The Dual Interpretations of the Millennial Kingdom in Early Modern Christian Apocalypticism

Abstract

Millenarianism originated from apocalyptic literature in Judaism, emphasizing that the “Messiah” would establish a “millennial kingdom” on earth ruled by the Jews. This ideology became a theoretical weapon for Jews to resist imperial tyranny during classical antiquity and was later embraced by early Christian theology. By the early modern period, with the intense unfolding of the Reformation and social upheavals, the theory of the “millennial kingdom” re-emerged as a mainstream topic in Christian theology. Regarding the nature of the “millennial kingdom” and how it would be realized, early modern Christian factions split into two interpretive camps. One emphasized the spiritual attributes of the “millennial kingdom”, while the other stressed its material aspects, advocating the violent establishment of a political entity on earth ruled by Christians. These two distinct interpretive models ultimately converged on the issue of colonial expansion, transforming millenarianism into a theoretical tool to justify overseas expansion.

1. Introduction

Apocalyptic literature has exerted a profound influence on the historical and cultural development of the Christian world. Originally, it was a distinct literary genre in early Judaism, primarily employing prophetic forms to disseminate religious ideas concerning the “Last Judgment” and “eschatological salvation” (Collins 1979). In terms of narrative structure, early Jewish apocalyptic texts can be divided into two main types: the historically oriented type, exemplified by the succession of “world empires” in the Book of Daniel, and the otherworldly journey type, represented by such texts as the Book of Enoch (Collins 1987). Following the Roman conquest and suppression of the Jews, early Jewish religious texts increasingly gravitated toward the “historically oriented” apocalyptic narrative, giving rise to Messianic beliefs that emphasized a savior descending to earth to overthrow the Roman Empire, as well as millenarian theories proclaiming the establishment of a “millennial kingdom” on earth (Collins 1998). Thus, by the late Roman Empire, Apocalypse had evolved into a religious ideology combining three key themes—eschatology, millenarianism, and Messianism—and was subsequently integrated into Christian theological/political discourse, where it gained increasing prominence. As Christian missionary zeal expanded overseas and European colonizers pursued their ambitions for a global colonial empire, apocalyptic theories about establishing a worldwide millennial kingdom resurged in European intellectual circles, becoming a significant ideological foundation for early modern European colonialism.

Traditionally, research on Apocalypse has primarily unfolded along three trajectories: The first approach employs textual criticism, including etymological analysis, to investigate the origins and evolution of Apocalypse as a religious literary genre. The second approach adopts an intellectual history perspective, exploring the ideological roots of Apocalypse in ancient West Asian and North African cultures. It connects early modern theological texts on Apocalypse with studies of ancient Near Eastern mythology, examining how early modern exegesis drew upon classical sources to interpret and develop apocalyptic thought (Williamson 2008). The third approach focuses on Apocalypse’s influence on European historiography, particularly the relationship between the philosophy of history and “Messianic-eschatological consciousness”, as well as its impact on the Western tradition of “universal history” (Chen 2021). Within these studies, the Western imagination of the “millennial kingdom” and its integration with Christian eschatological theology constitute a significant theme.

The phrase “millennial kingdom” is a construct developed by Christian theologians to express their understanding and interpretations of biblical verses in the Book of Revelation 20: 2–7, which says “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (Rev. 20: 4, KJV) and “the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Rev. 20: 6, KJV). Based on these verses, some Christian theologians have interpreted Christ’s thousand-year reign as the millennial kingdom. Therefore, “millennial kingdom” as a phrase and idea is not directly from the Bible but a later concept used by theologians and politicians from different religious sects to express their understandings of the Book of Revelation. However, the actual words of scripture are ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Accordingly, in the long history of biblical exegesis, there are three main ideas about the so-called millennial kingdom: First, premillennialists who believed that Christ would reign as king in person or through a group of followers. Second, postmillennialists who believed that “the kingdom of God is now being extended through Christian teaching and preaching. This activity will cause the world to be Christianized and result in a long period of peace and prosperity called the millennium”. Third, Amillennialists who argued that the kingdom of God is now present in the world as the victorious Christ is ruling his people by his Word and Spirit, and interpret the thousand-year reign of Christ mentioned in the Book of Revelation 20 as describing the present reign of the souls of deceased believers with Christ in heaven (Clouse 1977). As a dominant view of magisterial reformers, Amillennialism influenced the worldview of theologians such as Martin Luther. The interpretations of the millennial kingdom by Christian exegetes and political activists in early modern European society serve as a crucial theoretical lens through which to examine the relationship between Christian apocalypticism and theological politics.

Recently, many scholars have begun to pay attention to this emerging trend in studies of Christian apocalypticism. They have sought to understand how European eschatological contemplations and expectations of a millennial kingdom contributed to the “fusion of apocalypticism and imperialism” (Shoemaker 2018). However, these studies have yet to address two crucial questions concerning early modern European social transformation: How did apocalypticism’s religious idealization of the millennial kingdom inspire early modern European colonizers’ political ambitions to establish a world empire? How did apocalyptic thought, during the colonial expansion across the early modern Atlantic world, evolve from a theological concept into a theoretical tool for European colonizers to configure power relations and construct social hierarchies? In light of these gaps, this article traces the origins of the idea of the millennial kingdom in Jewish and early Christian theology, analyzing the interpretive approaches to this notion within Christian theology and their subsequent evolution. Moreover, I need to point out that in this article, I am using the word “millennial” in a looser way, referring not to an exact span of a thousand years but rather, in a more abstract way, to the passages in the Book of Revelation that mention the thousand years (whether meant literally, notionally, or allegorically) and the idea of a kingdom that is to come at the end of history.

2. The Origins of the Millennial Kingdom in Apocalyptic Thought

The connection between apocalyptic thought and the idea of world empire has long been embedded in Europe’s political sphere. Previous academic research suggests that European imperial politics began incorporating apocalyptic ideology in its theoretical construction during the 7th century in Eastern Europe. The fusion of apocalyptic thought with imperial ideology gradually spread to Western Europe’s political domain after the 10th century, eventually forming a distinctive “imperial apocalypse” within Christendom (McGinn 2000). This imperial-adapted apocalyptic thought ultimately became a significant intellectual resource for early modern ideology of world empire. While this perspective correctly identifies the close relationship between apocalypticism and idea of “world empire”, it artificially severs so-called “imperial apocalypse” from the “world empire” notions present in Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic thought.

From the perspective of modern political science, the pursuit of a world empire as a political ideal naturally aligns with totalitarianism and imperialism—ideas largely rejected by modern civilization. However, in early Jewish apocalyptic texts, the vision of a world empire emerged precisely from the Jews’ “anti-imperial” political struggles against the dictatorial rule of the Seleucid and Roman Empires. As a literary genre, the collection of Jewish religious texts later termed apocalyptic by scholars was primarily produced during two concentrated periods of composition. The first wave of apocalyptic texts appeared during the Maccabean Revolt against the Seleucid Empire, while the second wave coincided with the Jewish resistance to Roman invasion around 70 CE (Collins 1998). Both phases of apocalyptic literature were thus born out of Jewish struggles against foreign imperial domination.

The fierce resistance of the Jews against the invasions by the Seleucid and Roman Empires, coupled with the catastrophic consequences of their failed struggles, imbued early Jewish apocalyptic literature with an intense eschatological consciousness. The failure to overthrow oppression led the Jews to place their hopes for national restoration in religious visions of the “Last Judgment”—a complete overturning of the existing political order. Consequently, the world empire envisioned in early Jewish apocalyptic texts primarily manifested as an “earthly kingdom of God”, where the Messiah would execute divine judgment and establish his reign. This morally charged, utopian religious vision was repeatedly articulated in early Jewish apocalyptic writings. The first-century BCE apocalyptic text, The Assumption of Moses, for instance, depicts the Messiah defeating the evil kingdoms of the world and ultimately prophesying that “his kingdom will appear in his entire creation” (Tromp 1993). The text exemplifies how Jewish apocalyptic imagination transformed political defeat into a theology of hope, projecting divine justice onto a future cosmic transformation.

Beneath this cosmopolitan rhetoric yearning for “the triumph of justice and the revelation of truth” lay an extreme political aspiration: to militarily avenge Jewish oppression through violent means—overthrowing tyrannical empires such as Rome’s and transforming the oppressed into the world’s sole rulers. The author of 4 Ezra articulates this through Ezra’s impassioned plea to God: “O Lord, behold, these nations, which are reputed as nothing, domineer over us and trample upon us. … If the world has indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance?” (Stone 1990). This fervor for vengeance in early Jewish apocalyptic texts ultimately crystallized into an ultranationalist political demand—the establishment of a theocratic world empire marked by rigorous religious and ethnic exclusivity. 1 Enoch explicitly envisions this political order: “the chosen righteous ones from the eternal plant of righteousness” would be “given swords to execute judgment upon their oppressors”. They would “execute judgment upon the sinners” through violent means and seize their territories; “the righteous judgement will be revealed to all the world, and all the works of the wicked will depart from the whole earth”, and through their military conquest, “a new heaven and earth shall emerge” (Stuckenbruch 2007). Thus, the political narrative of “the righteous” emerging as world rulers through military force merged with the theological vision of the Messiah’s earthly reign to form core elements of imperial imagination in Jewish apocalyptic literature.

The early Jewish expectation of the Messiah and their yearning for Jewish world domination under his leadership ultimately converged in apocalyptic literature’s historical interpretation of world empire succession. The division of world history into three or four political epochs of imperial transition was actually a common narrative framework in late classical antiquity (Perrin 2015). In early apocalyptic texts, however, this narrative pattern originated from the Book of Daniel.

Chapter 2 of the Book of Daniel recounts how King Nebuchadnezzar II of Neo-Babylonia dreamed of a colossal statue with different body parts made of gold, silver, bronze, and iron. In his dream, a stone “cut out, not by human hands” struck the statue, shattering it, and then grew into a great mountain filling the whole earth. Disturbed by the vision, Nebuchadnezzar summoned the Jewish prophet Daniel to interpret it. Daniel explained that the four metals represented four successive world empires, while the stone-made mountain symbolized “a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will this kingdom ever be delivered up to another people” (Hartman and Lella 1985). Thus, the Book of Daniel constructs a stark political dichotomy: it contrasts four secular regimes that had oppressed the Jews with a future theocratic kingdom ruled by God’s faithful. The narrative of these earthly empires successively declining—while “God’s kingdom” ultimately rises to dominate the world—became a defining theme in post-Danielic apocalyptic literature.

Subsequently, this theologico-political narrative of imperial succession was continuously elaborated in apocalyptic literature, becoming a central theme of “historical apocalypse” and profoundly shaping Jewish political imagination regarding world empires. The Third Sibylline Oracle (2nd century BCE), influenced by the Book of Daniel’s imperial succession framework, “predicts” that the world empires established by Persians, Greeks, and Macedonians would ultimately be ruled by Jews. The text proclaims that Jews will “obtain world dominion” and become “guides to all mortals” (Buitenwerf 2003). The political agenda appears even more pronounced in 2 Baruch, which moralizes the four Danielic empires as embodiments of evil, while emphasizing that the righteous Messiah would conquer earthly empires and execute God’s judgment upon the last ruler (Stone and Henze 2013). This development demonstrates how apocalyptic literature progressively transformed historical observation into eschatological conviction, blending political aspiration with divine vindication. Through its interpretation of world empire succession, Judaism situated the originally abstract Messianic belief within a grand narrative of world historical transformation, thereby constructing an imperial vision that intertwined theological imagination with political aspirations.

Some scholars argued that early Jewish apocalypses reached their zenith during the resistance against imperial invasions, characterizing it as a form of “protest theology” (Albertz 1994). While this interpretation correctly identifies the historical context that shaped early Jewish apocalyptic thought, it underestimates the political ambitions embedded within it. The authors of early Jewish apocalyptic texts were not merely advocating for Jewish liberation; they sought to fundamentally overturn the existing political order and establish a new polity dominated by Jewish religious elites. These texts thus offered a “radical vision of power reconfigured” (Portier-Young 2011). In this sense, apocalypticism functioned as a veiled imperial project—one in which the Messiah would reign supreme, securing Jewish national liberation. Here, Jewish nationalist aspirations seamlessly merged with a universalist imperial vision.

The theological themes of world empire succession and the Messiah’s earthly reign in Jewish apocalyptic literature profoundly influenced the composition of early Christian apocalyptic texts. Early Christian theologians produced a series of theological works titled “Apocalypse”, reflecting the deep impact of Jewish apocalyptic thought on early Christian theology. Among these Christian apocalyptic writings, the most influential for later generations was the Book of Revelation. In the Book of Revelation, early Christian theologians expanded upon the Jewish apocalyptic concept of the Messiah, adopting the historical apocalyptic framework of imperial succession to construct an eschatological vision imbued with both political and theological significance. They adapted elements of Jewish apocalyptic narratives, replacing the Jewish Messiah with the Christian Jesus while branding all world empires ruling before the “Second Coming of Christ” as domains of the “Anti-Christ”. In their vision, Jesus would defeat all empires of the “Anti-Christ” and establish a kingdom that would spatially encompass the entire world and temporally endure for a thousand years (Tregelles 1744). Thus, from their inception, Christian apocalyptic writings exhibited a strong exclusivity and a political imperative to propagate Christianity and expand its dominion.

This political imperative is even more explicitly articulated in other early Christian apocalyptic texts. The Second Apocalypse of John vividly depicts the religious imagination of the “Last Judgment”, explicitly stating that only the “righteous” among Christians would reign alongside Jesus. They would “inherit the earth and dwell upon it forever”, while pagan nations such as the “Greeks” would face divine judgment (Court 2000). Similarly, the Christian apocryphal work The Acts of Paul declares that Jesus would “destroy all kingdoms under heaven”, emphasizing that “no realm shall escape his dominion” (Elliott 1993). By reworking Jewish apocalyptic motifs such as the “Messiah”, early Christian apocalypse constructed a distinct theologico-political narrative—one in which Christians would ultimately establish a universal world empire on earth.

Thus, early Christian apocalyptic literature developed two distinct imperial visions: The first, derived from the Book of Daniel, emphasized that earthly world empires would ultimately become Christ’s dominion. This vision expressed a secularist yearning for territorial conquest in the material world. The second, rooted in the Book of Revelation, sought to establish a spiritual empire exclusively centered on Christianity within the realm of human thought. This constituted a religious fantasy aspiring to dominate humanity’s spiritual world.

3. The Allegorical Interpretation of Millennial Kingdom by Magisterial Reformers

These two imperial visions found in early Christian apocalyptic texts once ignited conflict among Christian exegetes. The crux of the debate was whether a millennial kingdom ruled by Christ represented an earthly empire destined for temporal realization, or a religious vision existing solely within humanity’s spiritual realm.

Eusebius of Caesarea, a Greek theologian of the 4th century AD, documented the early Church’s debate on this issue in his Ecclesiastical History. According to him, Nepos, a bishop from Egypt, insisted that the description of Christ’s thousand-year reign in the Book of Revelation indicated that Christ would establish a monarchical political entity on earth. Nepos’s view provoked fierce criticism from Dionysius, who authored a dedicated treatise systematically refuting his theory of the millennial kingdom. Furthermore, another theologian, Cerinthus, who also advocated that the millennial kingdom refers to a political entity on earth, was labeled a “heretic” by Eusebius (Pamphili 1955). The stances of Eusebius and Dionysius demonstrate that early Christian theology rejected the notion of the millennial kingdom as an imminent political entity to be established on earth.

This perspective of the early Church is reflected in the exegetes’ commentaries on the text of the Book of Revelation. In his Commentary on the Apocalypse, the Greek theologian Andrew of Caesarea argued that the “thousand years” indicate “many years for the purpose of preaching the Gospel everywhere in the entire world”, rather than a political entity that would rule for a literal thousand years (Andrew of Caesarea 2011). The Greek scholar Oecumenius stated even more explicitly that the “reign with Christ for a thousand year” mentioned in the Book of Revelation referred to a “spiritual life”, not Christ’s actual political reign on earth (Oecumenius 2006).

During the European Reformation, early church fathers’ opposition to viewing the millennial kingdom as an imminent political entity to be established on earth was inherited by Protestant theologians including Martin Luther. Luther repeatedly expressed his opposition to the secularization of millennial kingdom theories in his writings. He derisively labeled regimes that believed in chiliasm as the “kingdom of the rat-king” (Luther 2011). He frequently emphasized that “Christ’s kingdom is not of this world”, urging believers to pursue purity of faith and spiritual unity, rather than striving to establish a political entity on earth that would rule for a literal thousand years (Luther 1958). Under Luther’s leadership, Lutheran theologians widely criticized theological theories that interpreted the millennial kingdom as a secular political entity. Addressing such theories, Luther’s close friend Philip Melanchthon criticized certain theological streams within Protestantism, sarcastically remarking that they “imagine that before the Last Day of Judgment, Christianity and the church will be a worldly, magnificent kingdom on earth in which only the saints will rule and wield the sword, blotting out all the godless and capturing all kingdoms”. He then emphasized that this understanding was an “abominable and terrible error” (Melanchthon 1965). Thus, Lutheranism, represented by Luther, rejected a literal interpretation of the millennial kingdom, instead advocating for an understanding of its spiritual significance.

Therefore, those theological views that regarded the millennial kingdom as a visible empire soon to be established on earth were unacceptable to Protestant Reformers. Johann Gerhard, another leader of German Lutheranism in the 17th century, expressed concern about the secularization of the millennial kingdom: “if in addition to a spiritual and eternal kingdom there would be attributed to Christ some chiliastic kingdom which He would administer on earth for a thousand years, it would no longer be one but twin kingdoms dichotomously opposed to each other. For one would be temporal, but the other, eternal; one spiritual, the other bodily; one universal, but the other restricted to certain places, times, and persons” (Gerhard 2021, p. 131). For Gerhard and others, the millennial kingdom ruled by Christ was, in essence, an invisible kingdom existing within the human spiritual realm. This very attribute enabled the millennial kingdom to exert influence and exercise rule within the human spiritual world that transcends the boundaries of time and space, thereby allowing it to function as an “eternal” polity. This characteristic distinguishes it from those secular kingdoms unable to escape the cyclical rise and fall of dynasties. If Christ were to descend to earth, wield the scepter, and personally wage wars, the supreme Savior of the faith would “descend” to the level of worldly principalities mired in the worldly realm, losing His ruling power that transcends secular governments. The millennial kingdom itself would then become like other mortal secular regimes, ceasing to possess its nature of eternity.

The critique by Reformation Protestant theologians such as Luther and Melanchthon against the secularizing tendency of the millennial kingdom presented a theoretical conundrum for Christian theology regarding the relationship between faith and reality: If “Christ has not prepared for His own people a worldly kingdom”, but instead “commands us to renounce this world and await the kingdom of heaven” (Luther 2012, p. 269), should Christians then completely withdraw from worldly political life, seeking salvation solely through the study of Scripture? Furthermore, if God instructs Christians “not to use the Gospel to establish a new kingdom, nor to embark on a journey with sword and power”, then how should Christians promote the spread of the “Gospel” to establish a millennial kingdom within humanity’s spiritual realm?

For these questions, Luther proposed his political theory of the “Two Kingdoms”, attempting to reconcile his eschatological views with the realities of politics and religious faith. Within Luther’s political conception, there exist two radically distinct worlds: One is the “Kingdom of God”, composed of “true believers” who “are in Christ and under Christ”. The other is the “Kingdom of the World”, composed of non-Christians. In Luther’s view, the “Kingdom of God”, where “Christ is King”, holds supremacy in authority over the “Kingdom of the World”. Within it, there is no need for “secular law and the sword”, nor is it subject to the jurisdiction of worldly rulers. However, the subjects of the “Kingdom of the World”, due to their “wicked” nature, require the restraint of military force and violence (Luther 1962, p. 88). Worldly government possesses authority only over the external, secular affairs of the world. Matters “spiritual”, such as faith, fall solely under the governance of the Church and believers. In his political framework, the spiritual world and the visible, material world are separated into two entirely separate political domains. Consequently, if there will be a kingdom ruled by Christ for a thousand years, it should not be regarded as a political entity that will appear in this earthly realm.

Building upon this understanding, Luther further divided the forms of governance in the human world into two types: One is the spiritual polity “by which the Holy Spirit produces Christians”, which focuses on faith and is dedicated to establishing a worldwide “invisible” government. The other is the material polity, “which restrains the un-Christian and wicked, so that, no thanks to them, they are obliged to keep still and to maintain an outward peace”, constituting a tangible secular government (Luther 1962, p. 91). Although Luther opposed Catholic theological authority on specific doctrines, in the matter of allocating religious and secular power, he largely adopted the theological tradition of the Roman Curia, emphasizing that religious authority should stand above secular political power. In the eyes of Lutheran theologians represented by Luther, rulers in the secular world should govern for the purpose of preserving and expanding the invisible domain of the Christian faith. On this point, Melanchthon explicitly stated that, since “the ruler is the person who maintains discipline”, he “shall serve not only as the protector of the peace-as a shepherd of a flock-not only as a guardian of our physical welfare, but primarily for the glory of God”. Constrained by this political paradigm, rulers in the secular world—kings, princes, and the like—should strive “to have people’s minds truly pray to God”. They should “banish idolatry, ensure that people do not proclaim false doctrine, nor encourage and spread erroneous doctrines contrary to the Gospel” (Melanchthon 1992, p. 225). Secular rulers thus became “guardians of the faith”, and the very source of political legitimacy of the secular government was derived from religious belief.

Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” theory clearly divided the sovereignty over the entire human world: secular government has the authority to govern non-Christians and to combat the “wicked”, while those “true believers” who are Christian belong to the “Kingdom of God”, which is governed through faith in Jesus. Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” theory reflects the emphasis Protestant theologians placed on “order”. For Lutheran theologians, establishing a unified order of faith within humanity’s intellectual world was far more significant than achieving a unified “tangible empire” in the material world through military expansion. Thus, their emphasis on faith and their critique of chiliasm implicitly suggest an expectation: to establish an invisible empire in the intellectual realm of humanity by spreading the Gospel.

From the perspective of intellectual history, Lutheran theologians offered a new interpretation of the core tenets of Christian eschatology. They shifted the central focus of traditional Christian apocalyptic thought from the religious question of how to achieve “eschatological salvation” to the political question of the essential nature of world sovereignty, the attribution of ruling power, and its establishment. They regarded the unification of the spiritual world as a key factor for secular governments to expand their dominion, thereby imbuing the concept of “salvation”, which is central to Christian apocalyptic concerns, with more concrete political significance. Consequently, the Lutheran theologians’ repeated emphasis on the spiritual nature of the millennial kingdom served, in essence, a multifaceted and grand political objective: On the one hand, the spiritual character and the eternity of the millennial kingdom provided an independent status transcending secular governance to the Church. On the other hand, the political demarcation of the Two Kingdoms provided a theoretical basis for the Church to exert influence over secular governments and the operation of worldly politics. By spreading the “Gospel” and expanding religious organizations, they aimed to progressively integrate humanity’s spiritual and material worlds, merging the sovereignties belonging to the “Two Kingdoms” into one, ultimately seeking to establish a dual-unity theocratic empire in the human world.

In the imagination of Lutheran theologians, this theocratic empire featured a strict social hierarchy where the church, princes, peasants, and others each knew their place, ultimately constructing the Christian ideal of “order”. On this point, Melanchthon categorically asserted that “Government must be an order among the people. The ruler must lead, and the people must obey, each in their own place.” (Melanchthon 1992, p. 215). This theologico-political theory of the Lutheran theologians also influenced other scholars in the secular world. Joseph Mede, a 17th-century English scholar, while interpreting the apocalyptic concept of the “New Heaven and New Earth” in the Book of Revelation, explicitly stated that the words of Scripture were metaphorical, and that the “world” spoken of in the text referred to the “political world” of real life. Similar to Melanchthon’s view, Mede argued that the “heaven” mentioned in the Book of Revelation metaphorically represented “sovereignty, or the ruling part”. Understood this way, “heaven” signified kings, princes, nobles, and others “who shine as luminaries in the firmament”. Correspondingly, the “earth” signified the ruled populace, such as “peasants”, who “serve” the upper strata of society (Mede 1642). Accordingly, theologians who advocated for expounding the political allegory within apocalypticism had a clear political agenda. Through their interpretations, the millennial kingdom transformed from an amorphous religious fantasy into a well-defined theologico-political issue, becoming a political theory that emphasized social hierarchy and solidified the ruling order.

4. The Literal Interpretation of the Millennial Kingdom by Radical Reformers

In early modern Christian theology, the millennial kingdom was allegorically interpreted entirely as a spiritual imagination. Exegetes of this school emphasized the spiritual nature of the millennial kingdom”, insisting that this ideal state could only be realized through devout faith in the teachings of the Gospels. Although this interpretation played a role in eliminating elements of mysticism within exegesis, it also created a logical conflict within Christian apocalypticism: If Christ’s thousand-year reign depicted in the Book of Revelation does not exist in the earthly realm but is a purely spiritual kingdom, how should one interpret the Book of Daniel, which prophesies that Christ will take over the territories of the four world empires and establish a worldly empire on earth?

More importantly, the allegorical interpretation of the Book of Revelation and the “Millennial Kingdom” theory by Lutherans aimed to establish a hierarchical society with Christ as the spiritual leader, the Protestant Church as the sovereign, and secular rulers as guardians of the faith. This religious interpretation, which aimed to protect the interests of the elite, provoked discontent among the lower classes in Europe during the Reformation. Consequently, some theologians and social activists parted ways with Luther and others, seeking to develop interpretations of Christian apocalypticism more favorable to the common people, subsequently launching related political movements.

Radicals emerging during the Reformation explicitly denounced the practice of Lutheran theologians such as Luther, who used the theory of the millennial kingdom to support the political privileges of feudal lords (the factions in the 16th-century European Reformation can broadly be divided into two camps: the “Magisterial Reformation” represented by Luther, and the “Radical Reformation”, which primarily advocated using violence to establish the “Millennial Kingdom” on earth. Cf.: Williams 2001). The German theologian Thomas Müntzer was the first to propose a countervailing theological theory. He employed the political narrative of the four empires from the Book of Daniel to argue that the Fifth Empire (corresponding to the millennial kingdom constructed by Christian theologians according to Book of Revelation), rightfully belonging to Jesus Christ, had already arrived. However, he contended that this “Fifth Empire” had been usurped by “snakes”, referring to “all the evil clerics”, and “secular lords and rulers” who were named by Müntzer as “ells”, resulting in “cunning and hypocrisy spread over the whole earth”. Therefore, he urged the “poor laity and the peasants” to act like the stone that shattered the four world empires and “destroy those lords… who oppress you in the name of the Gospel” (Müntzer 1988). Thus, the millennial kingdom pursued by Müntzer was a political utopia imbued with intense social concern and distinct idealistic overtones. His ultimate goal was to “purify the degeneration of the Christian faith caused by the Roman Catholic Church and other sects” and finally establish an ideal society of universal equality (Müntzer 1993). Under Müntzer’s leadership, the German Peasants’ War ultimately erupted within the Holy Roman Empire. The peasant rebels put their theology into practice, attempting to use violence to establish the egalitarian millennial kingdom.

Simultaneously, the German theologian Melchior Hoffman also put forward corresponding theological theories and political propositions. Hoffman emphasized a political idea akin to radical egalitarianism: “all people under heaven are called, ruled, and drawn by God”, and therefore, no hierarchical political distinctions should exist among them. However, this did not mean he advocated for establishing an egalitarian republic on earth. He believed that God exercised His “rule” over all people through Jesus. Consequently, Jesus was the sovereign Lord of all realms under heaven. Jesus, by sending apostles to instruct all peoples, would ultimately establish a monarchy on earth ruled by Him personally. On this point, he explicitly stated that “The King of Kings refuses no one, but commands His apostles to be His messengers, instructing all peoples, including all nations, heathens, common folk, and peoples of every tongue.” Through this method, “He (Christ) shall become King, Monarch, and Lord in heaven and on earth, and His rule shall extend over all that can be named in this world” (Hoffman 1909). Thus, by utilizing Christianity’s egalitarian ideals, Hoffman not only aimed to clarify that the “Millennial Kingdom” promised in the Book of Revelation was a tangible entity destined for concrete existence in the real world. More significantly, he interlinked the theological concept of egalitarianism with the political theory of Christ’s sovereignty, thereby arguing for the divine monarchist idea that Christ would rule over all humanity.

Hoffman’s interpretations immediately triggered a significant impact within European society during the Reformation. A group of Protestant radical theologians, opposed to Luther’s theories, utilized Hoffman’s ideas to elaborate on the necessity of establishing a millennial kingdom in the earthly world. They ultimately evolved into a radical political organization, launching a political movement in Germany aimed at establishing the millennial kingdom, and culminating in violent struggle in Münster.

Luther harbored deep animosity toward these radical reformers who advocated chiliasm. He dismissed Hoffman’s apocalyptic ideas as a “mad fantasy”, arguing that these radicals merely sought to establish a worldly kingdom where they “will slay all the godless and they alone will have good days” (Luther 2012, p. 269). While Luther’s denunciation of the radical Anabaptists stemmed partly from sectarian rivalry and a desire to uphold Lutheran orthodoxy, it nevertheless reflected the radical extremist tendencies evident in some Anabaptists’ religious doctrines and political activities.

In 1544, while summarizing the case of the Münster rebellion instigated by the radical Anabaptists, the Münster city court documented the theologico-political doctrines of David Joris, a later leader of the Anabaptists. These doctrines primarily included the following: First, emphasizing that Christ’s millennial kingdom would appear as a tangible entity in the earthly world. Second, Joris himself would become a king in the millennial kingdom, co-ruling with Christ. Third, Anabaptist believers should “plunder unbelievers with the sword”. Fourth, “the property of pagans belongs to Christians” (Joris 1994a). Regarding the first two claims, Joris, in his self-defense, “earnestly and humbly acknowledged” them. He not only asserted that Christ’s millennial kingdom was a tangible “new heaven and new earth” but also stressed that he “would sit upon the throne together with Christ” (Joris 1994c). Therefore, under the interpretation of Joris and other radical Anabaptists, ideas about the millennial kingdom became the theoretical justification for the Protestant radicals to establish a theocratic kingdom.

To realize the millennial kingdom on earth where he would rule as Christ’s proxy, Joris fabricated a series of highly deceptive theological theories. He proclaimed that the subjects of this kingdom should renounce all human material desires, “loving and cherishing nothing except God and Christ”. In Joris’s political vision, this meant that all people in the kingdom owed him absolute obedience, since he ruled the kingdom in Christ’s stead. To this end, he demanded that the kingdom’s subjects become “pure, humble, and meek” while simultaneously proclaiming they would become “a single family”. Paradoxically, while Joris preached that all believers should “renounce material desires”, he simultaneously proclaimed that “the entire earthly kingdom and all the world’s produce” would become the possessions of the millennial kingdom (Joris 1994b). Therefore, the essential purpose behind Joris’s fabrication of this theological system was to utilize the concept of the millennial kingdom to establish a highly centralized, independent kingdom under his own rule.

As the Anabaptists’ political activities intensified, the practice of radicals within the Reformation movement using the millennial kingdom to express political ideas gradually spread to other religious organizations. The Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard, in his theological work criticizing heretics, mentioned a religious organization called the “Fraternity of the Rosie Cross”. This organization was dedicated to bringing about the birth of the millennial kingdom on earth through “a universal reformation of government, theology, and the arts” (Gerhard 2021, p. 125). Gerhard’s work did not provide more details of this organization’s political theory. The Fraternity’s propositions, similar to the political ideals of Reformation radicals such as Joris, aimed to establish a political model entirely distinct from existing secular polities. The Fraternity’s manifesto explicitly articulated this political will. In the view of the Fraternity’s founders, “slavery, lies, error, and darkness” had completely corrupted “all arts, ministries, and politics among men”. Therefore, they advocated “abolishing once and for all” all known human institutions and systems of thought, establishing “a right and true government”, that is, realizing the millennial kingdom promised by Jesus Christ (Philalethes 1658). Thus, what they sought to achieve was not a “universal reformation of government, theology, and the arts” but rather a comprehensive overthrow of the known political order and intellectual systems of the human world. On this basis, “they claimed for themselves an empire and a religion.” (Maierus 1656). This was an empire designed to govern both the human spiritual world and command the tangible, material world.

The literal interpretation of the millennial kingdom by 16th-century European theologians gave rise to the social movements within European society. According to the Italian scholar Mario Biagioni, “Radical reformers retained the great expectations and revolutionary ideas of the early masters of the Reformation—Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin—and in many cases carried their criticisms of traditional doctrines and authorities to extremes”. Therefore, in his view, Anabaptist theologians and other radical reformers of the Reformation inherited the critique of traditional doctrine and authority from figures including Luther and Melanchthon (Biagioni 2017). However, viewed through the lens of the interpretive history of the millennial kingdom, the theologians of the Radical Reformation embarked on a distinctly different intellectual path from that of orthodox theological streams such as Luther’s. For these theologians, the millennial kingdom was no longer a fantasy depicting human spiritual “liberation” and “salvation”; instead, it demanded that people “re-create the harmony for which he planned the world, and throw off the yoke of the oppressors, and give the kingdom to the godly” (Chadwick 2001). Under their interpretation, the millennial kingdom became a political banner calling for the overthrow of the existing political and religious order and the complete dismantling of the traditional social hierarchy. The political interpretation of the millennial kingdom by Protestant radicals generated immense theoretical tension within the Christian community. This powerful inward tension also prompted the Reformation movement initiated by Luther to produce unintended side effects, thereby causing the contradictions within the religious world to extend outward. This, in turn, placed the entire Christian society of Europe in a precarious state, teetering on the brink of explosive, revolutionary upheaval.

5. The Combination of Two Interpretations and Its Use in Early Modern Imperial Imagination

To counter the political risks posed by the Radical Reformation within European society, reduce the theoretical tendency within Christian apocalypticism to subvert secular governments, and alleviate the social tensions exacerbated by the spillover of theological conflicts and sectarian contradictions, theologians from other denominations during the Reformation era turned to reconciling the contradictions between the two interpretive approaches to the millennial kingdom. This transformed the concept of the millennial kingdom from an inward-focused theory of social reform into an outward-oriented colonialist idea that focused on overseas expansion.

This transformation began with the merging of the two interpretive paths concerning the millennial kingdom. John Calvin, founder of the Reformed tradition, envisioned a “Kingdom of God” encompassing all humanity and ruled by Christ. Although in his theological writings, Calvin criticized those religious imaginations that “expected an earthly kingdom of the Messiah” (Calvin 1841), he did not oppose utilizing the “sword and power” of secular governments to advance the establishment of the millennial kingdom within humanity’s spiritual world. He explicitly expressed a fervent vision for Christianity to rule the entire world. In his understanding, this “Kingdom of God” would be established on earth in two ways: The first method worked “both by the Word and by the spiritual power, so that the whole world might voluntarily submit to him”. This advocated for unifying the world’s religious faith under a single doctrinal authority through the spread of Christianity, achieving unity in humanity’s spiritual world. The second method was “to conquer his enemies and compel them to submit to his authority”. This approach, similar to Luther’s conception of the “Kingdom of the World”, involved using the military force of secular governments to suppress pagan regimes and consolidate the stability of Christian rule. Through these two methods, “God would enlighten the world by the light of his Word, …and would restore to order, by the gracious exercise of his power, all the disorder that exists in the world” (Calvin 1844). Ultimately, humanity’s spiritual world would be unified under the spread of Christianity, and the material world, due to this unification of religious faith, would be fully integrated into the theologico-political system of Christianity.

Thus, the divine power spoken of by Calvin was not merely a “spiritual” ruling force, but a political power capable of exerting influence within the visible, material world. On this point, he explicitly wrote the following in a letter to Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, the Lord Protector: “An earthly prince ought to rule and govern for the service of Jesus Christ, and recognize that He (Jesus) holds the supreme sovereignty over all.” (Calvin 1858, p. 188). In the same letter, he encouraged the Duke of Somerset, hoping he “may advance his honour, until you have established his kingdom in as great perfection as is to be looked for in the world” (Calvin 1858, p. 183). Calvin’s interpretation of the millennial kingdom thus ensured that Christian apocalypticism emphasized both the spiritual essence of the kingdom and focused on the means of its fulfillment within the real world.

Consequently, beginning in the late 16th century, a theological current emerged within the Protestant intellectual sphere of Europe. Theologians deeply interested in Christian apocalypticism began to integrate the two interpretive paths concerning the millennial kingdom that had existed from the Middle Ages through the early modern period. They not only focused on unifying humanity’s spiritual world but also emphasized that the integration brought about by the Christian faith would unify the entire human material world. The early 17th-century English theologian John Archer authored a dedicated treatise arguing the case for Christ’s sovereignty. Archer divided Christ’s millennial kingdom into three aspects. The first aspect concerned its essential nature, referring to the kingdom’s “universal influence and supreme sovereignty”. In Archer’s view, Christ possessed an indisputable “dominion” over the entire world, a sovereignty that was “divinely ordained”. According to Archer’s interpretation, the latter two aspects of the “Kingdom of Christ” pertained to the manner of Christ’s rule. One was “spiritual”, meaning “exercising dominion over the consciences of the people through his Word and Spirit”; the other was “monarchical”, that is, “Christ will rule as an earthly monarch”. Regarding the earthly nature of the millennial kingdom, Archer placed particular emphasis on the fact that Christ would “reign over the whole world with a universal, visible, earthly glory” (Archer 1642). Thus, the millennial kingdom conceived by Archer was a world empire where Christian theology governs the spiritual realm, while Christians rule the entire tangible world.

From an exegetical perspective, beginning in the late 16th century, Protestant theologians started integrating the theological narrative of the “Millennial Kingdom” and the “Second Coming of Christ” from the Book of Revelation with the political narrative of the succession of five “world empires” from the Book of Daniel. This integration served to argue for the dual nature of the “Millennial Kingdom” and, consequently, provide a theoretical basis for the external expansion of Christian regimes. An anonymous scholar in the mid-17th century explicitly stated in a dedicated treatise on the sovereignty of the “Millennial Kingdom” that the “Millennial Kingdom” spoken of in the Book of Revelation was the very “Fifth Empire” mentioned in the Book of Daniel that “would arise on earth after the four great world empires”. He implied that Christ would “overthrow and destroy” these “enemies and beasts” (Anonymous 1666). His theory aimed to demonstrate that, to ensure the establishment of the “Millennial Kingdom” on earth, Christians should employ force to achieve the conquest of the pagan world.

Influenced by thinkers such as Archer, theologians from various Protestant denominations increasingly argued for the legitimacy of Christian global expansion by interpreting the dual nature of the “Millennial Kingdom”. Addressing this theme, the mid-17th-century English theologian William Sherwin delved deeply into the two states of the “Millennial Kingdom”. Building upon Archer’s theory, Sherwin expressed more explicitly that the invisible “Millennial Kingdom” in its spiritual state would have boundaries that “extend without limit, without restriction, reaching Jews and heathens, Greeks and barbarians”. The tangible “Millennial Kingdom”, manifest on earth in its material state, would “spread over the whole globe, as a great mountain fills the earth”, “extending its borders to encompass the entire universe”. He fervently wrote that “The Kingdom in this second state is not only spiritually prevailing but externally visible and potent, conquering and destroying other nations” (Sherwin 1674). In his conception, all nations of the world would become subjects of Christ.

Beginning in the late 16th century, theological theories advocating for the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth through force, thereby achieving Christ’s dual unification of humanity’s spiritual and material worlds, ignited a wave of fervent theological and political enthusiasm within European intellectual circles. Protestant theologians ceaselessly promoted the idea that Christ would establish a worldwide empire on earth by military might. As the 17th-century English theologian Richard Baxter argued, “A Christian Empire is Christ’s own visible Kingdom”. In their fantasies, Christ, like a commander riding a white horse in the earthly realm, would confront “those mighty heathen empires” and “conquer them and their confederacies”, after which “all the kingdoms of the world shall become Christ’s kingdom” (Baxter 1691). In their vision, Christians would not only “happily reign upon earth”; more significantly, within this “golden sacred Kingdom”, “the spiritual and temporal sovereignty over all nations would be entrusted to Christ and his apostles” (Pucci 1592). This empire ruling the entire world synthesized the dual nature of the “Millennial Kingdom”, seeking both to unify humanity’s religious faith and to consolidate the globe’s tangible territories, ultimately aiming to establish dominion over both the spiritual and material realms of humankind.

This religious fantasy within Protestant theology also influenced some theologians in the Catholic world, ultimately spilling over from the theological sphere into Europe’s political sphere, becoming a theological justification for scholars arguing the legitimacy of great European powers’ external expansion.

In 1672, the Portuguese theologian Antonio Vieira mentioned in a letter his intention to write a Latin work titled “The Fifth Empire”. This work would be “of the greatest importance for understanding the prophecies of Scripture” (Vieira 1735). According to Vieira’s own account, he ultimately failed to complete the book due to being occupied with missionary duties. However, in another work, he elaborated on its core content and outline. Drawing on the theological theory from the Book of Daniel, Vieira argued that after the human world had been ruled by the four world empires of Assyria, Persia, Alexander, and Rome, a Fifth Empire would arise in the future. This Fifth Empire “is both spiritual and temporal, existing in the present world” (Vieira 1998, p. 4). Based on this dual nature, Vieira designed a dual-unity theocratic model. In his view, Christ himself held dual sovereignty over both the spiritual and material worlds. However, before Christ descends to earth for the Final Judgment, these two sovereignties will be divided and held by two distinct viceregents: The sovereignty over humanity’s spiritual world belonged to the “Supreme Pontiff”, who “wears the golden crown”, rules the entire Church, and handles all spiritual affairs. The sovereignty over human governments belonged to the emperor who “wields the universal power and authority to rule the entire world” (Vieira 1690). Within this dual-unity world empire, “all unbelieving sects will be destroyed, the nations of the world will convert to Christ, the Kingdom of Christ will experience great order, and peace will reign among the princes” (Vieira 1998, p. 5).

Behind this seemingly absurd theological fantasy lay a deeper political expression. Vieira identified the Portuguese king as the future “Emperor of the World”, emphasizing that the Portuguese monarch was “divinely ordained” and would establish the world-ruling Fifth Empire in the future. Building upon this, Vieira devised a political program aimed at enabling the Portuguese king to achieve the establishment of this world empire. This program was broadly divided into two steps: First, establishing the “Empire of Christ” within humanity’s spiritual world. Vieira viewed the Pope-led Church as the “direct instrument” for achieving the integration of human faith. Agents of the Church distributed “in the lands of unbelievers”, would, under the Pope’s leadership, “bring these unbelievers into subjection to the Church”. Second, the emperor-led secular government would utilize his armies “to protect missionaries throughout the world, ensuring the success of their evangelizing activities” (Vieira 1998, p. 5). Thus, the “Fifth Empire” imagined by Vieira, diametrically opposed to the “Kingdom of Christ” conceived by Lutheran theologians such as Luther, was an outward-oriented and highly aggressive political entity.

Under this political orientation, Vieira explicitly articulated the necessity for the Portuguese monarch to undertake external expansion. In his view, military conquest and foreign expansion were indispensable actions for establishing the “Fifth Empire”. He unabashedly wrote the following: “Undoubtedly, it is the justice of the sword, not the sword of justice, that conquers and defends empires and kingdoms” (Vieira 1755). Vieira espoused a political philosophy akin to the law of the jungle. He believed that a monarch could only ensure the perpetual flourishing of their own kingdom by constantly coveting and encroaching upon the territories of other nations. He argued “Any monarch who wishes to protect their kingdom must covet other kingdoms”. Therefore, “the most virtuous monarch regards the whole world as their private domain” (Munhoz 1746). This ideology appears similar to the ancient Chinese political proposition that “monarchs have no foreign lands” (王者无外, wáng zhě wú wài, literally, “for kings, there is nothing outside”). However, upon closer examination, Vieira’s political philosophy fundamentally differs from the concept of “no territories beyond their reach”. In Vieira’s political worldview, the inevitable destiny between nations is mutual conquest. The peace of the Portuguese Kingdom could only be achieved through the complete subjugation of all other countries in the world. Consequently, the Fifth Empire he sought to establish aimed to encompass all five known continents of the world at that time. He fervently proclaimed, “All that the sea encircles, all that the sun illuminates, covers, and surrounds, should be subject to this Fifth Empire”. Under the Portuguese king’s campaigns, “all kingdoms will ultimately be brought under the rule of a single crown” (Vieira 1755). In Vieira’s interpretation, Christian apocalyptic thought and the vision of the millennial kingdom ultimately became theoretical tools to justify the colonial empire.

Vieira’s millennialism was not a product of his own religious delirium, but rather a political variant of millennialism that had circulated on the Iberian Peninsula for nearly two centuries. As early as the fourteenth century, the millennialist thought of Joachim of Fiore was employed to justify the legitimacy of Iberian monarchy. Later, during his voyages to the Americas, Columbus was also deeply influenced by Joachimitism, viewing the discovery of the Caribbean as a sign that the end of time was near and a “Holy Emperor” would soon appear (Rusconi 1997). Thus, although one cannot assert dogmatically that early modern European overseas expansion was carried out under the direction of millennialist ideology, the overseas exploration and colonial expansion initiated by Columbus were undoubtedly profoundly shaped by the Christian millennialist tradition originating with Joachim of Fiore.

6. Conclusions

The interpretations of the millennial kingdom by biblical exegetes and theologians from various Christian denominations sparked the religious ideology and social movement of millennialism within European society. Viewed from the perspective of religious history, differing understandings of the millennial kingdom among Christian theologians further fragmented millennialism into distinct schools of thought. Combining their theological concepts of the millennial kingdom with their interpretations of secular politics, church–state relations, and sectarian disputes, these schools coalesced into a complex intellectual force in early modern European society.

More importantly, millenarianism contains a destabilizing and transformative power: it connects with tradition while nurturing a vision aimed at reconstructing society—even, at its radical edge, the ambition to completely overthrow the old order and create a new world. As Thomas Molnar observes, “Millenarism, whether religious or secular, invokes the necessity of a new Coming, a new World Drama, a new Passion at every turn of history” (Molnar 1990). This highly tension-laden idea has rendered the Christian imagination of the “Millennial Kingdom” increasingly complex.

Therefore, the debates surrounding the millennial kingdom in early modern European society were, in name and form, truly dizzying. Yet, beneath the intricate web of intellectual disputes, the theoretical thrust of the millennial kingdom possessed a clear target. The rise in the “millennial kingdom” reflected the comprehensive eruption of contradictions and conflicts within early modern European society. In the tangible secular world, warlords vied for supremacy, and armed conflicts erupted everywhere. The populace suffered the ravages of war, where “brothers weep over brothers and fathers part from sons across five commanderies; kinsmen are torn asunder within three provinces.” This turbulent social environment made the “millennial kingdom”—envisioned in Christian apocalyptic thought as a golden age—highly popular among the common people (Harrison 1979). In the invisible realm of ideas, conflicts over theological doctrines between different sects, along with theoretical disputes among various Christian churches concerning spiritual authority and temporal power, also transformed the “millennial kingdom” into complex political rhetoric. Within this unique social milieu, biblical exegesis aimed at elucidating the nature of the “millennial kingdom” became a battlefield on which various social contradictions of class, sect, and so on converged. The “millennial kingdom” ceased to be a purely religious proposition or theological concept; instead, it evolved into a complex discursive system. This system drew a sharp dividing line between the “Self” and the “Other” within the world of faith (Court 2008). The imagination of the “Other” inherent in the concept of the “millennial kingdom” also shaped the specific identities of different faith communities and political groups.

Superficially, differing interpretations of the millennial kingdom spawned numerous religious groups at odds with each other in terms of faith identity. This situation seemingly rendered the “community of faith” known as Christendom precarious (Greengrass 2014). However, this landscape of contending schools of thought did not signify the utter collapse of the traditional Christendom. On the contrary, by viewing the conversion of pagans to Christianity as a crucial means of realizing the millennial kingdom, its interpreters not only expressed an ambition to establish global Christian dominion but also articulated a particular conception of empire. They envisioned an imperial path distinct from traditional secular empires, attempting to expand territory within the intangible realm of ideas, eroding humanity’s spiritual and belief systems, and fostering unity among diverse human groups. This was how they sought to achieve the universal empire promised in the Book of Daniel. This theological pursuit of establishing an invisible empire within the human spiritual world ultimately dovetailed with the political demands of major European powers engaged in external colonial expansion, becoming one of the theoretical justifications for European colonists to establish colonial empires.