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?

I have been a Christian for over 30 years.  I have a Ph.D. in New Testament from the University of Edinburgh.  I am a UK national and I currently live in the south of Scotland.  Check out my blog, The Orthotometist, at maxaplin.blogspot.com