Amillennialism and the Present Reign of the Kingdoms
The question of how Christ's kingdom relates to earthly kingdoms is a point of significant theological disagreement among Christian traditions, particularly concerning the timing and nature of its reign. This discussion often centers on interpretations of prophetic texts, such as the book of Daniel, and the Gospels.
One prominent view, often associated with amillennialism, holds that Christ's kingdom is spiritual and presently active, having been inaugurated with his first advent. John Calvin, a key figure in Reformed theology, dismissed the idea of a literal earthly millennium as a "fiction" that is "too puerile to need or to deserve refutation" [7]. This perspective emphasizes that Jesus himself clarified that his kingdom "is not of this world," meaning it does not rival earthly political powers but rules through the devotion of his followers [5]. The petition "Thy kingdom come" in the Lord's Prayer is understood as a request for the continued advancement of this spiritual reign, where God's majesty is increasingly displayed and blasphemy suppressed [9]. From this viewpoint, the prophecies in Daniel, such as the stone cutting down the statue, refer to the establishment and growth of Christ's spiritual kingdom within the period of existing earthly empires, rather than a future literal thousand-year reign [3, 4]. Charles Hodge, an Old Princeton theologian, argued that the premillennial view of Christ's kingdom on earth is inconsistent with the scriptural account of its nature, often portraying it as a worldly kingdom with worldly prosperity [6].
In contrast, some interpretations, particularly within premillennial frameworks, anticipate a future, more literal reign of Christ on earth. While not strictly amillennial, some early patristic writers, such as Tertullian, held views that were later critiqued by Reformed theologians for their emphasis on an earthly millennium [7, 8]. The Methodist commentator Adam Clarke, in his interpretation of Daniel, highlights God's dominion over "times, duration, succession," and his role in raising and putting down kings, suggesting a divine orchestration of earthly kingdoms that will culminate in God's ultimate plan [1]. The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on Luke 22:29 notes Jesus' authority to "dispense kingdoms," even hours before his crucifixion, underscoring his sovereign power over all earthly rule [2].
Despite these differences, various traditions agree that God exercises ultimate sovereignty over all earthly kingdoms and their rulers. The idea that God "changeth the times" and is responsible for raising and putting down kings is a shared understanding across different theological perspectives [1]. The core disagreement lies in the nature and timing of Christ's kingdom—whether it is primarily a present spiritual reality or a future literal earthly reign—and how this kingdom interacts with the political structures of the world. These divergences often stem from differing hermeneutical approaches to prophetic literature and the interpretation of biblical metaphors.
Sources
- Daniel (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Daniel 2:21: He changeth the times - Time, duration, succession are his, and under his dominion. It is in the course of his providence that one king is put down, and another raised up; and therefore he can distinctly tell what he has purposed to do in the great empires of the earth.”
- Luke (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Luke 22:29: I appoint, &c.--Who is this that dispenses kingdoms, nay, the Kingdom of kingdoms, within an hour or two of His apprehension, and less than a day of His shameful death? These sublime contrasts, however, perpetually meet and entrance us in this matchless history.”
- Daniel (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Daniel 2:44: And in the days of these kings, &c. Not of the Babylonian, Persian, and Grecian kings; nor, indeed, of the old Roman kings, or emperors; but in the days of these ten kings, or kingdoms, into which the Roman empire is divided, signified by the ten toes, of different power and strength. Indeed the kingdom of Christ began to be set up in the times of Augustus Caesar, under whom Christ was born; and of Tiberius, under whom he was crucified; and was continued and increased in the reigns of others, until it obtained very much in the times of Constantine; and, after it suffe”
- Sefaria (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) on Daniel 2:44: And in the days of these kings in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence.”
- John (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on John 18:36: 18:36-37 Jesus was willing to accept the title of king, but he made it clear that he did not govern an earthly kingdom that might rival Rome. Jesus’ kingship is not of this world. Rather than being a political ruler, he rules through the devotion and obedience of his followers.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 95: great advance on the present state of the Church; but, exalt it as you may, it is far below heaven. This argument bears, at least, against the patristic doctrine of the millennium. 6. The view presented by pre-millennarians of the kingdom of Christ on earth is, in many respects, inconsistent with the Scriptural account of its nature. ( a .) It is to be a worldly kingdom. ( b .) Its blessedness is to consist largely in worldly prosperity. Although the modern advocates of the doctrine have eliminated the grosser elements included in the the”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 80: Martyr, and Tertullian (all from the second century). But by the time of Luther and Calvin, the leading theologians (both Roman Catholic and Protestant) had rejected the doctrine of an earthly millennium. Calvin calls it a “fiction,” and says that it is “too puerile to need or to deserve refutation.” arose, who limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. This fiction is too puerile to need or to deserve refutation. Nor do they receive any countenance from the Apocalypse, from which it is known that they extracted a gloss for t”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — FROM THE LATIN. (part 2): all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by any one who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 75: obscures or impairs his glory, all detraction and insult, may cease; that all blasphemy being suppressed, the divine majesty may be more and more signally displayed. 42. The second petition is, THY KINGDOM COME. This contains nothing new, and yet there is good reason for distinguishing it from the first. For if we consider our lethargy in the greatest of all matters, we shall see how necessary it is that what ought to be in itself perfectly known should be inculcated at greater length. Therefore, after the injunction to pray that G”