About Matthew 16:18

[jamil_joseph02]

Today I ran across a blog of a non-Catholic and read about his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. It went like this

“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”

He argues in the passage that “the gates of hell” that will not prevail in the Church of Matthew 16:18 is “the power of death”, then cited other translations such as the Contemporary and Worldwide English to prove it. The passage only meant, according to him, that even if the members of the Church of Christ (his church) will die, they shall live again, meaning, they will be resurrected on Christ’s second coming (1 Thess 4:16-17).

He then concludes:

So, this is what the Lord Jesus Christ meant when he said that the powers of death shall not prevail against his church: that the dead Church of Christ members will be resurrected FIRST on judgment day, and that those who will still be alive by then will not die anymore. Together, they will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord Jesus Christ and be [with] him forever.

Therefore, it is not true that apostasy [of the church Christ founded]did not take place. That they say that the Catholic Church is the true church and of Christ and they will quote the Matt. 16:18 that even the gate of hades will not prevail against it… But do they really understand what’s the meaning of it? Or just hiding the truth and keep quoting it that they do not know the true meaning of it??

How do we respond to this?

 

[JeanneH]

From the Haydock commentary

)**
Ver. 18.** Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus) — In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between petra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence) — Thou art Peter;[2]* and upon this* (i.e. upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (i.e. upon myself or upon this rock, which Peter hath confessed: yet he owns that he had also given the other interpretation, by which Peter himself was the rock. Some Fathers have also expounded it, upon the faith, which Peter confessed; but then they take not faith, as separated from the person of Peter, but on Peter, as holding the true faith. No one questions but that Christ himself is the great foundation-stone, the chief corner-stone, as St. Paul tells the Ephesians; (Chap. ii, ver. 20.) but it is also certain, that all the apostles may be called foundation-stones of the Church, as represented Apocalypse xxi. 14. In the mean time, St. Peter (called therefore Cephas, a rock) was the first and chief foundation-stone among the apostles, on whom Christ promised to build his Church. (Witham) — Thou art Peter, &c. As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ, so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz. that he, to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, (John i. 42.) should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be next to Christ himself, the chief foundation-stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. — Upon this rock, &c. The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built; Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ by building his house, that is, his Church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder. (Matthew vii. 24, 25.) — The gates of hell, &c. That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself or his agents. For as the Church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, i.e. the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or Church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the Church of Christ. (Challoner) — The gates, in the Oriental style, signify the powers; thus, to this day, we designate the Ottoman or Turkish empire by the Ottoman port. The princes were wont to hold their courts at the gates of the city. (Bible de Vence)

 

[MarcoPolo]

He argues in the passage that “the gates of hell” that will not prevail in the Church of Matthew 16:18 is “the power of death”, then cited other translations such as the Contemporary and Worldwide English to prove it. The passage only meant, according to him, that even if the members of the Church of Chris

How do we respond to this?

The first response is “Why should the Contemporary or Worldwide English translations trump the majority of others?” Every single one of the 9 translations at NETBible.org speak of a door/gate and hell/hades. That includes the literal KJV.

The second response is to look at Strong’s dictionary if he’s into Protestant translations. The Greek word there for “gate” is πύλαι, which means gate or access portal like a gate to a city. And the Greek word there for hell/hades is ᾅδου, which can mean death or hell. And even in Scripture the term “death” refers to hell, such as where Revelation speaks of the second death. Strong’s also notes that it refers Biblicall to a place “infernal…dark and dismal.” So when we hear “gates of” we are prompted to think of entering a place, i.e. hell, not going through an experience like physical death. There is therefore no reason to only draw “power of physical death” from the text. Even if it were fair to draw that meaning from the text, it does not therefore mean the powers of hell are not also included in the powers of death. He creates a false dichotomy by arguing “this is about physical death, and therefore it cannot be about hellish death or powers.” So even if his translation was right, it does not exclude a hellish translation at the same time. Even webistes like this one that agree with his conclusion admit a hellish interpretation is valid and historical.

The third response is how Jesus gives keys to “heaven” which is the opposite of the hell He just mentioned. You see how the context is Jesus saying “hell won’t prevail against you—here are the keys to heaven and whatever you bind and loose is bound in heaven.” Jesus is indeed speaking about binding and loosing as the escape from hell, which refers to Church teaching.

The fourth response is to query the early Church Fathers. What is the motive to have the understanding of those closest to Apostolic teaching subordinated to a novel translation 2000+ later?

In St. Thomas Aquinas’ Catena Aurea, he cites on this verse:
St. Hilary of Potiers writing in the 4th century said the foundation of the Church would “break up the laws of hell, burst the gates of Tartarus, and all the shackles of death.”

St. Jerome posits the gates of hell to be sin or perhaps heretical doctrine.

The 2nd-3rd century’s Origen associates Peter as preserved from the gates of hell: “Peter, against whom the gates of Hades do not prevail.”

St. Cyril of Alexandria, 4th-5th century, wrote: “the gates of hell have not been able to prevail. You yourself know how many trials she has endured, in such a way, however, that no one has prevailed against her because she is as a rock in her faith.”

 

[Pax]

Today I ran across a blog of a non-Catholic and read about his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. It went like this

“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”

He argues in the passage that “the gates of hell” that will not prevail in the Church of Matthew 16:18 is “the power of death”, then cited other translations such as the Contemporary and Worldwide English to prove it. The passage only meant, according to him, that even if the members of the Church of Christ (his church) will die, they shall live again, meaning, they will be resurrected on Christ’s second coming (1 Thess 4:16-17).

He then concludes:

How do we respond to this?

Jamil,

Your blog acquaintance is not considering everything this passage has to offer. Just prior to the discussion with Peter in Matthew 16:18 we read the following in verse 13:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”

This verse is important because it lets us know the setting in which the discussion takes place. It just so happens that in Caesarea Phillippi that there is a large and unique rock formation that was the back drop for what Jesus was about to say. You can google search Paneas(name change) and find out all about it. Anyway, this place was a hugely important pagan site of worship and there was a cave and deep pool within that was referred to as the “gates of Hades.” Jesus is saying that not only death but the pagan world of satanic darkness with not prevail against his Church. The rock “Peter” and the pagan worship site located at the great rock formation at Caesaria Phillipi are place in contrast and against one another.

You can see pictures of the place today and get some general information about it at this link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Philippi

 

[zz912]

He’s just trying to take the promise of Christ to the Church and alter it so that the promise is actually to the individual believers. Thereby the promise can still be in effect even if the Church fell into apostasy. It’s complete hogwash, because it directly contradicts the verse giving Peter the keys to bind and loose. Is Peter binding and loosing individuals? Of course not. And if he bound and loosed to individuals, where is the manual that peter would have needed to write down for future Christians so they could know what was bound and loosed, because the Church was in “apostasy”?

Just complete fabrications by desperate non-catholics who are trying to find justification for thei beliefs which don’t exist.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Jamil,

Your blog acquaintance is not considering everything this passage has to offer. Just prior to the discussion with Peter in Matthew 16:18 we read the following in verse 13:

This verse is important because it lets us know the setting in which the discussion takes place. It just so happens that in Caesarea Phillippi that there is a large and unique rock formation that was the back drop for what Jesus was about to say. You can google search Paneas(name change) and find out all about it. Anyway, this place was a hugely important pagan site of worship and there was a cave and deep pool within that was referred to as the “gates of Hades.” Jesus is saying that not only death but the pagan world of satanic darkness with not prevail against his Church. The rock “Peter” and the pagan worship site located at the great rock formation at Caesaria Phillipi are place in contrast and against one another.

You can see pictures of the place today and get some general information about it at this link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarea_Philippi

This is good. Catholic convert (baptist previously) and apologist extraordinaire Steve Rey teaches this and does regular Holy Land tours and speaks of this on site. Highly recommended…

I might add this:
The non-Catholic opinion is partly correct in that the gates of hell are associated with the eternal death. Thus the term “the gates of helll shall not prevail” is an assurance that the sacramental graces and teachings offered through the church are sufficient to overcome even the powers of hell that operate to hold disgraced souls (still living on earth) to the penalty of eternal death. For example, when a person sins gravely they are being put into the dominion of Satan (out of communion with Christ’s kingdom). and shackled by the chains of sin. Without the facilities of the Church (apostolic absolution, last rites and baptism) such a soul would be justly condemned to hell when its life it over (God being Just is afterall obliged to give Satan His due rewards for those he deceived). But in sacramental apostolic absolution by the power of the keys The Church can easily rescue such an imprisoned soul from the gates of hell to restore them to good grace again since we have all the power and authority of Christ at work through His Church. So its true that the passage refers to the church’s ability to save from hell up to the point that that person commits the one unforgivable sin - blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. This blasphemy occurs if one dies unrepentant since that soul ignored the Holy Spirit’s constant calling to repent and has chosen its lot and fate.

But the passage also means exactly what the most conventionally we use a lot in apologetics - the church can not teach error. That would be a complete triumph of Satan over God since to teach error would mean that Satan was successful in corrupting the Body of Christ by teaching spiritual error. This is absolutely impossible since Jesus gave us the assurances that the Holy Spirit would guide us to all truth and that hell would not prevail over The Church.

BF