To my knowledge, premils usually regard Rev 4-22 as a chronological sequence.
It's interesting in that regard to consider how Rev 12, especially 12:7ff. fits into that overall chronology. To begin with, it arguably refers to the life and afterlife of Christ. That's more than halfway through the narrative, yet it takes its point of departure in the 1C, with the life of Christ.
In addition, the passage reads like a flashback to the primordial fall of Lucifer. Yet, in context, it is arguably referring to his loss of power after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ.
So we have an event in the present and recent past (recent for John) that's depicted in terms of the distant past. A historical description using a prehistoric event as the lens–like a montage.
But that, in turn, raises questions about how we should construe a similar event in Rev 20:1-10. I'm not suggesting Rev 20 recapitulates Rev 12. But there are studied parallels.
What are your thoughts on the recapitulation argument in favor of the amil position in the thousand years?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with having the binding of Satan occurring at Christ's coming is that the binding of Satan is _caused_ by the victory of Jesus at his second coming as seen in Rev. 19. Starting the narrative in Rev 20:1 bifurcates the narrative with the artificial chapter break.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.alankurschner.com/3
Incidentally, the book of Revelation conveys a progressive nature to it, while recognizing at least two major parenthetical sections in chapters 12–14 and 17–20:3.