Soren, you are correct: “gates of hell” IS a defensive position. “prevail” means to ultimately win. “prevail” doesn’t preclude a period of time where the defense seem to be successful; it’s about the ultimate position; that is, Hell won’t win, no matter what it SEEMS like at any particular time point. It is, in fact, a prediction and statement of hope/prophecy fulfillment.
Actually , that is not what “prevail” means. The Greek verb here is
katischύo. It is a compound verb built form the basic verb
ischύo, “to be strong,” and the prefix
kata, which intensifies the meaning of the verb. In Early Modern English, “prevail” was a good translation, because it is a similarly structured verb, “vail” derides from “validus,” meaning strong, while “pre-“ is an intensifying prefix in English. In modern usage, “prevail” has taken on a different sense than its original etymology supports, almost always implying final victory. Yet 400 years ago, it commonly referred to temporary supremacy as well. Consider the use of “prevail” in this passage from Shakespeare’s Henry VI, part III, written about 25 years before the KJV, also in a military context:
This battle fares like to the morning’s war,
When dying clouds contend with growing light,
What time the shepherd, blowing of his nails,
Can neither call it perfect day nor night.
Now sways it this way, like a mighty sea
Forced by the tide to combat with the wind;
Now sways it that way, like the selfsame sea
Forced to retire by fury of the wind:
Sometime the flood
prevails, and then the wind;
Now one the better, then another best;
Both tugging to be victors, breast to breast,
Yet neither conqueror nor conquered:
So is the equal of this fell war.
The use of “prevail” that we see here is closer to meaning of
katischύo in Greek. The change in English usage has made the KJV rendering, though valid in its time, potentially misleading for modern readers. Today, it might be translated more clearly, if less elegantly, as “the gates of hell will not take strength against it.” Seen in this light, it precludes even temporary periods of strength.
Thus the common LDS exegesis misunderstands not only the original language of the verse but the English translation as well.
Using the same metaphor of 'gates," the only way such gates can even be seen as 'gates ’ to be overcome is if they can be closed…in fact, that they actually WORK, for however short a time it takes to open them again.
In the context of a siege, the purpose of gates is to stay closed. Christ’s victory is that the gates, when they open, will open inward, as he enters the city of hell to plunder it. If at any time the present siege that the Church is placing against hall is raised, if the besiegers must withdraw, the hell at the moment is said to prevail.
So we claim that the gates of hell have not prevailed, because, well…here we are.
In some of the posts above, Nicaea325 and I have already pointed out the circularity of LDS interpretations of history, in which the truth of Joseph Smith is presupposed and historical events reinterpreted to fit his claims without any evidence. The need to support the conclusion that Smith was a prophet determines what evidence is and is not acceptable. You are simply repeated the circular assumption that we have already identified and critiqued.
The priesthood authority is back.
If you can provide me with a defensible exegesis of Jeremiah 33 that explains how the loss of priesthood in the New Testament Church is compatible with God’s claim that after the coming of the messiah, the uninterrupted perpetuity of the Levitical priesthood in Zion in the service of David’s heir is ensured by his covenant with David, David’s heir, the Levites, and creation itself, then I will account you the greatest Mormon apologist who has ever lived. If you cannot, then forgive me is I am not much moved by your claim about restoring any lost priesthood to the world.
