Does Isaiah 65 Really Refer to a Millennial Kingdom?

The 20th chapter of the book of Revelation is the focal point of a lot of debate among Christians. This chapter refers to a period of a thousand years (Rev 20:2-7) that is usually called ‘the millennium’.

Interpreters of Rev 20 divide into groups that are commonly known as premillennialists, postmillennialists and amillennialists.

Premillennialists believe that the millennium is a period of time that will occur after Christ returns to earth. They often refer to this period as the ‘millennial kingdom’. According to them, the new earth, referred to in Isa 65:17, 2 Pet 3:13 and Rev 21:1, will not be created until after the millennial kingdom has ended.

Postmillennialists believe that the millennium will be a golden age of obedience to God on earth that will take place at some point before Christ returns. They believe that the new earth will be created almost immediately after Christ returns.

Most amillennialists believe that the millennium is symbolic of the whole era between the Day of Pentecost referred to in Acts 2 and the return of Christ. A small number of amillennialists believe instead that the millennium does not refer to any actual period of time on earth. Like postmillennialists, amillennialists also believe that the new earth will be created almost immediately after Christ returns.

I am firmly in the amillennial camp.

An argument used to support premillennialism

There are a huge number of biblical passages that are claimed as support for each position, and in this article I don’t intend to discuss this topic in any great depth, which would take tens of thousands of words at a bare minimum.

Instead, I want to limit my discussion to one argument that is commonly used by premillennialists as a proof text for their view. I am convinced that this argument doesn’t work, and I want to explain why.

The argument appeals to Isaiah 65:17-25, which reads as follows:

‘17 “For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth,
and the former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in that which I create;
for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy,
and her people to be a gladness.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem
and be glad in my people;
no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping
and the cry of distress.
20 No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not fill out his days,
for the young man shall die a hundred years old,
and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
they shall not plant and another eat;
for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,
and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

23 They shall not labor in vain
or bear children for calamity,
for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD,
and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are yet speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together;
the lion shall eat straw like the ox,
and dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.’ (ESV)

The argument used by premillennialists goes along the following lines:

In this passage, Isaiah prophesies about a situation that doesn’t apply to the present state of affairs on earth and that can’t apply to the perfect state of affairs on the new earth.

For example, in v. 20 he says that a time is coming when people will not die in infancy and when those who die at 100 years old will be thought to have died young.

This can’t be referring to the world as we know it, because now and throughout known human history people have died in infancy. And it can’t be referring to the new earth, because there will be no human death there. Therefore, Isaiah must be prophesying about the millennial kingdom.

There are also other verses in this passage that premillennialists appeal to to make the same basic point, such as v. 23 and v. 25.

Responding to this argument

At first sight, this might look like a strong argument, but actually it isn’t, for a couple of reasons:

(1) We can see that this passage begins in v. 17 with a statement by God that he will create new heavens and a new earth.

It is not easy to take ‘a new earth’ loosely as a reference to the present earth upgraded in some way (as the earth would be in a supposed millennial kingdom), because of the reference to ‘new heavens’. If the new heavens really are new heavens, as they surely are, then it makes sense to think that ‘new earth’ really is referring to the new earth mentioned in 2 Pet 3:13 and Rev 21:1.

Importantly too, verses 18-25 seem most naturally to be a description of what will happen on the new earth. To say that v. 17 is referring to the new earth but that the focus changes immediately in v. 18 to what will go on in the millennial kingdom before the new earth has even been created looks awkward, to say the least.

(2) The book of Revelation actually contains some remarkable similarities to what we find in Isa 65:17-25.

In Rev 21:1 John says:

‘Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.’ (ESV)

Then in Rev 21:2-22:5 John uses highly symbolic language to talk at length about what things will be like on the new earth.

There is one section of this passage that is very relevant for our topic in this article, and that is Rev 22:1-2, where we read:

‘1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.’ (ESV)

Note the last sentence: ‘The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.’ The ESV translates with the past tense ‘were’ because this is what John saw in the past in his vision, but the sentence refers to what will happen in the future after the new earth is created.

Christians are agreed that when we are on the new earth, there will be no suffering of any kind. Everything will be perfect. There will be no illnesses that need literal healing, and there will be no other problems that need any sort of metaphorical healing.

So what is Rev 22:2 talking about when it says that on the new earth the leaves of the tree will be for the healing of the nations?

The answer is that there is a form of artistic licence going on here that involves talking about the future earth in terms drawn from positive things that take place on our present earth. Here on our earth, using leaves medicinally is a positive thing, so the new earth is described as if this positive thing will also happen on it, even though actually that won’t be the case.

I don’t pretend to know why the Holy Spirit inspired the text in this way. But it can hardly be denied that this is what he has done. Rev 22:2 is clearly referring to healing that will happen on the new earth, yet there will certainly be nothing to heal at that time. So there has to be artistic licence in play.

Turning back now to Isa 65:17-25, I would suggest that the same sort of artistic licence is also being used in this passage. The whole passage is referring to life on the new earth, and in some of the verses, such as v. 20, the new earth is described in terms that are drawn from positive things on our present earth. On our earth, long life and the avoidance of infant death are viewed as positive things when they occur, so the new earth is described in these terms, even though the new earth will not literally be like that.

We have no choice but to say that this sort of artistic licence has led to what we read in Rev 22, so why can’t we say that the same has happened in Isa 65?

Taking passages too literally

When premillennialists cite Isa 65:17-25 as a proof text that there will be a millennial kingdom, they tend to simply assume that the prophecy in this passage is supposed to be interpreted literally.

It is certainly true that most of the Bible is supposed to be interpreted literally. But it is just as true that Scripture contains all sorts of figures of speech. Modern Western readers of the Bible often fail to realise this, and end up trying to force literal interpretations out of passages that were never intended to be read in that way.

Summing up

Despite the claims of many premillennialists that Isa 65:17-25 proves that it is God’s purpose for there to be a millennial kingdom at some point in the future, this passage doesn’t actually show this at all.

Rev 22:2 clearly uses artistic licence to describe the future, new earth in terms drawn from our present earth. So it is very easy to say that the same sort of artistic licence is in operation in Isa 65:17-25 too. And if we accept that Isa 65:18-25 is talking about the new earth, this allows us to keep a continuity of theme between v. 17, which explicitly mentions the new earth, and verses 18-25.

 

See also:

Beware of Taking Biblical End-Times Prophecies Too Literally

The Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally

Beware of Taking Genesis 1-3 Too Literally

Is It God’s Will for There to Be Another Jerusalem Temple?

How Can the Word Be With God and Also Be God?

One of the most well known verses in the Bible has to be John 1:1, where the apostle begins his Gospel by saying:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’

Those of us who have been Christians for a long time will surely be very familiar with these words. However, it is very easy through over-familiarity to lose sight of the tremendous paradox that the words contain.

At first sight, this sentence seems to include what looks like an obvious contradiction. If the Word was with God, that implies a distinction between the Word and God. But if the Word was God, that implies identity between the Word and God. So how can we square this circle logically? Is the verse just talking nonsense, or is there a way to make sense of what it says?

The translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others

Jehovah’s Witnesses are one group that will not hesitate to say that the way this verse is translated in evangelical and other circles is self-contradictory and a mistranslation. They would argue that it should be translated:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.’

They claim that the verse isn’t saying that the Word is the one true God at all, but that the Word is a creation of God that is described as ‘a god’.

I don’t want to get into a long discussion in this article of how Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret this verse. Suffice it to say that in the immediate context of the beginning of John’s Gospel their interpretation is not a very natural one, and that in the light of the rest of this Gospel their interpretation should certainly be ruled out.

We should have no hesitation in saying that John 1:1 states both that the Word was with God and that the Word was God.

The Trinity

Before we turn to think about how the Word can be with God and also be God, I need to say something about what is commonly referred to as ‘the Trinity’.

The Bible teaches that God is one Being who is three Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each Person is fully God but is neither of the other two Persons.

All analogies from everyday life fall short of adequately portraying the Trinity, but I like to use the analogy of a coin. If we take a coin, we can say that the whole coin is a metal, the whole coin is a solid, and the whole coin is money. The property of being a metal, the property of being a solid and the property of being money are different things, but they all apply to the whole coin.

Similarly, the whole Being that is God is the Father, the whole Being that is God is the Son and the whole Being that is God is the Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Spirit are different Persons, but they are all fully God.

This analogy of the coin falls short of describing the Trinity, because the Persons of Father, Son and Spirit relate to each other, whereas the properties of the coin that I mentioned don’t relate to each other. But I think the coin analogy has some merit in describing the Trinity.

Making sense of how the Word can be with God and also be God

Let’s get back now to John 1:1, with its claim that the Word was with God and the Word was God. Is this really possible? Does it make sense?

The answer to this is a clear yes.

Let’s think for a moment about the nature of language. If you look in any detailed English dictionary, you will find that the vast majority of words have a range of meanings. They have what linguists refer to as a ‘semantic range’.

But it isn’t just English that is like this. Every language, both ancient and modern, is similar, and that includes the Hellenistic Greek that the New Testament was written in.

In the New Testament, the standard word for ‘God’ is the noun theos. But this word can mean more than one thing. Sometimes it is used to refer to the Being that is God without thinking about the Persons of the Trinity. But at other times it is used to refer specifically to the Person who is the Father.

In John 1:1 theos is used once in each of these ways. Here is the verse again with some explanatory additions in square brackets:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [i.e., the Person who is the Father], and the Word was God [i.e., the Being that is God].’

Importantly, ‘the Word’ in this verse is a precise reference to the Person of the Trinity who is the Son. So if we take theos to mean what I have said it does in the square brackets, the sentence makes perfect sense. The Word/Son is a distinct Person from the Father, so it is logical to say that in the beginning the Word was with God. But the Word/Son is fully the Being that is God, so it is logical to say that in the beginning the Word was God.

There is no contradiction here at all.

Why does the Bible refer to the Person who is the Father as ‘God’?

But this raises an important question. If Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally God, why would the Bible in this verse (and in others) refer to the Person of the Father simply as ‘God’? Does this imply that somehow the Father is more divine than the other two Persons of the Trinity?

The Father is certainly not more divine than the Son and Spirit. However, I do believe that there is a primacy that belongs to the Father that doesn’t belong to the Son or Spirit. I would say that among the Persons of the Trinity, the Father is the first among equals. At the risk of seeming to de-personify the Persons of the Trinity, I think we might even say that the Father is the default Person of the Trinity.

According to Scripture, the Son and Spirit are in some respects dependent on the Father in ways that the Father isn’t dependent on the Son or Spirit.

For example, in John 5:26 Jesus says:

‘For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself.’

See in this verse how even the life that the Son has is derived in some sense from the Father! Crucially, however, this is an eternal derivation, so there was never a time when the Son didn’t have this life. The verse is therefore not saying that the Son was created. Rather, in view here is what theologians refer to as the eternal generation of the Son. But it is still a dependence of the Son on the Father in a way that the Father is not dependent on the Son.

Similarly, the Bible also portrays the Spirit as dependent on the Father in a way that the Father is never portrayed as dependent on the Spirit. In John 14:26, for example, Jesus says that the Father will send the Spirit in Jesus’ name. We will look in vain, however, to find a biblical reference to the Spirit sending the Father or anything remotely similar.

Understanding that the Father holds a position of primacy among the Persons of the Trinity can help us to understand why the Bible can often refer to him simply as ‘God’. If we turn our minds to thinking about God as a personal Being, it is natural for us to think immediately of the Father before thinking of the Son or the Spirit. Hence the New Testament often refers to the Father simply as ‘God’.

Summing up

We have seen, then, that the statement in John 1:1 that the Word was with God and the Word was God isn’t nonsense. Once we understand that the word ‘God’ is being used in this verse in two different ways, all becomes clear. In the beginning the Word, i.e., the Son, was with the Person of the Trinity who is the Father, and the Word was the Being that is God.

And once we recognise the primacy of place that the Father takes among the Persons of the Trinity, it helps us to understand why the Bible often refers to him simply as ‘God’.

 

See also:

Paradoxes and Tensions in the Christian Faith

Is It Arrogant for Christians to Claim There Is Only One True Faith?

Salvation Is Not by Doing Good but Only Those Who Do Good Will Be Saved

The Justice and Mercy of God

Could Jesus Return at Any Moment?

The Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ will return to earth, as many passages make clear. For example, in Acts 1:11 we read that on the day Jesus ascended to heaven, some angels told the 11 remaining apostles:

‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.’ (ESV)

So Jesus will come back. But when will this take place? Could he return at any moment, or are there things that still have to happen first?

Things still have to happen before Jesus returns

A good place to start on this topic is in the second chapter of Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians. It is worth setting out the first three verses of the chapter in full:

‘1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction . . .’ (ESV)

Verse 1 is clear that Paul is talking about the return of Jesus, and in v. 3 Paul says that his return will not happen until ‘the rebellion’ occurs and ‘the man of lawlessness is revealed’.

Importantly, there is no good reason for thinking that these things have happened yet. The rebellion, which must be some sort of specific rebellion against God, has apparently not yet taken place. And the man of lawlessness, sometimes referred to as ‘the antichrist’, is apparently a literal man who has still to appear on the scene and do his evil thing. (These events are spelled out in a bit more detail in the following verses.)

In seeking to answer the question we are asking in this article, therefore, this means that we can rule out the solution which says that Jesus could return at any moment and that things are as simple as that. The vast majority of Bible-believing Christians agree with this conclusion.

Passages which might seem to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment

What makes this issue a bit more complicated is that there are biblical passages which seem at first sight to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment.

Matthew 24:37-44 provides a good example of this, and, again, it is worth setting out the passage in full:

‘37 As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. 38 For in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah boarded the ark. 39 They didn’t know until the flood came and swept them all away. This is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding grain with a hand mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore be alert, since you don’t know what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this: If the homeowner had known what time the thief was coming, he would have stayed alert and not let his house be broken into. 44 This is why you are also to be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.’ (CSB)

This passage tells us repeatedly that Jesus will return. And in verses 42 and 44 the disciples are told that they need to be alert and ready for this.

At first sight, the instructions here to be alert and ready for Jesus’ return seem to suggest that he could return at any moment. So at first glance, this seems to contradict passages like 2 Thess 2:1-3 that we looked at above.

We have a bit of work to do, then, figuring out what is going on with all this, because obviously the Bible isn’t going to contradict itself on this issue.

The dispensationalist solution

Christians who accept what is known as dispensational theology have come up with a novel solution to this conundrum, which is to say that Jesus will return twice – once to the air above the earth and then 7 years later to the earth itself. They say that Jesus could return at any moment to the air above the earth, at which time the church will be caught up to meet him in the air (1 Thess 4:14-17), and then 7 years later he will return again and actually set foot on the earth.

In dispensational thinking, passages like Matt 24:37-44 and 1 Thess 4:14-17 are referring to Jesus’ first return, to the air above the earth, and passages like 2 Thess 2:1-3 are referring to his second return, when he sets foot on the earth.

Although this is a popular view today, no or almost no Christians believed this before the 1830s. Like the vast majority of believers down through the centuries, I am convinced that Jesus will return only once. Together with a large majority of Christians, I am sure that on the day Jesus returns, believers will be caught up to meet him in the air and then on the same day he and we will set foot on the earth.

Thinking more carefully about the passages which seem to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment

In this article I am not planning to give a long defence of the view that Jesus will return once. Rather, I want to focus on what is probably the main argument used by dispensationalists to support their idea that Jesus will return twice, which is the existence of passages that seem to teach that he could return at any moment.

Let’s think about this issue more carefully, using Matt 24:37-44 that I quoted above. And in this section let’s look at things from the point of view of dispensationalist theology, with its idea that Jesus will return twice, once to the air above the earth and then 7 years later to the earth proper.

What I want to show is that, even according to dispensational ideas, it is not possible to say that Jesus could have returned at any moment to the air above the earth until decades after he first spoke the words in this passage.

The teaching in this passage is given to Jesus’ disciples (Matt 24:3), which certainly includes the 12 apostles. As I have noted, Jesus tells his disciples to be alert for his coming (v. 42) and ready for his coming (v. 44).

At first sight, these commands look as if they were applicable from the moment Jesus spoke them. See how he says ‘be alert’ for the Lord’s coming, not ‘a time will come in the future when you will need to be alert’ for the Lord’s coming. And note how he says ‘you are also to be ready’ for Jesus’ return, not ‘a time will come in the future when you will need to be ready’ for his return.

However, these commands cannot possibly have been applicable from the time Jesus spoke these words. His return was clearly not possible before he had even left! He needed to complete his earthly teaching ministry, die, rise from the dead and ascend to heaven first. So although at first glance Jesus seems in these verses to be referring to something that could have happened at any moment from the time he spoke these words, this cannot have been the case, as even dispensationalists have to agree.

But what about when Jesus had ascended to heaven? Could Jesus have returned to the air above the earth at any moment after that point?

No! Another 10 days were needed until the Holy Spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), as even dispensationalists have to agree.

OK, but once the Spirit had been given on the Day of Pentecost, surely the point was reached when Jesus could return at any moment to the air above the earth, wasn’t it?

Again, no! In John 21:18-19 Jesus prophesies that Peter will grow old and be martyred, and there are very good reasons for believing that this happened in the 60s of the first century. So even after the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, which took place at some time between 30 AD and 33 AD, at least another three decades or so were needed before it would be possible for Jesus to return at any moment to the air above the earth.

And dispensationalists, if they are consistent with what else they believe, have to agree with this. Dispensationalists claim that when Jesus returns for the first time, to the air above the earth, the Christians on earth at that time will be caught up to meet him and then taken away to heaven. Before he died, Peter was obviously a Christian on earth. So, if Jesus had returned while Peter was still on earth, he would have been caught up to heaven and the prophecy of his martyrdom would never have been fulfilled. Therefore, even according to dispensational ideas, the Christians on earth couldn’t have been caught up to meet Jesus in the air until Jesus’ prophecy of Peter’s martyr death had been fulfilled sometime in the 60s of the first century.

My point is that, although in Matt 24:37-44, and other similar passages, Jesus seems at first sight to be saying that his return could happen at any moment, that wasn’t actually the case. In reality, there needed to be a delay of no less than some decades before he could return even to the air above the earth, as even dispensationalists have to agree.

Of course, I don’t agree with dispensationalists that there will be two returns of Jesus, first to the air above the earth and then 7 years later to the earth itself. But my point is that even if we were to think that Jesus will return twice, his first return wouldn’t have been possible until decades after Jesus spoke the words of Matt 24:37-44 and other similar prophecies.

A crucial point to consider

So there were at least some decades after Jesus spoke the prophecy in Matt 24:37-44 (and similar passages) before the return he was referring to in this passage could have happened. But crucially, why do we have to say that the point has been reached even today when it could happen at any moment? I would suggest that it hasn’t. There are still things that need to happen before the return of Jesus referred to in this passage can happen, including the rebellion and revelation of the man of lawlessness that we read about in 2 Thess 2.

Many dispensationalists criticise other Christians for supposedly not taking seriously enough the passages which seem to teach that Jesus could return at any moment. But what they often fail to recognise is that they themselves have to allow for a delay of some decades between the giving of the prophecies and their fulfillment. And if there has to be a delay of decades, then why could the delay not be as long as centuries, even up to the present day?

To put it another way, the approach of dispensationalists to the passages which seem at first sight to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment is far too simplistic. They often look at these passages and just assume that these passages must be saying that today Jesus could return at any moment. But this is an unwarranted assumption. And if there is no good reason for thinking that today Jesus could return at any moment, this means there is no good reason for thinking that Jesus will return twice.

What is the point of these passages?

As we have seen, passages in the New Testament which seem at first sight to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment actually need to be qualified to some extent.

But this raises a question. What should we make of these passages? If they don’t actually teach that Jesus could return at any moment, what do they teach and what is their purpose?

There are a few points to make here:

(1) Even though at the present time there are still things that need to happen before Jesus returns, it is quite possible that end-times events could unfold very rapidly. So even though he couldn’t return today, he could return very soon. Exhortations to be watchful for his return are therefore still highly relevant.

(2) I think exhortations to be watchful for Jesus’ return actually encourage people to get ready for their deaths.

Each human being could die at any moment, and in terms of what the end result will be, death has the same outcome as Jesus’ return. When he returns, those on earth who are saved will then spend eternity with him and those who are unsaved will be expelled from his presence. Likewise, when people die, the saved will spend eternity with him and the unsaved will be expelled from his presence.

Exhortations to get ready for Jesus’ return, and therefore to be ready to meet him, remind us that we will also need to be ready to meet him if we die. These exhortations therefore encourage people to think about the need to be ready to meet Jesus, whether or not we do this by dying or by being on earth when he returns.

(3) A time will obviously be reached at some point in the future when all conditions for Jesus’ return have been met and he really could appear at any moment. So these passages will take on a special relevance at that time.

 

See also:

Is It God’s Will for There to Be Another Jerusalem Temple? 

Beware of Interpreting Bible Prophecies Too Literally 

The Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally 

The Importance of Being Cautious in End-Times Matters