Is Revelation 20:1-6 really a recap?

[Davidpt]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still. Thus no recap. Revelation 20:1-6---the present---thus a recap. Revelation 20:7-15--future still. Thus no recap. If Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap, where before 20 ch does it support it?



Except my opinion is, there is nowhere prior to Revelation 20 that clearly supports a recap of 20:1–6. The Amil reading asserts a recap, but the text never signals one, and the surrounding chapters appear to resist it.

A recap should revisit the same period, from a different angle, with clear literary signals. Instead, the Amil position requires Revelation 19 to be looking forward, Revelation 20:1-6 to be looking backward, and Revelation 20:7-15 to be looking forward again, with no textual cue that a rewind happened.


Where before chapter 20 does the text support a recap of 20:1–6? Nowhere. And here’s why.
Again, my opinion.

A) No prior passage describes satan being bound before Revelation 20.

B) satan is active (Revelation 12–13). he empowers the beast (Revelation 13:2) he deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9) he gathers the nations for war (Revelation 16:13–14)

C) There is no vision of satan being restrained, satan being unable to deceive the nations, satan being removed from the world, So what exactly is Revelation 20:1–6 recapping? Nothing. LOL

D) No prior passage describes saints reigning for a thousand years

E) Revelation earlier describes suffering saints, martyrs crying out, perseverance under persecution. But never a defined reign, a defined duration, nor a resurrection followed by reign.

F) Revelation 20:1-6 introduces new content, which recapitulation cannot explain. Recaps repeat---they don’t invent.

G) No prior passage describes a resurrection split into stages. Revelation 20--first resurrection---second resurrection---resurrection tied to reign


The claim that Revelation 20:1–6 recapitulates the present age lacks any textual anchor. There is no prior passage in Revelation that depicts satan bound, unable to deceive the nations, or saints reigning for a defined period following resurrection. Instead, satan is portrayed as actively deceiving and empowering the beast up through chapter 19. Recapitulation explains repetition, but Revelation 20:1–6 introduces new events, new conditions, and new temporal markers. A recap without a referent is not a recap at all.

Revelation 12 depicts satan cast down from heaven to earth, not bound, imprisoned, or prevented from deceiving the nations. In fact, the passage says he deceives the whole world and persecutes the saints with great wrath. That is the opposite of Revelation 20:1-6.


If Revelation 20:1–6 is a recap, the burden lies on the interpreter to identify the earlier passage it recapitulates. Without such a passage, the claim remains an unsupported assertion rather than an exegetical conclusion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still. Thus no recap. Revelation 20:1-6---the present---thus a recap. Revelation 20:7-15--future still. Thus no recap. If Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap, where before 20 ch does it support it?



Except my opinion is, there is nowhere prior to Revelation 20 that clearly supports a recap of 20:1–6. The Amil reading asserts a recap, but the text never signals one, and the surrounding chapters appear to resist it.

A recap should revisit the same period, from a different angle, with clear literary signals. Instead, the Amil position requires Revelation 19 to be looking forward, Revelation 20:1-6 to be looking backward, and Revelation 20:7-15 to be looking forward again, with no textual cue that a rewind happened.


Where before chapter 20 does the text support a recap of 20:1–6? Nowhere. And here’s why.
Again, my opinion.

A) No prior passage describes satan being bound before Revelation 20.

You are once again making invalid arguments from silence like pre-tribs do when they say that 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 can't be related to Matthew 24:29-31 because it makes no mention of angels. This is a weak, invalid type of argument that you use over and over again. It can't be taken seriously.

While no prior passage explicitly refers to Satan's binding, we see in Revelation 9 a description of the bottomless pit being opened, allowing the king of the fallen angels (the locusts symbolically reference fallen angels), referred to as "the angels of the bottomless pit" to come out of the pit along with his angels. This is a reference to the loosing of Satan from the bottomless pit at the fifth trumpet which obviously implies that he was previously bound there.

You can try to argue that Apollyon/Abaddon is not another name for Satan all you want, but if you agree that the locusts symbolically represent fallen angels then Apollyon/Abaddon has to be another name for Satan because it says he is their king and the fallen angels only have one king, which is Satan. They are called "his angels" in other scripture (Revelation 12:9, Matthew 25:41).

And then there is Revelation 12 which describes Satan and his angels fall from heaven. I think only doctrinal bias can keep someone from relating Satan's fall from heaven to his binding. Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven long ago, resulting in Satan no longer being able to accuse believers before God in heaven. Paul asked in Romans 8:33, "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" and the answer is no one. Including Satan. No one can accuse believers anymore because our sins are covered by the blood of Christ.

B) satan is active (Revelation 12–13). he empowers the beast (Revelation 13:2) he deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9) he gathers the nations for war (Revelation 16:13–14)

I'm sure you would agree that the beast was in the bottomless pit at the time the book of Revelation was written, as Revelation 17:8 indicates when it says the beast "was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit". That obviously implies that it was in the bottomless pit at the time since it says it would ascend from there at some later time. Your understanding of being in the bottomless pit is that it causes whatever is in the bottomless pit (Satan, the beast, the demonic locusts) to be completely incapacitated. Though it says the beast "is not" at the time the book was written, it also says one of its heads "is" at that time (Revelation 17:10). Many see that as a reference to the Roman empire that existed at that time. This shows that the beast was NOT completely incapacitated despite being in the bottomless pit at that time. With that being the case, why do you think that Satan being in the bottomless pit results in him being completely incapacitated when that is not the case for the beast nor for the fallen angels who ascend from the pit at the fifth trumpet?

C) There is no vision of satan being restrained, satan being unable to deceive the nations, satan being removed from the world, So what exactly is Revelation 20:1–6 recapping? Nothing. LOL

Another argument from silence. LOL at you for being so incredibly naive. So, the reference to Satan being cast out of heaven in Revelation 12 is meaningless then? How about the two witnesses who no one can oppose? Satan is able to destroy them any time he wants? No. So, doesn't that imply a restraint of Satan's power? Of course. Especially when you understand that the two witnesses symbolically represent the church.

Does Revelation 20:1-6 refer to Jesus reigning and His followers being His priests? Well, yes, it does. Is that referenced anywhere previously in the book? Well, yes, it is.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Compare to:

Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

If Revelation 20:6 isn't a recap of Revelation 1:5-6, then I don't know what a recap is. LOL

D) No prior passage describes saints reigning for a thousand years

LOL. Yet another argument from silence. See Revelation 1:5-6. It talks about saints reigning with Christ as His priests starting long ago.

E) Revelation earlier describes suffering saints, martyrs crying out, perseverance under persecution. But never a defined reign, a defined duration, nor a resurrection followed by reign.

Is Revelation 1:5-6 in your Bible? If that doesn't describe Jesus reigning with His people, I don't know what does. And John indicates that His reign with His saints began long ago. We know that it began after His resurrection and we know that scripture says that when we are delivered from the power of darkness we are brought into Christ's kingdom (Colossians 1:12-13).

F) Revelation 20:1-6 introduces new content, which recapitulation cannot explain. Recaps repeat---they don’t invent.

Wrong. You obviously didn't look at the rest of Revelation very carefully first before saying this.

G) No prior passage describes a resurrection split into stages. Revelation 20--first resurrection---second resurrection---resurrection tied to reign

Revelation 1:5 does reference the first resurrection. That's what Jesus being "the first begotten of the dead" means. It means the same thing as verses like Acts 26:23 which says He was the first to rise from the dead and 1 Corinthians 15:20 which says He is the firstfruit(s) of the dead in Christ in the sense that He was the first to be bodily resurrected unto bodily immortality.

The claim that Revelation 20:1–6 recapitulates the present age lacks any textual anchor.

Wrong. As I showed above. You obviously did not give this careful thought before posting this.

There is no prior passage in Revelation that depicts satan bound, unable to deceive the nations, or saints reigning for a defined period following resurrection. Instead, satan is portrayed as actively deceiving and empowering the beast up through chapter 19. Recapitulation explains repetition, but Revelation 20:1–6 introduces new events, new conditions, and new temporal markers. A recap without a referent is not a recap at all.

Revelation 12 depicts satan cast down from heaven to earth, not bound, imprisoned, or prevented from deceiving the nations. In fact, the passage says he deceives the whole world and persecutes the saints with great wrath. That is the opposite of Revelation 20:1-6.

It does not say he deceives the whole world after being cast out of heaven. Your doctrinal bias causes you to constantly twist scripture to fit your doctrine. He deceived the whole world before being bound and being cast out of heaven. That's why Paul said that the Gentiles had "no hope" and were "without God in the world" in Old Testament times (Ephesians 2:11-12). Satan had the power of death during those times and was able to deceive people and keep them in bondage to the fear of death (Hebrews 2:14-15). After being bound and cast out of heaven, that was no longer the case.

What it says he does after being cast out of heaven is not that he deceives the whole world, but that he then persecutes Christians.

If Revelation 20:1–6 is a recap, the burden lies on the interpreter to identify the earlier passage it recapitulates.

Done.

Without such a passage, the claim remains an unsupported assertion rather than an exegetical conclusion.

True, but you obviously failed to put any effort into seeing if this was actually the case or not. Now you know.

 

[WPM]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still. Thus no recap. Revelation 20:1-6---the present---thus a recap. Revelation 20:7-15--future still. Thus no recap. If Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap, where before 20 ch does it support it?



Except my opinion is, there is nowhere prior to Revelation 20 that clearly supports a recap of 20:1–6. The Amil reading asserts a recap, but the text never signals one, and the surrounding chapters appear to resist it.

A recap should revisit the same period, from a different angle, with clear literary signals. Instead, the Amil position requires Revelation 19 to be looking forward, Revelation 20:1-6 to be looking backward, and Revelation 20:7-15 to be looking forward again, with no textual cue that a rewind happened.


Where before chapter 20 does the text support a recap of 20:1–6? Nowhere. And here’s why.
Again, my opinion.

A) No prior passage describes satan being bound before Revelation 20.

B) satan is active (Revelation 12–13). he empowers the beast (Revelation 13:2) he deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9) he gathers the nations for war (Revelation 16:13–14)

C) There is no vision of satan being restrained, satan being unable to deceive the nations, satan being removed from the world, So what exactly is Revelation 20:1–6 recapping? Nothing. LOL

D) No prior passage describes saints reigning for a thousand years

E) Revelation earlier describes suffering saints, martyrs crying out, perseverance under persecution. But never a defined reign, a defined duration, nor a resurrection followed by reign.

F) Revelation 20:1-6 introduces new content, which recapitulation cannot explain. Recaps repeat---they don’t invent.

G) No prior passage describes a resurrection split into stages. Revelation 20--first resurrection---second resurrection---resurrection tied to reign


The claim that Revelation 20:1–6 recapitulates the present age lacks any textual anchor. There is no prior passage in Revelation that depicts satan bound, unable to deceive the nations, or saints reigning for a defined period following resurrection. Instead, satan is portrayed as actively deceiving and empowering the beast up through chapter 19. Recapitulation explains repetition, but Revelation 20:1–6 introduces new events, new conditions, and new temporal markers. A recap without a referent is not a recap at all.

Revelation 12 depicts satan cast down from heaven to earth, not bound, imprisoned, or prevented from deceiving the nations. In fact, the passage says he deceives the whole world and persecutes the saints with great wrath. That is the opposite of Revelation 20:1-6.


If Revelation 20:1–6 is a recap, the burden lies on the interpreter to identify the earlier passage it recapitulates. Without such a passage, the claim remains an unsupported assertion rather than an exegetical conclusion.

Premils wrongly divide up the fate of Satan, his demons and the beast into an array of disjointed and unconnected events, which are in truth the same overall ongoing experience. This is absurd because their fortune is carefully and inextricably tied together by association, interdependence and divine order. When Scripture speaks about Satan he is the representative head of the whole kingdom of darkness. When Satan was bound, the kingdom of darkness was bound (including the beast and every demon). When Satan is released prior to the second coming so also is the whole kingdom of darkness (including the beast and every demon). When the Bible says “resist the devil, and he will flee from you” this is not limited to Satan, it is talking about the whole demonic realm.

All we have to do, is examine the fate of each in Scripture and you will quickly see a remarkable correlation.

The book of Revelation consists of a number of parallel recaps relating to the intra-Advent period. Each of these refer to different subjects, entities or aspects of God's unfolding plan during that time. For example, the 6th recap (Revelation 17-19) focuses in on Babylon, but also shows the destruction of all the wicked, the beast and false prophet been banished into the Lake of Fire. Satan is simply not the focus of that parallel. The focus of the last recap (Revelation 20) is God's dealing with Satan. Revelation 20 goes right back to the first resurrection (Christ). It finishes with Satan being banished to the Lake of Fire.

The fate of Satan, the beast (spirit of antichrist / mystery of iniquity) and the fallen angels (demons) are all knit together in Scripture. When Satan fell from heaven, so, did all his demons. When Satan was banished from the Garden then all evil was. They also all came under the same spiritual subjugation at the exact same time through Christ’s earthly ministry.

When Christ bound Satan’s kingdom through His life, death and resurrection then all were bound. 2 Peter 2:4, Jude v 6, Revelation 9 and Revelation 20 all prove the whole demonic realm has been restrained from stopping the free-flow of the Gospel. The bruising of the head of the beast (Revelation 13:3, 13:12 and 13:14) correlates with the bruising of the head of Satan 2,000 years ago through the earthly ministry of Christ (Genesis 3:15). They correspond with the spiritual binding imprisoning of Satan during the millennial period. These are figurative metaphors describing the impairment of the kingdom of darkness 2000 years ago.

When Satan was banished from heaven, so was the whole demonic realm (1/3 of the angels went with him).

Through his defeat, Satan fell from heaven (John 12:31 & Revelation 12:7-9) and is now present in the abyss (Revelation 9:1-11 & Revelation 20:3). The abyss is not a physical geographical place. After all, physical metal chains cannot hold spirits. It is a spiritual state of restraint for spirits now. Near the end, the beast will be released from his restraints and the “deadly wound” to his head will be “healed” (Revelation 13:3, 13:12 and 13:14). This tells us that he too was bruised like Satan’s head through the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Just like Satan’s power and influence were curtailed through the life, death and first resurrection of Christ, so too was the beast’s. The fate of the two mirror each other. The reason is, the beast is dependent upon the power of Satan to do his evil. The beast is his envoy or enforcer. At the end Satan will be released from his restraint to empower the beast to subjugate the Church, curtail the Gospel expanse and deceive the nations again. There will be a suppression of the Gospel in the last of the last days. This will result in deep persecution. But the darkest days in history have always been the brightest days in history.

When Satan is released before the second coming for a little season then so are the beast, and Satan's minions. Satan is promised a freedom from restraint before the second coming, as is antichrist, and every demon. Scripture shows the abyss being opened near the end whereupon Satan and his demons are released from their spiritual restraint (Revelation 9:1-11 and Revelation 20:7). This parallels with the beast also rising from the abyss (Revelation 11:7 and Revelation 17:8). This corresponds with the restraint being taken off the mystery of iniquity in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 before Christ’s return.

Then comes the end! But Christ comes in majestic and eternal glory to overthrow the kingdom of darkness forever. The demonic realm is all killed when Satan is destroyed at the climactic second coming (Isaiah 26:19-27:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:8, Revelation 19:20, 20:9-10). Daniel 7:9-11, 2 Thessalonians 2:8 and Revelation 19:19-20 show this to be the same time when the beast is obliterated.

 

[ScottA]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still. Thus no recap. Revelation 20:1-6---the present---thus a recap. Revelation 20:7-15--future still. Thus no recap. If Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap, where before 20 ch does it support it?

It is not so much a "recap" as it is an overview--an overview of all time from beginning to end, with all that is written actually coming to fruition at the cross, and yet only made manifest (revealed) in the fullness of all time.

So...from God's perspective--BAM!--"It is finished" as Christ declared. But from the perspective of this world subject to God's timing of revealing all things, we all tend to look at things only with a "You are here" reference. Which, of course, for a complete understanding will require "a renewing of your mind" as Paul explained.

 

[Marty fox]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still. Thus no recap. Revelation 20:1-6---the present---thus a recap. Revelation 20:7-15--future still. Thus no recap. If Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap, where before 20 ch does it support it?



Except my opinion is, there is nowhere prior to Revelation 20 that clearly supports a recap of 20:1–6. The Amil reading asserts a recap, but the text never signals one, and the surrounding chapters appear to resist it.

A recap should revisit the same period, from a different angle, with clear literary signals. Instead, the Amil position requires Revelation 19 to be looking forward, Revelation 20:1-6 to be looking backward, and Revelation 20:7-15 to be looking forward again, with no textual cue that a rewind happened.


Where before chapter 20 does the text support a recap of 20:1–6? Nowhere. And here’s why.
Again, my opinion.

A) No prior passage describes satan being bound before Revelation 20.

B) satan is active (Revelation 12–13). he empowers the beast (Revelation 13:2) he deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9) he gathers the nations for war (Revelation 16:13–14)

C) There is no vision of satan being restrained, satan being unable to deceive the nations, satan being removed from the world, So what exactly is Revelation 20:1–6 recapping? Nothing. LOL

D) No prior passage describes saints reigning for a thousand years

E) Revelation earlier describes suffering saints, martyrs crying out, perseverance under persecution. But never a defined reign, a defined duration, nor a resurrection followed by reign.

F) Revelation 20:1-6 introduces new content, which recapitulation cannot explain. Recaps repeat---they don’t invent.

G) No prior passage describes a resurrection split into stages. Revelation 20--first resurrection---second resurrection---resurrection tied to reign


The claim that Revelation 20:1–6 recapitulates the present age lacks any textual anchor. There is no prior passage in Revelation that depicts satan bound, unable to deceive the nations, or saints reigning for a defined period following resurrection. Instead, satan is portrayed as actively deceiving and empowering the beast up through chapter 19. Recapitulation explains repetition, but Revelation 20:1–6 introduces new events, new conditions, and new temporal markers. A recap without a referent is not a recap at all.

Revelation 12 depicts satan cast down from heaven to earth, not bound, imprisoned, or prevented from deceiving the nations. In fact, the passage says he deceives the whole world and persecutes the saints with great wrath. That is the opposite of Revelation 20:1-6.


If Revelation 20:1–6 is a recap, the burden lies on the interpreter to identify the earlier passage it recapitulates. Without such a passage, the claim remains an unsupported assertion rather than an exegetical conclusion.

It amazes me how you still know understand our view of reigning and binding.

On a side note, I don't see revelation 19 as looking forward its a current reality

 

[Davidpt]

On a side note, I don't see revelation 19 as looking forward its a current reality

That's because you favor Preterism. Yet most Amils see ch 19 looking forward since most Amils take it be involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age, as do Premils.

Let's entertain your position for a moment. What in ch 19 prior to ch 19 in the book of Revelation do you see mirroring the past 2k years Amils call the millennium? IOW, select a verse or verses in ch 19 and show somewhere before ch 19 what you see this being applied to.

 

[Marty fox]

That's because you favor Preterism. Yet most Amils see ch 19 looking forward since most Amils take it be involving the 2nd coming in the end of this age, as do Premils.

Let's entertain your position for a moment. What in ch 19 prior to ch 19 in the book of Revelation do you see mirroring the past 2k years Amils call the millennium? IOW, select a verse or verses in ch 19 and show somewhere before ch 19 what you see this being applied to.

Pretty well all of it but we have been over this many times before

If Revelation 19:11-21 is the second coming of Jesus and no one knows when the second coming of Jesus is then how come the beast and the armies of the world are gathered together to wage war with Jesus when He comes?

Think about it and also why if literal would the beast gather to fight Jesus if he knows the out come?

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still. Thus no recap. Revelation 20:1-6---the present---thus a recap. Revelation 20:7-15--future still. Thus no recap. If Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap, where before 20 ch does it support it?



Except my opinion is, there is nowhere prior to Revelation 20 that clearly supports a recap of 20:1–6. The Amil reading asserts a recap, but the text never signals one, and the surrounding chapters appear to resist it.

A recap should revisit the same period, from a different angle, with clear literary signals. Instead, the Amil position requires Revelation 19 to be looking forward, Revelation 20:1-6 to be looking backward, and Revelation 20:7-15 to be looking forward again, with no textual cue that a rewind happened.


Where before chapter 20 does the text support a recap of 20:1–6? Nowhere. And here’s why.
Again, my opinion.

A) No prior passage describes satan being bound before Revelation 20.

B) satan is active (Revelation 12–13). he empowers the beast (Revelation 13:2) he deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9) he gathers the nations for war (Revelation 16:13–14)

C) There is no vision of satan being restrained, satan being unable to deceive the nations, satan being removed from the world, So what exactly is Revelation 20:1–6 recapping? Nothing. LOL

D) No prior passage describes saints reigning for a thousand years

E) Revelation earlier describes suffering saints, martyrs crying out, perseverance under persecution. But never a defined reign, a defined duration, nor a resurrection followed by reign.

F) Revelation 20:1-6 introduces new content, which recapitulation cannot explain. Recaps repeat---they don’t invent.

G) No prior passage describes a resurrection split into stages. Revelation 20--first resurrection---second resurrection---resurrection tied to reign


The claim that Revelation 20:1–6 recapitulates the present age lacks any textual anchor. There is no prior passage in Revelation that depicts satan bound, unable to deceive the nations, or saints reigning for a defined period following resurrection. Instead, satan is portrayed as actively deceiving and empowering the beast up through chapter 19. Recapitulation explains repetition, but Revelation 20:1–6 introduces new events, new conditions, and new temporal markers. A recap without a referent is not a recap at all.

Revelation 12 depicts satan cast down from heaven to earth, not bound, imprisoned, or prevented from deceiving the nations. In fact, the passage says he deceives the whole world and persecutes the saints with great wrath. That is the opposite of Revelation 20:1-6.


If Revelation 20:1–6 is a recap, the burden lies on the interpreter to identify the earlier passage it recapitulates. Without such a passage, the claim remains an unsupported assertion rather than an exegetical conclusion.

I think the Amillennial position considers that Rev 20 sets the stage for the NT itinerary of events, and then reads that back into NT history. In other words, we see Christ's reign and Satan's rebellion in the Millennial age in Rev 20 and then we're supposed to read that back into the NT age as Christ's reign in the Church Age and Satan's rebellion in the Antichristian Rebellion.

The sequence is similar, but I think they are different ages.
Church Age: Christian kingdoms, and then apostasy and Antichristian rebellion
Millennial Age: Christ's eschatological Kingdom, and then Satanic rebellion

I don't think the Amil method is a legitimate way to do eschatology or theology, however. The explanation should not have to depend upon a small portion of Scription to have the NT age properly ordered and categorized.

In my view, Satan is quite involved in the present age--not just during the Reign of Antichrist but all through the NT age. And though it can be said that Christians demonstrate authority over Satan in matters like exorcism that hardly argues for unlimited power over Satan.

Quite the opposite, not only is Satan given to defeat the saints in the rebellion of Antichrist, but all through the Church age Christians are given over to persecution and suffering at times. This is hardly the "Reign of Christ," as depicted either in the OT Prophets or in the book of Revelation. Christ's 2nd Coming is what brings this glorious reign, and is not something that happened at Christ's 1st Coming.

But will we resolve this for most in the Church? Of course not. Christians must decide for themselves what is most likely, and what the best arguments are. We should not get overly optimistic about our ability to agree, nor overly angry over our inability to agree. My opinion only...

 

[Marty fox]

I think the Amillennial position considers that Rev 20 sets the stage for the NT itinerary of events, and then reads that back into NT history. In other words, we see Christ's reign and Satan's rebellion in the Millennial age in Rev 20 and then we're supposed to read that back into the NT age as Christ's reign in the Church Age and Satan's rebellion in the Antichristian Rebellion.

The sequence is similar, but I think they are different ages.
Church Age: Christian kingdoms, and then apostasy and Antichristian rebellion
Millennial Age: Christ's eschatological Kingdom, and then Satanic rebellion

I don't think the Amil method is a legitimate way to do eschatology or theology, however. The explanation should not have to depend upon a small portion of Scription to have the NT age properly ordered and categorized.

In my view, Satan is quite involved in the present age--not just during the Reign of Antichrist but all through the NT age. And though it can be said that Christians demonstrate authority over Satan in matters like exorcism that hardly argues for unlimited power over Satan.

Quite the opposite, not only is Satan given to defeat the saints in the rebellion of Antichrist, but all through the Church age Christians are given over to persecution and suffering at times. This is hardly the "Reign of Christ," as depicted either in the OT Prophets or in the book of Revelation. Christ's 2nd Coming is what brings this glorious reign, and is not something that happened at Christ's 1st Coming.

But will we resolve this for most in the Church? Of course not. Christians must decide for themselves what is most likely, and what the best arguments are. We should not get overly optimistic about our ability to agree, nor overly angry over our inability to agree. My opinion only...

Our reign over satan is spiritual not literal that’s how we defeat him.

Mathew 10
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[ewq1938]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still.

In my experience they typically see it as Christ conquering his enemies since the cross up to the present and future until the second coming is completed. it's an incorrect view of course since it depicts events at the second coming where he defeats one specific army not all enemies through time.

 

[ewq1938]

Pretty well all of it but we have been over this many times before

If Revelation 19:11-21 is the second coming of Jesus and no one knows when the second coming of Jesus is then how come the beast and the armies of the world are gathered together to wage war with Jesus when He comes?

I highlighted the false part. God allows the beast to know where to be when Christ returns. Just because Jesus said no one knew it way back in the past does not mean no one knows now, or some point in the trib regarding the beast who obviously knows where to be for the battle of Arm.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Our reign over satan is spiritual not literal that’s how we defeat him.

Mathew 10
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

I get it that we have a kind of "spiritual victory" over Satan just by getting Saved. But if this constitutes an "unliteral reign," then I would see that as being something less than a full "reign."

 

[Marty fox]

I get it that we have a kind of "spiritual victory" over Satan just by getting Saved. But if this constitutes an "unliteral reign," then I would see that as being something less than a full "reign."

Why it’s spiritual it’s forever the body is mortal and will die?

 

[ewq1938]

Kinda like saying Job reigned over satan while satan persecuted him and murdered his family. Job was only victorious in the end after repentance. This world is currently in the phase where God allows satan to rule this world and persecute Christians and it will get worse and worse until the 7th trump and the return of Christ. Only then will Christians reign in a true sense of the word.

 

[Marty fox]

Kinda like saying Job reigned over satan while satan persecuted him and murdered his family. Job was only victorious in the end after repentance. This world is currently in the phase where God allows satan to rule this world and persecute Christians and it will get worse and worse until the 7th trump and the return of Christ. Only then will Christians reign in a true sense of the word.

Paul stated that he reigned in life and still physically died buy he still lived spiritually

 

[Davidpt]

While no prior passage explicitly refers to Satan's binding, we see in Revelation 9 a description of the bottomless pit being opened, allowing the king of the fallen angels (the locusts symbolically reference fallen angels), referred to as "the angels of the bottomless pit" to come out of the pit along with his angels. This is a reference to the loosing of Satan from the bottomless pit at the fifth trumpet which obviously implies that he was previously bound there.

As to the 5th trumpet look what these locusts do once they are loosed.


Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads

nd it was commanded them that they should hurt only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads

Why would satan, rather than God, be wanting to hurt satan's followers?

Then if we look a little further in ch 9 we see the following.

Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Why would satan, rather than God, be wanting them to repent?

Would the better guess be that the 2Ws we see in Revelation 11, rather than satan, is behind issuing these plagues? I tend to think so.

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will

Revelation 11:6 says---and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will

Revelation 9:20, for example, says this---And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues

Does one need to be a rocket scientist in order to put 2 and 2 together here? Is there any reason the 2Ws would not already be active in the earth during the 5th trumpet? If they are it seems pretty silly to contradict Revelation 11:6, thus not let Scripture interpret Scripture--and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will---by insisting the 5th trumpet involves the loosing of satan rather than it involves the 2Ws unleashing plagues on the unrepentant.

With that being the case, why do you think that Satan being in the bottomless pit results in him being completely incapacitated when that is not the case for the beast nor for the fallen angels who ascend from the pit at the fifth trumpet?

I'm not arguing that once anyone ascends from the pit that they completely incapacitated. I'm only arguing that when they are in the pit, that they completely incapacitated. Therefore, I don't share your view that while they are in the pit that they can still be active in some sense outside of the pit. I base that on these locusts, for example. While they are in the pit it is as if they don't even exist.

There is not one hint of them doing what they do when they are released, when they are in the pit. In their case, the pit appears to do what it is designed to do---imprison with no way to escape until the pit is opened. Otherwise, why does the pit need to be opened before they can do what they are commanded to do once it is open? If the pit is not literal in some sense, what's preventing anyone commanding them to do what they end end up doing?

Another argument from silence. LOL at you for being so incredibly naive. So, the reference to Satan being cast out of heaven in Revelation 12 is meaningless then? How about the two witnesses who no one can oppose? Satan is able to destroy them any time he wants? No. So, doesn't that imply a restraint of Satan's power? Of course. Especially when you understand that the two witnesses symbolically represent the church.

The point is this, in this case. This debate would be over as far as I'm concerned if there was proof prior to ch 20 in Revelation that satan is bound, a resurrection has occurred, and that a reigning of the saints have followed. Granted, you don't take the resurrection meant in Revelation 20:4-6 to be meaning a bodily resurrection of the saints. But even so, there is no hint of any resurrection, in any sense, having taken place anywhere in the chapters that precede chapter 19 and 20.

Maybe Amil should try a different angle? Or maybe Amil already has? That angle being this--Revelation 20:7-9---and if there is proof prior to chapter 19 and 20 that it is involving this same era of time. For example, the pit is opened in Revelation 20:7 and Revelation 9, except I don't see there being a connection based on what I have been arguing above. Is there anything else prior to chapter 19 that could prove Revelation 20:7-9 is meaning before the 2nd coming rather than after the 2nd coming like Premils tend to think?

I see Revelation 9 being relevant during the 1260 days the 2Ws are prophesying. Except I don't see it being reasonable that the beast ascends out of the pit during their allotted 1260 days, when it is not until those days are fulfilled first that the beast then makes war with them, overcomes them, then eventually kills them.

 

[Davidpt]

Is satan bound in the way Revelation 20 defines during the church age?

Amil claim. Binding = restriction, not elimination.

But Revelation 20:3 says---so that he should deceive the nations no more. Earlier in Revelation it says satan deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9). Deceives earth dwellers (Revelation 13:14) Gathers nations for battle (Revelation 16:14)

To be fair, if satan doesn't deceive the nations during the thousand years, that means there are 2 options concening the above passages I submitted. Either it's meaning before he was bound or it's meaning after he is bound then loosed. Those are the only 2 times when he is deceiving the nations if we stick to the text in Revelation 20:3--that he should deceive the nations no more, till---where that obviously means the opposite of deceiving the nations.

Except Amil apparently thinks it means the same thing, the fact they have satan in the pit these past 2k years and that reality shows that satan has still been deceiving the nations the past 2k years. Yes, and I realize how Amil reasons that, such as, the pit is not literal, so on and so on, yet that is beside the point.

Does Revelation ever show saints reigning in the Revelation 20’s sense during the church age? Revelation 20:4–6---thrones----judgment authority---resurrection language(They came to life and reigned)

Church age elsewhere in Revelation--saints suffering---saints being killed---saints crying for vindication.

Yes, saints are said to reign positionally (Revelation 1:6), but Revelation 20 describes post victory authority, not ongoing persecution.

Does Revelation prepare the reader earlier for a millennium already in progress?

If recap is true, we should see---hints of satan’s binding---hints of saints reigning with Christ on earth---hints of a prolonged inter-advent age described as triumphant

Instead we see---escalating deception---escalating persecution---No thousand years language anywhere else

Revelation 20 uses the same came to life phrase for both resurrections---ties reigning to resurrection--oontrasts the rest of the dead did not live

The alleged Premil millennium population problem---After Revelation 19---beast destroyed---armies destroyed----Survivors? Unclear from Revelation 19 alone when there is the OT to factor in as well. Yet during the millennium---nations exist---people rebel at the end (Revelation 20:7–9)---death still occurs (implied elsewhere)

So the question is---who populates the millennium---and how do mortals and resurrected saints coexist? The text itself implies mixed populations---saints reign (Revelation 20:4---thus they are in immortal bodies)----nations exist (Revelation 20:3, 8--thus they are mortals)---satan deceives nations after release.

So Premil isn’t inventing this---Revelation 20 demands it---the OT anticipates it---Zechariah 14---survivors of nations come to worship---disobedience punished during Christ’s reign--and that this is meaning after Zechariah 14:12 is fulfilled, yet is meaning before 1 Corinthians 15:28 is fulfilled, obviously. And guess what? Zechariah 14:12 hasn't even been fulfilled yet, in any sense. Anyone who might argue otherwise is being absurd, and that no one in their right mind would ever agree it has already been fulfilled.

every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King.

Regardless what that might look like when fulfilled, one thing is for certain, it is impossible to go up from year to year to worship the King in a single day or less. And no, by placing this post the 2nd coming does not mean animal sacrificing resumes. It is absurd to think animal sacrificing resumes, period. Let alone after Christ has returned.

 

[ScottA]

One might ask: If God has allowed Satan--to expose him, when is God not reigning?

 

[Truth7t7]

The Amil reading, as far as I can tell. Revelation 19:1-21--future still. Thus no recap. Revelation 20:1-6---the present---thus a recap. Revelation 20:7-15--future still. Thus no recap. If Revelation 20:1-6 is a recap, where before 20 ch does it support it?



Except my opinion is, there is nowhere prior to Revelation 20 that clearly supports a recap of 20:1–6. The Amil reading asserts a recap, but the text never signals one, and the surrounding chapters appear to resist it.

A recap should revisit the same period, from a different angle, with clear literary signals. Instead, the Amil position requires Revelation 19 to be looking forward, Revelation 20:1-6 to be looking backward, and Revelation 20:7-15 to be looking forward again, with no textual cue that a rewind happened.


Where before chapter 20 does the text support a recap of 20:1–6? Nowhere. And here’s why.
Again, my opinion.

A) No prior passage describes satan being bound before Revelation 20.

B) satan is active (Revelation 12–13). he empowers the beast (Revelation 13:2) he deceives the whole world (Revelation 12:9) he gathers the nations for war (Revelation 16:13–14)

C) There is no vision of satan being restrained, satan being unable to deceive the nations, satan being removed from the world, So what exactly is Revelation 20:1–6 recapping? Nothing. LOL

D) No prior passage describes saints reigning for a thousand years

E) Revelation earlier describes suffering saints, martyrs crying out, perseverance under persecution. But never a defined reign, a defined duration, nor a resurrection followed by reign.

F) Revelation 20:1-6 introduces new content, which recapitulation cannot explain. Recaps repeat---they don’t invent.

G) No prior passage describes a resurrection split into stages. Revelation 20--first resurrection---second resurrection---resurrection tied to reign


The claim that Revelation 20:1–6 recapitulates the present age lacks any textual anchor. There is no prior passage in Revelation that depicts satan bound, unable to deceive the nations, or saints reigning for a defined period following resurrection. Instead, satan is portrayed as actively deceiving and empowering the beast up through chapter 19. Recapitulation explains repetition, but Revelation 20:1–6 introduces new events, new conditions, and new temporal markers. A recap without a referent is not a recap at all.

Revelation 12 depicts satan cast down from heaven to earth, not bound, imprisoned, or prevented from deceiving the nations. In fact, the passage says he deceives the whole world and persecutes the saints with great wrath. That is the opposite of Revelation 20:1-6.


If Revelation 20:1–6 is a recap, the burden lies on the interpreter to identify the earlier passage it recapitulates. Without such a passage, the claim remains an unsupported assertion rather than an exegetical conclusion.

Revelation 20:1-6 Isnt A Millennial Kingdom On This Earth, Dont Be Deceived​

Can you find the things claimed by those teaching a Literal 1,000 year Millennial Kingdom On This Earth in Revelation 20:1-6 below?

1.) Physical Earthly Kingdom?
2.) Physical Earthly Throne?
3.) Physical Mortal Humans?

The Above Claims (Don't Exist)

Revelation 20:1-6 Is 100% In The Lords (Spiritual) Angel, Heaven, Devil, Satan, The Souls, The Dead, God, Christ

100% Spiritual Realm, No "Literal" Time

2 Peter 3:8KJV
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Revelation 20:1-6KJV
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As to the 5th trumpet look what these locusts do once they are loosed.


Revelation 9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads

nd it was commanded them that they should hurt only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads

Why would satan, rather than God, be wanting to hurt satan's followers?

God sometimes uses the wicked to do His purposes. How can you not know that? That's what He did when using the Roman armies to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. That's what He does when using the ten horns to destroy the harlot Babylon.

Revelation 17:16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled.

Then if we look a little further in ch 9 we see the following.

Revelation 9:20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Why would satan, rather than God, be wanting them to repent?

Again, God sometimes uses what is intended for evil for His purposes.

Would the better guess be that the 2Ws we see in Revelation 11, rather than satan, is behind issuing these plagues? I tend to think so.

I tend to think that you are completely lacking in discernment when it comes to this subject. The text in Revelation 9 attributes the plagues referenced in Revelation 9:20 to the four angels bound at the great river Euphrates, not the two witnesses.

Revelation 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will

Revelation 11:6 says---and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will

Revelation 9:20, for example, says this---And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues

Does one need to be a rocket scientist in order to put 2 and 2 together here?

No, but one needs to not be doctrinally biased like you. Again, the text itself attributes the plagues to the four angels bound in the great river Euphrates, not the two witnesses.

Revelation 9:13 Then the sixth angel sounded: And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, 14 saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, “Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.” 15 So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind. 16 Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them. 17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision: those who sat on them had breastplates of fiery red, hyacinth blue, and sulfur yellow; and the heads of the horses were like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths came fire, smoke, and brimstone. 18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed—by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths.

The four angels are released to kill a third of mankind and it says the plagues that they cause kill a third of mankind. Nothing about the two witnesses here whatsoever.

Is there any reason the 2Ws would not already be active in the earth during the 5th trumpet? If they are it seems pretty silly to contradict Revelation 11:6, thus not let Scripture interpret Scripture--and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will---by insisting the 5th trumpet involves the loosing of satan rather than it involves the 2Ws unleashing plagues on the unrepentant.

You are doing everything you can to avoid addressing my argument. Revelation 9 shows that bottomless pit being opened and the king of the fallen angels then being able to come out of it along with his angels. That is what Revelation 9 is showing symbolically. But, you deny that Apollyon/Abaddon is Satan despite the fact that Apollyon is the king of the demonic locusts/fallen angels and fallen angels have no king besides Satan. They are called "his angels" in verses like Revelation 12:9 and Matthew 25:41. So, please address this instead of ignoring it.

I'm not arguing that once anyone ascends from the pit that they completely incapacitated.

That is not what I was saying. I'm saying that you believe that when Satan, the beast or the demonic locusts are in the pit, it makes them completely incapacitated.

I'm only arguing that when they are in the pit, that they completely incapacitated.

Right. And I'm saying you are wrong about that. Clearly, the fallen angels are not completely incapacitated up until the fifth trumpet sounds. And, the beast is not completely incapacitated while in the pit, as I already showed, as evidenced by the fact that Revelation 17 says, at the time it was written, one of its heads "is" at that time.

Therefore, I don't share your view that while they are in the pit that they can still be active in some sense outside of the pit.

No, my view is that the pit is not some literal place that they are literally locked in apart from the earth.