Alex, I applaud your bravery on this one. It can be a tough passage but I think you’ve made some pretty fair arguments.
No, Isaiah is considered to have just about the most well-developed view of grace of all the books of the OT. I would say that he even trumps King David in his expansive understanding of God’s grace, and is very progressive and ahead of his time, especially in the latter portion of his book.
In that light, the exegesis of this passage cannot be that simple, especially as it is said earlier in the same book:
It seems to me that if we are doing any kind of exegesis, we should take a wide look at the author’s intent first before adding any kind of agenda to it or EVEN before adding a Christological interpretation. For if we were to cut out that part of the process we could merely propose that it was saying almost anything about Christ that we like.
Was it really integral to the point that their worm will not die out or the fire never be quenched? Or was the emphasis something else entirely?
Is it not on God’s complete sovereignty and rightfully deserved worship? This is the true intent of the passage. Given that Isaiah had a merciful outlook toward those who become repentant (this doesn’t even need to be referenced; you could almost just blindly pick a passage and find several verses on this theme), I don’t think that this was his intent at all, and God’s even less.
The point is that worship of God will be universal. This is obviously the first and foremost point. That those who worship other, disgusting gods in defiance of the true God YHWH will be cut off and destroyed. The main point here being that worship will be done exclusively toward God. The main emphasis here is not that certain rebels will never stop being destroyed, but that people will see what worship of other gods brings. The worm does not die and the fire is not quenched as an object lesson - this should be obvious from the point of the text. The constant duration is not for the “benefit” of the rebels, who have already died, but those who are then able to be aware of them and thus the consequences of worshipping other gods. Of course, this was a metaphor that no one took literally (at least, and especially, the absolute unending duration of it - remember that ancient Near Eastern languages were often hyperbolic) but understood to mean that the differences between worship of YHWH and other gods would be made clearly known. This is the ESSENCE of this closing passage of Isaiah and wraps up his entire prophetic message. If we were going to be interpreting this Christologically anyway this would be the highest possible meaning we could give to it.
But exactly because the point is not that the rebels’ suffering would be literally unending, and in fact that they would not be consciously undergoing it, we cannot simply interpret this in light of ECT. In fact, the metaphor refers to a physical event which those who survived are able to perceive and recognize, and the victims of which are not even conscious of, because the purpose is more for the survivors than the rebels anyway. Thus it doesn’t make all that great of a point for ECT, the whole point of which is for the “benefit” of those suffering the torment, to show to them the consequences of not worshipping God or to give them their just desserts, whathaveyou, etc (again, it makes a better point for annihilationism).
So what did Jesus mean in his quotation of this verse? Well, theology has developed significantly since the utterances of Isaiah. It has been built and re-built, the Israelites have been exiled to Babylon and come back (which significantly impacted their theology to say the least) as well as overthrown by the Greeks and Romans. These prophetic sayings (especially those which accurately predicted their plight and gave supreme guidance) had been interpreted and re-interpreted in light of an ongoing change of trials and circumstance. At this point there’s a burning trash dump outside the city called Gehenna which the Jews would dump their refuse into. It was taught by the leading rabbis of the day that the wicked would suffer there until such a time as they have been purified.
Now, Jesus comes along and in all of this context says that if there is anything in you causing you to sin (at all; even a minor body part), then you will be cast into Gehenna, where the fire does not go out. Additionally, he says that everyone will be salted with fire. Is his point thus that the suffering will literally never, ever, ever end? I don’t think we’re doing the passage justice if we treat it such, especially seeing as everyone will be going there (or at least experience some of its flames) and it is not a good interpretation given cross-reference to other verses. His point is that we cannot decide ourselves whether we are able to escape it or not. Christ is cleverly using a passage that had a slightly different intent in its original usage and employing it for another end (which the NT writers were pretty skilled at doing).
But I say slightly because although the reasoning for the original wording of that quote is different, the main point of the passage is preserved: nothing less than worship (in deed as well as through words) of God is required. The consequences of doing otherwise is absolute. In short, Jesus is saying, “God’s not going to change, so you’re going to have to.” Does this mean then that his intent is that those who don’t change before entering Gehenna are prohibited from, or unable to, change afterward? Far be it from him! If the main point is that change of the person is demanded, then surely unquenchable fire geared toward that same focus is not to keep them from it. In fact, this goes well with another of Jesus’ apocalyptic proclamations:
Getting out is allowed upon one condition: paying the price. In other words, changing. Doing your dues. Going back and repenting, recanting. Otherwise absolutely no mercy will be shown, and there’s nothing that you can do to stop that.
This seems to be the clear intent that Jesus is trying to get across in this early message: God is absolute, therefore we must change because He won’t.
But this in no way precludes that we cannot change, or that suffering won’t be reprieved when we do. It’s rebellion that’s hated; not us. God will not be angry with us forever, or else our spirits which he produced will grow faint before him; but his anger produces righteousness in us.
And yes, I think there’s more than enough room to provide for the bodies of the rebels symbolizing our own past, dead selves. The rebellion of humanity as a whole is a rather vast theme of scripture, and since the point is about rebellion and not the rebels themselves, and God and not the worshippers themselves either, then those other points are relative in contrast to these ones. If the point was about the rebels, then we’d all be sunk. That’s Christological. God will eliminate all rebellion against him - will burn away the dross of humanity, leaving only worship of Himself - the dross within our own hearts and minds. If God were to simply give up on the wicked, He’d have to simply give up on us all. But mercifully He doesn’t. And if He doesn’t give up on us, what of those who have yet to show Him allegiance? Is He not after their hearts and minds too, as well as those of the survivors?
Feel free to post some (there’s a word limit) of your response on Joe’s blog if you like.
The only way forward for me, would be to talk it over with him in person, with a very big white board, but neither of us have the time for that at the moment.