JESUS SUFFERED THE WRATH OF GOD EQUIVALENT OF OUR ETERNAL HELL.

[JesusFan]

I disagree.....maybe? God manifested His righteousness apart ftom the law. Not only was God not bound by the law to create but He was also not bound by the law to re-create man. We know that God's righteousness is not a legal issue but above the law. We know this because God manifested it through and apart from the law.

But that is kinda off topic because God's righteousness manifested apart from the law fulfills the law.

I will give an example of what I mean.

The law says that murder is a sin. To murder is to transgress the law.

Adultery is a sin. It is a violation of the law.
Lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart.
But it is not a violation of the law.

Yet it is still a sin, not because of the law but because it falls short of the glory of God.

Sins are manifestations of a heart set on the flesh rather than the Spirit.

You take ten murderers and put their sins on Jesus, punish them on Jesus, and you still have ten murders.

But you take one murderer and he dies to sin, is made a new creation in Christ, is vonformed into the image of Christ then you have a righteous man who will hear "well done my good and faithful servant" at judgment even if Jesus was not punished for the murder his "old man" committed.


The atonement is accomplishing righteousness apart from the law. It does not nullify the law but fulfills it.

Why? At judgment those who are saved will actually be righteous, they will be glorified. Christ is the Firstborn of many brothers. God as Judge will declare them righteous as they have been conformed into Christ's image.


The only reason for God to punish our sins on Jesus is if John Calvin was correct and justice means avenging the law. But then God forgiving sins is impossible. The best He could do is to provide a substitute. This is a philosophy that did not exist until Calvin developed a theory relying on 16th century French philosophy.


Now, I grant that the relative newness of this theory does not make it wrong. It makes it suspect, but not wrong.

We live in a culture that has adopted this theory, but I do not know that it has been accurately vetted. Cal in assumed it was correct because it is what he studied at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France. It was a popular movement within the law.

I think, perhaps, in a century or so Christians will equate it to the 10th century when scholars were convinced the Atonement was about reconciling man to God by restoring the honor man, through Adam, cost God (honor was an important focus during that age).

But I believe we, now, have enough time between us and 16th century France that we can objectively characterize Calvin's theory as dependent on a judicial philosophy that is no longer held apart from traditional beliefs. We know it is not justice because we look back and see it in history, but we over this it when applied to divine justice because we have held onto it for so long.

The same God though stated to us a universal law that one who sheds blood of another as min murder must die for that sin, and all who sin must die, so God cannot just make them new creatures without having someone die as atonement for their sins

 

[Charlie24]

God cannot be bound by anything, as He is by very definition Supreme Being

He promised you eternal life, do you think He's bound to that?

Not to mention many other things.

He does it all by His plan before the foundation of the world according to His good pleasure.

 

[Charlie24]

Yet He multipled loaves and walked upon sea by His own power

I don't think He did, not because He couldn't, but because He made Himself of no reputation and took upon Himself the form of a servant.

I don't think He knew what was around the next corner unless the Holy Spirit told Him.

I see Him totally lead by the Holy Spirit, waiving His rights of Deity.

 

[Charlie24]

I disagree.....maybe? God manifested His righteousness apart ftom the law. Not only was God not bound by the law to create but He was also not bound by the law to re-create man. We know that God's righteousness is not a legal issue but above the law. We know this because God manifested it through and apart from the law.

But that is kinda off topic because God's righteousness manifested apart from the law fulfills the law.

I will give an example of what I mean.

The law says that murder is a sin. To murder is to transgress the law.

Adultery is a sin. It is a violation of the law.
Lusting after a woman is committing adultery in one's heart.
But it is not a violation of the law.

Yet it is still a sin, not because of the law but because it falls short of the glory of God.

Sins are manifestations of a heart set on the flesh rather than the Spirit.

You take ten murderers and put their sins on Jesus, punish them on Jesus, and you still have ten murders.

But you take one murderer and he dies to sin, is made a new creation in Christ, is vonformed into the image of Christ then you have a righteous man who will hear "well done my good and faithful servant" at judgment even if Jesus was not punished for the murder his "old man" committed.


The atonement is accomplishing righteousness apart from the law. It does not nullify the law but fulfills it.

Why? At judgment those who are saved will actually be righteous, they will be glorified. Christ is the Firstborn of many brothers. God as Judge will declare them righteous as they have been conformed into Christ's image.


The only reason for God to punish our sins on Jesus is if John Calvin was correct and justice means avenging the law. But then God forgiving sins is impossible. The best He could do is to provide a substitute. This is a philosophy that did not exist until Calvin developed a theory relying on 16th century French philosophy.


Now, I grant that the relative newness of this theory does not make it wrong. It makes it suspect, but not wrong.

We live in a culture that has adopted this theory, but I do not know that it has been accurately vetted. Cal in assumed it was correct because it is what he studied at the University of Orléans and the University of Bourges in France. It was a popular movement within the law.

I think, perhaps, in a century or so Christians will equate it to the 10th century when scholars were convinced the Atonement was about reconciling man to God by restoring the honor man, through Adam, cost God (honor was an important focus during that age).

But I believe we, now, have enough time between us and 16th century France that we can objectively characterize Calvin's theory as dependent on a judicial philosophy that is no longer held apart from traditional beliefs. We know it is not justice because we look back and see it in history, but we over look this it when applied to divine justice because we have held onto it for so long.

I'm sure the Lord will have no problems correcting our faults of reading between the lines.

I think we all have some surprises coming.

 

[JonC]

I'm sure the Lord will have no problems correcting our faults of reading between the lines.

I think we all have some surprises coming.

I believe we have to lean not on our understanding but on every word that comes from God.

This implies that we do have an understanding. But we suffer from the human condition - we see in part.

My mistake years ago was not that my understanding was the Penal Substitution Theory but that I leaned on that understanding as if it were actually God's Word. I was serious when I said that God yanked me back from the precipice. The danger is not always one's understanding itself but that men have a tendency to be carried away by their philosophies.

In other words, people can hold the same understandings and God will make some stand while others will be carried away. The difference, IMHO, is how we hold our understandings. Do we hold thrm at arms length or are they what we lean on?

Here is a good place to argue and examine our differences. We should always reevaluate our understanding and compare them to God's Word precisely because we know that our understanding is both limited and flawed. We will not understand perfectly in this lifetime, but we can increasingly walk our understanding towards God.

A good way of putting it is a stagnant faith is a dead faith. Not only does faith influence how we live, urge us to actions, move us "from glory to glory", but we increasingly grow in God's Word.


I enjoy learning of other positions, especially how people get from the text of Scripture to their conclusions.

With this topic, it really does not make sense to me that God would transfer our dins from us to Jesus and punish them on Him. I believed it at once, but for the life of me I do not know how. I know why but not how.

In the interest of summary, the following just do not make sence to me

1. That wicked actions we do can be taken from us and put on Jesus.
2. That justice requires sins be punished apart from addressing the one who committed the sin.
3. That punishing the sins of the "old man" that will not be at Judgment is necessary
4. That the Atonement focuses on sin rather than man falling short of the glory of God

Just to name four.

An interesting journey would be to start from the beginning (Genesis) and see our differences. But I doubt either of us would have enough patience. We ain't Job.

 

[Charlie24]

I believe we have to lean not on our understanding but on every word that comes from God.

This implies that we do have an understanding. But we suffer from the human condition abd see in part.

My mistake years ago was not that my understanding was the Penal Substitution Theory but that I leaned on that understanding as if it were actually God's Word. I was serious when I said that God yanked me back from the precipice. The danger is not always one's understanding itself but that men have a tendency to be carried away by their philosophies.

In other words, people can hold the sane understandings and God will make dome stand while others will be carried away. The difference, IMHO, is how we hold oyr understandings. Do we hold thrm at arms length or are they what we lean on?

Here is a good place to argue and examine our differences. We should always reevaluate our understanding and compare them to God's Word precisely because we know that our understanding is both limited and flawed. We will not understand perfectly in this lifetime, but we can increasingly walk our understanding towards God.

A good way of putting it is a stagnant faith is a dead faith. Not only does faith influence how we live, urge us to actions, move us "from glory to glory", but we increasingly grow in God's Word.


I enjoy learning of other positions, especially how people get from the text of Scripture to their conclusions.

With this topic, it really does not make sense to me that God would transfer our dins from us to Jesus and punish them on Him. I believed it at once, but for the life of me I do not know how. I know why but not how.

In the interest of summary, the following just do not make sence to me

1. That wicked actions we do can be taken from us and put on Jesus.
2. That justice requires sins be punished apart from addressing the one who committed the sin.
3. That punishing the sins of the "old man" that will not be at Judgment is necessary
4. That the Atonement focuses on sin rather than man falling short of the glory of God

Just to name four.

An interesting journey would be to start from the beginning (Genesis) and see our differences. But I doubt either of us would have enough patience. We ain't Job.

Yes, it's very easy to assume this or that in Scripture. I call it reading between the lines, and I have some experience with it, lol.

It's probably best kept to oneself that to bring it out here on the boards.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

"Additionally, the Corporal Death Christ Endured in the Flesh included a Death in His Soul, Equal to a Spiritual and an Eternal Death

The facsimile instance, duplicate case replica, and representative, exemplar prototype Death (if you will) Christ Endured in the Flesh included a Death in His Soul, when with His Perfect soul United with Jesus' Divine Nature, Suffered Enough Agony while Separated from The Father, to whatever extent there was a Departure from God the Father's Eternal Holy Communion, for Jesus to say, "My God, My God, why hath Thou Forsaken Me?"

This Death Jesus Suffered in His Soul before Giving Up the Ghost and Dying Physically was a Death in His Soul as closely Physically Equal in every way to Fully being Dead EXCEPT for Him to have ultimately experienced an actual Death OF HIS SOUL, since a Death of His Spirit would be impossible.

As God, God can not die and that is where Jesus Commended His Spirit to Return to God the Father. "And when Jesus had Cried with a Loud Voice, He said, Father, into Thy Hands I Commend My Spirit: and having said thus, He Gave Up the Ghost."

So, while DR. CHARLES STANLEY, for example, has been known to often say, "God Died" on the Cross, we have to 'take the meat' of his Ministry that we may believe and benefit from, 'and leave the bones' the way we would do when eating a piece of fish, etc.

though not a Death of His Soul

Not a Death OF His Soul, etc.

Looks like a spiritual death to me, but not clearly said.

O.K., maybe it wasn't stated clearly to you as a "Spiritual Death" because it never was intended to say any such thing, which again, would be absolutely impossible.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Christ had the power to forgive sin before He died based on His death on the Cross being a foregone conclusion in the mind of the Father.

Absolutely.

The OT saints sins were also forgiven based on this conclusion.

Absolutely. Amen.

In Lev. 4 the sinner was to place his hand on the head of sin offering and slay the animal. The priest would place the blood on the alter and the sin would be forgiven.

Absolutely. With the intent involved of causing death and picturing "the life of the flesh is in the blood". "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." Leviticus 17:11.

By Giving His Life, Jesus' Blood Made an Atonement for His people.

But the blood of the animal could not take away the sin only cover it, only the Blood of Christ could take away the sin with the sin placed on Him rather than the animal.

Absolutely. The wages of sin is death. Jesus' Blood Covered the Guilt of all the sins of His people. "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call His Name JESUS: for He shall Save His people from their sins." Matthew 1:21.

This took place on the Cross as the Law was satisfied, enabling man the opportunity to be saved.

Absolutely. A Plan Made in Eternity Past is Perfectly Accomplished by Jesus Christ and Applied by the Holy Spirit.

"the word Atonement, though often used in the Old Testament, of typical sacrifices, making Expiation of sin; as in Leviticus 1:4 4:20,26,31,35 5:6,10,13,16,18 16:6,10,11,16-18,27,30,32-34 Leviticus 17:11 where the word rpk is used, which signifies to "cover"; and Christ, by His Sacrifice, the Antitype of these, is a covering to His people, from the curses of the Law they have broken----from the Wrath of God they have deserved----and from Avenging Justice their sins exposed them to.

"Yet it is but once used in the New Testament, Romans 5:11. "By whom we have received the Atonement" made for them by Christ their Surety, Head, and Representative; that is, the Benefit of the Atonement, the Application of it by the Spirit of God, who takes the Blood, Righteousness, and Sacrifice of Christ, and Applies to His people, and shows them their interest therein; the effect of which is Joy, Peace, and Comfort.

"The word used properly signifies "reconciliation"; and so it is elsewhere translated; and the Hebrew word rpk is sometimes rendered to "reconcile", Leviticus 6:30. Atonement and Reconciliation for sin, design the same thing, and both imply Satisfaction for sin." From

His By Grace--"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"-Doctrinal Book 6, Chapter 6

A Baptist Sovereign Grace, Christian site committed to the doctrines of grace . A ministry page that exists to try and clearly draw the lines between trusting Christ, and the mere appearance of trusting Him. Articles, audio messages,links & study tools. Calvinistic.

www.gracesermons.com

I love all that you are saying.

Christ died for our sins, there was no other way, it was mandatory that He die for us to be saved.

If there were any other Way, we wouldn't have heard Jesus say in the Garden, "And He went a little further, and fell on His Face, and Prayed, saying, O My Father, if it be possible, let this Cup Pass from Me: nevertheless not as I Will, but as Thou Wilt, Matthew 26:39.

The "Cup" being the dregs of the Wrath of God.

Christ freely gave up His life, but God could no die spiritually, He had never sinned.

Amen.

 

[JonC]

The "Cup" being the dregs of the Wrath of God.

Where did you get the idea that "the cup" is the dregs of the Wrath of God?

Does it not seem odd that Jesus told James and John that they would share in this "cup"?

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Where did you get the idea that "the cup" is the dregs of the Wrath of God?

From the Bible Words which give us a clue that God the Father possesses "the dregs of the cup of My Fury", and what Fury Jesus Experienced which caused Him to Pour Out His Blood and to Suffering Physical Corporal Death "in the flesh" was the cup He Prayed for the Father to spare Him from, but there was no other way than for Jesus to be scourged and executed by the barbaric means of His Crucifixion.

Isaiah 51:22
"Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again:"

Does it not seem odd that Jesus told James and John that they would share in this "cup"?

Matthew 20:22
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I Am baptized with? They say unto Him, We are able."

"meaning His reproaches, sorrows, sufferings, and death; which because of the disagreeableness of them, He compares to a bitter cup of Vengeance, Wrath, Fury, and Indignation; and because they were Appointed to Him, and Allotted for Him, they were His Portion, therefore He expresses them by a "cup"; and because they were so many and great, of such an overwhelming nature, that He seemed to be Plunged into them, and Covered with them, therefore He likens them to a "baptism" and which the Ordinance of water baptism, performed by immersion, is a lively representation of.

"Now Christ suggests to these Disciples, that instead of indulging their ambitious desires of worldly grandeur, that they would do well to consider what a Bitter cup He had to drink of, and what a Sea of Sorrows and Sufferings He was about to be Plunged into, and Drenched in; and whether they could think of enduring anything of the Like Kind, for His Sake..."

Matthew 20:23. "And He saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I Am baptized with: but to sit on My Right Hand, and on My Left, is not Mine to Give, but it shall be Given to them for whom it is Prepared of My Father."

This was Jesus' Prophecy to James and John, of what they should suffer for Christ, and expresses nothing related to Jesus' Vicarious and Efficatious cup He Drank by Suffering and Dying on the cruel cross.

"And He saith unto them, ye shall drink indeed of My cup,.... Not of the selfsame, but of what was like unto it; meaning, that they should endure much persecution for His Name's Sake, as all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus must expect in one shape or another.

"Thus James, who was one of these persons, was slain with the sword by Herod;

"John, the other, was imprisoned, and beaten by the order of the Jewish sanhedrim, was banished into the isle of Patmos by Domitian; and, some say, was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, though saved in it: so that these words seem to be a Prophecy of what they should suffer for Christ, instead of enjoying places of worldly honour and profit under Him, they were seeking for."

 

[JonC]

From the Bible Words which give us a clue that God the Father possesses "the dregs of the cup of My Fury", and what Fury Jesus Experienced which caused Him to Pour Out His Blood and to Suffering Physical Corporal Death "in the flesh" was the cup He Prayed for the Father to spare Him from, but there was no other way than for Jesus to be scourged and executed by the barbaric means of His Crucifixion.

Isaiah 51:22
"Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people, Behold, I have taken out of thine hand the cup of trembling, even the dregs of the cup of my fury; thou shalt no more drink it again:"


Matthew 20:22
But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I Am baptized with? They say unto Him, We are able."

"meaning His reproaches, sorrows, sufferings, and death; which because of the disagreeableness of them, He compares to a bitter cup of Vengeance, Wrath, Fury, and Indignation; and because they were Appointed to Him, and Allotted for Him, they were His Portion, therefore He expresses them by a "cup"; and because they were so many and great, of such an overwhelming nature, that He seemed to be Plunged into them, and Covered with them, therefore He likens them to a "baptism" and which the Ordinance of water baptism, performed by immersion, is a lively representation of.

"Now Christ suggests to these Disciples, that instead of indulging their ambitious desires of worldly grandeur, that they would do well to consider what a Bitter cup He had to drink of, and what a Sea of Sorrows and Sufferings He was about to be Plunged into, and Drenched in; and whether they could think of enduring anything of the Like Kind, for His Sake..."

Matthew 20:23. "And He saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I Am baptized with: but to sit on My Right Hand, and on My Left, is not Mine to Give, but it shall be Given to them for whom it is Prepared of My Father."

This was Jesus' Prophecy to James and John, of what they should suffer for Christ, and expresses nothing related to Jesus' Vicarious and Efficatious cup He Drank by Suffering and Dying on the cruel cross.

"And He saith unto them, ye shall drink indeed of My cup,.... Not of the selfsame, but of what was like unto it; meaning, that they should endure much persecution for His Name's Sake, as all that will live Godly in Christ Jesus must expect in one shape or another.

"Thus James, who was one of these persons, was slain with the sword by Herod;

"John, the other, was imprisoned, and beaten by the order of the Jewish sanhedrim, was banished into the isle of Patmos by Domitian; and, some say, was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, though saved in it: so that these words seem to be a Prophecy of what they should suffer for Christ, instead of enjoying places of worldly honour and profit under Him, they were seeking for."

I disagree with the connections you are making. There is no reason to believe that Jesus drank the cup of God's wrath.

And there is no reason to believe that when Jesus told them they would indeed share the cup it was a different one.

Providing Catholic tradition about how James died does not help your case. The mode doesn't matter.

 

[percho]

The facsimile instance, duplicate case replica, and representative, exemplar prototype Death (if you will) Christ Endured in the Flesh included a Death in His Soul, when with His Perfect soul United with Jesus' Divine Nature, Suffered Enough Agony while Separated from The Father, to whatever extent there was a Departure from God the Father's Eternal Holy Communion, for Jesus to say, "My God, My God, why hath Thou Forsaken Me?"

This Death Jesus Suffered in His Soul before Giving Up the Ghost and Dying Physically was a Death in His Soul as closely Physically Equal in every way to Fully being Dead EXCEPT for Him to have ultimately experienced an actual Death OF HIS SOUL, since a Death of His Spirit would be impossible.

As God, God can not die and that is where Jesus Commended His Spirit to Return to God the Father. "And when Jesus had Cried with a Loud Voice, He said, Father, into Thy Hands I Commend My Spirit: and having said thus, He Gave Up the Ghost."

So, while DR. CHARLES STANLEY, for example, has been known to often say, "God Died" on the Cross, we have to 'take the meat' of his Ministry that we may believe and benefit from, 'and leave the bones' the way we would do when eating a piece of fish, etc.

Not a Death OF His Soul, etc.

O.K., maybe it wasn't stated clearly to you as a "Spiritual Death" because it never was intended to say any such thing, which again, would be absolutely impossible.

Question

Did the spirit Jesus committed in to the hands of his Father give the life in the blood of his flesh making Jesus a living soul?

Consider Lev 17:11 and Gen 2:7

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken [From ἐν (G1722) and καταλείπω (G2641)] me
Jesus died committed the spirit life of the flesh to his Father
Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left [g2641] in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Did the resurrection release his soul from Hades and his flesh from corruption?

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Did the spirit Jesus committed in to the hands of his Father give the life in the blood of his flesh making Jesus a living soul?

Yes, I sure believe that myself.

Did the resurrection release his soul from Hades and his flesh from corruption?

I think we need to step back and see that there are teachings about "the spirits", "the Spirit", etc., from that verse in I Peter 3, ad that what it teaches about how Jesus' Spirit was Preaching to lost souls in the Time of Noah, believe it or not.

Peter once wrote of Paul’s letters: “There are some things in them that are hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). We might say the same of Peter’s letters! Here’s one statement that has long perplexed readers:

"For Christ also Suffered Once for sins, the Righteous for the Unrighteous, that He might Bring us to God, being Put to Death in the Flesh but Made Alive in the Spirit, in which He Went and Proclaimed to the spirits in Prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s Patience waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were Brought safely through water. (1 Pet. 3:18–20)

In verse 18, Peter is speaking of the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Jesus was “put to death in the flesh”—that is, he died in his humanity. And he was raised, “made alive in the Spirit.” But what is “the Spirit” here? Some interpreters take it to mean Jesus’s Human Soul. Others say it’s the location where the Risen Jesus is now Alive. But the pairing of Jesus’s Resurrection with “the Spirit” indicates that Peter is referring to the Holy Spirit (see Rom. 8:4–11). Jesus, Peter says, was raised in the power of the Spirit.

Proclaimed to the Spirits in Prison​

If Peter is saying in verse 18 that Jesus was Raised from the dead by the Power of the Holy Spirit, then he’s saying at the beginning of verse 19 that “in [the Spirit], [Jesus] went and Proclaimed to the spirits in Prison.” Many interpreters have taken Peter to be saying that, either between Jesus’s Death and Resurrection or after it, Jesus undertook a Preaching Campaign.

Who are said to be the objects of Jesus’s Preaching? “The spirits in prison” who “formerly did not obey.” But who are these “spirits”? According to some, they’re the souls of Old Testament believers, whom Jesus Liberated from Captivity and Brought with Him to Heaven. The Message that Jesus Proclaims—His Death and Resurrection—is therefore Good News to them.

Others have taken these “spirits” to be condemned souls who rejected Noah a millennia earlier. For such individuals, Jesus is confirming their condemnation by Proclaiming His Victory over them and all His enemies in His Death and Resurrection. (Some interpreters have seen Jesus Offering a postmortem opportunity for Faith and Repentance to these “spirits in Prison.”)

What Did Jesus Do?​

These interpretations have at least one thing in common. They see Jesus doing something—locally, if not Bodily—after His Death and Burial but before His Ascension and Session in Heaven. One problem with such interpretations, though, is they affirm an Activity of Jesus that appears nowhere else in Scripture. We should be cautious about advancing such a claim without clearer Biblical testimony.

A further problem with such interpretations stems from Peter’s description of these “spirits” as those who “formerly did not obey . . . in the days of Noah, while the Ark was being prepared” (v. 20). Why would Jesus liberate only some Old Testament saints from captivity? (And why would Peter describe Old Testament saints in this fashion?) Or, why would Jesus Proclaim Condemnation to only a single generation of souls in Hell, and not others? Each of these interpretations also carries its own liabilities. There is no clear testimony in Scripture that Old Testament believers, at their deaths, were confined to limbus patrum (“the limbo of the fathers”) until such time as Christ released them at His Resurrection.

Jesus’s teaching in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man points in a contrary direction. At their deaths, the souls of Old Testament believers went immediately into the Presence of God (Luke 16:22). There isn’t any clear reason why Christ would Travel to Hell to Proclaim His Victory to any Condemned human soul. And there certainly is no Biblical warrant for an Offer of Salvation to those who’ve already died. The Final Judgment, after all, will take into Account only what one has done in this life, not anything done in the Hereafter (1 Pet. 1:17; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 9:27).

Peter appears to understand the “spirits” of verse 19 to be human beings when he says they were disobedient “in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared” (v. 20).

Better Interpretation​

There’s another way to interpret Peter’s words that avoids these difficulties and accounts for the context of these verses within Peter’s argument. The one who does the proclaiming of verse 19 is not the Risen Jesus. It’s Jesus Who Preaches, to be sure, but He Preaches in the Holy Spirit. The timing of this Proclamation is not the window between the Death and the Ascension of Jesus Christ. It’s during the lifetime of Noah.

What, then, is Peter saying? He’s saying that Noah, in the course of building the ark, bore testimony to the coming judgment of God. He was the “herald of righteousness,” as Peter says in his second letter (2 Pet. 2:5). Noah preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit whom Peter has earlier called “the Spirit of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:10).

But the men and women of Noah’s generation, notwithstanding “God’s patience” in delaying judgment, spurned that Proclamation. Because of their “former” disobedience, they are presently “in Prison.” That is, their souls, upon their deaths, were justly committed to Hell to be punished for their sins.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Jesus died committed the spirit life of the flesh to his Father
Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left [g2641] in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

'Not left in the "GRAVE" is what it is saying by the word 'Hell'.

Yes, "Jesus died, committed the spirit life of the flesh to his Father" can be said to mean "the spirit and soul life of the flesh".
The soul has a life that is united with the spirit of life that gives all people the very life they have, whether they are lost or Saved.

It's called, 'Vital Life', by people that God has Allowed to understand, "Life actually does not come from a Rock", at least sort of; they'll make it a 'theory' maybe. And then scrub it away.

So, there is a "spirit of life" which gives the ability to be animated and locomote, from one place to another, and to think, etc.

Then, we have a "living soul" is the "soulish entity" who is characterized by our own personal attributes, and is the very being of who we are.

Those are both initially, and sometimes Forever, 'carnal', meaning they are both 'the flesh' in Nature.

By, "the spirit and soul life of the flesh", we mean a Living Person, with 'the living spirit' + 'living soul', = GIVING LIFE TO THE FLESH, which Creates a person's life that makes them alive.

But, NOTHING 'DIVINE' is Given to that living soul, unless they are Born Again, to become Partakers of the Divine Nature.

When an individual is Born Again, they are still alive in the spirit of flesh, which makes their body alive, but they had a State of Nature which was entirely carnal, or fleshly.

Their body or flesh will remain until they Pass On to Heaven.

But, their soul, which had a State of Nature that was carnal, also, gets Acted Upon below the level of consciousness, by the Spiritual Regenerating, Eternal Salvation Giving, Holy Spirit of God, Who Gives they the New Birth.

That carnal human person in the flesh had their fleshly soul become a "Partaker of the Divine Nature"; "Whereby are given unto us exceeding Great and Precious Promises: that by these ye might be Partakers of the Divine Nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the World through lust.."

So, Jesus' fleshly life, Who died as a human being, was in the "GRAVE", but "did not see corruption". AT THE SAME TIME, Jesus Laid Down His "spirit of life" in His Human Flesh, and His Body physically died on the cross, Jesus was Returning His Eternal Soul to His Father in Heaven.

The 'separation of the soul and spirit' defines what 'death' is.

I'll have to explain the "Jesus Preached" to the lost people before the flood who were held 'captive', through the Holy Spirit that was convicting their conscience, in their lost soul, of sin, Righeousness, and Judgment. This 'Preaching' of Jesus that was done by the Holy Spirit there by Noah's testimony when he was building the Ark, was the Ark picturing God's Salvation Plan through Jesus, and the fact that Noah preached that to them, the whole time.

Did the resurrection release his soul from Hades and his flesh from corruption?

Jesus' Soul Suffered Indescribably Infinite in its Efficacy, when His Soul which had been United to the Divine Nature and Essence of God, in Jesus' Eternal Spirit, was Made an offering for sin and His Soul, Who was Jesus the Human Being, then died.

That was the Infinite Suffering that Jesus had the Capability to Experience, as a Substitutionary Sacrifice to FINISH PAYING IN A FINITE TRANSACTION, the Debt of sin for all those that God Gave Him to Save.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Yes, this is all talking about the Holy Spirit;

Rom 8:11, with my additions, 'But if the Holy Spirit of Him (The Triune Godhead, actually) that Raised up Jesus from the Dead, the Holy Spirit, Dwell in you who are Saved and Born Again by the Holy Spirit, He that Raised up Christ from the Dead (The Triune Godhead, Collectively) shall also Quicken and Make Spiritually Alive and Active your mortal bodies by His Holy Spirit that Dwelleth in you, as Partakers of the Divine Nature, since you have the Holy Spirit of God Born into your soul...'

Feel free to ask anything, again, since you are trying to ask and I am trying to answer.

 

[Zaatar71]

I don't see it that way, Jon.

None of us do!

Peter said that Christ bore our sins on the Tree. So I see Christ taking my sin upon Himself.

of course!

Paul said that Christ was made to be sin who knew no sin. I see Him as taking my place to make my salvation possible.

Yes the Lamb of God, The lamb slain, who now sits upon the throne!

We can't help but read between the lines, and I see Him taking the punishment I deserved for my sin.

That is the truth of scripture that believers embrace

That's not written in Scripture but that is what I see between the lines whether right or wrong.

Yes, you understand what is written to teach this biblical truth, rather than follow bizarre methods of trying to understand"what is written" by a persons private interpretation