The major passage setting forth this spiritual transformation is Isaiah65:17–25. In that glorious scene Isaiah presents a dramatic image of the gospel economy’s historical impact. This economy will develop through“ a multi-stage process that culminates at the final judgment.” This redemptive economy will gradually transform the world ethically and spiritually, so that it appears as a “new heavens and a new earth” of which “the former shall not be remembered or come to mind” (Isa 65:17).
Isaiah’s vision is the background of Paul’s statement in 2 Corinthians5:17, which refers to contemporary spiritual realities: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” According to New Testament 99theology, the Second Adam, Christ, stands at the head of a new creation(Ro 5:14; 1Co 15:22, 45).Calvin views Isaiah 65:17–25 as a new covenant blessing that results from a change in covenantal administration: 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.
The transformational effect of the gospel kingdom is such that those who are newly born of its power are thereby constituted new creatures:101“in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything,but a new creation” (Gal 6:15). The transforming power of the gospel creates a “new man” of two warring factions, Jew and Gentile (Eph2:15–18). Gospel-transformed new creatures are to lay aside the old selfand take on the new (Eph 4:22–23), which is “created according to God,in righteousness and true holiness” (Eph 4:24; cf. Col 3:9–11). This is because they are “His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them”(Eph 2:10).
This glorious conception involves both a re-created “Jerusalem” and“people” (Isa 65:18–19). Interestingly, in Galatians 6 Paul speaks of thenew creation in the context of a transformed “Israel of God” existing inhis day: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcisionavails anything, but a new creation. and as many as walk according to thisrule, peace and mercy be upon them, even upon the Israel of God” (Gal6:15–16; cf. Ro 2:28–29). In that same epistle, he urges a commitment tothe “Jerusalem above” (the heavenly Jerusalem, Heb 12:22) rather than tothe cast out Jerusalem that now is (the historical capital city of Israel, Gal4:25–26).
The heavenly Jerusalem is the bride of Christ that comes down from God to replace the earthly Jerusalem (Rev 21:2–5) in the first century (Rev 1:1,3; 22:6, 10). With the shaking and destruction of the old Jerusalem in AD70, the heavenly (re-created) Jerusalem replaces her: His “voice then shook the earth; but now He has promised, saying, ‘Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven.’ Now this, ‘Yet once more,’indicates the removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made [i.e., the Levitical ritual system ], that the things which 102 100. Calvin, Isaiah, 4:397–398. 101. Jn 3:3; Jas 1:18; 1Pe 1:23; 1 Jn 2:29; 3:9; 5:1, 18. 102. Heb 9:11 (cf. vv 2, 8, 24) reads: “Christ came as High Priest of the goodthings to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands,that is, not of this creation.” The old tabernacle/temple system is “made with hands” (Heb 9:24, cf. 2, 11) and is of “this creation,” whereas the new is heavenly(8:5; 9:23). Notice the contextual contrast between Mt. Sinai, where the408 He Shall Have Dominioncannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serveGod acceptably with reverence and godly fear” (Heb 12:26–28; cp. 8:13).Contrary to amillennialism, there is no “substantial evidence . . . foridentifying [Isaiah 65:17ff] with the perfect eternal state.” We must 103consider Isaiah’s specific statements. He speaks of glorious elevatedconditions — but conditions still continuous with the present. We seethis in the experiences of birth, aging, death, time, sin, and curse: “Nomore shall an infant [‘ol, “suckling”] from there live but a few days, nor anold man who has not fulfilled his days; for the child shall die one hundredyears old, but the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed” (Isa65:20). This is preconsummational, for sinners will not be in the postresurrection perfect state.Adams defends the amillennial interpretation of these elements witha rhetorical question: “How else can perfection be described in wordswhich have imperfect objects and concepts as referents?” The answer 104is: “Easily!” Surely it is not impossible to think of post-resurrectionperfection without mentioning six elements of temporal imperfection inthe same sentence. Could Isaiah not say that in the (eternal, consummate)new heavens “no infants will be born, no one will age, no sin will exist,and the curse forever ceases”? What is so difficult with stating mattersin this way? Does not our Lord inform us that “in the resurrection theyneither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven”(Mt 22:30)?Fellow amillennialist Hoekema also deals with the passagerhetorically by referring to Isaiah 65:19: “Can one imagine death withoutweeping?” This is surely less difficult than imagining death without 105death (cf. 65:20)! But in the context, we must understand the referenceculturally: when God’s blessings come upon his city and people, then willpass away the “old things” (65:17) of cultural judgment, devastation, andsorrow due to sinful rebellion (65:2–8, 11–12). In Isaiah’s day the Lordnotes: “Behold, My servants shall sing for joy of heart, but you shall cryfor sorrow of heart, and wail for grief of spirit” (Isa 65:14). The rejoicingof God in his people collectively considered will lead to the relief of theirceremonial system is received (12:18–21) and heavenly Mt. Zion (12:22–25). 103. Adams, Time Is at Hand, 15. 104. Adams, Time Is at Hand, 15. 105. Hoekema, Bible and the Future, 202.Ch. 14: Eschatological Features 409sorrow caused by his past displeasure and cultural wrath (cf. Dt 28:15ff;Ps 137). No longer will the “cry of distress” be heard from his people (cf.2Sa 22:7; Ps 18:6; Isa 19:20), because the world will be dominated bythem and not by the oppressor (65:25).The covenantal language here shows that culture-wide disinheritancecaused by rebellion will be a thing of the past. Instead, covenantalinheritance will prevail: “They shall build houses and inhabit them; theyshall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and anotherinhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree, soshall be the days of My people, and My elect shall long enjoy the work oftheir hands” (Isa 65:21–22). This reverses covenantal curse language(which Isaiah uses so frequently): “You shall betroth a wife, but anotherman shall lie with her; you shall build a house, but you shall not dwell init; you shall plant a vineyard, but shall not gather its grapes” (Dt 28:30;cf. Zep 1:13; Mic 6:15).The new heavens and new earth here (and many places elsewhere)refer to the new covenant era. It characterizes the system-wide transformation that occurs with the coming and spread of the gospel.Conclusion Although one’s millennial view should flow out of a comprehensive understanding of Scripture, often a few particular biblical features playan inordinately significant role in the millennial debate. Misapprehending these discrete features can distort the overall system of biblical eschatology. In this chapter I survey several prominent features of God’s prophetic Word to show how postmillennialism understands them within its eschatological framework. Though opponents deem some of these to be contra-indicative of postmillennialism (e.g., the great tribulation, therebuilding of the temple), they are perfectly accounted for in the postmillennial system. The great tribulation is the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.The rebuilt temple is the bride of Christ, his body, the church. Explaining the new heaven and new earth language in Isaiah 65 poses no problem for the postmillennialist, nor should it pose a problem for the premillennialist. That a period of unprecedented, literal blessings is instore for mankind prior to the resurrection and the final judgment is nota hermeneutical problem for either system of interpretation. It is, however, a decided problem for the amillennialist
