Isaiah was not a Universalist - Robin Parry

[A_Guy]

The title is a bit of a misnomer. Parry doesn’t usually speak in short, curt sentences like that. The quote was pulled out of its surrounding qualifiers from an interview on Rethinking Hell. I’m going to use Parry’s own words as much as possible, not because I have any axe to grind, but because Parry is much smarter than me.

Parry makes the claim that Isaiah does not teach universalism. “He (Isaiah) thinks that some of them are destroyed and gone forever.”
But he continues to say “When you situate Isaiah in the cannon of Scripture, Jesus (and also paul) eschatologically extends those texts.”
Parry believes that “The New Testament reframes it in a newer, bigger picture that changes the way Christians ought to appropriate the texts.”
Concluding that “this allows us to say that yes Isaiah was not a Universalist, never the less, the things that Isaiah taught, when viewed in the larger framework of Scripture, should be appropriated in a Universalist way.”
Parry admits that “the thing gets a little more complicated when you start doing that.”

Complicated indeed. Doesn’t this reframing violate some larger hermanuetical rule? Should we be comfortable with the idea that Isaiah was mistaken? Shouldn’t Trinitarians and Bible inerrantists be concerned that the Holy Spirit inspired a falshood to be recorded? (even if only for a couple thousand years)

[lancia]

The title is a bit of a misnomer. Parry doesn’t usually speak in short, curt sentences like that. The quote was pulled out of its surrounding qualifiers from an interview on Rethinking Hell. I’m going to use Parry’s own words as much as possible, not because I have any axe to grind, but because Parry is much smarter than me.

Parry makes the claim that Isaiah does not teach universalism. “He (Isaiah) thinks that some of them are destroyed and gone forever.”
But he continues to say “When you situate Isaiah in the cannon of Scripture, Jesus (and also paul) eschatologically extends those texts.”
Parry believes that “The New Testament reframes it in a newer, bigger picture that changes the way Christians ought to appropriate the texts.”
Concluding that “this allows us to say that yes Isaiah was not a Universalist, never the less, the things that Isaiah taught, when viewed in the larger framework of Scripture, should be appropriated in a Universalist way.”
Parry admits that “the thing gets a little more complicated when you start doing that.”

Complicated indeed. Doesn’t this reframing violate some larger hermanuetical rule? Should we be comfortable with the idea that Isaiah was mistaken? Shouldn’t Trinitarians and Bible inerrantists be concerned that the Holy Spirit inspired a falshood to be recorded? (even if only for a couple thousand years)

I think I can see what Parry means. For example, Isaiah 55:11 says, “So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire, and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”

That alone does not necessarily support Universalism. But taken together with the New Testament verses below, it does indeed.

1 Timothy 2:4, “[God] desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
2 Peter 3:9, “The Lord . . . is not willing that any should perish, but [wills instead] that all should come to repentance.”

Taken together, these verses support Universalism because the New Testament verses say God desires all be saved and the Isaiah verse says God accomplishes all He desires. Thus, all will be saved.

[JasonPratt]

^^ Although well within the bounds of Jewish mishnah interpretation.

I don’t know whether Robin is only declining to infer that Isaiah personally understood universal salvation to be true; or whether he’s inferring Isaiah personally didn’t believe that. (The quote suggests he thinks the latter, but I’ve been busy and haven’t listened to the interview yet.)

But Isaiah (and/or his school, depending on composition theories) says plenty of things by himself which in my estimation can only add up together as universal salvation being true. That’s the important question. Whether a prophet correctly or incorrectly understands the implications of a prophecy is only important to the prophet personally (unless the prophet is commenting on the prophecy from a wrong understanding perhaps. For a classic example, see Caiaphas.)