Vast confusion exists today over the role of civil government. This has resulted in a growing support for ideologies such as socialism, even among Christians. Much of this confusion is due to the neglect of other forms of governing authority, particularly the family and the church. When family and the church are left out of the picture, people look to the civil government to fill the void by providing education, financial charity, and other services.
The Bible has much to say about all three spheres of governance (family, church, state). And since God has given the family and church significant roles in life, this means the state has a limited role. What is the limited role of the state? Scripture teaches that the state has a protectionist role. Romans 13 shows that civil government exists to punish wickedness, and principles of the Mosaic law, including the Ten Commandments, teach that civil government is to protect life and property.
Debating the Nature of Civil Government
Christians agree about this protectionist role of the state, at least in principle. The state should punish wicked acts, such as murder and theft. However, controversy arises even in these examples, for many governments do not prohibit the abortion of a child in the womb (though it is murder) and many states redistribute wealth through heavy taxation (though it is theft). And this is to say nothing about whether the state should punish other evils like adultery and blasphemy. Thus, Christians disagree over the nature of civil government.
There has been much written on civil government over the years, with modern debates invoking terms such as the “two kingdoms,” “sphere sovereignty,” and the “spirituality of the church.” Central to these debates are the following questions—What is the proper role of the state? How should the church relate to the state? And can we use the Bible in addressing the state, or must we limit ourselves to natural law arguments?
This two-part article will address these concepts and questions throughout. Part one will first critique the popular “Reformed two kingdoms” (R2K) view of civil government. Part two will then make the case that theocracy is a necessary form of civil government and that Christians should seek to establish some form of Christian government (though independent from the church).
The following critique of the Reformed two kingdoms will focus on the following:
R2K’s departure from the two kingdoms theology of the Reformers.
R2K’s erroneous division of the Noahic covenant.
R2K’s erroneous division of Scripture and natural law.
R2K’s creation-redemption dichotomy that fails to account for God’s institution of the family.
The Reformed Two Kingdoms (R2K) Scheme and Its Departure from the Reformers
A popular model of church-state relations has arisen in the modern day known as the “Reformed two kingdoms” (R2K). This theology is associated with Westminster Theological Seminary in California, with its most ardent defenders including David VanDrunen and D.G. Hart.
These men claim to follow the “two kingdom” theology of the Reformers. However, the R2K model is better termed as the “radical two kingdoms” because of its departure from the two kingdoms doctrine of Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin (as well as the Bible). Those men spoke of two kingdoms referring to “this age” and “the age to come.” This is in contrast to the “common kingdom” and “redemptive kingdom” scheme of R2K proponents.[1] The Reformers’ eternal kingdom (“the age to come”) referred to the invisible church, whereas the temporal kingdom (“this age”) included both the state and the visible church. In other words, the Reformers did not make the sharp state-church divide found in the R2K scheme.
Since VanDrunen has published heavily on this subject, we will focus on his writings. VanDrunen’s R2K view in particular distinguishes between the “common kingdom” and “redemptive kingdom” (identified respectively as the civil realm and the church). According to VanDrunen, the R2K common kingdom is founded on the Noahic covenant (Genesis 8:20–9:17), which includes the family, civil government, education, arts, etc. Jesus rules this civil kingdom as creator and sustainer, and it is guided by general revelation, namely natural law.
In contrast to the common kingdom, the R2K redemptive kingdom is founded on the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 15, 17), which includes the church and its mission. Jesus rules this spiritual kingdom as redeemer, and it is guided by special revelation, namely the Bible.
We start to see the consequences of this division when VanDrunen speaks of “redemption.” Whereas in the common kingdom God maintains a social order for Christians and non-Christians, in the redemptive kingdom God bestows salvation on Christians and sets them apart from the world. Thus, the Noahic covenant is non-redemptive in the R2K scheme. Following his view of the Noahic covenant, VanDrunen makes a sharp contrast between nature/creation and re-creation, explicitly denying that Christ redeems the creation order. VanDrunen says:
God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world, but is preserving them through the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Genesis 8:20–9:17 . . . Redemption does not consist in restoring people to fulfill Adam’s original task, but consists in the Lord Jesus Christ himself fulfilling Adam’s original task once and for all, on our behalf. Thus redemption is not “creation regained” but “re-creation gained” (VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 15, 26; my emphasis).
Thus, VanDrunen’s R2K scheme pits the common kingdom (which includes the state and family) against the redemptive kingdom (the church). R2K then asserts that Christ is not redeeming the state because the state is rooted in creation and creation is not being redeemed. Further, as we will see below, VanDrunen asserts that the state should only be guided by natural law, not the Bible.
Contrast this with the Reformers, whose two kingdom doctrine focused on the distinction between the temporal kingdom and the eternal kingdom. While the Reformers distinguished between the church and state, and even saw the state as being rooted in creation, they did not speak of the state as being under a “common” non-redemptive kingdom.
Moreover, Calvin in particular held that God’s special revelation ought to guide the state. Calvin did believe civil government should be governed by natural law, but he considered special revelation—particularly the Ten Commandments—to be a clearer guide. As seen in the following quotes, Calvin believed natural law is revealed in the Ten Commandments:
That inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables (Institutes, 2.8.1).
(Because it is necessary both for our dullness and for our arrogance), the Lord has provided us with a written law to give us a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law (Institutes, 2.8.1).
It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men (Institutes, 4.20.16).
Since the Ten Commandments are a clearer revelation of natural law, Calvin thought both tables of the Ten Commandments (the first table is commandments 1–4; second is 5–10) should be applied to civil government. This is why Calvin favored civil laws prohibiting blasphemy, since it violates the Third Commandment.
In accord with applying the first table of the law, Calvin held that civil government’s purpose was “to cherish and protect the outward worship of God,” “to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church,” and to “prevent idolatry, sacrilege against God’s name, blasphemies against his truth, and other public offense against religion from arising and spreading among the people” (Institutes 4.20.2). (The Westminster Assembly followed Calvin’s position here in Westminster Confession of Faith 23.3, though this was later modified by American Presbyterians).[2]
After reading Calvin’s above quotes on natural law and the role of civil government, it is hard to understand how VanDrunen can claim to be advocating the two kingdoms model of the Reformers in any reasonable sense.
R2K’s Erroneous Division of the Noahic Covenant
R2K not only departs from the historic Reformed view of the two kingdoms, but it also has significant biblical and theological shortcomings. R2K depends on a sharp contrast between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants, holding that the Noahic covenant is part of the common kingdom that is non-redemptive and non-salvific. What exactly VanDrunen means by “redemptive” is not always certain, though it is clear that in some sense he seeks to disconnect the Noahic covenant from the covenant of grace (the broader unified covenant of God’s salvation found in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants).
Contrary to R2K, while the Noahic covenant is made with “all creation,” it still has redemptive aspects and is connected with other redemptive covenants. This can be seen in the following points:
The Noahic covenant involves sacrificial animal offerings, similar to that of the Levitical system (Genesis 8:20-21);
The Noahic covenant is made with a worshiper of Yahweh (Noah) and his offspring;
The Noahic covenant involves “offspring,” typical of covenants that VanDrunen would consider redemptive, such as the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (Genesis 9:9; 15:18; 17:7, 9-10; 2 Samuel 7:12);
The Noahic covenant reaffirms the command to Adam to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), which is also part of the Abrahamic covenant in God’s command to Jacob (Genesis 9:1, 7; 35:11).
Thus, while the Noahic covenant is made with all creation, it still has “redemptive” aspects similar to other covenants. This undermines VanDrunen’s contrast between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants and thus undermines the entire R2K scheme. Contrary to VanDrunen, the Noahic covenant reaffirms the natural/creation order (“offspring,” “be fruitful and multiply”), which is then expanded upon in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants. Sacrifices are included that culminate in the sacrifice of Jesus, offspring are promised culminating in the true offspring of Abraham (Galatians 3:16), and God’s people are commanded to be fruitful, reaffirmed in the Great Commission to disciple the nations (Matthew 28:19).
Of the four points above, VanDrunen only seeks to counter point one, that the Noahic covenant involves a sacrificial offering and is thus redemptive. VanDrunen attempts to escape this point by arguing that there are two covenants made with Noah, one in Genesis 6:18 that promises Noah salvation by entering the ark, and a second covenant in Genesis 9 (vv. 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17) that promises to not destroy all creation again with a flood. VanDrunen’s two-Noahic-covenant distinction is based on the fact that the first covenant in 6:18 is God’s promise with Noah and his family to deliver them from the flood, whereas the second covenant in chapter 9 is with all creation to not destroy the world with a flood. He also argues that the terms of the 6:18 covenant are fulfilled in Genesis 8.
After making his case for two Noahic covenants, VanDrunen places Noah’s sacrifice in Genesis 8:20-21 under the first covenant, on the basis that Noah offered the sacrifice after being saved by God and before God’s promise in chapter 9. VanDrunen also says it is a sacrifice of “consecration” rather than “expiation of sins.” (On what basis are these two things exclusive?) Thus he claims, “This sacrifice does not . . . mean that the Noahic covenant is redemptive rather than common” (Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, footnote 2 on 80-81).
VanDrunen’s division of the Noahic covenant is unconvincing. There is no reason these two mentions of covenant in 6:18 and chapter 9 cannot be understood as one unified covenant, beginning with God’s promise to deliver Noah and his offspring from the flood (Genesis 6:18) and then being expanded after the flood so that God promises to never bring another flood to destroy all creation (Genesis 9). Recall that God instructed Noah to take animals (all creation!) on the ark with him—which was in Genesis 6. Right after saying He will establish His covenant with Noah in Genesis 6:18, God commanded Noah to bring two of every unclean animal on the ark with him (Genesis 6:19-21) and seven of every clean animal (Genesis 7:2-3). Thus, God’s concern with “all creation” was part of both Genesis 6 and Genesis 9. VanDrunen’s division into two Noahic covenants does not hold.
The continuation of one Noahic covenant in Genesis 6–9 is clear, as God promised to never again curse the ground or strike down every living creature at the time (“when”) He smelled the sacrifice. Yahweh’s promise not to strike down living creatures was in response to Noah’s sacrifice:
Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done (Genesis 8:20-21).
Thus we see that Noah’s sacrifice was part of the one Noahic covenant. Sacrifice is intricately connected with God’s promise to never again destroy creation by flood. Yet VanDrunen completely misses this point and places the sacrifice with a supposed “first” covenant with Noah in 6:18.
VanDrunen also makes a questionable move to make the Mosaic covenant fit his paradigm. He says, “The cultural commonality among believers and unbelievers ordained in the Noahic covenant was suspended for Israel within the borders of the Promised Land . . . God suspended these provisions of the Noahic covenant only inside the borders of the Promised Land” (Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 89-90).
This is a convenient way of dealing with the Noahic and Mosaic covenants. First VanDrunen divides the Noahic covenant into two, with only the “first” covenant being “redemptive” and applying to Christians. Then he says that even the “second” Noahic covenant (which was “non-redemptive” and applies to all humans) was suspended during the Mosaic covenant. Just a small suspension of 1,400 years. This really is an odd paradigm that VanDrunen has invented. By making some exception for the Mosaic covenant, it raises questions how he can see the Promised Land as a type of Christ’s inheriting the whole world.
R2K’s Erroneous Division of Scripture and Natural Law
The application of R2K theology is also problematic, as it holds that there is no distinctive “Christian” worldview that can be applied to civil government, politics, economics, psychology, etc. VanDrunen, in particular, believes that Christian efforts to transform society confuse the two kingdoms. He holds that we should only apply natural law to the civil sphere apart from biblical arguments and application.[3] This leads VanDrunen to odd practices like redefining “justice” in the civil realm:
While Christians should desire civil government to promote justice, whatever justice it achieves is the justice of the common kingdom, not of the redemptive kingdom proclaimed by Christ (Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 195).
Where does VanDrunen get the idea that justice of the civil government is disconnected from redemptive justice? VanDrunen does not expand upon this point. God’s justice is still justice, regardless of the means He uses to carry it out.
Further, where does VanDrunen base his assertion that civil government is limited to natural law argumentation? The very concept of natural law is grounded in the Bible (Romans 1:18-25), and the Bible here teaches that man “suppresses” even this natural revelation (Romans 1:18-20). This raises the question of the effectiveness of mere natural law arguments in addressing the civil sphere.
This suppression is in addition to the lack of ethical clarity provided by natural law. Natural law is not written down and thus introduces even more room for disagreement. Two advocates of natural law can come to two opposite conclusions. While there are challenges of interpreting Scripture, natural law arguments pose even greater challenges.[4] It was for this reason that, as seen above, Calvin wanted to apply the Ten Commandments to the state—“the Lord has provided us with a written law to give us a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law” (Institutes, 2.8.1).
The R2K position in effect ties the Christian’s hands behind his back by telling him not to use the most effective weapon God has given us to persuade men—the Word of God. As theologian John Frame says in his Review of VanDrunen’s A Biblical Case for Natural Law:
I am convinced that there is such a thing as natural law. But I am not at all convinced of Van Drunen’s (or anyone else’s) distinction between religious and secular kingdoms, and I do not see any reason to limit the use of Scripture to the religious kingdom as Van Drunen suggests. Scripture is God’s word, and God’s word is the foundation of morality. When we want to draw people, believers or unbelievers, to that foundation, we should be unashamed to refer to Scripture. I grant that there are many cultural forces telling us not to refer to Scripture in the public square. But we should not listen to them. The attempt of Van Drunen and others to convince us not to apply Scripture to civil matters is a failure.
Frame’s essential point is that there is no good reason to avoid applying the Bible to civil government. While Frame recognizes the distinction between church and state, as the church has the goal of preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments, he rejects the R2K division between the two. Frame again:
I do not deny the importance of other distinctions that are sometimes related to these. I am not saying, for example, that church and state are identical. The distinction between these is evident: in brief, the church does not bear the sword, and the state does not administer the sacraments. Nor is there any need to turn our cultural activities into churches, as by restricting our art to gospel tracts. But good art will be art that recognizes the comprehensive lordship of Jesus Christ. That doesn’t imply that there are distinctively Christian and non-Christian brush strokes. It does imply that a Christian artist should not be mistaken for a secular nihilist, or Muslim, or new-age Monist.
But given these distinctions, we should confess that culture is Jesus’ culture. To paraphrase Kuyper, as Jesus looks at our culture, he will always say, “Mine!!” But the distinction between church and state, or Christ and culture, cannot be helpfully understood by the two kingdoms scheme. Civil culture and redemption are both under God’s sovereignty, and under the authority of his infallible word.
Thus, while there is a proper distinction between church and state, R2K theology makes an improper division between the two, acting as if Christ does not rule the civil sphere and as if natural law is a better guide for civil law than God’s Word. But who is king of the civil sphere? Jesus, of course. And if Jesus is king of the civil sphere, then His Word must be applied to that sphere, even if the way it is applied differs from that of the church (e.g. the Bible guides the state in punishing wickedness, not requiring the preaching of the gospel and administering the sacraments).
In Which Kingdom Is the Family? R2K’s Creation-Redemption Dichotomy
There are other problems with the R2K scheme, including the fact that it does not adequately account for the family. If we adopt VanDrunen’s division of common kingdom and redemptive kingdom, it is not so certain where the family fits in.[5] The same is true for education, which is the role of parents and thus part of the family. VanDrunen places family and education in the common kingdom:
Families, governments, schools, and businesses are natural institutions, since their origins are in creation or in the Noahic covenant (Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 147)
While the family is rooted in creation and reaffirmed in the Noahic covenant, and while even unbelievers have families, VanDrunen ignores the important role of the family in God’s covenant. God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” is not only given to Adam and Noah (Genesis 1:28; 9:1), but is also given to Jacob in the midst of the Abrahamic promise (Genesis 35:11), showing that God brings these two covenants together in His redemptive purposes.
Further, Malachi speaks of God’s bringing marriages together to produce “godly offspring” (Malachi 2:15). God expects Christian parents to raise their children in the instruction of the Lord, and Paul commands children to obey their parents “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1-4). Christian children have a special place, which even VanDrunen recognizes as one who practices covenant infant baptism. Moreover, Paul speaks of a Christian spouse making both an unbelieving spouse and their children “holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14).[6] Thus the family does not fit so neatly into the R2K division. The family is rooted in creation but is being redeemed and has a special place in God’s covenant.
This issue of the family reveals one of the chief errors of R2K, which is a creation-redemption dichotomy. Has Christ not redeemed creation? Of course He has. Christ redeems marriage, family, education, government, arts, etc. because He redeems all things through the work of His church. Christ’s apostles thus give extensive instructions for the Christian family (e.g. Ephesians 5). Christ has been given all authority on earth, and His church is discipling the nations by teaching them His ways in all aspects of life (Matthew 28:18-19). Christ makes no such dualistic distinction as R2K proposes. Yet VanDrunen places the family under the common kingdom and explicitly states that God is not redeeming those things belonging to the common kingdom.[7] This is an inconsistency in his theology.
VanDrunen wants to pit creation against redemption and then the state (part of creation) against the church (part of redemption). This is a misreading of Scripture. At root is VanDrunen’s denial that Christ redeems the creation order. I will quote this sentence again to highlight this problem:
Redemption does not consist in restoring people to fulfill Adam’s original task, but consists in the Lord Jesus Christ himself fulfilling Adam’s original task once and for all, on our behalf. (VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 26).
It is not clear whether VanDrunen thinks the Cultural Mandate (“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion,” Genesis 1:28) applies to us today in that humans should have children and subdue the earth. However, he clearly rejects the position that God’s redemption involves the restoration of Christians to fulfill the Cultural Mandate. To VanDrunen, that is only something that Jesus fulfills “on our behalf.” Where does VanDrunen get that this creation command only applies to Jesus? Further, if God is not redeeming fallen creation, then what is the purpose of salvation? What exactly is God “re-creating”?
Contrary to VanDrunen, Scripture connects creation and redemption. The command to Adam to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) was also given to Jacob as part of the Abrahamic covenant:
And God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you” (Genesis 35:11-12).
Offspring and land, just like Adam and the garden, Abraham and the Promised Land, and Jesus and the new heavens and earth. God is restoring creation through His redemptive work. Creation is not something to be pitted against redemption. Rather, God is restoring what is fallen and renewing His people and the creation, which will one day be consummated in the new heavens and earth.
Thus far we have only dealt with the case against R2K theology. We will make a positive case for theocracy in part two.
[1] In his critique of Van Drunen, Steven Wedgeworth says, “The book repeatedly makes two fundamental confusions, however, and since these are guiding assumptions throughout, the contemporary two kingdoms theory eventually finds itself at considerable distance from the basic social vision of earlier thinkers like Luther and Calvin. These two confusions are 1) identifying the two kingdoms with the modern institutions of “Church” and “State” and 2) setting the contrast between the two kingdoms as one between “redemptive” rule on the one hand and “creational” rule on the other . . . For Calvin, as well as Luther and the rest of the Reformation, the two kingdoms were not approximations of the visible institutions of Church and State, but rather that of heaven and earth or spirit and body. The spiritual kingdom was eternal and immediate, whereas the civic kingdom was temporal and always mediated, by princes or by clergy and all other men in vocations.”
[2] “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God” (WCF 23.3).
[3] In John Frame’s review of VanDrunen’s A Biblical Case for Natural Law, Frame summarizes VanDrunen’s chapter 3 as follows: “Van Drunen’s basic position is that natural law is God’s law for ‘civil’ matters, and supernatural revelation is his law for ‘spiritual’ matters.”
[4] Frame, Review of VanDrunen’s A Biblical Case for Natural Law: “The difficulty of arguing ethical issues from natural law. People often say that it is difficult to argue ethical issues from Scripture in a society that does not honor Scripture’s authority. But it is even more difficult to argue from natural law. For natural law is not a written text. Even though it is objectively valid, there is no way of gaining public agreement as to what it says as long as we simply exchange opinions about what natural law says. For example, when people argue from natural law that abortion is wrong, they are essentially pitting their intuitions against the intuitions of others (intuitions which, when true, are often suppressed). Often such arguments are naturalistic fallacies, arguments from “is” to “ought:’ e.g., unborn children are genetically unique organisms, therefore we ought not to kill them. Arguments from Scripture are not problematic in this way.”
[5] This point is made by Robert Godfrey in his discussion with David VanDrunen.
[6] VanDrunen mentions this passage only in a brief footnote. Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 148.
[7] Ibid., 15, 26.
Photo Credit: FreePik.com