[B-Greek] Matthew 16:18 - two questions
John Waldrip
john.waldrip at gmail.com
Mon Jul 21 01:32:32 EDT 2008
While visiting Israel once an Israeli university professor opined that
'gates of hell' was a first century description of the Gentile community
that typically grew beside Galilean cities.
Thus, he said, to pass from the Jewish to the Gentile portion of the
community was to pass through the gates of hell.
If this be so (and I have not verified this myself) it would be a prediction
that the gospel would penetrate Gentile communities, something unimaginable
to a Jewish audience.
John S. Waldrip
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Tom Moore <tom at katabiblon.com> wrote:
> As noted, gates are defensive mechanisms. They also imprison. I should
> think the implication is that rather than Hades assaulting the assembly, the
> assembly will storm and break down the gates of Hades. Can the sense of
> KATASCUW here not be of firmly planting one's feet, and being strong enough
> to hold one's ground, i.e., "the gates of Hades will not *hold* against it"?
>
> Perhaps to a Jewish audience, for whom Hades is Sheol, the saying means
> that the assembly will free men from the captivity of fallacious conceptions
> of life and afterlife? And to a Greek audience, for whom Hades is not only
> the Greek underworld, but also the Greek god of the dead himself, perhaps it
> means the assembly will replace the idea of a god of the dead with a god of
> the living?
>
> I see another possible alternative in the next verse (in which Jesus
> promises to give Peter the keys to the Kingdom of the Heavens), that maybe
> Hades is being invoked as the opposite of the Kingdom of the Heavens, and
> represents the entire earth (a kingdom of Man), about to be invaded by the
> Kingdom of the Heavens (a kingdom of God).
>
> Regards,
> Tom Moore
> http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=gnt&book=Mt&ch=16
>
>
> > -------Original Message-------
> > From: Eric S. Weiss <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: [B-Greek] Matthew 16:18 - two questions
> > Sent: Jul 20 '08 18:51
> >
> > > 1. Since AUTHS is fem it cannot reference PETROS and therefore
> > > must either be PETRA or EKKLHSIA. As the nearer referent
> > > EKKLHSIA would seem to be preferable. I would concur that
> > > PETROS (Peter, a rock) and PETRA (bedrock) are two different
> > > things.
> > >
> > > 2. OU KATAISXUSOUSIN AUTHS would seem to eliminate the church
> > > as the attacker. It is not that the attack would NOT BE able
> > > to be withstood, but rather that it WOULD BE withstood.
> > Thanks for your response. My comments:
> >
> > 1. Preferable, but not assured, I would guess. I can't find anything in
> BDF or Smyth or
> > Robertson that discusses pronoun referents or antecedents re: how often
> the referent
> > is or must be the nearest one when two or more are possible.
> >
> > 2. I think it may also depend on the meaning (probably idiomatic) of
> "gates of hades."
> > Gates are generally defensive mechanisms, not offensive ones. For the
> "gates of hades"
> > to be the attacker is to ascribe to "gates" a different meaning and
> function than gates
> > usually have, hence my question.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> > B-Greek mailing list
> > B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
> >
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek <http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreekB-Greek> mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list