I fully agree with what you described here, but it is a concept that Premills do not understand at all. And that is a big reason why they are Premills. You can't be a Premill while using clearer and simpler passages to interpret more difficult passages since the clearer and simpler passages overwhelmingly support Amill.
Agree. It's not referring to a first new heavens and first new earth as some imagine. It is referring to THE new heavens and a new earth. There is only one new heavens and new earth. If someone tries to say there are two new heavens and new earths, what is to keep someone from saying there are three or four new heavens and new earths or however many new heavens and new earths they need there to be to support their doctrine? If Isaiah 65:17-25 and Revelation 21:1-4 referred to two different new heavens and new earths then what is to keep us from claiming that 2 Peter 3:13 is referring to a third new heavens and third new earth? Where does the madness end?
Right. They did not have any understanding of eternity yet at that time because it was not God's plan to reveal it until New Testament times, so Isaiah described it in a way that they could understand at the time.
Agree. And, as I like to ask the Premills who think that Isaiah 65:17-25 applies to a future earthly millennium, why do they believe that no one will mourn anyone's death during that time? Will people not care if their loved ones die during that time? Premills don't realize how their interpretations of Isaiah 65:20 make nonsense out of the verse preceding it because they have death occurring but no one weeping or crying over their loved ones' deaths. Which is obviously ridiculous.
Death is eliminated when Jesus comes. So will sin and sinners. Let us have a literal word-by-word look at the Hebrew pertaining to Isaiah 65:20.
לֹא־יִֽהְיֶ֨ה מִשָּׁ֜ם עֹ֗וד ע֤וּל יָמִים֙ וְזָקֵ֔ן אֲשֶׁ֥ר
Lo'- yihªyeh mishaam `owd `uwl yaamiym wªzaaqeen 'ªsher
Not be hence more an infant [of] days, an old man after
לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּ֖א אֶת־יָמָ֑יו כִּ֣י הַנַּ֗עַר בֶּן־מֵאָ֤ה שָׁנָה֙ יָמ֔וּת
Lo'- yªmalee''et- yaamaayw Kiy hana`ar ben- mee'aah shaanaah yaamuwt
Not fulfill your days inasmuch a child old an hundred years die
What is this telling us?
The exact same thing, only in different terms.
This is called
synonymous parallelism. It is telling us that a child will never become old on the new earth. This line reinforces what has just been said. It confirms the thought of the impending reality of no more death in the eternal state for the righteous. In eternity there will be no more aging or dying. It is
not going to be like our corrupt age where infants eventually get old. It will not be like the here-and-now where a man could live to be an old person of a hundred years of age and then die.
This passage is actually saying the opposite to what many think. What this is saying is: there will be no more aging, curse or death on the new earth. Every glorified saints will have come to full maturity in Christ with their new perfect eternal bodies. It is the next line of Isaiah 65:20 that has confused many, because the translators have not interpreted it in a literal word-for-word sense. It is not saying there will be more babies, death and old men. It is saying the opposite to what they are alleging. It is saying that there will be no more aging: children getting old, old people and people dying! It is describing eternity to an Old Testament audience in terms they can grasp.
The new heavens and new earth will indeed be a glorious victorious perfect state where death is unknown. God is saying that the eternal state will actually be free of death for young and old alike. This passage is telling us that there will be no more death on the new earth! The Hebrew word
Lo' (Strong’s 3808) means
“no” or “not.” The word is a simple negation. The word is found twice in this much-debated new heavens and new earth verse.
Debate in Isaiah 65:20 centers in on the use of the original word
yaamuw meaning “die” or “death.” What should we relate it to? Is there indeed “death” on the new earth? Also, should the death be related to the “child” in the second phrase or the “sinner” in the third phrase? What is more, in what way should it read? I must admit, if we are to read it in its most natural way it fits perfectly with the context. So why change it? I believe it should be applied to the “child” as it should agree with the first phrase that is simply a reinforcement of the same truth. It then fits perfectly with the whole overall teaching of the prophet on the perfection and bliss of the eternal state.
No (Lo') longer will an infant become like an old man,
No (Lo') longer will a child reach one hundred and die.
This is Old Testament verbiage that describes eternity to the Old Testament listener. It is telling us: no one is going to age! This relates to the new heaven and new earth not some supposed future millennium – that will never happen.
The original Hebrew does not give us any reason to attribute death to the “child” in this second line. In fact, it does not fit the whole context which is evidently speaking of the removal of aging and death on the new earth. Interpreting it as we have, seems to (1) match the original, (2) make sense to its context, and (3) taps into the thrust of what the prophet was trying to relay. We need to remind ourselves that the whole idea here is describing the incredible eternal deliverance from the curse of corruption and the joy that “the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind” on the “new earth.”
