusing. The big question of all the post-exilic prophets is, is there a story to go forward? and the message is yes, God has not permanently divorced his people. There's hope. There's restoration. You know, Zechariah 1-3, return to me, I will return to you.

There's covenant renewal. The story goes forward. So God can fulfill his promises despite the unfaithfulness of his people. And with regard to Matthew 1618, I think it's very reasonable to take this promise as not entailing that the church won't fall into particular doctrinal and practical errors that maybe even stick around for some period of time or become fairly widespread or mainstream or are affirmed by some particular teaching apparatus within the church or something like that. It doesn't mean that every Christian affirms them and it doesn't mean the church has died.

It just means big errors come in, big mistakes happen. I don't think there's anything at odds with that interpretation of the verse and what we see in church history. And as Protestants, we can love church history. We can just and learn from all peer, I mean, my favorite theologian is Anselm. I love medieval Christianity. We just recognize there's also errors. There are. There's big errors that come in. Just as we look at the church today and we see God is building his church. He's doing incredible things. But there's lots of errors. It's messy. So let me know what you think about that. By the way, I've got a lot of people who watch my videos regularly but don't subscribe.

If you would subscribe to my channel, that would mean a lot to me. It's a good way to stay in contact. And I always appreciate the comments. I read all the comments. These days I'm so busy, I can't always respond, but I'll try to respond sporadically whenever I can. But I do appreciate the comments and I do read them carefully and I always appreciate the engagement, people watching my videos.

I hope this one is helpful. I hope if nothing else, it just sparks good conversation and clearer dialogue and understanding about how a Protestant can look at a verse. like this differently than I seem it seems to be assumed that many others are looking at it. All right, that's that's it. Thanks. Thanks so much for watching.