Isaiah 65:17-25? Earthly Millennium? Or Eternal State?
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 07:57AM 
Eschatology Q and A.
Question 1: One of the trickiest passages to interpret from any eschatological viewpoint is Isaiah 65:17-25--especially verse 20. What is your view on the meaning of this passage?
Question 2: I was glad to see the question re: Isa. 65:17-25, particularly v. 20. I remain convinced that the amil position easily does most justice to the whole counsel of God. It seems to me that there's nigh-well an avalanche of problems with the pre-mil (and post-mil) position(s), as well as a comparable avalanche of passages supportive of the amil (two age) scheme. Furthermore, regardless of the meaning of Isa. 65:20ff (and parallels), I see nothing in these verses that matches what's going on in Rev. 20:1-10. Just as the Isaiah passage says nothing about a millennium, so Rev. 20 says nothing about people bearing children, building houses, etc.
But the precise meaning of Isa. 65:20ff eludes me, in terms of what the best way of understanding Isaiah's point is. Is Isaiah conflating something in the present age with something in eternity? Or is he simply speaking non-literally so as to employ language in a way that accentuates the glorious conditions of the new heavens and earth? I anxiously await your response!
________________________________________
Kim Riddlebarger’s answer:
According to dispensationalists, Isaiah is referring to the millennial age on earth during the 1000 year reign of Christ after his return to earth (cf. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, 487-490). For reasons we will soon explore this cannot be the case.
According to postmillennarians, this passage this passage refers to the latter day glory of the church on the earth. John Jefferson Davis writes, "the blessings of the church’s latter-day glory spoken of in Isaiah 11:6-9 are reiterated and expanded in Isaiah 65:17-25. The intensified period of spiritual blessing produces conditions in the world that are termed `new heavens and a new earth.’ (V. 17). This refers to the dramatic moral renovation of society rather than to the eternal state, since Isaiah speaks of a time when children are still being born (v. 20), when people are still building houses and planting vineyards (v. 21) and engaging in their earthly labors (v. 22). Paul uses similar language when he says that salvation in Christ is like a `new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17), or again in Gal. 6:15, `for neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.’ The conditions of health and temporal peace of which Isaiah speaks in 65:17-25 are not the essence of the gospel, but they are properly the consequences of the gospel when its impact is intensive and extensive in the world. The message of reconciliation with God also produces as its fruit reconciliation between man and man and even with the natural order itself. It should also be noted that 65:17-25 makes no reference to the Messiah’s physical presence on earth. In the latter days, God desires to create in Jerusalem (the church) a rejoicing (v. 18). But the realities of verses 18-25 refer neither exclusively to the eternal state nor to the time following the second advent, but rather to the messianic age when Christ still rules at the right hand of the Father in heaven." (Cf. John Jefferson Davis, The Victory of Christ’s Kingdom: An Introduction to Postmillennialism [Canon Press], 37-38).
For four important reasons, I think both the premil and postmil interpretations stumble badly.
First, as Motyer points out, Isaiah 65:1-66:24 is a chiasm, in terms of its structure. This simply means that the logic of the passage flows from the opening verse (Isaiah 65:1–A1) and the final verses (66:18-21-A2)–both of which deal with those who have not heard nor sought the Lord–toward the middle of the chiasm, i.e. A1 (65:1), B1 (vv. 2-7), C1 (vv. 8-10), D1 (vv.11-12) E (vv. 13-25), D2 (66:1-4), C2 (66:5-14), B2 (66:15-17), A2 (18-21). In this case, Isaiah 65:13-25-E is the middle of the chiasm, and is therefore the central theme of the entire prophecy and speaks of the joy of the Lord’s servants in the new creation. This means that the central truth (or high point) of this entire prophecy is found in the middle of the chiasm, not the end (vv. 66:22-24), which speaks of Jerusalem as the center of the world. (See J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary [IVP], 522-523).
The point is this. The key part of the whole passage is the section in question (vv. 17-25) which deals with the new creation with its Zion. Steps A1-D1 and A2-D2 must be fulfilled before the hoped-for reality (E) comes to pass. Given the structure of the prophecy as a whole, the climax of the passage is the eternal state (the new heavens and earth), not a half-way redeemed earth in which people experience life-extension, only to die later on.
Second, verses 17-20 of Isaiah 65 are composed of two poems. One is a poem of the new creation (vv. 17-18b), the other is a poem of the city and its people (vv. 18c-20). As Motyer points out, "throughout this passage Isaiah uses aspects of present life to create impressions of the life that is yet to come. It will be a life totally provided for (13), totally happy (19cd), totally secure (22-23) and totally at peace (24-25). Things we have no real capacity to understand can be expressed only through things we know and experience. So it is that in the present order of things death cuts off life before it has begun or before it has fully matured. But it will not be so then" (Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah, 530). In other words, metaphors are used of things neither we nor Isaiah can fully understand. The poetic structure surely points in this direction.
Third, as Meredith Kline points out, the language here reflects covenantal blessings now magnified in light of new heavens and earth. These blessings take us well beyond the natural order, but can only be understood in light of the natural order (Kline, Kingdom Prologue,152-153).
Fourth, is Isaiah telling us that as a result of the spread of the gospel ("moral renovation" in Jefferson’s terms), people will live longer, only to die? Where does the gospel promise long life? It promises eternal life! In fact, isn’t the whole point of prophecy clearly stated in verse 17. "I will create new heavens and a new earth?" This is a time subsequent to Revelation 20:1-10, which describes the binding of Satan and the reign of the saints in heaven after suffering upon the earth, only to end in a great apostasy before the final judgment. Both pre and post millennarians must assign this prophecy to the same period of time as Revelation 20. But given the chiastic structure and use of metaphor, isn’t it far better to see Isaiah 65:17-25 as describing the same time frame as Revelation 21, which is clearly describing the eternal state? I certainly think so.
_______________________
Reader Comments (24)
The dispensational pretrib, premil theory demands a gap of 1007 years between the resurrection/judgment of Christians and the resurrection/judgment of unbelievers, in that the pretrib view holds that the resurrection/judgment of Christians occurs seven years before the Parousia, and that the resurrection/judgment of unbelievers occurs 1000 years after the Parousia.
Yet, when one carefully examines every single major NT eschatological passage (Mt. 24/25 and parallels, I Cor. 15; I Thes. 4/5; II Thes. 1/2; II Pet. 3; and the entire book of Revelation, one finds that:
1) These two resurrection/judgments are merged into one - i.e., they are SQUEEZED TOGETHER. This is just as true of the book of Revelation, when Rev. 20 is understood in its proper context, as it is of the other passages.
2) What these resurrection/judgments coincide with is, of course, the Parousia.
3) What happens to the dispensational position when the above is noted is simple: it is effectivelly SQUEEZED OUT as a viable explanatory option.
Might we say, then, that we ought to "dispense" with dispensationalism???
That's just one of many freedoms I'm celebrating tonight!!!
I say this not sarcastically, but as one who is rejoicing to see the simple and straightforward truth that emerges when one takes God's Word seriously, instead of obscuring it by reading it through the lens of the complicated and confusing dispensational grid.
I heartily subscribe to the notion that we ought to interpret the unclear in light of the clear, and that NT revelation has a certain priority over OT revelation (in the sense of progressive revelation).
However, I end this comment with something much more elementary: Students of eschatology can quibble endlessly about how to interpret OT promises initially given to Israel, including whether or not such promises can, in their opinion, experience any degree of fulfillment in the present age. But here's what mystifies me: How can dispensationalists keep on insisting that the present age has no continuity with the OT promises, when passages like Galatians 3/4; Hebrews 8; I Peter 2; and many more, explicitly apply these very promises and terminology to Christians?
It seems to me that in their zeal to uphold a system of eschatology, dispensationalists place themselves in the position of arguing against God Himself.
Time has prevented me from further interaction since my last post. I apologize for not being back. I have read through your continued posting and find no reason to abandon dispensationalism. Although there are so many points that could be easily addressed, let me address only two points:
You say <i>I maintain that there are only two sets of reasons for thinking there's a millennium between the present age and the age to come: (1) the belief that Rev. 20 teaches such an age; and (2) the belief that there's a period of time that's better than the present age, but not as good as the age to come, that somehow must be sandwiched between the two ages.</i>
I maintain a third reason. The Bible prophesies of a time when the nation of Israel is restored to the land promised by God to their fathers, to live in peace and prosperity. If it were not for Rev 20, I would still believe this. If it were not described to be a "better age" I would still believe this, because I believe God keeps his promises.
Secondly, you say <i>as one who is rejoicing to see the simple and straightforward truth that emerges when one takes God's Word seriously, instead of obscuring it by reading it through the lens of the complicated and confusing dispensational grid.</i>
The implication that dispensationalists don't take Scriptures seriously as as silly as it is offensive. We might disagree, but let's not stoop to asserting that we do not take Scripture seriously. That makes any hope of productive conversation a fleeting fancy.
One of the reasons I could not continue to participate was a teaching project on the minor prophets. In my study and teaching, I am amazed that anyone could not be premillennial. I found myself time and time again asking, If there is no millennium, then when does this happen?
I say that to say this: My premillennialism has nothing to do with Rev 20. It has everything to do with what God promised.
As I have said, in all the reading I have done, I have yet to see anyone give what seem to be coherent answers to these problems. I don't think dispensationalism has all the answers. But I think it rises naturally out of Scripture, whereas amillennialism has to be forced onto Scripture in what seem to be some very uncomfortable contortions.
I have yet to see where I am arguing against God himself, though I think I could make that case that you are doing that.
You talk about having a hard time seeing the coming of Christ as two comings (pretrib and earthly reign). Allowing for the sake of argument that there are two comings there, compare that to the OT teaching on teh coming of the Messiah. There is no hint that more than 2000 years would separate his coming to earth from his coming to reign. It is presented as one coming. Since we already have this pattern of prophetic compression, there is no reason to deny its possibility elsewhere.
We know the first resurrection is only for the saved. So, the resurrection of the saved and the lost mentioned in Daniel 12:1-2 and John 5:28-29 must occur at the same time. John 5:28 says "the hour is coming" when the saved will be raised to everlasting life and the lost are raised to everlasting damnation. Notice it doesn't say "the hours are coming". That means it must be the second resurrection, since the first resurrection is only for the saved. The first resurrection is spiritual because you may notice that Revelation 20 is referring to SOULS. Also, John 11:24-27 refers to the first resurrection of believers, which occurs when one is born again of the Holy Spirit. Notice in verse 25 Jesus says "he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.". This is saying that someone can believe in Him after they are dead? Huh? Oh, right. It means they were spiritually dead and are given new spiritual life. Another problem for amillenialists is trying to explain how the saved and the lost are judged at the same time as it makes clear in Matthew 25:31-46. The amillenial position has no problem with explaining the first and second resurrections or the Judgment while the premillenial position has all kinds of problems explaining them. If the second resurrection was only for the unsaved, then when are those who die during the supposed future thousand years resurrected?
Another thing that makes the premillenial theory impossible is that Christ destroys all of the wicked at His second coming. This is proven in passages such as Luke 17:26-30, 2 Peter 3:7, 2 Thessalonians 2:6-10, and Revelation 19:15-21. If all of the wicked are destroyed and all of the saved are caught up to meet the Lord in the air, then who is going to still be around to populate a supposed thousand year kingdom? No one.