Did Jesus really go to Hell when He died? [Archive]

View Full Version : Did Jesus really go to Hell when He died?

Flipper

8th May 2005, 04:22 PM

revjpw

8th May 2005, 05:55 PM

I know what the Apostle's Creed states.

However,

Jesus affirmed that his spirit was going directly to heaven when he said, "Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46 NKJV). Further, Jesus promised the criminal on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). Paradise is defined as the "third heaven" in II Corinthians 12:2-4.

Help?

To answer your question: Yes.

1 Peter 3:19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,

It was His first state of exaltation following the crucifixion.

...oh, and BTW, those silly "Bible quote" things don't work.:doh:

ByzantineDixie

8th May 2005, 06:54 PM

Flipper, I know that one of your questions is how can Jesus be with the thief today and also in hell for 3 days. The only explanation attempting to rationalize this that I have heard is that God transcends time...He is not bound by time limits. We are bound by time in a linear fashion while on earth but God is not. Time for God is eternity. Once we pass from this life to our eternal life with God...we will not bound by a linear dimension of time either.

I don't know how happy I am with this explanation. We seem to bind God to time (6 days, evening then morning) when He created the world. But...I surely understand where He wouldn't necessarily be restricted by it such that it would not be impossible for Jesus to be with the thief in heaven and in hell for 3 days.

At the very least we can shrug and say it is a mystery that we believe because we know Scripture to be the Word of God.

BTW...I didn't think it was just Jesus' spirit that went to hell...I thought it was His whole body as well...the entire God / Man? Someone...correct me if I am wrong here.

Rose

Jim47

8th May 2005, 08:40 PM

Flipper, I know that one of your questions is how can Jesus be with the thief today and also in hell for 3 days. The only explanation attempting to rationalize this that I have heard is that God transcends time...He is not bound by time limits.

There is actually a simpler explaination that is about the same thing that you are saying. God is all powerful and He is not limited to things that only we can understand.

BTW...I didn't think it was just Jesus' spirit that went to hell...I thought it was His whole body as well...the entire God / Man? Someone...correct me if I am wrong here.

Rose

I don't know of any scripture that will give us a clear answer to this, but since Hell is a spiritual realm, I can only assume that Jesus Body did not go to Hell, only His Spirit, but I could be wrong, because there are scriptures that say body and soul will be cast into hell, but I have always thought this was at the judgement when all people will be reunited with their bodies.

revjpw

8th May 2005, 11:27 PM

ByzantineDixie

9th May 2005, 07:58 AM

I woke up this morning at about 7:30 and was at the church until around noon. Later in the day I went for a drive to another town about 40 miles away, and got back home around 4. I wasn't in both places at the same time.

Couldn't it be possible for Jesus to have been in Paradise with the penitent thief and also in Hell preaching victory on the same day?:scratch:

Rev, are you saying that Jesus left hell for a while and went back to Paradise where the thief was? Would that be possible? Remember when Jesus told Mary not to touch Him yet because he had not yet ascended to His Father? (John 20:17). I don't see how what you suggest fits the equation?

BigNorsk

9th May 2005, 09:50 AM

Okay, the way I have understood it is that the thief will go to the place the righteous dead went. Since Jesus will be there too, it will be a "slice of heaven" for those who are there.

In 2 Cor 12:2 paradise probably means the third heaven. Even though the same word is used, I think they refer to two different things. I see it as a situation where Jesus wasn't going to give a 40 minute sermon to explain the nuances of what was going to happen so he used a term the thief would recognize and be comforted by. Would not any place be paradise with our Lord?

I have wondered if Jesus was referring to the person of the Father in Heaven as "me", but I don't think the dead saints were taken up to heaven at the moment of Jesus' death, so I don't think that is correct.

Marv

revjpw

9th May 2005, 11:33 AM

Rev, are you saying that Jesus left hell for a while and went back to Paradise where the thief was?

Who said He went to Hell first?

Jim47

9th May 2005, 04:44 PM

Couldn't it be possible for Jesus to have been in Paradise with the penitent thief and also in Hell preaching victory on the same day?:scratch:

Thats the way I see it.

Nothing is impossible for God, while our understanding certainly has its limits.

ByzantineDixie

9th May 2005, 07:07 PM

Who said He went to Hell first? What makes me think He did not go to heaven first is the comment he made to Mary about not touching him as he had not yet returned to His Father.

The concept of Sheol and Jesus being there...therefore it is Paradise...as well as the idea of "be with Me in heaven" meaning the Godhead rather than Jesus specifically. Those explanations seem reasonable to me.

revjpw

9th May 2005, 10:36 PM

What makes me think He did not go to heaven first is the comment he made to Mary about not touching him as he had not yet returned to His Father.

I am confused. What does this have to do with Jesus' descent into Hell? That occured prior to His Resurrection. His statement to Mary was after His Resurrection. I see no connection between the two events or why you would think that His post Resurrection statement to Mary proves anything about His descent into Hell. :scratch: :scratch:

The concept of Sheol and Jesus being there...therefore it is Paradise...

What?? :confused: "Sheol" is the Hebrew word for "the place of the dead," often translated "grave" or "Hell." We know that Jesus' descent was to Hell because of 1 Peter 3:19. Neither "sheol" nor "Hell" can be considered "Paradise" in any way shape or form. Just because Jesus was there does not make it Paradise. He was on earth for 33 years, and earth was certainly not Paradise during that time either.

as well as the idea of "be with Me in heaven" meaning the Godhead rather than Jesus specifically. Those explanations seem reasonable to me.

Again I as... What??:eek:
Chapter and verse on this one please. I am really confused.

ByzantineDixie

9th May 2005, 10:59 PM

I am confused. What does this have to do with Jesus' descent into Hell? That occured prior to His Resurrection. His statement to Mary was after His Resurrection. I see no connection between the two events or why you would think that His post Resurrection statement to Mary proves anything about His descent into Hell. :scratch: :scratch:

OK...let me order the events in my thinking so you can see where I am coming from.

1) It's Friday--Jesus and the thief are on the cross. Jesus says "today you will be with Me in paradise"...today...Friday
2) Jesus died, was buried, and decended into hell
3) On the third day He rose from the dead (Resurrection Sunday)

This order of events does not put Jesus in heaven on the same day the thief died. In fact when Jesus is resurrected from the dead 3 days later He tells Mary He hasn't ascended to heaven yet....3 days after He told the thief He would see him there that day. This is the difficulty we are attempting to address.

What?? :confused: "Sheol" is the Hebrew word for "the place of the dead," often translated "grave" or "Hell." We know that Jesus' descent was to Hell because of 1 Peter 3:19. Neither "sheol" nor "Hell" can be considered "Paradise" in any way shape or form. Just because Jesus was there does not make it Paradise. He was on earth for 33 years, and earth was certainly not Paradise during that time either.

Again I as... What??:eek:
Chapter and verse on this one please. I am really confused.

You'll have to take this up with Marv...they are his suggestions...they seemed as reasonable as anything else I have ever heard. But I am fine at just leaving it a mystery too. :shrug:

revjpw

10th May 2005, 09:42 AM

OK...let me order the events in my thinking so you can see where I am coming from.

1) It's Friday--Jesus and the thief are on the cross. Jesus says "today you will be with Me in paradise"...today...Friday
2) Jesus died, was buried, and decended into hell
3) On the third day He rose from the dead (Resurrection Sunday)

This order of events does not put Jesus in heaven on the same day the thief died. In fact when Jesus is resurrected from the dead 3 days later He tells Mary He hasn't ascended to heaven yet....3 days after He told the thief He would see him there that day. This is the difficulty we are attempting to address.

Ah, now I am getting your drift. There are a couple things wrong with your statements here. Jesus clearly said that "today you will be with Me in Paradise." Now either Jesus meant what He said or He lied. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus was not in Paradise with the thief that day, but there is everything to suggest that He was - namely His say-so. As I stated before, it is most likely that Jesus was in both places that day, both fulfilling a promise made to a penitent sinner and preaching victory in Hell.

His statement to Mary is in direct reference to His Ascension, which would not occur for another 40 days. We simply cannot equate His being with the penitent thief in "Paradise" and returning to the Father as being one and the same.

SPALATIN

10th May 2005, 10:03 AM

Ah, now I am getting your drift. There are a couple things wrong with your statements here. Jesus clearly said that "today you will be with Me in Paradise." Now either Jesus meant what He said or He lied. There is nothing to suggest that Jesus was not in Paradise with the thief that day, but there is everything to suggest that He was - namely His say-so. As I stated before, it is most likely that Jesus was in both places that day, both fulfilling a promise made to a penitent sinner and preaching victory in Hell.

His statement to Mary is in direct reference to His Ascension, which would not occur for another 40 days. We simply cannot equate His being with the penitent thief in "Paradise" and returning to the Father as being one and the same.

There is a question that begs to be asked here. We know that he appeared to Mary Magdalene and told her to tell the disciples that he had risen. He told her though not to touch him as he had not come into his Father's Glory, yet when he appeared to his disciples they were allowed to touch him. Jesus even told Thomas to touch his hands and side to ease his doubts. How are we to understand him telling Mary not to touch him, but yet his disciples who had abandoned him could?

revjpw

10th May 2005, 10:58 AM

There is a question that begs to be asked here. We know that he appeared to Mary Magdalene and told her to tell the disciples that he had risen. He told her though not to touch him as he had not come into his Father's Glory, yet when he appeared to his disciples they were allowed to touch him. Jesus even told Thomas to touch his hands and side to ease his doubts. How are we to understand him telling Mary not to touch him, but yet his disciples who had abandoned him could?

The word used in John 20:17 is "h'aptou." The form of this word indicates a continuous action and is translated "hold" or "cling" because Mary is not just touching Jesus but she had taken hold of Him. Thus, this does not conflict with Jesus' invitation to Thomas. Jesus' words to Mary may have been for her comfort, that He was not ascending to the Father right away but that she would have other opportunities to see Him before He ascended to the Father.

Flipper

11th May 2005, 10:53 AM

I think He did at some point, because if He didn't - He then wouldn't have paid the price for our sins, and there would be no Grace.

Is price and penalty two different things?

Phoebe

11th May 2005, 04:30 PM

I'll try to find the verse when I get home. I just know that the descension is mentioned once or twice. It talks about Jesus descending to the dead, (what does this mean but that he descended to the heart of the earth) or something to that effect. ithought it was in Acts or Romans.

Phoebe

11th May 2005, 08:39 PM

Never mind. I was thinking of Romans 10.7

Then there's Matthew 16.21 and 1 Corinthians 15.3-5

BigNorsk

12th May 2005, 09:15 AM

Did Christ descend to hell?

Yes, look at 1 Peter 3:18-19 NET
(18) Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit.
(19) In it he went and preached to the spirits in prison,

I don't believe this is the final hell, the lake of fire, but a place where the unholy are held until judgement day. It may or maynot be the same place for people and angels. We are told a little about the angels.

2 Peter 2:4 NET
(4) For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment,

Jude 1:6 NET
(6) You also know that the angels who did not keep within their proper domain but abandoned their own place of residence, he has kept in eternal chains in utter darkness, locked up for the judgment of the great Day.

We also have the contrast of Lazarus and the rich man.
Luke 16:22-23 NET
(22) "Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.
(23) And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side.

Some people believe the righteous also are kept in a temporary place until judgement day. Others that there was a temporary place until the curtain in the temple was torn at Jesus' death, and others that believers have always gone straight to heaven. I'm not going to take the time to go through those now.

So we have Jesus actually descending into hell during the period of his death, and his statement to the thief that they would be together in Paradise that day. Exactly what that meant and exactly how that all happened is an area of speculation. We really aren't told. That is the answer, we don't need to know. I haven't spent a lot of time on it, I just accept it. I though Rev's idea that Jesus went to paradise at that time as well to be interesting. We really aren't told that Jesus only went to hell, only that he went to hell.

Jesus was and is God, if the thief was saved (I believe that is true) then if he went up into heaven, that is paradise, at the moment of Jesus' death, or at the moment of his own death, depending on your belief as to when the righteous got to enter heaven, there he would be with God and the whole statement would be true, for God is one. It wouldn't be necessary for the person of Christ to be present there on the same day for it to be a true statement.

That's just one way people have explained it. I have never found an explanation that perfectly satisfies everyone. People want to pick at any explanation as are we sure of this and are we sure of that? The thing is, the Bible doesn't tell us a lot about what happens to us after we leave this world because that isn't the focus of the Bible. So we can speculate and fill in blanks, but it will never be the same as if the Gospel narrative exactly spelled it out for us. It has been my experience that many people that spend a lot of time fleshing out these areas of the Bible end up substituting the teachings of men for the teachings of God. For instance, it currently seems fashionable from the third-wave Pentacostalists to teach that Christ's death on the cross wasn't good enough to pay for our sins. They teach that he needed to suffer in hell also. They come up with some pretty long accounts of what took place between the cross and Christ's resurection. They've spent so much time trying to understand his time in hell that they have come to deny the sufficiency of the cross. It seems that a bit of the idea of purgatory has crept into their idea of hell.

These same people talk a lot about demons and all the demons they deal with all the time. Ask them what a demon is and they tell you they are fallen angels. Ask them how the demons are here bothering them when God says they are locked up in darkness and they say it doesn't mean that and go right on preaching how mighty they are and how they cast out demons all the time.

Got to go, God Bless.

Marv

revjpw

12th May 2005, 09:49 AM

I think He did at some point, because if He didn't - He then wouldn't have paid the price for our sins, and there would be no Grace.

Is price and penalty two different things?

Jesus did NOT descend into Hell as a punishment. His descent was the first act of exaltation following His crucifixion. This is where he preached victory over sin, death, and the devil.
There were the acts of humiliation: born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. Then the acts of exaltation: He descended into Hell, rose of the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God.

revjpw

12th May 2005, 09:59 AM

It talks about Jesus descending to the dead, (what does this mean but that he descended to the heart of the earth) or something to that effect.

This part of the Creed speaks of Christ's preaching "to the spirits in prison" as mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19. This isn't merely the "heart of the earth" but specifically Hell.

Flipper

12th May 2005, 11:17 AM

Jesus did NOT descend into Hell as a punishment. His descent was the first act of exaltation following His crucifixion. This is where he preached victory over sin, death, and the devil.
There were the acts of humiliation: born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. Then the acts of exaltation: He descended into Hell, rose of the third day, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God.

So the death was enough for the forgiveness of our sins?

revjpw

12th May 2005, 01:50 PM

So the death was enough for the forgiveness of our sins?

His suffering, death, and resurrection.

Phoebe

13th May 2005, 08:10 AM

Ephesians 4. 9,10.

(In saying ,"He ascended," what does it mean but that he also descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is also is he who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

This was the verse I was thinking of.

revjpw

13th May 2005, 10:26 AM

Andy Broadley

13th May 2005, 10:52 AM

Protoevangel

13th May 2005, 11:26 AM

I'll get lynched for this, but what the heck.

Seems to me that after three solid years on the road, Jesus might just have considered that He was due a day off before the resurection, and simply went and spent a little time with His Father.

Well, why not ?All right Andy, now you've done it!

http://www.kitelife.com/archives/0599/images/mob.jpg

Get him, boys!

:D ;) :P

Phoebe

13th May 2005, 07:47 PM

This verse is speaking mainly about Christ's incarnation and not about His descent into Hell.

I'm just sayin'...

this is the verse that I was thinking of.

revjpw

13th May 2005, 10:42 PM

I'm just sayin'...

this is the verse that I was thinking of.

OK...

...but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of this thread. I was just pointing that out. :)

Phoebe

15th May 2005, 04:12 PM

Okay. :)
I realize that I am no great theologian.

Is there a reason that the Apostles Creed has "descended to the dead" as an alternative phrase?

revjpw

15th May 2005, 09:17 PM

Okay. :)
I realize that I am no great theologian.

Is there a reason that the Apostles Creed has "descended to the dead" as an alternative phrase?

In the Greek text, the word that is translated "hell" is "katotata" which literally means "lower region or place." The Creed's Biblical base tells us that the context in the Creed refers to Christ's descent as mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19.

In more recent times, some Christian traditions (including Methodist) are offended by the idea that Christ may have descended into a place that is mainly known as a place of punishment and torment. Therefore, they have either translated the Greek form as "the dead" (referring to the grave) or in some cases have omitted the line altogether.

Steve Petersen

15th May 2005, 09:44 PM

Saw an interesting program about a potential site for the burial of Jesus discovered by archaeologists in Israel.

Some well-to-do first century tombs were in the Hinnom valley on the west of Jerusalem. In Jesus this valley was called Gehinnom. This is where our Bible gets the word 'gehenna' which is a euphemism for 'hell.' If Jesus was buried in one of the tombs in this valley it is not hard to understand how some might have understood that he 'descended into hell', that is Gehinnom.

revjpw

16th May 2005, 10:05 AM