# Isaiah 65 and the Millennial Kingdom



## B.J.

Does anyone have a better technique in explaining this chapter to a Dispensational besides simply telling them they refuse to understand prophetic symbolism, and literary usage instead of a literal understanding? 

A friend of mine continues in his belief that I am stumped in reguards to the meaning of the text. I told him I am not stumped, you will simply not allow for my interpretation as a possible hypothesis. He continuely brow beats me about this text describing the Millennial Kingdom. I always start by asking him where he reads anything about a 1000 year kingdom in this text. My view is that it describes the Jews return from exile using a certain genre to do so.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Coram Deo

Verse 17 tell us that this is in the New heaven and New Earth....

17 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.

But this could still be in the millennium if you take John Gill's approach which is more to what I adhere to.. That the Millennium will be after the day of fire. The first thousand years of the New Earth and before all Eternity....

But the passage is clear, it is on the new heaven and new earth....






B.J. said:


> Does anyone have a better technique in explaining this chapter to a Dispensational besides simply telling them they refuse to understand prophetic symbolism, and literary usage instead of a literal understanding?
> 
> A friend of mine continues in his belief that I am stumped in reguards to the meaning of the text. I told him I am not stumped, you will simply not allow for my interpretation as a possible hypothesis. He continuely brow beats me about this text describing the Millennial Kingdom. I always start by asking him where he reads anything about a 1000 year kingdom in this text. My view is that it describes the Jews return from exile using a certain genre to do so.
> 
> Any thoughts?


----------



## RamistThomist

The reason he says it's a thousand year is because of verse 20. Verse 20 cannot refer to heaven because people don't die in heaven. It can't refer to the church age because it is not strange that babies die. Therefore, the only alternative, for the dispie, is the millennial kingdom. 

I happen to think this refers to the millennial kingdom, but I think there are better passages to support it. I don't think it is possible to say that one can figuratively or symbolicaly die in the natural death sense.


----------



## larryjf

Here is a good response from Dr. Riddlebarger regarding Isa 65...
http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com/ab...nialism/dr-riddlebarger-deals-with-isaiah-65/


----------



## RamistThomist

That's some limber hermeneutics. Riddlebarger still avoided the hardest part of the verse: babies don't die in the eternal state. I expected him to spiritualize that promise, but he didn't even try. He allowed theory to trump fact.


----------



## larryjf

Spear Dane said:


> That's some limber hermeneutics. Riddlebarger still avoided the hardest part of the verse: babies don't die in the eternal state. I expected him to spiritualize that promise, but he didn't even try. He allowed theory to trump fact.



I believe his point was that it was a metaphor...



> 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.



Besides, i thought that those who believed in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth after His second coming believed Christians would be resurrected. If that's so, how would they die? The implication of verse 20 would be that both the sinner and the saint would die at 100, how could that be so if the saint was resurrected?


----------



## RamistThomist

larryjf said:


> I believe his point was that it was a metaphor...



convenient. how does a baby metaphorically die?





> Besides, i thought that those who believed in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth after His second coming believed Christians would be resurrected.



Correct



> If that's so, how would they die? The implication of verse 20 would be that both the sinner and the saint would die at 100, how could that be so if the saint was resurrected?



Not every Christian living in the millennium would have been a "resurrected" Christian. That implies that all Christians had died before Christ came back, which is nowhere implied in Scriptures.


----------



## B.J.

> I happen to think this refers to the millennial kingdom, but I think there are better passages to support it. I don't think it is possible to say that one can figuratively or symbolicaly die in the natural death sense.




How can this refer to the millennial kingdom? What millennial kingdom? What Jew in exile knew of a millennial kingdom 3500 years away and still counting?The one in Revelation 20 I assume? So you take it to be a literal kingdom in Chapter 20 I take it. Do you think a literal chain will bind Satan? Do you think that on the 999th year, 364th day(provided its not a leap year and we will be using our calendar) that those who were born during the last few years of the "Literal Kingdom" are going to rise up and fight a large group of people who are 1000 years old? 

I can see it now....People will be looking around and saying to each other, "Its going to be a difficult task, but all these people who have been alive for a Millennia and never get hurt are going down! We are going to take it to them full force. And that Jesus guy over in Jerusalem, dont worry about him. By the time he crosses the Atlantic and reaches America we will have destoryed most of these 1000 year old people! Whos with me?!"


----------



## larryjf

Spear Dane said:


> convenient. how does a baby metaphorically die?


Did you read the quote i posted? Nobody said they metaphorically die.



> Not every Christian living in the millennium would have been a "resurrected" Christian. That implies that all Christians had died before Christ came back, which is nowhere implied in Scriptures.


So you believe that some saints will be in resurrected bodies and others will not? Is that found in Scripture some where?

1 Thess 4 does not seem to say that after those who are alive at His coming are caught up to Him that they will die later.


----------



## RamistThomist

larryjf said:


> Did you read the quote i posted? Nobody said they metaphorically die.



But that's the question he has to answer. If he says that it is "metaphor," then he must account for "dying." 





> 1 Thess 4 does not seem to say that after those who are alive at His coming are caught up to Him that they will die later.



It doesn't have to. 
EDIT: No verse is under obligation to prove an entire eschatological *system*. And while some might think the premil position is hard-pressed on this fact (I don't), I can easily turn the tables and repeatedly say the amil can't account for this passage or a host of other passages without a millennial kingdom.


----------



## Iconoclast

*isa 65/remnant of Israel,gentiles grafted in*

When the Apostle Paul quotes Isa 65:1 in Romans 10:20 it is part of a pattern of quotes from Isa. and Deut, that the Holy Spirit gave him to discuss
the one new man in Christ as it is in the gospel laid out for us.
What ever end time view you have,has to take into consideration all these verses as you work through these issues:

Isa.10:22.........Romans 9:27
1:9........... "" '' 9:29
8:14,28;16 ...........9;33
45:17, 49:22,23.......10:9-13
52:7.......................10:15
53:1........................10:16
65:1,2......................10:20,21
6:9,10......................11:8
59:20.......................11:26
45:23.........................14:11
11:1............................15:12
52:15...........................15:21
Gen 12:3.........................15:8-21

Clearly the servants work is universal and the kingdom is now. 
Both amill- and post believe Isa 65 is the theological third rail to the opposing positions. Amill say it is metaphorical language describing the heavenly reign from the cross to the white throne. Post mill say that it is language of the growth of the kingdom on earth with a more literal description of what will be leading to the consummation of the kingdom. Hope this is helpful, I am still working through these issues.
I believe Ken Gentry on sermonaudio has a sermon going after the amill position, and David Englesma has written a book defending against this approach.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Spear Dane said:


> The reason he says it's a thousand year is because of verse 20. Verse 20 cannot refer to heaven because people don't die in heaven. It can't refer to the church age because it is not strange that babies die. Therefore, the only alternative, for the dispie, is the millennial kingdom.
> 
> I happen to think this refers to the millennial kingdom, but I think there are better passages to support it. I don't think it is possible to say that one can figuratively or symbolicaly die in the natural death sense.



First of all, the express teaching in the text is that babies will NOT die until 100 years old. 

Second, you need to keep this text within it's redemptive historical context. Isaiah is talking to 8th century BC Jews not first century Christians. He painting a picture for them of the new heavens and earth in terms of which they will understand. The reference to infants and old men is most likely drawing from the song of Moses in Deuteronomy (i.e. 32:25). Compare the blessings in Isa. 65:21-23 to the covenant curses of Duet. 28. He is painting a picture using the words and promises of the Old Testament, promising a time when they would actually enjoy a long life in the land, when the wicked would no longer prosper, when the covenant curses would be reversed and the faithful would enjoy the blessings of the covenant. The NT then gives us even clearer revelation about the new heavens and earth, that a long life in the land is actually eternal life and an imperishable inheritance. 

To interpret Isa. 65:20 literally, clearly violates our Protestant rule of interpretation, to interpret those passages less clear in light of those more clear. 1 Cor. 15, 2 Peter 3, and Rev. 21-22, for example, all clearly say that death is no more with the advent of the new heavens and earth. So whatever Isaiah means by this, it cannot be taken to mean literal death, nor do I think he intended it that way. He is talking about fulfillment of promises and enjoyment of blessings in the language of types and shadows, which the NT clearly shows has their fulfillment with the return of Christ and the new heavens and earth.


----------



## RamistThomist

B.J. said:


> How can this refer to the millennial kingdom? What millennial kingdom? What Jew in exile knew of a millennial kingdom 3500 years away and still counting?The one in Revelation 20 I assume? So you take it to be a literal kingdom in Chapter 20 I take it. Do you think a literal chain will bind Satan? Do you think that on the 999th year, 364th day(provided its not a leap year and we will be using our calendar) that those who were born during the last few years of the "Literal Kingdom" are going to rise up and fight a large group of people who are 1000 years old?
> 
> I can see it now....People will be looking around and saying to each other, "Its going to be a difficult task, but all these people who have been alive for a Millennia and never get hurt are going down! We are going to take it to them full force. And that Jesus guy over in Jerusalem, dont worry about him. By the time he crosses the Atlantic and reaches America we will have destoryed most of these 1000 year old people! Whos with me?!"



Were you actually intending for me to answer your questions, or did you just want to ridicule my position? At least Patrick and Larry offered reasons and not ridicule for their position. This isn't even worth the time of a response. I can play this game, too. I can say that all non-premil people are actually liberals who spiritualize and allegorize away the parts of the Bible they don't like. Proof? Who cares? Ridicule is more fun.


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> First of all, the express teaching in the text is that babies will NOT die until 100 years old.



Ok. It's the fact that anybody is dying that I keep pointing to.



> Second, you need to keep this text within it's redemptive historical context. Isaiah is talking to 8th century BC Jews not first century Christians. He painting a picture for them of the new heavens and earth in terms of which they will understand. The reference to infants and old men is most likely drawing from the song of Moses in Deuteronomy (i.e. 32:25). Compare the blessings in Isa. 65:21-23 to the covenant curses of Duet. 28. He is painting a picture using the words and promises of the Old Testament, promising a time when they would actually enjoy a long life in the land, when the wicked would no longer prosper, when the covenant curses would be reversed and the faithful would enjoy the blessings of the covenant. The NT then gives us even clearer revelation about the new heavens and earth, that a long life in the land is actually eternal life and an imperishable inheritance.
> 
> To interpret Isa. 65:20 literally, clearly violates our Protestant rule of interpretation, to interpret those passages less clear in light of those more clear. 1 Cor. 15, 2 Peter 3, and Rev. 21-22, for example, all clearly say that death is no more with the advent of the new heavens and earth. So whatever Isaiah means by this, it cannot be taken to mean literal death, nor do I think he intended it that way. He is talking about fulfillment of promises and enjoyment of blessings in the language of types and shadows, which the NT clearly shows has their fulfillment with the return of Christ and the new heavens and earth.



And I get the feeling you and Riddlebarger are assuming what you need to prove.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

From "A Defence of Refromed Amillenialism" by David Englesma.

A Spiritual Fulfillment of Isaiah 65:17ff (Concluded)

The postmillennial dream of a “Christianized” world in history rests finally on Old Testament prophecy of a coming, glorious kingdom of Christ (see the editorial, “Those Glorious Prospects in Old Testament Prophecy,” in the Aug. 1, 1996 Standard Bearer). 

That Old Testament prophecy which more than any other is supposed to prove postmillennialism and refute amillennialism is Isaiah 65:17ff.: 

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth ... I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.... There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.... The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock... They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

Postmillennialism, which can find no support in the New Testament’s massive teaching of apostasy from and persecution of the church in the last days, appeals to Old Testament prophecy inasmuch as postmillennialism insists on interpreting this prophecy literally. On a literal interpretation of Isaiah 65:17ff., there will be an earthly fulfillment of the prophecy: an earthly kingdom of Christ with carnal delights, especially long physical life (see the editorial, “A Spiritual Interpretation of Isaiah 65:17ff.,” in the Sept. 15, 1996 SB; for the postmillennial interpretation of the Isaiah passage, see the editorial in the Aug. 1, 1996 SB, pp. 439, 440). 

In the editorials in the September 15 and October 1, 1996 issues of the SB, I demonstrated that there neither may nor can be a literal interpretation of Isaiah 65:17ff. The prophecy must be interpreted spiritually and has, accordingly, a spiritual fulfillment. 

What now is the spiritual interpretation and fulfillment of Isaiah 65:17ff.? 

Comprehensively, Isaiah 65:17-25 prophesies the entire saving work of God in Jesus Christ. As is customary with the prophets, Isaiah sees this work as one, great event, much as one sees the distant mountains as one, great range. Included are both the perfection of salvation (and of the Messianic kingdom) in the Day of Christ and the beginning of salvation (and of the Messianic kingdom) throughout the present age between Pentecost and the Day of Christ. All of this salvation, of course, has its basis in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for God’s elect world. 

That this is, in fact, the content of Isaiah’s prophecy is proved from New Testament comment on the passage. In II Peter 3:13, the apostle applies the prophecy of Isaiah 65:17 to God’s work in Jesus Christ on the day of Christ’s second coming. In the context of the teaching that the present creation will be destroyed by fire, Peter says, “Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” 

The apostle Paul, however, instructs us that there is also a fulfillment of the prophecy throughout the present age. In II Corinthians 5:17, he tells us that “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”

The authoritative New Testament explanation of the prophecy is that God’s saving work in Christ will be a renewal of the creation for the benefit of the church, the “elect” of Isaiah 65:22, at the second coming of Jesus, which renewal begins already now in the regeneration of each elect personally. 

There is nothing in the New Testament reflection on the prophecy that so much as hints at an earthly kingdom in history consisting of carnal benefits, physical dominion, and worldly peace. 

Specifically, Isaiah 65:17ff. is the prophecy of the new world of heavens and earth that Jesus Christ will create at His second coming. This is the plain teaching of Isaiah 65:17ff. itself: “I create new heavens and a new earth.” This is the New Testament explanation both in II Peter 3:13, already quoted, and in Revelation 21:1: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.” 

When He comes again in the body, at the end of history, Jesus Christ will destroy the present form of the creation in order to re-create the heavens and earth that God made in the beginning in their new, glorious, final form. The creation will share in the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom. 8:19-22). 

This new world will be the dwellingplace the home — of the new human race in Christ, the elect church from all nations, believers and their children (Is. 65:22, 23). The new creation will be home to the saints because Jehovah God will live with them there in Jesus Christ in the fellowship of the everlasting covenant. The new world that is coming will be “my holy mountain” (Is. 65:25).

There will be no trouble and no sorrow there, absolutely none — not one tear (Is. 65:19). Revelation 21:4, the New Testament light on the prophecy, informs us that the reason is that there will be no death in the new world. Christ, mighty Messianic king, will have destroyed the last enemy for us (II Cor. 15:26). 

As is typical of Old Testament prophecy, the prophet announced this coming deathless world in figurative language: long, earthly life (v.20). No baby will die in infancy; to die at 100 years of age would be accounted mere childhood; all the inhabitants will fill their days. The reality is: no death! everlasting life in resurrected soul and body, because the life of the people of God in the new world will be the immortal life of the risen Christ. 

The New Testament gives this explanation of this and similar, figurative Old Testament prophecies everywhere, e.g., John 5:25, 26. Revelation 21:4, the authoritative New Testament interpretation of Isaiah 65:20, puts beyond any doubt that this is what Isaiah meant: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death.”

Cursed sinners will be excluded from the new world, existing everlastingly under God’s curse in hell (Is. 65:20b; cf. Rev. 21:8). 

The lifting of the curse from God’s beloved world on the basis of Christ’s redeeming death and by the power of His renewing Spirit will extend to the animals. There will be animals in the new creation, just as there were animals in the original creation of Genesis 1 and 2. Christ’s redemption will be enjoyed by them, so that they will live in peace with each other as they did in the original phase of creation before the transgression of the first and unfaithful king (Gen. 1:29-31). There will be no death in the world of animal and plant.

The complete absence of death in the new world will be due to the perfect purging of sin from the creation. Peter tells us this “...wherein dwelleth righteousness” (II Pet. 3:13). Only righteousness will dwell there. No unrighteousness whatever will be found there. All ungodly men will have perished under the judgment of God (v.7). 

Is this not a wonderful salvation?

Do not believers and their offspring have a grand hope, abundantly able to sustain them in all their present tribulations? 

Is not the everlasting kingship and kingdom of Jesus the Messiah glorious?

Will not His victory be manifested as incomparable? All foes destroyed, even death. All God’s people perfectly delivered from sorrow and death unto the bliss of fellowship with the triune God in His Face, Jesus the Christ. The creation itself transformed into a new world, whose goodness and splendor cause the old form of the world to fade forever into forgottenness. 

All this fulfillment of Isaiah 65:17ff. will be spiritual. The prophecy holds before us, as it held before the true Israelite in Isaiah’s day, a spiritual salvation; spiritual blessings; spiritual life; and, indeed, a spiritual world. For the last Adam is spiritual, and we expect to live a spiritual life in our spiritual body in a spiritual creation (I Cor. 15:42ff.). 

The second specific fulfillment of Isaiah 65:17ff. is the spiritual life in Christ by faith of every regenerated child of God in the time between Pentecost and the second coming. This is the authoritative explanation of the Isaiah prophecy by the apostle in II Corinthians 5:17: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” He is a new creature already, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 65:17. 

The new world that is coming in the Day of Christ already breaks into the present world by the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit of Christ. It breaks into the heart of every elect child of God. It makes him a new creature. There is in his life a beginning of the deliverance from sin, sorrow, and death; of the joy; of the profitable, holy work; of the fellowship with God; of the everlasting life, of Isaiah 65:17ff. This shows itself in his confession and behavior. It brings down upon him the persecution of those who hate the Messiah and oppose His reign, the enemies of the new world. 

This powerful beginning of the new world in the life of the Christian here and now does not, however, gradually bring about the culmination of the kingdom of Christ in creation. Regenerated saints do not realize postmillennialism’s “golden age.”

As our present, earthly body becomes the future, spiritual body by the wonder of resurrection in the Day of Christ, so also does the present, pitiful, earthly creation become the future, glorious, spiritual creation by the wonder of recreation in the Day of Christ.

“Behold,” says Jehovah by the prophet, “I create new heavens and a new earth.”

Man cannot accomplish it.

Redeemed man cannot accomplish it.

Not even the postmillennialist


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Spear Dane said:


> Ok. It's the fact that anybody is dying that I keep pointing to.


You are emphasizing the dying. But Isaiah is emphasizing long life. Shouldn't that make you step back and think things through your own emphasis a little more? 



> And I get the feeling you and Riddlebarger are assuming what you need to prove.


I haven't read Riddlebarger so I'll leave that aside. It's a fact that the NT teaches there is no death in the new heavens and new earth. Isaiah cannot be saying there is actual death because then the Holy Spirit would be contradicting himself. How else will you reconcile the contradiction?


----------



## AV1611

Blueridge reformer said:


> From "A Defence of Refromed Amillenialism" by David Englesma.



Beat me to it 

I will take a look at my Edward J Young commentary and get back to you


----------



## AV1611

_Amillennialism: Part II - The Interpretation of Old Testament Prophecy_ by Anthony Hoekema


----------



## larryjf

Context is everything. We should not simply take Isa 65:20 and read it apart from the rest of Scripture, or from the rest of chapter 65 for that matter.

(this is taken from "The Bible and the Future" by: Anthony Hoekema)...

vv 17-19 give the context for verse 20 which is the new heaven and new earth.
This is the final state, not an intermediate 1,000 year state, as is shown in Rev 21:1.

v 18 even has a call to rejoice "forever", not for a limited period of time.

v 19 says that there will no longer be the sound of weeping, to which Rev 21:4 shows us this is again referring to the final state, not an intermediate state.

Knowing that there will be no more weeping, does it make sense that there will be death without weeping? Not really.

In Isa 25:8 he ties no more tears together with swallowing up death forever.

Taking all of this into context while reading v 20 informs us that Isaiah is speaking of death figuratively to show that those in the new heaven and earth will live incalculably long lives. The focus is on length of life, not on death.


I like the NASB rendering of v 20...
No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed.

The point is that there will be no more infant death, and old men will live out their days. The "100 years" is simply a figure to show that it will be long, not that every single person will live to exactly 100 years.

There is more figurative language in v 22 as it speaks of having the lifetime of a tree.


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> You are emphasizing the dying. But Isaiah is emphasizing long life. Shouldn't that make you step back and think things through your own emphasis a little more?



Long life isn't eternal life. But I see what you are saying. Still not ultimately convinced, but I won't die on this hill. There are other, better passages for my position.




> I haven't read Riddlebarger so I'll leave that aside. It's a fact that the NT teaches there is no death in the new heavens and new earth. Isaiah cannot be saying there is actual death because then the Holy Spirit would be contradicting himself. How else will you reconcile the contradiction?



It's not a contradiction for me.


----------



## AV1611

*Matthew Henry on Isaiah 65:17-25*

If these promises were in part fulfilled when the Jews, after their return out of captivity, were settled in peace in their own land and brought as it were into a new world, yet they were to have their full accomplishment in the gospel church, militant first and at length triumphant. The Jerusalem that is from above is free and is the mother of us all. In the graces and comforts which believers have in and from Christ we are to look for this new heaven and new earth. It is in the gospel that old things have passed away and all things have become new, and by it that those who are in Christ are new creatures, 2 Cor. v. 17. It was a mighty and happy change that was described v. 16, that the former troubles were forgotten; but here it rises much higher: even the former world shall be forgotten and shall no more come into mind. Those that were converted to the Christian faith were so transported with the comforts of it that all the comforts they were before acquainted with became as nothing to them; not only their foregoing griefs, but their foregoing joys, were lost and swallowed up in this. The glorified saints will therefore have forgotten this world, because they will be entirely taken up with the other: For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth. See how inexhaustible the divine power is; the same God that created one heaven and earth can create another. See how entire the happiness of the saints is; it shall be all of a piece; with the new heavens God will create them (if they have occasion for it to make them happy) a new earth too. The world is yours if you be Christ's, 1 Cor. iii. 22. When God is reconciled to us, which gives us a new heaven, the creatures too are reconciled to us, which gives us a new earth. The future glory of the saints will be so entirely different from what they ever knew before that it may well be called new heavens and a new earth, 2 Pet. iii. 13. Behold, I make all things new, Rev. xxi. 5.

I. There shall be new joys. For, 1. All the church's friends, and all that belong to her, shall rejoice (v. 18): You shall be glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create. The new things which God creates in and by his gospel are and shall be matter of everlasting joy to all believers. My servants shall rejoice (v. 13), at last they shall, though now they mourn. Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord. 2. The church shall be the matter of their joy, so pleasant, so prosperous, shall her condition be: I create Jerusalem a rejoicing and her people a joy. The church shall not only rejoice but be rejoiced in. Those that have sorrowed with the church shall rejoice with her. 3. The prosperity of the church shall be a rejoicing to God himself, who has pleasure in the prosperity of his servants (v. 19): I will rejoice in Jerusalem's joy, and will joy in my people; for in all their affliction he was afflicted. God will not only rejoice in the church's well-doing, but will himself rejoice to do her good and rest in his love to her, Zeph. iii. 17. What God rejoices in it becomes us to rejoice in. 4. There shall be no allay of this joy, nor any alteration of this happy condition of the church: The voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her. If this relate to any state of the church in this life, it means no more than that the former occasions of grief shall not return, but God's people shall long enjoy an uninterrupted tranquillity. But in heaven it shall have a full accomplishment, in respect both of the perfection and the perpetuity of the promised joy; there all tears shall be wiped away.

II. There shall be new life, v. 20. Untimely deaths by the sword or sickness shall be no more known as they have been, and by this means there shall be no more the voice of crying, v. 19. When there shall be no more death there shall be no more sorrow, Rev. xxi. 4. As death has reigned by sin, so life shall reign by righteousness, Rom. v. 14, 21. 1. Believers through Christ shall be satisfied with life, though it be ever so short on earth. If an infant end its days quickly, yet it shall not be reckoned to die untimely; for the shorter its life is the longer will its rest be. Though death reign over those that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, yet they, dying in the arms of Christ, the second Adam, and belonging to his kingdom, are not to be called infants of days, but even the child shall be reckoned to die a hundred years old, for he shall rise again at full age, shall rise to eternal life. Some understand it of children who in their childhood are so eminent for wisdom and grace, and by death nipped in the blossom, that they may be said to die a hundred years old. And, as for old men, it is promised that they shall fill their days with the fruits of righteousness, which they shall still bring forth in old age, to show that the Lord is upright, and then it is a good old age. An old man who is wise, and good, and useful, may truly be said to have filled his days. Old men who have their hearts upon the world have never filled their days, never have enough of this world, but would still continue longer in it. But that man dies old, and satur dierum—full of days, who, with Simeon, having seen God's salvation, desires now to depart in peace. 2. Unbelievers shall be unsatisfied and unhappy in life, though it be ever so long. The sinner, though he live to a hundred years old, shall be accursed. His living so long shall be no token to him of the divine favour and blessing, nor shall it be any shelter to him from the divine wrath and curse. The sentence he lies under will certainly be executed, and his long life is but a long reprieve; nay, it is itself a curse to him, for the longer he lives the more wrath he treasures up against the day of wrath and the more sins he will have to answer for. So that the matter is not great whether our lives on earth be long or short, but whether we live the lives of saints or the lives of sinners.

III. There shall be a new enjoyment of the comforts of life. Whereas before it was very uncertain and precarious, their enemies inhabited the houses which they built and ate the fruit of the trees which they planted, now it shall be otherwise; they shall build houses and inhabit them, shall plant vineyards and eat the fruit of them, v. 21, 22. Their intimates that the labour of their hands shall be blessed and be made to prosper; they shall gain what they aimed at, and what they have gained shall be preserved and secured to them; they shall enjoy it comfortably, and nothing shall embitter it to them, and they shall live to enjoy it long. Strangers shall not break in upon them, to expel them, and plant themselves in their room, as sometimes they have done: My elect shall wear out, or long enjoy, the work of their hands; it is honestly got, and it will wear well; it is the work of their hands, which they themselves have laboured for, and it is most comfortable to enjoy that, and not to eat the bread of idleness, or bread of deceit. If we have a heart to enjoy it, that is the gift of God's grace (Eccl. iii. 13); and, if we live to enjoy it long, it is the gift of God's providence, for that is here promised: As the days of a tree are the days of my people; as the days of an oak (ch. vi. 13), whose substance is in it, though it cast its leaves; though it be stripped every winter, it recovers itself again, and lasts many ages; as the days of the tree of life; so the LXX. Christ is to them the tree of life, and in him believers enjoy all those spiritual comforts which are typified by the abundance of temporal blessings here promised; and it shall not be in the power of their enemies to deprive them of these blessings or disturb them in the enjoyment of them.

IV. There shall be a new generation rising up in their stead to inherit and enjoy these blessings (v. 23): They shall not labour in vain, for they shall not only enjoy the work of their hands themselves, but they shall leave it with satisfaction to those that shall come after them, and not with such a melancholy prospect as Solomon did, Eccl. ii. 18, 19. They shall not beget and bring forth children for trouble; for they are themselves the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and there is a blessing entailed upon them by descent from their ancestors which their offspring with them shall partake of, and shall be, as well as they, the seed of the blessed of the Lord. They shall not bring forth for trouble; for, 1. God will make their children that rise up comforts to them; they shall have the joy of seeing them walk in the truth. 2. He will make the times that come after comfortable to their children. As they shall be good, so it shall be well with them; they shall not be brought forth to days of trouble; nor shall it ever be said, Blessed is the womb that bore not. In the gospel church Christ's name shall be borne up by a succession. A seed shall serve him (Ps. xxii. 30), the seed of the blessed of the Lord.

V. There shall be a good correspondence between them and their God (v. 24): Even before they call, I will answer. God will anticipate their prayers with the blessings of his goodness. David did but say, I will confess, and God forgave, Ps. xxxii. 5. The father of the prodigal met him in his return. While they are yet speaking, before they have finished their prayer, I will give them the thing they pray for, or the assurances and earnests of it. These are high expressions of God's readiness to hear prayer; and this appears much more in the grace of the gospel than it did under the law; we owe the comfort of it to the mediation of Christ as our advocate with the Father and are obliged in gratitude to give a ready ear to God's calls.

VI. There shall be a good correspondence between them and their neighbours (v. 25): The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, as they did in Noah's ark. God's people, though they are as sheep in the midst of wolves, shall be safe and unhurt; for God will not so much break the power and tie the hands of their enemies as formerly, but he will turn their hearts, will alter their dispositions by his grace. When Paul, who had been a persecutor of the disciples (and who, being of the tribe of Benjamin, ravened as a wolf, Gen. xlix. 27) joined himself to them and became one of them, then the wolf and the lamb fed together. So also when the enmity between Jews and Gentiles was slain, all hostilities ceased, and they fed together as one sheepfold under Christ the great Shepherd, John x. 16. The enemies of the church ceased to do the mischief they had done, and its members ceased to be so quarrelsome with and injurious to one another as they had been, so that there was none either from without or from within to hurt or destroy, none to disturb it, much less to ruin it, in all the holy mountain; as was promised, ch. xi. 9. For, 1. Men shall be changed: The lion shall no more be a beast of prey, as perhaps he never would have been if sin had not entered, but shall eat straw like the bullock, shall know his owner, and his master's crib, as the ox does. When those that lived by spoil and rapine, and coveted to enrich themselves, right or wrong, are brought by the grace of God to accommodate themselves to their condition, to live by honest labour, and to be content with such things as they have—when those that stole steal no more, but work with their hands the thing that is good—then this is fulfilled, that the lion shall eat straw like the bullock. 2. Satan shall be chained, the dragon bound; for dust shall be the serpent's meat again. That great enemy, when he has been let loose, has glutted and regaled himself with the precious blood of saints, who by his instigation have been persecuted, and with the precious souls of sinners, who by his instigation have become persecutors and have ruined themselves for ever; but now he shall be confined to dust, according to the sentence, On thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat, Gen. iii. 14. All the enemies of God's church, that are subtle and venomous as serpents, shall be conquered and subdued, and be made to lick the dust, Christ shall reign as Zion's King till all the enemies of his kingdom be made his footstool, and theirs too. In the holy mountain above, and there only, shall this promise have its full accomplishment, that there shall be none to hurt nor destroy.


----------



## AV1611

*Calvin on the same verses*

17. For, lo, I will create new heavens and a new earth. By these metaphors he promises a remarkable change of affairs; as if God had said that he has both the inclination and the power not only to restore his Church, but to restore it in such a manner that it shall appear to gain new life and to dwell in a new world. These are exaggerated modes of expression; but the greatness of such a blessing, which was to be manifested at the coming of Christ, could not be described in any other way. Nor does he mean only the first coming, but the whole reign, which must be extended as far as to the last coming, as we have already said in expounding other passages.

Thus the world is (so to speak) renewed by Christ; and hence also the Apostle (Hebrews 2:5) calls it “a new age,” and undoubtedly alludes to this statement of the Prophet. Yet the Prophet speaks of the restoration of the Church after the return from Babylon. This is undoubtedly true; but that restoration is imperfect, if it be not extended as far as to Christ; and even now we are in the progress and accomplishment of it, and those things will not be fulfilled till the last resurrection, which has been prescribed to be our limit.

The former things shall not be remembered. Some refer these words to heaven and earth; as if he had said that henceforth they shall have no celebrity and no name. But I choose rather to refer them to the former times; for he means that the joy at being restored shall be so great that they shall no longer remember their miseries. Or perhaps it will be thought preferable to view them as relating to benefits which, though they were worthy of being recorded, lost their name when God’s amazing- grace shone forth. In this sense the Prophet said elsewhere, “Remember ye not the former things.” (Isaiah 43:18.) Not that God wished the first deliverance to be set aside or blotted out of the hearts of believers; but because by comparison the one brought a kind of forgetfulness over the other, just as the sun, when he rises, deprives the stars of their brightness.

Let us remember that these things take place in us so far as we are renewed. But we are only in part renewed, and therefore we do not yet see a new heaven and a new earth. We need not wonder, therefore, that we continue to mourn and weep, since we have not entirely laid aside the old man, but many remains are still left. It is with us also that the renovation ought to begin; because we hold the first rank, and it is through our sin that “the creatures groan, and are subject to vanity,” as Paul shews. (Romans 8:20.) But when we shall be perfectly renewed, heaven and earth shall also be fully renewed, and shall regain their former state. And hence it ought to be inferred, as we have frequently remarked, that the Prophet has in his eye the whole reign of Christ, down to its final close, which is also called

“the day of renovation and restoration.” (Acts 3:21.)


18. But rejoice ye and be glad for ever. He exhorts believers to rejoice, in such a manner as they ought, on account of such a benefit bestowed by God. And this was added for the sake of amplification; because men do not adequately consider God’s other benefits, and especially that which is the highest and most excellent of all; for either they disregard them altogether, or value them less than they ought to do. On this account believers must be aroused and urged by such exhortations as these, that they may not chew themselves to be unthankful or unmindful, or think that it ought to be lightly passed by, that, having been redeemed by the hand of Christ, they carry in their hearts the pledge of eternal and heavenly life. That is the reason why Isaiah chews that believers do not give due praise for redemption in any other way than by continuing their joy through the whole course of their life, and employing themselves in celebrating the praises of God.

For, lo, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. At first sight this might be thought harsh; but an excellent meaning is obtained, that the ground of joy in the deliverance of the Church shall be so great as to remove every cloud of sadness. And, indeed, since even afflictions aid our salvation, (Romans 8:28,) we have good reason for rejoicing in them.


19. And I will be glad in Jerusalem. He expresses more than in the preceding verse; for by these words he means that he not only will give to men ground for rejoicing, but even will be a partaker with them in that joy. So great is his love toward us, that he delights in our prosperity not less than if he enjoyed it along with us. And hence we obtain no small confirmation of our faith, when we learn that God is moved, and so powerfully moved, by such an affection toward us. If we are in painful and distressed circumstances, he says that he is affected by grief and sorrow; and, on the other hand, if our condition is pleasant and comfortable, he says that he takes great pleasure in our prosperity. Hence also we have formerly seen that “the Spirit of the Lord is sad and vexed,” (Isaiah 63:10,) when that order which he demands and approves is overturned and confounded; and in another passage he takes upon himself the character of a husband who is satisfied with the love of his wife. (Isaiah 62:5.)


20. There shall be no more thence an infant of days. Some think that this points out the difference between the Law and the Gospel; because “the Law, as a schoolmaster,” (Galatians 3:24,) kept scholars in the first elements, but the Gospel leads us on to mature age. Others suppose it to mean that there will no longer be any distinction of age; because, where life is eternal, no line is drawn between the child and the old man. But I interpret the words of the Prophet in this manner, “Whether they are children or old men, they shall arrive at mature age so as to be always vigorous, like persons in the prime of life; and, in short, they shall always be healthful and robust;” for it is on account of our sins that we grow old and lose our strength. “All our days,” saith Moses, “pass away when thou art angry: we close our years quicker than a word. The days of our years in which we live are seventy years, or, at the utmost, eighty: what goeth beyond this in the strongest is toil and vexation; our strength passeth swiftly, and we fly away.” (Psalm 90:9, 10.) But Christ comes to repair our strength, and to restore and preserve our original condition.

For the son of a hundred years shall die young. It is proper to distinguish between the two clauses; for, after having said that the citizens of the Church shall be long-lived, so that no one shall be taken out of the world till he has reached mature age and fully completed his course, he likewise adds that, even in old age, they shall be robust. Although the greater part of believers hardly support themselves through weakness, and the strength of others decays even before the time, yet that promise is not made void; for, if Christ reigned truly and perfectly in us, his strength would undoubtedly flourish in us, and would invigorate both body and soul. To our sins, therefore, it ought to be imputed, that we are liable to diseases, pains, old age, and other inconveniences; for we do not permit Christ to possess us fully, and have not advanced so far in newness of life as to lay aside all that is old.

Here it ought also to be observed, that blessings either of soul or body are found only in the kingdom of Christ, that is, in the Church, apart from which there is nothing but cursing. Hence it follows that all who have no share in that kingdom are wretched and unhappy; and, however fresh and vigorous they may appear to be, they are, nevertheless, in the sight of God, rotten and stinking corpses.


21 and 22. They shall build houses and inhabit them. In these verses he mentions what is written in the Law; for these are the blessings of the Law, that they who have obeyed God shall dwell in the houses which they have built, and shall gather fruit from the trees which they have planted. (Leviticus 26:10.) On the other hand, the disobedient shall be expelled from the houses which they built, and shall give place to foreigners, and shall be deprived of the fruits of the trees which they planted. “The Lord,” saith Isaiah, “shall protect you from that curse, so as to enjoy your property.” Now the Prophets hold out those things which relate to the present life, and borrow metaphors from them; but it is in order that they may teach us to rise higher and to embrace eternal and blessed life. We must not fix our whole attention on these transitory blessings, but must make use of them as ladders, that, being raised to heaven, we may enjoy eternal and immortal blessings. To the Church, which has been renewed, and which rests on nothing but God’s good pleasure and undeserved favor, is justly promised the enjoyment of those blessings of which unbelievers had deprived themselves.


According to the days of a tree. Some think that this is a promise of eternal life; as if men had the tree of life; but that is forged ingenuity, and far removed from the Prophet’s meaning. And I do wonder that commentators give themselves so much trouble in explaining this passage; for the Prophet speaks, not only of life, but of a peaceful condition of life; as if he had said, “Ye shall plant vineyards, and shall eat the fruit of them; and ye shall not be removed from this life before receiving the fruit, which shall be enjoyed, not only by yourselves, but by your children and posterity. He employs the metaphor of a tree, because he had formerly spoken of planting vineyards; and accordingly he promises that the people shall peacefully enjoy both their houses and their vineyards, and shall not be molested by enemies or robbers, and this peaceful condition shall last as long as the life of a tree.

And my elect shall perpetually enjoy the work of their hands. A work is said to be continued or perpetuated when the result of it is prosperous; for otherwise men would subject themselves to long and severe toil, and all to no purpose, if God did not grant success. Enemies will either take away or destroy what we have begun, and the completion of it will be out of our power; and therefore it is strictly said to be continued, not when merely some progress is made, but when it is brought to a close. Here it ought to be observed, that we cannot possess our wealth and have the peaceful and lawful enjoyment of it in any other way than by dwelling in the kingdom of Christ, who is the only heir of the world, and without being ingrafted into his body. Wicked men may indeed enjoy, for many years, the good things of this life; but they will continually be uneasy, and will wretchedly devour themselves, so that even possession shall be destructive and deadly; for it is only by faith that we obtain all that belongs to a blessed life, and they who have not faith cannot be members of Christ.


23. They shall not toil in vain. He enumerates other kinds of blessings which God promises to the kingdom of Christ; for, although God always blessed his people, yet the blessings were in some measure suspended till the coming of Christ, in whom was displayed full and complete happiness. In a word, both Jews and Gentiles shall be happy, in all respects, under the reign of Christ. Now, as it is a token of God’s wrath and curse when we obtain no advantage front our labor, so, on the other hand, it is a token of blessing when we clearly see the fruit of our labor. For this reason he says that they who shall have returned from captivity, in order that they may obtain a true and complete deliverance, shall not spend their labor in vain or lose their pains. The Law threatens the death of relatives, destructive wars, losses of property, and terror in their hearts. (Leviticus 26:22; Deuteronomy 28:48.) Here, on the contrary, are promised fertility, peace, the fruit of labor, and repose. And blessings of this kind ought to be carefully observed; for there are few who, amidst their labors, think of the blessing of God, so as to ascribe everything to him alone, and to be fully convinced that they will accomplish nothing whatever unless the Lord grant to them a prosperous result. Wherefore, as every blessing should be sought from God, so, when it has been received, thanksgiving should be rendered for it to God alone.

And they shall not bring forth in terror. When it is said that women “shall not bring forth in terror,” some explain it to mean, that they shall have no uneasiness or dread of childbirth, because they shall be free from pain. We know that this punishment was inflicted on the woman on account of sin, to bring forth with difficulty, and to be in danger of death. Children are brought into the world with fear and trembling, when there is any expectation of war; and it is probable that the Prophet rather looks to this, that there shall be such settled peace that neither women nor men shall have any reason to fear; for this must be viewed as relating to both parents, who will have no dread about their children, as commonly happens when any danger is threatened.

For they shall be the seed of the blessed of Jehovah. This reason is highly appropriate; for whence come fears and terrors, whence come alarms, but from the curse of God? When the curse has been removed, the Prophet therefore says justly that parents, together with their offspring, shall be free from dread and anxious solicitude; because they shall be convinced that they shall always be safe and sound through the favor of God.

And their offspring with them. This is contrasted with childlessness, which is reckoned in the number of the curses of God; and therefore it is the same as if he had said, “I will no longer deprive them of their children, but will cause them to enjoy them, along with the rest of the blessings which I shall bestow upon them.”


24. Before they cry, I will listen. A remarkable promise; for nothing is more desirable than to have God reconciled to us, and to have it in our power to draw near to him with freedom and boldness; for, although we are surrounded by innumerable distresses and calamities, yet we cannot be miserable so long as we are at liberty to betake ourselves to the Lord. Here therefore the Lord promises that we shall not pray in vain. Yet this was also promised to the fathers under the Law. It is certain that, since the beginning of the world, God listened to the fathers, to all that called upon him; for this is the most valuable fruit of faith. But he confirms this more and more. Because the Jews would be exiles for a long time, the Lord solemnly declares that he will not permit them any longer to languish in banishment, and will no longer delay his assistance, but will “listen to them even before they cry.”

This relates chiefly to the kingdom of Christ, through whom we are heard and have access to God the Father, as Paul admirably explains. (Ephesians 2:18; 3:12.) The fathers indeed enjoyed the same access, and there was no other way in which they could be heard but through Christ; but the door was still narrow and might be said to be shut, whereas now it has been most widely and perfectly thrown open. Under the law the people were wont to stand at a distance in the porch; but now nothing hinders us from entering into the sanctuary itself, because

“the veil of the temple hath been rent.” (Matthew 27:51.)

Thus we have admission into heaven through Christ,

“that we may approach with freedom and boldness to the throne of grace, to obtain mercy and find needful assistance.” 
(Hebrews 4:16.)

A question will be put. “Are there no believers in the world, and is there no kingdom of Christ, in the present day? For it does not appear that God is so ready to render assistance, and there is no visible fruit of our prayers.” I reply. Though it becomes fully evident that we have been heard when the event actually proves it, yet God does not in the meantime overlook us; for he does not permit us to faint, but supports us by the power of his Spirit, that we may wait for him patiently. Nor does he delay, as men do, because he has need of time, but because he wishes to exercise and try our patience. In a word, there are two ways in which God listens to us; first, when he renders assistance openly; and secondly, when he aids us by the power of his Spirit, that we may not sink under the weight of afflictions. And if this doctrine were deeply fixed in the hearts of men, they would fly to God more readily and boldly, and would not dispute so eagerly about calling on saints. For how comes it that men contrive for themselves such a variety of intercessors, to whom they betake themselves rather than to Christ, but because they do not receive that doctrine, and because they reject such large and bountiful promises?


25. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together. He means that everything shall be fully restored, when Christ shall reign. And here it appears as if there were an implied comparison between Adam and Christ. We know that all the afflictions of the present life flowed from the sin of the first man; for at that time we were deprived of the dominion and sovereignty which God had given to man (Genesis 1:28) over animals of every kind, all of which at first undoubtedly bowed cheerfully to the dominion of man, and were obedient to his will; but now the most of them rise up against man, and even carly on mutual war against each other. Thus, when wolves, bears, lions, and other savage animals of that kind, are hurtful to man and to other beasts from which we obtain some advantage, and when even animals which ought to have been useful to man are hostile to him, this ought to be imputed to his sin, because his disobedience overthrew the order of things. But since it is the office of Christ to bring back everything to its condition and order, that is the reason why he declares that the confusion or ruin that now exists in human affairs shall be removed by the coming of Christ; because at that time, corruptions having been taken away, the world shall return to its first origin.

And the lion shall eat straw like the ox. “The lion” shall eat harmlessly, and shall no longer seek his prey. The serpent, satisfied with his dust, shall wrap himself in it, and shall no longer hurt by his envenomed bite. In a word, all that is disordered or confused shall be restored to its proper order. Yet beyond all controversy the Prophet speaks allegorically of bloody and violent men, whose cruel and savage nature shall be subdued, when they submit to the yoke of Christ. But first we must carefully consider that confusion which befell all the creatures in consequence of the fall of man; for if this were not taken into view, it would be impossible for us to have sufficiently just and correct views of this blessing of restoration. At the same time, we must keep in remembrance what we said in expounding a similar allegory in the eleventh chapter. Here we are taught what is the nature of men before the Lord convert them and receive them into his fold; for they are cruel and untamed beasts, and only begin to abstain from doing any injury, when the Lord subdues their wicked inclination and their furious desire to do harm.

In all my holy mountain. This is added because, when rubbish and filth have been taken out of the way, the Lord will gather to himself a Church without spot. By the word all he means cleansing. Yet we ought not to think it strange that still so many are ferocious; for there are few that are the true inhabitants of God’s mountain, few that are upright and faithful, even among those who profess to be Christians. Seeing that the old man still reigns and is vigorous in them, contentions and wars must also exist and prevail amongst them.


----------



## RamistThomist

everybody likes "ctrl c + ctrl v"


----------



## B.J.

> Were you actually intending for me to answer your questions, or did you just want to ridicule my position? At least Patrick and Larry offered reasons and not ridicule for their position. This isn't even worth the time of a response. I can play this game, too. I can say that all non-premil people are actually liberals who spiritualize and allegorize away the parts of the Bible they don't like. Proof? Who cares? Ridicule is more fun.
> __________________




Sorry brother. I did not intend to ridicule your position. I did however want you to consider your demand for a literal interpretation and where your methodology might lead you.

I started this thread because I have a Dispensational friend who loves to drive home this text for his millennial kingdom. I always ask him, "Where does the text say anything about a millennial kingdom?" My point brother, is that I feel like all premillennial camps lift Rev.20 out of the NT and lay a grid over this text to formulate their position. Once they realize that the only place in the entire Bible that says anything about a 1000 year kingdom is in Rev.20, I go through a series of ridiculous questions to hopefully show them that they are the ones being fast-n-loose with their interpretive approach and not the Amill/Post camps.

So ultimately I would like nothing more than for you to answer my questions concerning the ONLY text in the Bible that says anything whatsoever about a 1000 kingdom, that being Rev.20. My reasons for rejecting your position lie within the answers you will be forced to give to my questions. Its not ridicule just ridiculous questions that and scenarios that your position leads to.

Again...my questions were:

How can this refer to the millennial kingdom? What millennial kingdom? What Jew in exile knew of a millennial kingdom 3500 years away and still counting?The one in Revelation 20 I assume? So you take it to be a literal kingdom in Chapter 20 I take it. Do you think a literal chain will bind Satan? Do you think that on the 999th year, 364th day(provided its not a leap year and we will be using our calendar) that those who were born during the last few years of the "Literal Kingdom" are going to rise up and fight a large group of people who are 1000 years old?


----------



## RamistThomist

B.J. said:


> Again...my questions were:
> 
> How can this refer to the millennial kingdom? What millennial kingdom? What Jew in exile knew of a millennial kingdom 3500 years away and still counting?The one in Revelation 20 I assume? So you take it to be a literal kingdom in Chapter 20 I take it. Do you think a literal chain will bind Satan? Do you think that on the 999th year, 364th day(provided its not a leap year and we will be using our calendar) that those who were born during the last few years of the "Literal Kingdom" are going to rise up and fight a large group of people who are 1000 years old?



Ok, I will give it a shot. However, all positions need to keep in mind that "ridiculous" is a subjective term. 



> How can this refer to the millennial kingdom? What millennial kingdom?



Hopefully at the end I can have an answer for you.



> What Jew in exile knew of a millennial kingdom 3500 years away and still counting?



The Jews longed for the kingdom. That much is a given. They rejected Christ because he did not institute their kind of kingdom right away. He did inaugurate the kingdom, but will bring his full kingdom blessings later. For the amillennialists, this is the beloved "already-not yet."

This is the heart of the issue, I think, but the discussion isn't at that point yet. This raises questions of mediatorial blessings, etc, but that's for later.



> The one in Revelation 20 I assume? So you take it to be a literal kingdom in Chapter 20 I take it.



Yes and yes. I was an ardent postmillennialist but was convinced by the premil reading of Revelation 20.



> Do you think a literal chain will bind Satan?



adamantine chain (Sorry, Warcraft joke)


> Do you think that on the 999th year, 364th day(provided its not a leap year and we will be using our calendar)



999 years, 1001 years, I don't think my position hangs on specifics. But for the ease of conversation I will assume roughly 1000 years.


> that those who were born during the last few years of the "Literal Kingdom" are going to rise up and fight a large group of people who are 1000 years old?



It's a little more complicated than that, but in essence yes. 

Remember, ridiculous is a subjective term and only has force within the community that determines what is and isn't ridiculous.


----------



## Coram Deo

My Amill friend tried the same route you did with me and the same questions.....

He did not win.......






B.J. said:


> Sorry brother. I did not intend to ridicule your position. I did however want you to consider your demand for a literal interpretation and where your methodology might lead you.
> 
> I started this thread because I have a Dispensational friend who loves to drive home this text for his millennial kingdom. I always ask him, "Where does the text say anything about a millennial kingdom?" My point brother, is that I feel like all premillennial camps lift Rev.20 out of the NT and lay a grid over this text to formulate their position. Once they realize that the only place in the entire Bible that says anything about a 1000 year kingdom is in Rev.20, I go through a series of ridiculous questions to hopefully show them that they are the ones being fast-n-loose with their interpretive approach and not the Amill/Post camps.
> 
> So ultimately I would like nothing more than for you to answer my questions concerning the ONLY text in the Bible that says anything whatsoever about a 1000 kingdom, that being Rev.20. My reasons for rejecting your position lie within the answers you will be forced to give to my questions. Its not ridicule just ridiculous questions that and scenarios that your position leads to.
> 
> Again...my questions were:
> 
> How can this refer to the millennial kingdom? What millennial kingdom? What Jew in exile knew of a millennial kingdom 3500 years away and still counting?The one in Revelation 20 I assume? So you take it to be a literal kingdom in Chapter 20 I take it. Do you think a literal chain will bind Satan? Do you think that on the 999th year, 364th day(provided its not a leap year and we will be using our calendar) that those who were born during the last few years of the "Literal Kingdom" are going to rise up and fight a large group of people who are 1000 years old?


----------



## B.J.

> The Jews longed for the kingdom. That much is a given. They rejected Christ because he did not institute their kind of kingdom right away. He did inaugurate the kingdom, but will bring his full kingdom blessings later. For the amillennialists, this is the beloved "already-not yet."



Well, what is given is that Christ did not institute their kind of kingdom at all, nor will he ever. You sound like a Dispensationalist when you refer to Christ giving them (Jews) an earthly kingdom. That is not the Historical PreMill view as I understand it. What would be the point in an earthly kingdom for the Jews? They still have to accept Christ as Saviour of the world. Just like Jews that convert today do. Just like anyone has to do if eternal is to be granted by the Father.




> adamantine chain (Sorry, Warcraft joke)



Forgive me for not laughing. Again, is it a literal chain?



> 999 years, 1001 years, I don't think my position hangs on specifics. But for the ease of conversation I will assume roughly 1000 years.



On the contrary brother, it does hinge on whether or not it is exactly 1000 years. That is what the text says, yes?



> It's a little more complicated than that, but in essence yes.



Fine, I was just feeling you out to see what I was up against.


----------



## B.J.

> My Amill friend tried the same route you did with me and the same questions.....
> 
> He did not win.......




Well, if it is a heart issue it can't be won by argumentation. All the logic in the world won't help that, just look at Arminians.


----------



## RamistThomist

B.J. said:


> Well, what is given is that Christ did not institute their kind of kingdom at all



Key phrase, "their kind of kingdom." Christ did not fault them for wanting to see the old testament prophecies fulfilled. 




> , nor will he ever.


Yet to be proven


> You sound like a Dispensationalist when you refer to Christ giving them (Jews) an earthly kingdom.



I sound like a dispensationalist because I refuse to interpret the Old Testament in neo-platonic categories. There is a big difference between "giving the Jews a kingdom" and longing for a millennial reign. Even progressive dispensationalists aren't that crass.



> That is not the Historical PreMill view as I understand it.



While I risk an appeal to authority, Al Mohler, Carl Henry, and others hold to that view.



> What would be the point in an earthly kingdom for the Jews?



I don't hold a future earthly kingdom for the Jews. I don't know how we got sidetracked on that.



> They still have to accept Christ as Saviour of the world. Just like Jews that convert today do. Just like anyone has to do if eternal is to be granted by the Father.



Agreed. Those who will share in the millennial kingdom will be genuine Christians. 



> Forgive me for not laughing. Again, is it a literal chain?



I don't know what it is made of. If God would have thought it important to reveal the ingredients to the chain, he would have said so. 




> On the contrary brother, it does hinge on whether or not it is exactly 1000 years. That is what the text says, yes?



As I said earlier, if thinking it is a literal 1000 years facilitates conversation, so be it. I am not particularly bothered by that point. I happen to hold to a literal 1000 years. The problem arises as to whose calendar we are going to use. I am not troubled by that, since God revealed it. As to the question about Leap years and such, I can use the same kind of overly rigorous standards to other parts of the bible and show that the Bible has errors (I had profs do that to me in college).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Spear Dane said:


> Key phrase, "their kind of kingdom." Christ did not fault them for wanting to see the old testament prophecies fulfilled.


No, he questioned their overly literal interpretation of those prophecies  

But seriously, we can at least agree that the promised earthly reign of Christ begins when he returns, correct? 



> I sound like a dispensationalist because I refuse to interpret the Old Testament in neo-platonic categories. There is a big difference between "giving the Jews a kingdom" and longing for a millennial reign. Even progressive dispensationalists aren't that crass.


The neo-platonic strawman is getting old. No one is arguing for an immaterial kingdom. We disagree as to when the earthly reign of Christ begins and what the nature of that kingdom will be. At least, that is where it seems to me the true disagreement lies. Would you agree?


----------



## RamistThomist

Puritan Sailor said:


> No, he questioned their overly literal interpretation of those prophecies



It's a little more complicated than that. He critiqued them for failing to see the Messiah, not for taking God's word at face value.



> But seriously, we can at least agree that the promised earthly reign of Christ begins when he returns, correct?



Nope. George Ladd. Already-not yet. I am surprised that as a Vos-Ridderbosian amillennialist, you didn't jump on this.  In some sense it began when Christ came for the first time. There are future fulfillments, however. Zech. 14, Isaiah 11, a few others.



> The neo-platonic strawman is getting old. No one is arguing for an immaterial kingdom.



I have a few D.G. Hart essays for you to read where he argues precisely that and does so in explicitly neo-platonic, dualistic categories. I don't think he realizes that, though. Mark Karlberg is another--he disagrees with Amillennialists Hoekema, Gaffin, Ridderbos and S. Ferguson.



> We disagree as to when the earthly reign of Christ begins and what the nature of that kingdom will be.



If you agree that it will be earthly, then the only disagreement is timing. As to the nature, the disagreement is now one of degree, not kind, since you agree it will be earthly.


----------



## B.J.

> There is a big difference between "giving the Jews a kingdom" and longing for a millennial reign.



And what difference would that be? The Jewish Kingdom is ruled by their promised Messiah, right? Or at last that is what they thought. A millennial riegn would be a "literal" fullfillment of Isaiah 65, and that is what they longed for, so whats the difference? 




> I don't hold a future earthly kingdom for the Jews. I don't know how we got sidetracked on that.



We aren't sidetracked. You see Isaiah 65 is Jewish "leftovers" from the OT, and if it is to be fullfilled "literally" it must be a Millennial reign for them, and them alone. You dont want to be caught being neo-platonic and spiritualizing the OT with the NT do you? 



> While I risk an appeal to authority, Al Mohler, Carl Henry, and others hold to that view.



From what I know of Mohler (from his own mouth) he holds a view that says God still has a plan for the nation of Israel. Any view that says God has something left for Israel other than Christ alone is In my humble opinion Dispensational. A historic PreMill should see the Church as having fullfilled the OT "leftovers" and a Millennial Kingdom having absolutley nothing to do with Jews per se, or any OT text. They shold argue for a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth from Rev.20, the only text in the Bible which talks about one. In other words Mohler is not a Historic PreMill, he is at the very least a Progressive Dispensational.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Spear Dane said:


> everybody likes "ctrl c + ctrl v"



It's the easy way of not having to explain away the exegetical backflips that come with any other position than a premillennial one......


----------



## RamistThomist

B.J. said:


> And what difference would that be? The Jewish Kingdom is ruled by their promised Messiah, right? Or at last that is what they thought. A millennial riegn would be a "literal" fullfillment of Isaiah 65, and that is what they longed for, so whats the difference?



Jesus told the Jews that the kingdom would be taken away from them and given to a nation bearing fruit. That is one way to look at it. Another way is to posit a difference between cultic-politico Jewish state and Jewish brethren who are saved en masse. The latter does not logically necessitate a religious state of Israel. 






> We aren't sidetracked. You see Isaiah 65 is Jewish "leftovers" from the OT, and if it is to be fullfilled "literally" it must be a Millennial reign for them, and them alone. You dont want to be caught being neo-platonic and spiritualizing the OT with the NT do you?



Dispensationalism--and even given the great gains of progressive dispensationalism--messed up when they had the nation of Israel mediating the blessings to the world. My form of premillennialism (ala Russell Moore) has Christ mediating the blessings to the world in the millennium.

But to answer the Jewish question--yes, there is an element here for the future Jews. But they are Jews who will convert to Christianity. 





> From what I know of Mohler (from his own mouth) he holds a view that says God still has a plan for the nation of Israel. *Any view that says God has something left for Israel other than Christ alone* is In my humble opinion Dispensational.


If that is what you want to call it, fine. I don't consider myself a dispensationalist (given the whole theonomy thing  ). But I think you are pinning something onto my position that I wouldn't hold. I hold the Jews will be saved in the millennium ala Christ alone. I don't know how we got off track on that.





> A historic PreMill should see the Church as having fullfilled the OT "leftovers" *and a Millennial Kingdom having absolutley nothing to do with Jews per se, or any OT text.* They shold argue for a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth from Rev.20, the only text in the Bible which talks about one. In other words Mohler is not a Historic PreMill, he is at the very least a Progressive Dispensational.



I don't see the problem. You keep pinning a Jewish part on me that I never held to. You can if you want to, but that's not my position. But as pertaining the bolded part, the reason--as best I understand it--that we appeal to the OT for a millennial kingdom is that there are passages there that don't make sense otherwise. Again, I dont' see the problem hermeneutically.

EDIT: This might clear up some. I don't hold that the church "replaces" Israel. Rather, the NT indentifies Christ as the firstborn of Israel, as Israel, etc. Therefore, all these glorious OT promises are applied to Christ. He inherits the promsis (Acts 13-32-35). The church, by union in Christ, shares (or will share; already not yet stuff) these promises.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Spear Dane said:


> Nope. George Ladd. Already-not yet. I am surprised that as a Vos-Ridderbosian amillennialist, you didn't jump on this.  In some sense it began when Christ came for the first time. There are future fulfillments, however. Zech. 14, Isaiah 11, a few others.


I don't deny the already/not yet distinction. but there will be a time when that distinction is no more. I was referring to his bodily return in glory. You do believe that his return causes a significant change in the world order don't you? 



> I have a few D.G. Hart essays for you to read where he argues precisely that and does so in explicitly neo-platonic, dualistic categories. I don't think he realizes that, though. Mark Karlberg is another--he disagrees with Amillennialists Hoekema, Gaffin, Ridderbos and S. Ferguson.


Hart and Karlberg are hardly representative of the Reformed Amil camp. 



> If you agree that it will be earthly, then the only disagreement is timing. As to the nature, the disagreement is now one of degree, not kind, since you agree it will be earthly.



Perhaps one of degree during the interadvent age, but not after Christ returns.


----------

