I'm Premil and even I agree that there is recapping going on in the book of Revelation. It's not just an Amil thing then. I basically disagree with some, thus not all, of what they are proposing are recaps.
There is no recap of their alledged intra-advent period. The name they use to avoid being termed dispensational. Why not just call it like it has been the last 1991 years, the church age? That does not negate there have been church members since Abel, who offered up sacrifices in the original Garden, the first form of worship declared by God. There have been many church members including Job.
The church was not a steward prior to the Cross. That symbolism resided in the Nation of Israel, and all Nations were stewards prior to Abraham. We know Nations were not all decieved by Satan after the Flood, because Job and his friends were products of those nations. We just do not know much about them, because they have been lost to history, one way or the other.
Revelation 13 was a side note about history, not a recap of the church age. Many claim the admonition to the seven churches was a prophetic outline. Never heard it was an historical recap of the last 1991 years. Even if the part written specifically to the churches was a recap, John never declared it a recap. If it was a recap, why was it addressed to 7 known historical churches? Why not present those chapters as history unfolding?
The Seals, Trumpets, and Thunders are all separate and distinct events with distinct outcomes. They do not even cover the church age. Although many teach that perspective. Many humans teach their own opinions, and even write books about their own thoughts. The Koran and book of Mormon come to mind. Revelation is about the Second Coming, not really how to navigate the church age. Chapter 12 and 13 is just introducing Satan into the narrative.
Contrary to popular belief, not even the AC is named and introduced according to the prevailing eschatology view. Even such teachings themselves are extra biblical writings in addition to the actual words of John in Revelation. Any one can hold an opinion about which evil entity is which in Revelation 13, but John avoids confirming any current speculation. So any explanation is only human opinion on all sides. And Revelation 20 being an historical recap, totally ignores the text and context altogether. How can that not be mere human opinion, if it contradicts the text and context itself? John literally did not recap any of his witnessed events. Each step literally included "after this I saw". Not once did John state, "and let me recap that event again". Chapter 18, could be a recap of chapter 17, but even that is a stretch of imagination. During Satan's 42 months there seems to be some civil conflict between the last 10 Nations and Satan in authority. Probably lost focus on beheading people and forcing the mark, when no one was left to behead, and all had conformed to Satan's will by taking the mark. Towards the end fortunes had been amassed, and obvious some still felt equality was not achieved. Some were still bond men, and some free men. Just a natural recap of every standard generation and during a 3.5 year time period, barely an election cycle. But Satan being in total control and all humanity knowing who Satan was, is hardly a recap of any time in history, especially for Amil, as they declare Satan is bound and being loosed that way as public knowledge is their only proof that those chapters are not a recap, but still a future event. Except no where prior to Revelation 20 is Satan ever
released to decieve the Nations. So Revelation 20 is not a recap of any other part of the book, much less the last 1991 years.
Revelation 12 is not a recap of Satan being defeated and bound. It is an historical side note. If it is a recap of history, it is not the same historical recap as Revelation 20. In fact they contradict each other if historical. Chapter 13 is prior to the FP and beast. Chapter 20 is post FP and beast. Not exactly historically compatible nor corroborative of each other. Certainly the FP and beast are not in the Lake of Fire in chapter 13. They are in the Lake of Fire the whole chapter 20. Now Amil have to figure out how to refute this, or twist Scripture to prove their point. Since Revelation 12 is indeed a look back at history, it would be the only legitimate recap of history. Otherwise what parts of Revelation does one easily place in the first century without being full preterist? I doubt most would even agree on what part in Revelation 12 has yet to be fulfilled as prophecy and not an historical fact. Can Satan being tossed out of heaven even be equated with being loosed from the pit? They are in opposite directions. Even the part about the third of the stars being cast down was millenniums prior to the birth of Christ.
We go from the nativity to Satan's rebellion to the future after those rebellious have been released themselves from the pit. Because after they are loosed they are kicked out of heaven, again by Michael. Do we place this last departure before the 42 months in Revelation 13, or at the end of the 42 months? How can one claim recap, and so many details are left out. The only reason for recap is to make sense of the details we do have and claim some working map of it all. Yet recap falls apart when those details cannot happen at the same time, but announce different events with different and distinct outcomes.
Then one has to literally overlook the very phrase "after this I saw or I heard" which John intentionally uses to declare separate and distinct events in chronological order. The OP makes us want to see this through preterist lenses looking at the first century. When absolutely "I saw", has not even happened yet, but John will soon write all he sees down, and then he will deliver his witness of the Second Coming to those first century churches. And the events are in chronological order, despite modern day opinions to the contrary.
And the reason they were delivered to the first century church, was because no one would accept any person today, claiming to see these things today and writing about them before they happened, today. These words would be lost in the sea of modern theology. The proof of failure is the addition of so called inspired writings from even before 600AD, since the most relevant try, even to this day is Islam. Joseph Smith almost a modern rival, not to mention all other current protestant denominations. And yet one could still put the RCC at the top of the list, and it started in the first century. Theology, even at it's best, is still just human opinion in addition to God's Word. Revelation had to be placed in the Canon, even if it was a future prophecy, because trying to get the church to accept it as written is hard today, even though in the Canon, and would be totally rejected if presented to the church today. Especially when there are already 3 distinct major thoughts on how it should play out, and myriads of other private renditions of interpretative thought.
Perhaps if Revelation was not in the Canon, no one would have any thoughts about the Second Coming? Still no gaurantee that any human would be accepted today as a Herald of the Second Coming. Even John the Baptist was nothing unusual, besides the fact he was unconventional, and totally side stepped the temple economy on repentance. It was his boldness to go against Herod that led to his death, not his declaration that Christ was coming, nor even his baptism. Was speaking out against Herod even part of what God led him to do? Certainly he was very specific on what Herod needed to repent of, but had Herod approached John and asked to be baptized? Being the forerunner was both announcing and practicing a type of repentance to prepare the world for the Atonement. Was the baptism of Jesus the necessary end to John's ministry or going against Herod?
So even if an Elijah came, to deliver Revelation, would how it is written even be acceptable, or really misunderstood? Would he be denounced as an anti Christ? As that is the gist of interpretation today, that any one coming in the name of Christ today, would be dismissed as an anti Christ, not to mention the harshness to 7 well known mega congregations the messages sent to them. What exactly is the message of repentance and preparation found in Revelation, and would many still declare it too symbolic and not chronological? God has given the church near 1900 years to think about the book, and still the church has no singular consensus on the message. Even to the point the rising popular opinion is that it is not even about a Second Coming nor final harvest. It is only a recap of history, or all historical and post it's meaningful application.
