Isaiah 66

[NinjaWizards777]

"And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
(Isa 66:23-24 KJV)"

Obviously the issue of olam/aionios is void here, since its not eternal that is used, but says "shall NOT die" and "shall NOT be quenched"

someone used this passage against me so wanted to know your thoughts

[legoman]

Hi Ninja,

I'm sure this passage was discussed here recently, but I can't find it right now.

Regarding "unquenchable":  unquenchable just means the fire cannot be quenched - it cannot be put out.  Most forest fires are unquenchable because the fire fighting crews are unable to put them out.  But they do go out by themselves eventually.  Unquenchable does not mean eternal.

"Worm shall not die" - think along the lines of worms continuing to feed and reproduce because there is so much to eat.  The worms never die out.  Which is true, because there are earth worms all over the place.  It doesn't mean these are some kind of magical "immortal" worm.

Read this section of Ray Smith's LoF series, he covers it a bit near the end:
http://bible-truths.com/lake16-D4.htm

Peace...

[martincisneros]

More than 2500 years ago the Holy Spirit warned the wicked inhabitants of Jerusalem that God would kindle a fire at Jerusalem's gates which would devour her palaces. "But if you will not hearken unto Me ... then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not he quenched" (Jer. 17:27). Did not God say this fire "shall NOT BE QUENCHED?" This prophecy was fulfilled and the fire did occur a few years later and it did destroy all the houses of Jerusalem (Jer. 52:13). Since God said no person or thing would "quench" this fire, did that mean that it would burn for ever? Since it accomplished the work it was sent to do, and since it is NOT BURNING TODAY, it obviously went out by itself after accomplishing its purpose! Unquenchable fire is not eternal fire - it is simply fire that cannot be put out until it has consumed or changed everything it is possible for it to change! It then simply goes out, for there is nothing more to burn. From this link.

And from another author:

Far more difficult is the very awful passage which speaks of hell, "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (S. Mark ix. 42-50.) But both the context of the passage, and the Old Testament use of the words, convince me that the ordinary interpretation cannot be the true one. As to the context, the words which are relied on as teaching the doctrine of never-ending punishment are directly connected by the conjunction "For" with a general statement as to sacrifice.

The whole passage runs thus:--"and whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut if off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell-fire; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good, but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another."

Take the ordinary interpretation, and there is no connection between never-ending punishment and the law here quoted respecting salt in sacrifice. But as spoken by our Lord the fact or law respecting the Meat-offering is the reason and explanation of what is said respecting hell-fire,--"For every one must be salted with fire, and every sacrifice must be salted with salt."

Here as elsewhere the law throws light on the gospel, nor can these words be understood until the exact nature of the offering which our Lord refers to is apprehended. Salt, in its nature sharp and biting, yet preserving from corruption, was expressly required in every Meat-offering; (Lev. ii. 13.) this Meat-offering itself being an adjunct to the Burnt-offering, and, like it, not a Sin-offering, but a "sweet savour," and offered for acceptance; the Burnt-offering shadowing the fulfillment of man's duty toward his neighbor; both of which have been fulfilled for us in Christ, and are to be fulfilled by grace in us His members, as it is written, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit." (Rom. viii. 4.)

(NOTE: The offerings appointed by the Lord were (as I have already noticed,) divided into two distinct classes,--first, the sweet-savour offerings, which are all offered for acceptance; and secondly, those offerings which were not of a sweet savour, and which were required as an expiation for sin. The first-class, comprising the Burnt-offering, the Meat-offering, and the Peace-offering, were offered on the brazen altar which stood in the court of the Tabernacle. The second class, the Sin and Trespass-offerings, were not consumed on the altar, but were burnt on the earth without the camp. In the first-class the faithful Israelites gives a sweet offering to the Lord; in the other the offering is charged with the sin of the offerer. In the Burnt-offering, the Meat-offering, and the Peace-offering, the offerer came for acceptance as a worshipper. In the Sin and Trespass-offerings, he came as a sinner to pay the penalty of sin and trespass. Unless this distinction be understood, the force of our Lord's words as to the "salting with fire" will not be apprehended.)

The passage which we are considering begins with this, man's duty to his neighbour, and the peril of offending a little one. "It were better that a millstone were hanged about one's neck, and that the life which offends were even destroyed, than that we should offend or hurt one of these little ones." Then comes the exhortation to sacrifice "hand," or "foot," or "eye," lest we come into the worse judgment, which must be known by those who will not judge themselves. "For," says our Lord, thus giving the reason for self-judgment, "every man," whether he likes it or not, if he is ever to change his present form and rise to God, "must be salted with fire."

This may be done as a sweet-savour to God; though even here "every sacrifice is salted with salt,"—for even in willing sacrifice and service there is something sharp and piercing as salt, namely, the correction which truth brings with it to those who will receive it. But if this be not accepted, the purgation must yet be wrought, not as a sweet-savour, but as a sin-offering, where the bodies are burnt as unclean without the camp; "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched;" (the "worm" alluding to the consumption of those parts which were not burnt with fire;) "for" in some way "every man must be salted with fire," even if he be not a sweet-savour "sacrifice," which is "salted with salt." But all this, so far from teaching never-ending punishment only points us back to the law of sacrifice, and to the means which must be used to destroy sin in the flesh, and to make us ascend in a new and more spiritual form as offerings to Jehovah.

And the Old Testament use of the words, "The fire shall not be quenched," is still more conclusive against the common interpretation. The words occur first in the law of the Burnt-offering, where we read "The fire shall ever be burning upon the altar: it shall never go out;"—literally, "it shall not be quenched," (Lev. vi. 13.)—the words being exactly the same as those our Lord quotes here. Here, beyond all question, the words can have nothing to do with never-ending punishment, or indeed with wrath of any kind; for the Burnt-offering was one of "sweet-savour" offerings: they speak only of the one means, namely, the "fire of God," by which that which was offered to and accepted by Him as "a sweet savour" could be made to ascend upon His altar, in token of its acceptance by Him.

To keep this fire ever alive was one of the priest's first duties, typifying the preservation of that spiritual fire which it is Christ's work as Priest to kindle and keep alive, for by it alone can we "present our bodies a living sacrifice." (Rom. xii. 1, and compare S. Luke xii.49.) The other places where "unquenchable fire" occurs are the following:

They are twice spoken of the overthrow of the first Jewish temple built by Solomon: (2 Kings xxii. 17, and 2 Chron. xxxiv. 25.) then of Edom ; (Isa. xxxiv. 10.) then of Jerusalem , (Jer. vii. 20, and xvii. 27.) and of the king of Judah , (Jer. xxi. 12.) and the forest of the south; (Ezek. xx. 47.) and lastly in the passage here quoted by our Lord from the prophet Isaiah, (Isa. lxvi. 24.) which speaks of the punishment of the wicked at the period of the latter-day glory. In all these cases the words express such a destruction as was figured in the Sin-offerings, which were cast out and burnt without the camp as unfit for God's altar. These are the only places in the Old Testament where the words occur, and in every instance except the last they manifestly cannot, and confessedly do not, involve the idea of endless suffering. Why in this one place only is a sense to be put upon the words, which is not only untenable in every other similar passage of the Old Testament, but would make one part of Scripture contradict another.  From this link.