A strong case can be made that the millennial passage is part of a larger block of material: 19:11-21:8 (which already casts doubt on the recapitulation theory). <br><br>Adela Collins, for example, outlines this block using the literary criterion "And I saw" into seven passages: <br><br>(1) 19:11-16, <br>(2) 19:17-18, <br>(3) 19:19-21, <br>(4) 20:1-3, <br>(5) 20:4-10, <br>(6) 20:15-19, and <br>(7) 21:1-8. <br><br>Jesus, the Divine Warrior, returns in (1). (2) and (3) go on to describe Jesus' war with the forces of evil (notice the earthly combatants). <br><br>(3) only mentions the beast and the false prophet as being thrown into the lake of fire. This is significant because these two, along with the dragon/Satan form a sort of "unholy trinity" (cf. 16:12-16 where these three prepare for the final battle and their consecutive treatments in 12:1-18 (dragon), 13:1-10 (beast), and 13:11-18 (second beast/false prophet)). Therefore, <br><br>(4), which mentions only the dragon seems to be temporally connected to (3). Further proof of this is that when Satan is thrown into the lake of fire we are told that the beast and the false prophet were already thrown there (20:10). This speaks againt any recapitualtion theory. What also speaks againt recapitulation is that in (3) it is Jesus who defeats evil whereas in (4) and (5) it as an angel and fire from heaven which defeat the evil respectively. <br><br>(4) and (5) are temporally connected explicitly by the concept of the thousand years. Satan is bound in (4) in order to make the events in (5) possible. As opposed to recapitulation, it could be argued that 20:4-6 is an interlude passage only meant to give solace to the persecuted. <br><br>Two considerations argue againt this. First, there would be an awkward repitition at the end of verse 3 and the beginning of verse 7 if 20:4-6 were excised. Second, verse 7 does not begin with the formula "and I saw", and this omission strengthens the connection between verse 7 and verses 4-6. Furthermore, viewing 20:4-6 as an interlude suffers from two other objections. First, it is claimed the the resurrection of the martyrs is only symbolic for their reign in heaven. However, in a parallel vision, 6:9-11, the martyrs were already portrayed in heaven. Second, there is a passage where we are told the saints will reign on earth: 5:9-10. <br><br>Finally, (5) and (6) are temporally connected by the idea of two resurrections. The second description is definitely bodily so this is evidence that the first is too. One main criticism of premillennialsm is that everyone is supposedly destroyed in (3) but the nations are to exist in (4)-(5). Many scholars are so convinced of this, and because recapitulation is textually weak, they argue the Gog and Magog are spiritual entities!<br><br>However, why not just say that John is using hyperbole when he speaks of "all", "the rest" and the like. Afterall, consider that in chapter 18 there seems to be a distinction between "all the nations", "the kings of the earth", "the merchants of the earth", and "all shipmasters and seafarers" (cf. 13:7 and 17:15 which seem to use "nations" in a poetic fasion). <br><br>It should be noted that the distiction between a messianic reign and the final consummation was not foreign to the world of John (cf. the Ascension of Isaiah or the book of Ezekiel for that matter). Two other factors are important. <br><br>First, the thousand year scheme could very well have a rationale either on the 6000-1000 scheme (consider the importance of the number 7 and see 2 Peter 3:8) or on the 1000 year Adamic paradise scheme (cf. the use of this imagery in chapters 21-22); both schemes were to be earthly, literal periods of time. <br><br>Second, perhaps some historical ties can be claimed between a literal understanding of the thousand years with either John or a common source. Perhaps this source is even Jesus himself for Papias mentions an "unwritten tradition" coming from Jesus which contains the idea of an eartly millennium. This could be done, I suppose, by tracing the careers of those who believed in premillennialism (Irenaeus, Lactantius, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Tertullian et. al.).
