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.

"Come on, Heart-Rest, the roles of priest and Pope as practiced by the Catholic Church are not only not mentioned in the Bible, there is not even an account of anyone acting with the authority or fulfilling the actions that are practiced today by priest or Pope. "

- - - - - - -

Here is one of the accounts in the Bible of Jesus instituting the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, one of the main and most important things Priests do.

And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
Luke 22:19-20

And, much later, here is St. Paul giving instructions about how to celebrate that Sacrament, and showing he obviously observes this Apostolic/Priestly function as well himself.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
1 Corinthians 11:23-29

Jesus also delegated the power to forgive sins to His Apostles, and this is another very important Priestly function in the Church that Jesus built. (Do you somehow believe the Apostles never used that special faculty which Jesus explcitly delegated to them and their successors?)

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
John 20:21-23

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

" Another irrelevancy. First of all, the King James Version is not the only reliable English translation of the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts. The days of the week as named today are also not mentioned in the Bible either - why not also use that as “proof” that the offices of “priest” and “pope” are “biblical” too? "

- - - - - - -

The King James reference was just meant as an example for you. It was you, rusty, who said that because the word "Pope" is not in the Bible, that function itself does not exist in the Bible. However, it does.

I strongly urge you to carefully and prayerfully read these references completely:

"The Pope"

"The Primacy of Peter (1)"

"The Primacy of Peter (2)"

(By the way, the King James Version is not fully reliable, since it is currently missing the seven books that Martin Luther removed from the Bible because he did not like what they said. Check out the following link to read about that.)

"The Bible - 73 or 66 books?"

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

- - - - - - -

The Authority that the Catholic Church accepts is God, and the Authority that God specifically delegated to the Magisterium within the hierarchy of the Church Jesus built.

Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church He built, and we mere humans are the Body of the Church He built.

He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.
Colossians 1:18

(See also Romans 12:5, Ephesians 1:20-23, 1 Corinthians 12:27, and other similar texts.)

Jesus also promised to send the Holy Spirit, to guide the Church He was building into all truth. The Magisterium (the Pope in union with the Bishops in their teaching function), is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit when teaching faith and morals, based on the solemn promises of Jesus Christ.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth...
John 16:13

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"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."

- - - - - - -

Well, St. Paul puts "Apostles" first here:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
1 Corinthians 12:27-31

However, you are quoting from the prophetic book of "Revelation", which most people believe was written by the Apostle John. Who do you think is "higher on the totem pole" - the prophet John who wrote "Revelation", or the Apostle John who walked with Jesus Christ? Do you see how absurd that question is if they are in fact the same person? Those Church functions were apparently NOT mutually exclusive for John the Apostle, and there is really no reason they should be.

The Church teaches that the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles (the Pope is the Bishop of Rome), and they have been placed in charge by Jesus Himself of the Church Jesus built, and are under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit when teaching faith and morals.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Part of the problem I think, is that you are interpreting all these Bible texts according to your own personal thinking. One of the things I think you will find is that if you read 100 different Bible commentaries, you're likely to find 100 different interpretations of any given text in the Bible. Some Bible commentaries are going to be more reliable than others, but it is very dangerous to just rely on your own personal analysis and interpretation of Bible texts, when Jesus gave His Church a much better method for getting to the Truth before all the Bible books were even completely written.

It is of course important to read the Bible as well, but I would strongly recommend you get hold of a good set of reliable Bible commentaries to aid in your study of the Scriptures. Here are a few I would recommend in relation to the questions you are asking and the interpretations you are coming up with.

A very good version of the New Testament (Ignatius Study Bible) with outstanding commentary can be acquired here: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: New Testament	Another very good version of the New Testament (Navarre Bible) with outstanding commentary can be found here: The Navarre Bible - New Testament Expanded Edition
If you just want the Ignatius text and commentary of the Book of Revelation, get this book: The First, Second and Third Letters of St. John and the Revelation to John (2nd Ed): Ignatius Catholic Study Bible	If you just want the Navarre text and commentary of the Book of Revelation, get this book: The Navarre Bible: Revelation

[MeOnTheBeach quoted by Heart-Rest] "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."

I'm guessing you quoted this for some reason? If you're going to quote something, at least address what you've quoted.

"Jesus also promised to send the Holy Spirit, to guide the Church He was building into all truth."

So he started out guiding to all truth....

"...is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit when teaching faith and morals,"

But that's not how it worked out... so lets qualify it to be a bit more vague.

The Church teaches that the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles...,"

Of course it teaches that...NOW... because they had no choice, the Appostles were all dead. That's like tripping, doing a face plant, getting up and saying, "I meant to do that!" They said this in order to make themselves look legitimate...and killed anyone that disagreed.

Then you go off creating some strawman about the myriads of problems you think I have... Your not going to prove your point by clouding the issues.

The original points still remain, which I will not ignore.

1. There is no legitimate succession between Peter and Linus or Clement. They made this up after the fact.
2. There was no complete Church organization after the death of the Apostles, from 70AD to 325AD.
3. The Catholic church did not further the teachings of Christ.
4. The Catholic church has no prophets or Apostles. Which is in direct contradiction to Rev 11.

You can't get around Rev 11. It looms over the Catholic church like a sword.

In reality there is not a single thing about the Catholic church that points to it being a continuation of the Church Christ set up in 33AD. Nothing. Nota.

Dear Heart-Rest,

I appreciate that you took so much time to respond to my post. You obviously carefully considered your reply and you also obviously care about people and what that they believe the truth.

I also want to say that I hold no animosity or hatred toward the Catholic church. My wife was raised Catholic, my sister converted to Catholicism when she married a man that was Catholic. I also have a genuine respect for the Catholic church in it’s contribution to retaining New Testament manuscripts and the scholarship a many of it’s theologians. I also respect the Catholic church’s willingness to stand against evil - especially in the defense of unborn children.

I would rather focus on what we can agree on than where we disagree. We both love the Lord and want to share the message of the Gospel to a lost and dying world. We both believe Jesus to be the Messiah, Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, who lived, suffered, died, then rose again to bring salvation to all who will receive it.

If you really want me to respond to your reply, though I think it will be pointless in that I really don’t think I will convince you of my take on the issues of the priesthood or the papacy, nor will you convince me of your position. Why don’t we just accept each other’s sincere ministry on the behalf of Christ. I apologize if what I said was offensive. If you really, really want me to respond to your last post, let me know and I will do my best.

If I respond to th

I'm guessing you quoted this for some reason? If you're going to quote something, at least address what you've quoted.

Well, I don't know what you're doing down on that beach there, "MeOnTheBeach", but here is what I addressed directly to that quote of yours, which I guess you didn't see for some reason:

Well, St. Paul puts "Apostles" first here:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
1 Corinthians 12:27-31

Among all the comments you made, I honestly could not find one accurate statement in your response.

This statement you made was particularly egregious:

"There was no complete Church organization after the death of the Apostles, from 70AD to 325AD."

As far as the organization of the Church goes, are you denying that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church He built, as it plainly states in the Bible (Colossians 1:18)?

If He is the Head of the Church, would not that make it the best organization in the world?

Do you believe what Jesus Christ solemnly promised, that He would be with that Church till the end of the world, as it plainly says in the Bible?

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:18-20

Do you think Jesus was lying about being there with them, unto the end of the world?

Do you think Jesus was merely mistaken about that?

Do you think Jesus meant to say, "lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, except between 70 A.D., and 325 A.D.", or "but not after the original 12 Apostles I picked die"?

I urge you to do further studying on Church history, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the Bible, relating to the Church that Jesus Christ built.

"Well, I don't know what you're doing down on that beach there..."

I would suggest that if you're getting frustrated and can't refrain from making it personal, that you take a break.

The subject of my statement is this:
[MeOnTheBeach quoted by Heart-Rest] 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.

Who do you think is "higher on the totem pole" - the prophet John who wrote "Revelation", or the Apostle John who walked with Jesus Christ? Do you see how absurd that question is if they are in fact the same person?

John, who wrote "Revelation", was also an Apostle. Therefore He and John of the original 12 had the same authority. If John the Revelator saw Jesus in vision there is no reason to conclude that Jesus didn't walk with Him also.

As far as the organization of the Church goes, are you denying that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church He built, as it plainly states in the Bible (Colossians 1:18)?

Jesus Christ is the head of His Church. No one has stated otherwise.

If He is the Head of the Church, would not that make it the best organization in the world?

Best at what? This is very vague and highly subjective.

And since you've left the door open, I'll respond to my own view of this...Best doesn't mean infallible. If it did Paul wouldn't have had to write all those letters trying to correct nearly every corner of the Church.

2 Timothy 1:15 15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

In Paul's own words, the Church in Asia rejects him. This included the Ephesians. At this point, they were no longer part of Christ's Church. This doesn't mean they didn't go through the motions and claim to believe in Jesus.

Do you believe what Jesus Christ solemnly promised, that He would be with that Church till the end of the world, as it plainly says in the Bible?

No I don't. He doesn't say He'll be with the Church. He's talking to individuals.

Gen 6:3
3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

"Do you think Jesus meant to say, "lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, except between 70 A.D., and 325 A.D.", or "but not after the original 12 Apostles I picked die"?

No I'm saying, that he hasn't been with us since 70AD. Especially after 325AD. At 325 it was over en toto.

Your problem is that you cherry pick and jump to conclusions based on preconceived notions. If you want to find truth you have to be objective and accept the negative as well as the positive.

God doesn't come to man, He invites man to come to Him. And when man leaves God, God invites man to come back. That's the promise until the judgement. God kept His promise, but man didn't.

Here is truth, the reason there was no Apostles or Prophets after 70AD is that what became the Catholic church, would have burned them at the stake as heretics.

I urge you to do further studying on Church history, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and the Bible, relating to the Church that Jesus Christ built.

Stop acting like the middle ages never happened. You can't get around it. It takes more than claims of piousness, it takes walking the walk as well as the talk.

Do you believe Jesus ordered the Inquisition?

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.