Bible Study WHAT IS THE MEANING OF ISAIAH 66:24 ...?

[cyberjosh]

Eternal is in the results, not the duration.

Hmmm... This could be a possible middle ground for us if you could prove it. If you would, please respond to the second part of my post where I mentioned the constant spectacle of the wicked (thus eternal) before believers. Obviously the imagery in verse 24 is metaphorical (drawing on the image of the worm from the Valley of Hinnom) and we know those souls that burn in the lake of fire not have a real fleshly body for which to leave an actual "corpse", so this must also be symbolic of either that these are the people who have undergone the "second death" in the lake of fire but obviously alive in some sense in the fire or that some eternal evidence is seen from their burning (what else could it be?).

The only other thing you would have to get around is that the word eternal (or never ending - or an equivalent) always modifies the action of the fire, not who or what it is burning. From the text straight up such a gramatical intuitive leap like that doesn't seek plausible.

 

[guibox]

Hmmm... This could be a possible middle ground for us if you could prove it.

To do so, lets look at two texts: Jude 7 and Isaiah 34:9,10...

Normally when a fire destroys, the building is usually built back up again (if it is built at all. The fires results are temporary for though it has 'destroyed' the initial structure, it can be rebuilt (especially if it only merely 'damaged' it)

Even as S&G and the cities about them in like manner giving themselves over to fonication, and going after sxtrange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire

This fire they experienced is still not burning today and S&G and the 'like cities' were burned with 'fire and brimstone' long ago. This verse is not speaking of any sort of afterlife punishment but their physical destruction. And yet this was destroyed by 'eternal fire'. S&G and the other like cities were never rebuilt and the fire that did it did it's work completely. The results of the fire were 'eternal'.

Now on to the physical destruction of Edom.

And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch,a nd the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day: the smoke thereof shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste. None shall pass through it forever and ever

We see that this fire is eternal in its results and even unquenchable. This is shown by the final phrase 'none shall pass through it foever and ever' and it is symbolicly shown by the phrase' the smoke thereof shall go up forever.' This is the exact same thing mentioned in Revelation 14 and 20. It says 'the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever'. This is a final result not a continal duration.

The fire that destroyed both Edom and S&G was 'eternal' and 'everlasting' in its results, not its duration. Because the wicked are not immortal, this is also temporary. The language nor the meaning hasn't changed from the OT to the NT. Rather the NT borrows the exact same language specifically for the reason why it was used in the OT.

If you would, please respond to the second part of my post where I mentioned the constant spectacle of the wicked (thus eternal) before believers. Obviously the imagery in verse 24 is metaphorical (drawing on the image of the worm from the Valley of Hinnom) and we know those souls that burn in the lake of fire not have a real fleshly body for which to leave an actual "corpse", so this must also be symbolic of either that these are the people who have undergone the "second death" in the lake of fire but obviously alive in some sense in the fire or that some eternal evidence is seen from their burning (what else could it be?).

That it is symbolic is true. That it is symbolic for 'eternal torment' or that it can support it is an assumption that cannot be supported by this usage. The Hebrews didn't have a concept of 'eternal torment'. The language of destruction in the OT and the fact that man didn't have an immortal soul is proof enough that such a concept didn't come into their mindset. Hence, you cannot say that by using the metaphor that Isaiah did proves eternal torment.

the fact that there are 'bodies' and that worms feed on 'corpses' shows that whatever state the wicked are in, they are not alive in any form. Hence, the 'worm' whose job it is to eat carcasses) that cannot die means that it will do its job uninterrupted. This is the strongest language that the "Hebrews could use to show utter destruction and complete annihilation! Coupled along with 'unquenchable fire' and you have a dual punch of total annihilation.

This is the same language used in Mark 9. Why should the imagery change?

1) The wicked do not have immortality
2) The language is used in both instances to apply to the wicked
3) Both apply to the afterlife

Now you want to say that somehow, this same language in the NT now denotes 'eternal conscious torment'?

Do you see how you are making the bible completely contradict itself?

The only other thing you would have to get around is that the word eternal (or never ending - or an equivalent) always modifies the action of the fire, not who or what it is burning. From the text straight up such a gramatical intuitive leap like that doesn't seek plausible.

Notice that 'eternal' in this instance is describing the nature of the fire. It doesn't say in what capacity this is. It doesn't say 'the fire that burns eternally'.

Even if we wanted to interpret it that way, there is not indication that whatever is thrown into the fire is also eternal. At the least you would have a fire that burns for eternity even after whatever is thrown in has been 'burned up' as the Bible says over and over will happen to the wicked.

 

[cyberjosh]

*double post*

 

[cyberjosh]

Even if we wanted to interpret it that way, there is not indication that whatever is thrown into the fire is also eternal. At the least you would have a fire that burns for eternity even after whatever is thrown in has been 'burned up' as the Bible says over and over will happen to the wicked.

I just wanted to comment on this quickly (I'll get to the rest later), but I don't believe that it could just be compeltely "burned up" because Isa 64:24 says that the saints will see some remnant (whatever the "corpses" symbolize) of them to serve as an eternal reminder. What I want to know is if you can explain that aspect of it. As you said with S&G atleast constant smoke symbolic of an eternal sign of what once was.

 

[guibox]

I just wanted to comment on this quickly (I'll get to the rest later), but I don't believe that it could just be compeltely "burned up" because Isa 64:24 says that the saints will see some remnant (whatever the "corpses" symbolize) of them to serve as an eternal reminder. What I want to know is if you can explain that aspect of it. As you said with S&G atleast constant smoke symbolic of an eternal sign of what once was.

First of all, one can't merely take a metaphorical passage in isolation (that is how the false doctrine of eternal torment was born to begin with).

So just looking at the imagery and this text alone, what does it tell you? What does it resemble and signify?

corpses
worms eating and decay
dead bodies
destroyed enemies of God
fires that can't be put out, 'eating' the bodies until they are consumed

Do you see anything here hinting of conscious eternal torment (preconceived notions aside) or a graphic illustration of completeness and finality in death?

So we must allow the OT to interpret itself for it cannot contradict. Is there anyplace else that shows this graphicness in another more literal way?

But the wicked shall perish and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs. They shall consume into smoke shall they consume away - Psalm 37:20

Do you know what 'consume' means? Or better yet 'to NOT be consumed'?

And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush and he looked and behold, the bush burned with fire and the bush was not consumed - Exodus 3:2

So to 'burn eternally ' means to NOT be consumed but the Bible makes it plain that the wicked will be 'consumed' (Revelation 20 uses the term 'devoured').

Psalms 37's use of the word 'perish' explains what John 3:16 means...

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosoever should believeth on Him should not perish BUT have everlasting life

And continuing in Psalm 37:

But the transgressor shall be destroyed together. The end of the wicked shall be cut off - vs 38

Notice what Jesus said about the wicked:

And as the tares are gathered and thrown into the fire, so shall it be at the end of the world. The Son of man shall send foth his angels and tehy shall gather out of his kindom all things that offend and them which do iniquity and shall cast them into a furnace of fire. Ther eshall be waiing and gnashing of teeth - Matthew 13:40,41

Notice that Jesus is comparing the wicked to combustible materials. The 'tares' are completely burned up and 'consumed'. He links this to the fires at the end which is the lake of fire. Nowhere do we get the impression that it is only the soul which suffers eternal torment or the body and soul together which burns eternally.

And look at the Day of the Lord, the day when God would fully recompense justice and do away with God's enemies.

For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven and all the proud yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch...And ye shall tread down the wicked for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this saith the Lord of hosts - Malachi 4:1,3

This coincides with 2 Peter 3:10,13

But the day of the Lord will come as a theif in the night in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up...nevertheless we according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness

After this destruction where all is burned up (which is the lake of fire) this occurs

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the old heaven and the old earth had passed away - Revelation 21:1

You see the bible makes it clear that God's enemies are to be completely destroyed.

Nowhere can you prove that the wicked have immortal souls or are given immortal bodies. hence the symbolic language used in Revelation 14 and 20 is temporary as it is used elsewhere in the bible to denote complete destruction and annihilation.

 

[cyberjosh]

The question is then in what sense they perish. And also you have not yet speculated on the eternal sign of their death before God. Can you explain the "second death" mentioned In Revelations. It seems to be alloted as a "portion" for the wicked, something to inherit or endure. Revelations 2:11 says, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death." Why does it say "hurt" and not annihilation or such?

Also in several instances in the Bible it is said (even by Jesus) that in certain circumstances it would have been better for someone to have never been born. Say a wicked person who decides to commit suicide to end all their problems, no more wanting to deal with consequences of life, kills themself to end it all, and then is judged by God and annihilated. Now don't they basically get their wish? End it all, don't have to worry about it anymore? Sure they may endure a period of suffering (according to you) but certainly not unlike any pain they underwent in life, and in the end it is all layed at peace in non-existance. Complete annihilation. It would be as if the person was never born, which is actually seen as a more favorable thing to be rather than sin and reject God. So we see then that complete annihilation negates the idea of having to deal with eternal consequences which one has to deal with since the moment one is born, and that view would allow a peace in the end, because they would not endure the lake of fire for eternity (according to your point of view).

In addition Jesus pronounced a curse on Chorazin and Betsaida, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you." (Matthew 11:21-22) This difference in punishment from God's judgement would be negligable if it all turned out the same, in annihilation. Just as there are varying degrees of rewards that will be given to believers, so will there be varying degrees of punishment.

 

[guibox]

The question is then in what sense they perish.

I think I made that clear. To 'perish' is also used as 'to destroy' 'death' to be cut off' 'to be burned up' to 'be consumed'. It si unfortunate that many ignore this clear meaning to try and use 'appolumi' to merely mean 'to corrupt' or 'to loose' and say that this implies 'eternaltorment' while ignoring the clear usage both in Greek and Hebrew that elsewhere denotes annihilation and destruction.

And also you have not yet speculated on the eternal sign of their death before God. Can you explain the "second death" mentioned In Revelations. It seems to be alloted as a "portion" for the wicked, something to inherit or endure. Revelations 2:11 says, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death." Why does it say "hurt" and not annihilation or such?

To be 'hurt' means to 'effect'. When we say, 'Man, that drop in th emarket by 2 cents really hurt us' We don't literally mean physically hurt but that it effected us negatively.

In Revelation 20:5, John says:

Blessed is he who takes part in the first resurrection as such the second death has no power over him

Nonetheless, the method of the second death (fire) wil be a painful experience no doubt.

Also in several instances in the Bible it is said (even by Jesus) that in certain circumstances it would have been better for someone to have never been born.

Don't you think that when the New Jerusalem comes down and the wicked come around and God shows them where they went wrong and the destruction they must face, missing out on eternal life and feeling the anguish (as the Bible says where there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth') that the wicked will wish they had never been born? What absolute horror and awareness of what they've done, what they will miss out on and mental anguish they will experience before the final judgment is meted out!

Say a wicked person who decides to commit suicide to end all their problems, no more wanting to deal with consequences of life, kills themself to end it all, and then is judged by God and annihilated. Now don't they basically get their wish? End it all, don't have to worry about it anymore? Sure they may endure a period of suffering (according to you) but certainly not unlike any pain they underwent in life, and in the end it is all layed at peace in non-existance.

The underlying issue I'm sensing here is that the wicked SHOULD suffer and that it wouldn't be fair if they didn't. I don't believe God sees it that way. If a man is so sinful and downtrodden that he can't live through this life, why should God feel that he needs (and deserves) more misery? God came to save us from the effect of sin. If man chooses to hang on to it, man will go down with the ship.

God didn't come because He wants to punish sinners, He came to save us from the effects of sin. He tells us that He will create a new heaven and a new earth. Therefore sin must be purged by fire so a new one can be made. Sinners will go down with the ship as a consequence.

It is sad that some people desperately desire that the wicked suffer for their sins when God merely wants to end the misery. Isn't that why He sent His son to begin with? To save a 'sin-sick' nation of rebels? Why would He want to prolong the 'sinful misery' of the children He desperately loves?

Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you[/i]." (Matthew 11:21-22) This difference in punishment from God's judgement would be negligable if it all turned out the same, in annihilation. Just as there are varying degrees of rewards that will be given to believers, so will there be varying degrees of punishment.

It's possible that there will be different degrees of punishing but it will eventually end. It makes no sense to have eternal degrees of punishment if the punishing itself is really the same for everybody. Eternal torment in fire is bad no matter what degree. What kind of God would allow one person to suffer 3rd degree burns and another merely 2nd degree burns? How is God more 'merciful' when it is still an eternity of suffering? For 'degrees' punishment to be effective, there must be an end somehow. Either it stops when the punishment is enough or there is some redemptive or reformative purpose for it. Eternal torment offers nothing in any case.

 

[cyberjosh]

This has been a very enlightening discussion thus far, and I see where you are coming from. But I still must ask a few more questions of you. At the risk of badgering you about it can you still try to explain the supposed remnant or "corpse" (maybe a sign of death) that the believers will be able to see in eternity with God? I'm curious to know an explanable result.

Also why do you think the casting of people into the lake of fire is called the "second death"?

I will play devil's advocate to the end so as to not easily be taken into any particular view point. But if at every point a question has a satisfactory answer then indeed the counter-argument is shot down. I hope you just understand that I'm trying to be thorough.

 

[guibox]

This has been a very enlightening discussion thus far, and I see where you are coming from. But I still must ask a few more questions of you. At the risk of badgering you about it can you still try to explain the supposed remnant or "corpse" (maybe a sign of death) that the believers will be able to see in eternity with God? I'm curious to know an explanable result..

I think it is hard to really understand what the Hebrews or NT Christians were really thinking when they use the language they do. Alot of it is metaphorical (sheep/goats etc) but represents something.

I think that the 'looking out at the carcasses' really signifies the final victory, the fulfillment of the pleas throughout the OT of God to have dominion over the wicked and for them to get their just reward. Remember that the OT is chock full of battles for the Lord where God's enemies have been conquered through His might. To me, Isaiah 66 is the ultimate battlefield where after the battle is over the victors gaze out at the battlefield on the corpses of the slain.

I highly doubt that even the Hebrews expected to see corpses for eternity (How could corpses exist for eternity?) especially when Psalms 37 and Obadiah 1:6 state that the wicked 'will consume away into smoke' and 'shall be no more' and 'be as if they never existed'.

Also why do you think the casting of people into the lake of fire is called the "second death"?.

The fact that it uses the words 'second' (akin to the first) and 'death' (the same word used for the first death) is telling. The first death is a cessation of consciousness that we are awoken from (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 1 Corinthians 15:51-55). The power of the resurrection conquers the first death. Without it, man would cease to exist.

However, in Revelation 20:5 we read :"Blessed is he who takes part in the first resurrection, as such the second death has no power over him"

The second death is compared to the first death but the righteous were saved from both. The wicked will experience both. They will not return from the second death.

It is interesting to note the wording of Revelation. The second death is the lake of fire (in that it brings on the second death) not that the lake of fire is the second death (in that 'death' is really 'eternal torment in the lake of fire')

I will play devil's advocate to the end so as to not easily be taken into any particular view point. But if at every point a question has a satisfactory answer then indeed the counter-argument is shot down. I hope you just understand that I'm trying to be thorough.

cyber, I appreciate your questioning.

 

[cyberjosh]

Now, to continue on the previous discussion a little more:

Don't you think that when the New Jerusalem comes down and the wicked come around and God shows them where they went wrong and the destruction they must face, missing out on eternal life and feeling the anguish (as the Bible says where there will be 'weeping and gnashing of teeth') that the wicked will wish they had never been born? What absolute horror and awareness of what they've done, what they will miss out on and mental anguish they will experience before the final judgment is meted out!

Absolutely, but thinking about non-existance is quite feat. An honest question: how does any suffering or even annihilation glorify the Lord? Not that I doubt it doesn't in some way, I'm just unaware of the aspect that comes from his Divine righteousness. If the wicked are to be a spectacle to the Righteous of the result of God's wrath then I am led to believe that he wishes to make an example for some reason (which also makes me wonder what the believers will be looking at as the example - what are the "corpses"?). So I see two options: God making a spectacle example of eternally suffering souls for evidence of his divine wrath (why else would GOd have the saints gaze on the corpses?), or God utterly destroying all souls - surely he must have turned his back on them already then because else annihilating people created in his own image would be almost unthinkable (and remember God turned his back on Jesus because he could not bear the sheer weight of the sin on him). Perhaps by giving over to their vile passions in life they become a "degredation" (almost sub-human) formed by sin in the flesh (because it wasn't the evil flesh that was formed in God's image), and thus be viewed as God views Satan (this speaking of men's final evaluation after all men have died - not during their lifetime when they might still have a chance to be saved and escape that degredation).

I don't know, I'm just speculating. I need to have reasons for either of occuring before I can weigh the differences. Either way, though if it pains God that any should perish, He must have - by the time of the second death - become completely removed from them (turned his back on them) or else he wants to make them an eternal spectacle of his wrath. Neither involve much pleasantries. And non-existance is still a huge idea to tackle, God tearing you apart probably wishing he had never made you - like he lamented before the flood.

The underlying issue I'm sensing here is that the wicked SHOULD suffer and that it wouldn't be fair if they didn't. I don't believe God sees it that way. If a man is so sinful and downtrodden that he can't live through this life, why should God feel that he needs (and deserves) more misery? God came to save us from the effect of sin. If man chooses to hang on to it, man will go down with the ship.

The underlying issue I'm sensing here is that the wicked SHOULD suffer and that it wouldn't be fair if they didn't.

No, but Divine judgement makes sense, and really we all should suffer because we don't deserve what God has given to us. Thank God that he isn't a fair God, because fair would get a free trip to hell.

As for your comment on God not wanting to cause them more misery, I can't completely agree with that. He has no desire to make people suffer, but as I have mentioned above at that point He is either (as I see it) A) Displaying them as the objects of his wrath before the saints (he is angry with them), or B) Removed from them because they are all but dead to him in sin (which caused him also to "forsake" Jesus). And I know you aren't pushing this interpretation at all but believe it or not I have heard a similar statement (from atheists) used in favor of making a case for an unmerciful, cruel God. They say to me, "How can God if he is so loving, possibly torture anyone and send them to hell, no matter how much they sin. True love would see past all that." Thus any responsibility on our part is removed. They also use an analogy saying that, "No father if they saw their child walking toward the road where there is an on coming car, would just stand there and let them get hit by it because they have 'free will'." Thus they also misconstrue God's mercy to all people up to a point to where no one has excuse (Romans 1:19-21) of ignorance (as the little kid would have). I just felt I has to say that, because that crept into my mind as I read that, though I doubt you meant to imply any of that.

It is sad that some people desperately desire that the wicked suffer for their sins when God merely wants to end the misery. Isn't that why He sent His son to begin with? To save a 'sin-sick' nation of rebels? Why would He want to prolong the 'sinful misery' of the children He desperately loves?

Maybe I have answered this in my discussion above one God's possible attitudes toward these people at that point (the second death).


I would love to hear your feedback. Remember I'm not claiming anything as authoritive, I'm just bouncing ideas back and forth to get to the core of the issue.

 

[cyberjosh]

I highly doubt that even the Hebrews expected to see corpses for eternity (How could corpses exist for eternity?) especially when Psalms 37 and Obadiah 1:6 state that the wicked 'will consume away into smoke' and 'shall be no more' and 'be as if they never existed'.

Ahhh, that just reminded me of something else said of the wicked. The Bible says that their name will be remembered no more (perhaps another sign of God "turning his back" on them?). On the flip side the righteous will have an everlasting name.

 

[guibox]

Absolutely, but thinking about non-existance is quite feat. An honest question: how does any suffering or even annihilation glorify the Lord? Not that I doubt it doesn't in some way, I'm just unaware of the aspect that comes from his Divine righteousness. If the wicked are to be a spectacle to the Righteous of the result of God's wrath then I am led to believe that he wishes to make an example for some reason (which also makes me wonder what the believers will be looking at as the example - what are the "corpses"?)..

I really don't think it is about 'God being glorified'. It is about sin meeting its promised due. God's initial plan is not to destroy sinners but to destroy sin. Because of free will, sinners choose to hang on to it and when God destroys 'the works of the earth and all therein' sinners get caught in the crossfire and suffer the punishment sin deserved.

No, but Divine judgement makes sense, and really we all should suffer because we don't deserve what God has given to us. Thank God that he isn't a fair God, because fair would get a free trip to hell..

Ah, but I think this is the crux of the matter: Why and what should we suffer? God didn't intend for man to 'suffer'. So why did man suffer? Man sinned against God and thus sin entered, hence suffering. It is not God who initiated or brought on the suffering. Sin did that. Sin brought death. Thanks to sin, man was doomed to non-existence, separated from the Life Giver. God came to redeem us from the misery we were in. He came to save us from death. What we deserved was death from sin (Romans 6:23).

We did not earn a free trip to eternal torment, a making of God's own doing for no other purpose but to punish. Punishment was never God's intention.

Those who remain in sin still suffer the consequences Adam brought: death.

Tradition would basically have us believe that God had the fires of hell stoked and ready to go should man sin. If hell has no redemptive or reformative purpose, then it is only God's desire that man be punished for sin instead of sin doing the ultimate punishment. Hence, God takes the place of 'death by sin' to institute 'eternal torment by divine decree'

Thus they also misconstrue God's mercy to all people up to a point to where no one has excuse (Romans 1:19-21) of ignorance (as the little kid would have). I just felt I has to say that, because that crept into my mind as I read that, though I doubt you meant to imply any of that...

No I didn't mean that. Yes, atheists (and now even some Christians) do take it to the far extreme by removing free will and justice, but at the same time, they do have a point. There is no justice or mercy never mind love (all attributes of God) in eternal torment. There is no redemption or reformation: strictly punishment. The image this rightly portrays to the unbeliever is that 'God so loved the world (this means sinners who most likely wouldn't ever choose Him) that He gave His son" with a God who basically seems like a scorned lover looking for vindictive revenge. "You sinned against me, you deserve eternal torment"

Such images cannot be reconciled no matter how much one tries.

Rather we see that God's mercy is prevelant that He doesn't want sin to reign anymore and sinners need to be put of their 'sin-sick' misery

God's justice is prevelant in that by destroying sin, He ends forever, the reign of sin. Sinners, as promised, suffer the wages of sin which in the ultimate end is death. All are sinners, all receive the same reward (just as the righteous do)

God's love is prevelant in that He gives man the freedom of choice to hang on to sin and reject Him though they are on a doomsday course. He doesn't want them to die, never mind suffer. So in loving mercy He allows them to choose death

None of these things are prevelant in eternal torment.

I would love to hear your feedback. Remember I'm not claiming anything as authoritive, I'm just bouncing ideas back and forth to get to the core of the issue.

:wink: There you go! Thanks for bouncing!

 

[cyberjosh]

Thanks for commenting and for the kind words. Let me continue to ask you some more questions now and make a few more points:

Because of free will, sinners choose to hang on to it and when God destroys the 'works of the earth and all therein' sinners get caught in the crossfire and suffer the punishment sin deserved.

Are you sure they just got "caught in the crossfire" and hadn't become degenerated like I mentioned, because that analogy seems a little too "fluffy" to me. Don't forget that sin changes you; just as believers are changed from glory to glory, so the unbeliever becomes more and more corrupt when they live in sin, and become more of a son of hell each day. Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves." (Matthew 23:15) Oh, and you never quite answered/commented on my musings above about the wicked possibly becoming degenerate (and about the flesh not being made in God's image) and how possibly God would view them as he Did Satan. Could you go back and comment on that, because sin is not just a ship to go down with, it actually changes and corrupts your nature, who you are, and also because of sin God turned his back on Jesus on the cross.

So why did man suffer? Man sinned against God and thus sin entered, hence suffering. It is not God who initiated or brought on the suffering. Sin did that. Sin brought death. Thanks to sin, man was doomed to non-existence, separated from the Life Giver.

Actually non-existance would not be the natural consequence of sin (if indeed it is true that it will happen), but rather God's arbitrary judgement of how to deal with it. One thing we must look at here which is immensely important is what sin is and how it is dealt with. In Revelations Death is personified, but we never see sin personified. If the second death is being handed over to sin to complete its utter destruction, then why does Revelation not picture sin also as perishing as Death did? Also what is sin, is it something outside of a person that can be interacted with or does it generate/emanate from within the person? Can sin be seperated from the doer?

We did not earn a free trip to eternal torment, a making of God's own doing for no other purpose but to punish. Punishment was never God's intention.

Yet it becomes a natural consequence of being removed from God. The punishment doesn't have to be active, but rather passive. Sin cannot be tolerated in God's presence so seperation from God would be the absolute torture, complete surrender to sin's fruit, giving them up to have their portion in what they have chosen. Thus it wouldn't be God's doing but their own, and we see no need for God to temper their judgement. We see no further elaborations on this so why must we assume that it ends?

 

[guibox]

Are you sure they just got "caught in the crossfire" and hadn't become degenerated like I mentioned, because that analogy seems a little too "fluffy" to me. Don't forget that sin changes you; just as believers are changed from glory to glory, so the unbeliever becomes more and more corrupt when they live in sin, and become more of a son of hell each day...You never quite answered/commented on my musings above about them possible becoming degerate (and about the flesh not being made in God's image) and how possibly God would view them as be Did Satan. Could you go back and comment on that, because sin is not just a ship to go down with, it actually changes and corrupts your nature

What sin does to us is not really an issue of the end. Rather, it is the process of how God deals with it. Sure, I guess you could say that at that point of time, God sees us as 'sin', a degeneted human being completely corrupted by sin. To me, this is the reason even more why it needs to be destroyed and not kept alive.

Actually non-existance would not be the natural consequence of sin (if indeed it is true that it will happen), but rather God's arbitrary judgement of how to deal with it. One thing we must look at here which is immensely important is what sin is and how it is dealt with. In Revelations Death is personified, but we never see sin personified. If the second death is being handed over to sin to complete its utter destruction, then why does Revelation not picture sin also as perishing as Death did? Also what is sin, is it something outside of a person that can be interacted with or does is generate/emanate from within the person? Can sin be seperated from the doer?

Whether God uses fire or His power as a catalyst, sin is still the ultimate destroyer. God says that He will createa new heaven and a new earth where there will be no more pain, death, sorrow or tears. All of these things are the results of sin. Therefore, God needs to do away with it. Sinners by disobedience have put themselves under the ultimate penalty of sin: death. By destroying sin, God is also destroying sinners.

We are told that 'the last enemy to be destroyed is death'. We see that death and hell are cast into the lake of fire at the end. Sin needs to be destroyed as well for it is truly THE enemy of God.

The punishment doesn't have to be active, but rather passive. Sin cannot be tolerated in God's presence so seperation from God would be the absolute torture, complete surrender to sin's fruit, giving them up to have their portion in what they have chosen. We see no further elaborations on this so why must we assume that it ends?

We also see that sinners are 'punished in the presence of the Lord'. Sin cannot exist in the presence of God. So either God's presence has changed to allow eternal torment, or at some point in time, sin and sinners need to cease to exist.

The other problem is assuming that 'separation' needs to be 'conscious separation. Death separates us as well.

We DO have further elaborations from the rest of scripture that clearly show the wicked being 'destroyed' 'perishing' facing 'destruction' that is everlasting (again, you cannot have a continual process of 'destruction' or 'perishing', these are 'states of which the results are everlasting). This is why we must not take a few verses in isolation and ignore other clear explanations.

 

[cyberjosh]

Sure, I guess you could say that at that point of time, God sees us as 'sin', a degeneted human being completely corrupted by sin. To me, this is the reason even more why it needs to be destroyed and not kept alive.

We are told that 'the last enemy to be destroyed is death'. We see that death and hell are cast into the lake of fire at the end. Sin needs to be destroyed as well for it is truly THE enemy of God.

But what assurance are we given that sin will perish? Why is this event not mentioned if it is so important, or does it go by another name?

Whether God uses fire or His power as a catalyst, sin is still the ultimate destroyer. God says that He will createa new heaven and a new earth where there will be no more pain, death, sorrow or tears. All of these things are the results of sin. Therefore, God needs to do away with it. Sinners by disobedience have put themselves under the ultimate penalty of sin: death. By destroying sin, God is also destroying sinners.

Wait, are you saying that when God creates the new heaveans and earth he will destroy all those in the Lake of Fire?

We also see that sinners are 'punished in the presence of the Lord'. Sin cannot exist in the presence of God. So either God's presence has changed to allow eternal torment, or at some point in time, sin and sinners need to cease to exist.

That is a curious verse, I recall reading it before. Would you mind giving me the verse number? Perhaps it refers to the one time judgement before God (their verdict is their punishment) or perhaps that verse works in conjunction with Isa. 66:24 somehow in how the believers are able to see the "corpses" (if they were in God's presence then they could observe them). But in what sense is this employed? I will consult my commentary if you would be so kind as to give the the verse number.

The other problem is assuming that 'separation' needs to be 'conscious separation. Death separates us as well.

Could you elaborate here? I'm not quite sure I follow you.

~Josh

 

[guibox]

But what assurance are we given that sin will perish? Why is this event not mentioned if it is so important, or does it go by another name?

We are not directly told that 'sin will be eternally punished'. Whether the wicked are destroyed or tormented eternally, whatever happens happens to 'sin' too.

Wait, are you saying that when God creates the new heaveans and earth he will destroy all those in the Lake of Fire?

Yes, I believe so. We are told in Malachi 4:1,3 and 2 Peter 3:10 that fire will come down and destroy and melt with fervent heat. Then we are told that the wicked are cast into a lake of fire. Where are the wicked at this time if the heaven and earth are all destroyed? If the New Jerusalem comes down to earth, where is it? So we have two fires consuming and destroying the wicked? It doesn't make sense.

I believe that the events in Revelation 20 happen simultaneously (as does Revelation 14:10). The fire that comes down from heaven creates the lake of fire, burns everything up (in the language used that the wicked are 'cast in').

Some will say that the fire destroyes the wicked, then they are resurrected again and then cast into the lake of fire. This means that there are three resurrections (two of the wicked) but the Bible doesn't support it at all. Only that there are TWO resurrections.). We must be careful to take everything chronologically in Revelation and realize that sometimes the Bible says the same thing two ways that gives one the impression that it speaks of two things.

That is a curious verse, I recall reading it before. Would you mind giving me the verse number? Perhaps it refers to the one time judgement before God (their verdict is their punishment) or perhaps that verse works in conjunction with Isa. 66:24 somehow in how the believers are able to see the "corpses" (if they were in God's presence then they could observe them). But in what sense is this employed? I will consult my commentary if you would be so kind as to give the the verse number.

It is Revelation 14:10 and it does say that 'they will be tormented in with fire and brimstone in the presence of the lamb' Did you know that brimstone was the most destructive aspect of a 'fiery' experience? It just seems ludicrous to think that 'fire and brimstone' that 'consumes' the wicked is something that will burn 'bodies' for eternity.

The other problem is assuming that 'separation' needs to be 'conscious separation. Death separates us as well.

Could you elaborate here? I'm not quite sure I follow ou.

Many will say that 'sin separates' from God. So when the Bible says 'the wages of sin is death' they automatically mean 'separation'. Because 'separation' can be conscious, then when the Bible says 'death' it really means separation from God seeing as when man sinned he 'died' but did not really die, just that he was 'separated'.

The real translation of God's words to Adam is 'and dying you shall you die'. Yes, sin separated man but also the final results of sin is death. Death (cessation of existence) is the ultimate separation of God. It is gratuitous assumption to say that 'sin is separation' and therefore sinners will merely be separated in the afterlife and not really 'dead'.

 

[Bick]

Quote from Samuel:
Isaiah was referring to the end of all those who rebel against God, a hellish scene for certain. But looking more so at those who fall on the battlefield of rebellion. Also as a picture of Armageddon, after which the Jews will be burying the corpses of the dead, and rotting bodies of these who have rebelled against God for months. A time in which they will be able to look over the battlefield in the valley of Megiddo, and view the carnage of those who rebelled against God.

I agree that this last portion of Isaiah is not a metaphor of people in heaven lookin down at the dead bodies.

To me, it only makes sense to stay with the context.

Chap. 66 speaks of judgment and hope. Vs. 15 tells of the Lord's coming with power and might to execute judgment. Those of the Gentile nations who survive, will be sent out into world to bring in all the righteous Jews to Jerusalem (Zion). With His throne in the restored Jerusalem, all mankind will come and bow down before the Messiah Jesus. And they will go out (of the city, I presume) and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against King Messiah Jesus, that their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched..."

Now, I believe Jesus during his earthly ministry, confirms that what we read here will be the place outside the walls of the restored Jerusalem, where the city garbage and offal will be dumped, and will be kept burning to help purify the air. Yes, and worms will be feeding on any remains not already burned. This is the similar to what was in Jesus day, and what he warned his disciples and the multitudes about. See Mark 9:42-49, where the Lord explicitly identifies Gehenna with Isaiah 66: 23,24.

Bick