From the very first verses of the Gospels, the theme is clear: the Kingdom of God has drawn near.
This was not a religious metaphor, nor a form of “invisible church,” but a political and prophetic proclamation.
The message had two components: a Melek (King) and a Kingdom.
That is why the crowds reacted intensely, and why the Roman and Jewish authorities felt threatened.
But within the same textual tradition, especially in the Gospel of Matthew, we find another red thread: the Church.
Not as a synonym for the Kingdom, but as a visible, juridical, organized institution.
The difference is not merely terminological: it is a change of paradigm.
From direct loyalty to the King, to mediation through an institution.
From Kingdom as divine reality, to Church as historical instance.
This duality cannot be ignored.
It explains both the diversity of New Testament texts and the later development of Christianity: from a Kingdom movement to a state religion.
The Kingdom: the core of the preaching
John the Baptist
His message was simple: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has drawn near” (Matthew 3:2).
He does not speak about a church, nor about a new religion, but about a coming King and a reign that is being established.
Jesus of Nazareth
- He begins His ministry with exactly the same words (Matthew 4:17).
- He sends the disciples to proclaim the Kingdom (Matthew 10:7).
- All the major parables describe the Kingdom (Matthew 13, Luke 15–16).
- The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) describes the ethics of the Kingdom’s subjects: poor in spirit, merciful, pure in heart.
- In the “Our Father” prayer, the first request is “Your Kingdom come.”
The expectations of the apostles
- The request of the sons of Zebedee: a place on the right and on the left “in Your Kingdom” (Matthew 20:21).
- After the resurrection, the disciples’ question is: “Lord, is it at this time that You are going to restore the Kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6).
Everything breathes this expectation.
At the center of the Gospels is not the idea of church, but of a real Kingdom with a real King.
The Church: an isolated appearance
In this landscape dominated by the Kingdom, only in the Gospel of Matthew do three passages appear where Jesus speaks of the “church”:
- Matthew 16:18–19 – Peter receives “the keys of the Kingdom” and is told: “on this rock I will build My Church.”
- Matthew 18:15–20 – “tell it to the church,” the juridical procedure of community discipline.
- Matthew 28:19–20 – the Trinitarian baptismal formula and the universal missionary mandate.
These three passages are singular.
Neither Mark, nor Luke, nor John ever mention the word “church.”
Nor does Paul reproduce expressions like “to bind and to loose.”
In fact, not even the Book of Acts ever shows that Jesus would have spoken of a “church” as an institution during His lifetime.
This absence is strong evidence: those passages were added later, when Christian communities already understood themselves as “church” and needed scriptural foundation for institution, hierarchy, and rituals.
Analysis of the three passages
a) Matthew 16:18–19
The context is Peter’s confession: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus confirms that this revelation came from the Father. Up to this point, everything follows the line of the Kingdom.
But immediately, foreign words appear: “My Church,” “I will build,” “the keys of the Kingdom,” “to bind and to loose.”
Legal, architectural, institutional language.
Then, just a few verses later, Peter is called “Satan.”
This contradiction suggests that 16:18–19 is an inserted block.
Moreover, the formula “to bind and to loose” also appears in 18:18, but there in the plural, addressed to the whole community.
We therefore have two competing versions:
one that gives the power to Peter alone, another that gives it to the community.
Most likely, the version in chapter 16 is an interpolation to ground Petrine primacy, especially useful to Rome.
b) Matthew 18:15–20
The context of the chapter is the ethics of the Kingdom: humility like that of children, the parable of the lost sheep, forgiveness.
Then suddenly a legal code appears: procedural steps, appeal to the church, exclusion.
After this block, the text returns to the parable of limitless forgiveness.
Between “forgive seventy times seven” and “treat him as a pagan” there is a clear tension.
The juridical insertion breaks the flow.
Moreover, the statement “I am in their midst” is anachronistic: Jesus was physically present with them; it made no sense for Him to say that.
The formula has parallels in John 14 and 20, post-paschal texts.
c) Matthew 28:19–20
After the resurrection, Jesus declares: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”
That would be a perfect ending for the Gospel: the risen Melek possesses all authority.
But immediately an addition appears: the Trinitarian baptismal formula and the universal mission.
This Trinitarian formula appears nowhere else.
In the Book of Acts, baptism is always “in the name of Jesus.”
That is why many still acknowledge today that Matthew 28:19 reflects a later liturgical development, probably introduced to combat Arianism and to fix the dogma of the Trinity.
Why only in Matthew?
Matthew is the most “institutional” of all the Gospels.
It is written for a Judeo-Christian community already experiencing tensions with the synagogues.
Precisely here arises the need to legitimize an alternative instance: if the synagogue excludes, there must be another instance — the “church.”
The insertions in Matthew reflect exactly this situation:
- in chapter 16, Peter receives the keys;
- in chapter 18, the community becomes an instance;
- in chapter 28, the universal mission and Trinitarian baptism confer full legitimacy.
Thus, Matthew becomes the preferred Gospel of the institutional church.
Mark, Luke, and John remain closer to the original message of the Kingdom, but Matthew provides the necessary texts to ground the authority of the church and of Rome.
The conflict of theologies: Jesus and Paul
Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom.
Paul developed a theology of cross, sacrifice, and community.
In Paul we already find a language of “body of Christ,” “church” as spiritual organism.
This allowed the shift from Kingdom to Church.
But the insertions in Matthew do not seem purely Pauline.
They bear the marks of a later period, when the church was already facing problems of authority, dogma, and universalism.
If Paul laid the foundations of ecclesial theology, these insertions consolidated it in canonical form.
Traces of Trinitarian dogma
The clearest sign of late redaction is the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19.
It is not reflected in the apostolic practice of Acts.
In the 4th century, the Arian controversy forced the church to have a scriptural text that would legitimize the dogma of the Trinity.
The interpolation in Matthew perfectly meets this need.
Thus, the Gospel, which originally ended with the proclamation of the Melek’s authority, was “extended” with an epilogue that fixes dogma and ritual.
Implications for today’s reader
The real question is not only historical, but existential:
Where does the believer’s loyalty lie?
- If the original emphasis was the Kingdom, then the call is direct: loyalty to the King, living the ethics of the Kingdom, awaiting judgment.
- If the shifted emphasis was the Church, then loyalty shifts toward institution, clergy, rituals, and dogmas.
History shows what happened: Christianity became an imperial religion, the church sought legitimacy from Caesar and became part of the empire.
But this is precisely the betrayal of the prophetic line, which called the empire a “beast.”
Returning to the evangelical core means recognizing again that there is only one Melek and one Kingdom, not parallel institutions demanding submission.
Conclusion: Restoring the message
When we read the Gospels carefully, the picture is clear:
- The Kingdom is the dominant, authentic, prophetic theme.
- The Church appears only as insertions in Matthew, with foreign language and visible purposes.
Therefore, the true restoration of Christianity does not mean defending the institution, but returning to the Kingdom.
Before any empire or beast, loyalty remains with the heavenly Melek.
Postscript: a simple test
If we remove the three “church” passages from Matthew, the text flows perfectly, without breaks, and remains a Gospel of the Kingdom.
With them, contradictions, fractures, and dogmas appear.
This is the simplest proof that they are later additions, meant to harmonize the Gospel with the institution.