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

I guess I'll take that as a "request". I'll add that Lazarus in Lk. 16, is an "OT saint," as well, since he was also under the OT dispensation. The NT economy would not begin until after the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, the true Lamb, which took place on Mt. Moriah. FTR, this is the account of Lazarus and the rich man, and is not the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. (The same is true of the account of the father and his two sons, who were likewise known by the Lord Jesus, but whose names he chose not to give. The oft overlooked key word in both these accounts is that of "certain" as rendered in the KJV, meaning a specific individual or individuals. I tossed this in as a 'freebie.')

Sorry, I cannot get the computer to copy, at the minute, as it is trying to 'lock up', so will attempt to get back to you with the verses later, injected into my post, on a line by line basis.

Ed

 

donnA

You are correct! Sad some of the men are not as perceptive as you and Ann.

 

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 - Ed

I'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

 

Amen, Sister DonnA

Calvary-------where man did his worst----where God did His best!!!

The lower parts of the Earth was Joseph of Ariamathia's tomb

 

Ed

You have not established anything except reference a lot of Scripture. There are two questions of concern:

1. What happens to the spirit of the Old Testament Saints upon death.
2. Did jesus Christ spend three days in Hades.

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.

Now to ,the second question:

It is true that the body of Jesus Christ was in the grave for three days. His spirit or soul was in the presence of God. In the book of Hebrews we read:

Hebrews 9:11, 12; 24, 25

11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Did Jesus Christ wait until the resurrection of His body to enter the Holy Place with the blood of the Covenant [His Blood] or did He do it immediately upon His death? I think He did it immediately! Can you demonstrate otherwise?

 

Look in Proverbs27. verse 20. I think there is more about hell being enlarged, but don't know just off the top of my head as of this instant.

 

This verse you mentioned isn't the one that says that Sheol has enlarged itself, but it is certainly close, and along that track. Notice the Hebrew words from the footnotes.

1. The Scripture that says that Sheol has enlarged itself is here -
   Allan said something about this happening on a "daily" basis, and one, OldRegular asked where that was found. If there is something that expressly says this happens daily, I don't happen to be aware of it, but that doesn't mean one thing. The fact that Sheol is 'insatiable' (DBY), 'never satisfied' (HCSB) or 'never full' (NKJV), could certainly be understood in that manner, I would offer.

Ed

 

And you haven't taken the time to look them up, based on your response.

The Lord Jesus answered this, from the accounts of Lazarus and the thief. Both these were "OT saints," as well, for they were under the OT economy or Old covenant dispensation, whichever wording you would prefer. Here are just a few of the verses I previously referenced, that you apparently did not read, that speaks of what happens at death to an 'OT saint.' Unless otherwise noted, I am quoting from either the NKJV or HCSB. You know, the two main "Baptist" versions.

He had to be there for this to have been true! (This also answers your second question, BTW of -)

Yes. "the son of Man will be three days and three nights (where? In Heaven? No- rather ) "in the heart of the earth." (Mt. 12:40) Whatever Mt. 12:40 may be saying, as to the length of the stay, what it does not say is that the body of Jesus would be three days 10 feet inside a tomb, or that Jesus' soul and spirit would be 'just hanging around,' unseen inside that tomb, waiting - ... Jesus said "Father, Into Your hands I dismiss my spirit!"

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)

Heb. 11:5 'expands' on Gen. 5:24, saying 'God took Enoch away that he should not see death.' Neither of these verses, your theology notwithstanding, say God took Enoch to heaven. (Incidentally, Enoch is the only individual in Scripture, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ, himself, of who it is said that he "pleased" God.) And Jesus specifically said, when speaking to Nicodemus, that

Did you miss that one?? Says no one has ascended into heaven. (Personaly, I think since Jesus was God, he would know, don't you??
Frankly, I'm gonna' say that Jesus knew what he was talking about! There is no mention anywhere in the OT, of any person ascending, of which I am aware, althoug Jacob did see anels ascend and descend. (Gen. 28:12) There are about 30 OT references to "ascend" There are none referring to a man ascending, that I have seen. There are more than 400 OT references to heaven or heavens. 265 of these are in the singular form. I have read every one of them, today, in context, prior to my last post. (Thanks, Bible Gateway, for making that fairly easy!) Not one of them ever says anything about the OT saints 'going to heaven' in any form, aside from the verse about Elijah being taken up "into the heavens" that I've already addressed. Several of them do refer to "Heaven" as the dwelling place of God. I admit, I did not read the other 140 verses that use the plural form of the word "heavens."

Sorry, it doesn't say that anywhere. Jesus did say that he dismissed His spirit into the Father's hand (Lk. 23:46), which is not the same. Jesus also said , when speaking to Mary early that resurrection morning,to not 'hold him' (or "Touch Me not, for ...") for He was not yet ascended unto the Father, which he even then was doing. (Jn. 20:17 - The verb is in the present/continuous tense, here.) Would he contradict Himself? I don't think so. Then only a short time later, Scripture tells us that others "held him by the feet" without any rebuke, of any kind (Mt. 28:9), and in fact, he told Thomas, only one week later to place his hands in His side, as well (). Why not rebuke these other disciples, as He had done with Mary, a few hours before. Guess what. In that interval He did ascend to the Father, just as He said to Mary. Nothing else makes Biblical sense, IMO.

Nothing I have said, is in any way contrary to Heb. 9. You are certainly free to opt to believe that Jesus entered "the Holy Place" immediately. I have demonstrated verses that suggest it was not "immediately" upon his death on the cross. I believe, frankly, that I have demonstrated more than you have, in this.

I will also add that I did not just "reference a lot of Scripture verse" in my previous post. While I doid not quote each and every one of them, due to space, virtually every one of them was a direct reference (often with a direct quote) to what was said in the sentence, they referred to. The few that were nt, were some sort of 'comparison' verses. I did list them in the order in which they appear in Scripture.

Let there be no mistake, as to the OP. Jesus never, in any manner whatsoever, "Suffered in Hell for Our Sins!"

I'd suggest that that very idea is extremely close to both blasphemy and heresy, terms I almost never use, and I do hope I don't get admonished by the BB brass for saying this. I have not ever accused anyone of either blasphemy or heresy, and am not saying that to anyone, here, But this false teaching the OP cited, certainly does try my patience, to say the least!

Jesus suffered and dies on Mt. Moriah; 100% of His suffering and then death, was in about a six hour period!

Jesus 'descended' to Sheol/Hades alright. But He arrived there as Victorious Conquerer and Preacher of Judgment, to the lost and imprisoned angels. And I've already cited verses, in my previous long post, that say much of this!

Tonight, I'm running, not 3 hrs past my bed-time, but almost 4!

So, :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

You are right

This also, in my opinion, opens the door to the false Catholic teaching of purgatory...that Christ had to suffer further in order to fully atone for sins...full justification not being made for believers on the cross. As you wrote, many Word of Faith teach this....Kenny Copeland and Joyce Meyers, to name two.

Here's a link about Meyer

http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache...ist+suffered+in+hell&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Here is a direct quote from her 1991 pamphlet

During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally)
because of our sin….He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme…Jesus paid
on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers
tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of
Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus….He was resurrected from the
dead ¾ the first born-again man.6


She has a vivid imagination! :BangHead:

Your sis in Christ,
Beth

 

I looked up several with the intention of posting them. Since they had no relevance I decided otherwise.

 

I already responded to part of this with a statement that this is a reference to Jesus' bodily ascension to heaven.

My understanding from others on this passage of "touch me not" is that it means "don't cling to me," and Jesus was telling Mary he had things to do, and was urging her to let go.

Source
http://www.gotquestions.org/touch-Mary-Thomas.html

 

This is part of Matthew Henry's commentary on the "touch me not" directive to Mary by Jesus, from the Blue Letter Bible site:

 

If you notice Matthew Henry is purely speculating much of what he sets forth.

While I do agree with him regarding the faith aspect as being the only reason given where by we are given to know that some touched him, it gives 'reason' to presume that her intent was more to 'hold on' to what she had received back from the dead - in a physical sense.

However, this still does not give rise to presume that Jesus has already gone to be with the Father and has now come back. In an earlier post to me (or maybe someone else) you stated that Jesus statement regards his 'bodily' ascension. You can not get that from anywhere in the context, but is a presupposition brought into the text. Jesus stated simply "I have not yet ascended to the Father".. and it is that last part that distinguishes it for 'bodily'. If you read the passage as is you can get no other meaning than He has not yet gone to the Father.

In order to maintain that he did in fact already 'spiritually' ascend one must set other passages of scripture that refer to this event as either metaphorical or allegorical which is a poor hermeneutics for the one who does so (IMHO).

 

Hi, Allan,

I do think other passages support the view that Jesus was with the Father after he died on the cross and therefore we can interpret this statement as meaning bodily ascending.

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.

 

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.

 

Granted and I don't necessarly dispute such a rendering though I think there is also scriptures which support the other as well. We can even find this view ealy in the Church history most notably in the Apostles Creed around 750 ad as well as other documents and such.

 

With this part I must ask how you make this presumtion?

There are many times in scripture the word 'ascend' (and its add ons -ed, -s, -ing) are used not for the physical but spiritual as well.

Take Davids plea for instance:

This can be debate I'll grant that, but how will he ascend to heaven physically in the same manner in which he descends into hell. The context )IMO) explicitly shows a spiritual connotation to his remark and not a physical meaning.

Or Isaiah speaking of Satan directly and the indirectly:

No man can ascend to heaven in bodily form and Satan has no coporial body.

Even beast in Rev will ascend out of the bottomless pit:

It is used for both aspects.

 

Can't add much to that except to put it in my own words (which would make it about 3 posts ) . :thumbs:

 

No question. I have not stated anything more was needed to complete the atonement, I am simply stating that Jesus personally went took them where the blood of goats and bulls could not. Who dear brother can enter heaven to dwell (God's domain) still stained with sin. Hebrews tells us that blood of bulls and goats could not 'take away' our/their sins but it merely 'covered' them. It is only the shedding of blood that can take 'away' sin and make them clean and pure before a holy and rightoues God.

We actaully find that the word paradise is used only in conjunction with where God's people are at rest. The Garden of Eden, the abode of saints in hades, and finally with God Himself. Why do I say the "Garden of Eden" if we do not read the paradise used to describe it? Because 'paradise' can and does refer to or mean a 'garden'. The Garden was a place of peace and rest but Adam and Eve were tossed out, why? Sin.

This particular aspect spoken of here regarding the OT saints is in like manner a place of peace and rest yet these are awaiting their true redemption/redeemer in whom they have placed their trust. These OT saints are accounted as righteous by faith but still retaining their sins under the covering of animal till the True and Eternal Lamb is slain. And after the death and resurrection of Christ there is/was no more need for this place because all men could rightously and legally be with and before God the Father in which they have abtained their rest. IOW - like the Garden of Eden they to were kicked out (so to speak) not because of sin however but opposite - because they no longer retained it. So to then is Pauls statement about paradise being in The Heaven correct because that is where it now is - the promised place of rest and peace of God's people (at least till we get our new bodies ).

And lest we forget - no man can 'come to the Father' except by me (Jesus Christ).

Paul can say this of course because it is after the death and resurrection. However let me state this. IF, IF what I said 'were' true, would not the thief accompany Jesus to that place where the saints of God were. Shall he precede those who have waited anymore than us who are alive precede those who are dead in the resurrection?

Brother, I have not reall issue with either position nor am I necessarily so pompous as to accert I know exactly what transpired at Christ's death. I will state only what I have read, studied prayerfully and have come to understand. I can also state that your position also has scriptural points as well and thus both views exist from the early church till today.

 

who goes to hell? how does a person go to hell? who was hell created for?
does Jesus qualify for either one?