Some refer to Matthew as the ‘Assembly Gospel’. Is this right?

Only so far as Matthew’s is the only Gospel to mention the Assembly (see Matt. 16: 18; 18: 17). To build upon these two brief references the idea that his Gospel is particularly characterised by the truth of the Assembly is wholly unjustified—and yet it is taught that ‘the assembly is in view all through that gospel’! Even if we also include the figure of the pearl in Matt. 13: 46 (which the Lord seemed to expect the disciples to understand—see v51), a third of the book is behind us already before we reach that point. Nor should we assume that what we know now of the Assembly can just be read into Matthew’s Gospel. The concept of the Assembly as presented there is limited to a community of faithful Jews called out from the main body of Judaism. This is proved by Matt. 18: 17: “… and if also he will not listen to the assembly, let him be to thee as one of the nations and a tax-gatherer. Language that speaks of tax-collectors and Gentiles only makes sense in a Jewish context. Of course, this does not mean that the truth of the Assembly would not be developed by later revelation, and there is clearly scope for this within the initial statement concerning the Assembly in Matt. 16: 18. However, it does not follow that we can retrospectively insert the truth of Eph. 1: 22, 23 or Col. 1: 18 into “I will build my assembly”—as if the truth of those Scriptures was what the Lord was presenting to His disciples at that time. Indeed, the two fundamental characteristics of the Assembly—the Head ascended into heaven, and the Holy Spirit sent from that ascended Head to indwell the body on earth—are not provided for at all in Matthew’s Gospel. There is no record of the ascension, and nothing is said about the descent of the Holy Spirit. These are serious omissions in any idea that Matthew is the ‘Assembly Gospel’.

   What of the other Gospels? Do any of them warrant being called an ‘Assembly Gospel’? Unlike Matthew, Mark does, of course, record how the Lord “was taken up into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God” (Mark 16: 19). Also, like all the Gospel writers, he speaks of the Lord as One who will baptise “with [the] Holy Spirit” (Mark 1: 8)—but those listening at the time would not have their thoughts taken beyond what was envisaged by the Messianic prophecy of Joel 2: 28, 29 in relation to the kingdom. Certainly, there is no hint of a new and distinct body from Israel being set up. Even the sign-gifts of Mark 16: 17, 18 can be understood in a purely OT setting such as Ps. 68: 18.

   Remarkably, Luke says nothing about the Assembly in his Gospel, although his subsequent volume (Acts) is full of it. Why this strange omission? The answer lies in the fact that, like Matthew, the dominant theme in Luke is the kingdom, but unlike Matthew, he also speaks of God’s grace in re-offering the kingdom to Israel after the Lord’s death. Thus the parable of the unfruitful fig-tree spared judgement (see Luke 13: 6-9) is unique to the third Gospel, as is the mission of the seventy (see Luke 10: 1-16) sent out after the prefiguring to Peter, John and James (see Luke 9: 28-36) of the Lord’s later glorification. Hence, the book of Acts details how “times of refreshing” (Acts 3: 19) were available to Israel if they repented and how God, in grace, would “send Jesus Christ” (v20) back to them. The Gospel of Luke therefore details the first offer of the kingdom, while the book of Acts details the second offer and its subsequent rejection. This means that while the early history of the Assembly is also described in Acts, that history cannot yet be separated from the offer of the public kingdom. You cannot have the Assembly in its present character in which all the distinctions between Jew and Gentile have been removed (see Eph. 2: 14-22) while the kingdom is still being offered to Israel (in which there is blessing for the Gentiles, but not equality with the Jew). Hence, for example, in Acts 15 the Gentiles are viewed as in the Assembly on the basis of “the words of the prophets” (see v15), and as a distinct class from the Jews.

   When we turn to John, we find a Gospel that anticipates Christianity as we know it today—“in that day” (John 14: 20; 16: 23, 26). Christ is rejected from the start (see John 1: 11), and He speaks of drawing His sheep out of the fold of Judaism (see John 10: 16). Twice, the Lord is recorded as saying ‘an hour is coming and now is’ (see John 4: 23; 5: 25)—what was then historically future, morally, had already begun. A great deal is said about the Lord going back to the Father (see John 14: 12 etc.), and much teaching concerning the Holy Spirit is given in chapters 14-16, a gift consequent upon the Lord’s glorification (see John 7: 39). Of course, John does not have the Pauline teaching of the distinction between Jew and Gentile erased in one body on earth connected to a glorified Head in heaven by the Holy Spirit—but he writes as already prepared for it. It is not an ‘Assembly Gospel’ but it assumes the Assembly in its full and unique character.