“their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched” Since Isaiah 66:24 is quoted by Jesus in Mark 7:47-48, I will address both verses in this single article.

• “Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind,” (Isaiah 66:24).
• “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED,” (Mark 9:47-48).

Many conditionalists object to Mark 9:47-48 being used to support eternal conscious torment. They say that the imagery of the worms and the fire is taken from Isaiah 66:24 and is meant to show the judgment of annihilation, not eternal conscious torment. They say that in actuality, worms do die, and the fire does go out. Therefore, this fact invalidates the traditionalist view of eternal conscious torment suggested by the idea that the worms don’t die and the fire does not go out. Are they right? No, they are not.

The language used by Isaiah and Jesus is exactly what someone would say to convey the idea of eternal conscious torment by saying that the worm does not die and the fire does not go out.  Of course, they knew that worms actually died and fires actually went out.  But, they used these images and added that the worm would not die and the fire would not be quenched to convey the idea of fearful, continuous, conscious torment. The conditionalists miss the point entirely in their search for annihilationism.  They take the imagery meant to convey the severity of conscious suffering and extract a literal aspect, not initially intended in the text, to invalidate the text itself. This is exegetically unsound as is illustrated by the following quotes.

• “Isaiah 66:24 speaks of “their worm” and “their” fire. The parallelism in the clauses indicates that what is said about their worm (it does not die) and what is said about their fire (it is not quenched) are synonymous. The fact that the fire is “not quenched” means that it keeps burning until nothing put in it finally remains. The fact that the worm does not die has the same significance—its work of devouring dead bodies is not cut short by the worm’s own demise.”¹Fudge, Edward William. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition (p. 126). Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition. Underline added
• “Anyone who says that this passage is describing eternal torment needs to explain how a scene of corpses, being eaten by worms and fires (which are normally consuming agents), is somehow symbolic of sentient beings (the opposite of corpses) living in a state of suffering but never actually being consumed by anything. Just think about that.” (rethinkinghell.com/2015/12/a-primer-on-revelation-2010/)

Isaiah 66:24

Jesus was quoting from Isaiah 66:24 in Mark 9:47-48

“Then they will go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind,” (Isaiah 66:24).

In Mark, Jesus is stating that in hell there is “unquenchable fire” (Mark 9:43) where the “worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,” (vv. 44, 46, 48). Jesus is using the Old Testament phraseology from Isaiah 66:24. But, despite the conditionalist objections saying that the worms do die and the fire is quenched, I have a question. Who is to say that hell is not comprised of exactly what Jesus said: worms and fire? To say it is not is an assumption. Now, I’m not saying that hell is like that, but I’m also not saying it isn’t. I don’t know what is exactly in store for the wicked. But, whatever it is, it’s going to be very bad.

Nevertheless, the admonition of Jesus is one of a dire warning that should incite a fearful dread upon all who face God without Christ by being cast into eternal torment. Is the nothingness of annihilation more fearful than an unquenchable fire in unending conscious torment? I don’t see how it can be. After all, no suffering is better than eternal suffering.

The nature of the judgment is under debate here as to whether or not the final punishment is annihilation or conscious torment. I, of course, hold to the latter. See Luke 16:19-31, the rich man and Lazarus and Jude 6-7, angels and the wicked undergoing punishment of eternal fire, and Revelation 14:9-11, worshippers of the beast are tormented forever.

Isaiah 66:24 and context

Is Isaiah 66 eschatological since it mentions new heaven and a new earth in verse 22 and in the previous chapter as well (Isaiah 65:17)?  Is it specifically addressed to rebellious Jews in Jerusalem at the time? Or, is it a combination of both?  Whichever your position, at the very least when Jesus referenced Isaiah 66:24 He did so in the context of eternal judgment. He said, “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire,” (Mark 9:43).  Again, Jesus uses the imagery to convey a message of dire consequence and fearful expectation of the coming judgment.

Conclusion

Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:42-48 are eschatological pronouncements of God’s judgment upon the wicked. The conditionalists point to the figurative usage of the phrases “where the worm will not die, and the fire will not be quenched,” to say the text is technically wrong because the worm does die and the fires are quenched. This, in turn, means that the fiery torment associated with this imagery is not real; it is not forever. So they look at the apparent figurative usage which is intended to convey disgust, fear, anguish, and continuous judgment, and extract a technically correct subpoint about fires and worms both dying, to say that eternal conscious torment is not true. But, the conditionalists are missing the point. In reality, the language used by Isaiah and Jesus is precisely the language the Jews would have used to convey the idea of eternal conscious torment by taking a known set of images and modifying them to illustrate the continuous and horrible judgment to come. The conditionalists get it wrong in their search for annihilationism.