This is an article I posted to aus.religion.christianity in Jul 99.  

The best book on this is A.Hoekema "The Bible & The Future" of which I have utilised in this summary critique.

G'day folks,

At the close of my first post I intimated that I would attempt to show that the O.T does not teach a future earthly millennium kingdom, so here goes.

I am using the New Scofield Bible as a guide as that edition identifies what passages the author (human ;-)) believed could be understood to describe a earthly millennium. The RM position is that not even one passage speaks of a millennium reign (in fact millennium is only used in Rev 20) but those commonly referred to by DPM's are in fact describing the new earth after the consummation of all things.

I shall use the most persuasive first then move through them. Isa 65:17-25: Scofield has for a heading of verse 17-25 as "New heavens & new earth" but under verse 18 there is another heading which reads "Millennium conditions in the renewed earth with the curse removed. The tension is obvious, verse 17 describes the final new earth yet they attempt to restrict verses 18-25 as the Millennium Kingdom that precedes the new earth.

Now it seems that to accept this interpretation one would need less than a literal approach. For example: Isa 65:17 - "Behold I will create a new heavens a new earth...." Clearly this speaks with clarity that is undeniable, Isa refers to the new Heavens (Rev 21:1 uses this phrase also).

Now according to Scofield from here on in it refers to the Millennium Kingdom conditions. Isa 65:18 exhorts the reader to "rejoice for ever" not just a thousand years but forever but in the New heavens & earth just referred to in Verse 17. he speaks of an everlasting blessedness that shall have them rejoicing forever. Isa 65:19 "..the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard it no more." Again this is confirmation of the eternal blessedness which is free from the effects of sin (this is not so in the Millennium kingdom, ie there will still be weeping & crying).

Now the only defence for this referring to something less than the New heavens & earth is found in verse 20 which is a difficult verse: Isa 65:20 "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years.... who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed."

The question asked is does this mean there will be death in the new heaven & earth? The DPM says no, therefore this can not refer to the new earth but the Millennium Kingdom. The RM position is that this does refer to the new earth but it does not imply death. How so? Because verse 19 has already categorically stated that there will be no more weeping in the new earth. Consequently, could you imagine death without weeping (apart from your Mother in law ;-) ? It should also be remembered that Isa 25:8 explicitly predicts that in the new heavens & earth there will be no more tears & correlates this to the end of death, "he will swallow up death forever. The sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces.."

Consequently verse 20 does not require or for that matter suggestion anything other than a figurative phrase used to emphasise the enduring nature of live on the new earth. The emphasis is not on death but that no longer will people miss the mark (ie die young) no longer shall we see people fail to enjoy the fullness of the blessings of life. This is supported by verse 25 which reminds us that on the new earth there shall be no violence (there will be in the Millennium Kingdom).

Isa 11:1-10 in the New Scofield has the heading "Davidic kingdom restored to Christ: its character & extent. Let us look at verses 6-10:

Isa 11:6 we are told that the "wolf will lie down with a lamb.." Isa 11:7 "the cow will feed with the bear.." Isa 11:8 "the infant will play near the hole of the cobra.."

And at the very same time we note that according to Isa 11:9 the "earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." However, this is not an accurate depiction of the Millennium Kingdom as we know that there are those who neither know nor love the Lord Jesus during that time. Indeed, towards the end of that time many will gather to attack in a final onslaught the camp of the saints.... Yet Isa 11:9 says.. "They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain.'

The RM position is that these words of harmony and safety only truly depict a new heaven & earth not a Millennium Kingdom that although peace dominates, there will no doubt be mighty bloodshed and battles. A literal understanding demands this as a reference to the new earth.

Another section of Scripture used to defend the DPM position is Ezek 40-48. Scofield introduces the chapters "The millennial temple & its worship" Ezk 40:1-47:12 and Ezk 47:13-48:35 is labelled "The division of the land during the millennial age". Now the RM position is that these chapters contain a vision of the temple that was to be built on the return of the captives from Babylon. Furthermore, it goes into great detail regarding the worship within the Temple including the sin offerings, trespass offerings, peace offerings etc. Now the DPM would say this refers to the Millennium Kingdom when the Temple shall be rebuilt and the worship as described shall take place.

However, first it must be stated again that no such Millennium Kingdom has been shown to exist from Scripture. Second that it seems ridiculous that DPM should seek to literally apply these to the Kingdom worship, and of course the greatest problem in doing this is the well known problem of sacrifices. Some DPM scholars argue for the memorial understanding of these sacrifices but this is an untenable position because it is not a literal rendering of the original language (Ezek 45:15,16 describe the purpose of the sacrifices with the piel form of Kaphar which is exactlty the same as that used for expiatory sacrifice in Lev 6:30; 8:15; 16:6;11, 24, 30, 32, 33, etc).

Now, Scofield skirts this problem by stating that we should not take this part literally (pg 888) "The reference to sacrifices is not to be taken literally, in view of putting away such offerings, but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the millennial temple, using terms that the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel's day."

Now, if the sacrifices are not literal why must the temple be? Here Scofield departs from the literalist interpretation, and from the RM position this is understandable because there can be no such thing as sin offerings in the future, and so Scofield is right, Ezekiel was using terms & language that was understandable to the Jews of his day to explain the wonderful future that the people of God shall look forward to. However, it refers to the new heaven & earth. Thus we see that Ezekiel spoke figuratively, and this is confirmed with the same imagery used in Rev 22 which is almost identical to Ezek 47:12 where we read of the river of life etc.

Another O.T passage used is Isa 2:1-4 which carries the heading of "a vision of the coming kingdom." That is, of the Millennium Kingdom as opposed to the new heavens & earth. Isa 2:4 "and they shall beat their swords into plougshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."

The DPM argues that this is a picture of the Millennium Kingdom but as RM's we argue that this can not be so, it must refer to the conditions existing & enjoyed on new earth. The millennium Kingdom (so called) will experience a final onslaught against the camp of the saints, violence will be part of the final days of the Millennium Kingdom therefore, it can only rightly be applied to the new heaven & earth.

There are many other passages claimed to be supporting a future restoration during the Millennium Kingdom however, not of them IMHO are substantial and all of them fit either the exodus mode or the new earth understanding. Again I think it shows that there are often multiple understandings of the O.T prophesies concerning restoration.

For example Graeme & Able have argued this very position in the recent thread on Isa 7:14 which has a literal fulfilment to Ahaz yet at the same time we see a greater fulfilment in Matt 1:22. So in the same way many of the restoration passages have fulfilment in the return under Zerubbabel and Joshua (536BC) or later under Ezra (458BC). At the same time we see that they may also be fulfilled figuratively as in Acts 15:14-18 which fulfils Amos 9:11-12 ... etc, etc.

There are many other verses that are used which would prove to be exhausting to cover, however, I believe I have shown at least that the DPM position is anything but certain, indeed, it rests on some rather precarious renderings of O.T passages that prove an unstable base to build such doctrines.

Regards Darren Middleton