Here is my final paper for my class on Revelation @ TMU. My professor's one criticism was that I did not interact with opposing premillennial sources. This is true, and something I could have fixed were that issue in my mind. I was initially going to cite Jim Hamilton and Grant Osborne against my view and then respond to them, but I decided against it to save space as I thought that my argument was already sufficient. As stated near the beginning, my goal was not to interact with each opposing position (which would have made the paper much longer), but rather, it was to set forth a positive argument for amillennialism. Although I am not as certain on this issue as I am on others and I think that historic premillennialism is a very possible alternative, I think that, as a whole, my argument is rather convincing, and for me, the recapitulation argument that I make continues to stand as the one decisive point that premillennialism simply has yet to account for. Anyways, here it is:
Supplemental argumentation can be found in Charles Hill's "Regnum Caelorum" which argues that the early Irenaeus, as well as many early fathers such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome, and others, were amillennial (anti-chiliastic). The argument he makes can be applied to the book of Revelation itself, which may be considered an argument from historical background, and he does this very thing in a later chapter of his book.