Did Christ's body decay?

[Eileen]

Hi there to all~

I'm not new to the forum, however I am not a "poster", more the reader. So this will actually be my first post. Forgive me if I am posting in the wrong place or if this has been asked here before, if so any direction to that topic would be greatly appreciated.

Coming in the form of a question for anyone who would have a moment to give some insight. This question came up in Sunday School, "Did Christ's body begin to decay during the 3 days it was in the tomb"? Those of us in camp 1 are saying no based on:

Acts 2:27-31, specifically verse 27..."Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption" (referenced from Psalm 16:10) and further to verse 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"

Those in camp 2 are saying that these verses mean that Christ did not suffer total decay of His body but did suffer some decay so as to fully taste the sting of death and the punishment in our place. Is there any validity to that statement in anyone's opinion here?

By the way, this is a great forum and a grand learning tool provided by our Sovereign God (and I know you have been told that before):)

Thanks!!!

Eileen

[Skeuos Eleos]

Hi Eileen,

I would put myself firmly in camp 1. Camp 2 is, in effect, implying that Christ's atonement on the cross is incomplete, that further suffering was necessary yet Christ Himself declares on the cross that "It is finished!" Furthermore, it is pure conjecture in any case to claim that Jesus needed to experience "some decay so as to fully taste the sting of death and the punishment in our place" - nothing in scripture supports this idea. The punishment that Christ bore for His people is that and only that which was a fullfillment of scripture - that He would be beaten, crushed, reviled, rejected, wounded, pierced, cut off from the living, none of his bones broken, etc - all of these were clearly fullfilled but no mention is made of His punishment including "some" decay. Rather, I see no reason to doubt anything other than the plain reading of Acts 2:27-31 and Psalm 16:10, i.e. that He will see NO decay.

Hope that helps,
Martin

[GraceAmbassador]

Great answer Martin!

We always have to go back to the promise of God In Jesus to know what was absolutely necessary to take place. It was necessary for the God incarnate experience suffering and death for our sins that that would finish, or fulfill all the requirements. Anything that happened in the tomb has to be viewed in light of what the God chose to reveal in the Bible rather than some human satisfaction. Thus, I believe that the theology of the necessity of a body dcay for the "sting of death" to be complete comes from Tulsa Oklahoma and its "kenneths" with the same value of the remainder of their theology (which is nothing).

The promise to Jesus that, in spite of experience death, His body would not suffer decay it is precisely because God deemed it not to be necessary for His body to suffer decay and that His death alone would be a sacrifice, the sting of death, necessary to satisfy God. We MUST NEVER forget that the Jesus' sacrifice was to satisfy God and not us! Jesus' death was primarily to satisfy God's demands not our needs.

Milt

[Eileen]

Hi again~

Thanks to you both, Martin & Milt for the great answers to my post. I knew what the scripture said (and simply believed what it said) but couldn't take it any further than that in my thoughts, so I am thankful that there are those who are able to draw out the scriptures for further application.

I will print & share your answers with the class. We are currently having study with a seminary student so this will be of a great benefit to him.

Happy forum reading to me!! God Bless you all here.

Eileen~

[GraceAmbassador]

Eileen:

You're more than welcome. This is a subject dear to my heart since it places the dichotomy "God's satisfaction and Men's needs" into the realm of discussion.

Since God killed an animal to take its skin to cover Adam and Eve; since Abraham told Isaac that "God would provide a sacrifice", men have argued whether the sacrifice would be on men's behalf or to satisfy a Holy God. There is a total misconception that teaches that the sacrifice was purely for men's sake or because [b]primarily God was alone and needed men's company. However, there are numerous scriptures in the Bible where God says that He will do "this and that", including the forgiving of sins and the cleansing of His people for His name sake! It is all for His Glory. Therefore, the sacrifice was also for His Glory and to satisfy Him alone. As such, God as the "offended party" has the right, the prerrogative and the Sovereign decree power to decide what the sacrifice would be and the process thereof. We are beneficiaries of it, but we are not underwriters, or signators of such a sacrifice. We have revealed in the Bible:

what the sacrifice would be
what is (was) the process of the sacrifice
what is God's point of satisfaction
what we should know about the sacrifice and how to respond to such a sacrifice.

Nothing else!

I am sure with these and some of your own arguments you will be able to bless your group with an answer far superior than the speculators, whether in the arminian camp or in the charismatic camp can provide.

You're blessed according to Ephesians 1:3.

Milt

[disciple]

Those in camp 2 are saying that these verses mean that Christ did not suffer total decay of His body but did suffer some decay so as to fully taste the sting of death and the punishment in our place. Is there any validity to that statement in anyone's opinion here?welcome to the forums, Eileen!

to me this just seems like vain speculation. where does one get the idea that "...to undergo decay...nor did His flesh suffer decay" actually means "...to undergo total/complete decay...nor did His flesh suffer total/complete decay"? is this warranted or is this adding to the plain words of Scripture? there is no text that i know of that states that in order for Christ to fully taste the sting of death and the punishment in our place that He had to have His flesh decay. the burden of proof is certainly on the party making the assertion. an assertion, i might add, that contradicts Scripture. i would be a bit wary if camp 2 was insistent in their speculation as i would wonder why they are making such a big deal about something like this.

[Robert R. Higby]

One passage that is often cited--in the notion that Christ's body had to decay in order to 'fulfull the law'--is Isaiah 66:24. The idea is that since Gehenna is a picture of bodies rotting by worms and fire--bodies that can 'feel' conscious suffering still tied (somehow) to their eternal souls, Christ had to suffer Gehenna for us in order to fulfill the law. Therefore, his body decayed and he FELT it to the fullest. A lot of inter-testamental Rabbinic teaching would have us believe that the gnawing of worms and torment of fire in this passage represents conscious punishment felt by live souls in dead and decaying bodies.

I just wanted to bring this up in case anyone has an interest in dialog on the issue. I personally think the whole interpretation is bogus and lacks any exegetical foundation whatsoever.

[wildboar]

It was finished on the cross when Christ said it was.

[disciple]

One passage that is often cited--in the notion that Christ's body had to decay in order to 'fulfull the law'--is Isaiah 66:24. The idea is that since Gehenna is a picture of bodies rotting by worms and fire--bodies that can 'feel' conscious suffering still tied (somehow) to their eternal souls, Christ had to suffer Gehenna for us in order to fulfill the law...I just wanted to bring this up in case anyone has an interest in dialog on the issue. I personally think the whole interpretation is bogus and lacks any exegetical foundation whatsoever.what could Isaiah 66:24 pssibly have to do with the messiah fulfilling the law? i see that nowhere in the context. this seems to be a major grasping at straws if you ask me. i agree that there seems to be no exegetical foundation whatsoever to this view.

[Robert R. Higby]

The idea behind the torment of fire and worms is that Christ suffered Gehenna (hell) in place of the redeemed who deserve it. So the debate has to do with the timing of when Christ 'descended into hell' in this sense--i.e., did he suffer Gehenna before his death on the cross or after? I do not believe there is ANY biblical evidence that Christ suffered Gehenna--only that he suffered once, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. His sufferings in life and death were of infinite value to atone for the sins of the elect--because of his divinity.

Using the word 'hell' in our language in translation actually distorts the biblical message--which uses many different Greek words and expressions to describe the judgment of God. It is another word that I am attempting to strike from my 'Christianese' vocabulary--since it is extra-biblical. I realize that we cannot avoid using it in discussion but this is only for the sake of mutual understanding.

As one example, the only expression used in the gospel of John for 'hell' is the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29). Paul uses other expressions but never Gehenna.

'Hades' never refers to the final state of the wicked either--but only to the temporal. Gehenna is used only in the synoptics. Many expositors are convinced that the use of 'Gehenna' in the synoptics is identical to the inter-testamental rabbinic teaching on the final state of punishment after the resurrection; also to the lake of fire in Revelation. I see absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, I believe that Christ's teaching stands against the rabbinic views on almost every count. Gehenna and Hades, as used in the NT, may indeed be interchangeable expressions meaning the same thing--as they are in other literature of that period. Christ spoke and taught in Aramaic, so we do not know if he actually used two different words (Hades and Gehenna) or not.

[tomas1]

I have often pondered this very subject. I am not sure if I want to get into another “Hell” discussion but here goes. What did happen those three days? Is the cross and tomb some how a picture of Hell? Where was Jesus between his death and resurrection? How could he have been in paradise but not yet “been to his Father” why was going to the Father required before he would allow himself to be held on to?


Be gentile guys I’m just barely holding on to my orthodoxy on this subject. :o

[harald]

I do not believe the Bible says that the cross and the tomb are pictures of hell. So I do not relate the two to the latter. I may be wrong on this but I am of the mindedness that Christ, as to His human soul and spirit, was not in third heaven with God until the ascension. His body lay in the tomb 3 days and nights, while His immaterial parts (soul & spirit) were somewhere else, but that not being the third heaven. I believe His soul and spirit were in Hades, which is the unseen place. And as to His eternal Divine nature He was as always omnipresent. But I think it not wise to say His Divinity was in or with the body in the tomb those 3 days. But rather in union with the human soul and spirit in Hades, but of course simultaneously "against the bosom of the Father" in the third heaven where God dwells. As to "paradise"; I am not sure if Hades or any apartment thereof ever is referred to as "paradise". I think not, but may be wrong. I think paradise rather has reference to the immediate presence of God in third heaven, where He is said to dwell.


Harald

[GraceAmbassador]

Be gentile guys I’m just barely holding on to my orthodoxy on this subject.
Tomas:

I've always been a gentile. As a matter of fact, I was born one. There is however a slight chance that some of my father ancestors were Jews. However, I think that with all the mixing of races in South America, especially in Brazil, I don't think there is any doubt in my mind that I am a gentile:) ;) :rolleyes: :D

As to your questions they are great! I ask these questions of Jehovah Witnessess and "oneness" people to confuse them when they come to me explaining, for the former, that Jesus is less than God and for the latter, that there is no trinity. (Who then was in charge when Jesus was in the tomb?)
Give me some time and I will "take a stab" in answering these questions to you. The Bible does answer all of them, I believe. I intend to come back to the subject sometime this week end.

Thanks, and I hope I was "gentile":rolleyes: .

[disciple]

The idea behind the torment of fire and worms is that Christ suffered Gehenna (hell) in place of the redeemed who deserve it. So the debate has to do with the timing of when Christ 'descended into hell' in this sense--i.e., did he suffer Gehenna before his death on the cross or after? I do not believe there is ANY biblical evidence that Christ suffered Gehenna--only that he suffered once, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. His sufferings in life and death were of infinite value to atone for the sins of the elect--because of his divinity.yes i agree that He probably did not go to some place called hell (gehenna). the hell that He experienced was being forsaken by His Father (Mt 27:46) because of He was made sin on our behalf (2 Co 5:21). i don't believe this signifies a place but more likely a state. i think the early church fathers were wrong on this. perhaps He went to the spirits in prison (1 Pe 3:19-20, i.e., those who lived before Noah) to proclaim victory but i do not think Scripture supports the assertion that "He descended into Hell" unless it means that "He descended into Hades (i.e., the abode of the dead)" meaning that He actually died.


Using the word 'hell' in our language in translation actually distorts the biblical message--which uses many different Greek words and expressions to describe the judgment of God. It is another word that I am attempting to strike from my 'Christianese' vocabulary--since it is extra-biblical. I realize that we cannot avoid using it in discussion but this is only for the sake of mutual understanding.i agree. i would strike it from existence if i could. this along with church, baptize, and many other misleading/misunderstood words. actually, i think we just need to be doing our jobs of faithfully explaining and teaching what Scripture means.


Many expositors are convinced that the use of 'Gehenna' in the synoptics is identical to the inter-testamental rabbinic teaching on the final state of punishment after the resurrection; also to the lake of fire in Revelation. I see absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, I believe that Christ's teaching stands against the rabbinic views on almost every count. Gehenna and Hades, as used in the NT, may indeed be interchangeable expressions meaning the same thing--as they are in other literature of that period. Christ spoke and taught in Aramaic, so we do not know if he actually used two different words (Hades and Gehenna) or not.what do you think He did mean by using the figure of gehenna? what do you think His teaching concerning this meant/referred to.

[tomas1]

Milt:
I've always been a gentile. As a matter of fact, I was born one. There is however a slight chance that some of my father ancestors were Jews. However, I think that with all the mixing of races in South America, especially in Brazil, I don't think there is any doubt in my mind that I am a gentile

It’s official I’m the worlds worst speller. What makes it even more hilarious is the fact that I compose my posts on MS WORD before I post them so I can use the spell check. :p

I cant’ wait to tell the folks that my spelling had to be corrected by someone who speaks English as a second language. :D

[wildboar]

It is really rather unclear as to what the early church meant when they confessed "He descended into hell", but I do not think we should strike this strong language from our vocabulary so long it is properly understood in the Biblical sense. Hell, in its essence is the suffering of God's wrath which Christ most certainly did do on the cross. The Heidelberg catechism explains the line by saying:

Q. 44 Why is there added, "he descended into hell"? A. That in my greatest temptations, I may be assured, and wholly comfort myself in this, that my Lord Jesus Christ, by his inexpressible anguish, pains, terrors, and hellish agonies, in which he was plunged during all his sufferings, but especially on the cross, hath delivered me from the anguish and torments of hell. Isa. 53:10; Mat. 7:46

Christ most certainly did not go to some strange location in the center of the earth somewhere or anyplace else described in any pagan myths. Christ had finished suffering "hell" prior to His physical death.
John 19:30 So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

His spirit went to His Father and His body was buried in the ground.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.

Paul speaks of paradise as being synomyous with heaven, so it is absurd to attach Jewish myths to its meaning.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago -- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows -- such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows -- 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

To say what type of communion the spirit of someone experiences with the Father while their body sleeps, is unknown to us, but the Bible speaks of conscious existence. However the Bible places our hope in the resurrection, not the intermediate state. However, Paul does speak of living as Christ and dying as being more Christ.

Philippians 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

1 Peter 3 is certainly the subject of much debate as to its meaning. However the sanest interpretation I have read comes from Herman Hoeksema and goes something like this.

"being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,"

Notice that the passage speaks of the Holy Spirit as being instrumental in the ressurection.

"but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison,"

It is not Christ himself which goes, but the Holy Spirit goes on Christ's behalf. Although kerusso is used at times for the preaching of the Gospel it is more generic and has the idea more of a general proclamation. The purpose of this proclamation can be seen in the following context.

"He went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water."

The Spirit proclaimed to those who had been disobedient at the time of Noah. This proclamation was of the victory of Christ and was done as a further judgment upon the disobedient who had lived during Noah's day and who were in hell awaiting their final judgment.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[Robert R. Higby]

Disciple asks:
what do you think He did mean by using the figure of gehenna? what do you think His teaching concerning this meant/referred to.

I don't see the use of 'Gehenna' in Luke 12:5 (the only use in the Greek in Luke) as any different from the use of 'Hades' in Luke 16:23. This is one example. Hades and Gehenna are interchangeable; with respect to the reprobate, both speak of the state of punishment after death. The NT use of Hades is far broader than the OT use of Sheol (with respect to the wicked), even though Hades is used for a Greek translation of Sheol.

The resurrection of damnation and the lake of fire (second death) are not the equivalents of either Hades or Gehenna, though the state of punishment existing in Hades/Gehenna continues after the last judgment. But the souls of the wicked will not conciously dwell in corpses in a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem feeling the pain of worms and fire devouring their corpses--which continue to regenerate over and over--this is the rabbinic teaching based on Isa. 66:24.

[tomas1]

It seems to me that there are only four possible explanations for what happened to the spiritual part of Christ while the physical part lay in the tomb.
1. He was annihilated. We can rule this out right away because that would make the resurrected Christ a created being and less than God.
2. He was conscious and with the Father. This would seem to be ruled out by John 20:17
3. He was conscious but separated from the Father in a place like Hades. This would make the Son a distinct god that could exist alone and not part of a trinity
4. He was in the presence of the Father but was unconscious (maybe semi conscious in light of revelation 6:10-11) This seems to me to be best explanation
It would be nice to get this cleared up. What do you think?

[Robert R. Higby]

In considering the issue of the state of Christ's soul between his physical death and resurrection, Tomas proposes:
He was in the presence of the Father but was unconscious (maybe semi conscious in light of revelation 6:10-11) This seems to me to be best explanation

How can God ever be unconscious or semi-conscious? This challenges the eternity and immutability of Christ to say the least. During the entire period between death and resurrection, Christ continued to uphold every atom, physical entity, and eternal soul by the word of his power. In him all things hold together (Col. 1:17). This was as true in the period of the 'almost' three days (Hosea 6:2) as it was at any other period in the history of the universe!

[GraceAmbassador]

Saints:

I believe W.B. and B.T. and Disciple dealt with the issue marvelously and exhaustively. I don't think it is necessary for me to keep my promise in "dealing" with the subject and responding to Tomas1 great questions.

In my ministry, especially in South America, and YES, in North America, I have seen so much tradition that became additions, thus spelling tr-additions in the Christianese community that I have to thank the Lord for people such as Bill Twisse, WildBoar and Disciple that, like me, will not buckle in face of so many of these tr-additions.

There are a few aspects about "heaven and hell" that are important in the issue proposed by this thread, (Did Jesus body suffered decay?), but as I said, what has been responded has been responded above and beyond the call of duty. I am confident that the same God who inspired so richly W.B. B.T. and Disciple to provide the answers above, is the God who decided that we should know only so much about the way He satisfied Himself with the sacrifice of Christ.

So called Christian writers and thinkers and arm chair theologians have been trying to read and write "between God's very own writing" and attempting to decipher that which God decided not to reveal. As such, Christianese people are, as a very good friend of mine often says, Chtistemdumb, looking to know mysteries unrevealed whereas wasting time in enjoying the "mystery that was hidden through the ages, now revealed unto us, that is, Christ in us, the Hope of Glory".

Again, after reading W.B. Disciple and this last B.T. answer, I bowed in humility before God and thanking Him for keeping some people from the temptations of accepting tr-additions about the unknown and sticking to that which God revealed to us and defending it to the fullest.

That's my take. I will continue to read this thread avidly and if there is any need for my cooperation I will humbly and poorly attempt to help, but following the examples of the men cited above, I will stick to that which we know.

Christendumb does not suffer of ignorance. It is not what Christendumb does not know that hurt them. It is what they already know and do not apply in their lives because they're too busy looking to uncover things that God Himself decided to leave covered.

Milt

[tomas1]

Bt
How can God ever be unconscious or semi-conscious? This challenges the eternity and immutability of Christ to say the least. During the entire period between death and resurrection, Christ continued to uphold every atom, physical entity, and eternal soul by the word of his power. In him all things hold together (Col. 1:17).

Good point, now all four explanations seem to be impossible!

[wildboar]

I don't think that John 20:17 rules out the idea that the human soul of Christ ascended to heaven at the time of His death when He commended it to the Father. We read of the souls of those who had been beheaded existing in consciousness yet it can certainly be said of them that they have not yet been resurrected. A human being is not just a spirit, yet it is not just a body either. The totality of a human being exists in the union of both of these things. However, Paul does state the possibility of a soul being conscious apart from the body. In one sense the Scripture speaks of a such a person as sleeping(the body), in another the person as being in communion with Christ(the Spirit). We must acknowledge and accept the richness with which the Scriptures present both of these images without calling them contradictory or explaining away one of them.

[Ivor Thomas]

Jesus human nature [soul]and divine nature were not intermingled,,. But He was truly man and truly God but the two where one,.When He died in is body, His human nature or soul was preserved conscious in Hades,. And as for His divine nature He was still God of course as B.T as so abely already stated,...Ivor Thomas ,.:cool: