You may not want to believe God would keep Edom burning in his new world, but he also speaks of the plague, of refusing to let rain fall on anyone who does not come up to Jerusalem for the feast in Zech 14, so even in this new world there will be punishment for disobedience.
Edom is a piece of the former world. I can see it as still burning if it is removed from the old world. It's a possibility. But I think you're mistaking the millennial reign of Christ for the new world. In my interpretation of events there will be a New Jerusalem that comes to this world before the world and the heavens are finally destroyed. It is a city prepared for Christ's Millennial Reign and may continue to exist for eternity albeit in another location. But when Christ reigns for 1000 years that is the period of time when plagues are sent against those nations who do not have people go up to Jerusalem to celebrate Sukkot. Sounds like a crowded city, right? Not really. It's an extremely large city.
But look at it this way. Even if one thought that during this time the old heaven and old earth had passed away they still have the old laws to deal with such as the Festival of Shelters (i.e. Sukkot) that people who don't celebrate are being plagued for. So you have an Old Testament law that is in effect during this period. So according to Christ's words the old heaven and the old earth must not have passed away during this period. And if you feel this is some time in the future when Christ is reigning, then your best bet is that it is during the start of Christ's Millennial Reign as neither the old testament laws nor the heavens and earth have passed away.
One needs to be in existence to experience shame and disgrace.
Before the United States' involvement in WWII President Franklin Roosevelt said in a speech that December 7, 1941 would be a date that lived in infamy. He didn't mean that we forever needed to be in that singular day for it to be remembered infamously. Likewise people don't always need to exist to be held in scorn, shame and contempt. Look at Hitler. He's long been dead. Let's look at some passages dealing with the use of "everlasting" and "forever" though.
Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of
Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
[owlam = everlasting]
Genesis 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed
for ever.
[owlam = for ever]
Isaiah 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall
go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it
for ever and ever.
[owlam = for ever; netsach = for ever and ever]
If Edom will be taken out of this world and transported to the next so that its smoke can rise for eternity then Canaan must be placed in the new world forever as well.
If Revelation 20:10 was the ONLY place that said this, it would leave for you this question: how many times does God have to say something before it becomes true? If God tells me something ONCE that's enough. Does he have to tell you 100 times?
You misunderstand me. God says of Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet that their torment will last forever. I trust those words in as much as the word
forever resembles our Modern English word. But I don't recall it ever being mentioned that the torment of all sinful human beings would last forever, and so there is no reason for me to assume that it will.
The fire itself is eternal, and God doesn't have to say this ten times more for me to accept it.
Yes, the fire seems to be eternal. If it weren't around forever then Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet would not be tormented forever. But from what I see of the passage it's telling me that sinful humans depart into an everlasting fire. It says nothing about them being tormented forever. And from past experience I know that whatever fire burns it destroys. So by default I take this to mean that they will depart into eternal fire and be utterly consumed, no longer existing for eternity. The only exception to traditional logic here in dealing with fire is with regard to Satan, the Beast and the False Prophet; they appear to be kept alive forever - in spite of a consuming fire - in order to suffer torment. But there is one more exception that deals with the Millennial Reign of Christ.
Isaiah 66:24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die,
the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”
But here it says that their bodies are dead. What I personally take away from this is that they are killed, but that their dead bodies lie preserved as a memory. This would also count as an extended period of disgrace and contempt without them actually being alive to endure any sort of torment. Because we can look out on their bodies and see their shame. If the torment were meant to last for eternity for all sinful human beings, then there'd be no point in resurrecting them with physical bodies if their bodies were just going to be burned to death again. The torment would be more spiritual in nature. If these dead bodies' spirits are to be around to suffer torment after their bodies have died, then there's no need to resurrect them in the first place. They can suffer a spiritual torment instead - as that would be the ultimate result of the fire. However, they don't appear to be suffering here but instead appear to be dead.
So my concept of hell fire and the torment to come has not been changed. But I feel the concept of the new heaven and new earth warrants further research.
