Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[sparow]

I think it would be interesting to get a sense of where CFers stand on this issue.

Eternal Damnation - some (many) will suffer eternal torment/separation from God and some will be given everlasting life

Conditional Immortality - some ( many) will be annihilated and some will be given everlasting life

Universal Reconciliation - all will eventually be reconciled to God in Christ

Agnostic - not committed to any of the three options above

I am assuming any who are "hopeful universalists" are basically in the agnostic camp.

For myself, I was agnostic for a long time while arguing that UR was the most likely position, having the better arguments on its side. Eventually, I have come to embrace UR. I do believe that some will suffer terribly, some not as much, and others will experience great joy as we all enter the unmitigated presence of God. To be in Christ is to be conformed to his image and prepared for the unmitigated presence of God who is an unquenchable fire that purifies us of all dross. Eventually, at the end of the ages, God will be all in all. As Origen said, either we are baptized by water in this life or fire in the next.

At any rate, please vote so that we can see what folks on CF believe. I have left voting anonymous so that everyone can vote their conscience without feeling compelled to defend their position. I'm hoping most everyone will vote so we can get a good sense of the group. But feel free to engage in lively but lovely discussion below. I've said my piece (many times over) so I'll turn it over to y'all. God bless us all.

I was unable to vote, had there been the option "none of the above" it would have been different. The Bible teaches many will be annihilated and some will be given eternal life, but to call this Conditional Immortality, I would not; I would say the opposite is true.

We are born condemned to the second death, and that is the default unless we gain a reprieve via the method God has provided.

God could have done it the other way, that is, eternal life could have been the default unless we stuffed up, but He did not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not playing both sides, I am skeptical about any claim to "reality," and I only have as much idea as you have thus far conveyed. You seemed to parade "reality" out as if I would understand what you meant, so I don't get why you now object to me working with what you've given me.

There's no playing obtusely, outside of revelation I am an epistemic nihilist/hard skeptic.

It's not simply that no human knows everything, but every human begins with a faulty epistemic foundation and essentially never escapes it. We know nothing, apart from God. I assume you're familiar with Munchaussen's Trilemma.

Again there is no double talk, human inquiry is worthless. Vanity of vanities.

I didn't summarily dismiss them, I pointed out that even before we begin to assess our view of inspiration we have to establish a theory of history. And its a feedback loop, since our view of inspiration will also have a major impact on our theory of history

Whose existence? For me, even more fundamental then my own existence is God's existence. Beginning with nothing will lead you no where, into solipsism. At some point something is taken for granted that dictates the whole rest of the house of cards we build. To me, that brute fact is God and so the most sure basis for systemic truth is His revelation not what can be ascertained through phenomena and noumena.

I don't care to tread where you tread, because any ground but God's word is sinking sand.

That question has consequences and antecedents. Because how do we learn of Jesus of Nazareth, except through revelation? If Scripture is not God's word, what trustworthy source do we have for learning who Jesus of Nazareth is? And if it is God's word, how can we make ourselves masters over it through speculative and critical methods?

It's not the conceptions I'm concerned with, but the persistence and preservation of God's word as God's word and its exclusivity for deriving our conceptions about God.

I have my issues with systematic theology, and my dismissal of philosophy is not in its usefulness as a tool for examining Scripture. But in my eyes the only appropriate theology is a theolgy that seeks to qualify God as He reveals Himself in Scripture.

Either it's God's word or it isn't. If it's not God's word, I don't see how it is worth reading. I understand coming to Christ through alternate means, but once you recognize the reality of a God that enters history and is Lord over it I'm not sure how post-Enlightenment philosophical ideas persist.

Brother Fervent, I could answer all of these points, but to do so starts to get tedious and being that I'm sure that when all is said and done, you and I would end up on tracks running somewhat parallel to each other even if not crossing over epistemically.

So bro! Be blessed. I hope you and family had a Merry Christmas and will have a Happy New Year coming up!

 

[Fervent]

Brother Fervent, I could answer all of these points, but to do so starts to get tedious and being that I'm sure that when all is said and done, you and I would end up on tracks are run somewhat parallel even if not crossing over epistemically.

So bro! Be blessed. I hope you and family had a Merry Christmas and will have a Happy New Year coming up!

I'm sure you could, and thanks for the discussion.

Be blessed and merry Christmas

 

[Jipsah]

We are born condemned to the second death, and that is the default unless we gain a reprieve via the method God has provided.

I can sort of see that if we assume that in the end most pople are simply NPCs placed here to see what how the real characters will respond to them.

God could have done it the other way, that is, eternal life could have been the default unless we stuffed up, but He did not.

God could have designed the universe in any way at all the seemed food to Him. He's God, right? So it could have been some get saved, none get saved, all get saved, every third one gets saved, ad infinitum.

 

[Super Kal]

I think it would be interesting to get a sense of where CFers stand on this issue.

Eternal Damnation - some (many) will suffer eternal torment/separation from God and some will be given everlasting life

Conditional Immortality - some ( many) will be annihilated and some will be given everlasting life

Universal Reconciliation - all will eventually be reconciled to God in Christ

Agnostic - not committed to any of the three options above

I am assuming any who are "hopeful universalists" are basically in the agnostic camp.

For myself, I was agnostic for a long time while arguing that UR was the most likely position, having the better arguments on its side. Eventually, I have come to embrace UR. I do believe that some will suffer terribly, some not as much, and others will experience great joy as we all enter the unmitigated presence of God. To be in Christ is to be conformed to his image and prepared for the unmitigated presence of God who is an unquenchable fire that purifies us of all dross. Eventually, at the end of the ages, God will be all in all. As Origen said, either we are baptized by water in this life or fire in the next.

At any rate, please vote so that we can see what folks on CF believe. I have left voting anonymous so that everyone can vote their conscience without feeling compelled to defend their position. I'm hoping most everyone will vote so we can get a good sense of the group. But feel free to engage in lively but lovely discussion below. I've said my piece (many times over) so I'll turn it over to y'all. God bless us all.

i voted Conditionalism
for the grand majority of my childhood, teenage, and young adult life, i held to the view of eternal torture because i never once questioned what i was taught, nor did i study the scriptures to see what they themselves had to say about the matter. When i became older in my mid 20's, and after facing suicidal depression and being pulled out of darkness by the Righteous Right Hand of God (Isaiah 41:10), He put it on my heart to study, study, study, and not simply believe what people say.

after many sleepless nights of diligent devotion and study of the scriptures, i cannot, in good conscience, say that either eternal torment or universal reconciliation is biblical.
eternal torment requires that all of mankind, both righteous and wicked, receive the same gift, immortality.
scritpure flat out denies this concept, Romans 6:23, John 3:36, Revelation 20:11-15... however, i still consider those who hold to this as the brethren, for within eternal torment still lies the need for repentance, and the necessity of Jesus and the Cross
i would also recommend that your opening definition be changed for your "eternal damnation" option, because in order for one to suffer eternal conscious torment, there must be a part of a human that is immortal. your current option does not acccurately reflect the belief

universal reconciliation, or christian universalism, also requires that all men will receive the same gift, immortality, however this belief also teaches that all will eventually be saved, regardless of how a person lives their life
not only do i find this nowhere in scripture, i also consider this heresy, for it takes away the necessity of Jesus, the need for repentance, the need for sanctification, takes away the penalty of sin (the second death), and replaces it with a metaphorical slap on the wrist. In essence, one can be twice as evil as Adolf Hitler, live in complete unrepentant sin, and still, somehow, eventually be saved without ever seeking forgiveness.

 

[public hermit]

i voted Conditionalism
for the grand majority of my childhood, teenage, and young adult life, i held to the view of eternal torture because i never once questioned what i was taught, nor did i study the scriptures to see what they themselves had to say about the matter. When i became older in my mid 20's, and after facing suicidal depression and being pulled out of darkness by the Righteous Right Hand of God (Isaiah 41:10), He put it on my heart to study, study, study, and not simply believe what people say.

after many sleepless nights of diligent devotion and study of the scriptures, i cannot, in good conscience, say that either eternal torment or universal reconciliation is biblical.
eternal torment requires that all of mankind, both righteous and wicked, receive the same gift, immortality.
scritpure flat out denies this concept, Romans 6:23, John 3:36, Revelation 20:11-15... however, i still consider those who hold to this as the brethren, for within eternal torment still lies the need for repentance, and the necessity of Jesus and the Cross
i would also recommend that your opening definition be changed for your "eternal damnation" option, because in order for one to suffer eternal conscious torment, there must be a part of a human that is immortal. your current option does not acccurately reflect the belief

universal reconciliation, or christian universalism, also requires that all men will receive the same gift, immortality, however this belief also teaches that all will eventually be saved, regardless of how a person lives their life
not only do i find this nowhere in scripture, i also consider this heresy, for it takes away the necessity of Jesus, the need for repentance, the need for sanctification, takes away the penalty of sin (the second death), and replaces it with a metaphorical slap on the wrist. In essence, one can be twice as evil as Adolf Hitler, live in complete unrepentant sin, and still, somehow, eventually be saved without ever seeking forgiveness.

Although I sorely disagree with you position, I appreciate your voting and sharing your thoughts. Thank you.

 

[Super Kal]

Although I sorely disagree with you position, I appreciate your voting and sharing your thoughts. Thank you.

you're welcome.
i know you're a universalist... i was simply taking universal reconciliation to its logical conclusion. if everyone is going to be saved no matter what anyone does in this life, then there truly is no need to be like Christ or live like Christ lived.

i ask you: if UR is true, why should any atheist / Muslim / Hindu / skeptic / Taoist / Buddhist / etc do anything to change their ways? why should anyone change their ways if no matter what they do, no matter how many sins they commit, even if they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, and even if they take the Mark of the Beast, they're still gonna eventually be saved, even though those last two scripture explicitly says there is no forgiveness of any kind for those sins?

i've had one universalist tell me that one could possibly suffer eternal torment for five minutes (this statement makes absolutely zero sense) and then somehow be saved after that five minutes are up... you can sit there and try to tell me that Jesus is the only way, and you may earnestly, sincerely, and passionately believe that, but the teachings of universalism spit in the very face of Jesus, because there is no real penalty for sin.


how can you preach the Gospel of Jesus to an unsaved individual then turn around and tell them they're gonna be saved no matter what?... you would have successfully encouraged them to continue in sin, and not care about what happens on Judgment Day.

i would like an honest answer as to why you think this kind of reasoning is biblical...

 

[Saint Steven]

In essence, one can be twice as evil as Adolf Hitler, live in complete unrepentant sin, and still, somehow, eventually be saved without ever seeking forgiveness.

That is a complete misunderstanding of UR. (the knee-jerk reaction)
The age to come will be remedial and restorative.
We will answer for every deed and every idle thought.

 

[Der Alte]

That is a complete misunderstanding of UR. (the knee-jerk reaction)
The age to come will be remedial and restorative.
We will answer for every deed and every idle thought.

That is a complete misunderstanding of UR. (the knee-jerk reaction)
The age to come will be remedial and restorative. We will answer for every deed and every idle thought.

Scripture which states, "The age to come will be remedial and restorative. We will answer for every deed and every idle thought?"

 

[sparow]

I can sort of see that if we assume that in the end most pople are simply NPCs placed here to see what how the real characters will respond to them.

God could have designed the universe in any way at all the seemed food to Him. He's God, right? So it could have been some get saved, none get saved, all get saved, every third one gets saved, ad infinitum.

We are told that at the end all will be known, until then we may speculate, carefully; if we get the abstract right then arranging the fine detail is like working with a jigsaw puzzle. The fine details are only useful in understanding the abstract, a different set of fine details could serve the same purpose. In "English" a parable used fiction to make a point, so the details can be changed to make the same point.

I see the creation story as a parable and a pattern; While I accept Adam and the role of Eve as historical, the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil is fictional symbolism. Had Adam eaten the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and latter ate from the tree of the knowledge of evil, he would have been able to choose between good and evil, but the tree he ate from had a single fruit that was a mixture of God and evil; all he could eat was the mixture, not one or the other.

 

[Super Kal]

That is a complete misunderstanding of UR. (the knee-jerk reaction)
The age to come will be remedial and restorative.
We will answer for every deed and every idle thought.

scripturally prove to me how what i said is wrong.
why should someone change their ways if they're eventually going to be saved regardless of if they change or not?

 

[Super Kal]

Sounds like a waste of my time and yours. I'll pass, thanks

going to the scriptures to look for Biblical answers is never a waste of time.
and your response tells me that either:
~ you havent done actual extensive study on this (because if you have, and this truly was biblical, you'd "earnestly contend for the faith" Jude 1:3)
~ you dont really care what scripture has to say and you're only sticking with universalism because of an emotional/philosophical reasoning rather than scriptural reasoning...

scripture does say creation will be restored, but scripture never once says the unrepentant wicked will be reconciled as the righteous will be... the only way you can come to that conclusion is when you completely redefine and change the plain meaning of the scriptures. Der Alte and I may passionately disagree with what "everlasting punishment" may be, but we both agree to the fullest extent that the punishment will be everlasting, not temporary.

and the scriptures time and time again convey that imagery... a punishment that is eternal.
your view is the only view that explicitly changes the scriptures to say and mean something entirely different

 

[3 Resurrections]

My vote was for conditional immortality above, but with one slight change to the way it is described in this poll. I believe that God presents the idea in scripture that the majority of all humanity will be present in heaven - not the minority. After all, Christ gave the parable of a "WHEAT harvest" - not a "TARES harvest' when comparing it to the resurrection. The majority of the crop harvested in the parable as "wheat" was gathered into Christ's "barn", and only the minority percentage of the harvest was composed of the "tares" that were burned up.

We have to remember that perhaps the greater majority of all mankind that was ever conceived never made it past young childhood due to infant mortality and childhood diseases (in addition to abortions, child sacrifices, or miscarriages). All of these likewise would need a Savior, and I believe the merciful God takes the unfortunate case of these young ones into consideration when He decides their final destination. Even if not every single one of these young ones arrives in heaven, the absolute worst fate that they could expect in the final judgment would be to cease to exist. I can handle this concept much better than the unscriptural teaching that God intends to perpetually torment in flames those who are not in heaven with Him.

 

[sparow]

My vote was for conditional immortality above, but with one slight change to the way it is described in this poll. I believe that God presents the idea in scripture that the majority of all humanity will be present in heaven - not the minority. After all, Christ gave the parable of a "WHEAT harvest" - not a "TARES harvest' when comparing it to the resurrection. The majority of the crop harvested in the parable as "wheat" was gathered into Christ's "barn", and only the minority percentage of the harvest was composed of the "tares" that were burned up.

We have to remember that perhaps the greater majority of all mankind that was ever conceived never made it past young childhood due to infant mortality and childhood diseases (in addition to abortions, child sacrifices, or miscarriages). All of these likewise would need a Savior, and I believe the merciful God takes the unfortunate case of these young ones into consideration when He decides their final destination. Even if not every single one of these young ones arrives in heaven, the absolute worst fate that they could expect in the final judgment would be to cease to exist. I can handle this concept much better than the unscriptural teaching that God intends to perpetually torment in flames those who are not in heaven with Him.

God could have saved everyone, but He did not so there has to be a reason why not. The indications from scripture that I see is that the harvest will be small. The crop that is planted is not all of mankind, only those who enter into the covenant. Most Christians abrogate the covenant and are Lawless

 

[3 Resurrections]

The indications from scripture that I see is that the harvest will be small.

I presume you are referring to the "narrow gate" verses, which really only applied to the nation of Israel at the time of Christ's earthly ministry, when the prophets said that there would only be a "remnant" that would be saved. Though the children of Israel would numerically increase as the sand of the sea, yet only a "remnant" would be saved (Romans 9:27). When the incarnate Christ came unto His own, generally speaking His own would not receive Him, as John 1:11 testified.

Paul expressed agreement with the OT prophets about the state of his own people the Israelites when he said that "at this present time there remaineth also a remnant according to the election of grace" (Romans 11:5). The greater percentage of the national Israelites ended up rejecting Christ when He came among them, even though a small remnant of them did believe that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah.

That "present time" of a small believing remnant of national Israelites was in Paul's generation. This was NOT a prediction for all time - that the harvest of humanity which are children of God will be small when compared to the total of all humanity. On the contrary, the saved from all nations and tongues would be presented as a multitude in heaven which "no man could number" (Rev. 7:9). Also, Hebrews 2:10 said that God through Christ's sufferings would bring "MANY sons into glory" - not a few of them.

And as I said above, the "harvest" of humanity is compared to a "WHEAT harvest" - NOT a "TARES harvest". If the majority were unbelieving "tares", then it would have been called a "tares harvest". But it wasn't. The majority of that harvest is "wheat", which represents children of God gathered by the resurrection into His "barn".

 

[DavidPT]

For myself, I was agnostic for a long time while arguing that UR was the most likely position, having the better arguments on its side.

I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that UR has the better arguments on its side.

Guess what has to happen once a person dies the first death in order to be alive once again? They have to be resurrected from the dead, otherwise they would remain dead forever. And guess what happens when any of the lost are cast into the lake of fire? They obviously become dead yet again, after all, it's called the 2nd death. The same way they had to be resurrected after the first death in order to be alive again, would have to apply to the 2nd death as well. They obviously would need to be resurrected from the dead again in order to be alive again.

Nowhere in all of the Bible does it ever say anyone is resurrected from 2 deaths. In order for UR to be a valid option there has to be a resurrection from the 2nd death, except there isn't. No one, once being cast into the LOF ever rises back to life again, thus are no longer in the LOF, but are among the land of the living instead.

Though I wish UR was Biblical, it is clearly not Biblical since there is nothing in the entire Bible that supports being resurrected from the 2nd death in order to be alive once again. How can both the 2nd death and UR be true at the same time? How can anyone who is dead yet again, meaning via the 2nd death, ever be alive a third time if there is no resurrection from the 2nd death?

Of course though, if one is in the ECT camp, the 2nd death doesn't even mean being dead again, it means eternal life instead, but not a life of bliss, but a life of sadistic torture/torment beyond reason. IOW, for example, if the worst thing someone ever did in their life was to steal a candy bar, and that if they are cast into the LOF because they were never saved before they died, they too will experience a life of sadistic torture/torment beyond reason since ECT believes every single person cast into the LOF, they are all tormented forever without end.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm sorry, but I find it laughable that UR has the better arguments on its side.
Guess what has to happen once a person dies the first death in order to be alive once again? They have to be resurrected from the dead, otherwise they would remain dead forever. And guess what happens when any of the lost are cast into the lake of fire? They obviously become dead yet again, after all, it's called the 2nd death. The same way they had to be resurrected after the first death in order to be alive again, would have to apply to the 2nd death as well. They obviously would need to be resurrected from the dead again in order to be alive again.
Nowhere in all of the Bible does it ever say anyone is resurrected from 2 deaths. In order for UR to be a valid option there has to be a resurrection from the 2nd death, except there isn't. No one, once being cast into the LOF ever rises back to life again, thus are no longer in the LOF, but are among the land of the living instead.
Though I wish UR was Biblical, it is clearly not Biblical since there is nothing in the entire Bible that supports being resurrected from the 2nd death in order to be alive once again. How can both the 2nd death and UR be true at the same time? How can anyone who is dead yet again, meaning via the 2nd death, ever be alive a third time if there is no resurrection from the 2nd death?
Of course though, if one is in the ECT camp, the 2nd death doesn't even mean being dead again, it means eternal life instead, but not a life of bliss, but a life of sadistic torture/torment beyond reason. IOW, for example, if the worst thing someone ever did in their life was to steal a candy bar, and that if they are cast into the LOF because they were never saved before they died, they too will experience a life of sadistic torture/torment beyond reason since ECT believes every single person cast into the LOF, they are all tormented forever without end.

First ECT, or "Eternal Conscious Torment" does not occur anywhere in the Bible. The correct Biblical term is "eternal punishment" spoken by Jesus.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[p. 96]​

…..Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
…..Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.[p. 518]​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18.
…..Some badly informed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.”
Sorry, that is impossible, both “prune” and “correction” are verbs. “Kolasis” is a noun. One cannot translate a noun as a verb.
Also according to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the native Greek speaking EOB scholars, supported by 2000 years +/- of uninterrupted Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete Greek words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete English words which occur in the 1611 KJV and can define them correctly.

 

[HSong]

I've casted my vote into the category of Universal Reconciliation. That is, Christ Jesus will save all ends of the Earth, as He, God, created all the ends of the Earth. And thus, all will be convinced to believe in the God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, with faith alone and be saved.

Isaiah 45:21-25 "There is no God besides Me, a just God and Savior; There is none besides Me. Look to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth!

 

[Der Alte]

My vote was for conditional immortality above, but with one slight change to the way it is described in this poll. I believe that God presents the idea in scripture that the majority of all humanity will be present in heaven - not the minority. After all, Christ gave the parable of a "WHEAT harvest" - not a "TARES harvest' when comparing it to the resurrection. The majority of the crop harvested in the parable as "wheat" was gathered into Christ's "barn", and only the minority percentage of the harvest was composed of the "tares" that were burned up.
We have to remember that perhaps the greater majority of all mankind that was ever conceived never made it past young childhood due to infant mortality and childhood diseases (in addition to abortions, child sacrifices, or miscarriages). All of these likewise would need a Savior, and I believe the merciful God takes the unfortunate case of these young ones into consideration when He decides their final destination. Even if not every single one of these young ones arrives in heaven, the absolute worst fate that they could expect in the final judgment would be to cease to exist. I can handle this concept much better than the unscriptural teaching that God intends to perpetually torment in flames those who are not in heaven with Him.

Concerning infants, small children, the mentally challenged and those who live in remote areas, etc. God's word provides for them.

Romans 4:15
(15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13
(13) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Romans 2:14
(14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:​

 

[Der Alte]

I've casted my vote into the category of Universal Reconciliation. That is, Christ Jesus will save all ends of the Earth, as He, God, created all the ends of the Earth. And thus, all will be convinced to believe in the God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, with faith alone and be saved.
Isaiah 45:21-25 "There is no God besides Me, a just God and Savior; There is none besides Me. Look to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth!

That God has commanded "Look to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth!" does NOT mean they will.

Isaiah 13:9
(9) Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Isaiah 25:7
(7) And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.
Isaiah 42:14
(14) I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once.
Isaiah 54:16
(16) Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
Isaiah 5:14
(14) Therefore hell [sheol] hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
Isaiah 14:9
(9) Hell [sheol] from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
Isaiah 14:15
(15) Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell [sheol], to the sides of the pit.
Isaiah 28:18
(18) And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell [sheol] shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.​