The Two-Kingdoms Theory

Robert Letham

Does Christ’s kingdom cover all things or only the church? Some claim that his kingdom is synonymous with the church. The rest of creation, it is said, is a “common kingdom,” directed by God’s providential rule, and is to be distinguished sharply from the sphere in which God’s redemptive purposes are unfolded. This is known as the two-kingdoms theory, associated with David VanDrunen, Darryl Hart, and others. It has affinities with Lutheranism. I will focus on VanDrunen, the most prominent voice of this school of thought. He has many valuable things to say, much wise counsel, but space forbids my commenting on them; rather, I will address the distinctive features of his case.

Broadly, the argument advanced for the idea of two kingdoms is as follows. The mandate given by God to Adam to govern creation and subdue it was a task given to the human race as a whole. After the flood, it was reiterated in the Noachic covenant, in the new context of a fallen world that had been subject to divine judgment. The covenant of grace, instituted by God with Abraham and administered in distinct ways thereafter, is a redemptive covenant and came to fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It is now located in the church. As a redemptive covenant, it is of a different order from the Noachic. Christian believers belong to the church, in which God’s plans for his new creation are worked out. Christ is Mediator of the new covenant, and he is also Mediator of creation; however, these are different realms. The redemptive covenant is governed by special revelation, in the Bible, whereas the common kingdom is regulated by natural law, written on the consciences of all people. Ultimately the common kingdom will end when the existing creation is destroyed by fire (2 Pet. 3:1–13), and everything in it, including all human culture as we have known it, will be annihilated.

Hence, there is a radical dualism between the realms of creation and redemption. The world operates in the common kingdom, in which believers and unbelievers alike function. Its basic mode of operation is natural law, written on human hearts from creation. Its destiny is not redemption but ultimate destruction. Christians are to work in it, to do good works, to use their gifts, but they do so alongside unbelievers. Special revelation, found in the Bible, is not applicable to this realm, and any attempt to “redeem” it for Christ is futile; indeed, it can savor of an attempt to earn salvation by good works. It is in the church that the redemptive kingdom of Christ is to be found. This is the realm of the new covenant, the new creation, governed by Christ through his Word and Spirit. The only element of the common kingdom that will last into the eternal state is the resurrection of the bodies of believers at the last day.

The two-kingdoms idea has the merit of pointing to two radically different eternal destinies. It also highlights the reality that, until Christ returns, the church and its members are pilgrims and strangers in a world that has been deeply affected by sin and rebellion against God. However, it is in contrast to Herman Bavinck, who held that Christians of all people are, in another sense, at home in the world, since it was created and is directed by the triune God, with Christ its Mediator. Moreover, as Beach remarks, the two-kingdoms view splits the Christian believer into a dualism: under Christ’s authority in the kingdom of God but neutral in the common kingdom. It appears to undermine the Bible as the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Moreover, it is not apparent that such a dualism is sustainable in the programmatic way that the two-kingdoms theory holds. We have noted that Christ is exalted as King over the universe. His rule over his church is connected integrally with his cosmic authority. He is Head over all things for the church (Eph. 1:20–23). The Lion of the tribe of Judah, who alone has authority to govern the world and to execute the judgments of God, is at the same time the Lamb who was slain on the cross for our salvation (Rev. 5:1ff.). As ruler of kings on earth, he is also the one who has freed his church from its sins by his blood and made us a kingdom of priests (Rev. 1:5–6).

There is a serious Christological problem with the two-kingdoms theory—there is only one King and there can only be one kingdom in two distinct realms, not two separate kingdoms. Indeed, Christ’s redemptive work is portrayed as a progressive subjugation of his enemies until the very last enemy is abolished at his parousia (1 Cor. 15:20–26). During this time, the church destroys opposing arguments and leads every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Cor. 10:1–6). It is more than doubtful that the devil considers the world of human culture to be a “common kingdom.” It is even less likely that Christ, given all authority in heaven and earth, will restrict his lordship to the religious sphere only or consider the world he created and maintains to be a lost cause. While the church is indeed distinct from the world, Christ rules both in coordinated coherence (Eph. 1:20–23).

Behind this theory, in the case of VanDrunen, lies a literalist interpretation of Scripture akin to dispensationalist hermeneutics. He considers the language of 2 Peter 3 to indicate that the present world is to be destroyed literally by fire, all vestiges of human culture wiped out. He writes, “The New Testament teaches that the natural order as it exists will come to a radical end and that the products of human culture will perish along with the natural order.” The present order “will be burned up, melt, and dissolve.” The earth will remain no more. However, Peter uses the same language with reference to the world of Noah’s day, which was destroyed by water. That world was not annihilated. The destruction related to the judgment of God on human sin; the earth remained. The human race and the various nonhuman species were preserved. Peter writes in the language of apocalyptic, with graphic visual imagery relating to the judgment of the wicked. The creation is no more to be eradicated than, at the overthrow of Babylon, did the stars cease to emit their light or was the earth shaken off its axis (Isa. 13:9–13).

In order to escape the consequences of his position, VanDrunen has to agree that there is one exception—believers are resurrected. Beyond this, “asserting that anything else in this world will be transformed and taken up into the world-to-come is speculation beyond Scripture.” Indeed, VanDrunen continues, “The New Testament teaches that the entirety of present cultural activities and products will be brought to a radical end … at the second coming of Christ.” “The flood indicates that the products of present human culture are doomed to destruction with the natural order itself.” Christians cannot expect to see the fruit of their labors in the New Jerusalem. The only part of creation that will remain is believers themselves.

However, humans are part of creation. If we escape the conflagration, creation itself has escaped too, since humanity is its chief part. As Venema points out, reflecting on Romans 8:18–23, “the redemption for which the children of God eagerly await and the redemption of the creation itself are intimately connected. Individual eschatology and cosmic eschatology are so joined together that what is true for believers holds true for creation.” Since the whole cosmos groans like a woman in labor anticipating its redemption and glory, how can it be brought to a radical end (Rom. 8:18–23)? The whole creation cannot therefore be annihilated. VanDrunen’s argument sounds plausible only if we ignore the evidence against it, much like a legal advocate charged to make the best case on behalf of his client. Moreover, one assumes VanDrunen holds that the wicked will also be raised from the dead to face judgment, and that he is not an annihilationist but believes that they will suffer the eternal consequences of their sins. Under even a cursory crossexamination, the argument that the whole creation will be extinguished begins to evaporate.

Mark Beach, in criticizing the Lutheran view of two kingdoms, demonstrates its remarkable convergence with the ideas propounded by Van-Drunen. Its quietist tendency, in encouraging passivity toward the status quo, paved the way for tyranny. Beach comments:

As has been frequently noted, an unforeseen implication of the Lutheran understanding of the two-kingdoms doctrine emerged with Hitler’s rise to power and the ideology of National Socialism. The German Christians, accustomed to a Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms, readily capitulated to the Führer and accommodated the church to function in support of the state. However, the confessing church [mainly Reformed] viewed matters quite differently. This difference was aptly expressed in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s words of resistance, when he said, “we must deny that there are God-willed autonomous spheres of life which are exempt from the lordship of Christ, and do not need to listen to this Word. What belongs to Christ is not a holy sacred district of the world, but the whole world.”

As Beach continues, the crucial question is not God’s sovereignty but the scope of the lordship of Christ as the incarnate Mediator. There is no part of life exempt from his lordship, no sphere beyond his authority. The world is not autonomous. Beach concludes that for the two-kingdoms theory, Christ’s redemptive rule, expressed in the Bible, is not relevant to civil government or the common kingdom. Christ’s work as Savior is restricted to the ethical-religious. Venema shares this concern:

The service of Christians in the common kingdom is of a piece with the service of non-Christians, and it has no vital connection with the gospel or Christ’s work of redemption. It is, strictly speaking, a “secular” and not a “spiritual” service. The problem with this perspective is that … it can only encourage the secularizing of human life in God’s world and the privatizing of the claims of Christ upon it.

Elsewhere, in the late 1980s, long before the two-kingdoms theory surfaced, I wrote, “To separate creation and redemption is, so to speak, a Nestorian position. Just as Nestorius held the two natures of Christ apart without doing adequate justice to the unity of his person … there is potential for a disruption in understanding the works and ways of God.” Rather, they are like two concentric circles in which Christ reigns supreme. Again:

If Christ is creator and sustainer of the universe, and he is to remould it … no realm is out of bounds to the Christian faith. All things—education, politics, business, sport, the arts, family life, economic conditions … scientific inquiry, the legal profession …—are to be seen from the perspective of the creation mediatorship of Jesus Christ. This represents not just one way of looking at the world. Since he made it, to view the universe from any other perspective will result in distortion.

Indeed, as mentioned above, the two-kingdoms theory has Christological implications. It represents a retraction of Christ’s sphere of authority.

Furthermore, the two-kingdoms theory runs counter to the historic Reformed attitude toward the created realm. As I have suggested, it has more in common with Lutheranism. It was in Reformed circles that resistance theory emerged and flourished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It had a profound effect, facilitating the emergence of responsible and democratic government, not only in Europe but also in North America. This required Reformed thinkers and activists to suppose that the political realm, among others, was of direct consequence to the gospel and to apply the Word of God to every area of life. They were cognizant of the reality that the civil ruler is accountable ultimately to God (Rom. 13:1–7) and that the kings of the earth are warned to “serve the Lord with fear,” to

kiss the Son,

lest he be angry, and you perish in the way. (Ps. 2:10–12)

This does not seem like a “common kingdom,” shared with a usurper. All areas of life are under Christ’s authority (Matt. 28:18–20; Eph. 1:22–23); not a blade of grass is excluded from his rightful realm.

The position betrays a naïve and complacent view of the propensities of fallen people. We are in a war. There is an enemy. That enemy is no gentleman, prepared to play by rules and on a level playing field. When the world around us is relinquished to a supposedly neutral “common kingdom,” that enemy will seize control, and in many ways has done so and is increasingly advancing.

John Wind makes a valiant attempt to suggest that much of the disagreement concerning the two-kingdoms view is misunderstanding. In part, this may be so, but it cannot hide radical differences. Wind correctly points to the major conflict on the relationship of biblical covenants, stemming from the theories of Meredith Kline. He highlights the point that VanDrunen makes continual contrasts between various covenants (creation and Noachic, Noachic and Abrahamic, Abrahamic and Mosaic, Mosaic and new, new covenant inaugurated and new covenant consummated). To my mind, this is a type of Reformed dispensationalism.

---

Letham, Robert. 2019. Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.