Joe: Salvation for 'All flesh' and Isaiah 66:22-23

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

I couldn’t bring myself to put this post of Joe’s (a friend from church who I’ve been debating with) in “Discussion Negative”, as the Isaiah passage just seems too pro-EU (even if Joe sadly can’t see it yet ).

"Joe on [talkingchristianity.blogspot.com ... -6622.html:

(http://talkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/02/salvation-for-all-flesh-and-isaiah-6622.html)"]I’ve been reading Isaiah 40 to 66 recently, back and forth, because our church is preaching through this section at the moment. It turns out this part of the Old Testament prophetic literature is highly relevant for my studies into Universalism because it informs our understanding of a number of key NT passages in the debate.

Just as one example, this section defines a new concept of ‘Israel’ with its language of the chosen ‘offspring’ - which in turn should inform our understanding of the ‘all Israel’ in Romans 9-11 (cf. Isa. 41:8; 43:5; 44:3; 45:19,25; 48:19; 53:10; 54:3; 57:3,4; 59:21; 61:9; 65:9,23; 66:22).

And it is in this context that we get Isaiah 45:22-25: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’“Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. In the LORD all the** offspring of Israel **shall be justified and shall glory.”

The picture builds and crescendos right to the end of Isaiah, with judgment and salvation and a new heaven and a new earth and the new Jerusalem, and ending with this very significant conclusion:

Isaiah 66:15-24:

"For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. (16) For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh

; and those slain by the LORD shall be many. (17) "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig’s flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD. (18) "For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory, (19) and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. (20) And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. (21) And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD. (22) "For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain. (23) From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD. (24) “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
It’s highly significant because these words (verse 24) are picked up by Jesus and quoted in his description of hell: (Mar 9:48) ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ Rather than simply a ‘metaphor’, Christ was clearly pointing us back to Isaiah 66, where we see on the one hand ‘all flesh’ coming to worship him, and on the other hand these very ones looking in abhorrence upon another subset of humanity – those who have rebelled – who in contrast to those who like the new heavens and the new earth will remain before him forever (verse 22), will suffer irreversible (‘undying’ and ‘unquenched’) judgment.

In reply:

Isaiah is easily my favourite OT book. Coincidently, I was looking at Isaiah 45:23 this morning when I was writing a response to some of the things Abanes said (in the article you gave me). Thanks for highlighting the verses before and after, as they make the prophesy even more powerful (I’ve gone back and added them to my post).

As I read your post, I honestly became very excited, thinking that you had changed your position. It was only the last sentence that spoiled it for me

I assume you’ve read Robin’s take on this passage by now, so I wont inadequately try to repeat it.

Anyway, I’m really glad you’re genuinely wrestling with this stuff as it gives me hope that the Spirit will reveal God’s promise that all shall swear allegiance, worship and rejoice in Him with all their heart, mind and spirit!

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

In reply:

Oh dear. This reminds me of when Alexander Downer went to Howard late at Kirrabilli House in his last term with advice to encourage him to resign, but later as Howard recalls, he only ‘heard’ at that time Downer giving reasons why he should stay in office to the election!?! (Downer said one thing. Howard heard the opposite).

Isaiah 66 says 'ALL flesh shall come to worship before me AND go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me, who shall be an abhorrence to ALL flesh". So here, as throughout Isaiah, it’s a contradiction to the author to read ‘all flesh’ as ‘every human without exception’ rather than relatively, since 'all flesh go out and look on the men who have rebelled whose worm shall not die, and whose fire shall not be quenched”.

This is understood in the context of chapter 40-66 collectively, where we see the promise that the word will go out to the ends of the earth, gathering in believers from EVERY nation (the new ‘Israel/offspring’, who will not be ‘put to shame’ but be saved), though while others rebel and come before him to “be ashamed” and afterward “lie down in torment” (50:11).

Hence ALL ‘flesh’ = men from EVERY ‘nation’ !!!

Isaiah 45:22-25 in context is not teaching universalism at all. Part of what it’s saying is that it will be TO THE LORD alone that every knee will be bowing, as opposed to bowing to idols/other gods.

So let me ask, How do you read Isaiah 66:24 in the context of verse 23, and in the context of verse 16? And how do you read Mark 9:48 in the context of Isaiah 66 since Jesus was there quoting Isaiah 66:24 and so interpreting it and the passage for us?

I’ll have to sleep on it, and re-read Parry’s take on the passage tomorrow.

AllanS · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

At first glance, this suggests annihilation, not ECT. God will judge all flesh, and kill many.

Again, we have the annihilation of the wicked. But isn’t that all of us? “None are righteous, no not one.” All of us will be killed by God.

What’s going on now? God has just killed the wicked (everyone) with his fiery sword of judgment, but now we’re told he knows our works and thoughts and is about to gather us all together! It seems everyone is alive again. But this can make sense. When God destroys a wicked man, what is left isn’t nothing. God’s far better at his job than that. What is left is a good man. ie. God overcomes evil with good.

After killing the wicked (everyone), the survivors (everyone) see God’s glory and proclaim his fame wherever they go, even to faraway places that have no knowledge of God (worlds not yet created?)

Everyone will come rushing to God’s holy mountain. They will be like grain offerings in clean vessels. God’s fire has made them clean.

God’s fiery sword will sever the old man from the new. He will amputate the sin that festers in every one of us and destroy it. We all, now clean, will worship God, remembering and understanding the depths of the abomination of evil, and loathing it forever.

amy · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

I’m cracking up over here a bit because as emphatic as Joe gets that he doesn’t see it, you, Alex, don’t give up hope and, not just that, find reason to celebrate, that he is taking a serious look at these passages! It’s gotta be killing him.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Because he started with Isaiah 45:22-25, which is so strongly universalistic, I couldn’t help but think he must have changed his position! He also made all the "all flesh"s bold, which also seemed to support EU Anyway, I was only when I got to the last sentence that I realised my mistake

Anyway, now I have to try to understand how he was reading it as anti-EU and produce a reply

Thanks Dad for giving me some good points.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

This is tricky . The traditional solution is to say “all flesh” means some of “all races/nations”. Which seems a stretch, but I’ll admit if that *were *the meaning, the passage is at least simpler linguistically (ignoring for a moment all the theological implications). Following that line of thought a bit further, it means annihilation is true, not ECT or EU i.e. the bodies are **dead **not consciously tormented. I wonder what the traditionalists do about that, because if God resurrects these dead bodies, they are hardly going to be still rotting for the worms to eat

Well, we know that at least some “eternal” fire ends up not being “eternal” so I’m guessing that’s what’s going on here with the fire and the worms. i.e. it will stop at the resurrection.

Dad’s point that it could be the sinful person inside each one of us, might be another possibility.

I’ll admit, I’m still unsure about this passage.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

In reply:

We need to always take care against a literalistic interpretation of these texts. We’re reading them Christologically now that Jesus has interpreted them for us. HE has said Isaiah 66:24 is about hell, the Gehenna.

Therefore, apart from the fact that the genre is apocolyptic in the first place which saves us in the first place from reading the ‘dead bodies’ literalistically, in the second place Jesus has said that the picture here – of dead bodies of rebels, whose worms do not cease feeding, and whose fires never finish their work of destruction – is actually a prophecy of the lake of fire, the second death, the hell of eternal punishment.

But even without that, in context verse 16 shows in the first place that the imagery of death does not refer to physical death.

For “those slain by the Lord shall be many”. Here this ‘death’ is a sentence of judgment by the LORD on a subset of humanity: the LORD will by fire (metaphor 1) enter into judgment with ALL flesh, and by his sword (metaphor 2) those slain [the dead bodies] will be MANY (not all).

But all die physically BEFORE judgment. If then this death is a sentence of judgment applying to a subset only after the LORD’s coming (verse 15 points us to Christ’s second coming), then it is, as Jesus interprets, the sentence of ‘second death’ after resurrection: hell.

It is unavoidable that this text forces us to read Jesus’ words in Mark 9:48 as teaching a hell of unending duration and unending occupancy.

For like Matthew 25:46, here too we have parallelism between eternal life and eternal punishment, forcing us in context to interpret the latter having the same duration as the former: unending.

For on the one hand we have the ‘aionios’ life described thus: Isa 66:22-23 “For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD.”

And in parallel and sharp contrast to this we have immediately following this: Isa 66:24 “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

In reply:

Cool, that clears things up a bit. Given it’s not literal, I don’t need to see the “unending-ness” of it as literal. Especially with the parallels to Matt 25:46 which isn’t talking about unending things, just things beyond sight, in the next age.

A new book on aionios which looks helpful:

"Ilaria Ramelli, David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: aiônios and aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007.

Ilaria Ramelli is Assistant Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Catholic University of Milan. David Konstan is the John Rowe Workman Distinguished Professor of Classics and the Humanistic Tradition, and Professor of Comparative Literature, at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

The book examines the use of two Greek terms in classical Greek literature, LXX, NT, and early Christian literature."

amazon.com/Terms-Eternity-Ai … _rhf_p_t_1

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

I:

Sorry I didn’t realise there was a difference, but now I sort-of do, so I should’ve said “literalistic”. i.e. you’re saying the “death” is not “literalistic”, and I’m saying the “unending” is not “literalistic”.

Mark 9:42-49 (ESV):

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

This passage is full of hyperbole (e.g. “if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off”) and imagery (e.g. “salted with fire”) to press important points home, so why should I see the “worm does not die” as literalistic (especially as the fire probably isn’t, for reasons already stated)?

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Joe:

Look at the meaning Alex. It is ‘saying’ what the author is meaning in his message. Whether parable, apocryphal prophecy, historical narrative – whatever the genre – there will always be stylistic elements, but the message, the meaning is what the author is saying with those elements.

So let me ask you: what do you think the author is saying in contrast to Israel’s offspring that shall remain as does the new heaven/earth, by saying in the imagery of the LORD slaying by sword and coming with fire, that those who rebelled and were slain, that their worms will not die, and their fires will not be quenched?

And what did Jesus mean by quoting this prophecy in explanation of the great lengths we should go to in order to never enter hell, and in so doing affirms that its meaning is abundantly clear to the hearer?

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Sure, I agree with that.

Either that it’s the death of the Pauline “old man” (e.g. Romans 6:6; Ephesians 2:15; 4:22-24; and Colossians 3:9-11) or it’s simply saying that some will be judged and go to hell, a place of extraordinary pain, more severe than you can imagine.

Given hell is a place of extraordinary pain, more severe than you can imagine, it’s best to be reconciled now.

I’m very confident in the Bible, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance, it’s the best source for growing in understanding, obedience & love of God, what He has done, what He is doing and what He will do.

No, I think the mourning will cease as God, over time, reconciles all things to Himself.

No, I think there will definitely be complete peace everywhere when God has finished reconciling all things to Himself. Whilst Hell exists there can’t be literal peace in any meaningful sense. e.g. 90% of all humans screaming outside the open city gates…

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Joe:

With all respect, I think you’ve contradicting yourself here Alex, and are reading the Bible inconsistently according to your own ‘best practice’.

You’ve just conceded that you read a literal meaning from the saying of both Isaiah 65:19 and Isaiah 65:25, even though, as you’ve conceded, the verses contain apocalyptic elements that you don’t interpret literalistically.

In your words regarding Isaiah 65:19, “mourning WILL cease” in regard to all things (literal interpretation), even though you don’t take that this will actually occur in the actual city of Jerusalem literalistically. Again, in your own words regarding Isaiah 65:25, “there will definitely be complete peace everywhere” (literal interpretation), even though you don’t take that this will occur by wolves actually grazing grass with lambs on mount Zion itself literalistically.

But about Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:48 you’ve said “This passage is full of hyperbole … and imagery … so why should I see the “worm does not die” as [literal]?”

This is of course completely inconsistent not only to what you’ve said here about other verses, but to how I note you read the Bible usually, as I do. There is always a literal meaning for us (hermeneutics). You cannot dismiss it by avoiding a literal interpretation. But you seem to be content to ‘break the rules’ of reading here, in this circumstance, which seems like a blind-spot exception your making in this case, whether aware of it and doing it deliberately, or actually unaware of how inconsistent your reading here is in contrast to what you know to be otherwise ‘best practice’ reading.

But whether you like it or not it does have a literal meaning for us. The question what is it.

Now you have commented on what you ‘think the meaning’ might be. But before we go to the meaning for us (hermeneutics), you need to first work out what is the meaning to Isaiah and the hearers (Exegesis).

And before you work out the exegesis, you need to read the actual immediate text (comprehension). And before that for us comes translation.

So let’s just go back to the beginning of all this (comprehension):

What do you read as the actual immediate meaning of the text, “their worm shall not die?” (You need to do that first, comprehension, before you can move on to the second step, which is, Consequently what was Isaiah’s intended message to his hearers, the recipients whose understanding came from comprehending that sentence in context of the passage).

(And also for clarity can I ask, can you confirm that you do not entertain the notion, contrary to Isaiah, that their worm MIGHT or WOULD in fact die, despite this prophecy?)

And what do you read as the actual immediate meaning of the text, “their fire shall not be quenched?” (Let’s get this far first, comprehension, before we move to second step, exegesis, which in turn precedes hermeneutics).

(And also for my own clarity, can you confirm that you do not entertain the notion, again contrary to what is written here, that their fires MIGHT or WOULD in fact be quenched, despite this prophecy?)

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Joe:

No we definitely don’t both say, “contrary to what is written here, the death would not be everlasting.” I definitely don’t say that! And here’s why:

What I’m getting at Alex in my previous comment is that there appears to be a fundamental break down in you’re exegesis, so the your hermeneutic has gone off track, and it could be because you’re missing the ‘comprehension’ step after reading all together?

The proper process needs to be: 1. reading --> 2. comprehension --> 3. exegesis --> 4. hermeneutic --> 5. homiletic

reading =
The phrase in Isaiah 66:24 = “…the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me… their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched…”

comprehension =
In Isaiah 66:24, it is written that the death of those rebels will be followed by the usual process for their dead remains: destruction. One the one hand their destruction will be as usual completed by worms (internally) and fire (externally).

However in Isaiah 66:24, there will also be something very unusual about the process of destruction of their dead bodies, since we would usually expect corpses to undergo a finite process of destruction of their remains, since on the one hand their internal destruction would be completed by worms who would eventually run out of remains on which to feed, and die; and secondly on the other hand their external destruction would be completed by the burning of their remains, after which, their fire, having consumed all it’s fuel, would either go out by itself, or be quenched.

But here these rebels, after death, although they will indeed undergo destruction by both worms and fire, will however have worms that never die, and will have fires that burn upon them without ever being put out.

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Joe:

And…

exegesis =
This phrase Isaiah 66:24 speaks clearly of a ‘destruction’ of these rebels whereby their worms will live forever on their remains, and the fire will have fuel forever as is burns without ceasing upon them. As such this phrase speaks clearly and inescapably of an ‘eternal’ destruction of those dead rebels slain by the LORD who here in context are excluded from the new heaven and the new earth.

The clear use of the personal pronoun ‘their’ applied to both ‘their worms’ and ‘their fires’ gives no room for escaping the meaning that this ongoing process of destruction will apply to every individual rebel in within this subset of humanity. For it does not say ‘the’ worm or ‘the’ fire, but ‘their’ worm will not die and ‘their’ fire will not be quenched.

The negative tense (i.e. worms will ‘not’ die, instead of alternatively, their worm will go on ‘living’; and their fire will ‘not’ be quenched, instead of alternatively, their fire will ‘keep’ on burning), is an emphatic denial that there will be an end to this process. It is phrased negatively, so as to say ‘their will be no end’. In other words, rather than simply or even merely teaching ‘destruction forever’ for the wicked, this verse is also, as well as doing that indirectly, but also directly it is a strong and clear declaration against the possibility that the destruction of the wicked will be a finite process, or that it will ever cease to be ongoing.

And the repetition is also evident: We have here the message and meaning repeated twice, also increasing the emphatic nature of this word, and reemphasizing Isaiah’s point. For he does not merely say, ‘their worm will not die’ only, but he then adds to this a second statement: ‘their fire shall not be quenched’. This mode of speak not only reinforces the certainty of this word, but adds confirmation and clarity. For we have twice here that there will be no end to the destruction of these wicked.

Hermeneutic = ?

That’s the question. What does this mean – what did it mean for them then? And what does it mean for us now? How does this verse shed light onto Jesus’ quotation of this verse regarding hell, and how does it give context and shed light onto the teaching of the other Apostles and authors of the New Testament? And vise versa.

But before we can do hermeneutics, we of course need to get our reading right, and our comprehension right, and then following this, our exegesis.

So before I of course ask you again about the exegesis of this passage, let me first just ask about comprehension. Is there anything in my second section, 2. comprehension, that you deny?

I can’t say I’m enjoying this as neither of us seems to understand what the other is saying

Also there seems to be these “correct” approaches to reading and comprehension that I can’t get my head around (mind you he is smarter than me so it could easily be my lack of ability in this area). As I’ve said before, he would be better off debating here with someone with a doctorate.

AllanS · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Perhaps Isaiah thought, quite understandably, that God would finally run out of patience and solve (?) the problem of evil by killing the wicked. The righteous would then congratulate themselves by hating even the corpses of their enemies.

“I thank you Lord that I am not like other men. Look! There’s the tax collector! Oh he was loathsome, that little man. How I rejoiced when you finally caught him! Bring out the hot irons! Hurt him some more!”

If this is what Isaiah was actually saying, then he was wrong. He didn’t understand grace. He wouldn’t be the first. The nihilist writer of Ecclesiastes was wrong too. So was the malicious psalmist who longed to murder Babylonian babies.

Look at the passage in the light of Christ’s teaching. We can rejoice over the destruction of God’s enemies only if we first *hate *them with a passion. We are forbidden to hate people, but commanded to hate sin. Therefore, the enemy being destroyed by God isn’t people, but sin. This destruction really is something to long for and we will rejoice over it. The righteous will indeed look on the dead bodies of the wicked (their own past life) with loathing. Isn’t that what Paul did whenever he called himself the “chief of sinners”?

How else can you read this passage without the “righteous” becoming insufferable hypocrites?

revdrew61 · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Allan, Thank you for that excellent post. Couldn’t agree more!

Alex_Smith · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Thanks dad, I’ve posted it as a comment on Joe’s blog

amy · March 9, 2018, 1:43am

Well when you put it like that, Allan, it seems pretty clear that no good God would decide that the way to really eradicate evil is to just kill the wicked. Reminds me as a teacher, and I know you are one too, that it would not be ok for us to decide that we’d had enough of our students so we think we’d just like to do away with them now. That’s not really how it works, if you are a good teacher, anyway. There’s always the crazies! But for the rest of us, that seek to emmulate a great God, we are destined to resort working with postive and negative reinforcers, permanent time out (ECT) not being one of them, though some teachers, bad ones I dare say, would like that option.

This also reminds me of the passage in Phill. Ch. 2 where Paul says about Timothy, " 20 I have no one else like him, who will show genuine concern for your welfare." Now imagine a God that doesn’t even measure up to Timothy in that he doesn’t have people’s genuine concern or welfare in mind, only some. It’s really unthinkable! We’d have to be very callous to block out just how callous it is to accept such a God, much less find him praiseworthy! God must have wonderful ways of removing callouses and working with us, or maybe when he gets tired, he just wipes us out! Naw!