Questions for Amillennialism

[Binyawmene]

According to Bible Hub, What does amillennialism mean?

Amillennialism is an interpretive position that understands the “thousand years” mentioned in Revelation 20 not as a future literal reign of Christ on earth lasting exactly one thousand years, but as a symbolic representation of Christ’s current spiritual reign

Amillennialists read Revelation 20:1-6 as depicting the spiritual reality of Christ’s reign, with “a thousand years” representing completeness or a long, unspecified period. As Revelation’s language is often apocalyptic, the focus lies on Christ’s reigning authority rather than the precise duration of a future earthly kingdom.​

This might sound a little nasty, but that makes me think of a Docetic form eschatology. Instead of jumping to conclusions, it's better to ask the question: What do you mean by "spiritual" (Christ's current spiritual reign or spiritual reality of Christ's reign)? Just, so my fellow believers in Christ knows, I am a Historical Premillennialism, and we believe Christ is reigning 'right now' is physical and not spiritual according to his human nature. For instance, the 3rd Council of Constantinople (A.D. 681), states:

For in the same manner that his all-holy and spotless ensouled flesh, though divinised, was not destroyed, but remained in its own law and principle also his human will, divinised, was not destroyed, but rather preserved, as Gregory the divine says: “His will, as conceived of in his character as the Savior, is not contrary to God, being wholly divinised."​

According to the Council of Constantinople that Christ’s glorified humanity is not destroyed, which is basically assert that the resurrection does not dissolve, absorb, or override the human nature but instead confirms its full ontological integrity. Nothing human is lost, replaced, or swallowed by the divine; the human nature assumed in the incarnation is the selfsame human nature raised in glory. The resurrection introduces no fusion of essences, no mixture of properties, no blurring of natures. Instead, the human nature remains genuinely human in every respective way. This condition safeguards the continuity of Christ’s human nature from Bethlehem to Calvary to resurrected from the empty tomb to the exalted at right hand of the Father and reigning with all power and authority. The risen Christ is not a divine apparition, not a symbolic presence, not a spiritualized projection. He is the same Jesus, now glorified, whose humanity remains real, intact, and fully operative.

 

[Carbon]

He is the same Jesus, now glorified, whose humanity remains real, intact, and fully operative.

Amen!

 

[Binyawmene]

Amen!

Right, this is why Jesus' humanity is not destroyed, then in his return he must be physically embodied, visible, localized, and human in existence. A preserved and glorified human nature cannot yield a docetic eschatology, a purely spiritual “coming,” or a symbolic return diffused into ecclesial or historical processes. Nor can it support an amillennial flattening of Christ’s reign into a non‑physical bodily abstraction. The risen Jesus who ascended is the same risen Jesus who returns, and the integrity of his glorified humanity demands an eschatology in which he reigns as the Second Adam in real space, real time, and real human presence. The condition of "not destroyed." therefore establishes the foundation that the eschaton is not merely divine sovereignty manifested spiritually but the physical embodied, glorified Christ exercising kingship as the perfected human Lord.

Yes, the same Jesus in his ascension and second coming.

Acts 1:9-11 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”​

And the same Jesus in both ages.

Mark 10:29-30 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.​

The argument that I am presenting is that Jesus is raised physically, then he is reigning physically now and in his second coming.

Ephesians 1:20-21 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms (he is reigning right now 'emphasis mine'), far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come.​

It would be kind of logically awkward to jump from physical to spiritual, then back to physical. Amillennialism teaches that Christ is currently reigning spiritually from heaven, not bodily on earth, and that this heavenly reign is the “millennium” of Revelation 20. The millennium is therefore not a future, earthly, embodied reign, but a present, invisible, spiritual rule exercised from the Father’s right hand. Christ’s human body remains in heaven, but His “reign” is understood primarily as spiritual authority, not as a localized, visible, historical kingship exercised by the glorified God‑Man on earth. The “coming” of Christ in judgment is often interpreted symbolically as the spread of the gospel, the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, or the final judgment without an intervening earthly kingdom. In short: the reign is real but not embodied; present, but not visible; heavenly, but not earthly; spiritual, but not historical.

 

[Binyawmene]

Update. This thread is seeking answers from the OP. What do you mean by "spiritual" (Christ's current spiritual reign or spiritual reality of Christ's reign)? As I search for the answer myself, then it only reinforces and strengthen my beliefs in Historical Premillennialism. Here is what I was able to come up with so far.

1. Historically, it was Origen (the grandfather of Amillennialism), which he redefines Christ’s reign as spiritual, non‑bodily, and he does so not because of exegesis of Scriptures but because of philosophy. He was influence by the work of Marcion of Sinope, a Gnostic philosopher, and the philosophy from Platonic idealism. This caused him to spiritualize and allegorize eschatology. He ends up rejecting the early Church millenarian view (basically Premillennialism) of the expectation of a future that is physical, visible, incarnational glorified King and his kingdom. Then creates a philosophical view that the physical kingdom is dissolved into a spiritualized, heavenly state. This reconfiguration of Christology into Eschatology is done by relocating Christ’s kingship into a purely spiritual existence and detaching the reign of Christ from the human nature. And it's common knowledge in Christian history that Origen held to a proto‑docetic and functional docetic eschatology. His philosophy influenced Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome, and ultimately Augustine then adopted into the Roman Catholic Church. So, this idea of "Christ reign spiritually" originates with Origen’s philosophical views and not from Scriptures.

2. Amillennialism is incompatible with the Hypostatic Union. Or with any notion of a purely “spiritual reign,” because the Council insists that Christ’s human nature is “all‑holy and spotless ensouled flesh” and his fully preserved human will—remains intact, operative, and glorified in his resurrection through the exaltation. If his human nature is preserved, then his reign must be exercised according to the human nature; if his human will is operative, then his kingship must be enacted in a genuinely human existence; if his humanity is glorified rather than dissolved, then his rule must be embodied, localized, and historically enacted rather than abstract, invisible, or non‑incarnational. The amillennial “spiritual reign” model denies precisely these points by asserting a kingship that is not bodily, not localized, not historical, not Davidic, and not mediated through Christ’s glorified human nature. While the Council requires that every act of Christ in his exaltation—including his kingship—be exercised according to his preserved, operative, glorified human nature. The Council explicitly teaches that Christ’s human nature “remained in its own law and principle,” that his human will was not absorbed or overridden, and that his human nature continues to function, not a passive but an active of his ongoing human operations.

3. Therefore, Amillennialism position constructs a Christological framework in which Christ’s present reign is spiritual rather than bodily and human operation. This model requires Christ’s human nature to be non‑operative. Hypostatic Union teaches that Christ is the same person upon the assumption of the human nature in the incarnation, now immortal, incorruptible, and glorified, yet still fully and truly human. Constantinople III safeguards precisely this reality by insisting that Christ retains a real human body, a real human mind, a real human will, and a real human operation in his exaltation and reign.

 

[Carbon]

Update. This thread is seeking answers from the OP. What do you mean by "spiritual" (Christ's current spiritual reign or spiritual reality of Christ's reign)? As I search for the answer myself, then it only reinforces and strengthen my beliefs in Historical Premillennialism. Here is what I was able to come up with so far.

1. Historically, it was Origen (the grandfather of Amillennialism), which he redefines Christ’s reign as spiritual, non‑bodily, and he does so not because of exegesis of Scriptures but because of philosophy. He was influence by the work of Marcion of Sinope, a Gnostic philosopher, and the philosophy from Platonic idealism. This caused him to spiritualize and allegorize eschatology. He ends up rejecting the early Church millenarian view (basically Premillennialism) of the expectation of a future that is physical, visible, incarnational glorified King and his kingdom. Then creates a philosophical view that the physical kingdom is dissolved into a spiritualized, heavenly state. This reconfiguration of Christology into Eschatology is done by relocating Christ’s kingship into a purely spiritual existence and detaching the reign of Christ from the human nature. And it's common knowledge in Christian history that Origen held to a proto‑docetic and functional docetic eschatology. His philosophy influenced Dionysius of Alexandria, Eusebius, Jerome, and ultimately Augustine then adopted into the Roman Catholic Church. So, this idea of "Christ reign spiritually" originates with Origen’s philosophical views and not from Scriptures.

2. Amillennialism is incompatible with the Hypostatic Union. Or with any notion of a purely “spiritual reign,” because the Council insists that Christ’s human nature is “all‑holy and spotless ensouled flesh” and his fully preserved human will—remains intact, operative, and glorified in his resurrection through the exaltation. If his human nature is preserved, then his reign must be exercised according to the human nature; if his human will is operative, then his kingship must be enacted in a genuinely human existence; if his humanity is glorified rather than dissolved, then his rule must be embodied, localized, and historically enacted rather than abstract, invisible, or non‑incarnational. The amillennial “spiritual reign” model denies precisely these points by asserting a kingship that is not bodily, not localized, not historical, not Davidic, and not mediated through Christ’s glorified human nature. While the Council requires that every act of Christ in his exaltation—including his kingship—be exercised according to his preserved, operative, glorified human nature. The Council explicitly teaches that Christ’s human nature “remained in its own law and principle,” that his human will was not absorbed or overridden, and that his human nature continues to function, not a passive but an active of his ongoing human operations.

3. Therefore, Amillennialism position constructs a Christological framework in which Christ’s present reign is spiritual rather than bodily and human operation. This model requires Christ’s human nature to be non‑operative. Hypostatic Union teaches that Christ is the same person upon the assumption of the human nature in the incarnation, now immortal, incorruptible, and glorified, yet still fully and truly human. Constantinople III safeguards precisely this reality by insisting that Christ retains a real human body, a real human mind, a real human will, and a real human operation in his exaltation and reign.

Amillennialism is not incompatible with the Hypostatic Union. That is your opinion. And I believe you have much wrong here, misinformation. Please stop with this until you have solid proof. Thank you

 

[Arial]

Amillennialism teaches that Christ is currently reigning spiritually from heaven,

That isn't actually what it teaches. It teaches Christ is presently reigning, not in a future earthly political kingdom, but from heaven in a spiritual, redemptive sense. It describes the nature and location of his kingship right now.

Spiritual simply means his reign is not earthly-political or geographically localized. That does not mean he is no longer human. His body, as you pointed out, is glorified---as ours will also be when he returns to dwell with us. That doesn't make us no longer human does it?

His rule now is mediated through spiritual means. The spread of the gospel, the gathering and growth of the church, the regeneration and sanctification of believers, his ongoing intercession. His reign operates through the work of the Spirit. He is reigning in an already/not yet kingdom.

1 Cor 15:23-25


But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

We see his earthly physical reign in Rev 21. God physically with us in the restored creation. Amillennialism does not take away Jesus' humanity. Any more than our glorification at his return takes away our humanity (1 Cor 15:50-55).

 

[Carbon]

That isn't actually what it teaches. It teaches Christ is presently reigning, not in a future earthly political kingdom, but from heaven in a spiritual, redemptive sense. It describes the nature and location of his kingship right now.

Spiritual simply means his reign is not earthly-political or geographically localized. That does not mean he is no longer human. His body, as you pointed out, is glorified---as ours will also be when he returns to dwell with us. That doesn't make us no longer human does it?

His rule now is mediated through spiritual means. The spread of the gospel, the gathering and growth of the church, the regeneration and sanctification of believers, his ongoing intercession. His reign operates through the work of the Spirit. He is reigning in an already/not yet kingdom.

1 Cor 15:23-25


But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

We see his earthly physical reign in Rev 21. God physically with us in the restored creation. Amillennialism does not take away Jesus' humanity. Any more than our glorification at his return takes away our humanity (1 Cor 15:50-55).

Amen!

 

[Binyawmene]

That isn't actually what it teaches. It teaches Christ is presently reigning, not in a future earthly political kingdom, but from heaven in a spiritual, redemptive sense. It describes the nature and location of his kingship right now.

Spiritual simply means his reign is not earthly-political or geographically localized. That does not mean he is no longer human. His body, as you pointed out, is glorified---as ours will also be when he returns to dwell with us. That doesn't make us no longer human does it?

His rule now is mediated through spiritual means. The spread of the gospel, the gathering and growth of the church, the regeneration and sanctification of believers, his ongoing intercession. His reign operates through the work of the Spirit. He is reigning in an already/not yet kingdom.

I appreciate you answering the question. I would define "spiritual" from this sense:

The "spiritual reign of Christ" is the amillennial doctrine that Christ presently rules the world not through his glorified human nature, but through a non-bodily, non-localized, heavenly, and spiritually divine authority mediated by the Holy Spirit.​

First quote

Spiritual simply means his reign is not earthly-political or geographically localized.

We are in agreement here. But you would have to include "non-bodily" because it spiritual and being contrast by another source, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and not by the Person of the Son himself according to his human nature.

Second quote

His reign operates through the work of the Spirit.

This is where I am going to have issues with Arial. Because you are contrasting the "is not" in the first quote with "the work of the Spirit" as the "is" in the second quote. I would like to see Scriptures demonstrating this viewpoint. We should be able to agree with Berkhof:

1. THE SUBJECT AND NATURE OF THE EXALTATION. "...Reformed theology, on the other hand, regards the person of the Mediator, that is, the God-man, as the subject of the exaltation, but stresses the fact that it was, of course, the human nature in which the exaltation took place. The divine nature is not capable of humiliation or exaltation. ..." (Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof).​

The exaltation into his reign wasn't given to the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 2:9, Philippians 2:9-11, Ephesians 1:20-23, 1 Peter 3:22). And the definition of my position is quite simple:

The incarnational reign of Christ is the doctrine that the risen Christ demonstrates his kingship through his preserved, operative, and glorified human nature. That his human nature is the mode of instrument and his position of authority and power is now and, in the age, to come. This is not through the Holy Spirit.​

 

[John Bauer]

According to Bible Hub, [amillennialism interprets the thousand years] “as a symbolic representation of Christ’s current spiritual reign. … rather than the precise duration of a future earthly kingdom.”

This might sound a little nasty, but that makes me think of a Docetic form eschatology.

That conclusion involves an indefensible leap, in my opinion. So, let’s get into this.

Instead of jumping to conclusions, it's better to ask the question: …

Respect, brother.

What do you mean by "spiritual"?

That refers to a heavenly, non-earthly, non-visible reign.

It escapes me how anyone could think that this somehow means Christ’s human nature is not physical.

Notice the clearly distinct categories: the spiritual or heavenly nature of Christ’s reign versus the “ontological integrity” of Christ’s human nature. Two categorically different things are being conflated in this objection.

Just so my fellow believers in Christ know: I am a historic premillennialist …

That’s okay. Nobody’s perfect.

… and we believe [that] Christ is reigning 'right now', [that it] is physical and not spiritual according to his human nature.

Perhaps you would find it interesting to learn that amillennialists also believe that Christ is reigning right now and doing so in a glorified physical state as to his human nature. Amillennialists likewise believe that

• “Christ’s glorified humanity is not destroyed,”
  
  ​
• “the resurrection does not dissolve, absorb, or override the human nature but instead confirms its full ontological integrity,”
  
  ​
• “nothing human is lost, replaced, or swallowed by the divine,”
  
  ​
• “the human nature [Christ] assumed in the incarnation is the self-same human nature raised in glory,”
  
  ​
• “the resurrection introduces no fusion of essences, no mixture of properties, no blurring of natures.”
  
  ​
• “[Christ’s] human nature remains genuinely human in every respective way.”

and so on.

It is unfortunate that you weren’t aware of this but amillennialists are, and have always been, perfectly orthodox in their Christology.

The risen Christ is not a divine apparition, not a symbolic presence, not a spiritualized projection. He is the same Jesus, now glorified, whose humanity remains real, intact, and fully operative.

And amillennialists everywhere respond together, “Amen.”

 

[Binyawmene]

That conclusion involves an indefensible leap, in my opinion. So, let’s get into this.

Sure. We can most definitely get into that discussion.

There were two people that taught functional Docetism, Apollinaris and Eutyches, because they render the human nature as non-functional in operation. I will explain this for you so you can get a better grasp of what I am saying.

Functional Docetism, by contrast, does not deny the existence of Christ’s humanity but denies its operation. It affirms that Christ has a human nature, but it treats that nature as inert, irrelevant, or non‑operative in his present work, reign, or eschatological office. In functional Docetism, Christ’s humanity is affirmed but denied in practice. The human nature becomes passive rather than active instrument of his kingship, mediation, judgment, and rule. This is the framework structural problem in Amillennialism: it affirms Christ’s humanity but assigns his present reign exclusively to the Person of the Holy Spirit or his divine nature, making his kingship “spiritual,” non‑localized, non‑bodily, and non‑incarnational. This does not deny the incarnation outright, but it denies the eschatological implications of the incarnation, namely, that Christ reigns as man, through his glorified human nature, in a real, embodied, historical way. Functional Docetism is not heresy in the formal, conciliar sense, but it is a Christological inconsistency that mirrors the logic of Docetism by sidelining the operative humanity of the exalted Christ.

Respect, brother.

Respectfully back to you too.

That refers to a heavenly, non-earthly, non-visible reign.

It escapes me how anyone could think that this somehow means Christ’s human nature is not physical.

Notice the clearly distinct categories: the spiritual or heavenly nature of Christ’s reign versus the “ontological integrity” of Christ’s human nature. Two categorically different things are being conflated in this objection.

From my standpoint the objection fails because it misunderstands the very point at issue. I am not conflating the ontological integrity of Christ’s human nature with the existence of his present reign. Sure, the distinction is clear that Christ’s humanity remains intact, preserved, and unconfused. But the question is not whether his human nature exists; the question is whether that human nature is operative in his kingship. Amillennialism affirms that Christ’s present reign is exclusively to a spiritual and non‑bodily existence. This is precisely why the categories cannot be separated as the objection claims. Even Chalcedon and Constantinople III require Christ’s human nature not only to exist but to act, will, and reign from his human operation. To affirm ontological integrity while denying operative function is not a category distinction.

That’s okay. Nobody’s perfect.

Great.

Perhaps you would find it interesting to learn that amillennialists also believe that Christ is reigning right now and doing so in a glorified physical state as to his human nature. Amillennialists likewise believe that

• “Christ’s glorified humanity is not destroyed,”
  
  ​
• “the resurrection does not dissolve, absorb, or override the human nature but instead confirms its full ontological integrity,”
  
  ​
• “nothing human is lost, replaced, or swallowed by the divine,”
  
  ​
• “the human nature [Christ] assumed in the incarnation is the self-same human nature raised in glory,”
  
  ​
• “the resurrection introduces no fusion of essences, no mixture of properties, no blurring of natures.”
  
  ​
• “[Christ’s] human nature remains genuinely human in every respective way.”

and so on.

It is unfortunate that you weren’t aware of this but amillennialists are, and have always been, perfectly orthodox in their Christology.

Yes, it's a common theme in discussion that people often affirm what they deny. It's like saying, Christ is reigning now “in a glorified physical state as to his human nature,” but this affirmation is purely nominal because the actual existence of the reign they describe is non‑bodily, non‑localized, invisible, and spiritual rather than incarnational. In other words, they affirm the existence of Christ’s glorified humanity while simultaneously denying its operation in his kingship. Reducing his reign as spiritual or the Person of the Holy Spirit. This is precisely what makes the system functionally Docetic: it treats Christ’s human nature as real in ontology but irrelevant in activity or operation. If Christ truly reigns “in a glorified physical state,” then his reign must be exercised through that glorified physical humanity, which necessarily entails a visible, embodied, localized, historical kingship. To affirm the humanity while denying its operative is not consistency but a contradiction.

And amillennialists everywhere respond together, “Amen.”

Great.

 

[Arial]

But the question is not whether his human nature exists; the question is whether that human nature is operative in his kingship. Amillennialism affirms that Christ’s present reign is exclusively to a spiritual and non‑bodily existence.

Only if what you restrict bodily existence to mean his visible body present on earth. And that, it seems to me, is what would be separating his divinity from his humanity. Amil says Christ's present reign is bodily in reality, but not bodily in location---on earth.

If Christ truly reigns “in a glorified physical state,” then his reign must be exercised through that glorified physical humanity, which necessarily entails a visible, embodied, localized, historical kingship. To affirm the humanity while denying its operative is not consistency but a contradiction.

That is a premil argument framed as logical necessity rather than a demonstrated contradiction in the amil position. It is a hermeneutical disagreement not a contradiction.

To sat that his reign "must be exercised in a visible, embodied, localized, historical kingship" is based on the supposition that the Davidic kingship must be exercised in the same visible, earthly form as OT expectations. But it ignores for example

Psalm 110:1 — “Sit at my right hand until…”
Acts 2:33–36 — Peter says this is fulfilled now
1 Corinthians 15:25 — “He must reign until…”

In those these texts Christs reign is real, ongoing, but not visibly located on earth. Amil distinguishes between mode of existence (bodily which is true) and mode of reign which can be heavenly-mediated.

Not perfect but clarifying would be the analogy from the natural. A king can be physically located in one place while exercising authority over another realm. Your statement effectively denies that category exists for Christ.

 

[Arial]

I appreciate you answering the question. I would define "spiritual" from this sense:

The "spiritual reign of Christ" is the amillennial doctrine that Christ presently rules the world not through his glorified human nature, but through a non-bodily, non-localized, heavenly, and spiritually divine authority mediated by the Holy Spirit.

And that would be an incorrect definition. It restricts bodily existence to a premil hermeneutic when it is not the amil hermeneutic. That is, it is based on the premil assumption that the Davidic kingdom of Christ must present in the same way as it did in the OT and if it doesn't then Christ isn't reigning until it does. But the story is not over yet. He reigns from heaven now and when he returns (1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:16-18) will reign on earth (Rev 21). A right now/not yet situation.

He conquered sin and death for his people at the cross. He is the victorious King now. He must reign (from where his is now) until sin and death are put under his feet (destroyed). Right now, as King, he is gathering his people into his flock and when they are all gathered, then he returns---still the King---on earth with us.

First quote

Arial said:
"Spiritual simply means his reign is not earthly-political or geographically localized."

We are in agreement here. But you would have to include "non-bodily" because it spiritual and being contrast by another source, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and not by the Person of the Son himself according to his human nature.

Second quote

Arial said: "His reign operates through the work of the Spirit."

This is where I am going to have issues with Arial. Because you are contrasting the "is not" in the first quote with "the work of the Spirit" as the "is" in the second quote. I would like to see Scriptures demonstrating this viewpoint.

I am not replacing Christ's reign with the Spirit's work. That is how you are interpreting what I am saying. I am not contrasting Christ vs the Spirit. I am describing Christ reigns by means of the Spirit. Scripture repeatedly shows that structure (Acts 2:32-33; 2 John 16:7-14; Eph 1:20-23;1 Cor 12:3).

The incarnational reign of Christ is the doctrine that the risen Christ demonstrates his kingship through his preserved, operative, and glorified human nature. That his human nature is the mode of instrument and his position of authority and power is now and, in the age, to come. This is not through the Holy Spirit.

Yes, Christ himself is the one exalted and the Scriptures you give affirm that. Yes, Christ reign as the incarnate God-man. Amil does not deny that.

But the claim "This is not through the Holy Spirit" is not correct as it strongly disagrees with Scripture which consistently presents the pattern of the exalted Christ reigns and exercises that reign by giving/sending the Spirit.

Again: Acts 2:33 “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God… having received… the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this…
Christ is enthroned
The proof and effect of his enthronement is the outpouring
of the Spirit.
Jesus says he will send the Spirit and adds "I will come to you." (John 14:16-18).

Romans 8:9-10

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ.

Amil agrees that Christ's human nature is operative. That does not exclude the Spirit as the means of administration.

You create an unnecessary either/or (Christ reigns through his humanity or through the Spirit). The NT presents Christ reigning as the Gd-man, and by the Spirit.

You assume that if Christ's humanity is the instrument, then the Spirit cannot be the means.

Biblically Christ acts personally yet mediates his presence and power through the Spirit. We see this in the new birth, sanctification, and the spread of the gospel. all of which are works of the Spirit yet also expressions of Christ's lordship.

 

[JesusFan]

Only if what you restrict bodily existence to mean his visible body present on earth. And that, it seems to me, is what would be separating his divinity from his humanity. Amil says Christ's present reign is bodily in reality, but not bodily in location---on earth.

That is a premil argument framed as logical necessity rather than a demonstrated contradiction in the amil position. It is a hermeneutical disagreement not a contradiction.

To sat that his reign "must be exercised in a visible, embodied, localized, historical kingship" is based on the supposition that the Davidic kingship must be exercised in the same visible, earthly form as OT expectations. But it ignores for example

Psalm 110:1 — “Sit at my right hand until…”
Acts 2:33–36 — Peter says this is fulfilled now
1 Corinthians 15:25 — “He must reign until…”

In those these texts Christs reign is real, ongoing, but not visibly located on earth. Amil distinguishes between mode of existence (bodily which is true) and mode of reign which can be heavenly-mediated.

Not perfect but clarifying would be the analogy from the natural. A king can be physically located in one place while exercising authority over another realm. Your statement effectively denies that category exists for Christ.

Jesus is now functioning/operating in His High priestly position, and will not be yet until ther Second Coming event as king over His kingdom

 

[Arial]

It's like saying, Christ is reigning now “in a glorified physical state as to his human nature,” but this affirmation is purely nominal because the actual existence of the reign they describe is non‑bodily, non‑localized, invisible, and spiritual rather than incarnational. In other words, they affirm the existence of Christ’s glorified humanity while simultaneously denying its operation in his kingship.

Does Scripture say his reign must be bodily---as in visible---and localized in order for him to be reigning? No. It explicitly says he is reigning now from heaven---which btw is localized. I have given you the scriptures that show his kingship is being carried out by the work of the Spirit.

Let's say the king of an earthly land sent his army out to conquer another kingdom. Does the fact that it is not the king himself who goes to war mean that the kingship is now taken from him and rests with his armies?

Or suppose he sends a messenger to a debtor demanding payment of the debt. Is the messenger now the king?

Supposed he is king of Timbuctoo but decides to reside in Abrasha. Does that make him no longer king of Timbuctoo?

The church itself (Gods called out ones) is spiritual and invisible. Does it then cease to be the church?

 

[Arial]

Jesus is now functioning/operating in His High priestly position, and will not be yet until ther Second Coming event as king over His kingdom

I already responded to that very same statement in another thread.

 

[Binyawmene]

Only if what you restrict bodily existence to mean his visible body present on earth. And that, it seems to me, is what would be separating his divinity from his humanity. Amil says Christ's present reign is bodily in reality, but not bodily in location---on earth.

When I say that Christ is reigning bodily or embodied in the present is to affirm that the very same glorified human nature that walked out of the tomb, ascended from the Mount of Olives, and now sits at the right hand of the Father is the active, operative mode of his kingship. Christ is not reigning as a disembodied spirit, nor as a symbolic heavenly figure. Which I am sure you would also agree. He reigns as the God-Man, exercising authority through his glorified human mind, human will, and human body. His humanity is not dormant and non-operative; it is the instrument of his rule. Heaven is not a “spiritual realm” in the sense of everything else being non‑physical, rather it is a created, real, locative realm where the glorified human Christ is present in a specific place, acting in real time, with a real human consciousness and a real human volition. His kingship is therefore incarnational (not spiritual), even though the location of that reign is presently heavenly rather than earthly. Christ’s reign is embodied because the reigning King is embodied, and his human nature is the very means by which he governs, intercedes, judges, and rules right now.

I am not replacing Christ's reign with the Spirit's work. That is how you are interpreting what I am saying. I am not contrasting Christ vs the Spirit. I am describing Christ reigns by means of the Spirit. Scripture repeatedly shows that structure (Acts 2:32-33; 2 John 16:7-14; Eph 1:20-23;1 Cor 12:3).

Except, the question is not whether the Spirit is ALSO active in Christ’s present reign, but whether Christ’s human nature is operative in his kingship. You said: "I am not replacing Christ's reign with the Spirit's work." Excellent. Because Christ’s glorified humanity is the Kingly subject. And to say that “Christ’s reign is spiritual rather than embodied” is not orthodox. The Spirit does not substitute for Christ’s human operation. If the Holy Spirit did replace Christ’s human operation, that would be functional Docetism.

Like Apollinaris who taught that the Eternal Word/the Son replaced the soul of Christ. There would be no human operation (non-operative), like no real human emotions, no real human consciousness, and no real human will etc. It would be the Eternal Word doing the operation 'acting as if' he is a real human. That is functional Docetism because from the Council standpoint Christ's human nature has its own operation and that operation continues in his reign and not replaced by the Holy Spirit. The Third Council of Constantinople states:

"We also proclaim two natural wills in him and two natural operations, without separation, without change, without partition, without confusion, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers — and two natural wills not contrary to each other, God forbid, as the impious heretics have said they would be, but his human will following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather subject to his divine and all-powerful will."​

Does Scripture say his reign must be bodily---as in visible---and localized in order for him to be reigning? No. It explicitly says he is reigning now from heaven---which btw is localized.

You are assuming that “bodily reign” means “visible to us on earth right now,” when the actual point is that Christ’s reign must be exercised through his glorified human nature, not that we must currently see it with our eyes. Scripture does indeed say Christ reigns from heaven, and heaven is a real, locative realm, but that does not make his reign non-bodily. A human nature cannot act, will, judge, or rule except as a human nature, which means embodied, localized, and personal. The fact that the location of his embodied reign is presently heaven does not make the reign “spiritual." It simply means the embodied King is reigning from a heavenly place rather than an earthly one. The question is not whether the reign is visible to us now, but whether the reign is exercised according to Christ’s glorified humanity. If you reject or deny the human operation, then you have fallen unwitty into Functional Docetism which is precisely Constantinople III rejects.

This is why the OP question is important and needs to be discussed and clarified.

 

[Arial]

When I say that Christ is reigning bodily or embodied in the present is to affirm that the very same glorified human nature that walked out of the tomb, ascended from the Mount of Olives, and now sits at the right hand of the Father is the active, operative mode of his kingship. Christ is not reigning as a disembodied spirit, nor as a symbolic heavenly figure. Which I am sure you would also agree. He reigns as the God-Man, exercising authority through his glorified human mind, human will, and human body. His humanity is not dormant and non-operative; it is the instrument of his rule. Heaven is not a “spiritual realm” in the sense of everything else being non‑physical, rather it is a created, real, locative realm where the glorified human Christ is present in a specific place, acting in real time, with a real human consciousness and a real human volition. His kingship is therefore incarnational (not spiritual), even though the location of that reign is presently heavenly rather than earthly. Christ’s reign is embodied because the reigning King is embodied, and his human nature is the very means by which he governs, intercedes, judges, and rules right now.

Then in that you are amil. Except for that last sentence which in its wording removes his divine nature. And don't forget, Father, Son and Spirit are One. They never act independently of each other.

So why then does historic premil insist that he must reign present on earth in Israel for a literal one thousand years?

It actually seems to me in this first part of this post (I haven't read the rest of it yet) you are backtracking from your original OP position of amil and your reasoning for why.

Except, the question is not whether the Spirit is ALSO active in Christ’s present reign, but whether Christ’s human nature is operative in his kingship.

Except that has already been established. I have said as much.

And to say that “Christ’s reign is spiritual rather than embodied” is not orthodox. The Spirit does not substitute for Christ’s human operation. If the Holy Spirit did replace Christ’s human operation, that would be functional Docetism.

Did I ever say it was spiral rather than embodied? Define what you mean by "embodied". So far you have presented your definition of "embodied" as present in visible form in a localized way. Maybe that is also your definition of human in this context. Amil view: the glorified risen and glorified body of Christ is resigning from heaven.

When did I say the Spirit's actions substitute for Christ's human operation? Read the scriptures I gave the last time I discussed this in my post. And let's discuss what they mean.

The Spirit does not substitute for Christ’s human operation. If the Holy Spirit did replace Christ’s human operation, that would be functional Docetism.

Explain what you mean by "Christ's human operation". If Jesus has his glorified human nature where he is with the Father---and he does---and he is reigning from heaven now---which he is---whatever means brings about his intended purpose is from both his human nature and his divine nature. If he sends the Spirit to regenerate a person that is from the God-man. That does not mean the Spirit replaces Christ's human nature. I would say operation, but I am not sure what you mean by that.

Like Apollinaris who taught that the Eternal Word/the Son replaced the soul of Christ.

That isn't the amil position, so what is it doing in the middle of this conversation.

"We also proclaim two natural wills in him and two natural operations, without separation, without change, without partition, without confusion, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers — and two natural wills not contrary to each other, God forbid, as the impious heretics have said they would be, but his human will following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather subject to his divine and all-powerful will."

I agree. What does that have to do with amillennialism? And why is all your emphasis put on his human nature and leaves out his divine nature? You have not mentioned that once. How does that figure into his reigning from heaven?

You are assuming that “bodily reign” means “visible to us on earth right now

I am assuming that is what you mean from what you have previously stated. That is why my post questioned you about it. And if I am remembering correctly that was your whole sticking point with amil as compared to historic premil. Which is really because you misunderstand the amil position. I have been trying to clear up those misconceptions, but you just keep arguing and shifting the goal post. This is what you said.

Right, this is why Jesus' humanity is not destroyed, then in his return he must be physically embodied, visible, localized, and human in existence. A preserved and glorified human nature cannot yield a docetic eschatology, a purely spiritual “coming,” or a symbolic return diffused into ecclesial or historical processes. Nor can it support an amillennial flattening of Christ’s reign into a non‑physical bodily abstraction. The risen Jesus who ascended is the same risen Jesus who returns, and the integrity of his glorified humanity demands an eschatology in which he reigns as the Second Adam in real space, real time, and real human presence. The condition of "not destroyed." therefore establishes the foundation that the eschaton is not merely divine sovereignty manifested spiritually but the physical embodied, glorified Christ exercising kingship as the perfected human Lord.

Now you are back peddling and at the same time sticking to you misconceptions of the amil position.

when the actual point is that Christ’s reign must be exercised through his glorified human nature, not that we must currently see it with our eyes.

As I have been saying.

Scripture does indeed say Christ reigns from heaven, and heaven is a real, locative realm, but that does not make his reign non-bodily.

As I have been saying.

The fact that the location of his embodied reign is presently heaven does not make the reign “spiritual." It simply means the embodied King is reigning from a heavenly place rather than an earthly one.

That is spiritual. Maybe you should define what you consider to be spiritual. It does not mean disembodied.

The question is not whether the reign is visible to us now, but whether the reign is exercised according to Christ’s glorified humanity. If you reject or deny the human operation, then you have fallen unwitty into Functional Docetism which is precisely Constantinople III rejects.

When you tell me exactly what YOU mean by "human operation" I will be able to respond to that accordingly. The way I see it, if Jesus is reigning in his glorified human body from heaven, that is human operation and also divine operation as he did not lose his divine nature at the resurrection either. But perhaps you mean we need to see arms and legs moving and/or anything done by someone else at his decree is then not his human operation but the operation of the other one and therefore the other one is doing the reigning. Who knows.

 

[atpollard]

Just, so my fellow believers in Christ knows, I am a Historical Premillennialism, and we believe Christ is reigning 'right now' is physical and not spiritual according to his human nature.

This statement seems nonsensical unless one is a follower of a "Jim Jones" type of cult. Where is Jesus literally "physically" reigning on Earth from? I would like to bring a 'tithe' directly to my King.

 

[Arial]

And the definition of my position is quite simple:

The incarnational reign of Christ is the doctrine that the risen Christ demonstrates his kingship through his preserved, operative, and glorified human nature. That his human nature is the mode of instrument and his position of authority and power is now and, in the age, to come.

Where did his divine nature go? Sounds like Modalism to me.

 

[Arial]

We are in agreement here. But you would have to include "non-bodily" because it spiritual and being contrast by another source, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and not by the Person of the Son himself according to his human nature.

Was it Christ's glorified human body that returned to the Father and is seated at his right hand (a position of authority)? Did he take his divine nature with him (I speak in human terms)? Why have you separated them and why the Modalist application?