Isaiah 65:17 vs. Revelation 21:1. How many NHNEs does that equal?

[Randy Kluth]

Yeah, I know. And Amil also... teaches that the NHNE time happens on the day of Christ's return, when it does not, and why is that? It's because Amil instead teaches that the "thousand years" of Rev.20 is of THIS present world when it is not, because JESUS HAS NOT YET RETURNED TO THIS DAY.

So when you claim things like Jesus is reigning now, that we're already in the 1,000 years, or even NHNE timing, then you are pushing a 'modifed' version of Amil theory, yet it is still Amil theory and is false.

I completely agree with you, that Christ's Return *precedes* the Millennium in the Bible. So the Millennium cannot be the present age since Christ has not yet returned.

 

[Davidpt]

Yeah, I know. And Amil also... teaches that the NHNE time happens on the day of Christ's return, when it does not, and why is that? It's because Amil instead teaches that the "thousand years" of Rev.20 is of THIS present world when it is not, because JESUS HAS NOT YET RETURNED TO THIS DAY.

So when you claim things like Jesus is reigning now, that we're already in the 1,000 years, or even NHNE timing, then you are pushing a 'modifed' version of Amil theory, yet it is still Amil theory and is false.

Here's an idea then. Premils, such as you, and others like you, need to quit using Isaiah 65 as support for the thousand years being after the 2nd coming since it clearly involves the time of the NHNE, when Premils, such as you, and others like you, are arguing that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years. Which is it then? Simply make up your mind one way or the other. As if there are two different NHNEs rather than only one. Be consistent at least. If the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years, the same has to also be true in regards to Isaiah 65:17-25, obviously.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.


If none of what follows this verse is involving the NHNE, why is it even mentioned then? What is the logic in that? How can other Premils take issue with me, me a Premil as well, when they are doing exactly what I'm proposing, that the NHNE begin with the thousand year? Clearly, that's what some of you are proposing if you have Isaiah 65:17-25 involving the thousand years, the fact that it undeniably is involving the NHNE. It plainly even says so in Isaiah 65:17. Can some of you not see that it clearly says new heavens, a new earth? In regards to what? The verses that follow in that chapter, obviously. What else could it possibly be referring to in that ch if not the verses that follow?

 

[strepho]

GODS ELECT, ZADOK

Context is millennium and third earth age.

Isaiah chapter 65:9 . And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of judah an inheritor of for My mountain: and Mine Elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.

This is the millennium. It starts at the 7th trump. The election are priests during millennium. It's time of teaching and discipline for the spirtualty dead. Get the picture.

Revelation chapter 21 . This the third earth age. Known as the Eternity.

Some people confuse the millennium with the eternity.

Because they don't know about the three earth ages.

Isaiah chapter 65:17 aligns with revelation chapter 21. This is third earth age, the eternity.

Do you understand ??

Some members need to study the bible on the 3 earth ages.

Any Teacher's or pastors should know this !!.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here's an idea then. Premils, such as you, and others like you, need to quit using Isaiah 65 as support for the thousand years being after the 2nd coming since it clearly involves the time of the NHNE, when Premils, such as you, and others like you, are arguing that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years. Which is it then? Simply make up your mind one way or the other. As if there are two different NHNEs rather than only one. Be consistent at least. If the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years, the same has to also be true in regards to Isaiah 65:17-25, obviously.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.


If none of what follows this verse is involving the NHNE, why is it even mentioned then? What is the logic in that? How can other Premils take issue with me, me a Premil as well, when they are doing exactly what I'm proposing, that the NHNE begin with the thousand year? Clearly, that's what some of you are proposing if you have Isaiah 65:17-25 involving the thousand years, the fact that it undeniably is involving the NHNE. It plainly even says so in Isaiah 65:17. Can some of you not see that it clearly says new heavens, a new earth? In regards to what? The verses that follow in that chapter, obviously. What else could it possibly be referring to in that ch if not the verses that follow?

I have no problem with your Premill belief that New Jerusalem descends *at* the Coming of Christ. It makes sense, and both versions, Isa 65 and Rev 21-22 seem to speak of a time when mortal humanity still inhabits the earth. The "Bride," aka "New Jerusalem," appears to represent the glorified Church as it appears on earth at the 2nd Coming.

The problem is, I just can't be sure. The problem may be that I've been inundated by conflicting positions on this for so long that I can't satisfy in my own mind the reasons why this is so jumbled between the different positions?

I take your points--I just don't know what to say, because nothing is very clear in my mind from these passages. They just seem to be assuring faithful believers that they will be rewarded, and the wicked cut off.

When the account in Rev 21 suggests that the wicked will go into the Lake of Fire, we have to recall that the immediately preceding chapter talked about the Millennium, at the end of which the wicked are thrown into the Lake of Fire.

But then again, the Antichrist had already been thrown into the Lake of Fire at the 2nd Coming, right? So it must already be a place of judgment at the 2nd Coming?

Part of the problem with apocalyptic material is you have to know how to read it. And it isn't typical in today's literature, so we may not know how to read it.

Having read it for many years I think it isn't as organized into time periods as we often think. But it still seems somewhat foreign to me, even after reading the book for so many years!

Chapter 21 may not actually follow, in history, chapter 20. The New Jerusalem may not actually follow, in history, the Millennium.

Some of these visions are distinct and are not written like a timeline. Some of them overlap or repeat, can be flashbacks or future visions, ie prolepses.

We need to be very careful with the context, because that determines the chronological placement of each vision, if the vision is even meant to be fixed in a particular historical context.

Rev 12 covers an enormous period of time without any effort whatsoever to explain the distances in time. The Man-child, who is Christ at his earthly coming, is portrayed right next to a picture of Satan endowing the Antichrist in the last 3.5 years of this age. That vision in effect covers the entire NT age, from Christ's earthly Coming to the endtime Reign of Antichrist!

 

[Davy]

Here's an idea then. Premils, such as you, and others like you, need to quit using Isaiah 65 as support for the thousand years being after the 2nd coming since it clearly involves the time of the NHNE, when Premils, such as you, and others like you, are arguing that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years.

Ah... so folks, this guy is finally admitting that he was purposefully pushing confusion into Scripture by claiming to be Premil while actually teaching Amil doctrines!

And his request for Premils to stop using Isaiah 65 to support Christ's future "thousand years" reign as involving the new heavens and new earth timing, is just a BOGUS claim, revealing his confusion.

The idea that Isaiah 65 represents Christ's "thousand years" reign period is actually a FALSE DOCTRINE OF AMILLENNIALISM, not PREMILLENNIALISM. The PREMIL position understands that the new heavens and a new earth event happens AFTER THE WICKED ARE DESTROYED IN THE FUTURE LAKE OF FIRE AFTER CHRIST'S 1,000 YEARS REIGN!

See how confused this guy is???

 

[Randy Kluth]

Ah... so folks, this guy is finally admitting that he was purposefully pushing confusion into Scripture by claiming to be Premil while actually teaching Amil doctrines!

And his request for Premils to stop using Isaiah 65 to support Christ's future "thousand years" reign as involving the new heavens and new earth timing, is just a BOGUS claim, revealing his confusion.

The idea that Isaiah 65 represents Christ's "thousand years" reign period is actually a FALSE DOCTRINE OF AMILLENNIALISM, not PREMILLENNIALISM. The PREMIL position understands that the new heavens and a new earth event happens AFTER THE WICKED ARE DESTROYED IN THE FUTURE LAKE OF FIRE AFTER CHRIST'S 1,000 YEARS REIGN!

See how confused this guy is???

Well, your position has been the standard Premill position, yes, and what I've also trusted in for many years. However, I've also questioned at what point the New Jerusalem comes down--at the 2nd Coming or at the end of the Millennium? I honestly don't know! But I find no fault with your own position--it's been mine, as well.

 

[Davidpt]

Ah... so folks, this guy is finally admitting that he was purposefully pushing confusion into Scripture by claiming to be Premil while actually teaching Amil doctrines!

And his request for Premils to stop using Isaiah 65 to support Christ's future "thousand years" reign as involving the new heavens and new earth timing, is just a BOGUS claim, revealing his confusion.

The idea that Isaiah 65 represents Christ's "thousand years" reign period is actually a FALSE DOCTRINE OF AMILLENNIALISM, not PREMILLENNIALISM. The PREMIL position understands that the new heavens and a new earth event happens AFTER THE WICKED ARE DESTROYED IN THE FUTURE LAKE OF FIRE AFTER CHRIST'S 1,000 YEARS REIGN!

See how confused this guy is???

Since I suspect you likely studied under Shepherd's Chapel and the late Arnold Murray, unless you tell me otherwise, I have already encountered his students numerous times in the past. There is no reasoning with any of them, IOW. Therefore, a waste of my time if I think I might be able to reason with you somehow. If you want to think something preposterous, that I'm really an Amil pretending to be a Premil, then go for it. Who cares? I sure don't.

 

[Davidpt]

Well, your position has been the standard Premill position, yes, and what I've also trusted in for many years. However, I've also questioned at what point the New Jerusalem comes down--at the 2nd Coming or at the end of the Millennium? I honestly don't know! But I find no fault with your own position--it's been mine, as well.

That too was my position for decades. Then one day it dawned on me, how am I'm being logical here? How can I insist that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years when I'm already agreeing it doesn't, the fact I am applying Isaiah 65:17 to the thousand years and that it is undeniably involving the NHNE? Even though you yourself are not giving me a hard time in regards to this, we both being Premils, look at some other Premils though, such as Davy. He can't even be reasoned with, apparently. He would rather accuse than trying to reason through these things. But a lot of that might be because of who he was taught under, assuming I am correct about that. And unless one agreed with Arnold Murray, you were an idiot to him otherwise, pretty much how Davy treats others as well.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That too was my position for decades. Then one day it dawned on me, how am I'm being logical here? How can I insist that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years when I'm already agreeing it doesn't, the fact I am applying Isaiah 65:17 to the thousand years and that it is undeniably involving the NHNE? Even though you yourself are not giving me a hard time in regards to this, we both being Premils, look at some other Premils though, such as Davy. He can't even be reasoned with, apparently. He would rather accuse than trying to reason through these things. But a lot of that might be because of who he was taught under, assuming I am correct about that. And unless one agreed with Arnold Murray, you were an idiot to him otherwise, pretty much how Davy treats others as well.

Yes, I've had my issues with Davy, as well, but I hold no grudges. If they are truly Christian I'm on their side. If they have problems, it's God's job to help them--I'm not going to be respected, or will be seen as a hypocrite.

I'm not really trying to whitewash your problem with Davy. I just try to focus on the issues until it becomes too "personal."

With regard to when New Jerusalem comes down, at the beginning of or at the end of the Millennium, I'm open, as I said. Your arguments are good. I just don't have a full intellectual comprehension of the language yet, with respect to how to time everything.

There is this telescoping view of prophecy that sometimes confuses the timing of the specific events. One can, for example, look at prophecy of Christ's 1st Coming, and see at the same time a prophecy of his 2nd Coming. It makes it difficult to interpret such prophecies when the timing is so unclear to me.

But again, I thank you for sharing your arguments--they do make sense. And I'm hoping to have better understanding with time. I seem to others to be inflexible at times, but in reality I've changed my views on a number of issues throughout my life.

It's just that I've been a Christian so long that certain matters have seemed to be already so much fleshed out and clear in my mind, though I can always be wrong. On this issue, I'm not so clear yet.

 

[Zao is life]

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

I will stop here for now since the OP is getting somewhat lengthy already.

There can only be one NHNE.

I've never understood Isaiah 65:20 because everything else from verse 17 onward does not seem to contradict anything said in Revelation 20-22, but I don't know who the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are completed fits with Isa.65:20, or the NHNE.

But I have noticed an agreement with Isaiah 60:

No one would deny that Revelation chapters 21 & 22 are describing the Kingdom of Christ, and Revelation 20:4-6 is talking about saints who will reign with Him in His Kingdom, saying,

"Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6).

It's also clear that after the destruction of the beast and his armies, there will be no more death for the bride, the Lamb's wife, i.e those who had overcome and had part in the first resurrection, because the second death has no authority over them,

and these are the people who are also being spoken about in Revelation 7:13-17 (those who had come out from great tribulation and had "washed their robes, and whitened them in the blood of the Lamb").

So I think that maybe, if we understand that the verses below are speaking about the bride of Christ, and the bride of Christ is being spoken of in Revelation 20:4-6 and Revelation 21, then this again makes sense and agrees with what is written in Isaiah (see the table in the images below):

Isaiah 65​

13 So the Lord Jehovah says, Behold, My servants will eat, but you will be hungry. Behold, My servants will drink, but you will be thirsty. Behold, My servants will rejoice, but you will be ashamed.

14 Behold,. My servants will sing for joy of heart, but you will cry for sorrow of heart, and will howl because of a breaking of spirit.
15 And you will leave your name for a curse to My chosen; for the Lord Jehovah will kill you, and call His servants by another name.
16 He who blesses himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth. And he who swears in the earth will swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hidden from My eyes.

17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth. And the things before will not be remembered, nor come to mind.

​

IMO it's no accident that John falls down to worship the angel in both chapters. It's because it's the same angel, and all part of the same vision!!. Revelation 20 is just telling us more about the same time-period mentioned in Revelation 21-22.

I also think it helps to strip away the chapter divisions that do not appear in the original text, but were added in 1227 AD for our benefit (easy reference).

Even so, I don't understand how Isaiah 65:20 fits the above picture, or even for that matter how it fits in Isaiah 65:17-25. Isaiah 65:20 has never been fulfilled literally, so it either means there is "another meaning", or there will be mortals in the millennium (which I personally don't see in New Testament prophecy),

although about the book of Isaiah in general, I have noticed that Isaiah was prophesying not only to both ancient Israel and to ancient Judah about things that later came to be fulfilled in different different time-periods in their history, but also about the end of days of our time and what follows, and the entire book of Isaiah oscillates all the time from speaking to one group and another about one thing and another, and from one time-period in history to another (including prophecies about the Messiah who was to come), and this is how it goes all the way through the book of Isaiah.

And a lot of the time Isaiah seems to project a lot of what was at least partially fulfilled when its time came, onto another time-period at the end of days. So the prophecy could partially be referring to the restoration of Judah from Babylonian captivity.

So Isaiah 65:20 is somewhat of a curve-ball for me, but I don't believe it should distract from the facts I mentioned in the table images above.

PS: I'm still open to being wrong about the no mortals in the millennium, but only once it makes sense by agreeing with all other scripture.

@Davidpt And on the other hand, if there are mortals in the millennium then Isaiah 65:17-25 supports the NHNE and the millennium commencing at the same time.

​

 

[Davidpt]

There can only be one NHNE.

I've never understood Isaiah 65:20 because everything else from verse 17 onward does not seem to contradict anything said in Revelation 20-22, but I don't know who the rest of the dead live not again until the thousand years are completed fits with Isa.65:20, or the NHNE.

But I have noticed an agreement with Isaiah 60:

View attachment 39870

No one would deny that Revelation chapters 21 & 22 are describing the Kingdom of Christ, and Revelation 20:4-6 is talking about saints who will reign with Him in His Kingdom, saying,

"Blessed and holy is he that has part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Revelation 20:6).

It's also clear that after the destruction of the beast and his armies, there will be no more death for the bride, the Lamb's wife, i.e those who had overcome and had part in the first resurrection, because the second death has no authority over them,

and these are the people who are also being spoken about in Revelation 7:13-17 (those who had come out from great tribulation and had "washed their robes, and whitened them in the blood of the Lamb").

So I think that maybe, if we understand that the verses below are speaking about the bride of Christ, and the bride of Christ is being spoken of in Revelation 20:4-6 and Revelation 21, then this again makes sense and agrees with what is written in Isaiah (see the table in the images below):

Isaiah 65​

13 So the Lord Jehovah says, Behold, My servants will eat, but you will be hungry. Behold, My servants will drink, but you will be thirsty. Behold, My servants will rejoice, but you will be ashamed.

14 Behold,. My servants will sing for joy of heart, but you will cry for sorrow of heart, and will howl because of a breaking of spirit.
15 And you will leave your name for a curse to My chosen; for the Lord Jehovah will kill you, and call His servants by another name.
16 He who blesses himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth. And he who swears in the earth will swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hidden from My eyes.

17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth. And the things before will not be remembered, nor come to mind.

View attachment 39871​

View attachment 39872

IMO it's no accident that John falls down to worship the angel in both chapters. It's because it's the same angel, and all part of the same vision!!. Revelation 20 is just telling us more about the same time-period mentioned in Revelation 21-22.

I also think it helps to strip away the chapter divisions that do not appear in the original text, but were added in 1227 AD for our benefit (easy reference).

Even so, I don't understand how Isaiah 65:20 fits the above picture, or even for that matter how it fits in Isaiah 65:17-25. Isaiah 65:20 has never been fulfilled literally, so it either means there is "another meaning", or there will be mortals in the millennium (which I personally don't see in New Testament prophecy),

although about the book of Isaiah in general, I have noticed that Isaiah was prophesying not only to both ancient Israel and to ancient Judah about things that later came to be fulfilled in different different time-periods in their history, but also about the end of days of our time and what follows, and the entire book of Isaiah oscillates all the time from speaking to one group and another about one thing and another, and from one time-period in history to another (including prophecies about the Messiah who was to come), and this is how it goes all the way through the book of Isaiah.

And a lot of the time Isaiah seems to project a lot of what was at least partially fulfilled when its time came, onto another time-period at the end of days. So the prophecy could partially be referring to the restoration of Judah from Babylonian captivity.

So Isaiah 65:20 is somewhat of a curve-ball for me, but I don't believe it should distract from the facts I mentioned in the table images above.

PS: I'm still open to being wrong about the no mortals in the millennium, but only once it makes sense by agreeing with all other scripture.

@Davidpt And on the other hand, if there are mortals in the millennium then Isaiah 65:17-25 supports the NHNE and the millennium commencing at the same time.

​

I think you and I are are on the same page here for the most part, except for maybe what you mentioned about a restoration of Judah from Babylonian captivity. Not that you might be wrong about that, I just don't know one way or the other, thus we are not on the same page. Plus you are not yet convinced mortals will be on the earth during the thousand years and that I am.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 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

Look what a lot of interpreters are ignoring---But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create---the keywords being 'for ever'. How can someone then think these verses only involve a thousand years rather than for ever?

And what happens when we consider verse 19---and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying---then compare to the following in Revelation 21?

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


If God already causes this in Isaiah 65 to happen--- and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying---and that this is meaning 1000 years and a little season before Revelation 21:4 is meaning, why would He need to wipe away all tears from their eyes yet again when Isaiah 65:19 indicates He already did that--- and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying? Therefore, it seems unreasonable to me that Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:4 can be referring to two totally different eras of time as most Premils insist is the case.

What do some take 'no more' to mean? Some more? Or exactly what it says? Most Premils argue that the new Jerusalem is not meant in Isaiah 65. How does that make sense when it is only the new Jerusalem that can exist for ever, keeping in mind this in verse 18 which is clearly pertaining to Jerusalem---But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing---it even plainly says so right in that same verse. And not only does it say Jerusalem in that verse, it says behold, I create Jerusalem---which logically adds up to a new Jerusalem. How could it not? The point then being, after Christ returns there can't be a new Jerusalem unless there is first a new heaven and new earth. You can't have one without the other, and like I already pointed out, behold, I create Jerusalem---which logically adds up to a new Jerusalem.

It then has me thinking this. If Isaiah 65:17 matches what is recorded in Revelation 21:4, pertaining to no more tears, maybe Isaiah 65:20 matches Revelation 21:4 pertaining to no more death, but that the way verse 20 is phrased, it makes it appear it is saying something that it might not even be saying? I don't know for certain what to make of that verse. It's a difficult one, IMO.

 

[Davy]

Since I suspect you likely studied under Shepherd's Chapel and the late Arnold Murray, unless you tell me otherwise, I have already encountered his students numerous times in the past. There is no reasoning with any of them, IOW. Therefore, a waste of my time if I think I might be able to reason with you somehow. If you want to think something preposterous, that I'm really an Amil pretending to be a Premil, then go for it. Who cares? I sure don't.

I have studied under many... different pastors. You cannot have a TV and not land on the Shepherd's Chapel programs, nor any other like Joel Osteen, or one of the many fake-prosperity-preachers on TV.

So is that what you want to do now, go down a list of TV preachers, and point out what they teach?

But alas, what preacher I listen to has nothing to do with Bible Scripture evidence I quote to back up what I teach. The simplicity in God's written Word is not that difficult for those WHO ACTUALLY STUDY GOD'S WORD, which in YOUR case, YOU reveal that YOU don't know The Bible that well at all. So I'd bet the more I reveal of YOUR STATE OF CONFUSION from Bible Scripture, the more you'll just get angry at The Word of God. That's Who you really are angry at, not me, but God's Word as written.

 

[Davy]

That too was my position for decades. Then one day it dawned on me, how am I'm being logical here? How can I insist that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years when I'm already agreeing it doesn't, the fact I am applying Isaiah 65:17 to the thousand years and that it is undeniably involving the NHNE? Even though you yourself are not giving me a hard time in regards to this, we both being Premils, look at some other Premils though, such as Davy. He can't even be reasoned with, apparently. He would rather accuse than trying to reason through these things. But a lot of that might be because of who he was taught under, assuming I am correct about that. And unless one agreed with Arnold Murray, you were an idiot to him otherwise, pretty much how Davy treats others as well.

Kluth said your position has been his position as well. Kluth believes on man's Amillennial theory, and he was comparing his belief with what YOU believe.

The Isaiah 65:17-25 Scripture is post-Millennium.

 

[rwb]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

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.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

Obviously, nothing precedes a first. And if the first heaven and the first earth that were passed away is not meaning this present heaven and present earth, are we just living in a fairy tale then, that there is not literally a first earth, meaning this present earth, before there is a new earth?

Unless Isaiah 65:17 is meaning the same new heaven and new earth Revelation 21:1 is meaning, we have no choice but to understand the latter like such---for the first new heaven and the first new earth were passed away. Now we have made nonsense out of the text rather than sense, since it is plainly obvious that the first heaven and the first earth can only be meaning this present heaven and present earth.

So why is it then when I propose, me being a Premil and all, that the NHNE begins with the thousand years, that there are then Premils telling me no, that that can't be so, the fact Revelation 21 indicates the NHNE follow after the great white throne judgment? Why is it then, that these same Premils insist Isaiah 65:17 is involving the thousand years then contradict that by insisting the NHNE doesn't begin until after the thousand years, after the great white throne judgment? lol

One argument is, if one compares Isaiah 65:20 to Revelation 21:4, the former involves death the latter doesn't. Well, now we are back to where we started from then, meaning the title of this thread, keeping in mind Revelation 21:1 alone already proves that there is only one NHNE not two, for the reasons I argued.

I will stop here for now since the OP is getting somewhat lengthy already.

Have you ever really considered that Isaiah's NHNE is prophecy pertaining to the spiritual Kingdom of God that would come when the promised Messiah, they long waited for would finally come? Being Premillennial, I wonder if you have ever examined prophecy through spiritual fulfillment? That is not to say the NHNE shall not be a physical world with physical inhabitants. Saying only that long before the NHNE that shall come a physical Kingdom of God, Christ ushered in a time for first building it a spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven. And He left His Church with instructions for the whole earth, telling them how whosoever desired could come into His Kingdom if they are according to grace through faith born again of the Spirit.

Isaiah's prophecy points to the coming Kingdom of God that has already come to earth through Christ Jesus our Lord. There will literally be another everlasting age to come after the age we are currently living in, that shall be physically upon the new earth. But long before that everlasting age comes, Christ came with His Kingdom when He came to earth a man. We need to remember what Christ tells us of His Kingdom that He ushered in. Because it is NOT, now in this temporary age a physical Kingdom, it is a spiritual Kingdom of God. And according to the words of Christ, His Kingdom will never be found physically upon THIS earth. He tells us His Kingdom is not of the earth but is from heaven. And the only way to know or enter into His spiritual Kingdom is "Ye MUST be born again"! It is through the Spirit of Christ within you, that mankind comes spiritually into the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God that is spiritual is now found in heaven, and shall be the NHNE, and holy city new Jerusalem that shall come down from heaven after this first earth and the lusts thereof passes away.

 

[Davy]

Brethren in Christ, be careful of listening those above on the Gnostic theory of Amillennialism. It's very easy to know when God's new heavens and a new earth time will manifest...

Revelation 21:1 reveals when the NHNE time comes, there will be NO MORE SEA.

Rev 21:1
21 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.
KJV

 

[rwb]

I have no problem with your Premill belief that New Jerusalem descends *at* the Coming of Christ. It makes sense, and both versions, Isa 65 and Rev 21-22 seem to speak of a time when mortal humanity still inhabits the earth. The "Bride," aka "New Jerusalem," appears to represent the glorified Church as it appears on earth at the 2nd Coming.

I agree new Jerusalem will come down with the coming of Christ. One thing you forget is how that shall be the last day of the age we have been living in since Christ has come. According to Jo 6, Christ tells us that He will raise us up on the "last day". John writes there will be no more death then, so how can mortal humanity still inhabit the NHNE as new Jerusalem, prepared as a bride adorned for her Husband?

 

[rwb]

It then has me thinking this. If Isaiah 65:17 matches what is recorded in Revelation 21:4, pertaining to no more tears, maybe Isaiah 65:20 matches Revelation 21:4 pertaining to no more death, but that the way verse 20 is phrased, it makes it appear it is saying something that it might not even be saying? I don't know for certain what to make of that verse. It's a difficult one, IMO.

I see your mind spinning these things somewhat the same way mine did many years ago. I too began my Christian journey embracing the doctrine of Premillennialism. The real struggle for me was that I had simply accepted what I had been taught. Then one day I encountered a Christian whose end time doctrine made me question, as you are, some of what I have been taught. When I began to see the inconsistencies in Premillennialism, I realized it was typically defended from the belief that Rev 20 must be teaching two physical resurrections separated by one thousand literal years. Knowing there will be only one physical resurrection of ALL the dead from the graves was what led me to understand the "first resurrection" is not a physical resurrection of the dead to physical life again but is the resurrection of the Lord from the dead that we must have part in to overcome the second death, that we can only know and enter by being born again. Once I understood the Kingdom of God that Christ came with is not a physical Kingdom but a spiritual Kingdom that comes without observation and is within you, then some of the prophecies of Old began to make spiritual fulfillment sense.

 

[Davidpt]

Have you ever really considered that Isaiah's NHNE is prophecy pertaining to the spiritual Kingdom of God that would come when the promised Messiah, they long waited for would finally come?

Are you meaning apply Isaiah 65:17-25 to the here and now spiritually rather than to the future literally? If yes, there are several reasons that I can't see that working.

1) And the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

How can that be applicable to the here and now, the fact the former is still here? After all, it's the former we are still dwelling in. Not to mention, 2 Peter 3:13.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Peter wouldn't still be looking for that in the future if it was already here.


2) The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,

If we try and apply this spiritually to the here and now, even that can't work.

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Matthew 10:16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Clearly, none of that remotely fits---The wolf and the lamb shall feed together. Where I take that to mean there is peace between the two.

Just so I'm clear here, despite what Davy wants to think. I am a Premil and have been my entire life. My position is that Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the thousand years. Obviously, if it is involving the thousand years, the fact 1) and 2) above proves that it can't be applied to the here and now spiritually, that alone means that the thousand years can't be pertaining to the here and now as Amils insist. The only way my position can be void is if Isaiah 65:17-25 is not pertaining to the thousand years. But if it is pertaining to the thousand years, and surely it is is, Isaiah 65:17-25 simply can't fit the here and now, therefore, Amils are incorrect to insist the thousand years are involving the here and now spiritually since their position would be contradicting Isaiah 65:17-25, since it can't fit the here and now spiritually.

It then boils down to this. Since both Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21-22 involves the NHNE, it is contradictory to argue that the NHNE doesn't come down until after the thousand years if one is already arguing that Isaiah 65:17-25 is involving the thousand years. Keeping in mind, Isaiah 65:17-25 is undeniably involving the NHNE. Anyone that could deny that must have reading comprehension or something, the fact verse 17 clearly says new heavens, a new earth, and also mentions the former which obviously has to be meaning the first heaven, the first earth(Revelation 21:1). What else could the former be meaning in Isaiah 65:17 if not that?

To then conclude this somehow makes me an Amil is plain stupid. No Amil thinks the thousand years are after the 2nd coming.

 

[Mr E]

NHNE meaning new heavens and a new earth, in the event that is not clear to some what the initials are meaning.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

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.

It only equals one not two instead. And Revelation 21:1 alone undeniably proves it. How so? Like this, for one.

for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away

There have been many. More than you could count. The trouble is-- we don't remember them, nor do they come to mind.

 

[rwb]

Are you meaning apply Isaiah 65:17-25 to the here and now spiritually rather than to the future literally? If yes, there are several reasons that I can't see that working.

It is what some refer to as already, but not yet. What that means is that Isaiah's prophecy spiritually came when Christ came with His Kingdom. When the spiritual Kingdom of God in heaven is complete as the last Gentile to be saved has entered in, that which is now spiritual will be physical with the NHNE and new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven as a bride adorned for her husband.