Acts 2:24

Acts 2:2424 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.Why, when Jesus had bore the worlds sins in His own body, could death not hold Him?

Albert Barnes seems to sum it up very well:"This does not refer to any natural impossibility, or to any inherent efficacy or power in the body of Jesus itself, but simply means that "in the circumstances of the case such an event could not be." Why it could not be he proceeds at once to show. It could not be consistently with the promises of the Scriptures. Jesus was the "Prince of life" Acts 3:15; he had life in himself John 1:4; John 5:26; he had power to lay down his life and to take it again John 10:18; and it was indispensable that he should rise. He came, also, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is, the devil Heb 2:14; and as it was his purpose to gain this victory, he could not be defeated in it by being confined to the grave."

It was impossible because the Law says:Leviticus 18:5 So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man will live if he does them; I am the LORD.Ezekiel 20:11 And I gave them My statutes and informed them of My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live.There was one man (notice it's singular in the verses) who fulfilled the Law; according to the Law, this man will live. Death cannot hold this man -- the very Law that decrees death for the lawbreaker is a guarantee of life for the Lawful One.

Excerpt from John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:having loosed the pains of death; this may be understood either of what Christ had done for his people by dying for them; he had abolished death; he had took away its sting, and delivered them from the curse of it, having fulfilled the law, satisfied justice, and made full atonement for their sin; so that though they die, death is not a penal evil to them, nor shall they always continue under the power of it: or of what God did in raising Christ from the dead; he delivered him from the power of death, by which he was held in the grave, and which is expressed by a word which signifies pains and sorrows, even those of a woman in travail; which though he felt not now, he had gone through them; his low state in the grave was the effect of them; and these are said to be loosed when he was raised up, he being so entirely delivered from them, as that they should never come upon him more: and it is to be observed, that the same word in the Hebrew language, and so in the Chaldee and Syriac, in which Peter might speak, signifies both cords and sorrows; and we often read in Talmudic and Rabbinic (w) writings, of חבלו של משיח, "the sorrows", or "pains" of the Messiah.Because it was not possible he should be holden of it: of death, and under the power of it; partly, because of the power and dignity of his person, as the Son of God, he being still the Prince of life, and who by dying abolished death, and him that had the power of it; and partly, because as the surety of his people, he had made full satisfaction for sin, and had brought in an everlasting righteousness, and therefore ought in justice to be discharged, and detained a prisoner no longer; as also because of the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning his resurrection, which must be fulfilled.

Death could not hold Him because He (HImself) was not guilty of any sin. God would have been unjust to let Jesus stay in Hell, He was innocent. So God attributed His death to our account (we owed God a debt of death because of our sins), declared us not guilty, and raised Jesus from the dead. So now God has Jesus and us too. He won on all fronts! Glory!!

dpike777,You said, "God would have been unjust to let Jesus stay in Hell."I think it necessary to point out that Jesus never went to hell in the first place -- this doctrine is not found in the Scriptures. It has become a popular teaching due to Word-faith teachers like Kenneth Copeland and Hagin teaching the error that Jesus suffered in hell for 3 days. Just thought I'd clarify.

Explain Acts 2:27-31. Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Act 2:28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Act 2:29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; Act 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Verse 31 right there, says His (Jesus) soul was in Hell. 1Pe 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. What was the prison he preached in?Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. Brass speaks of judgement, Jesus feet were "like fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace" His feet burned in the furnace of hell!Rev 1:18 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. How did Jesus get the keys of hell and death if He did not go there? Jesus did not need those keys for Himself, He is the creator and can command those locks to open. He had to get them from the one who did need them: The devil.Jesus took every punishment that we deserved, including Hell.Just so you know it, I do not listen too or pay any attention to the Word faith teachers. Copeland, Hagin, Roberts, Duplantis, Sevell, Dollar, Hickey, Meyer, Jakes, etc...dpike777

Excellent: here goes ...First of all, Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. This is not an accurate rendering of the verse; the Greek word is "Hades," which is a translation of the Hebrew word "Sheol" in Psalm 16:10. Sheol was not "hell" in our sense of the word, but should be understood as "the place of shades" or (as often translated) "the grave." Hades in Greek mythology was precisely the same thing. Hades carried no necessary implication of punishment or judgment -- only the place of a departed spirit. This is why this is the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew "Sheol" in both the LXX and the NT. This makes further sense when Peter quotes this verse to explain why Jesus did not remain in the grave (i.e. Sheol).The same is true for Acts 2:31. Unfortunately, our modern understanding of hell is a place of punishment and burning. We've gotten our terms mixed up. Scripture actually uses a more specific word for this place -- Gehenna. This Greek word used specifically for the place of fiery punishment in the New Testament (unfortunately often translated into English so it is indistinguishable from "hades") is derived from the Hebrew "Ge Hinnom." This phrase means "valley of lamentation" and speaks specifically of a valley outside Jerusalem that was notorious for its being used for child sacrifice by idolaters in the Old Testament period (hence the association with fire). It had become something of a garbage dump by the time of Jesus. This word "Gehenna" was used to describe the horrible place of torment for sinners -- Jesus is never said to have gone there. (In fact, Hades is thrown into "the lake of fire," which is answerable to Gehenna, in Revelation 20).Thirdly, Scripture also speaks of a place called "Tartarus," which in Greek mythology was the prison of the Titans (those spirits who had fought against the Gods, been cast down, and bound with chains in this "Tartarus"). It is used in 2 Peter 2:4 as the prison of the "angels who sinned." This is also answerable to the "bottomless pit" found in Revelation (although the term is not used).When 1 Peter 3:19 talks about Jesus preaching "to the spirits in prison," it is clearly (esp. after a close reading of 2 Peter 2) referring to those angels who had fallen in the days of Noah. I should also add that it says "he preached" -- that is, he was declaring victory and not suffering.You ask how Jesus received the keys to hades and death (Thanatos) without going to hell (saying he had to take them from the devil). You answer your own question in saying that he is the creator -- those keys are his by right. He did not (nor would he) have to go to hell in order to get these keys (it doesn't stand to reason that those keys would be in hell in the first place). He defeated Satan once and for all at the cross, not in hell. (I should also add that "keys" in the first place are simply indicative of power over these things -- they are not literal keys but, exactly as you said above, they show that Jesus has power over these things.)As for Revelation 1:15, I don't think this stands on solid exegetical grounds; the man Daniel saw also had "feet as in a fire." Plus, Jesus' feet do not remain in hell, do they?Jesus' life and death were sufficient to pay for our sin. He did not have to suffer hell in any way, nor did he according to the Scriptures.I hope that helps. If anything is unclear, just let me know. God bless!

Jason wrote: "You ask how Jesus received the keys to hades and death (Thanatos) without going to hell (saying he had to take them from the devil). You answer your own question in saying that he is the creator -- those keys are his by right. He did not (nor would he) have to go to hell in order to get these keys (it doesn't stand to reason that those keys would be in hell in the first place). He defeated Satan once and for all at the cross, not in hell. (I should also add that "keys" in the first place are simply indicative of power over these things -- they are not literal keys but, exactly as you said above, they show that Jesus has power over these things.)"Reply: Amen. Jesus had the keys from eternity, or in essence, the power over life and death. The verse in Revelation does not imply that he had won them, but had always possessed them. Jason wrote: "As for Revelation 1:15, I don't think this stands on solid exegetical grounds; the man Daniel saw also had "feet as in a fire." Plus, Jesus' feet do not remain in hell, do they?"Reply: Brass may symbolize judgement, but Jesus' feet being brass doesn't mean that he was judged, rather, he is the judge. This vision of Christ is not the result of being in hell for 3 days or else he would have looked like that after the resurection. This vision is one of the glorified Christ.Jason wrote: "Jesus' life and death were sufficient to pay for our sin. He did not have to suffer hell in any way, nor did he according to the Scriptures."Reply: Amen. "[H]aving wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it." (2Colossians 2:14,15)"Triumphing over them in it" in verse 15 is referring to the cross. When a leader conquered a city or a nation, he disarmed and bound the leaders and led them in a parade down the streets to publicly humiliate them and to show his victory over them. A "public spectacle" is made of them. That is what Jesus is said to have done, not in hell, but on the cross.I hope I have added a little to what Jason has already said.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

Am I to believe (by your interpretation of the scriptures) that there is no literal hell?I have numerous bible verses to backup my position of there being a real literal hell. All you have done is play around with the meaning of words. I have noticed with allot of cults (I am not implying that your part of a cult) that when they come across something in the Word that does not agree with what they want to believe, they call it a 'mistranslation', or try and reason it away as a parable, or something added later on that was not in the original manuscripts.Some hell verses:Matt 23:33Matt 12:40Psa 16:10Psa 18:5Job 26:6Psa 9:7Psa 55:15Psa 86:13Psa 116: "Pains of hell." - Dead men (bodies) feel no pain. So hell must be real torment for the soul.Psa 139:8Prov 5:5Prov 7:27Prov 9:18Isa 5:14Isa 14:9 Isa 14:15Ezek 31:16Jonah 2:2Matt 5:22 "Hell fire"Mat 10:28Luke 12:5 - Fear Him who can cast into hell (after physical death). Dead bodies have no fear. Must be talking about the soul and a real hell. Remember the rich man and Lazarus. Jesus did not say it was a parable, He said there "was" (past tense) a rich man and a man named Lazarus. Jesus was recalling an actual event. The rich man was (and still is) in hell, being tormented day and night.Acts 2:27Acts 2:312Pet2:4 Rev 20:13 "death and hell gave up the dead that were IN THEM." Why 'them' and not 'it' There is only one grave for the body.Heaven for the saint and hell for the sinner. Jesus died the death of a sinner, and therefore went to hell for those three days.If physical suffering and death on the cross was enough then why did Jesus have to be dead for three days? A minute would have been good enough. After all, dead is dead, isn't it?dpike

I am afraid you have misread my post. Perhaps it would be good to read back over it a couple more times.I nowhere denied the literalness of hell. I was simply much more careful with my definition than the KJV bible translators (as were those writing the NT in Greek, for they used different words, unlike many translations that simply use "hell" for all of the different words and concepts). If you are to use hell as the place of eternal punishment, you will have to use that word to translate Gehenna (for the Lake of Fire), rather than Hades.Remember that the dead in Hades were given up and then Hades itself is thrown into the Lake of Fire. If Hades is the place of eternal punishment, this makes no sense. However, the Lake of Fire (Gehenna) is the lake of fire; Hades is not. I am simply warning you to be more precise with your statements. Jesus did not spend 3 days in the Lake of Fire, and did not suffer in hell for three days. You cannot produce any Scriptural proof for that statement.

I certainly believe in a literal hell. Like Jason, I don't see anything in scripture that teaches that Jesus had to suffer or do any kind of battle in hell to achieve victory. I'm sorry if you misunderstood the replies.Perhaps that place that Jesus preached to spirits who were disobediant was tartaros (translated as hell). It was a place where fallen angels were kept awaiting judgement. I don't believe Jesus was preaching salvation, but as Jason said, "declaring victory."In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

I did misunderstand your previous replies (Hulsey and Jason). I also know there is a difference between Hell and the Lake of fire. Hell is more a holding cell, but it is of itself a horrible place to be. The rich man said he was 'tormented in the flames.'As far as Jesus spending three days in Hell, we are still in disagreement, and I will leave it at that. Otherwise we would just go back and forth endlessly.Blessings,dpike

Hi Nasher,This is a little delayed but to return to the original question…Here is my offering. It is a little long; my apologies. It is a little shocking too and I have never heard anyone else of this opinion but I offer if for your consideration. It is based on Hebrews 13:20“Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, (that great shepherd of the sheep,) through the blood of the everlasting covenant,”I have added a parenthesis for clarity of explanation. Read without the parenthesis just to get the flow of the statement; it tells us the means whereby God was able to bring our Lord Jesus again from the dead. It was ‘through the blood of the everlasting covenant’. If He had ‘become sin’ and ‘borne our sins in his body’ and died in that state He would have suffered the consequence of the burden; eternal separation from His Father. (I just feel this is going to raise a whole lot of new questions but let’s try to answer the original first). A holy and just God would have had to be consistent with his verdict and penalty. However, the price had just been paid, and God could be just in pardoning the sin-bearer.The implication of this is that Christ was the first recipient of the effects of His substitutionary death. The Father was able to raise the Son because the Covenant had been enacted by the death of the covenant victim. To use a metaphor, it is as if a great gulf was bridged by the death of Christ and the first to test the bridge was Christ Himself. Christ’s Sin-bearing and Becoming Sin for us was no theatrical gesture but a reality which is seen in the horror with which He faced it in Gethsemane. This should be an encouragement to every other traveller on this bridge; if it bore Him who bore the world’s sin, it will bear me and mine!Psalm 22 is a psalm of 2 halves. The first is dark and brooding; He becomes both Sin-Bearer and Sin itself. He cries to His Father “and is heard”. Psalm 22:“Save me from the lion’s mouth; Yea, from the horns of the wild-oxen thou hast answered me” (This is the ASV and I like the way it provides a watershed. The first sentence is the plea to His Father, the second it the triumphant cry of the victor) The Psalm divides halfway into verse 21.The language of AV ‘thou hast heard me’ is echoed in Hebrews 5:7“Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;” (‘from death’ is not preventative. ‘from’ is ‘ek’ which means ‘out of’.) He was saved out of death. i.e. rescued not prevented. His cry (of Psalm 22) was heard!Death could not hold him because the Father heard His prayer and was able to respond to it because the penalty of sins had been paid, and the stranglehold of Sin broken. This reality is made real in us by His Spirit; the Law of the Spirit of Life freed me from the Law of Sin and Death.If you would like to hear more of this there are several messages that Greg has placed in the Downloads. You can find them herehttps://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=1762and the little series on the Three Prayers, beginning with…https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=1763BTW. The truth that our salvation was achieved on the cross shows that Hagan’s notions of a salvation gained by trickery in Hades/Hell is a sheer fabrication. Hagan has stumbled into the medaeval notion of ‘ransom to the devil’. Unfortunately it was dragged into the 20th Century in the writing of C S Lewis and the songs of Jamie Owens and Keith Green.My apologies, again for the length,His/Yours

dpike777 wrote: "If physical suffering and death on the cross was enough then why did Jesus have to be dead for three days? A minute would have been good enough. After all, dead is dead, isn't it?"dpike777,You bring up a good point here worth an answer. Being dead for three days was not for a battle, but simply to prove He was in fact dead. Many Jewish people of that time believed that the spirit of a person hovered over the body for three days before departing. If Jesus had been raised before that time there would have been many who would not have believed that He had really died. Look at all the sceptics today and in the past who have tried to use the "Swoon Theory" that Jesus was just in a coma for three days. They would have had a field day if Jesus had only died for say an hour.So being in the tomb for three days showed to all that not only had Jesus died, but was also then raised from the dead. In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey

The implication of this is that Christ was the first recipient of the effects of His substitutionary death. The Father was able to raise the Son because the Covenant had been enacted by the death of the covenant victim.This is an interesting interpretation of Hebrews 13:20. I offer the following from Mr. Adam Clarke on this verse, it seems a better interpretation to me, but thats just my opinion."Some understand this in the following way, that God brought back our Lord from the dead on account of his having shed his blood to procure the everlasting covenant. Others, that the Lord Jesus became the great Shepherd and Savior of the sheep by shedding his blood to procure and ratify the everlasting covenant. The sense, however, will appear much plainer if we connect this with the following verse: "Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead, our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, make you, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, perfect in every good work to do his will." The Christian system is termed the everlasting covenant, to distinguish it from the temporary covenant made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai; and to show that it is the last dispensation of grace to the world, and shall endure to the end of time."In Christ,Ron

Nasher wrote: "If physical suffering and death on the cross was enough then why did Jesus have to be dead for three days? A minute would have been good enough. After all, dead is dead, isn't it?"Hulsey, I did not write this, dpike777 did.I have another question that might be simple, or it might not be.Is Sin, or are sins attached/imputed/reckoned to the body / soul / spirit or a combination of any or all three?

"Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead, our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, make you, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, perfect in every good work to do his will." Adam Clarke“And the God of the peace, who did bring up out of the dead the great shepherd of the sheep—in the blood of an age-during covenant—our Lord Jesus,make you perfect in every good work to do His will, doing in you that which is well-pleasing before Him, through Jesus Christ, to whom is the glory—to the ages of the ages! Amen.” Youngs Literal TranslationHi Ron(this is another Ron here aka philologos)Adam Clarke is always interesting (did you know he believed Eve was actually tempted by a baboon?) but a comparison with a Young’s Literal Translation shows that Clarke has to alter the order of the original words by transposing the whole phrase ‘through the Blood of the Everlasting Covenant’ in order to support his view. The original order of the words makes my interpretation much more natural. I have checked about 20 versions and cannot find anyone who transposes the phrase in the way Clarke does.Clarke also says “The Christian system is termed the everlasting covenant, to distinguish it from the temporary covenant made with the Israelites at Mount Sinai; and to show that it is the last dispensation of grace to the world, and shall endure to the end of time." I think, perhaps, he doesn’t say enough here. Blood, of course, is a symbol of life. There was nothing magical about the blood of Christ; the blood-sprinkled executioners did not benefit from their experience. Luke’s record of the Last Supper expresses Christ’s words thus; “This cup is the New Covenant, in my Blood, which is shed for you.” The Hebrew’s reference uses the same format. Literally it reads as Young translates it above; “in the Blood of an everlasting covenant”. The New Covenant existed in Christ before it “became” the term for the “Christian system” but not by that name. For us it is the ‘New’ Covenant, for God it is the ‘Everlasting’ Covenant. For us it becomes our experience at a moment of time and hence ‘New’, for God it is an expression of the Trinity and hence ‘Eternal’. Trinity is a man-made word used to express the ‘eternal face to face fellowship that has always existed within the Godhead’ (my definition). (The Oneness debate elsewhere on this site does not seem to have considered this. To say that God is Love demands, in the language of Augustine, a Lover and a Beloved. To say that God loves is an action in time. To say that God is Love means it is an essential characteristic of His being; an attribute. If, at some time in the past, God was not Love it must mean there was a time that He was not God. This would suite the Mormons but not Christians; I don’t think any of our posters would want to go down that route.)The explanation of the life of Christ on earth is to be found in His unchanged relationship to His Father. This relationship was the price paid to reconcile us to God. 2 Corinthians 8:9 “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” He can speak universes and angels into existence with a single word. His riches were not things but His relationship with His Father. This was His life. We might say it was ‘in His Blood’. It was this life (relationship) that was poured out for us on the cross. It is the reason Christianity is a ‘drinking’ experience. It is necessary not only to give mental assent but to drink down into our innermost being the Life (Blood) of Christ.The distinctive characteristic of the New Covenant is ‘Christ in you’. This was always true for Him. It becomes true for us when we receive the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus which inaugurates that Covenant relationship in us. The New/Everlasting Covenant is the new relationship secured by Christ’s death and imparted by the gift of His Spirit. In Psalm 22:1 He has lost the face to face relationship with His Father (which is why He calls Him My God for the only time in his earthly experience). Note the amazing change of mood from Psalm 22:21. The Cross is Covenant Lost and Covenant Regained all in the space of a few earthly hours.His/Yoursphilologos

Oops, sorry Nasher. I went back and edited my post.Nasher wrote: Is Sin, or are sins attached/imputed/reckoned to the body / soul / spirit or a combination of any or all three?This is a good question. When man fell, the whole man fell. The body came under a death sentence, and the object of the passions of the spirit which became depraved, and the mind was darkened, knowing good and evil, but still choosing evil.That is why Jesus was completely human at the same time that He was completely God. Jesus' human body was able to redeem the body; His mind was able to redeem the mind; and His spirit was able to redeem the spirit.After the early church had settled the issue of Jesus being God equal to the Father and the Spirit, this was the second issue they delt with as to the identity of Jesus and how much God and how much human He was. They came to the conclusion that He was completely God and completely human at the same time.In Christ,Jeremy Hulsey