Evan May January 9, 2012 at 3:24 pm #
Of course, this argument just begs the question against the Amillennial reading of Revelation, which does not consider the visions to be chronological representations of a timeline but spiraling perspectives on the same series of events. There is both cycle and progression.
Thus Revelation 15 is not “another” piece of evidence for the Premillennial view but the *same* kind of evidence that Premillennialists generally put forward.
JMH January 10, 2012 at 9:20 am #
Thanks for your note, Evan, but I want to dispute your claim that I’m begging the question.
The evidence I’m giving here shows that there isn’t recapitulation but progression as you move through these chapters–the Christians are killed in the persecution in Revelation 11–13, then they’re present in heaven in Revelation 15, and then they’re raised from the dead in Revelation 20.
To object to that progression and claim recapitulation is special pleading that disregards the actual details of what the text says.
Blessings!
JMH
Evan May January 10, 2012 at 9:59 am #
It seems to me that when you say, “Amillers will say that this is a reference to these people coming to life in the presence of God. That view fails because back in Revelation 15:1–2 they’re already alive in the presence of God,” that begs the question. To say that Revelation 20 cannot refer to a certain event because Revelation 15 has already referred to that event is to not address the Amillennial argument on its own grounds but assumes a Premillennial premise.
You can say that appealing to recapitulation is special pleading, but Amilennialists present recapitulation on the basis of textual evidence; it’s not an ad hoc argument in response to Premillnnial claims.
Regarding the relationship between Revelation 11-13 and 20, I don’t dispute that these chapters are progressive in a visionary sense, and they offer different perspectives. But the thematic and linguistic ties convince me that they are intended to be read in parallel fashion. Christians are both killed and conquering in the safety of Christ. I think that you would agree that this reflects Revelation’s own theology.
I have no doubt that Dr. Hamilton would school me in a debate on this subject! Just wanted to offer my perspective on this particular argument.
Blessings,
Evan
JMH January 10, 2012 at 8:38 pm #
No worries, Evan.
Watch for an interview at dennyburk.com where I list out the reasons for being pre-mil.
On recapitulation, I think we need some evidence in the text that the author intends us to see it. So, for instance, consider the similarity of language in Revelation 11:7and 13:7. This and other features of the text lead me to think that 11:1–14 is telling the same basic story that 12:1–13:10 tells.
Both are depicting the persecution of the church brought about by the deception of Satan, which is precisely what is brought to an end when Satan is bound for a thousand years and the martyrs are raised from the dead to reign with Christ.
Blessings!
JMH
Evan May January 11, 2012 at 9:59 am #
“No worries, Evan.”
Thanks for being gracious!
“On recapitulation, I think we need some evidence in the text that the author intends us to see it.”
I agree! Here is an example of this kind of evidence:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/04/linguisticthematic-parallels-between.html
Much more could be said, but that’s a summary.
“So, for instance, consider the similarity of language in Revelation 11:7 and13:7. This and other features of the text lead me to think that 11:1–14 is telling the same basic story that 12:1–13:10 tells.”
I agree completely. And its the same kind of features that lead me to believe that 20 is parallel as well.
“Both are depicting the persecution of the church brought about by the deception of Satan, which is precisely what is brought to an end when Satan is bound for a thousand years and the martyrs are raised from the dead to reign with Christ.”
Where does Revelation 20 say that there is no persecution during the Millennium? Where does Revelation 20 say that Satan does not deceive the church during the Millennium?
Thanks,
Evan
JMH January 11, 2012 at 10:19 am #
Evan,
In Revelation 11–13 Satan isn’t deceiving the church, he’s deceiving everyone BUT the elect (13:8). This is what results in believers being persecuted and killed.
This deception is what ends during the millennium, as Revelation 20:3says, “so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended.” When Satan isn’t deceiving the nations, they are not lead to the conclusion that Christians are evil and should be persecuted.
I hope this helps,
JMH
JMH January 11, 2012 at 10:36 am #
RE your link, consider:
Revelation 20 cannot be a recapitulation of Revelation 12 because the details of the two passages are too different–in Rev 20 Satan is alone, in Rev 12 he’s with all his angels; in Rev 20 he’s thrown into a pit, in Rev 12 he’s thrown down to earth; in Rev 20 he’s bound, in Rev 12 he has the free roam of the earth; in Rev 20 he’s locked up for 1,000 years, in Rev 12 he knows his time is short; in Rev 20 he can no longer deceive the nations, in Rev 12–13 he is deceiving the nations (see 13:14). Revelation 12 and Revelation 20 are not talking about the same thing.
Evan May January 11, 2012 at 10:54 am #
Jim,
I consider them presenting complementary perspectives. I think they are each highlighting the extreme ends of the spectrum of theological truths concerning the realities of the church age.
Do you think if we highlighted all the differences between Rev. 11 and Rev. 12-13 we would also have to conclude that these texts are “too different” to be parallel?
Evan May January 11, 2012 at 10:30 am #
“In Revelation 11–13 Satan isn’t deceiving the church, he’s deceiving everyone BUT the elect (13:8).”
Well, if we’re emphasizing differences, in Revelation 13 Satan is said to have authority over the people of the earth so that they might worship him (v. 8), but the deceiving activity that Satan is bound with respect to in the Millennium has the distinct purpose of gathering the nations for battle (20:8).
It seems that you want to absolutize Satan’s binding in Revelation 20 in a way that removes Revelation’s intentional paradoxes: Satan is both able to deceive and is not able to deceive. He conquers the saints, and yet the saints are the true conquerors. These are the complexities of the already/not yet existence of the church until the eschaton.
JMH January 11, 2012 at 10:34 am #
In Rev 11–13, Satan deceives the nations with a fake christ and a fake version of the holy spirit (false prophet) and he sets himself up as the fake god, and then the false trinity goes to war on Christians, putting them to death (Rev 11:7;12:11; 13:7). The Christians conquer by being conquered. Right.
Then Satan’s ability to deceive the nations into thinking that he’s god and therefore what he says is right is right and what he says is wrong is wrong is brought to an end for 1,000 years.
At the end of that 1,000 years, he’s let loose, deceives the nations again, and goes to war again.
JMH January 11, 2012 at 10:57 am #
Evan,
You’ll have to get the book for this, but I think there’s a chiastic structure to the whole book of Revelation that juxtaposes chapters 11–13, inviting these sections to be interpreted in light of each other . . .
Evan May January 11, 2012 at 11:07 am #
I’m sure you’re familiar with Beale’s presentation of the chiastic structure of ch. 17-22 (arguing against ch. 19 chronologically preceding 20) in his commentary (p. 983).
No comments:
Post a Comment