Revelation 20:1 - Recapitulation and Amillenialism

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Freshman
Wanted to run this by the community here:

I am a fairly convinced amillenialist theologically - it just seems to make the most sense to me from what I have read and studied in Scripture over the years. The only thing holding me back from full adoption is the issue of recapitulation in Revelation 20:1.

So here is my question - is it right to say that Amillenialism stands or falls on the presence of recapitulation in Revelation 20:1?

In other words, if Revelation 20:1 does not refer back to the beginning of the church age, its really tough to support an amillenialist view of the rest of that passage.

I've read Beale's argument in his Revelation commentary in the past and the connection to the battle of Ezekiel 38-39 but I have not been able to properly evaluate that argument yet, as intriguing as it is. (note: IRC, Beale is leaning heavily on R. Fowler White's argument from "Reexamining the Evidence for Reapitulation in Rev. 20:1-10" from WTS Journal 51, no.2 1989 which I believe Matthew has on APM here - http://www.apuritansmind.com/the-ch...on-in-revelation-201-10-by-dr-r-fowler-white/)
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
I am amil. I believe there will be a personal Antichrist and persecution towards the end of time, a general apostasy and time of trial/desertion, and even a general revival of the Jews at the end. And the Gospel will go to all nations and then the end will come.

But I still don't see any earthly millennium aside from this inter-advental period we are now living in currently, where Satan no longer deceives the nations, but we burst forth around the world and reclaim all the territory formerly owned by the devil and his demons.

Revelation is the least clear book of the Bible in my opinion. And Revelation 20 VERY unclear.

Yes, if Rev 20 is about a future period of time, you are, by definition, not an Amil person, since Amils believe we are IN the millennium now (the inter-advental period).
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
A really sharp premil (like Alan Kurschner) will note that the key point isn't "whether there is a millennium or not," but rather when was the binding of Satan. That echoes the problem in 20:1.
 

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
Either Jesus bound the strong man during his earthy ministry, (same Greek wording as in Rev 20) or the binding is future. Or Satan is bound twice.

For me the doctrine stands on that understanding of the work of Christ in redemption, and it is always my first response to Dispensationalists. I would agree with you that if the reference to Satan being bound does not refer to the binding of the strongman Jesus spoke of, and the start of the church age, it would perhaps leave amils without a good argument.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Either Jesus bound the strong man during his earthy ministry, (same Greek wording as in Rev 20) or the binding is future. Or Satan is bound twice.

For me the doctrine stands on that understanding of the work of Christ in redemption, and it is always my first response to Dispensationalists. I would agree with you that if the reference to Satan being bound does not refer to the binding of the strongman Jesus spoke of, and the start of the church age, it would perhaps leave amils without a good argument.

How about the already/not yet? Satan was bound...and Satan is being bound. The war is won, and the war is being won.
 

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
User MW on this board argued that the binding of Satan is in relation to the saints, but that Satan is loosed from the perspective of the world. Satan is bound from deceiving the nations but is also loosed to stir up the nations to make war against Christ. Hence, Rev. 20 is a recapitulation of the previous chapters.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/amillenialism-current-state-of-satan.66359/page-2#post-853495

Edit: I see R. Fowler White says essentially the same thing with regards to the recapitulation. I should have read the article first.
 
Last edited:

Jerusalem Blade

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Hello Jim (TheInquirer),

You said,

So here is my question - is it right to say that Amillenialism stands or falls on the presence of recapitulation in Revelation 20:1?

In other words, if Revelation 20:1 does not refer back to the beginning of the church age, its really tough to support an amillenialist view of the rest of that passage.​

I discussed this matter in a post (and a few more posts) in this thread, “Satan Released - an amillennial view”.

I think it apparent that recapitulation appears many times in the New Testament—and prominently in the final battle shown in Rev 20:7-10; Rev 19:11-21; Rev 17:14, Rev 16:13-14, 16; Rev 11:7-13, and its bare denouement in Rev 6:12-17—amply illustrating the concept of recapitulating events. This is further shown in recapitulating dynamics, as in the repeating witnessing of the church, followed by persecution, and afterwards by judgment in initial warnings from the LORD followed by destructions. In Rev 9:1 and following we have a vision of the opening of the pit and loosing of Satan preceding the events of Armageddon, but not the finale. I attach a recent booklet on these “precedings”—which are pertinent to our times.

Rev 20:1 is not by itself recapitulated within Revelation, but is in the Gospels and Epistles, where Satan is initially bound in the triumph of the Lord Jesus’ earthly ministry, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. That binding (Rev 20:1-3) is regarding the nations as nations, as it is written in Rev 20:3, “that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled”, which leaves him free to bind individuals and smaller groups within the nations, as I detail more fully in the post linked to above.
 

Attachments

  • OUR SORCEROUS AGE – Prelude To Armageddon.pdf
    930.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Unless we want to say that Satan was bound with a bungee cord
A lot of this depends on how one defines Satan being bound, as I tend to see this as meaning that literally he is removed and that he can no longer cause any problems for the people of God during the future reign of Jesus Christ here on Earth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top