Isaiah 11:1-9 is Waymeyer’s third passage used to support an intermediate kingdom; his second from Isaiah.
Isaiah 11, like Isaiah 2:2-4, is used to support an intermediate kingdom on the basis of these two features:
- Premise 1: Global harmony
- Premise 2: Disputes in which Jesus will judge between
- Conclusion: “Because the coming kingdom of Isaiah 11 exceeds what is currently manifest in the current age — and because the presence of the poor, the afflicted, and the wicked are incompatible with the eternal state — premillenialists point to this passage as evidence of an intermediate kingdom between the two [ages].” (pg. 28).
If you’ve read my previous response to Waymeyer’s use of Isaiah 2:2-4, you will recognize that there is nothing new in Isaiah 11 that has not already been addressed. Therefore, if you wish to see these details dealt with more in depth, see my previous post.
There are, however, two observations I want to make in the use of this passage:
- The argument for these first three passages in Waymeyer’s book has been this: Because we can’t conceive of how it is fulfilled in this age or the eternal state, we must assume it fits into an intermediate kingdom. Do you see the problem? The intermediate kingdom is an a priori assumption NOT something evident in any of these passages. One wonders, had no one every formulated a doctrine of an intermediate state, would anyone have been tempted to use it as an interpretation for these prophecies ? A great resource on the origins of the intermediate kingdom concept is Charles Hill’s Regnum Caelorum
- This leads to another point: There’s no need for an intermediate kingdom in this passage. It is completely feasible for this passage to contain both the simultaneous judgment of Christ’s rule over his enemies and the ushering in of the eternal state at his second coming. Anthony Hoekema gets it right when he writes,
We know that the Bible predicts that at the end of time there will be a new earth (see, for example, Is. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 2 1:1). Why may we not therefore understand the details found in these verses as descriptions of life on the new earth? This is particularly likely in view of the sweeping panoramic vision conveyed by verse 9: “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.” Why should these words have to be thought of as applying only to a thousand-year period preceding the new earth? Do they not picture the final perfection of God’s creation?
Anthony Hoekema, The Meaning of the Millenium: The Interpretation of Old Testament Prophecy (1977)
One can certainly use this in the intermediate kingdom schema but not because there is an intermediate kingdom in this passage.
Sines of the Times 
Hi Mr Sines,
I must admit, from your post above, it seems you have not really read this section of Weymayer’s book. Invoking Hoekema’s quote skirts around the direct issue at hand in Waymayer’s argument from this passage in Isa Ch 11, which is that the set of specific characteristics of the period described here in Isa 11 cannot correllate with either the present age, or the eternal state.
These characteristics indicate that the period described is certainly not the present age:
(1) V3-5 – Messiah will reign on earth in justice
(2) V6 – Momentous renewal of nature, including wolf and lion lying with lamb, children leading both safely
(3) V9 – knowledge of the Lord will fill the world
Then, these characteristics indicate that the period described is certainly not the eternal age:
(1) V4 – Some aspects of reign will be coercive and punitive, He will even slay the wicked with the breath of His lips.
(2) V4 – During the King’s reign in this time, there will be poor people and afflicted people, by implication there are rebels afflicting them, and by implication there is still sin and an absence of the fullness and universal presence of God’s blessed and abundant providence. This is not the eternally perfect state with no suffering or tears.
Since this period cannot be the present age, nor the eternal age, it therefore must be some other age. That age must come after the present age, since it involves the King’s reign on the earth, obviously after His return. It must come before the eternal age, since the ushering in of that blessed state will be permanent. Ergo, it is an intermediate state.
Perhaps you could respond to the actual argument he poses?
Hi Jason, thanks for reading and responding. As I said in the blog, due to much of Waymeyer’s argument paralleling that of Isaiah 2, I didn’t go into detail on the specifics. I attempted to address the points Waymeyer made along the line of your comment I n the blog linked in the second paragraph of this post. Let me know if there’s something in particular you think isn’t addressed.
Hi Mr Sines
It seems to me if you make the claim that he has failed to demonstrate his case from Isa 11 – that this passage describes a future period of time with characteristics that render it incompatible with either the present age or ‘the age to come’ (the eternal state), and thereby implies some other age other than those 2 (i.e. creating a biblical case for the Millennium outside of Revelation Ch 20) – then it is incumbent on you to demonstrate how so.
Though he claims 7 separate Old Testament passages must describe an intermediate age between ‘this age’ and the ‘age to come’, any 1 of these passages could on its own – if it can be demonstrated to be irreconcilable to either of these 2 ages – make the case for the intermediate age, even if the argument for all 6 of the other passages were dismantled.
Furthermore, while the general form of the argument for ISA 2 and ISA 11 (and the other passages he uses to make his case in Ch 2-5) are indeed the same, the specific characteristics he points to in each individual passage – which qualify the passage in question as one describing the alleged intermediate state of the Millennial – are different. See below:
ISA 2:1-4
> Why passage cannot refer to the present age, must be a future age
(1) Isa 2:2-3 – Jerusalem will be highest of all ‘mountains’
(2) Jesus will reign from Jerusalem, many nations will go up to worship there
Isa 2:4 Never again war
> Why passage cannot refer to eternity, must be a prior age
(1) Messiah will judge disputes between nations
ISA 11:1—9
> Why passage cannot refer to the present age, must be a future age
(1) V3-5 – Messiah will reign on earth in justice –
(2) V6 – Momentous renewal of nature, including wolf and lion lying with lamb, children leading both safely
(3) V9 – knowledge of the Lord will fill the world
> Why passage cannot refer to eternity, must be a prior age
(1) V4 – Some aspects of reign will be coercive and punitive, He will even slay the wicked with the breath of His lips
(2) V4 – During the King’s reign of this time, there will be poor people and afflicted people, by implication there are rebels afflicting them, and by implication there is still sin. This is not the eternally perfect state with no suffering or tears
If you are to claim he fails to make his case, you would need to describe how so by describing how this time period could either reconcile to the present state, or the eternal state. Each passage requires its own response
Personally, I think the case from Isa 2 is weak, the case from Isa 11 is stronger, and the case from Isa 65 and Zech 14 seem to be very strong. I look forward ro your responses to Isa 11, Isa 65, and Zech 14.
At present, it seems to me his argument for ISA 11 remains in tact.