Posted on 03/07/2013 11:52:03 AM PST by NYer
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.
Ping!
Gates are defensive. They are used to either keep someone in or keep them out. When one prevails against a gate, it means they are able to open or close it, regardless of what the owner of the gate wants.
It’s kind of exciting within the context of the gate in question.
Actually, I got my words backward. I meant to say that when the gate does not prevail...
How do you really know what the Lord means?
Because Our Lord promised the Holy Spirit would be sent to His Church to teach Her all things (John 14:26). And She has been sharing Her learning with the world since the beginning at Pentacost (Acts 1).
Also, consider that Our Lord meant something. Are your children free to interpret what you mean when you instruct them or do you explain it until they see what you are meaning to convey? So it is with Christ. The Church has been given the commission to teach (2 Cor 2:17) the world because the Words of Christ are not open to personal interpretation.
Did the gates of Hell prevail when Peter denied his Lord three times?
I clicked thinking this was a conclave thread..
re: “Did the gates of Hell prevail when Peter denied his Lord three times?”
The short answer - no. The gates of hell will not withstand the attacks of the Church. Even if you take the Catholic position that Peter IS the Rock upon which the Church is built, Peter is NOT the Church personified. Was Peter bringing an attack against Hell at the moment he denied Christ? No. Was he even trying to? I don’t think so. He was falling to the temptation of fear and cowardice. He was the one under attack.
Also, remember that Jesus told him already that this was going to happen, but that Peter would eventually be reconciled with his Lord.
Maybe I’m not sure what you are getting at, but those are my thoughts on your question.
I suppose my thoughts are that Peter is NOT the Rock upon which the Church is built. That Rock is Christ. And He is the Church personified. Without Him (and His sacrifice) there would be no Church. The Church could survive without Peter and there is no mention of any successors to the Apostles after they had deceased. Certainly no successor to the chair of Peter or a Pope. Paul considered himself no less equal than Peter. The very idea of a papacy is anti-Biblical as well as anything suggesting that anyone other than Christ is the foundation of the Church.
No, they did not. Jesus, recognizing Peter's human frailty , gives him the opportunity to restore his fidelity. In John 21, following the Resurrection, we find the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias. Simon Peter tells the disciples that he is going fishing and they decide to go along with him. They return to shore around dawn and see a man standing on the shore. He asks if they have caught anything. He then tells them to cast their net over the right side of the boat and they will find something. The catch is so large they are unable to pull in the net. When they get to shore they find a charcoal fire with fish on it and bread. The man instructs them to bring some of their fish. The stranger on the shore tells them to "Come, have breakfast!"
After breakfast, Jesus says to Peter:
“Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.i
3 times Peter denied Jesus after being with Jesus 3 years. On the 3rd visit since His resurrection, He asks Peter 3 times "Do you love Me? 3 times, Peter said he loved him. This was the 3rd time and only time He appeared at Galilee; just as the Scripture said.
Notice, too, the charcoal fire, that appears at the time of Peter's denial and again at Peter's acceptance. With God, there are no coincidences. Jesus broke him with the 3rd time and Peter was grieved; brought low by the Lord, now Peter is ready to serve and what a service He did. As you continue with John 21, Jesus predicts how Peter's faith will be tested.
Amen, amen, I say to you,j when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”
The Apostle and first "Bishop of Rome", Peter, was imprisoned, tortured, and crucified in Rome in 64 CE under the Roman emperor, Nero. Some scholars set the date at October 13, 64 CE. The earliest documented mention of Peter's death is in a letter from Clement, bishop of Rome (AD 88-97), to the Corinthians. It is in "The Acts of Peter" (2nd century CE), that we find the story of Peter being crucified upside-down, supposedly at Peter's request, because he was "unworthy to die in the same manner as my Lord."
re: “I suppose my thoughts are that Peter is NOT the Rock upon which the Church is built. That Rock is Christ. And He is the Church personified. Without Him (and His sacrifice) there would be no Church. The Church could survive without Peter and there is no mention of any successors to the Apostles after they had deceased. Certainly no successor to the chair of Peter or a Pope. Paul considered himself no less equal than Peter. The very idea of a papacy is anti-Biblical as well as anything suggesting that anyone other than Christ is the foundation of the Church.”
I completely agree with your statment above. I am not Catholic and though I believe Peter to have been a great influence on the early church - I agree with you that he was not the “Rock” Jesus spoke about. I guess I am confused about your orignial question about the getes of Hell prevailing in Peter’s denial.
Did Satan succeed in tempting Peter to deny his Lord? Yes. The Gates of Hell prevailed against Peter. Jesus withstood every temptation. He withstood the Gates of Hell. He is worthy to be called the Rock upon which the Church is founded.
There are precedents for leadership succession in the Old Testament.
An example:
"Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the Lord had commanded Moses". Deut. 34:9
Jesus refers to the "chair of Moses" (a precedent for the chair of Peter) in Matthew 23.
"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not." Matthew 23:1-3
Jesus is the cornerstone; the apostles (led by Peter) were the foundations.
"Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone..." Eph. 2:20
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations: and in them the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev. 21:14
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18-19
The keys were given to Peter, not Paul. Stewardship is passed to each successor of Peter in his turn.
The context of prevail in this case could be restated as “prevail in the end” or “ultimately over come”.
You’re projecting on to this verse more what I would call wishful thinking far beyond it’s meaning.
It’s like those that claim faith alone saves. That works play no part in your salvation. It’s special level of ignorant with blinders on.
An analogy would be the allies in WWII. They didn’t win every battle but the axis didn’t ultimately prevail.
The prophesy of Daniel 2 is important here.
Daniel 2
44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed:
Why would the Lord have to tell us that there will be a kingdom set up in the latter days that won’t be destroyed if weren’t possible for it to be destroyed in the first place?
In other words, if the kingdom of God is the Church and as you claim it can’t be destroyed, then why does the Lord have to tell us that in the latter days, long after the Catholic Church was created, that He will set up a kingdom that can’t be destroyed?
This only makes my point that there ONLY twelve apostles. There is nothing to say keys were not given to the other eleven apostles. It only makes sense if each of them represents a wall and each had a gate which would require a key. Our jury of twelve will each have a hand in the binding in Heaven and earth. There is no room for for succession in this instance. In Joshuas' case someone had to finish the journey that Moses had started. Moses, as you recall, was not allowed to enter the Promised Land.
The gates of hell/hades didn’t prevail, the righteous dead there were freed by Jesus Christ.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Well, I can see that you aren't a Catholic. Are you a Seventh-day Adventist?
If not, would you mind telling us what denomination you are affiiated with?
Also, since "Daniel 2" does not say that "the latter days are long after the Catholic Church was created", and in fact that is not written or defined like that anywhere in the Bible, you are obviously basing that inference on some private interpretation that is not really stated like that anywhere in the Bible.
Could you explain where you did get that interpretation from, and exactly what you are basing it on?
I'll try to check back tomorrow for your response.
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.