Did Jesus go to hell to suffer for your sins?
Numerous word faith teachers predominantly hold to this concept, and have made it a necessary theology. They have attached it to the gospel, which then makes what they are preaching another gospel. A gospel that cannot save and actually deceives people at the same time, for to believe this is to believe in different Jesus.
Let me explain what is the real meaning and purpose is when the word faith teachers state Jesus went to hell to suffer for sin.
This teaching gives Satan credit and power he does not have. Satan has control of God which then means God is not in control of himself, as a man or anything event pertaining to Jesus.
The Bible teaches us that Jesus never sinned nor did He become sin. He was the sinless lamb from the beginning to end. They say, He literally became sin as He became our substitute and went to hell to suffer and be reborn.
Becoming sin and carrying sin are two very different matters.
To say He suffered everything that was supposed to be our punishment in Hell. Recovered from this condition by being “born again” man, the first-born of many brethren. That it was necessary for him to be the first-born again man because he became sin and died spiritually. This makes Jesus into just a man, having to be born again like any other sinner (being the first to be born again) without ever actually sinning. To say his new birth was in hell makes this a demonic teaching of the worst magnitude because it changes the gospel. He is God (who is Spirit), God cannot sin or become something He is not since He is unchangeable. What took place had to do with is body being the sacrifice – his Spirit did not change.
How could he reconcile the world if He became something other than the sinless sacrifice?
1) What we need to settle is what are we saved by?
By faith? Faith in what … We are saved by the blood of the lamb, the one who was crucified nearly 2,000 years ago by the Romans. The blood shed at the cross was the altar where God said He would provide the lamb to Abraham, (Mount Moriah) and settle the matter of our sin separating us from Him.
The Eucharist is not the blood of the lamb that was shed at the crucifixion. This is a symbol/ritual that reenacts the actual event, it has no spiritual power and actually substitutes the real person, the real even that does have spiritual power. The Roman Catholic church, the Orthodox church are concerned with the outward symbols not the actual substance. They are concerned with the physical, what can be seen, which does not need faith.
It is the same thing with being born again; what can be seen, by baptism. This is Not the way Jesus said, born by the Spirit.
Our communion represents that event that was given By Moses 1,500 years before,
In 1 Corinthians 11 we are told that as often as we eat the bread and drink the cup we are “proclaiming the Lord’s death till He comes.” Scripture speaks of only one death involved in redemption, a physical death that shed blood. The wafer represents His body and the wine (juice) represents His blood. The wafer was made with no leaven in it, as leaven is a symbol of sin. Therefore we proclaim Christ was sinless by the elements we take that represent Him. There is no element in the Lord’s Supper to remind us of His “spiritual” death.
The atonement came by the blood of a sinless man. It is the blood that atones, as all the Old Testament types and symbolic usages of sacrifices show. Not suffering as an addition afterwards.
Colossians 1:20, 22: “and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross … yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death,” Paul always points to the crucifixion “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:14).
This is why the bible says salvation is by grace (God’s favor) THROUGH faith; trusting in what the savior did for us when He was crucified. It is His work that we trust in. A denial of this occurs when people add or subtract to this work He personally did by adding a ritual or claim that it was completed elsewhere and not on the cross by the crucifixion.
Jesus said after the substitution was complete “tetelestai” - PAID IN FULL! Not, I’m almost done, or to be continued, or this is the fist stage completed.
Colossians 2:14 “having 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.”
Sin, breaking the law, our disobedience was dealt with on the cross, by His crucifixion. If you have elsewhere, like in hell, you have departed from the Bible’s gospel and removed yourself from His grace.
Is the crucifixion a secondary issue? No. It is the issue, the central point of the Christian faith.
1 Corinthians 2:2 “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Can anyone show where Paul taught as part of the gospel Jesus going to hell? Suffering there (under demons)
1 Corinthians 1:21-22: It pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.” Here is that message: “Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.” (1 Corinthians 15:1-3) Paul then explains the gospel, this is what He preached.
Colossians 1:21-23 “Now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight--if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard”
Ephesians 2:16 ‘that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross,” Paul; also speaks of those who are enemies of the cross (Phi.3:18). It is at the cross/ crucifixion, the sacrifice where sin was dealt with.
Did Jesus have to go to the cross if Israel would had accepted him as their Messiah instead of reject him?
He came on a mission and knew what would take place before it happened. It was ordained from the foundation of the world what He would do this. But even if Israel did accept him He would still have had to die for sin before he could set up the Messianic Kingdom to rule over a saved mankind.
We have men who claim to represent Jesus who have said they could have gone to the cross and accomplished what Jesus did, if they had the same knowledge as him (Kenneth Copeland), God answered yes. Its not what he knew but who He is. If this were so there would be no need for a virgin birth for the Son of God to come from heaven to be born, nor to live a completely sinless life. That is the implication of this statement.
Paul speaks of the offense of the cross.” It was THE CROSS ALONE for salvation! The word “offense” is the Greek word “scandalon,” meaning a stumbling block and it is still the same today.
The shedding of the blood by itself is insufficient to save you. There must also be the application of the blood (by faith). We are not saved by grace, but by grace THROUGH faith. Only those individual Jews and Gentiles who personally apply the blood shed will receive spiritual salvation through that blood (in the manner it was done for Israel’s first Passover). The way the blood is applied is by believing that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again. It is an act of faith to accept the message (1 Cor.15:1-4). The application of blood is done by those who believe that this is what their trust is in. Nothing more and nothing less, Salvation is only through the sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection on the 3rd day. Nothing else is required, not the Sabbath, not baptism, not tithing and certainly not Him suffering in hell after he paid the sin debt in full.
Charles Spurgeon said, “Leave out the cross and you have killed the religion of Jesus. Atonement by the blood of Jesus is not an arm of Christian truth; it is the heart of it.”