RSSA Kingdom Not of This World
Colliding Kingdoms
In 1596 James Melville, a leader of the Scottish Kirk, declared that King James the 6th of Scotland:
was God’s silly vassal and that there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is Christ Jesus the King, and His kingdom the Kirk, whose subject King James VI is, and of whose kingdom, not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member he was.
Melville was standing upon a fundamental principle of Reformed social ethics— the distinction between the holy Kingdom of God and the secular kingdoms of men. Although James VI was King of Scotland, Jesus Christ was King of Zion. In the realm of the secular nation James enjoyed sovereignty, but in the holy church James was without distinction.
Melville’s showdown with King James is but one example of a common theme running through church history. The tense conflict between church and state continuously replays a more famous kingdom confrontation between King Jesus and Governor Pilate (John 18:36). Jesus had been arrested, tried by the Jews, and sent to the Roman civil governor Pontius Pilate for judgment. Jewish leaders capitalized on Rome’s violent impatience toward rebellion. They accused Jesus of treasonous sedition against Caesar’s Kingly authority. Had Jesus not declared, “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you†(Matt. 12:28)?
Confronting Jesus with the charge of rebellion, Pilate inquired, “Are you the King of the Jews?†In order to understand Jesus’ response we must first consider the nature of worldly kingdoms.
Pilate’s Power and the Kingdoms of Men
Following the great flood, God legitimatized the use of the sword to restrain sin declaring:
And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image…’ (Gen. 9: 5,6).
In the order of common grace, flowing out of the cross of Christ, civil government must exercise lawful violence in order to prevent unlawful violence. This is the nature and function of the kingdoms of men— to exercises the sword in order to restrain evil and establish order. Although justice is a noble vision, order is the sine qua non of legitimate civil authority. As the meek Jesus stands before Pilate his the imperial sword, often marked by brutality and injustice, remains legitimate. The Apostle Paul reminded the church at Rome:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities… For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, and avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 13:1-4).
The Spirituality of the Kingdom
Against the violent backdrop of this world’s kingdoms, Christ vindicates Himself against the charge of sedition declaring, “ My kingdom is not of this world†(John 18:36). Emphasizing the spiritual nature of His kingdom, Christ explains, “if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews†(John 18:35,36). Far from the violence of nations, the Kingdom of God is defined by “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit†(Romans 14:17).
Jesus explained to Nicodemus, “unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom†(John 3:3). The Kingdom of God is the realm of Spiritual renewal in Jesus Christ. It is the realm of the Holy Spirit’s application of Christ’s victory over sin and death. Therefore, the Kingdom of God is a “new creation†already enjoying the first fruits of Spiritual resurrection and renewal in Jesus Christ.
Confounding expectations, Jesus the Messiah did not come to judge but to be judged (John 12:47). Rather than raining down God’s just judgment upon the nations, Jesus Christ experienced the fullness of Divine wrath on their behalf. In doing so, Christ established His Kingdom in grace.
The Westminster Confession of Faith declares:
The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (WCF, Chapter 25:2).
Thus, Christ’s kingdom of grace is His visible church. A colony of heaven on earth, Christ’s church is the eternal glory of the age to come piercing the fading glory of the present passing age. Preaching peace between God and sinner, the church looks forward to the glorious consummation of Christ’s universal Kingdom at His final coming. Thus, Christ reigns over a Kingdom of grace now and glory later.
Two Kingdoms Distinguished
As Christ stood before Pilate two kingdoms were in conflict. Before Pilate stood a king whose kingdom transcends the passing order of this present age. Asked, are you guilty of treasonous rebellion, Christ justified Himself as sinless by declaring, “My kingdom is not of this world.†Rather, He is king over an eternal realm, the concerns of which far surpass the mundane realities of earthly politics. In response, Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, brutal bearer of the sword, punisher of all rebellion against Caesar, justified Christ with his just pronouncement; “I find no guilt in him†(John 18:38).
Jesus Christ is seated with all power in heaven and earth. This means that Jesus Christ is king over all spheres of life including both church and state. This is a complex biblical truth. From Christ’s conflict with Caesar, to Emperor Henry IV’s chilly encounter with Pope Gregory VII at Cannossa, to the bloody struggles of the Scottish Covenanters against state interference with the church, the acknowledgment of Christ’s universal reign over all things has created tension and conflict. Whether for the Roman Papacy’s declaration of sovereignty over the affairs of church and state or the Anglican settlement granting civil authority over the affairs of the church, Christ’s universal mediatorial Kingship has been cited as justification. Both systems fail to grasp the full power of Christ’s declaration, “My kingdom is not of this world.â€
Rather, we who would declare Christ’s kingship over the nations must be able to properly distinguish the secular and non-redemptive reign of Christ over the nations (the kingdom of His power) from His holy and redemptive reign over the church (the kingdom of His grace). To distinguish thus illuminates the wisdom of the American religious settlement granting institutional separation of church and state. Although we often fail to acknowledge it, the adoption of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution declaring, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…†was a vindication of Covenanter principles and an authentic step forward in the application of Christ’s Kingship.
Benjamin P. Glaser
November 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“civil government must exercise lawful violence in order to prevent unlawful violence”
The word that I have underlined is key to truly understanding the complexity of the argument being made on the use of force by the Kingdom of Man. The question then arises what exactly is “lawful violence”? And further how does a church render unto Caesar the right to use this force in a way that not only honors this limit but does so in a lawful manner? I make no claim to know the answer but in a religious environment where straight-out Pacifism is gaining greater traction (which I believe does not honor the decree for lawful violence in an edifying manner) how do we re-institute this two-kingdom claim?
Josh M.
November 7th, 2007 at 7:47 am
The Constitution only grants institutional separation of church and state to the authority it constructs, namely the Federal government. As per the 9th and 10th amendments, states themselves were free to declare institutional alliances of church and state. This was the original “American religious settlement.”
But in the post-1865 era, the Federal government dictates its secular order to the states. Unfortunately the Constitution, by not acknowledging explicitly the sovereignty of Christ, can easily be interpreted in a fully secular framework (supposedly godless). Thus we get a weird kind of polytheism as the state religion. With no particular god declared, unless “we the people” counts as that, this is the end result of the 1st amendment in its Constitutional context. The preamble to the Ten Commandments, unlike the preamble to the Constitution, will provide a far better model for future writers of constitutions.
W.H. Chellis
November 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Mr. Glaser, thank you for your comment. I agree that the concept of “lawful violence” must have its limits. This is an area where Christian ethicists have much work to do.
W.H. Chellis
November 7th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Josh, yes, I agree with you. The failure to legally “kiss the Son” has created an unfortunate ambiguity. Although there are two kingdoms (with very different administrations) there is but one King.
MarkPele
November 8th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I’ll re-make my original claim of long ago that says that there are three “kingdoms”, and I’ll use this post as a case-in-point that both the church and state like to squash the larger sphere of the family.
Rusty O.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I don’t see three kingdoms, just one, the church, but I’d like to suggest that it would help Mark’s case to see Gen. 9 in a patriarchal light vs. a state light. There was no state to wield the sword for Noah. Noah and Pilate are not seen clearly as parallels, in my mind.
Additionally, I think we need help with Mr. Chellis’s view of Romans 13. It can’t be as simple as some sort of blessing for the Roman Empire’s existence and work. After all, it was this same sword, apparently christened by Paul, which lopped his head off a few years later. N.T. Wright has been helpful here.
W.H. Chellis
November 9th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
The Romans 13 passage has been preached but the article has yet to be written. You have rightly guessed that it is coming in context of the two kingdom discussion.
MarkPele
November 11th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
So, what synod is the king answerable to in a one-kingdom system?
Rusty O.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am
First, I think the question of whether or not a king is accountable to any synod needs to be asked, since that is not assumed on this blog. But if your assumption is that a Christian king is answerable to a synod, then the synod (whoever it is) has just trumped the authority of the state and made it a servant to the King Eternal (if it exists in some capacity after this, then very well).
This is not an argument that the church needs to make up her mind about how to build roads and take out the garbage. It is an argument that the church needs a voice regarding issues of social justice and mercy, and furthermore, that her voice, if it is only equal to the king’s, will certainly be quelled by the one party that is allowed to kill people.
Catholicity would soon become a pragmatic need with the assumption that the king is accountable to the church in some way, so if your point is that this wouldn’t work now, you’re probably right.
Rusty
D Hart
November 18th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Not so fast, Rusty. Just because the king is a member of the church doesn’t give the church over the entire kingdom. If the king needed to be disciplined, and the church disciplined the king by excommunicating him, would that mean the church just excommunicated the kingdom?
The church does have authority over Christian politicians on things that are Christian, not over things that are political. A Christian poliitican can decide not to submit to the church’s authority. At which point, he’s still a politician but not a Christian.