Jesus Suffered In Hell For Our Sins? Is That Biblical?

[EdSutton]

how does a person go to hell?

donnA, for some reason, I believe you live somewhere around the Bowling Green Area of KY,if my memory is not completely gone. It's probably about 4-5 hours away. If I'm correct, here, I'd suggest taking the Nunn Cumberland Pkwy, KY 80 and the Hal Rogers Parkway as far east as Hyden. After traveling a few miles north of Hyden, one can find Hell for Certain. This road is even paved.

http://flickr.com/photos/sportrait/458763919/

Actually, I think you are much closer to Paradise, though - only about 1 1/2 hrs. or so, from Bowling Green. I've been there. It looks like this.

Strangely??, there is the smell of brimstone around Paradise.



I went through this little exercise to say this. First, you must define hell. (Your post I lifted this from did ask four questions about the subject.) Once you have done that, and we happen to have a common understanding of what we are speaking of, then we can offer what we think Scripture says about the subject, but likely not before this happens.



I can answer the last of the four questions you asked, however, with a yes. Since the Lord Jesus Christ created and made all things, this one would be included.



One pretty much would have to be there, in order to personally create or 'make' anything, no?


Ed

 

[Palatka51]

There are "many" here that would disagree with this? In the "Baptist" section??

The idea that Jesus had to "suffer in Hell" has it's basis in the "Ransom to Satan" theory of the atonement. I truly hope no one in this section of BB, would believe such craziness.

Indeed!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MB]

Bolded black words in the quoted part, are the few I have added in an explanatory fashion, and I have now given Scriptural references, in 'bold' blue, after my initial post on this - EdI'll add one more thing, here, since I probably did not make it clear, elsewhere. Both Lazarus in Lk. 16 and the thief are "OT saints", in that both their salvation, and also their deaths occur before the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus, and his presentation of his own blood on the mercy seat, thus both these were still under the OT economy.How am I doing with the "supporting Scripture" bit, now?

Ed

Hi Ed;
I wanted to thankyou for your explanation it was excellent. I hope you don't mind but I printed it out for reference later.
MB

 

[Marcia]

How is Abraham's bosom a metophor for God? Where else do we see such a usage in scripture for the claim find settlement? Is Abraham also a metaphor for God because the richt man was pleading with Abraham for some, any mercy that could be given. The rich man was a Jew and cried out his 'father' Abraham, and by doing this he was trying to establish a line of natural dencent whereby Abraham would be bound by law to help. Abraham even acknowledges this claim by calling him 'son' but Abraham gave no rebuke or judgment but simply restated what has already transpired. (paraphrase - you got what you sought after and Lazarus got what he was seeking after) but besides this there is also a great gulf.. IOW - even if someone desired to it is still impossible to grant such a request.

When people die, do they go to be with Abraham?

Honestly, I can't recall where I heard or read this, but it is one explanation that was given. Apparently, it is not an unusual explanation:

Jesus describes Lazarus as being taken to Abraham's bosom, which is simply the human breast, with the arms as an enclosure. His words depict a loving embrace, suggesting an intimate relationship. Lazarus, therefore, comes into an intimate relationship with Abraham and receives salvation (Galatians 3:29). Since Lazarus had given himself to Christ, he became one of Abraham's spiritual children and an heir to the promises of God (Galatians 3:7).
The "bosom" metaphor occurs frequently in Scripture. God will care for His people as a shepherd for his sheep, carrying them "in his bosom" (Isaiah 40:11). Jesus was "in the bosom" of the Father (John 1:18), enjoying His blessings and close relationship. Moses carried the children of Israel in his bosom (Numbers 11:12). Lazarus had gained such intimacy with Abraham, while the Pharisees, who considered themselves to be the recipients of God's promises to Abraham, had not.

Source:
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/6174/Abrahams-Bosom.htm

But even if Abraham's bosom is in Sheol/Hades, does this necessarily mean that Jesus went to Sheol instead to to God when he died on the cross?

 

[Marcia]

Quote:
If Jesus went to be with the Father without his body, would he need to "ascend?" I think the word "ascend" implies a bodily action.

Allan asked: With this part I must ask how you make this presumtion?

Based on the reasons I gave before - that Jesus went to be with God after He died but not physically. His body was in the grave for 3 days (sometimes referred to as "hell" since "hell" often means grave in the Bible and sometimes referred to the "lower parts of the earth"), but Jesus was with God.

I think this view has as much scripture to support it as the other view (that Jesus went to Sheol after death).

I used to lean toward the Sheol view based on things written by men about the Sheol "compartments." But Sheol is not clearly defined in the Bible at all and often merely means the grave or place of the dead. The Bible is not explicit on it, as far as I know.

 

[OldRegular]

Posted by OldRegular
As to the first question consider the following Scripture which show that Old Testament Saints go to heaven, the presence of God:

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

2Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

Also consider the following passage from Ecclesiastes:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Response by Ed
The closest thing one can find to refer to any OT saint going to "heaven" is this passage in II Ki. 2:11. I do not see it this way. I believe that the DBY, JBR, and YLT have it rendered better as "heavens", referring to the atmospheric heavens, known also as the "first heaven." (Rev. 21:1). This is also consistent with the words of Ezekiel, who said he was 'lifted up between earth and heaven,' as well. (Ezek. 8:3)

You conveniently ignore the passage from Ecclesiastes which states that the Spirit/Soul of the saint goes into the presence of God. this is true whether under the Old Covenant or New Covenant.

The Spirit of Jesus Christ went into the presence of God immediately after His death. To argue otherwise is the trail that eventually leads to the Word of Faith Heresy.

 

[MB]

You conveniently ignore the passage from Ecclesiastes which states that the Spirit/Soul of the saint goes into the presence of God. this is true whether under the Old Covenant or New Covenant.

The Spirit of Jesus Christ went into the presence of God immediately after His death. To argue otherwise is the trail that eventually leads to the Word of Faith Heresy.

Can you at least tell us where
ia

 

[EdSutton]

You conveniently ignore the passage from Ecclesiastes which states that the Spirit/Soul of the saint goes into the presence of God. this is true whether under the Old Covenant or New Covenant.

Actually, I didn't "conveniently ignore" anything. I was only referring to the word "Heaven" which I had looked up. (Incidentally, the passage you are referenceing does not mention "soul" at all- only the "spirit".) But since you brought up the "conveniently ignoring" bit, I notice you have not addressed Jesus' own direct words spoken to Nicodemus, where He said "No one has ascended into heaven"...except Himself. If your interpretation of Ecclesiastes 12:7 is saying otherwise, then I suggest either you or Jesus is mistaken, here. Frankly, I'm going with Him, and suggest that maybe there is another understanding of the words of the Preacher.

The Spirit of Jesus Christ went into the presence of God immediately after His death. To argue otherwise is the trail that eventually leads to the Word of Faith Heresy.

Scripture tells us that Jesus said He "dismissed his spirit" into the Father's hand, or "gave up the Spirit." (Mt.27:50; Lk.23:46; Jn.19:30) It says nothing beyond this, and in fact, never mentions Jesus' (own) 'spirit' again, FTR. With all respect, you are assuming something that Scripture is simply not stating, here, as to what further occurred with Jesus' spirit, once He "placed it" into the Father's hand.

I have no idea what you are referring to as "the Word of Faith Heresy" for I do not know that I have ever heard it defined, although mentioned. (I do think I would likely recognize an heretical teaching, should I hear it.) Personally, I try to avoid teaching heresy of any flavor.

One might conclude you have a much deeper familiarity with heresy than do I.

Ed

 

[OldRegular]

[ Both Lazarus in Lk. 16 and the thief are "OT saints", in that both their salvation, and also their deaths occur before the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus, and his presentation of his own blood on the mercy seat, thus both these were still under the OT economy.
Ed

First: I believe that the story of Lazarus is a parable.

Second: You have no basis for saying that the thief was an Old Testament Saint since the death of Jesus Christ preceded that of the thief.

 

[Marcia]

...Jesus' own direct words spoken to Nicodemus, where He said "No one has ascended into heaven"...except Himself.
Ed

Jn 3.13:
No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

Ed, I know you are addressing Old Regular, but I am wondering how you take this passage since Jesus said this before he ascended to heaven at some point after his death.

When had he ascended when he said this to Nicodemus? I think getting to the meaning of this statement is necessary if you want to use it to support your view.

 

[EdSutton]

First: I believe that the story of Lazarus is a parable.

Second: You have no basis for saying that the thief was an Old Testament Saint since the death of Jesus Christ preceded that of the thief.

I guess anyone can believe what they choose. However,the account of Lazarus is not said to be a parable, anywhere. If this account is in fact, a parable, it is unique in at least two ways. The writer does not say it was a parable and no other parable ever gives the name of any individual.

I have every basis for saying the thief is an OT Saint, and was under the OT economy.

The thief was saved prior to the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, to begin with. That alone, is sufficient.

In addition, the thief was not a part of the church, the body of Christ, but was rather a part of the Commonwealth of Israel.

The thief was not baptized in the Holy Spirit, a characteristic of the church, which first occurred at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended.

I do not believe the Lord Jesus had yet ascended to the Father to present his blood on the Heavenly mercy seat. (Jn. 20:17) The Passover Lamb was not slain on the mercy seat, but on the "north side of the altar." (Lev. 1:11) The High Priest entered the holy place ["all" of the high priest, and not just his soul and spirit while His body was lying in the grave, for the High Priest had to be alive to perform his service (Heb. 7:23)] carried the blood to the mercy seat, and sprinkled it there, to make the atonement. (Lev. 1:11; 16:15; Heb. 9:23)

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

Jn 3.13:
No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.

Ed, I know you are addressing Old Regular, but I am wondering how you take this passage since Jesus said this before he ascended to heaven at some point after his death.

When had he ascended when he said this to Nicodemus? I think getting to the meaning of this statement is necessary if you want to use it to support your view.

When Jesus had ascended, here is inconsequential to the point I was making. The point had to do with no man having ascended at the time Jesus was conversing with Nicodemus. The historical ascended reference about Jesus, in John 3 is obviously not the same reference as Jesus was making in John 20, since the John 20 reference is in the 'current' tense. Hope that helps.

Ed

 

[Allan]

When people die, do they go to be with Abraham?

That is what Jesus stated. Since Abraham is called the father of [our] faith the rendering here would only make sense to epitamize the meaning of Lazarus being a child of God. Why? Because we can assume from culture and the Law that the rich man was also a Jew and therefore IF salvation was according to the flesh then both Lazarus and the rich man would have been together. However we see Lazarus being with Abraham who was saved (declared righteous) by faith but the rich man was not with Abraham but seperated from him in a place that was reserved for those NOT of God or better God's children. This is why the rich man appealed to Abraham (not God) as being one of his children or natural decendants.

Honestly, I can't recall where I heard or read this, but it is one explanation that was given. Apparently, it is not an unusual explanation:

​

Source:
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/6174/Abrahams-Bosom.htm

I do agree that it is not an unusual explanation given, but it is unusual considering the text. Typically this 'explanation' isn't based upon the text (IOW - context) but upon a theological view that must "interpret" it to conform to a an already prescribed set of views.

As I said previously though, Jesus going into hades (which is inclusive of sheol) was an early christian view as well. It can be found in their writtings and creeds (the one I remember off the top of my head is the Apostles Creed in 750+ ad)

But even if Abraham's bosom is in Sheol/Hades, does this necessarily mean that Jesus went to Sheol instead to to God when he died on the cross?

Does it necessarily mean he did not if it was?

 

[Marcia]

Allan, you make some good points, but I want to make one more regarding Jesus' statement to Mary about "don't touch me because I have not yet ascended to the Father."

He's saying to not cling to him - that she cannot keep him around -- because he's going to (bodily) ascend and leave. I think the fact it's related to his physical presence gives support to interpreting it as a physical ascension.

 

[Allan]

Quote:
If Jesus went to be with the Father without his body, would he need to "ascend?" I think the word "ascend" implies a bodily action.


Based on the reasons I gave before - that Jesus went to be with God after He died but not physically. His body was in the grave for 3 days (sometimes referred to as "hell" since "hell" often means grave in the Bible and sometimes referred to the "lower parts of the earth"), but Jesus was with God.

I see what you are saying now. I thought you meant the word ascend 'only' meant to go 'bodily' - my bad.

Yes, hell often means grave but it also incorporates at times shoel as well. Take for example Acts 2:27 where "hell" is used to describe the word "Hades".

Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Now let us look up the text from whence it came.

Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

This verse speaks of two places. We see the word for "hell" here is the word "shoel" or the place of the dead/underworld - not grave. We find something very interesting here though in that David states (and if often overlooked by my reformed brethren) in his declaration and prophesy regarding Christ Jesus that God will not leave His "soul" in shoel.. niether (or "You also") will not permit your Holy One to see corruption. This latter part is a direct reference to the grave in which the body after a period of time will begin to decay or decompose (this is physical). But the first part is not since it is dealing with the 'soul' and it being in hell. Now since we know scripturally the soul does not stay with the body at death (in the grave) and there is no biblical evidence for soul sleep we must conclude that the Holy Spirit meant what He said about his 'soul' being in hell/underworld. Thus either Jesus was in sheol as the scripture declare point blank or God lied.

Remember this verse I started with and quoted by Peter in Acts 2:27
Here we find the word for hell is hades but in Psa it was Sheol. One of the definitions of of the Greek word 'hades' is the "underworld" and we see here that this is the same meaning given by God the Holy Spirit in the OT, specifically Psalms. Since we know that God can not make mistakes and this verse in Hebrew means the place of the dead then we can be just as assured that this same rendering transfers over into the Greek where Hades means not only the grave but ALSO the place of the dead/underworld.

I think this view has as much scripture to support it as the other view (that Jesus went to Sheol after death).

I think it is definately worth examining but I 'feel' what I gave above and the fact that Jesus Himself declared that He has not yet ascended to the Father all fit the biblical evidence set forth in scripture.

I used to lean toward the Sheol view based on things written by men about the Sheol "compartments." But Sheol is not clearly defined in the Bible at all and often merely means the grave or place of the dead. The Bible is not explicit on it, as far as I know.

Just because the bible does not articulate everything or give us full understanding of a subject does not negate the fact it is true especially if scripture speaks to it however fuzzy. It is not good to beyond what scripture says no matter how 'true' it might 'sound' in our understanding.

 

[Allan]

Allan, you make some good points, but I want to make one more regarding Jesus' statement to Mary about "don't touch me because I have not yet ascended to the Father."

He's saying to not cling to him - that she cannot keep him around -- because he's going to (bodily) ascend and leave. I think the fact it's related to his physical presence gives support to interpreting it as a physical ascension.

I am not specifically disagreeing with this part per-say. I think it refers to both apects with predominance on the physical regarding 'keeping him around'.

 

[Me4Him]

That Jesus Christ suffered in hell is one of the many heretical beliefs of the Word of Faith movement. Hank Hanegraaff in his revision of the Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin, page 497ff, notes the following about this heretical movement:

"In order to redeem humanity, Jesus had to die spiritually as well as physically. When He died spiritually, he died in the same way that Adam died. In other words, He lost His divine nature and was given the nature of Satan. Jesus’ death on the cross and His shed blood did not atone for our sins. The atonement took place in hell through the devil's torturing of Jesus’ spirit for three days and three nights. Unfortunately for Satan, Jesus was taken to hell ‘illegally’ because He had never sinned. This ‘technicality’ enabled God to use His ‘force of faith’ to revive Jesus’ spirit, restore Jesus’ divine nature, and resurrect Jesus’ body. Through the resurrection process Jesus was ‘born again’. "

Since I have labeled this movement as heretical and do not consider myself a heretic it obviously does not reflect my beliefs. I hope that is sufficiently clear.

Hay, I agree with you, mercy, will miracles never cease. :laugh: :laugh:

Does man's "FLESH" and "SOUL" both, suffer for Adam's sin??

Adam's sin was caused by the "lust of the flesh", resulting in all "flesh" being condemned back to the dust,

But did Adam's sin also condemn all souls along with the flesh, not according to scripture.

Ge 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Baptist teach the "Age of accountability", that is knowing "good and Evil" before being held accountable for sin.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Sin is a "conscious/knowing/willful act of transgressing the law.

Ro 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

The "soul" is not guilty of sin at birth, but is born in a "body of sin", and it isn't held accountable for sin until the "Law came", or it's eyes are opened to the knowledge of law/good/evil.


The soul must commit that one sin and then the soul is condemned, when that sin is "taken away", (saved) the soul is "SEALED", the "body of sin" is "Crucified" and the soul viewed by God as if it had never sinned. (same as Jesus)

God's plan, from Adam, is to destroy all "FLESH", (body of sin/dust to dust) but souls don't share in this condemnation.

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

We have to be as willing to shed the life/blood of the flesh for a "life" sustained by the "spirit" as Jesus did, no shed blood, (not willing to crucify the old man) no remission of sin.

Chastisement is of the flesh and can result in the death of the flesh, but it can never "kill a soul", only the saved receive chastisement.

Souls are "tormented", not chastised, souls in sin, love sin.

 

[Me4Him]

Allan, you make some good points, but I want to make one more regarding Jesus' statement to Mary about "don't touch me because I have not yet ascended to the Father."

He's saying to not cling to him - that she cannot keep him around -- because he's going to (bodily) ascend and leave. I think the fact it's related to his physical presence gives support to interpreting it as a physical ascension.

Jewish law prohibits a person from touching anything "UNCLEAN", or anything "UNCLEAN" from touching them. (sinner)

After "Purification" if anything unclean touch them, they had to be "RE-purified", before entering the Holy of Holies.

In this case Jesus representing himself as a "purified sacrifice" before God in heaven.

 

[OldRegular]

Jewish law prohibits a person from touching anything "UNCLEAN", or anything "UNCLEAN" from touching them. (sinner)

After "Purification" if anything unclean touch them, they had to be "RE-purified", before entering the Holy of Holies.

In this case Jesus representing himself as a "purified sacrifice" before God in heaven.

When Jesus Christ died Jewish ceremonial law was set aside.

Ephesians 2:15.Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Colossians 2:14. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;[/b]

 

[Marcia]

IYes, hell often means grave but it also incorporates at times shoel as well. Take for example Acts 2:27 where "hell" is used to describe the word "Hades".


Now let us look up the text from whence it came.

This verse speaks of two places. We see the word for "hell" here is the word "shoel" or the place of the dead/underworld - not grave. We find something very interesting here though in that David states (and if often overlooked by my reformed brethren) in his declaration and prophesy regarding Christ Jesus that God will not leave His "soul" in shoel.. niether (or "You also") will not permit your Holy One to see corruption. This latter part is a direct reference to the grave in which the body after a period of time will begin to decay or decompose (this is physical). But the first part is not since it is dealing with the 'soul' and it being in hell. Now since we know scripturally the soul does not stay with the body at death (in the grave) and there is no biblical evidence for soul sleep we must conclude that the Holy Spirit meant what He said about his 'soul' being in hell/underworld. Thus either Jesus was in sheol as the scripture declare point blank or God lied.

Remember this verse I started with and quoted by Peter in Acts 2:27
Here we find the word for hell is hades but in Psa it was Sheol. One of the definitions of of the Greek word 'hades' is the "underworld" and we see here that this is the same meaning given by God the Holy Spirit in the OT, specifically Psalms. Since we know that God can not make mistakes and this verse in Hebrew means the place of the dead then we can be just as assured that this same rendering transfers over into the Greek where Hades means not only the grave but ALSO the place of the dead/underworld.

Ps 16:10 For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.

This is poetry and it's also a parallelism. It is simply stating that you will not abandon me to the grave. To read "soul" literally here is, I think, stretching it, though I see your point. I think the intent of this is to support Christ's bodily resurrection.

The Hebrew word for "soul" there is "nephesh" which covers a variety of meanings and can just mean "life."

Also, since it says "you will not allow your Holy One to decay," is that referring to Jesus spiritually? No, it's referring to the body, because only the body decays. So if "Holy One" refers to the body, so does "soul" since this is a parallelism.

I don't think this couplet is enough support for the view that Jesus went to Sheol but rather supports the view that it is referring to his body in the grave.