*Editor’s Note: Below are questions submitted to Dr. Sam Waldron at an Eschatology Conference. Since these questions and answers could be helpful for a broader audience, we are posting them here as a series. Click the following numbers to read other parts of this series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

Recently, I spoke at a conference on the subject of my recent book by Free Grace Press, The Doctrine of Last Things: An Optimistic Amillennial View. Following up my lectures on the “Two Ages” (See my book, chapters 3-5.), there was a Q&A in which I answered questions submitted in writing before the Q&A. I thought the questions I was asked were typical of the kind of things being raised more widely with regard to this subject.

It seems to me that a blog series addressing those questions might be broadly helpful. So here we go. This is that series. It should be noted that my responses may assume matters that are addressed in my book. If you are interested, perhaps you should get my book and read it!

The first few questions were from a self-confessed admirer of Pastor John MacArthur. I answer them gladly because I, too, admired this teacher of God’s Word who has now gone to glory!

“It would seem to me that an amillennialist/post-millennial view depends on Revetion 19-20 as being recapitulation as opposed to sequential. Is that correct?”

Yes, this is correct. Amillennialists view the Book of Revelation as recapitulatory, and this view is crucial to their system. It is also plain that the Book of Revelation has a recapitulatory character. The clearest illustration of this is the way in which Revelation 11 ends with an account of the final judgment (or at least some judgment at the end of the age) and the Revelation 12 reverts to an account of the birth and ascension of Christ to heaven (Revelation 12:1-5). Thus, and similarly, Revelation 19 ends with an account of the Second Coming of Christ, and Revelation 20 reverts to the binding of Satan by the first advent of Christ and His work at that time.

I was told that this concept of the linearity of history started with the Jews and continued with Christianity. Does it make sense that the Apostle would then have a presentation that involves recapitulation?

This is an interesting question because it confuses two different things. It is true that biblical religion holds a linear view of history. But recapitulation is not the opposite of this. The opposite of a linear view of history is a cyclical view of history. In a linear view of history, it culminates in a grand conclusion, climax, or consummation. In a cyclical view of history, it cycles around the same things in a “wheel of time,” and a final consummation is never reached. Cyclical views of history often speak of “reincarnation” within this wheel of time. Linear views of history speak of a final “resurrection” at the end of the age.

But recapitulation is not the same as a cyclical view of history. It does not teach or hold a constantly revolving cycle, but it holds a teaching of history that is like a spiral. Let me explain.

First, recapitulation is not a philosophy of history like the cyclical view of history. It is a way of presenting history that assumes a linear view of history. Thus, the Book of Revelation constantly speaks of the gospel age, which consummates with Christ’s Second Coming, but it recapitulates by looking at it from various viewpoints. But it gradually moves its focus closer and closer to the end of the age and what follows.

Second, as we have seen in the contrast between Revelation 11 and 12, there is clear evidence for recapitulation. There is even a necessity to recognize this feature of the book if we are to make sense of it.

Third, the seven seals (Revelation 5-7) speak of events throughout the gospel age. Revelation 20-22 speaks of the gospel age (as the 1000 years), but they move past this to a contemplation of the New Jerusalem and the New Heavens and New Earth. This illustrates the gradual spiral toward the linear end of history in this age.

Fourth, there is a great deal of evidence for recapitulation throughout other prophetic passages of Scripture. John Murray speaks of this in his exposition of the Olivet Discourse (Collected Writings, volume 2, 387-400). Daniel recapitulates his vision of the four Gentile kingdoms that hold sway before the restoration of the theocratic kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7.

What should our conclusion be? Recapitulation is a characteristic of the Bible’s teaching, but recapitulation does not assume a cyclical but a linear view of history.

It would seem to me that an amillennialist view depends on the resurrections in Revelation 20:4-6 having two different meanings.

This statement expresses a common objection to the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6. Let me reply in several bullet points.

• The question speaks of “resurrections” in Revelation 20:4-6. This assumes that the “first resurrection” is to be contrasted with a second resurrection, which is not mentioned anywhere in the passage. That is likely a wrong assumption.
• The contrast with the first resurrection in the passage is probably not with a second resurrection at all, but with “the second death.” This is the explicit contrast in the passage. Revelation 20:6 only asserts this contrast: “Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.” This makes even more sense when my next point is understood.
• The first resurrection is a reference to the resurrection of Christ. His is the first resurrection as “Christ the first fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). At their deaths, believers go to heaven to participate in the glory of that resurrection. The contrast with the second death then makes perfect sense. You either participate in the glory and salvation procured by Christ’s resurrection as first fruits, or you participate in the second death. The contrast is between the saved who participate in the glory of the first resurrection and the damned who are doomed to the second death.
• If—and it is a big “if”—there is a contrast with a second resurrection, then that contrast does not involve two different kinds of resurrection. The second resurrection would be, then, the physical resurrection of believers at the end of the age. This is what 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 speaks of as the resurrection of those who are Christ’s at His coming. Christ’s resurrection is physical. That resurrection is physical. On this understanding, there would be no contrast between a spiritual resurrection and a physical resurrection.

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.