Is Isaiah 65:20 evidence for a literal 1000 year kingdom before the second coming?

 Background

The book of Revelation is a book filled with mystical imagery and metaphor, and as such, a book that has attracted a lot of unhealthy attention as people are drawn towards the mysterious. There is a reason why Revelation is the last book in the Bible: You should first have a decent grip on what the rest of the Bible teaches, to then be able to use that knowledge as your interpretative lens for understanding Revelation. Unfortunately, what often happens is that people - fascinated by eschatology - come up with their own novel interpretations for Revelation, and use that as their lens to read the rest of the Bible. This has lead to a lot of bad theology and even down right heresy in the church. Many of the false sects today had their origin in the bad reading of Revelation. We should therefore be very careful with how we handle this text.

One of the more mysterious and difficult parts of Revelation is the meaning of the 1000 year kingdom described in Revelation 20. In it, we see Satan bounded and Jesus come to the earth to reign supreme for a 1000 years. Then Satan is released, and he gathers his armies for the final battle but was defeated by God and thrown into hell for ever and ever. Lastly we read of the raising of the dead and the final judgement. Chapter 21 goes on to describe the new creation that God will create for those whom He has saved.

There is a lot of debate over whether this 1000 year kingdom should be interpreted as literal or figurative, but that is beyond the scope of this article. What I want to address here, is a problematic argument used in favor of a literal understanding of the 1000 year kingdom. 

Isaiah 65:20

Isaiah 65:20 reads as follows (ESV)

No more shall there be in it

an infant who lived 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.

The argument goes: This prophecy speaks of a time of unimaginable prosperity and longevity, but yet of a time where death still exists. This therefore could not refer to the new Earth and must be a reference to the 1000 year kingdom, proving that it must be understood literally. 

This argument sounds convincing on face value, but quickly falls apart when you consider the entire context. Then it becomes clear that this is not a reference to the 1000 year kingdom of Revelation 20, but actually, the new earth of Revelation 21. Consider the following comparison

Theme	Isaiah 65	Revelation 21
New creation	17 For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind.	1 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.
New Jerusalem	18 But be glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness.	2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
No more suffering	19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and cries of distress. 20 No more shall there be in it an infant who lived 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.	3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

When viewed side by side, the similarities between Isaiah 65:17-20 and Revelation 21:1-3 is undeniable. Clearly this is one and the same prophecy. One could argue that the similarities is coincidental, but the opening verse in both really leaves no room for that, as both clearly sets the context as being on a newly created heaven and earth.

But what about the death existing in Isaiah 65?

Now someone might object that Isaiah clearly speaks of people dying so how do I square that with Revelation 21 where death no longer exists?

I believe this to be a false dilemma, because the argument only consider the words of the text and not the intent. When the text says there will be no infants dying and that someone who dies before the age of 100 will be viewed as cursed, what is the intent the text want to communicate? Is the emphasis on life, or is it on death? Clearly, the point here is not so much that people will still be dying, but that they will have a long and abundant life. 

Now we know that the Bible is based on the principle of incremental revelation. God did not reveal the message of the Bible on one day, but rather the revelation was revealed incrementally over generations, finally to be completed with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So Revelation repeats the prophecy of Isaiah 65, but this time, it amends it to give it its fuller meaning: Not only will people experience a long life, they will experience an eternal life. This adjustment to the prophecy makes sense, because Isaiah was written before the resurrection of Christ, while Revelation was written after Jesus came to defeat death. 

Conclusion

So viewed in its proper context, it becomes clear, that Isaiah 65:20 is not a reference to the thousand year kingdom prior to the second coming as described in Revelation 20, but rather a reference to the perfect new world that will be created thereafter in Revelation 21. As mentioned before, it is beyond the scope of this article to argue either for or against the literal interpretation of Revelation 20, but it does argue against the use of Isaiah 65:20 in defense of the former. Doing so is to superimpose a preferred interpretation of Revelation 20 back onto the rest of the Bible where it doesn't fit, while ignoring the context. It is exactly the same kind of reverse interpretation of Revelation that have given us all the false sects like Mormonism and Jehovah witnesses, even though the error here is significantly smaller and less serious.