What the Lord means when He says the “Gates of Hell will not prevail”

Recently I have found a persistent line of questioning in reference to the traditional understanding of the Lord’s promise to the Church: the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it (Matt 16:18) . Yesterday on the blog a reader stated the question quite well:

This is just a curiosity question, but why is it that “gates” is always phrased by Catholics as if they were an offensive weapon being wielded against the Church? I’ve never heard them used as such ….

But in the normal usage of the word “gates” wouldn’t it be that the Church is doing the attacking against [the domain of] Hell, but that Hell’s gates will not be able to hold out (ie, prevail) against the Church’s onslaught [in Christ]? Gates don’t normally go around attacking things on their own…

Further, while the word may simply refer to the large entrance gate to a city or fortress, it also typically refers to the exit the people go out of. And in this sense, word focuses on “what proceeds out of something.”

And thus we see some of the subtleties of the word pules. Now, for the translator, “gates” is a perfectly adequate translation. But for the reader and interpreter, more is required.

Contextually, it would seem rather clear that Jesus does not have literal gates in mind. First, Hell does not have literal iron gates. Further, since Jesus speaks of the gates as “not prevailing,” it would also seem that he has in mind something more than inanimate metal gates of some sort. For as our reader states, it does not pertain to gates to do much more than just sit there.

Further still, the verb κατισχύσουσιν (katischusousin = will prevail) is a future, indicative, active verb. Now, inanimate objects tend to be acted upon, and thus they generally take passive verb forms, not active ones. For again it does not pertain to inanimate object to act, but to be acted upon.

And thus, contextually, it seems clear that our Lord here uses the word ”gates” in a figurative, rather than a literal sense. Figuratively, he probably means that the powers of Hell would not prevail against the Church. And, as stated above this is a common figurative meaning of the Greek word πύλης (gates) in ancient usage.

However, we need not understand this text in merely an “either-or” way. Many biblical texts admit of a number of different interpretations which need not be seen as mutually exclusive, even if they are rather different. For, one of the geniuses of human language and expression is that it can admit of many potential meanings.

And so, there may be a certain pastoral sense in which we can read this text in a way that it describes the Church, attacking the strongholds of the Hell in this world, and of gaining back territory for the Kingdom.

However, in this interpretation, we would once again want to avoid an overly literal sense of the term “Gates of Hell.” For in nowise, would the Church seek to storm The actual entrance of Hell so as to enter it. Rather, the gates of hell are to be sealed off by the Lord And locked from the outside (e.g. Rev 20:3). Of course, once again, these are not likely literal iron gates of some sort, But are at some sort of barrier or boundary marker indicating the limits of Hell, and it’s influence.

In this limited, and I would argue secondary sense, one might might see the Church as storming the ”gates of Hell” and Hell not being able to prevail against her.

Another interesting question that arises in this passage is a precise definition of the Greek word used for “Hell” in this passage. The Greek Word is ᾅδου (hadou or hades).

Here too, many insist that the term only means “the place of the dead,” and is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew concept of Sheol. Thus according to this position, Hades refers only to the place where all the dead went prior to the coming of Christ, and never means the place of the damned.

But again, the actual New Testament texts seem to bespeak a greater flexibility than an either-or argument would imply.

It is certainly true that “Hades” most often translates the Hebrew concept of Sheol. In this sense, Hades does not mean the theological place of the damned, where Satan and the other fallen angels dwell.

But it would also seem that there are uses of “Hades”to refer to the place of the damned, to the place of utter and permanent exclusion from the presence of God.

For example, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man is in torment in “Hades.” But here, the torment does not seem a mere temporary abode until the Messiah comes to call him. Jesus seems to describe a fiery place of torment, and the rich man is not sleeping in death but is quite alive and aware. Neither does he, or Father Abraham, seem to look to a day when this separation will be ended. Rather, there is mention of a “great abyss” over which no one can cross. The arrangement seems quite definitive, quite permanent, and the description more like that of Gehenna (γέεννα), the more common term Jesus uses to indicate Hell.

Further, in the Book of Revelation 20:14–15, there is the description of death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire. And thus, even if there is a distinction between Hades and Gehenna, they now seem, in a text like this, to be quite coterminous, indeed they become one reality.

So in the text that concerns us here, when Jesus speaks of the powers of Hell not prevailing, it would not seen that he has in mind simply Sheol (Hades), or purgatory. For why would Sheol or purgatory wage war against the Church?

Hence, contextually, it seems stronger argument that the Lord in using “Hades” to mean here what we moderns mean by the word “Hell,” namely, the theological place of the damned, to include Satan, the fallen angels, and human persons who have chosen to exclude themselves from the Kingdom of God.

As with all Biblical texts, reasonable scholars will differ, even within the Catholic Church. What I have tried to do here, is to show that the traditional Catholic understanding that the powers of Hell would not prevail against the church is at least a valid interpretation of the text, and at best, a better interpretation of the text.

"Lets cede that point for the sake of this conversation..."

k

"But if one were to actually research this supposed succession through Peter, one will surely find that the pedigree is very poorly laid out, and that the claim thereon is found wanting - The lineage is utterly without foundation, as is the concept of the laying on of hands between each successor (some of them being appointed by conquerors, and some that won their titles by intrigue). The succession is hardly more than questionable. "

Lets separate this out... the original Apostles being lead by Christ, did lay their hands to perform what ever ordination, healing, baptizing, etc...thing that they were going to do. Or conferring the Apostolic keys on to a new Apostle. So, that was the correct method of doing those things.

"The succession is hardly more than questionable."

I agree. This is something that can't be fudged. Especially between 70 AD and 325 AD. The leader of the several groups calling themselves "Christians" was elected by the people and not by the laying on of hands by an Apostle.

"...there are only twelve named gates in the New Jerusalem

You lost me here. I don't see any correlation between the gates and the Church. The gates would just be symbolic of the 12 tribes. And just because there were 12 Apostles, doesn't mean there couldn't ultimately have been 24 or 36 or whatever number the Lord called.

"Judas the betrayor, Matthais who was elected by the hand of men, or Paul who was appointed by Yeshua Himself?"

When Paul was converted and was no longer Saul, he would have had to gone to someone in the Church that had authority and be baptized as Christ commanded everyone to do. Then gone to one of the Apostles to be given the authority of an Apostle. Because that's the way Christ set it up and Paul would have to obey the rules just like everyone else.

So the appointment of Paul and Matthias are very much in harmony with the Church as set up by Christ.

"Doesn't that render the whole matter of authority to be moot? Who is to say that some successor did not lay hands upon the Baptists (as an instance) some time back in the ethereal past?"

Because it doesn't work that way. A house divided can't stand and God would not have two sides of His kingdom in contention with each other. AND the power to move mountains and heal etc... ultimately is God honoring that persons authority and doing the deed. The person has no actual power of themselves. So, no matter who they lay hands on, ultimately God has to be the one to agree to that persons appointment.

However, the power given by God to the prophets and Apostle has to be on the earth because Rev 11 clearly says it is. At least just before the second coming of Christ.

Lets separate this out... the original Apostles being lead by Christ, did lay their hands to perform what ever ordination, healing, baptizing, etc...thing that they were going to do. Or conferring the Apostolic keys on to a new Apostle. So, that was the correct method of doing those things.

While I am tentatively in agreement with this statement, It seems there must be times where there are exceptions to the rule - Paul being the notable case... And we have yet to determine whether Apostleship was meant to be simply concurrent, or exponential - And what then does that mean, as there should still be at least 12 historic discipleships inherited to this day (if Apostolic succession is to be paid mind to). What then do we do to unearth them all? A difficult proposition, as there is no definitive record (as would be as necessary here as in the pedigree of kings).

Or can it be that the laying on of hands is not the efficacious mechanism? Apostleship is mentioned as one of the gifts - Perhaps it is the direct appointment by Yeshua that is the necessary element, at which point, spiritual progeny is of no consequence... There is a precedence for such a thing in the prophets. There certainly is a notion toward laying on of hands and passing the mantle wrt the Biblical record concerning prophets, but it does not hold true in every case. Equally true, we can find examples of healing from afar, both in the record and today.

I am not being combative in this, but rather interested in how you can preserve the structure you detail in the face of sure errata.

[roamer_1:] The succession is hardly more than questionable.

I agree. This is something that can't be fudged. Especially between 70 AD and 325 AD. The leader of the several groups calling themselves "Christians" was elected by the people and not by the laying on of hands by an Apostle.

Then the point seems to be necessarily moot, as there is nary a record to support a pedigree of any kind. That pedigree may well be there mind you, but for our purposes, without the record, the claim is without standing, and the laying on of hands would be so obfuscated as to be without evidence. How then does one proceed?

[roamer_1:] [...] there are only twelve named gates in the New Jerusalem

You lost me here. I don't see any correlation between the gates and the Church. The gates would just be symbolic of the 12 tribes. And just because there were 12 Apostles, doesn't mean there couldn't ultimately have been 24 or 36 or whatever number the Lord called.

No, New Jerusalem distinctly names twelve foundations after each of the tribes, and twelve gates after each of the Apostles (I may have that reversed). The point being twelve NAMED objects - I would just like to know how that can be when there are 14 named Apostles - I can understand Judas being omitted, but that leaves us with two candidates (Paul and Matthias) to fill his slot - One appointed by men, and one appointed by Yeshua Himself - Which one gets the spot?

This is an highly significant question, as the Roman church bids us all to pay attention to their hierarchy on the basis of Matthias' election.

When Paul was converted and was no longer Saul, he would have had to gone to someone in the Church that had authority and be baptized as Christ commanded everyone to do. Then gone to one of the Apostles to be given the authority of an Apostle. Because that's the way Christ set it up and Paul would have to obey the rules just like everyone else.

That is problematic, as Paul spent 3 years in the desert with Yeshua, and began his ministry and office before he had contact with any of the other apostles.

[roamer_1:] Doesn't that render the whole matter of authority to be moot? Who is to say that some successor did not lay hands upon the Baptists (as an instance) some time back in the ethereal past?

Because it doesn't work that way. A house divided can't stand and God would not have two sides of His kingdom in contention with each other. AND the power to move mountains and heal etc... ultimately is God honoring that persons authority and doing the deed. The person has no actual power of themselves. So, no matter who they lay hands on, ultimately God has to be the one to agree to that persons appointment.

Agreed, at least in principle. But then, Where are they now? Is it that the succession is hidden, but still ongoing? How does any hierarchy apply? I am not without sympathy for the fact that the gifts are present in the Roman church, but they are also very present in many denominations, and probably with most effect in the Pentecostals... If they are evident throughout, how can an hierarchy be supported (it would seem any authority in BOTH/ANY camps would cancel out the necessity of hierarchy in ANY/OTHER)?

However, the power given by God to the prophets and Apostle has to be on the earth because Rev 11 clearly says it is. At least just before the second coming of Christ.

On that much we will agree. But I see no evidence of those two higher offices in anything resembling a church.

Excellent points, NYer.

We should all keep in mind too that the fact that Peter was a repentent sinner really has no bearing whatsoever on the matter of the "gates of hell" prevailing or not prevailing. God has consistently chosen to use sinful human beings to infallibly teach "faith and morals" to other sinful human beings, even before He began to build His Church.

For example, most Christians agree that every single "Book" in the Bible infallibly teaches "faith and morals", even though each one was written by a sinful human being, under the inerrant and unceasing guidance of the Holy Spirit.

David wrote many of the Psalms in the Old Testament after he committed adultery and murder, Saul/Paul wrote his New Testament letters after he persecuted Jesus, and Peter wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter as now contained in the New Testament after he publicly denied his Lord.

In His perfect and sovereign will, God has also chosen to have a series of sinful human beings appointed to be His Pope (serving as the "Prime Minister" to the King of Kings), starting with Peter, and has given them a number of special gifts, including the certainty that they will infallibly teach "faith and morals according to Almighty God", both to the Church that Jesus built (as He had solemnly promised he would), as well as to the rest of the world. This infallibility when teaching "faith and morals" extends also to the "Magisterium", or "Teaching Authority" of the Church that Jesus built (as He had solemnly promised), and consists of the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope in their teaching office or authority.

With God, all things are possible

"Daniel 2 fairly interprets itself."

No, it does not. To say that "brass" = "the Roman Empire" because "brass" = "the Roman Empire" obviously employs the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

You have to make the case for your interpretative assertions, and allow others to judge the merit (or lack thereof) of your interpretive accuracy and abilities. You can't just say they are so, and say "isn't it obvious" - you have to make the case for your personal interpretations.

And to say it means that because YOU SAY SO is another way of declaring that your own reasoning and interpretation is infallible. The problem with that is that declaring your own personal interpretation to be infallible is a completely false assertion, and another person could simply disagree with you based on their OWN claimed personal infallibility, and then you would go back and forth debating the merit level of each other's personal infallibility.

That's why we don't let teams in sporting contests decide whether there was a score or not, or a foul was committed, or a pitch was a ball or strike, etc. The two teams would never agree on anything, so we use referees and umpires to interpret all the actions in a game (in a fair and honest way hopefully).

God understands that particular human weakness, so he specifically picked a designated group of people to be "umpires" and "referees", so to speak, and interpret Scripture and the correct teachings from God on faith and morals for God's only Church, and for the rest of the world as well. (The difference is that God ensures that the decisions of his "referees" and "umpires" on teachings of faith and morals are NEVER WRONG. They are infallible concerning those teachings on faith and morals, per God's holy design, whether you choose to accept that or not.)

It sounds like your thinking mirrors some of the teachings of Seventh-day Adventists, and perhaps some of the Mormon teachings as well, or those of the Jehovah's Witnesses. You obviously did not wish to publicly divulge what denomination you are affiliated with, but perhaps you could answer this question: Do you believe that Ellen G. White was a true prophetess of God?

"If Linus or those after Linus were true successors of Peter, they would have to be equal with Peter and John. And have the same power and be able to do the same things and they can't nor have they ever claimed to be able to."

Where the heck did you get that idea from? I don't believe that statement is anywhere in the Bible either. If I'm wrong, please tell me - what is the Chapter and Verse from the Bible that says someone's successor will be exactly like them, and will be able to do all things exactly like their predecessor did (beyond the specific authorities which Jesus Christ explicitly pledged they would have)? If you can't find a verse that explicitly declares that, then that idea had to come from either your own head, or from some other source outside the Bible.

Would you assert, for example, that King Rehoboam, the successor of King Solomon as the King of Judah, possessed exactly the same gifts and abilities and attributes that King Solomon possessed?

That's like saying Mr. John Smith Jr. will have all of the attributes of John Smith Sr. because he is a successor within that family.

I think most people would strongly agree that it would be absurd and ridiculous to assume that successors in anything in life perfectly possess all of the exact same qualities and attributes of their predecessors. That does not in any way reflect reality, and is not a Biblical teaching either.

(I'm heading over to another thread now, which is discussing "Apostolic Succession".)

"While I am tentatively in agreement with this statement,

Very good post by the way. You bring up some good points and at the same time raise some very interesting questions.

"It seems there must be times where there are exceptions to the rule - Paul being the notable case..."

Good point. I tend to lean toward the fact that the Bible is not a life history of each of it's players. So I start with finding the basic rules for an event, such as becoming an Apostle, then applying those rules to all the players even though it might not even have been written down.

So I figure at some point, Paul underwent the same process that Matthias went through.

"A difficult proposition, as there is no definitive record (as would be as necessary here as in the pedigree of kings)."

Good point. I see this as God's responsibility and not mine =). Thinking outside the box for a second, :
Malachi 4:
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

Doesn't this prove that past prophets will visit man before the second coming? So, couldn't passed Apostles visit also if God wanted them to, to bring the Apostleship back I mean?

"There is a precedence for such a thing in the prophets.

True. But since the Apostles themselves were also prophets, as they prophesied and spoke directly to God, I would guess they are handled much the same as the "Prophets".

"Then the point seems to be necessarily moot, as there is nary a record to support a pedigree of any kind.

Ahhh... but we have a record. We have a record of the action of the Lord during that time which tells us who He considered to have Apostolic and Prophetic authority.

Remember the Lord spoke to John the Revelator on the island of Patmos in 70AD. Where John recorded the Book of Revelation. Paul also was prophesying and talking with the Lord up till the time of his death in 67AD. Which is same time period the Catholics claim Linus succeeded Peter. (or Clement I depending on who you talk to)

Neither Linus or Clement ever spoke to God nor received any prophesies.

I think the record of the actions of God are clear.

This doesn't address your exact point, but I think it represents a record of who doesn't have the Apostolic succession. Which is also useful.

"Because Our Lord promised the Holy Spirit would be sent to His Church to teach Her all things (John 14:26)."

Let's take a look at John14:26 in context:

²²Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
²³Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
²⁴He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
²⁵These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
²⁶But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jesus was teaching a group of people, and answering one follower's question for him and those others listening, and by extension us(as God had His inspired words recorded) for our edification.

Jesus has a personal relationship with those that follow Him, and the message was for them (and us) Not a Church organization. For his church, yes.

It's best to not just throw out a scriptural reference and declare it means something it does not.

And She has been sharing Her learning with the world since the beginning at Pentacost (sic) (Acts 1).

God shares his meaning of scripture through the Holy Spirit to followers who are born again and have that personal relationship with Him (His church)---not a "C"hurch organization.

Plus there was no Catholic church back then at Pentecost.

And your scriptural reference does not say anything about the "C"urch.

Acts 1, Jesus speaking to His followers, believers:

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

It's quite clear He was NOT giving that to any Church---referenced by you as She and Her.

In that earlier post relating to this one, you said:

"By Daniel's description the Catholic Church cannot be the kingdom of God because it was created during the time of the Brass kingdom.

- - - - - - -

Well, lets take a closer look at your interpretation and assertion.

Jesus began His earthly ministry during the reign of the Roman Empire (as did John the Baptizer):

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; Luke 3:1-3

Jesus proclaims that the "Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" during the reign of the Roman Empire:

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, "Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew 4:17

And Jesus declares He is going to begin to build His Church on Peter, the rock, this also being during the reign of the Roman Empire:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Now, which of those Bible texts and quotes from Jesus Christ is inaccurate?

Very good post by the way. You bring up some good points and at the same time raise some very interesting questions.

Thank you for your kind reply. I am enjoying your posts as well!

I tend to lean toward the fact that the Bible is not a life history of each of it's players. So I start with finding the basic rules for an event, such as becoming an Apostle, then applying those rules to all the players even though it might not even have been written down.

I can appreciate that, I really can. I see the structures and mechanisms too. But I have found a need to be very cautious of extrapolation, so you might forgive me if I am not quite where you are (albeit that I am close by). My difference from you is in the criteria: What one may think is the ruleset governing 'becoming an apostle' is offset by the errata - Perhaps the exception to the rule proves the rule, but I must be convinced of that, lest a deeper thing, one that the 'appearance' is not privy to, is missed altogether.

That is not to say that I can school you here - I don't know. But to me, the Word must be in perfect harmony. Not only OT vs NT (two witnesses), but also those structures and mechanisms I referred to previously - The Gifts of YHWH are without repentance, so every_single_thing set forth from the beginning must be carried forward.

Apostleship, as a mechanism or object, is an odd thing... A seemingly new thing... That newness piques my interest, and is something I don't know how to map exactly. So I dare say the 'rules' may not be all that evident.

[roamer_1:] A difficult proposition, as there is no definitive record (as would be as necessary here as in the pedigree of kings).

Good point. I see this as God's responsibility and not mine =).

To be sure - but that leaves us with an elusive quarry: If succession is a thing to be minded, then it must be apparent, or at least obtainable in some means of proof, lest we have no recourse against pretenders (such as the Roman church). Bear in mind that I am not against your primary premise, but as a hallmark of authority (we must listen because of some line of spiritual fore-bearers), it is left without it's visceral part. Ergo, while 'laying on of hands', or the 'passing of the office' may be necessary, it is not necessarily discernible. Therefore, the power of YHWH inherent through ANY man, must stand or fall upon the singular display of that power by that man, and to our eyes, any succession would be irrelevant anyhoo. YES?

Thinking outside the box for a second, : [... Malachi 4:] Doesn't this prove that past prophets will visit man before the second coming? So, couldn't passed Apostles visit also if God wanted them to, to bring the Apostleship back I mean?

Perhaps... All things are possible in YHWH. But this would needfully fall in the same category as skittle-poopin' unicorns without a sure prediction evident in the Word. There is no such passage predicting any return of any apostle...

However, It is possible that something close could happen, as represented in another man:

2Ki_2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.

But if we believe Yeshua, Elijah has already come (Mat 11:12-15), and no one noticed or understood (at least collectively)... Should we be graced with such a thing in our time, I think it would be hard to see through today's religiosity. I wonder if Christians can recognize the two witnesses predicted at the end of the age, or any other coming as a true agent. If the history recounted in the Word is any indication, most will not even notice.

since the Apostles themselves were also prophets, as they prophesied and spoke directly to God, I would guess they are handled much the same as the "Prophets".

Probably right, but not explicitly declared: So again, I must be careful with such a thing.

[roamer_1:] Then the point seems to be necessarily moot, as there is nary a record to support a pedigree of any kind.

Ahhh... but we have a record. We have a record of the action of the Lord during that time which tells us who He considered to have Apostolic and Prophetic authority.

Remember the Lord spoke to John the Revelator on the island of Patmos in 70AD. Where John recorded the Book of Revelation. Paul also was prophesying and talking with the Lord up till the time of his death in 67AD. Which is same time period the Catholics claim Linus succeeded Peter. (or Clement I depending on who you talk to)

Neither Linus or Clement ever spoke to God nor received any prophesies. I think the record of the actions of God are clear.

This doesn't address your exact point, but I think it represents a record of who doesn't have the Apostolic succession. Which is also useful.

That must be true, without a doubt! And it returns me to my point above = The actual indicator of any agent of YHWH must be the power of YHWH resting in that man, and not in any succession. Therein is the only mark of authority. Was there a spiritual succession that installed the 'spirit of Elijah' upon John the Immerser? Was there a laying-on of hands? A passing of the mantle down through ages? Perhaps there was, but if so, it is obscure. The efficacious mechanism of his office (as an observable thing) must be contained within his person... And that alone must be the mark of authority.

“…Perhaps the exception to the rule proves the rule, but I must be convinced of that, lest a deeper thing, one that the 'appearance' is not privy to, is missed altogether. “

Understood. Ultimately we can only know if we are instructed by an actual Apostle or Prophet on these matters. We are not able deduce such minute details just left to our own understanding. There’s just not enough information and instruction in the writings we have.

“The Gifts of YHWH are without repentance, so every_single_thing set forth from the beginning must be carried forward. “

Very astute observation and I agree.

The purpose of the “Apostle” must also be considered. The people in that time period lived in a very structured world. The Romans had a very structured government and military. The Jews lived under the law of Moses and all the laws that entailed. There was organized taxation among other things.

A chaotic Church would have been completely foreign to those people. So, I submit that even though Eph. 4-11 isn’t very specific, it outlines what could only be a very structured Church system. There were even more position in the Church than what is listed there. If we are to believe God is a God of order, then His Church would have to be as well.

Since the Apostles of the time spoke to God directly and the Bishops of the time did not, we must conclude a clear definition of duties which God Himself defined. This means, there was a hierarchy in the Church. I can conclude that in that hierarchy that the Apostles were the closest to God.

And as the NT demonstrates, the duties of an Apostle included teaching and correcting the Church as a whole and not so much individuals. If this is true, then the Apostles would be teaching, correcting, and passing on divine instruction to the Bishops.

Therefore, you can’t have a Bishop, with out first having an Apostle. By following the logic of “carried forward”, there would be a hole in the hierarchy above the Bishop and the Bishop would not be receiving divine council.

“But if we believe Yeshua, Elijah has already come (Mat 11:12-15), and no one noticed or understood (at least collectively)... Should we be graced with such a thing in our time, I think it would be hard to see through today's religiosity. I wonder if Christians can recognize the two witnesses predicted at the end of the age, or any other coming as a true agent. If the history recounted in the Word is any indication, most will not even notice. “

Most will not recognize them. Most have already refused to do so. Just like so many who stood feet away from Jesus Himself and refused to believe. They will be scorned by most of the people in the world. This is the prophesy.

They will be in plain view for several years, but the majority of the world won’t know them. And if someone rejects the servant, they reject the master. This is why Christ gave several warnings on this. No one can reject a true prophet and be saved at the judgment. Luke 13:23-28 is very clear. Most of the people that think they are getting into Heaven, won’t be allowed in.

"Well, lets take a closer look at your interpretation and assertion.

Honestly... you should... well...rethink your conclusions.

"Jesus began His earthly ministry during the reign of the Roman Empire (as did John the Baptizer):

So?

"Jesus proclaims that the "Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" during the reign of the Roman Empire:"

Kingdom of Heaven should have tipped you off. Calling people to repentance so they can enter heaven. He's not talking about the Church.

"And Jesus declares He is going to begin to build His Church on Peter, the rock, this also being during the reign of the Roman Empire:"

No. Peter is not who the Church is built upon. It's built upon Jesus Christ. I get tired of hearing this Peter nonsense.

Luke 6:48
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

This is the analogy Jesus is referring to in Matt 16. The rock or foundation He will build His Church is God revealing His divinity via the Holy Ghost. And the gates of hell can not prevail against this.

Matt 16:17
...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 ...and upon this rock I will build my church;

Here's something else to think about. The Catholic hierarchy is closed. Meaning, they do not accept authority outside the Catholic church, right?

On the authority totem pole, a prophet is higher than a Pope, right?

Rev 11 is very clear about the two prophets being on the earth just before the second coming of Christ. Therefore, these two prophets have higher authority than the Pope.

Therefore, they are not part of the Catholic Church and are rejected outright by Catholics.

Catholic Church can not be the true Church of God because it has no provision for succeeding authority of the Pope to these true prophets. And God's house is not divided.

Ultimately we can only know if we are instructed by an actual Apostle or Prophet on these matters. We are not able deduce such minute details just left to our own understanding. There’s just not enough information and instruction in the writings we have.

That is a very important concept, and one I have argued hereon for years. Would that Christianity might take such a precaution in all things: We don't know, and we should not assume - Such should be a foundational principle.

The purpose of the “Apostle” must also be considered. The people in that time period lived in a very structured world. The Romans had a very structured government and military. The Jews lived under the law of Moses and all the laws that entailed. There was organized taxation among other things.

A chaotic Church would have been completely foreign to those people. So, I submit that even though Eph. 4-11 isn’t very specific, it outlines what could only be a very structured Church system. There were even more position in the Church than what is listed there. If we are to believe God is a God of order, then His Church would have to be as well.

Now see, Here is a bone to pick - One of those 'new' things that have no place: The 'Assembly', or 'Congregation' goes WAY back. Why the distinction of 'church'? One just assumes, because one has been raised up in that tradition. Today there is a distinct difference between a church and a synagogue, a difference so great that it is insurmountable. But that was not the case at the beginning. Yeshua was a rabbi. An Hebrew mind would not see him setting up a distinct thing, but rather, another school or discipline of Judaism. What is interesting in that is that the premise of the founding of a different thing (a NEW thing) seems to be innate in Christianity, and it is just that sort of thing that gives me pause.

I do not see what Yeshua established as new, or chaotic - I see a return to Torah... A rejection of the traditions that Judaism bolted on to true religion. I see a renewed covenant, not a new one.

But in that, I find no place for the 'apostle'. The elder and the deacon translate right into Judaism... The cup and the bread, baptism, ... The structures transmit perfectly... as do all of the offices, except for apostle. Is that simply a translational issue? What an interesting thing to chew upon... As you say, YHWH is fond of order though... What is of note is that He ordered His religion long ago - The hard part seems to be to get Man to follow it. : )

This means, there was a hierarchy in the Church. I can conclude that in that hierarchy that the Apostles were the closest to God.

I don't know that I can precisely conclude that - I am close to that, and recognize the authority therein, but prophet and apostle seem to be fairly close by comparison - I am speaking of OT prophets particularly... the office of prophet. See below:

And as the NT demonstrates, the duties of an Apostle included teaching and correcting the Church as a whole and not so much individuals. If this is true, then the Apostles would be teaching, correcting, and passing on divine instruction to the Bishops.

True. but the same can be said of the prophets: Prophets teach, correct, heal, foretell, demonstrate (miracles), They have a direct audience with the Divine... pretty much the same thing as apostle. Like in kind, they are even authorized scribes. Like apostles, they also have authority to establish and tear down.

But perhaps there is a distinction: If an Apostle is equivalent to a 'great' prophet, the like of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and etc, and the lesser 'prophet' is equivalent to the gift of prophecy, rather than the office, then we have it tied up with a neat little bow. Please do not presume that I am endorsing it as such, but it gives you an idea how one might justify (reconcile) the present with the past - As I said, everything must be carried forward.

But for now, lets say the difference between prophet and apostle is that apostles seem to have a knack for planting which the prophets seem to lack, at least in an organizational sense... I can admit that this comes from a Pentecostal model that I can somewhat adhere to. And along with it, I do not want to lose the idea that the office of apostle seems to be of an higher authority than that of the prophet, if in fact hierarchy can be applied - I have to be cautious with that, as even the angels consider themselves fellow workers... hierarchy may not be the right concept exactly.

Most of the people that think they are getting into Heaven, won’t be allowed in.

I think that is true in it's sense, but I don't think we go to heaven - I think heaven comes to us. : )

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.