PDA

View Full Version : Descended into hell



AlainaJ
Oct 18th 2007, 10:34 PM
Did Jesus descend into Hell after His death- I was reading an old creed and that is what is said.....any idea? How could Jesus go to hell and why would he?

Alaina

godsgirl
Oct 18th 2007, 11:02 PM
The place where Jesus went after death in Hebrew is called “Sheol;” in Greek it is “Hades.” Both of those terms are used for the place where dead souls were said to go. This is why the Westminster Shorter Catechism says that Jesus’ humiliation consisted of, among other things, receiving “the wrath of God and the cursed death of the cross, in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time” (Q 27). The Larger Catechism, with its larger answer, puts it, “Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of death, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in the words, He descended into hell.” The main proof text for these answers is Psalm 16:10, along with its New Testament citation in Acts 2:24-27, 31, where Peter preaches the Pentecost sermon partly from this text. In Ps. 16:10, David says, “you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” Peter says in Acts 2:31, “Seeing what was ahead, he (David) spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.” In Ps. 16, the word “grave” is “Sheol,” and in Acts 2:31, it is “Hades.”

SemperReformanda
Oct 18th 2007, 11:27 PM
The place where Jesus went after death in Hebrew is called “Sheol;” in Greek it is “Hades.” Both of those terms are used for the place where dead souls were said to go. This is why the Westminster Shorter Catechism says that Jesus’ humiliation consisted of, among other things, receiving “the wrath of God and the cursed death of the cross, in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time” (Q 27). The Larger Catechism, with its larger answer, puts it, “Christ’s humiliation after his death consisted in his being buried, and continuing in the state of death, and under the power of death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in the words, He descended into hell.” The main proof text for these answers is Psalm 16:10, along with its New Testament citation in Acts 2:24-27, 31, where Peter preaches the Pentecost sermon partly from this text. In Ps. 16:10, David says, “you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.” Peter says in Acts 2:31, “Seeing what was ahead, he (David) spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.” In Ps. 16, the word “grave” is “Sheol,” and in Acts 2:31, it is “Hades.”
Hey... someone else quoting the Westminster Standards?!? I thought we were a dying breed!

I think you might have misread them on this point though, check out chapter 32:1 of the Confession:


32:1 The bodies of men, after death, return to dust and see corruption: but their souls (which neither die nor sleep) having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them. The souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies: and the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day. Besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.

Steven3
Oct 19th 2007, 08:32 AM
Did Jesus descend into Hell after His death- I was reading an old creed and that is what is said.....any idea? How could Jesus go to hell and why would he?

Alaina

Hi Alaina,
The Apostles Creed (aka Old Roman creed) has Hades in the Greek not Gehenna. Which is scriptural as it is just repeating what Peter said in Acts 2. Luther comments on it here (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/luther_on_apostles.htm):

The first person to go to Hell was Jacob in Genesis - check out Youngs or www.blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org) to see how Hell No.1 (Sheol-Hades) which everyone goes to, differs from the future Hell No.2 (Hinnom-Gehenna) on judgment day.

At the time of Jacob, and Peter, Sheol-Hades just meant the grave. So it was no problem for Christ to go there for three days. However in later years (from 4th Century I think?) it came to mean limbo, as in "Christ harrowing hell"

http://www.latribunedelart.com/Nouvelles_breves/Breves_2006/02-06/Cezanne_Christ_small.jpg
Paul Cézanne - Le Christ aux limbes

And so on.
God bless :)
Steven

David Taylor
Oct 19th 2007, 11:29 AM
Did Jesus descend into Hell after His death- I was reading an old creed and that is what is said.....any idea? How could Jesus go to hell and why would he?

Alaina

Sometimes the word from that phrase that is translated as hell in that example, is also translated as the grave.

Jesus' body descended into the grave, into the earth, at his death; prior to his resurrection.

However, Jesus' spirit ascended into the hands of the Father in paradise, at his death.

jeffreys
Oct 19th 2007, 01:46 PM
1 Peter 3:19 seems to allude to this, although there is debate surrounding exactly what Peter was speaking of.

AlainaJ
Oct 19th 2007, 08:38 PM
[quote=David Taylor;1414622]Sometimes the word from that phrase that is translated as hell in that example, is also translated as the grave. ;) that makes sense;)

Thanks - Steven3- awesome information.....

is that when Jesus set the Captives free? Can anyone explain this to me?:confused

God Bless,
Alaina

Steven3
Oct 20th 2007, 01:39 AM
Thanks - Steven3- awesome information.....

is that when Jesus set the Captives free? Can anyone explain this to me?:confused

God Bless,
Alaina

Hi Alaina
As I understand it the commonest version of the doctrine of Christ harrowing hell (from Aelfric, Old English = harrying, raiding Hell) is that during the three days he first took the thief up to heaven "today in paradise" (based on the Latin version of Jesus' words to the thief, and contradicting John 20:17), then descended into the underworld, "preached to the spirits in prison", which were those that "sinned in the days of Noah", and (the preaching to these spirits having failed to bring about repentance after death), then went to the "Abraham's bosom" underworld-paradise and liberated those - such as Abraham - whose souls were held captive and "led captivity captive" so he could take Abraham's soul up from the underworld-paradise to the heavenly-paradise.

Although there are dozens of different ideas about harrowing hell, that is a conflation of the most commonly heard idea; that during the three days Christ was somehow involved in moving the souls of the dead from one place to another.


More information
http://www.answers.com/topic/harrowing-of-hell
Though there's a mistake here in the first line. They've quoted a later version of the Apostles' Creed where Christ descends into "the underworld" (τα κατώτατα) not into "Hades" which is what Acts2 and the original Apostles' Creed say.

Personally I don't believe a word of it ;). Hippolytus and the others are taking the 1Pe3:19 and Eph4:8-10 verses out of context - both are speaking about preaching to, and gifts to, the living not the dead. And it's premised on a Platonistic concept of immortal souls in the underworld which is unknown in the Bible - outside the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which itself is a parody of these Platonistic ideas. Although many people are upset by the suggestion that it is only a parable.
God bless
Steven

Mograce2U
Oct 20th 2007, 03:03 AM
Hi Alaina
As I understand it the commonest version of the doctrine of Christ harrowing hell (from Aelfric, Old English = harrying, raiding Hell) is that during the three days he first took the thief up to heaven "today in paradise" (based on the Latin version of Jesus' words to the thief, and contradicting John 20:17), then descended into the underworld, "preached to the spirits in prison", which were those that "sinned in the days of Noah", and (the preaching to these spirits having failed to bring about repentance after death), then went to the "Abraham's bosom" underworld-paradise and liberated those - such as Abraham - whose souls were held captive and "led captivity captive" so he could take Abraham's soul up from the underworld-paradise to the heavenly-paradise.

Although there are dozens of different ideas about harrowing hell, that is a conflation of the most commonly heard idea; that during the three days Christ was somehow involved in moving the souls of the dead from one place to another.


More information
http://www.answers.com/topic/harrowing-of-hell
Though there's a mistake here in the first line. They've quoted a later version of the Apostles' Creed where Christ descends into "the underworld" (τα κατώτατα) not into "Hades" which is what Acts2 and the original Apostles' Creed say.

Personally I don't believe a word of it ;). Hippolytus and the others are taking the 1Pe3:19 and Eph4:8-10 verses out of context - both are speaking about preaching to, and gifts to, the living not the dead. And it's premised on a Platonistic concept of immortal souls in the underworld which is unknown in the Bible - outside the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which itself is a parody of these Platonistic ideas. Although many people are upset by the suggestion that it is only a parable.
God bless
StevenThat does not make sense to me that Christ went to Hell to preach to the souls there who died in the flood. What does make sense is that by the Spirit, Christ preached thru Noah to those people who were unbelieving, during that time when Noah was building the ark. Noah was a preacher of righteousness by the same Spirit of Christ that raised Him from the dead. This was the testimony that Noah was giving them thru the building of the ark.

(1 Pet 3:18-20 KJV) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
{19} By which (by the same Spirit) also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison (to those who are now in prison);
{20} Which sometime (in a past time) were disobedient (were unbelieving), when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing (a period of 120 years), wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The OT abode of the dead I do think is confirmed by Jesus using it for His parable about the rich man in torment. But I do not see Jesus descending there to preach the gospel to the ones in hell. I do think He declared His victory to the ones in Abraham's bosom (paradise) though, while He was 3 days in the earth.

The quote from Ps 68:18 is however curious.

(Eph 4:8 KJV) Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

In the Babylon Captivity (Jer 29:14) these were the ones sent into captivity by the Lord. It implies that their rebellion led them to be taken captive. But God promises to overturn their captivity when the 70 yrs are up.

Paul quotes this verse from Psalms and likens it to Christ's descent into the grave to set the captives free; not those in hell but those in paradise. Christ descended into the grave and freed those held by death AND gave gifts to men (for building up the Body) when He ascended to the throne of the Father. His ascension accomplished a two fold purpose. From that point on, we can see that Paul sees that all men who die in Christ will be present with the Lord. This is what is new to the OT understanding of what happens at death. Before their comfort was with Abraham, now it will be with Christ.

Kahtar
Oct 20th 2007, 04:33 AM
Thanks - Steven3- awesome information.....

is that when Jesus set the Captives free? Can anyone explain this to me?:confused

God Bless,
AlainaJust reposting the OP's latest question, lest it get overlooked and not addressed.

disiple56
Oct 20th 2007, 04:43 AM
Sometimes the word from that phrase that is translated as hell in that example, is also translated as the grave.

Jesus' body descended into the grave, into the earth, at his death; prior to his resurrection.

However, Jesus' spirit ascended into the hands of the Father in paradise, at his death.

Not so!

John 20:17.
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.....

Steven3
Oct 20th 2007, 04:55 AM
Originally Posted by David Taylor http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1414622#post1414622)
Sometimes the word from that phrase that is translated as hell in that example, is also translated as the grave.

Jesus' body descended into the grave, into the earth, at his death; prior to his resurrection.

However, Jesus' spirit ascended into the hands of the Father in paradise, at his death.

Not so!

John 20:17.
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father.....


Hi Disciple 56
Actually David is correct; when Jesus died the soul (psyche) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5590&Version=kjv) went down to Hades (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G86&Version=kjv) (Acts 2:31 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Act&chapter=2&verse=31&version=KJV#31)), the spirit (pneuma) (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4151&Version=kjv) went to God (John 19:30 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=19&verse=30&version=KJV#30)and parallels in Matt, Mark, Luke). This is the same as what happens on death in OT verses - Genesis, Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, etc.

But you are also correct (John 20:17)
God bless
Steven

Steven3
Oct 20th 2007, 05:06 AM
Hi Mograce2U :)
Paul quotes this verse from Psalms and likens it to Christ's descent into the grave to set the captives free; not those in hell but those in paradise. Sorry, but what's the difference? Those who take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as literally true still recognise that Abraham's Bosom is part of Hades-Sheol. It has to be because Jacob went to Hades-Sheol (Gen 37:35, 42:38, 44:29, 44:31 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07585&Version=kjv)). If we take "led captivity captive" as being about Jesus moving dead people from A to B during the three days, it really doesn't matter what we call location A or B.

Since Eph4:7 is talking about giving "grace" to living people, personally I take 4:8 as being about the same subject, "gifts" to living people:

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

:)

Soj
Oct 20th 2007, 06:37 AM
...is that when Jesus set the Captives free? Can anyone explain this to me?:confused

God Bless,
AlainaHi Alaina,

The following is what I and many other Bible literalists believe:

None of the saints in the Old Testament went to Heaven when they died, the only two exceptions to that would be Enoch and Elijah but neither of them saw death!

In the OT, the saved went to a place of rest [1 Samuel 28:15] in the heart of the earth called Abraham's bosom [Luke 16:22]. In the same story told by Jesus in Luke 16 we learn that in the underworld there was that place of rest, and another place of torment called hell (where unsaved souls go), but both locations are separated by a great space so that the inhabitants of one place could not pass over to the other.

The OT saints were captive in the heart of the earth and were not able to go to heaven until Jesus paid for their sin at calvary. His blood applied on the mercy seat in heaven got them into heaven [Hebrews 9:23-24]. When Jesus died his soul went to hell [Acts 2:31] where he became a sin offering for them and us, to fulfil God's law! . While he was there he preached to those in hell [1 Peter 3:19-20] and then captured those captives in Ab's bosom who also appeared on the earth after his resurrection [Matthew 27:53].


[I]Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.Ab's bosom has been vacant since Jesus emptied it out back then, in the New Testament the saint who dies goes directly to Heaven to be with God [2 Corinthians 5:6-8]. Yet hell is still being filled up with multitudes every day, and I pray we are doing all we can to warn lost souls of that horrible reality and give them the good news that they don't have to go there!


Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

Mograce2U
Oct 20th 2007, 04:22 PM
Hi Mograce2U :)Sorry, but what's the difference? Those who take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as literally true still recognise that Abraham's Bosom is part of Hades-Sheol. It has to be because Jacob went to Hades-Sheol (Gen 37:35, 42:38, 44:29, 44:31 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H07585&Version=kjv)). If we take "led captivity captive" as being about Jesus moving dead people from A to B during the three days, it really doesn't matter what we call location A or B.

Since Eph4:7 is talking about giving "grace" to living people, personally I take 4:8 as being about the same subject, "gifts" to living people:

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.

:)And in Ephesians Paul seems to be extending that grace to both the dead and the living.

spm62
Oct 20th 2007, 05:33 PM
Hi Alaina,

The following is what I and many other Bible literalists believe:

None of the saints in the Old Testament went to Heaven when they died, the only two exceptions to that would be Enoch and Elijah but neither of them saw death!

In the OT, the saved went to a place of rest [1 Samuel 28:15] in the heart of the earth called Abraham's bosom [Luke 16:22]. In the same story told by Jesus in Luke 16 we learn that in the underworld there was that place of rest, and another place of torment called hell (where unsaved souls go), but both locations are separated by a great space so that the inhabitants of one place could not pass over to the other.

The OT saints were captive in the heart of the earth and were not able to go to heaven until Jesus paid for their sin at calvary. His blood applied on the mercy seat in heaven got them into heaven [Hebrews 9:23-24]. When Jesus died his soul went to hell [Acts 2:31] where he became a sin offering for them and us, to fulfil God's law! . While he was there he preached to those in hell [1 Peter 3:19-20] and then captured those captives in Ab's bosom who also appeared on the earth after his resurrection [Matthew 27:53].


[I]Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.Ab's bosom has been vacant since Jesus emptied it out back then, in the New Testament the saint who dies goes directly to Heaven to be with God [2 Corinthians 5:6-8]. Yet hell is still being filled up with multitudes every day, and I pray we are doing all we can to warn lost souls of that horrible reality and give them the good news that they don't have to go there!


Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

The story of Abrahams bosom is a parable,it cannot be taken literal. It is talking about Israel and the gentiles. The rich man represents Israel. They were rich,they were giving the word and blessed by God. At that time he was the God of the Jews. But because they rejected God, the word was giving to the Gentiles. Abrahams bosom is where the jews believed they went at death. Abraham is repeatdly referred to as Father Abraham to the jews. The poor man or beggar, the gentiles ,were not giving the wisdom or word of God before that time. Israel was to be cut off until the fullness of the Gentiles come in. The word,wisdom, is then giving to the gentiles and it is the gentiles who believe in the promise given to Abraham. Notice the rich man calls him father Abraham,meaning the rich man is jewish. Abraham tells him you have the prophets, meaning the jewish prophets. They were not the prophets to anybody else and the torah is the jewish law. Also, if you take this parable literally then how can they talk to each other if there is this GREAT GULF between them and how is one drop of water going to ease the rich mans torment? Futhermore,we really don`t know anything about the rich man. It doesn`t say he was evil. We don`t know anything about the beggar. It doesn`t say he was a righteous man. Besides,the rich man wants the poor man to dip his finger in cool water. How can the poor man have a finger when his body hasn`t been resurrected and he is supposedly just a spirit. How can Abraham have the power to send someone back from the dead,only God has that power. Yet Abraham did not correct him on that fact. I know a lot of christians use this parable to justify eternal torment. But, imo it is really a stretch to take all of these things as literal. :kiss:

RogerW
Oct 20th 2007, 06:14 PM
Hi Alaina,
The following is what I and many other Bible literalists believe:

None of the saints in the Old Testament went to Heaven when they died, the only two exceptions to that would be Enoch and Elijah but neither of them saw death!

In the OT, the saved went to a place of rest [1 Samuel 28:15] in the heart of the earth called Abraham's bosom [Luke 16:22]. In the same story told by Jesus in Luke 16 we learn that in the underworld there was that place of rest, and another place of torment called hell (where unsaved souls go), but both locations are separated by a great space so that the inhabitants of one place could not pass over to the other.

The OT saints were captive in the heart of the earth and were not able to go to heaven until Jesus paid for their sin at calvary. His blood applied on the mercy seat in heaven got them into heaven [Hebrews 9:23-24]. When Jesus died his soul went to hell [Acts 2:31] where he became a sin offering for them and us, to fulfil God's law! . While he was there he preached to those in hell [1 Peter 3:19-20] and then captured those captives in Ab's bosom who also appeared on the earth after his resurrection [Matthew 27:53].


[I]Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.Ab's bosom has been vacant since Jesus emptied it out back then, in the New Testament the saint who dies goes directly to Heaven to be with God [2 Corinthians 5:6-8]. Yet hell is still being filled up with multitudes every day, and I pray we are doing all we can to warn lost souls of that horrible reality and give them the good news that they don't have to go there!


Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

Greetings Soj,

I like the way you put this together and believe this opinion has merit. I agree that the OT saints could not ascend to heaven prior to the cross, so these all died in faith looking forward to fulfillment of the promise of heaven. You pointed out the passage showing Samuel had gone to a place of rest, and I believe in Acts we see the same thing with David. First Peter speaks how God had not left the Lord in the grave that His body would see no decay. But speaking of David, Peter says he had not ascended into heaven because Christ had not yet made His foes His footstool (Acts 2:34,35). This Christ accomplished at the cross, therefore after Christ made His foes His footstool there would be no reason that David would not ascend into heaven after Christ's victory over death and the grave, eg made His enemies His footstool, eg set the captives free.

I agree that Ephesians 4:8-10 is speaking of Christ descending into hell (grave; abode of the physically dead) to free those OT saints who had died in faith, and had been held captive by the grave because Christ had not yet set the captives free through His victory over death and the grave.

And we see the graves of the OT saints being opened after His resurrection, and those OT saints who died in faith being resurrected to the Holy City (Mt 27:52,53). I believe the Holy City they were raised to was New Jerusalem, the Holy City in heaven (Rev 21:2; 22:19).

And finally I see the same Spiritual resurrection to heaven in Rev 7 when the 144,000 of all the tribes of the children of Israel are sealed prior to Pentecost, and the gospel going unto all the world (sealing is receiving Spiritual life in Christ), symbolizing all the OT saints who died in faith prior to the cross, are being spiritually raised to heaven after the cross.

We see this same 144,000 OT saints in Rev 14, called firstfruits unto God, who are virgins, meaning they were not among those Jews who committed spiritual adultery by turning from the true God to worship idols, and the gods of the heathen nations. John sees these resurrected saints in heaven before the gospel goes out unto all the nations of the world (Rev 14:6).

Great post!

Many Blessings,
RW

Mograce2U
Oct 20th 2007, 06:51 PM
Hi Roger,
Mt 27 is curious isn't it. The text says that at the cross the graves were opened but it was not until the resurrection that these saints arose from their graves and went into the holy city and appeared unto many. As did Jesus appear unto many - but not to all. In fact to some of those disciples to whom He appeared, they were not able to recognize Him until He opened their eyes. The text reads like this was a literal physical phenomenon that could be observed by the living.

So it is unclear to me whether these resurrected saints came to life to die again - like Lazurus, or whether they were raised to eternal life to enter spiritually into the heavenly city. "Appeared unto many" is the clincher.

Before Jesus raised Lazarus, His discussion with Martha about the resurrection is interesting as He talks about both the dead and the living and what the hope is that the living have who believe in Him - which is that they will never die.

Referring to earthly Jerusalem as "the holy city" after the cross, may just be the common way in which the city had always been called by the people. And being this appears in Matthew, his Jewish perspective makes sense, without it being necessary to spiritualize his words.

I speculate that this phenomenon was more akin to Lazarus and these were recently dead Jewish saints who perhaps died between Jesus announcing the kingdom of God was at hand and the cross. If they had been living and believed in Jesus as the Christ, then their resurrection places them in the group to whom Jesus spoke the promise to Martha - the living. Which was how raising Lazarus from the dead would provide the type for all of us after the cross. Thus they were no longer part of the "rest of the dead" who must face the 2nd death, but now had a part in the first resurrection which is spiritual.

AlainaJ
Oct 20th 2007, 07:44 PM
[quote=Soj_NZ;1415336]Hi Alaina,

The following is what I and many other Bible literalists believe:

None of the saints in the Old Testament went to Heaven when they died, the only two exceptions to that would be Enoch and Elijah but neither of them saw death!

In the OT, the saved went to a place of rest [1 Samuel 28:15] in the heart of the earth called Abraham's bosom [Luke 16:22]. In the same story told by Jesus in Luke 16 we learn that in the underworld there was that place of rest, and another place of torment called hell (where unsaved souls go), but both locations are separated by a great space so that the inhabitants of one place could not pass over to the other.

The OT saints were captive in the heart of the earth and were not able to go to heaven until Jesus paid for their sin at calvary. His blood applied on the mercy seat in heaven got them into heaven [Hebrews 9:23-24]. When Jesus died his soul went to hell [Acts 2:31] where he became a sin offering for them and us, to fulfil God's law! . While he was there he preached to those in hell [1 Peter 3:19-20] and then captured those captives in Ab's bosom who also appeared on the earth after his resurrection [Matthew 27:53].


[I]Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.Ab's bosom has been vacant since Jesus emptied it out back then, in the New Testament the saint who dies goes directly to Heaven to be with God [2 Corinthians 5:6-8]. Yet hell is still being filled up with multitudes every day, and I pray we are doing all we can to warn lost souls of that horrible reality and give them the good news that they don't have to go there!



Soj_Nz great information. Amen to the above! to many are perishing every day:(

ya'll- I want to be able to explain this so.....

Before Jesus the saved went to Abrahams Bosom and the unrighteous went somewhere else.

Now did all the dead hear Jesus or only the righteous dead?

Did these souls have to make a decison to follow christ or was His righteousness imputed to them?
Thanks so much- I am trying to get all this straight:)

xlive_4_godx
Oct 20th 2007, 08:10 PM
Interesting thought;

I would have to say yes, though not for many reasons that we would naturally think of. If you are familiar with the Keys of Authority, then you would understand why Jesus had to "descend to hell".

I think it would also explain why the Father had to turn his back on Jesus, if only for a single moment.

AlainaJ
Oct 20th 2007, 08:40 PM
Interesting thought;

I would have to say yes, though not for many reasons that we would naturally think of. If you are familiar with the Keys of Authority, then you would understand why Jesus had to "descend to hell".

I think it would also explain why the Father had to turn his back on Jesus, if only for a single moment.
what are the Keys of Authoriy?

enarchay
Oct 20th 2007, 08:53 PM
Did Jesus descend into Hell after His death- I was reading an old creed and that is what is said.....any idea? How could Jesus go to hell and why would he?

Alaina

He descended into hades, but that's different than descending into "hell."

Soj
Oct 20th 2007, 11:24 PM
Before Jesus the saved went to Abrahams Bosom and the unrighteous went somewhere else.All those who died before Jesus went down to the heart of the earth, the saved went to a place of rest and waited for Christ, the unsaved went to a place of torment and they are still there. Both places were in the same proximity but were separated by a great space.


Now did all the dead hear Jesus or only the righteous dead?It is likely they all would have heard him, but 1 Peter 3:18 says specifically that he preached to the disobedient ones, who must be the unsaved.


Did these souls have to make a decison to follow christ or was His righteousness imputed to them?The saved Old Testament saints who were in Ab's bosom, that place of rest, were waiting for Christ's atonement in order to go to Heaven, so yes Christ's righteousness would be imputed to them too, but they didn't make a decision to follow Christ in the same sense the New Testament Christian does.

Soj
Oct 20th 2007, 11:41 PM
He descended into hades, but that's different than descending into "hell."Some translations of the bible leave the greek word HADES in the text instead of correctly translating it to HELL, therefore the doctrine of hell in these bibles is watered down to where people no longer believe in it...but they are deceived!

When we compare the scripture with scripture, which is the correct form of Bible study, we learn that Jesus went to hell, which is that place of torment spoken about throughout the whole Bible. Compare the following two verses to find out the truth about where Jesus went:

KJV - Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

KJV - Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.


Proof texts for the doctrine of a literal burning hell:

Deuteronomy 32:22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Job 26:6 Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.

Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Psalms 116:3 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.

Mark 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Soj
Oct 20th 2007, 11:53 PM
The story of Abrahams bosom is a parable,it cannot be taken literal.That is not true. There are two things to keep in mind when studying the parables of Jesus:

1. Every parable that Jesus spoke were identified as such, eg:

Matthew 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Matthew 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

The story in Luke 16 is not identified as a parable, so we don't interpret it as such. It can and is to be taken literally that there were two men, they both died, one went to Ab's bosom and the other went to a burning hell, etc, etc.


2. A fact about the parables that Jesus spoke is that none of the characters mentioned in them are ever named personally, because they are ficticious, yet in the story in Luke 16 the beggar Lazarus is specifically named which gives credibility to my argument that it was a true story and not a parable.

Mograce2U
Oct 21st 2007, 12:16 AM
That is not true. There are two things to keep in mind when studying the parables of Jesus:

1. Every parable that Jesus spoke were identified as such, eg:

Matthew 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Matthew 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

The story in Luke 16 is not identified as a parable, so we don't interpret it as such. It can and is to be taken literally that there were two men, they both died, one went to Ab's bosom and the other went to a burning hell, etc, etc.


2. A fact about the parables that Jesus spoke is that none of the characters mentioned in them are ever named personally, because they are ficticious, yet in the story in Luke 16 the beggar Lazarus is specifically named which gives credibility to my argument that it was a true story and not a parable.Not only that but I think using Lazarus for the example was intentional. As was the ignominy of the rich man. Also there is nothing of mystery in this story which cannot be discerned by all who heard it - like there is in parables.

spm62
Oct 21st 2007, 01:54 AM
Not only that but I think using Lazarus for the example was intentional. As was the ignominy of the rich man. Also there is nothing of mystery in this story which cannot be discerned by all who heard it - like there is in parables.

Well, imo if you are going to take this parable literally then you must take it literally all the way and compare it to all of scripture. First, we must remember that Jesus always spoke to the masses in parables. This parable was in succession with 4 other parables..lost sheep,lost coin,prodigal son,and the good steward . So perhaps you believe those were not parables either, I`m not sure. The rich people,tax collectors,and pharisees were listening as Jesus told these parables.He did not want them to understand. Why did Jesus mention the colors the rich man was wearing when he died? Those colors represent something,royality and priesthood,hint to the people who were listening to him (the pharisees). Jesus does not give a name for the rich man but you seem to think because he named the poor man Lazarus that must mean it isn`t a parable. I was taught the same thing. The fact that he calls him Lazarus is symbolic indeed. The greek form of that name means... he whom God helps. Jesus also mentions the fact that the dogs licked his sores..another symbolic meaning. The pharisees saw the gentiles as unclean dogs. Again,you have to remember who Jesus`s targeted audience was..the tax collectors and pharisees who were listening. As I`ve stated before if this is a literal story then everything in it must be literal. They must be literal flames. They must have a literal body since the rich man lifted up his eyes and Lazarus has a finger. It must be ok for Abraham to send people back from the dead since he didn`t answer back to the rich that would be impossible and the rich man would have known that anyway. How could one drop of water ease his torment? It couldn`t..it was symbolic. How could the man carry on a conversation if this gulf between them is so huge? He couldn`t it`s symbolic. If you take this literally then you should have an answer to all of those questions.There is symbolism written all over this story and the fact that it was told in succession with other parables should be proof enough. Plus, as stated before, we all know Jesus always spoke in parables to the masses. I know it is hard to change our minds when we are taught certain things by our church or pastors or sunday school teachers. I was taught it was literal as well. I also heard the same line,since he mentioned Lazarus by name.. that is proof.But if we do our own research and pray for wisdom, and lean on Gods help and not follow the traditions and teachings of men, God will open our eyes to his truth. There is a reason Jesus spoke in parables. You really have to look deeper into scripture and what Jesus was teaching and how he used parables and why. But I can see how someone who believes a person goes straight into hellfire at death would want to take this scrpiture out of context and make it into a real life story with real people. My prayer is that you go back and read all of those parables together and see how they fit with each other and who Jesus was talking to and about. Please don`t go by just what you were taught before or by my opinion. But reread chapter 15-17 and pray that the Holy Spirit give you wisdom because you are truly seeking the truth and not relying on the words of men. :kiss:

spm62
Oct 21st 2007, 03:11 AM
That is not true. There are two things to keep in mind when studying the parables of Jesus:

1. Every parable that Jesus spoke were identified as such, eg:

Matthew 13:18 Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Matthew 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

Matthew 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

The story in Luke 16 is not identified as a parable, so we don't interpret it as such. It can and is to be taken literally that there were two men, they both died, one went to Ab's bosom and the other went to a burning hell, etc, etc.


2. A fact about the parables that Jesus spoke is that none of the characters mentioned in them are ever named personally, because they are ficticious, yet in the story in Luke 16 the beggar Lazarus is specifically named which gives credibility to my argument that it was a true story and not a parable.

Not true. If you go back and look at the parables in Luke 15 ..the three leading up to and including the rich man and lazarus all start out with the same words.

Prodigal son....there was a certain man
shrew accountant..there was a certain rich man
lazarus and rich man..there was a certain rich man
Lazarus and the rich man is included right in line with the other parables

Mograce2U
Oct 21st 2007, 03:34 AM
spm62,
Luke recounts parables differently than Matthew did, as his speech seems clearer. This story about the rich man and Lazarus follows upon a story told to the disciples about the steward accused of unjustness - which the Pharisees who were covetous overheard. And they deride Jesus about it. Jesus points out their hypocrisy according to the law regarding divorce in reference to the kingdom of God. Which makes an interesting interlude before this next story. It was no doubt said to convict them of their sin even though they denied their covetousness.

The rich man clothed in purple and linen obviously represents these Pharisees who thought gain was godliness. Lazarus is portrayed as an unclean diseased beggar; someone these men would not have come near. The irony of the story is in regards to who ends up in heaven and who ends up in hell. The Pharisees should have rightly identified themselves as the rich man in the story. That simile is not being hidden but is purposefully revealing a message to them.

The further irony of telling them that they don't believe Moses and the prophets either else they would have known their destiny is hell, is pronounced to them by declaring that they wouldn't believe even if one were to be raised from the dead. Which Lazarus was - and these same men sought to kill him when it happened (John 11-12). And I'm sure the irony was not lost on the disciples though it certainly was on these men who heard that prophecy.

The mention of the divorce law and adultery ought to have revealed that they were in disobedience to Moses too and not fit for the kingdom of God. Which is the subject in ch 17 when the Pharisees demand to know when the kingdom of God will come (if Jesus IS a prophet). That follows upon a miracle healing of 10 lepers. These men couldn't be more blind... The lepers illustrated the story about the beggar Lazarus.

So as far as the story being a parable, it does not follow the way Matthew's parables are given. I think it is an illustrative story that the Pharisees were expected to understand, whereas in Matthew 13 they were not.

spm62
Oct 21st 2007, 04:03 AM
spm62,
Luke recounts parables differently than Matthew did, as his speech seems clearer. This story about the rich man and Lazarus follows upon a story told to the disciples about the steward accused of unjustness - which the Pharisees who were covetous overheard. And they deride Jesus about it. Jesus points out their hypocrisy according to the law regarding divorce in reference to the kingdom of God. Which makes an interesting interlude before this next story. It was no doubt said to convict them of their sin even though they denied their covetousness.

The rich man clothed in purple and linen obviously represents these Pharisees who thought gain was godliness. Lazarus is portrayed as an unclean diseased beggar; someone these men would not have come near. The irony of the story is in regards to who ends up in heaven and who ends up in hell. The Pharisees should have rightly identified themselves as the rich man in the story. That simile is not being hidden but is purposefully revealing a message to them.

The further irony of telling them that they don't believe Moses and the prophets either else they would have known their destiny is hell, is pronounced to them by declaring that they wouldn't believe even if one were to be raised from the dead. Which Lazarus was - and these same men sought to kill him when it happened (John 11-12). And I'm sure the irony was not lost on the disciples though it certainly was on these men who heard that prophecy.

The mention of the divorce law and adultery ought to have revealed that they were in disobedience to Moses too and not fit for the kingdom of God. Which is the subject in ch 17 when the Pharisees demand to know when the kingdom of God will come (if Jesus IS a prophet). That follows upon a miracle healing of 10 lepers. These men couldn't be more blind... The lepers illustrated the story about the beggar Lazarus.

So as far as the story being a parable, it does not follow the way Matthew's parables are given. I think it is an illustrative story that the Pharisees were expected to understand, whereas in Matthew 13 they were not.

But it does follow the way Luke`s parables are given... there was a certain rich man.

xlive_4_godx
Oct 21st 2007, 04:44 AM
what are the Keys of Authoriy?

Simply put, when God created Adam and Eve he gave them the keys of authority of all the earth. When they sinned, they gave these keys to the Devil, basically saying that he is their master. As Kenneth E. Hagan puts it, Jesus died on the cross, went to hell, and then took back our authority.

I get a little confused on this part, but then Brother Hagan says with those keys, Jesus could rise to heaven.

That, in a lump, is the keys of authority. It's almost 1am right now, but I'll try to find scriptures on the keys tommorow.

spm62
Oct 21st 2007, 05:10 AM
Simply put, when God created Adam and Eve he gave them the keys of authority of all the earth. When they sinned, they gave these keys to the Devil, basically saying that he is their master. As Kenneth E. Hagan puts it, Jesus died on the cross, went to hell, and then took back our authority.

I get a little confused on this part, but then Brother Hagan says with those keys, Jesus could rise to heaven.

That, in a lump, is the keys of authority. It's almost 1am right now, but I'll try to find scriptures on the keys tommorow.

Glad the keys never got lost..do they have key ring or a master key..just in case? :rofl:

Steven3
Oct 21st 2007, 06:42 AM
what are the Keys of Authoriy?

Hi Alaina
It's an image that starts in the OT (Hezekiah says he will go though the gate in Isaiah 38:10, see also Job 38:7) with the idea that Sheol or Death has a gate.

Then the idea comes that the gate has keys and someone,the Messiah, can unlock the gate. Then in Rev1:18 Christ has the keys to Sheol and Death (and can liberate Hezekiah and Job).

Christ demonstrates this in his power to liberate the dead, Jairus' daughter, the son of the widow of Nain, Lazarus, from Sheol. Though these are all temporary resurrections back to mortality. Jairus' daughter, Lazarus' grew old, died, and returned to Hades to rejoin Hezekiah and Job to wait for the day when Christ uses those keys.

Secondary to this image is the idea of Christ entrusting the keys to the church in his absence. Not just Peter, but the bedrock of Peter's confession.
God bless
Steven


PS * Incidentally someone is asking why Lazarus in the parable is named - the answer is in John 12:10 cross-referenced with Josephus to find out who these "chief priests" were. This isn't a normal parable; normally we wouldn't need Josephus to know whom Christ is talking about.

Soj
Oct 21st 2007, 12:49 PM
First, we must remember that Jesus always spoke to the masses in parables.

Again,you have to remember who Jesus`s targeted audience was..the tax collectors and pharisees who were listening.

Plus, as stated before, we all know Jesus always spoke in parables to the masses...Luke 16:1 says the target audience was Jesus's disciples, NOT the masses as you say. Luke 16:14 says the pharisees heard what he told his disciples but they (the pharisees) were not the original target audience!

My belief isn't simply based on the traditions and teachings of other men as you claim, I do have the Holy Spirit residing in me who has taught me his word for the past 14 years through much personal reading and study, so you are jumping to conclusions about me. I take the Bible literally wherever possible, and where it can't be taken literally I don't. The story of Lazarus and the rich man in the underworld can be taken literally so I do, alike many other believers I know of.

From your comments I gather that you don't believe all unsaved people go directly to hell when they die, why is that?

Mograce2U
Oct 21st 2007, 06:45 PM
Luke 16:1 says the target audience was Jesus's disciples, NOT the masses as you say. Luke 16:14 says the pharisees heard what he told his disciples but they (the pharisees) were not the original target audience!
The story about the unjust steward was directed to the disciples but in the hearing of the pharisees - who then deride (sneer at) Jesus for the story. It is then to them that He gives the story of the rich man in hell, which He preempted with a quote from the law.

(Luke 16:13-15 KJV) No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. {14} And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. {15} And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

In their own eyes, the pharisees were self-righteous. But this is not God's standard - the rich man is the one in hell. They justified themselves thinking their gain was equal to godliness and Jesus shows them by this story, that God judges THEM otherwise and points to their own lawlessness first, which marks them as guilty. They not only disobeyed Moses, they didn't even believe him nor the prophets who warned of judgment. So what was their self-righteousness over? It wasn't because they kept the law nor that they served God in true righteousness. No, they served Mammon and would face the very judgment they denied was for those who did so.

Jesus is not couching His words to these men to hide knowledge from them, He is laying out exactly what they will be judged for. With a story designed to make this clear as a bell to them!

Soj
Oct 21st 2007, 11:39 PM
The story about the unjust steward was directed to the disciples but in the hearing of the pharisees - who then deride (sneer at) Jesus for the story. It is then to them that He gives the story of the rich man in hell, which He preempted with a quote from the law.It's debateable that it was specifically aimed at them for it's obvious that the disciples were still present with Jesus when he tells the story. I believe the disciples were gathered around Jesus listening to him and the pharisees were a little distance away listening in as well, and from time to time they would add their 2 cents worth.

Besides that, my previous rebuttal was aimed at spm62 who tried to prove his point by saying Jesus was speaking parables to the masses which meant to story of Lazarus and the rich man was also a parable, yet the parable preceding this story and what is spoken immediately after it was spoken to the disciples and not the masses.

At the end of the day, the story about Lazarus and the rich man has been debated for eons because it compliments the doctrine of a literal burning hell where souls go in the afterlife, hence why many want it to be a parable and not a true story, and why many new bible versions do not translate the greek word hades into the english word hell.

I'm standing by what I believe and will continue to preach and teach it until the day I'm either raptured out of here or die. :pp

Steven3
Oct 22nd 2007, 02:08 AM
Hi Soj_NZ :)
and why many new bible versions do not translate the greek word hades into the english word hell.As I'm sure you know, because I'm sure you've got either Strongs or Youngs, "hell" can be either Gehenna or Hades depending on whether it is referring to the grave or future judgment. So why do you think it is wrong for a modern Bible version to restore the Greek and help English-readers see what is in the inspired Greek text?


I'm standing by what I believe and will continue to preach and teach it until the day I'm either raptured out of here or die. :ppWell, good for you ;) but I'm still growing and learning as per 1Co8:2. I didn't understand Luke 16 until someone explained who the "five brothers" were. There's always something new to learn.
God bless
Steven

Mograce2U
Oct 22nd 2007, 02:45 AM
Steven3,
Don't leave us in the dark - who are the 5 brothers?

Steven3
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:36 AM
Hi Mograce :)
According to Abraham in the parable they are those who wouldn't believe even if Lazarus was returned from the dead. See John 12:10, so John identifies for us who the "five brothers in my father's house" are. And also re "clothed in linen and purple" see Exodus 28. The exclusion of the skin-diseased Lazarus begging outside the temple is also a coded reference to the exclusiveness of the House of Annas.


Now the report goes that this Annas proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, ...
www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm (http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm)

Eleazar (16-17 AD)
(Caiphas, son-in-law of Annas 18-37 AD)
Jonathan (37)
Theophilus (37-41)
Matthias (43-44)
Annas the Younger (62)





The Jewish High Priests from Herod the Great to the Destruction of Jerusalem

15. Ananel, 37-36 B.C. (Appointed by Herod the Great)
16. Aristobulus III, 35 B.C.
17. Jesus, son of Phiabi, ? -22 B.C.
18. Simon, son of Boethus, 22-5 B.C.
19. Matthias, son of Theophilus, 5-4 B.C.
20. Joseph, son of Elam, 5 B.C.
21. Joezer, son of Boethus, 4 B.C.
22. Eleazar, son of Boethus, 4-1 B.C. - (Appointed by Herod Archelaus)
23. Jesus, son of Sie, 1 - 6 A.D.
24. Annas, 6-15 A.D. (Appointed by Quirinius)
25. Ishmael, son of Phiabi I, 15-16 A.D. (Appointed by Valerius Gratus)
26. Eleazar, son of Annas, 16-17 A.D.
27. Simon, son of Kamithos, 17-18 A.D.
28. Joseph Caiaphas, 18-37 AD.
29. Jonathan, son of Annas, 37 A.D. (Appointed by Vitellius)
30. Theophilus, son of Annas, 37-41 A.D.
31. Simon Kantheras, son of Boethus, 41-43 A.D. (Appointed by Herod Agrippa I)
32. Matthias, son of Annas, 43-44 A.D.
33. Elionaius, son of Kantheras, 44-45 A.D.
34. Joseph, son of Kami, 45-47 A.D. (Appointed by Herod of Chalcis)
35. Ananias, son of Nebedaius, 47-55 A.D.
36. Ishmael, son of Phiabi III, 55-61 A.D. (Appointed by Herod Agrippa II)
37. Joseph Qabi, son of Simon, 61-62 A.D.
38. Ananus, son of Annas, 62 A.D.
39. Jesus, son of Damnaius, 62-65 A.D.
40. Joshua, son of Gamaliel, 63-65 A.D.
41. Matthias, son of Theophilus, 65-67 A.D.
42. Phinnias, son of Samuel, 67-70 A.D. (Appointed by The People)


I suspect someone is going to object that Lazarus of Bethany didn't die of a skin-disease, like the Lazarus in the parable, but he is called "Simon the Leper" in Matt26:6 and Mark14:3.
God bless
Steven

Mograce2U
Oct 22nd 2007, 05:01 AM
Steven3,
I don't see how you get that Simon the leper is the same as Lazarus. Surely Lazarus wasn't the only man Jesus knew in Bethany? The 5 brothers as the priests makes sense tho.

Ooh I found it - John 12:1 - good job!

Steven3
Oct 22nd 2007, 06:27 AM
Steven3,
I don't see how you get that Simon the leper is the same as Lazarus. Surely Lazarus wasn't the only man Jesus knew in Bethany? The 5 brothers as the priests makes sense tho.

Ooh I found it - John 12:1 - good job!

Yes John 12:1 compared with Matt26 and Mark14 :). It's an outside possibility that Simon was Lazarus' father or older brother, but it's more likely that Lazarus is a surname, and that Martha and Mary's brother had the relatively common name of Simeon Ben Eleazar (but 100 years earlier than the famous rabbi of that name in the Mishna). It may be that one of the reasons why the Matthew and Mark accounts call Lazarus "Simon the Leper" (which must mean ex-Leper) is because they expected everyone to be reminded by "leper" that Christ had healed Simon/Lazarus in the most spectacular way since the only way under the Law of Moses in which Christ could eat in a leper's house was to heal the leper. Also that the expensive ointment with which Mary anointed Christ for his burial, should have been used at her brother's funeral if they had not sent for Christ to heal/raise him ... "it is four days and he stinketh" (John 11:14)

Mograce2U
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:07 PM
Yes John 12:1 compared with Matt26 and Mark14 :). It's an outside possibility that Simon was Lazarus' father or older brother, but it's more likely that Lazarus is a surname, and that Martha and Mary's brother had the relatively common name of Simeon Ben Eleazar (but 100 years earlier than the famous rabbi of that name in the Mishna). It may be that one of the reasons why the Matthew and Mark accounts call Lazarus "Simon the Leper" (which must mean ex-Leper) is because they expected everyone to be reminded by "leper" that Christ had healed Simon/Lazarus in the most spectacular way since the only way under the Law of Moses in which Christ could eat in a leper's house was to heal the leper. Also that the expensive ointment with which Mary anointed Christ for his burial, should have been used at her brother's funeral if they had not sent for Christ to heal/raise him ... "it is four days and he stinketh" (John 11:14)Simon means "hearing"
Eleazar (Eliezer) means "God is my Helper or God helps "
Lazarus means "Helped of God"

There is a son of Levi named Eliezer that is in Luke's geneaology for Jesus (Luke 3:29). So perhaps Martha, Mary and Lazarus were also cousins to Jesus. Which could explain their close relationship too.

AlainaJ
Oct 22nd 2007, 03:30 PM
Hi Alaina
It's an image that starts in the OT (Hezekiah says he will go though the gate in Isaiah 38:10, see also Job 38:7) with the idea that Sheol or Death has a gate.

Then the idea comes that the gate has keys and someone,the Messiah, can unlock the gate. Then in Rev1:18 Christ has the keys to Sheol and Death (and can liberate Hezekiah and Job).

Christ demonstrates this in his power to liberate the dead, Jairus' daughter, the son of the widow of Nain, Lazarus, from Sheol. Though these are all temporary resurrections back to mortality. Jairus' daughter, Lazarus' grew old, died, and returned to Hades to rejoin Hezekiah and Job to wait for the day when Christ uses those keys.

Secondary to this image is the idea of Christ entrusting the keys to the church in his absence. Not just Peter, but the bedrock of Peter's confession.
God bless
Steven


PS * Incidentally someone is asking why Lazarus in the parable is named - the answer is in John 12:10 cross-referenced with Josephus to find out who these "chief priests" were. This isn't a normal parable; normally we wouldn't need Josephus to know whom Christ is talking about.


This ties into Revelation-

Rev.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5379635)

[18] I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.Matt.16 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4450580)

[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.It seems as if Jesus is telling us in different places about gates of hell.

Mograce2U
Oct 22nd 2007, 06:38 PM
This ties into Revelation-

Rev.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5379635)

[18] I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.Matt.16 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4450580)

[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.It seems as if Jesus is telling us in different places about gates of hell.Hi Alainja,
Rev 1:18 seems to be a redundancy by mentioning both death and the grave. I think it may be because death takes the body and hell/ grave takes the soul and Jesus will unlock both prisons in the resurrection!

AlainaJ
Oct 22nd 2007, 07:17 PM
Hi Alainja,
Rev 1:18 seems to be a redundancy by mentioning both death and the grave. I think it may be because death takes the body and hell/ grave takes the soul and Jesus will unlock both prisons in the resurrection!
I see that:)
the idea of a key of sort seems important.

Steven3
Oct 24th 2007, 02:50 AM
Hi Mograce, Alaina :)
Hi Alainja,
Rev 1:18 seems to be a redundancy by mentioning both death and the grave. I think it may be because death takes the body and hell/ grave takes the soul and Jesus will unlock both prisons in the resurrection!

All NT uses of key (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2807&Version=kjv), the 3 OT uses of key (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H04668&Version=kjv)

I wouldn't assume that because "keys" is plural there's necessarily one specific key for the gates of Sheol and another different key for the gates of Death, it's more likely the image simply is of a bunch of keys. Unless the idea is one key opens Sheol forever and the other locks Death shut forever? That's a bit forced though as the gate of Sheol in Isaiah 38:10 and the gate of death Job 38:7 are just different OT words for the gate of the "land of silence". Both death and Sheol take the soul (nephesh). This is proven twice in Acts 2 where the souls of David and Jesus are twice "not left in Hell-Hades-Sheol".

Sorry but apart from the "souls under the altar" in Revelation souls die and go to Hades-Sheol. If they didn't Christ having acquired the keys to Sheol and Death by his sacrifice for our sins on the cross would have acheived nothing - if souls are immortal then Hades/Hell/Sheol was never locked in the first place.

Note also Christ "has" the keys of Death and Sheol, it doesn't say he's used them yet.

God bless
Steven

PS see also Rev3:7 from Is22:22 - the Key of David appears to be the key to God's presence or the Temple.

Wintermute
Oct 24th 2007, 03:00 AM
However, Jesus' spirit ascended into the hands of the Father in paradise, at his death.

If this is true, then why did Christ say the following to Mary:

John 20:17:
Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Wintermute
Oct 24th 2007, 03:06 AM
Ab's bosom has been vacant since Jesus emptied it out back then, in the New Testament the saint who dies goes directly to Heaven to be with God

If this is true, then why did Peter say in Acts 2:34

For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Soj
Oct 24th 2007, 03:11 AM
If this is true, then why did Christ say the following to Mary:

John 20:17:
Jesus saith unto her, touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.When Jesus died he gave up the ghost/spirit which returned to the Father (Luke 23:46), but his soul went to hell (Acts 2:27), then the third day his body was resurrected from the grave. Jesus had a spirit, soul, and body, just like you and I have, so when we die our soul and spirit will leave our body in the same way.

In John 20:17 Jesus is talking about his 'body' not yet ascending to the Father, note "touch me not."

Steven3
Oct 24th 2007, 03:58 AM
When Jesus died he gave up the ghost/spirit which returned to the Father (Luke 23:46), but his soul went to hell (Acts 2:27), then the third day his body was resurrected from the grave. Jesus had a spirit, soul, and body, just like you and I have, so when we die our soul and spirit will leave our body in the same way.

In John 20:17 Jesus is talking about his 'body' not yet ascending to the Father, note "touch me not."

Hi Soj
In Thessalonians 5:23, which is the one verse where the tripartite "spirit, soul and body" idea comes from, Paul is making a reference to Gen 2:7 where in Hebrew dust+breath=living soul (in Greek body+spirit=soul). The soul isn't a third part of Adam, it is Adam. Also, it relates to Christ's coming, not the day of death.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

You can work this out either by looking at how a concordance shows spirit and soul being used in the Bible or asking a question - Which bit of the human holds the thoughts? Soul without a body? Spirit without a soul?
God bless
Steven

Soj
Oct 24th 2007, 04:29 AM
If this is true, then why did Peter say in Acts 2:34

For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,I believe that would be a reference to David's body, see Acts 2:29, not David's soul. For "no man hath ascended into heaven" except Jesus Christ (John 3:13), the word ascended in the context means to go up in your OWN power. None of the saints bodies in the old test who went to heaven ascended in their own power, eg. Enoch = translated (Heb 11:5), Elijah = caught up (2 Kings 2), Moses = body taken after death (Jude 9).

It was the soul's of the saints that went to Ab's bosom that were the captivity led captive by Jesus Christ, many of their bodies came out of the grave after his resurrection (Matt 27:52) but not all of them, likely not David's. Ab's bosom is now empty, and at the rapture Jesus will return and resurrect the bodies of his dead saints and their souls will return from heaven to enter in, and us who are alive will have our bodies translated like Enoch's was and so shall we ever be with the Lord (1 Thess 4:16-17), amen.

Soj
Oct 24th 2007, 04:54 AM
Hi Soj
In Thessalonians 5:23, which is the one verse where the tripartite "spirit, soul and body" idea comes from, Paul is making a reference to Gen 2:7 where in Hebrew dust+breath=living soul (in Greek body+spirit=soul). Hi Steven, I believe the Bible clearly teaches that the flesh and bone body of man, his soul, and his spirit are three distinctly different parts:

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground (body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit); and man became a living soul (soul).

I don't accept your Hebrew definition, the english is clear enough for me. ;)


The soul isn't a third part of Adam, it is Adam. Also, it relates to Christ's coming, not the day of death.

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
That verse defines clearly the trichotomy of man, it teaches that the soul IS a third part and that our spirit, soul, and body as a WHOLE creature is to be preserved blameless till Christ returns. Not sure where you get the day of death scenario?


You can work this out either by looking at how a concordance shows spirit and soul being used in the Bible or asking a question - Which bit of the human holds the thoughts? Soul without a body? Spirit without a soul?
God bless
StevenI've spent years studying this and have learned how the Bible uses these words and defines them, in some cases it seems that soul and spirit are used synonymously yet in other cases they are definitely not, such as the following verse which teaches that soul and spirit are different:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.


Brother Steven, how do you interpret the following text, what was Rachel's soul departing from?

Genesis 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.

And what to you think Paul was talking about concerning the body in the following verses, what does home in the body and absent from the body mean?

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Steven3
Oct 24th 2007, 09:40 AM
Hi SoJ
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground (body), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (spirit); and man became a living soul (soul).

I don't accept your Hebrew definition, the english is clear enough for me. ;)Well funnily enough your reading of Gen 2:7 above is spot on the Hebrew anyway ;) so that's good.


Brother Steven, how do you interpret the following text, what was Rachel's soul departing from?

Genesis 35:18 And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.Soul = life here. Her life was departing. That's why it says "for she died". She was going ahead of Jacob to "know nothing" in Sheol, or to "sleep" with Abraham and Sarah.


And what to you think Paul was talking about concerning the body in the following verses, what does home in the body and absent from the body mean?

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight) 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
I think it means that Paul does want to be naked. There are plenty of threads on 2Co5 already ;)
God bless
Steven

Soj
Oct 24th 2007, 11:09 PM
Soul = life here. Her life was departing. That's why it says "for she died". She was going ahead of Jacob to "know nothing" in Sheol, or to "sleep" with Abraham and Sarah.So soul doesn't mean body + spirit here like you defined it in your previous post?

No, I believe the right interpretation is that Rachel's soul departed her body, for her body died! That's what happens when your heart stops pumping blood, your soul leaves to stand before God in judgment (Hebrews 9:27).


I think it means that Paul does want to be naked.O dear?

"To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" for the Christian means that when your body dies your soul leaves it and goes to be with God forever! In the resurrection your soul will rejoin your body which God will resurrect from the dust, whether you were buried or cremated it will make no difference, God is able.

Bro Steven, if you continue to deny the trichotomy of man being a spirit, soul, and body creature you will miss out seeing the many treasures in the word of God that apply to you personally and your future glory with the Lord. I've given you the truth, it's up to you now what you do with it.

God be with you. :)

Steven3
Oct 25th 2007, 12:46 AM
So soul doesn't mean body + spirit here like you defined it in your previous post?Yes it means the life, nephesh, that is a product of a body having ruakh. Dust/Body+ruakh=nephesh.
No, I believe the right interpretation is that Rachel's soul departed her body, for her body died! That's what happens when your heart stops pumping blood, your soul leaves to stand before God in judgment (Hebrews 9:27).Sorry, but no, there's only one judgment day:

Romans 2:16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

2 Peter 2:9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,

etc

etc


"To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" That's not what the Bible says, nearish, but not the same. As I said, there are whole threads already on 2Co5 absent from the Lord (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=100394&highlight=absent)
God bless
Steven