DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY ? Part 6 of 6. Continued.
When the veil of the Temple was rent at His death, this was the "rending" of this covenant; Jesus had fulfilled the covenant and was the last sacrifice under the Old Covenant. However, the Scriptures do not support such an interpretation. Jesus had just fulfilled, not the Abrahamic Covenant, but the Mosaic Covenant of the law by His sacrificial death as the Lamb of God. The Law of Sacrifice, which provided an atonement for sin, had been given to Moses at Mount Sinai, not to Abraham. This is another instance in which the JDS teachers reveal their insufficient knowledge concerning the Old Testament, inasmuch as they confuse the Covenant made to Abraham in Genesis 12:17 with the Covenant of the Law given to Moses centuries later as recorded in the Book of Exodus. They fail to distinguish properly between these two different and separate covenants.
One author, who is the source of many of the JDS ERRORS, states that the Abrahamic Covenant was what constituted Israel as a nation, and gave to the nation its Law, sacrifices, blood atonement, priesthood, temple, and the Ten Commandments! Nothing could be farther removed from the facts as this contention. The Covenant given to Abraham, of which circumcision was the outward sign, concerned God's promises of blessings.
It most definitely was NOT a covenant of Law and Sacrifice, including the priesthood, temple, and Ten Commandments. God's covenant made to Abraham was three-fold. 1) Abraham's descendants were to become a great nation; however, Israel's national life began centuries later under Moses with the revelation of the Law at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19-24). God made Israel a nation under Moses, not in Abraham's time (Exod. 19:6), and entered into a Covenant of Law with Israel at this time (Exod. 24:1-8).
Although the promises made to Abraham included the prediction that a great nation would descend from him, its actual fulfillment came about under the Mosaic Covenant. 2) God promised that the families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham (the Scriptures and the Messiah would come through Israel). 3) The land of Palestine would be given to Abraham and his seed forever. The Abrahamic Covenant was one of promises of blessings to Abraham, his descendants, and to the world; it was not a covenant concerned with the Law and sacrifices. The Old Covenant of the Law and Sacrifice, which was given to Moses and Israel at Sanai, was the Covenant which was fulfilled and done away with at Calvary by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as the New Testament clearly shows (Matt. 5:17-19; Col. 2:13-14; Heb. 8-10).
The cross did not signify the fulfillment and demise of the Abrahamic Covenant; that Covenant was not based upon the Law and sacrifices, but concerned the covenant promises of blessing. In fact, those promises in the Abrahamic Covenant which have particular reference to Israel as a nation are still in effect! Some are just now in the process of their complete and final fulfillment, while others are yet to be fulfilled. Because of Israel's sins and rejection of the Messiah, the final and complete fulfillment of these promises was postponed when God temporarily set Israel aside as a nation until the latter days. However, according to Scripture, the final fulfillment of these promises is assured on the basis of the covenant promises God made to their fathers---Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Notice that this is precisely what is stated to be the fact in the New Testament: And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes [Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:26-29). Clearly, the Abrahamic Covenant was not done away with at Calvary as the JDS Doctrine alleges. The covenant promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12-17 that the Promised Land was given to him and his descendants forever is just now in the process of its final and complete fulfillment, which began with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. How, then, could the Abrahamic Covenant (confused by the JDS teachers with the Mosaic Covenant) have been fulfilled at the cross? The future fulfillment of the covenant promises regarding the nation's salvation and restoration to the Promised Land is reiterated again and again in Scripture.
Israel constitutes a people eternally bound to God by the covenant made to Abraham (Rom. 11:26-29), and Israel's national restoration and salvation is promised over 140 times in the Scriptures! A few of these references which may be noted are: Deuteronomy 4:27; Joel 3:1f; Amos 9:1; Zechariah 2;4-13; 12:10-12; Isaiah 2:1-4; Acts 1:6-7 with Romans 11:26-29. Note also Galatians 3:28-29 where even Christians are called "Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise," indicating again that the covenant promises made to Abraham are still in effect (cf. Gen. 12:3). Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the JDS contentions that Jesus was "the last sacrifice under the Old Covenant," and that "when His blood poured out, it did not atone," are in direct contradiction with the biblical teaching concerning the death of Jesus. First of all, it should be clear to anyone who has ever read the Bible that the blood of Jesus, in fulfillment of the Old Testament type, most certainly did atone for sin (Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:24-25; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14, 20-22; Heb. 10:19-20; I Pet. 1:18-19; Rev.5:9).
What of the JDS teaching which states that Jesus' death constituted "the last sacrifice under the Old Covenant"? Although the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament type of the sin-offering, His death is not to be limited to its relation to the Old Covenant, for this obscures its vital relation to the New Covenant which it introduced. Jesus, as well as the Apostles, clearly stated this fact. At the last supper Jesus said: "...This cup is the NEW COVENANT in my blood" (Luke 22:20 cf. I Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 12:24). In addition to providing an atonement for all who would thereafter believe on Him, the New Covenant sacrifice of Jesus was also necessary in order to validate the promises of forgiveness which God had given to the Israelites under the Old Covenant of the Law.
Read Hebrews 9:14-15, Romans 3:21, 24-25 with Leviticus 4:32-35, where it is shown that while God granted "forgiveness" to the repentant Israelites through the Old Covenant sacrifices, nevertheless, their sins were not actually purged away until atoned for by the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, under the New Covenant in His blood. The reason the JDS supporters contend that Jesus' death constituted the last sacrifice under the Old Covenant, and that His blood did not atone on the cross, is that such an interpretation is required by them to support their doctrine that the New Covenant of Redemption was made later in Hell, not on the cross!
Point 10 FINISHED OR UNFINISHED AT CALVARY?
In an attempt to overcome the insurmountable problem which the JDS teachers are confronted with by Jesus' words to the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise," they have resorted to a dishonest manipulation of His words, and to the substitution of their own ideas for the obvious meaning of His statement. They do this because they have placed Christ in Hell for three days as unregenerate until He was born again, citing Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:31 from the King James Version. In this translation, Acts 2:31 reads: "...his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." On the basis of this translation, the JDS teachers repeatedly stress that "Jesus went to Hell for three days"; "Jesus redeemed sinners in the Pit"; "Christ was reborn in the Pit of Hell"; Jesus became sin and was the substitute sinner in Hell," and so on. One would think that even if they did not understand that the term translated "hell" in the Old Testament is incorrectly translated in the KJV in Psalm 16:10 as "hell," at least some of the other versions should have informed them of this fact.
The term translated "hell' in Psalm 16:10 should have been rendered as "Sheol," while the term "hell" in Acts 2:31 is the Greek word "Hades," and should have been so rendered. In both instances, the terms Sheol and Hades have essentially the same meaning--"the place of departed spirits." This is seen in the fact that the term "Hades" is used in Acts 2:31 to translate the term "Sheol" in Psalm 16:10. Moreover, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates Shoel with Hades. From both the Old and New Testaments we are shown that in the realm of the dead the wicked and the righteous are separated. For example, in the Old Testament the wicked are said at death to go to sheol (the realm of departed spirits), but are consigned to the "Pit" (Isa. 14:15; Ezek. 32:17f.), whereas the righteous, who also go to Sheol, enter the presence of God (Pss. 49:25; 73:24; Gen. 5:24).
In the New Testament, the term Hades is the translation for Sheol, which is also the place of departed spirits. Again, the lost are shown to be in Sheol/Hades in a place of torment (Luke 16:19f.), whereas the righteous who enter the realm of the dead are in Paradise ("Abraham's bosom"), a place of comfort (Luke 16:22-25; 23:43; cf. 2 Cor. 12:1-4). Moreover, the righteous at death are said to be "with the Lord" (Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8). Thus, when the Messiah in Psalm 16:10 (quoted in Acts 2:31 by Peter) says, "For thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol/Hades," He meant that God would not allow Him to remain in the realm of the dead or the departed spirits, not that He was going to Hell as unregenerate! Moreover, as to just where He was going in this realm of departed spirits, He clearly tells us--He was going in spirit to the Father in Paradise.
This is plain enough from His utterances from the cross, saying: (1) "Today shalt thou (the thief) be with me in Paradise; (2) "It is finished" (finished on the cross, not three days later in Hell); and (3) "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." In spite of His clear statements that His work of redemption was finished on the cross, and that He was going to the Father in Paradise, the JDS teachers insist on sending Jesus to Hell for three days. The English term "Hell," however, should only be used to translate, as most versions do, the Greek term Gehenna (Mark 9:43), which is equivalent to the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20:11-15, and will be the eternal bode of the wicked after Judgment Day. In view of this, it should be clear why Jesus could not have gone to Hell as the JDS theory contends. The mistranslated term "hell" in the KJV Old and New Testaments, with reference to where Christ went when He died, should have been rendered "Sheol" (Ps. 16:10), and "Hades" (Acts 2:31), as signifying "the realm of departed spirits."
On the basis of Romans 10:7, a JDS minister implies that the term translated as "deep" here means "the abode of demons" (abyss), and that is where Jesus went; however, any Greek lexicon will show that this term also means "the abode of the dead," and is so used by the Apostle here. The Apostle draws his idea from Deuteronomy 30:11-13, and is simply saying that Christ does not have to descend from heaven, die, and be raised from the dead again, as we already have the Gospel declaring this. Moreover, this same verse gives the meaning of the term "deep" as used here as referring merely to the "abode of the dead," saying, "that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead." The JDS teachers' constant repetition of their statement that "Jesus went to Hell" is made no doubt for its psychological effect upon their audience, for to use the less dramatic sounding biblical terms, Sheol and Hades, would rob their "redemption-in-Hell" fiction of much of its impact.
Reference is sometimes made by the JDS teachers to Matthew 12:40 in which Jesus said: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Of course, as any unbiased reader knows, this is simply a reference to His burial in the grave or sepulchre. The JDS supporters insist, however, that His words "in the heart of the earth" cannot refer to His burial in a sepulchre, which would have been above ground; His words refer to His descent into the Pit of Hell. It is rather common knowledge, however, that the sepulchre, tomb, or grave could be either above or below ground. Moreover, the Bible frequently speaks of a sepulchre, whether above or below ground, as a "burying place," and of the dead as "buried" in a sepulchre (or cave). Note Genesis 23:4 and 19.
In 2 Kings 21:26, the King is said to have been buried "in his sepulchre in the garden," indicating that interment in a sepulchre, which here seems clearly above ground, was designated as a burial. Sometimes reference is also made by the JDS teachers to Paul's statement in Ephesians 4:9-10, which they assert, supports their view that Jesus went to Hell after His death on the cross. The passage reads: Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above the heavens.... The phrase, "he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth," is equated with descending into the Pit of Hell by the JDS ministers. However, all the Apostle intends to convey here is that Christ descended from heaven to earth; it is a reference to the Incarnation, not to incarceration in the Pit.
There are several reasons why the expression "the lower parts of the earth" means simply the earth itself, not the Pit or Hell. (1) The terms contrasted by Paul in this passage are not heaven and hell, but heaven and earth. (2) The Apostle used an idiom from the Hebrew Old Testament, which sometimes refers merely to the earth itself. Isaiah also uses this expression, "lower parts of the earth," to signify simply the earth itself. He calls on heaven and earth to rejoice because of Israel's deliverance from captivity, saying: Sing, O ye heavens; for the Lord hath done it; shout ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob.... (Isa. 44:23). (3) Several of the versions give the simpler and more likely meaning (as did Calvin, Hodge, and others).
They render this statement concerning Christ's descent to "the lower parts of the earth" as: ....to the earth below. W.J. Conybeare, The Epistles of Paul...from the height of Heaven to the depth of this world. 1 ....into the world beneath. 2 ....to the lowest level, down to the very earth. 3.. The notion that Christ went to Hell at death is generally derived from a late form of the so-called Apostles' Creed (which, of course, was not composed by the Apostles). This later version of the Creed states that Christ as death "descended into Hell; the third day He rose from the dead." However, the earlier and shorter form of the Creed did not contain this statement, "He descended into Hell," as well as some other statements found in the later form of the Creed. These were added at various times later over the centuries. 4 In view of all this, it should be evident that the JDS teachers' appeal to Ephesians 4:9-10 is simply another attempt to find some verse here and there in the English translation which uses terminology which they feel that they can apply to their Jesus-in-the-Pit error.
J.B. Phillips, The N.T. in Modern English. 2. The 20th. Century N.T. 3. NEB. 4. James orr (ed.) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, I pp. 202-206, and K.S. Latourette, A History of Christianity, pp. 135-136. 5. Neither can 1 Peter 3:19-20 be appealed to for support of the JDS idea that Jesus went to Hell to suffer punishment as a "substitute" sinner. This passage states that Christ "...preached unto the spirits in prison." However, the JDS teachers do not have Him preaching to sinners, but suffering as "sin" and as a lost man Himself who had to be born again. Moreover, all interpreters admit difficulty as to the exact meaning of this passage, and the views vary considerably. Some think that perhaps Peter meant that Jesus at death went into Hades, not to be punished Himself, but to announce the fact of Calvary to the lost so that they could be judged on the same basis as those who would hear the Gospel (and reject it) after Calvary.
This view is based upon I Peter 4:6 "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Other conclude that the apostles who died continued to preach in the realm of the spirits, or that this refers to the "Spirit" of Christ preaching through Noah before the Flood because of Peter's reference to this in 3:10 and 2 Peter 2:5 (cf. 1:10-11). Being unable to reconcile their erroneous theory which asserts that Jesus went to Hell for three days with the Lord's statements that His redemptive work was completed on the cross, and that He was going that same day to His Father in Paradise, the JDS teachers actually resort to the dishonest device of rearranging the punctuation in an attempt to change the meaning of the words of Jesus.
Even without punctuation the meaning is clear in His promise to the repentant thief when He said, "Verily I say unto thee, TODAY shalt thou be with me in paradise." In order to change the obvious meaning of His words, since it contradicts their redemption-in-Hell doctrine, they manipulate the comma and move it from after the word "thee" and place it after "today." In this very way it then reads: "Verily I say unto thee today, with me thou shalt be in paradise." 1 In other words, they now have Jesus saying: "I am telling you today, you will be with me in paradise." It should, of course, be understood by the reader that the ancient Greek manuscripts were virtually without punctuation; it was added by the editors centuries later. However, in the Greek texts the editors are in agreement on the punctuation of this verse; that is, the comma is placed before, not after the word "today" (An English translator in his version might ignore the punctuation of the Greek manuscript, however; e.g., Rotherham who relegates the accepted reading to a footnote).
This eliminates the question of the time when Jesus and the thief would actually go to paradise, thereby enabling the JDS teachers to announce that it was after Jesus had spent three days in Hell. If so, then why did not Jesus simply say to the thief, "After three days you will be with me in paradise"? Aside from this being dishonest to "wrest" the clear meaning of Jesus' words by such a distortion, it is also redundant to make such a statement as "I say unto thee today." The addition of the word "today" is unnecessary and is redundant, for obviously the thief was well aware that Jesus was speaking to him that very day--it could not have been the day before or after from his viewpoint. Since Jesus clearly said what He meant, then this attempt to change His intended meaning to fit their doctrine is another instance wherein Peter's warning concerning those who "wrest" the Scriptures to their own destruction is being fulfilled.
Moreover, the JDS surgery on God's Word is refuted by Hebrews 3:7-8, which reads: Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.... Observe again where the comma is placed--before, not after, the word "today," precisely where it is placed in Luke 23:43 in the promise of Jesus to the thief: "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." By manipulating the comma, as the JDS teachers do, the meaning can also be changed. It would then read: Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith today, if ye will hear his voice.... However, it is obvious that the emphasis is not on when the Holy Spirit is speaking (i.e., today), but upon the need for the hearer's response to be immediate, i.e., today. That a comma should come before and not after "today" is made evident by what is said in verse 13 of this passage: "But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."
It may be noted also in James 4:13 that if a comma is inserted after "today," instead of before the word, the sense is again changed. Therefore, the JDS usage of "today" through manipulation of the punctuation ("I say unto you today,") is intentionally misleading. Moreover, if the JDS teachers insist on sending Jesus to Hell in spite of what the Scriptures teach to the contrary, then they also have the problem of how to get Him out of the Pit, for according to the Word of God such a transition is impossible! Abraham in Paradise said to the rich man suffering in Hades (not Hell as in the KJV): Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us that would come from thence (Luke 16:26). If Jesus actually became "sin" (instead of a holy sin offering as the Bible teaches), and if He were unregenerate, and since God requires a blood atonement for sin, then the problem still remains, who died for Jesus and provided an atonement for Him? Without a sin-offering being made for Him, then He would still be suffering with the rich man in Hades and still be unsaved.
As shown previously, without a blood atonement for Him there would be no basis for His justification. Contrary to JDS teaching, which states: "suddenly God justified Jesus," God says: "....I will not justify the wicked" (Exodus 23:7; 34:7). Inasmuch as the JDS teachers make Jesus to be "sin" with mankind's sinfulness, and wicked with Satan's evil nature, and then give no scriptural basis for His justification, they themselves are rebuked by God's Word, for the Scriptures say: He that justifieth the wicked...[is an] abomination to the Lord (Prov. 17:15). With a stroke of a pen the JDS teachers declare--suddenly God justified Jesus! They are charging God with doing what he plainly says He does not do--justify the wicked (without a basis; namely, a blood atonement, Exod. 23:7)--and they are guilty of doing themselves what God forbids man to do Prov. 17:15).
In spite of all the foregoing evidence given in this study, nevertheless, the JDS supporters insist on placing Jesus in Hell with Satan as His master. We are informed that He "gave himself into Satan's hands without any resistance." Try, if you can, to reconcile that statement with Jesus' own words in John 14:30 a few hours before His death, when He declared:"....the prince of this world cometh, and HATH NOTHING IN ME." The choice is clear--one must either take the words of Jesus here, as well as those from the cross, when He said, "It is finished," and that He was going that same day in the spirit to His Father in Paradise--or take the contradictory JDS doctrine, since the two can never be reconciled. Deluded men may put Jesus in Hell for three days, but Jesus made it abundantly clear, not only from the cross, but also on several other occasions, that on His departure from this world He was going directly to the Father in heaven.
In John 13:1 we are informed: Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that HE SHOULD DEPART OUT OF THIS WORLD UNTO THE FATHER.... In order to make His point clear as to where He was going when He left this world at death, He repeated His destination several times, saying, "I go to the Father." Note this in John 14:12; 28; 16:10, 16, 17, 28. This fact is repeated twice more from the cross, once in His promise to the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise," and finally, in His declaration, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." These statements, all made within the time context of the crucifixion, constitute nine times that His destination is clearly stated to be heaven, not hell. Nevertheless, as if it had never been stated even once, the JDS supporters insist on sending Jesus to hell for three days.
Evidence that Jesus completed redemption on the cross, not in the Pit, is to be found in John 19:28 where we are informed that when Jesus knew that "all things were now accomplished" (completed), He then said, "It is finished" (vs. 30). It should be evident from this, as well as the foregoing study, that the JDS Doctrine is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9), presenting "another Jesus" (Cor. 11:4). When the JDS Doctrine is compared to Scripture, one is constrained to lament with Mary as she stood before the sepulchre: They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. Edited. Shared.
God willing, more will be posted soon. All glory to Jesus alone.
DID JESUS DIE SPIRITUALLY ? Part 6 of 6. Continued.
When the veil of the Temple was rent at His death, this was the "rending" of this covenant; Jesus had fulfilled the covenant and was the last sacrifice under the Old Covenant. However, the Scriptures do not support such an interpretation. Jesus had just fulfilled, not the Abrahamic Covenant, but the Mosaic Covenant of the law by His sacrificial death as the Lamb of God. The Law of Sacrifice, which provided an atonement for sin, had been given to Moses at Mount Sinai, not to Abraham. This is another instance in which the JDS teachers reveal their insufficient knowledge concerning the Old Testament, inasmuch as they confuse the Covenant made to Abraham in Genesis 12:17 with the Covenant of the Law given to Moses centuries later as recorded in the Book of Exodus. They fail to distinguish properly between these two different and separate covenants.
One author, who is the source of many of the JDS ERRORS, states that the Abrahamic Covenant was what constituted Israel as a nation, and gave to the nation its Law, sacrifices, blood atonement, priesthood, temple, and the Ten Commandments! Nothing could be farther removed from the facts as this contention. The Covenant given to Abraham, of which circumcision was the outward sign, concerned God's promises of blessings.
It most definitely was NOT a covenant of Law and Sacrifice, including the priesthood, temple, and Ten Commandments. God's covenant made to Abraham was three-fold. 1) Abraham's descendants were to become a great nation; however, Israel's national life began centuries later under Moses with the revelation of the Law at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19-24). God made Israel a nation under Moses, not in Abraham's time (Exod. 19:6), and entered into a Covenant of Law with Israel at this time (Exod. 24:1-8).
Although the promises made to Abraham included the prediction that a great nation would descend from him, its actual fulfillment came about under the Mosaic Covenant. 2) God promised that the families of the earth would be blessed through Abraham (the Scriptures and the Messiah would come through Israel). 3) The land of Palestine would be given to Abraham and his seed forever. The Abrahamic Covenant was one of promises of blessings to Abraham, his descendants, and to the world; it was not a covenant concerned with the Law and sacrifices. The Old Covenant of the Law and Sacrifice, which was given to Moses and Israel at Sanai, was the Covenant which was fulfilled and done away with at Calvary by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as the New Testament clearly shows (Matt. 5:17-19; Col. 2:13-14; Heb. 8-10).
The cross did not signify the fulfillment and demise of the Abrahamic Covenant; that Covenant was not based upon the Law and sacrifices, but concerned the covenant promises of blessing. In fact, those promises in the Abrahamic Covenant which have particular reference to Israel as a nation are still in effect! Some are just now in the process of their complete and final fulfillment, while others are yet to be fulfilled. Because of Israel's sins and rejection of the Messiah, the final and complete fulfillment of these promises was postponed when God temporarily set Israel aside as a nation until the latter days. However, according to Scripture, the final fulfillment of these promises is assured on the basis of the covenant promises God made to their fathers---Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Notice that this is precisely what is stated to be the fact in the New Testament: And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes [Abraham, Isaac, Jacob]. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (Rom. 11:26-29). Clearly, the Abrahamic Covenant was not done away with at Calvary as the JDS Doctrine alleges. The covenant promise made to Abraham in Genesis 12-17 that the Promised Land was given to him and his descendants forever is just now in the process of its final and complete fulfillment, which began with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. How, then, could the Abrahamic Covenant (confused by the JDS teachers with the Mosaic Covenant) have been fulfilled at the cross? The future fulfillment of the covenant promises regarding the nation's salvation and restoration to the Promised Land is reiterated again and again in Scripture.
Israel constitutes a people eternally bound to God by the covenant made to Abraham (Rom. 11:26-29), and Israel's national restoration and salvation is promised over 140 times in the Scriptures! A few of these references which may be noted are: Deuteronomy 4:27; Joel 3:1f; Amos 9:1; Zechariah 2;4-13; 12:10-12; Isaiah 2:1-4; Acts 1:6-7 with Romans 11:26-29. Note also Galatians 3:28-29 where even Christians are called "Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise," indicating again that the covenant promises made to Abraham are still in effect (cf. Gen. 12:3). Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the JDS contentions that Jesus was "the last sacrifice under the Old Covenant," and that "when His blood poured out, it did not atone," are in direct contradiction with the biblical teaching concerning the death of Jesus. First of all, it should be clear to anyone who has ever read the Bible that the blood of Jesus, in fulfillment of the Old Testament type, most certainly did atone for sin (Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:24-25; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14, 20-22; Heb. 10:19-20; I Pet. 1:18-19; Rev.5:9).
What of the JDS teaching which states that Jesus' death constituted "the last sacrifice under the Old Covenant"? Although the sacrifice of Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament type of the sin-offering, His death is not to be limited to its relation to the Old Covenant, for this obscures its vital relation to the New Covenant which it introduced. Jesus, as well as the Apostles, clearly stated this fact. At the last supper Jesus said: "...This cup is the NEW COVENANT in my blood" (Luke 22:20 cf. I Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 12:24). In addition to providing an atonement for all who would thereafter believe on Him, the New Covenant sacrifice of Jesus was also necessary in order to validate the promises of forgiveness which God had given to the Israelites under the Old Covenant of the Law.
Read Hebrews 9:14-15, Romans 3:21, 24-25 with Leviticus 4:32-35, where it is shown that while God granted "forgiveness" to the repentant Israelites through the Old Covenant sacrifices, nevertheless, their sins were not actually purged away until atoned for by the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb of God, under the New Covenant in His blood. The reason the JDS supporters contend that Jesus' death constituted the last sacrifice under the Old Covenant, and that His blood did not atone on the cross, is that such an interpretation is required by them to support their doctrine that the New Covenant of Redemption was made later in Hell, not on the cross!
Point 10 FINISHED OR UNFINISHED AT CALVARY?
In an attempt to overcome the insurmountable problem which the JDS teachers are confronted with by Jesus' words to the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise," they have resorted to a dishonest manipulation of His words, and to the substitution of their own ideas for the obvious meaning of His statement. They do this because they have placed Christ in Hell for three days as unregenerate until He was born again, citing Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:31 from the King James Version. In this translation, Acts 2:31 reads: "...his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." On the basis of this translation, the JDS teachers repeatedly stress that "Jesus went to Hell for three days"; "Jesus redeemed sinners in the Pit"; "Christ was reborn in the Pit of Hell"; Jesus became sin and was the substitute sinner in Hell," and so on. One would think that even if they did not understand that the term translated "hell" in the Old Testament is incorrectly translated in the KJV in Psalm 16:10 as "hell," at least some of the other versions should have informed them of this fact.
The term translated "hell' in Psalm 16:10 should have been rendered as "Sheol," while the term "hell" in Acts 2:31 is the Greek word "Hades," and should have been so rendered. In both instances, the terms Sheol and Hades have essentially the same meaning--"the place of departed spirits." This is seen in the fact that the term "Hades" is used in Acts 2:31 to translate the term "Sheol" in Psalm 16:10. Moreover, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, translates Shoel with Hades. From both the Old and New Testaments we are shown that in the realm of the dead the wicked and the righteous are separated. For example, in the Old Testament the wicked are said at death to go to sheol (the realm of departed spirits), but are consigned to the "Pit" (Isa. 14:15; Ezek. 32:17f.), whereas the righteous, who also go to Sheol, enter the presence of God (Pss. 49:25; 73:24; Gen. 5:24).
In the New Testament, the term Hades is the translation for Sheol, which is also the place of departed spirits. Again, the lost are shown to be in Sheol/Hades in a place of torment (Luke 16:19f.), whereas the righteous who enter the realm of the dead are in Paradise ("Abraham's bosom"), a place of comfort (Luke 16:22-25; 23:43; cf. 2 Cor. 12:1-4). Moreover, the righteous at death are said to be "with the Lord" (Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8). Thus, when the Messiah in Psalm 16:10 (quoted in Acts 2:31 by Peter) says, "For thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol/Hades," He meant that God would not allow Him to remain in the realm of the dead or the departed spirits, not that He was going to Hell as unregenerate! Moreover, as to just where He was going in this realm of departed spirits, He clearly tells us--He was going in spirit to the Father in Paradise.
This is plain enough from His utterances from the cross, saying: (1) "Today shalt thou (the thief) be with me in Paradise; (2) "It is finished" (finished on the cross, not three days later in Hell); and (3) "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." In spite of His clear statements that His work of redemption was finished on the cross, and that He was going to the Father in Paradise, the JDS teachers insist on sending Jesus to Hell for three days. The English term "Hell," however, should only be used to translate, as most versions do, the Greek term Gehenna (Mark 9:43), which is equivalent to the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20:11-15, and will be the eternal bode of the wicked after Judgment Day. In view of this, it should be clear why Jesus could not have gone to Hell as the JDS theory contends. The mistranslated term "hell" in the KJV Old and New Testaments, with reference to where Christ went when He died, should have been rendered "Sheol" (Ps. 16:10), and "Hades" (Acts 2:31), as signifying "the realm of departed spirits."
On the basis of Romans 10:7, a JDS minister implies that the term translated as "deep" here means "the abode of demons" (abyss), and that is where Jesus went; however, any Greek lexicon will show that this term also means "the abode of the dead," and is so used by the Apostle here. The Apostle draws his idea from Deuteronomy 30:11-13, and is simply saying that Christ does not have to descend from heaven, die, and be raised from the dead again, as we already have the Gospel declaring this. Moreover, this same verse gives the meaning of the term "deep" as used here as referring merely to the "abode of the dead," saying, "that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead." The JDS teachers' constant repetition of their statement that "Jesus went to Hell" is made no doubt for its psychological effect upon their audience, for to use the less dramatic sounding biblical terms, Sheol and Hades, would rob their "redemption-in-Hell" fiction of much of its impact.
Reference is sometimes made by the JDS teachers to Matthew 12:40 in which Jesus said: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Of course, as any unbiased reader knows, this is simply a reference to His burial in the grave or sepulchre. The JDS supporters insist, however, that His words "in the heart of the earth" cannot refer to His burial in a sepulchre, which would have been above ground; His words refer to His descent into the Pit of Hell. It is rather common knowledge, however, that the sepulchre, tomb, or grave could be either above or below ground. Moreover, the Bible frequently speaks of a sepulchre, whether above or below ground, as a "burying place," and of the dead as "buried" in a sepulchre (or cave). Note Genesis 23:4 and 19.
In 2 Kings 21:26, the King is said to have been buried "in his sepulchre in the garden," indicating that interment in a sepulchre, which here seems clearly above ground, was designated as a burial. Sometimes reference is also made by the JDS teachers to Paul's statement in Ephesians 4:9-10, which they assert, supports their view that Jesus went to Hell after His death on the cross. The passage reads: Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above the heavens.... The phrase, "he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth," is equated with descending into the Pit of Hell by the JDS ministers. However, all the Apostle intends to convey here is that Christ descended from heaven to earth; it is a reference to the Incarnation, not to incarceration in the Pit.
There are several reasons why the expression "the lower parts of the earth" means simply the earth itself, not the Pit or Hell. (1) The terms contrasted by Paul in this passage are not heaven and hell, but heaven and earth. (2) The Apostle used an idiom from the Hebrew Old Testament, which sometimes refers merely to the earth itself. Isaiah also uses this expression, "lower parts of the earth," to signify simply the earth itself. He calls on heaven and earth to rejoice because of Israel's deliverance from captivity, saying: Sing, O ye heavens; for the Lord hath done it; shout ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob.... (Isa. 44:23). (3) Several of the versions give the simpler and more likely meaning (as did Calvin, Hodge, and others).
They render this statement concerning Christ's descent to "the lower parts of the earth" as: ....to the earth below. W.J. Conybeare, The Epistles of Paul...from the height of Heaven to the depth of this world. 1 ....into the world beneath. 2 ....to the lowest level, down to the very earth. 3.. The notion that Christ went to Hell at death is generally derived from a late form of the so-called Apostles' Creed (which, of course, was not composed by the Apostles). This later version of the Creed states that Christ as death "descended into Hell; the third day He rose from the dead." However, the earlier and shorter form of the Creed did not contain this statement, "He descended into Hell," as well as some other statements found in the later form of the Creed. These were added at various times later over the centuries. 4 In view of all this, it should be evident that the JDS teachers' appeal to Ephesians 4:9-10 is simply another attempt to find some verse here and there in the English translation which uses terminology which they feel that they can apply to their Jesus-in-the-Pit error.
J.B. Phillips, The N.T. in Modern English. 2. The 20th. Century N.T. 3. NEB. 4. James orr (ed.) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, I pp. 202-206, and K.S. Latourette, A History of Christianity, pp. 135-136. 5. Neither can 1 Peter 3:19-20 be appealed to for support of the JDS idea that Jesus went to Hell to suffer punishment as a "substitute" sinner. This passage states that Christ "...preached unto the spirits in prison." However, the JDS teachers do not have Him preaching to sinners, but suffering as "sin" and as a lost man Himself who had to be born again. Moreover, all interpreters admit difficulty as to the exact meaning of this passage, and the views vary considerably. Some think that perhaps Peter meant that Jesus at death went into Hades, not to be punished Himself, but to announce the fact of Calvary to the lost so that they could be judged on the same basis as those who would hear the Gospel (and reject it) after Calvary.
This view is based upon I Peter 4:6 "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." Other conclude that the apostles who died continued to preach in the realm of the spirits, or that this refers to the "Spirit" of Christ preaching through Noah before the Flood because of Peter's reference to this in 3:10 and 2 Peter 2:5 (cf. 1:10-11). Being unable to reconcile their erroneous theory which asserts that Jesus went to Hell for three days with the Lord's statements that His redemptive work was completed on the cross, and that He was going that same day to His Father in Paradise, the JDS teachers actually resort to the dishonest device of rearranging the punctuation in an attempt to change the meaning of the words of Jesus.
Even without punctuation the meaning is clear in His promise to the repentant thief when He said, "Verily I say unto thee, TODAY shalt thou be with me in paradise." In order to change the obvious meaning of His words, since it contradicts their redemption-in-Hell doctrine, they manipulate the comma and move it from after the word "thee" and place it after "today." In this very way it then reads: "Verily I say unto thee today, with me thou shalt be in paradise." 1 In other words, they now have Jesus saying: "I am telling you today, you will be with me in paradise." It should, of course, be understood by the reader that the ancient Greek manuscripts were virtually without punctuation; it was added by the editors centuries later. However, in the Greek texts the editors are in agreement on the punctuation of this verse; that is, the comma is placed before, not after the word "today" (An English translator in his version might ignore the punctuation of the Greek manuscript, however; e.g., Rotherham who relegates the accepted reading to a footnote).
This eliminates the question of the time when Jesus and the thief would actually go to paradise, thereby enabling the JDS teachers to announce that it was after Jesus had spent three days in Hell. If so, then why did not Jesus simply say to the thief, "After three days you will be with me in paradise"? Aside from this being dishonest to "wrest" the clear meaning of Jesus' words by such a distortion, it is also redundant to make such a statement as "I say unto thee today." The addition of the word "today" is unnecessary and is redundant, for obviously the thief was well aware that Jesus was speaking to him that very day--it could not have been the day before or after from his viewpoint. Since Jesus clearly said what He meant, then this attempt to change His intended meaning to fit their doctrine is another instance wherein Peter's warning concerning those who "wrest" the Scriptures to their own destruction is being fulfilled.
Moreover, the JDS surgery on God's Word is refuted by Hebrews 3:7-8, which reads: Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.... Observe again where the comma is placed--before, not after, the word "today," precisely where it is placed in Luke 23:43 in the promise of Jesus to the thief: "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." By manipulating the comma, as the JDS teachers do, the meaning can also be changed. It would then read: Wherefore as the Holy Ghost saith today, if ye will hear his voice.... However, it is obvious that the emphasis is not on when the Holy Spirit is speaking (i.e., today), but upon the need for the hearer's response to be immediate, i.e., today. That a comma should come before and not after "today" is made evident by what is said in verse 13 of this passage: "But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin."
It may be noted also in James 4:13 that if a comma is inserted after "today," instead of before the word, the sense is again changed. Therefore, the JDS usage of "today" through manipulation of the punctuation ("I say unto you today,") is intentionally misleading. Moreover, if the JDS teachers insist on sending Jesus to Hell in spite of what the Scriptures teach to the contrary, then they also have the problem of how to get Him out of the Pit, for according to the Word of God such a transition is impossible! Abraham in Paradise said to the rich man suffering in Hades (not Hell as in the KJV): Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us that would come from thence (Luke 16:26). If Jesus actually became "sin" (instead of a holy sin offering as the Bible teaches), and if He were unregenerate, and since God requires a blood atonement for sin, then the problem still remains, who died for Jesus and provided an atonement for Him? Without a sin-offering being made for Him, then He would still be suffering with the rich man in Hades and still be unsaved.
As shown previously, without a blood atonement for Him there would be no basis for His justification. Contrary to JDS teaching, which states: "suddenly God justified Jesus," God says: "....I will not justify the wicked" (Exodus 23:7; 34:7). Inasmuch as the JDS teachers make Jesus to be "sin" with mankind's sinfulness, and wicked with Satan's evil nature, and then give no scriptural basis for His justification, they themselves are rebuked by God's Word, for the Scriptures say: He that justifieth the wicked...[is an] abomination to the Lord (Prov. 17:15). With a stroke of a pen the JDS teachers declare--suddenly God justified Jesus! They are charging God with doing what he plainly says He does not do--justify the wicked (without a basis; namely, a blood atonement, Exod. 23:7)--and they are guilty of doing themselves what God forbids man to do Prov. 17:15).
In spite of all the foregoing evidence given in this study, nevertheless, the JDS supporters insist on placing Jesus in Hell with Satan as His master. We are informed that He "gave himself into Satan's hands without any resistance." Try, if you can, to reconcile that statement with Jesus' own words in John 14:30 a few hours before His death, when He declared:"....the prince of this world cometh, and HATH NOTHING IN ME." The choice is clear--one must either take the words of Jesus here, as well as those from the cross, when He said, "It is finished," and that He was going that same day in the spirit to His Father in Paradise--or take the contradictory JDS doctrine, since the two can never be reconciled. Deluded men may put Jesus in Hell for three days, but Jesus made it abundantly clear, not only from the cross, but also on several other occasions, that on His departure from this world He was going directly to the Father in heaven.
In John 13:1 we are informed: Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that HE SHOULD DEPART OUT OF THIS WORLD UNTO THE FATHER.... In order to make His point clear as to where He was going when He left this world at death, He repeated His destination several times, saying, "I go to the Father." Note this in John 14:12; 28; 16:10, 16, 17, 28. This fact is repeated twice more from the cross, once in His promise to the thief, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise," and finally, in His declaration, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." These statements, all made within the time context of the crucifixion, constitute nine times that His destination is clearly stated to be heaven, not hell. Nevertheless, as if it had never been stated even once, the JDS supporters insist on sending Jesus to hell for three days.
Evidence that Jesus completed redemption on the cross, not in the Pit, is to be found in John 19:28 where we are informed that when Jesus knew that "all things were now accomplished" (completed), He then said, "It is finished" (vs. 30). It should be evident from this, as well as the foregoing study, that the JDS Doctrine is "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8-9), presenting "another Jesus" (Cor. 11:4). When the JDS Doctrine is compared to Scripture, one is constrained to lament with Mary as she stood before the sepulchre: They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. Edited. Shared.
God willing, more will be posted soon. All glory to Jesus alone.
Arabic
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Russian
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
Greek
हिन्दी