A Two Kingdoms Primer
Thursday, September 2, 2010 at 11:11AM 
Here's a brief primer on the basics of the Reformed doctrine of the two kingdoms.
As you consider the distinctions between these two kingdoms, please keep in mind the following presuppositions upon which the distinctions are based:
1). Christ is Lord of both kingdoms. He rules the kingdom of Christ (regnum gratiae) as the mediator of the covenant of grace, and he rules the civil kingdom (regnum potentiae) as sovereign Lord.
2). Every Christian is simultaneously a citizen of both kingdoms (Philippians 3:20; Romans 13:1-7).
3). The state is a post-fall, common grace institution given by God for the administration of justice and to restrain evil (Genesis 4:18 ff; Romans 13:1-7).
4). Non-Christians do not accept or acknowledge Christ's Lordship over the civil kingdom. This is the basis for the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian ways of thinking and doing. The failure to acknowledge Christ's Lordship renders one guilty before God (Romans 1:18-25), but does not invalidate the civil kingdom or the non-Christian's place in it.
5). While Paul calls Rome a minister of God (Romans 13:4), a generation later John describes that same empire as the beast, empowered by the dragon to persecute the people of God (Revelation 13). The Christian's confession that "Jesus is Lord," is likewise a confession that Caesar isn't. Christians must be cognizant that the kingdom of Christ can be seen as a threat to the power of the state. In fact, throughout Scripture, the state is the dragon's weapon of last resort against Christ and his kingdom.
6). From the time Adam was cast from Eden, God has intended the kingdom of Christ (the church) to dwell and advance in the midst of the civil kingdom (the world). This is the foundation for the missionary endeavors of the church, as well as a hedge against either utopianism (an over-realized eschatology) or escapism (i.e., monasticism).
The Distinction Between the Two Kingdoms
Christ's Kingdom
This is a spiritual kingdom and is ruled by Christ in his mediatorial office, in and through the historical manifestation of the covenant of grace (the church)
The Civil Kingdom
Here we speak of human government (the state) and Christ's rule over the earth and its creatures (the kingdom of power), according to God’s divine purpose for humanity (his eternal decree)
__________________________________
Christ's Kingdom
The charter of Christ’s kingdom is the “Great Commission” (cf. Matthew 28:16-20)
The Civil Kingdom
The foundation of the civil kingdom is the “Cultural Mandate” (Genesis 1:28' Genesis 9:6-7)
___________________________________
Christ's Kingdom
The church is given the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19). The kingdom is closed to the unrepentant and heretics through church discipline
The Civil Kingdom
The state is given the sword (Romans 13:4). Those who break the law are subject to civil and criminal justice
___________________________________
Christ's Kingdom
Requires “spiritual discernment” (1 Corinthians 1:13 ff; 2:14)
The Civil Kingdom
Requires the light of nature (i.e., general revelation--Romans 2:14-15)
____________________________________
Christ's Kingdom
Christ’s kingdom is manifest on earth through the ordinary means of grace and through those biblically mandated activities of the church (i.e., evangelism, discipleship, and diaconal ministries)
The Civil Kingdom
The civil kingdom is manifest in all human cultural endeavors and governing institutions. In the civil kingdom, Christian citizens seek to be salt and light as they fulfill their callings and vocations along with their non-Christian neighbors
____________________________________
Christ's Kingdom
The focus is upon our heavenly citizenship (Philippians 3:20-21)–which is realized in our membership in Christ’s church. The church is the assembly of Christian believers
The Civil Kingdom
The focus is upon our national citizenship (i.e., the country of our birth, or of which we are presently citizens). As such, this kingdom includes all people (Christians and non-Christians alike) who are citizens of a given nation/society
____________________________________
Christ Kingdom
Entrance is granted into this kingdom only by virtue of regeneration. The focus is upon redemptive grace–God saving his people from the guilt and power of sin
The Civil Kingdom
Entrance into the civil kingdom is granted by virtue of birth (or naturalization). The focus here is upon common grace–God providing for all of his creatures
____________________________________
Christ's Kingdom
As citizens of Christ’s kingdom, we live under the authority of Christ as revealed in Scripture (special revelation)
The Civil Kingdom
In the civil kingdom, we live under the authority of the laws of the land (i.e., general revelation and natural law)
____________________________________
Consequences of Confusing the Two Kingdoms or Denying our Dual Citizenship
When these two kingdoms are confused or conflated, we see the rise of the "social gospel" of Protestant liberalism, American civil religion of the Christian right and the liberal left, as well as the rise of Constantianism (Christendom). The church must never take up the sword and Caesar must never enter the pulpit.
When the Christian's dual citizenship is denied (or ignored), we see the rise of asceticism, pietism, radical pacifism and Anabaptism.
Therefore, a Christian is free to work with non-Christians in the civil kingdom to promote the common good and preserve a just society. But the kingdom of Christ is tied to word and sacrament and the church (and its officers and members) must speak to the pressing moral issues of the day in terms of law and gospel, not in terms of the political activism found in the civil kingdom. Yes, the church must address moral issues as they are found and framed in Scripture (through the preaching and catechetical function of the church), but the church is not to engage in partisan politics, nor endorse any political party or candidate.
Reader Comments (55)
Thank you for this useful primer. Not only does it serve to introduce people to some of the main and key points of 2K doctrine, it also serves as a corrective against some of the more radical proponents of 2K doctrine. This post was doubly useful, then.
So you're saying that the Bible is a handbook for legislation? What do you make of Jesus' own hermeneutic in John 5:36 ("You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me..."), or Luke 24:27 ("And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.") Jesus sure makes it sound like the Bible is about him and him alone.
And I'm glad you bring Romans 13 up. But it's interesting how you reverse the point by asking "How should a servant of God conduct himself?" The thrust of the text isn't to put the onus on the magistrate to submit to God, it is how believers are to be obedient to the magistrate God raises up, regardless of his relative godliness. That's hard for modern Americans suckled on notions of democracy that invite, expect and even reward citizens for testing and disobeying their leaders. But do you realize Paul's magistrate, the one he has in mind for us to obey, thought himself to be a god as well as having traits the modern would think slam-dunk reasons to rise up and disobey?
And, since you seem likely to lean towards stoning adulterers, you might look into "why we don't stone adulteres," courtesy of this blog's printed press: http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/why-we-dont-stone-adulterers/#more-2731
I sense you are of the view that the world is working towards a millennial golden era.. ("Having Christians called to politics and governing under the Word of the Lord is a long road to hoe for us in the here and now. But perhaps by the elections of 3012, not 2012, but 3012 we may get there. ") Am I interpreting your comment correctly?
So in part your disagreement on 2k theology is premised on a disagreement on eschatology. I don't sense you are amillennial. Is that correct?
The Bible is also very clear that the nations outside of Israel where to align their Kingdoms with God’s Law. The Law of God was to be Israel’s wisdom before other nations, so much so, that these nations would see the righteousness of the law (Deut 4:6-8). Also in Leviticus 18, we are told that the previous inhabitants defiled the land because they did not keep the statues of the Lord. In Genesis, prior to Moses, Sodom was destroyed for breaking God’s law. I’m not aware of any instruction in the Bible that teaches either implicitly or explicitly that we are no longer obligated to obey and follow the Law of God, even as it applies to the governing of nations.
In the article “Why We Don’t Stone Adulterers”, Mr. Glomsrud states ”The civil laws pertained to the “nation” of Israel as a unique theocratic society”. The proof or justification he offers is that, “some scholars say so”, and that Israel is no longer has a socio-political expression, therefore we do not live in a time of intrusion ethics. This is a very week argument, finds no foundation in scripture and is based on his own autonomous reason.
Zrim you are correct that Romans 13 primarily address how believers are to live under the rule of Ceaser. Christians should be the best citizens, obey all the rules the civil magistrate has set before us, as far as they don’t violate our duty before the Lord. But Ceaser does have a duty before God as well, and that is to govern as a servant of the Lord. And praise God we live in a country were we have a voice in electing our Ceaser, and wouldn’t be honoring to God if we elected a legislatures, governors, and judges, that would put an end to gay marriage, abortion, and have a desire to protect the Church from all defilement, including adultery.
The problem with maintaining that the Bible is both a book about Christ's fuflfillment of the law and theonomy (of whatever stripe), as you seem to be doing, is that it is the ecclesiastical version of the soteriological notion that we are justified by faith and works. Either we are saved by faith alone, apart from works, or we are not; likewise, either Jesus fulfilled the whole law or he didn't.
The problem with your Romans 13 point is that you employed it to say that Caesar is bound to rule in obedience to God. And as you admit, that's not the point of the text, rather the point is to command believers to obey Caesar. So you'll have to find another NT text that backs up your point. So far as I know, all NT texts that address the believer's relation to the civil magistrate make the same point Romans 13 does, submit and obey. Where is there any NT text that commands that "Ceaser does have a duty before God as well, and that is to govern as a servant of the Lord"?
But the 2K point is that the Bible rules the church alone, not the world. We discipline members who violate the law of God and are not repentant. Typically, the theocrat will say that idolaters and false religionists (like Mormons or Catholics) will not be punished in the civil realm. But the 2Ker says all lawbreakers in the church should be disciplined (there's a difference between punishment and discipline, by the way). Maybe that's not you, but it is always puzzling how theocrats make allowances in modern polity, perhaps catering to core democratic values. It's not consistant at all. But 2K says the whole of the law should be observed, but the constituency is the church alone. We would discipline any who hold to Mormon or Roman heterodoxy, for example. The other option is that you are a consistent theocrat and would civilly sanction Catholics for being Catholics. But that's the Christian version of Sharia law.
Very good points. My concern with Theonomists is that they want to put us back into the theocracy of Israel without the understanding of the already/not yet issue. We are a part of the kingdom of God here on earth, but our Lord reigns in heaven and he has not brought his kingdom in its fulness until his return.
I Cor 5 & 6 are very helpful in looking at the scope of the church's authority and that of the state. I find that so many are surprised at just how little the NT says about the state besides the fact that the State is the servant of God and that Christians are to live quiet lives. What I find is that when Christ does return, he will bring the sword with him and bring back the theocracy so that the physical/spiritual dimensions will again be united.
I have always wondered about Daniel and his three friends (I'm too lazy to look up the spelling). Besides their refusal to bow to an idol or eat the king's food, I don't see any indication of Daniel, etc. trying to impose Israel's laws upon Babylon, and Daniel especially served in a very high capacity both with Babylon and Persia.
Enough rambling from me.
Good point about Daniel (it's one Hart makes in "A Secular Faith"); he practiced cultural obedience but cultic disobedience. I think also of Joseph. How does a Hebrew ascend to second in command amongst the Hebrew despising pagans? By demanding Pharaoh observe Yahweh's laws and calling down judgment upon him for not doing so, etc. and so forth a la today's theocrats and theonomist? No,quite the opposite: by showing wisdom and obedience, love and loyalty to his king because he understood these things shown to Pharaoh is to show them to Yahweh.
Somehow you equate my statements leading to a system of justification by faith and works. There is no doubt in my mind that the Bible teaches we are justified by grace alone, in the work of Christ alone, received through faith alone, revealed in the Bible alone, all to the Glory of God alone. And this is confirmed through the history of the Church’s confessions as seen in the Westminster Confession Chapter 11, and the Shorter Catechism (WSC) Q33, Heidelberg Catechism (HC) Q1, and so on. These confessions also teach and instruct the church what our duty is before God. WSC Q3 What do the scriptures principally teach? Answer: The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man. Also the WSC questions 41-81 give us what is commanded in the Law and what is required and forbidden. Heidelberg Catechism Q5 and Q64, as well as the Belgic Confession Article 25 speak to the duty of man. The second part of Article 25 is of particular interest, it states
“Nevertheless, we continue to use the witnesses drawn from the law and prophets to confirm us in the gospel and to regulate our lives with full integrity for the glory of God, according to his will.”
The Church of days past believed we use the witness drawn from the law and the prophets to confirm us in the gospel. That is quite something and it is much needed today from pastors to preach how we are to love the Law of the Lord. For if we say the Law of God in the Old Testament is harsh, we are saying we have a harsh Father in Heaven.
Zrim, perhaps you miss read my comment about Romans 13. I said the primary point of the passage is about how Christians are to live under the civil magistrate, but that is not the only point. Romans 13:4 clearly states that the civil magistrate is appointed by God to be His servant for the good of the Church. As you well know, God’s word is infinite and we will be forever in eternity learning from what God has revealed. Passages in scripture often have a multiple instructions and multiple applications.
As for the your comment “The Bible rules the church alone, and not the world.” The world and the church are subject to the same standard as found only in the Bible. What is sin for the world is also sin for the church, and what is sinful for the church is also sinful for the world. Furthermore what was sinful in the Old Testament is sinful in the New Testament unless God has implicitly or explicitly said otherwise.
I’m not sure what allowance you are referring to when you say that it puzzles you how theocrats make allowances in modern polity, perhaps you could clarify?
My main concern is that 2K is indifferent or to weak in the political realm. The church and our country needs Godly men who are submissive to the Lordship of Christ and have His word as the foundation for all the believe, do, and say, in all areas of life, including the realm of politics. We make gay marriage a crime, not because it hurts the family, but because God’s word tells us it is a crime. Abortion is not a states issue, it is a religious crime against God, and it ought to be considered a crime with the appropriate punishment.
I understand that you affirm sola fide. But my point is that what you give soteriologically with one hand is, so to speak, taken away ecclesiologically with the other in your theonomy, which is a variant of law/gospel confusion.
Romans 13:4 does not teach that the state exists to preserve the church. If you really believe that then you’ll have no problem with Obama calling synods and assemblies and then submitting to his decisions. I suspect you will, however, have a problem with that because you don’t like Obama, and if we found a magistrate to your liking then you’d be more open to it. But I have a categorical problem with any magistrate preserving the church, even the ones who think politically like me, because it’s a violation of the spirituality of the church. Romans 13:4, in keeping with the context, is simply teaching that believers should do good and shun evil as they participate in the civil realm because God has appointed one to enforce such things, and those blessings are to both believer and unbeliever alike.
Re your main concern (2K is indifferent or to weak in the political realm), no 2K puts politics into sane perspective by retaining the dignity of politics while also lowering the stakes as to what politics can actually yield. It reflects an old school idea that resists any notion of the Utopian state where, for example, babies never die and homosexuality is legislated into oblivion (the flip side of liberal Utopian ideals where everybody eats, is literate, fat and happy). All politics does is imperfectly order our public life and at best is after proximate justice, it doesn’t preserve exact justice or righteousness. It’s interesting to note that liberal critiques of old school 2K look a lot like theonomic ones. And, as long as you (inevitably) bring it up, if you think 2k is weak, this 2ker does think abortion is a states’ rights issue and opposes any lifer or choicer notion that local magistrates mayn’t rule themselves on the matter. The “crime against God” rhetoric is merely designed to instill fear and loathing and shut down any view that doesn’t agree by saying that heaven is on his side. Did you know that liberals consider illiteracy and poverty “crimes against God” and anyone who politically disagrees with their way of addressing those issues, well, heaven help them?
One who does not oppose abortion, rape, murder etc ... on the basis of God's word is working towards being a fool. For God's word tells us these things are abominations, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, which a fool despises. The word of the Lord proves true (Psalm 18:30). Let God be true and every man a liar (Rom 3:4)
What defines a crime, who ultimately gives criminal meaning to a certain act, the state, or God. In your view, if I understand correctly, abortion is not a crime because the State says so. Or perhaps your view is, abortion is criminal, but the state can allow it, and as a 2ker, this is ok, in fact a 2Ker is indifferent whether or not abortion is legal or illegal. Such an attitude does not bring glory to God.
The chief end of man is to Glorify God and enjoy this great God we are called to serve.
A couple of things.
Acts 5 certainly applies (as you point out) and Christians must do as Christ commands them even when the state says otherwise. Notice that Peter and the apostles took the beating and the civil punishment meted out, but then went on preaching Christ. The sinful behavior of those in the civil kingdom does not invalidate civil authority--it rendered those members of the Sanhedrin guilty before God.
I will devote a significant section of my book to the question of the church's prophetic function to the state (i.e., Revelation 11), to the question of civil disobedience, the tendency of the state to become bestial, and I Corinthians 6.
Remember, this is just a bare bones primer.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/two-kingdoms-primer-63060/
I would answer but the appeal is made to Mr. Riddlebarger...
"I don't believe any reformed writers would exclude the fact that the donation made to Christ includes "all things." How does Mr. Riddlebarger propose to account for the fact that the church is gathered out of the world and preserved in the world if the world is not under the dominion of Christ as Mediator? The 2K distinction as it set forth in the OP simply is not biblical or reformed. It is none other than Christ the faithful witness and the first-begotten of the dead Who is is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. 1:5. Without that understanding the Apocalypse makes little sense.
To avoid confusion it may be helpful to distinguish between the modern "dual two kingdom" view and the traditional "mutual two kingdom" view. It is in the interests of good historical theology to make note of the paradigm shift which has taken place."
Simple answer.
Does Christ intend to save the world? Or does he intend to save his people?
I'm not a hypothetical universalist. Christ's redemptive work is effectual for all those who are his and truly, not just externally, in the covenant of grace. Therefore in his mediatorial office he rules his church.
Seems like the key qualification Gillespie is making here , is, "being christians" and when christians use their informed englightened state in civil society, according to the revealed will of God, they influence society toward true religion.
Do you see any problems with what Gillespie is saying?
And just think of all the abortions that occured in the Roman Empire, including the exposure of unwanted infants. I don't recall the early Christians picketing such practices. Instead, they found the unwanted chidlren and took them as their own.
John the Baptist could have told the soldiers in his audience to step down from serving Caeser's army because of Caeser's refusal to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ over the civil sphere. Instead, he told them, "Don't extore money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay" (Luke 3.14). Even Peter and John's refusal to obey the Sanhedrin in Acts 5 was not a call to change any laws; rather, they flat out said that they would not disobey a clear command from their Lord (preaching in his name). And they were willing to suffer and die for that (which all the Apostles did to some degree).
And if we go against 2K, we are left with the big question of HOW? How specific do we get. Gun control? Taxes? Property rights? A military draft? Immigration? And on and on. I get the feeling that Christians would spend more time in the political sphere misusing Bible references than they would spreading the Gospel. Thankfully, the books of Acts gives us the insight into how the church grew: they preached the Gospel. Sometimes the State supported them. Sometimes the State opposed them. Either way, they preached.
The thing about being American-Christians, it seems to me, is that we tend to sound way more American than Christian. I know, that sounds unduly pious. But could it be that one of the factors that has contributed to this being a post-Christian era be that Christians have deemed the cares of this age at least as important—if not more—than the cares of the next?