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

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | March 6, 2013 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[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…

As I said, this is a good summary of the objections that I am rather consistently hearing recently. In effect, the objection amounts to taking the word “gates” in a rather literal sense. And thus, interpreting the word gates rather literally, our questioner humorously asserts the gates don’t normally go around attacking things. But language, as is true with many things human, admits of subtleties. And thus it may be helpful to explore the figurative meaning of the word “gates” as well.

The Greek word underlying our English translation “gates” is πύλαι (pulai). And “gates” is a fine translation of the word.

However Strongs Greek Concordance and Greek Lexicon of New Testament indicates that πύλης “gates” in antiquity was also used to indicate authority and power.

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.

[LadyDoc]

Glad he pointed out that the church is able to smash the gates of hell.

In modern days, it means when the church goes up to and smashes evil.

It hasn’t gotten a lot of publicity, but many Christian peaceful demonstrations have stopped communist takeovers in Portugal and Brazil, and of course here in the Philippines, we had the EDSA revolution where a million Pinoys stopped Marcos’ soldiers from arresting General Ramos who supported Cory Aquino’s winning the election.

[NYer]

The gates of hell/hades didn’t prevail, the righteous dead there were freed by Jesus Christ.

Christ's statement was made to Peter regarding the Church. You are referring to those freed from Sheol.

[NYer]

The context of prevail in this case could be restated as “prevail in the end” or “ultimately over come”.

Why? Christ clearly stated it to Pater. When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

[BipolarBob]

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Says you. This does not mean the same thing was not told or given to the other twelve apostles. It just wasn't recorded. Twelve walls, twelve gates, twelve apostles.

[MeOnTheBeach]

"Could you explain where you did get that interpretation from, and exactly what you are basing it on?"

Daniel 2 fairly interprets itself.

39 And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

The parts of the giant seen by Daniel are civilizations down through history. Brass represented the Roman Empire. After the Roman Empire, when the kingdoms are weak and brittle (Mired with clay)

42 And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

In the time of these kingdoms the Lord will set up His Church (kingdom) on the earth, and this one will not be destroyed.

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,...

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

This is backed up by Amos 8. When a prophet speaks of the Son, he's always speaking about the Son of God. That's his job, so to speak, is to prophesy and testify about the Messiah.

In Amos 8:9-10, he sees the death of Jesus. In Amos 8:11 he sees that the word of the lord can not be found on the earth. This is backed up by history as well.

Revelation 11 caps this off. John is very literal here. He speaks of seeing two real Moses like prophets that have all power that will be killed in Jerusalem in the days prior to the Second Coming. Catholics will not believe the message of these two prophets. They[Catholics] will look to their Pope instead. Those two prophets will not be members of the Catholic Church.

[MeOnTheBeach]

"Why? Christ clearly stated it to Pater[sic]."

You're missing the important part of that interchange. You're fixated on this idea that everything relies on Peter.

Matt 16:
15 He saith unto them, But whom say aye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

What is the subject of these scriptures? Forget everything else, what is the subject here? What is Jesus trying to teach Peter here?

The rock, or foundation of Christ's Church is that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that your Father in Heaven will teach you this by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Also see post #16 for further discussion.

[MeOnTheBeach]

Also...

"Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19)."

There's no dispute here. You're absolutely right, IMO. Peter was given all authority to do everything as Christ would have done on the earth.

Acts 8:
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.

20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Peter had power to give the Holy Ghost by laying on of his hands just like the other Apostles did. And Peter used that power. And it was real because Simon tried to buy it.

Obviously the problem isn't with Peter. The problem is with Pope Linus I. 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.

[NYer]

Says you. This does not mean the same thing was not told or given to the other twelve apostles. It just wasn't recorded.

Says me? No, says Matthew. For one who is a Bible Believing christian, that is a rather strange comment.

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

[BipolarBob]

Since we are quoting from the Book of Matthew, let's look at Matt 19:30 "But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first". Peter was the impulsive one and may have elbowed his way to the front of the line, but John was known as the disciple Jesus loved. Your whole institution depends on the supreme Petrine apostleship interpretation and so every Catholic must have that bias reinforcement when looking at the Scriptures. Protestants can look at the Bible with "fresh eyes" and see the bigger picture.
Peace be to you.

[NYer]

Since we are quoting from the Book of Matthew, let's look at Matt 19:30 "But many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first".

Jesus was referring to those who will be saved, not specifically the apostles.

Your whole institution depends on the supreme Petrine apostleship interpretation and so every Catholic must have that bias reinforcement when looking at the Scriptures.

The scriptural basis is quite clear and has endured the test of time.

Protestants can look at the Bible with "fresh eyes" and see the bigger picture.

Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.

To have the Bible as the only and sole authority of Christianity is to invite chaos into His Church. There are at least 5 Protestant denominations created every year based on a different interpretation of the Bible. Theoretically, anyone who owns a Bible can create their own denomination based on their own interpretation of Scripture. Taken to its logical conclusion, chaos is what happens when the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" is applied. And Christ stated "A tree is recognized by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33) and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura produces "bad fruit" (disunity, confusion and separation).

Peace to you, as well.

[NYer]

The problem is with Pope Linus I. 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.

In Acts 1:15-26, the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

As noted in Matt. 16:19; 18:18, the apostles are given Christ's authority to make visible decisions on earth that will be ratified in heaven. God raises up humanity in Christ by exalting his chosen leaders and endowing them with the authority and grace they need to bring about the conversion of all. Without a central authority in the Church, there would be chaos, as I just indicated in post #31.

[BipolarBob]

the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority.

Big words from the great boasting Church! How about the first thing GOD ordained was to replace Judas as the twelfth Apostle? Twelve tribes - twelve Apostles. Good grief. There, again, is NO apostolic succession. Twelve walls, twelve tribes, twelve keys, twelve Apostles. That's it. Not a succession of walls, gates, keys or Apostle wannabes.

[RegulatorCountry]

That’s your understanding of the meaning of the passage. Others disagree. I provided a scriptural example of the gates of Hell not prevailing. You disagree.

Is that about right?

[MeOnTheBeach]

"Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ's own authority.

(FYI, my tone is very calm and stoic. Just so no one projects venom or an accusatory tone in to my words.)

Unfortunately you can't demonstrate an unbroken lineage. Your own statement condemns the Catholic Church and proves my point. You've just proven that the intention of Christ was for the Apostles to continue. The Apostles had the authority of God to call new Apostles to those that passed on.

What this means is, there should have been 12 Apostles even today. But because the lineage was broken they no longer had the authority to call new Apostles.

I do believe that the Catholic Church can show that they can trace their membership back to people who may have been members of Christ's original Church. But that's as far as it goes.

Linus and Clement were not Apostles. They did not have Apostolic power, nor does any Bishop or Pope to this day. That's not an accusation, it's just a simple truth. Nor do they themselves claim any such power.

[MeOnTheBeach]

NYer is absolutely right about there being an Apostolic succession. It wasn't supposed to be finite. It was supposed to endure.

This is why the Apostles replaced those that died. If there was only supposed to be the original 12 they wouldn't have replaced the missing ones.

This was the organization that Christ set up for the orderly administration of His Church.

However, it only lasted as long as the people supported it. when the Apostles were killed there was no one left at the top of the Church. Christ would have had to come back Himself or send someone with authority to make new Apostles.

Had He done that, the same thing would have happened to the new ones as happened to the old ones. So He just let it go because men can choose for themselves good or evil.

[BipolarBob]

NYer is absolutely right about there being an Apostolic succession.

I disagree.

Had He done that, the same thing would have happened to the new ones as happened to the old ones. So He just let it go because men can choose for themselves good or evil.

I am sad that the god you worship could be so careless. My God is omnipotent, far seeing and able to do anything He desires. IF He wanted Apostolic succession then we would have it. We don't therefore He didn't.
Peace be to you.

[MeOnTheBeach]

"I am sad that the god you worship could be so careless. My God is omnipotent, far seeing and able to do anything He desires. IF He wanted Apostolic succession then we would have it. We don't therefore He didn't.

Terrible logic. Too many assumptions. Too many wrong conclusions.

God does not destroy the free will of men nor does He impose His will.

By your logic God doesn't want to save everyone, because if He wanted it, it would happen.

[BipolarBob]

There is a difference between individual freewill and the course of human events. The difference between micro and macro. All things work to the will of God.

[roamer_1]

NYer is absolutely right about there being an Apostolic succession. It wasn't supposed to be finite. It was supposed to endure.

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

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.

And NYer suggests in #32 that the appointment of Matthais is indicative of some power... Yet Yeshua appointed Paul... As BipolarBob suggests in #33, there are only twelve named gates in the New Jerusalem - One for each Apostle - My question wrt that would be, whose name is on that twelfth gate: Judas the betrayor, Matthais who was elected by the hand of men, or Paul who was appointed by Yeshua Himself? The answer to that question would necessarily change the definition of this discussion.

And lastly, what of the succession of the others, where no record has been kept at all? 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?