Calvin And The Two Kingdoms: Calvin’s Political Philosophy In Light Of Contemporary Discussion

By Jeong Koo Jeon

[Jeong Koo Jeon is Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at the Chesapeake Reformed Theological Seminary in Maryland and a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America.]

Calvin’s concept of the “two kingdoms” has been very influential not only for the understanding of the relationship between church and state in the Reformed and evangelical traditions but also in western civilization as a whole since the Protestant Reformation in Europe.[1]

As we live in the Global Mission Age due to the development of science and technology through the benefits of God’s common grace, it is important to formulate and provide a biblical worldview not only for believers in the church but also for believers’ lives in the present world so that they may glorify God through all facets of their lives, expanding God’s kingdom throughout the world.

In this article, I will revisit Calvin’s concept of the two kingdoms in light of contemporary discussion. In doing so, I will attempt to comprehensively and critically evaluate Calvin’s view. Calvin understood and developed his concept of the two kingdoms in his own life through both religious and political contexts, which can be helpfully understood as a sixteenth-century form of European Christendom. Some scholars suggest that Calvin made a clear distinction between church and state in his analysis of political philosophy, which was interpreted and explained by the concept of the two kingdoms. For example, VanDrunen argues that Calvin’s political philosophy taught “clear distinctions between church and state”: “In this article I discuss important aspects of Calvin’s view of church and society and explain how, contrary to what we would expect from a theocratic tyrant, his theology taught clear distinctions between church and state and advocated significant yet distinct liberties in both realms. Calvin’s legacy here has been profound and is still worth embracing today.”[2]

However, it is my assessment that Calvin was unable to offer a clear distinction between church and state, even though it was his goal to do so through his analysis of the concept of the two kingdoms. His concept of the two kingdoms left out a tension, and provided a hermeneutical, theological, and practical ground for his followers to pursue the idea of the Christian state or theocracy which is the practical outcome of an amalgam of church and state.

I will argue that Calvin identified the Jewish theocracy under the Old Covenant as a type of the eternal heavenly kingdom, which is irreproducible in the present world but can only be consummated when the Parousia comes. However, his concept of the two kingdoms inconsistently allows for a Christian theocracy under the New Covenant because he advocated the concept of a Christian state or city as desirable in the present world where Christians are the dominant group in society

In light of Calvin’s understanding of the two kingdoms, his affirmation and support of Servetus’s execution because of his denial of the doctrine of the Trinity in the city of Geneva was not an accidental one; it was the result of his political philosophy, carefully reflected upon and formulated by hermeneutical and theological principles. In that sense, I will argue that Calvin’s idea of the two kingdoms should not be identified as a clear distinction between church and state. Rather, it is an inconsistent distinction between church and state that needs revision as we move into the Global Mission Age.

I. Two Kingdoms

Medieval theology lost the correct theological and practical vision of the distinction between church and state. Medieval Christendom, without a proper separation between church and state, was a theological byproduct of an absence of the proper distinction between common grace and saving grace. Calvin, as a great Reformer, witnessed the unbiblical nature of medieval Christendom in his own religious and political contexts in sixteenth-century Europe. As he adopted and developed his understanding of the two kingdoms, Calvin came to embrace the two kingdoms doctrine as pioneered by Luther. He adopted and developed it further in light of the distinction between common grace and saving grace along with the recognition of natural law in the milieu of general revelation, which has been engraved by God on everyone’s heart according to the principle of “the image of God” (imago Dei).[3]

As such, Calvin carefully recognized the proper place of God’s common grace and saving grace. He argued that God created human beings in his own image, so that human beings are distinguished from “brute beasts” as rational creatures due to “the general grace of God” (generalem Dei gratiam) although they are totally depraved due to the Fall. Interestingly Calvin described God’s common grace as two-fold with “the general grace of God” (generalem Dei gratiam) and “God’s special grace” (specialis Dei gratia). Calvin argued that some people receive “God’s special grace” as the benefit of God’s common grace; God bestows it on selected political leaders or other gifted people as we have witnessed several examples within the covenant community of Israel in the OT:

We see among all mankind that reason is proper to our nature; it distinguishes us from brute beasts, just as they by possessing feeling differ from inanimate things. Now. because some are born fools or stupid, that defect does not obscure the general grace of God. Rather, we are warned by that spectacle that we ought to ascribe what is left in us to God’s kindness. For if he had not spared us, our fall would have entailed the destruction of our whole nature. Some men excel in keenness; others are superior in judgment; still others have a readier wit to learn this or that art. In this variety God commends his grace to us, lest anyone should claim as his own what flowed from the sheer bounty of God. For why is one person more excellent than any other? Is it not to display in common nature God’s special grace, which, in passing many by, desires itself bound to none? Besides this, God inspires special activities, in accordance with each man’s calling. Many examples of this occur in the Book of Judges, where it is said that “the Spirit of the Lord took possession” of those men whom he had called to rule the people [ch. 6:34]. In short, in every extraordinary event there is some particular impulsion. For this reason, Saul was followed by the brave men “whose hearts God had touched” [I Sam. 10:26].[4]

Accepting the tradition, designating man as “a social animal” (animal sociale). Calvin insisted that God created man as “a social animal” so that he has a “natural instinct to foster and preserve society.” As a result, we can witness “universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and order” (civilis cuiusdam honestatis et ordinis universales impressione) within all human beings’ minds. So, it is a universal phenomenon that all human organizations are regulated by laws, which reflect natural law. This law is implanted in all, “without teacher or lawgiver.” Thus, Calvin summarized the foundation of political organization as follows:

Of the first class the following ought to be said: since man is by nature a social animal, he tends through natural instinct to foster and preserve society. Consequently, we observe that there exist in all men’s minds universal impressions of a certain civic fair dealing and order. Hence no man is to be found who does not understand that every sort of human organization must be regulated by laws, and who does not comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence arises that unvarying consent of all nations and of individual mortals with regard to laws. For their seeds have, without teacher or lawgiver, been implanted in all men. . . . Yet the fact remains that some seed of political order has been implanted in all men. And this is ample proof that in the arrangement of this life no man is without the light of reason.[5]

Interpreting Rom 2:14, the classical Pauline reference for the biblical validity of the affirmation of natural law, Calvin argued that Gentiles have “a law” although they do not have “a written law,” which was given to the Jews in the OT Calvin added that Paul sets “nature in opposition to a written law,” which signifies that the Gentiles universally have had natural law as “the natural light of righteousness,” which has functioned in the place of the moral law, written on two stone tablets for the Jews in the OT:

They have then a law, though they are without law: for though they have not a written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just; as they could not otherwise distinguish between vice and virtue; the first of which they restrain by punishment, and the latter they commend, and manifest their approbation of it by honouring it with rewards. He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that they were a law to themselves.[6]

It is evident that Calvin had a clear theological consciousness of God’s bestowal of grace in two different realms through “the divine Spirit” (divini Spiritus); one is the grace for “the common good of mankind” (generis humani bonum) which is in the realm of common grace. The other is in the application of personal salvation which is the sovereign work of “the Spirit of God” in the realm of saving grace. Interpreting Exod 31:2-11 and 35:30-35, Calvin argued that “the Spirit of God” communicates to “the most excellent in human life” as demonstrated by the artistic gifts of Bezalel and Oholiab when building the Tabernacle. Meanwhile, “the Spirit of God dwells only in believers,” bestowing “the Spirit of sanctification” (Spiritu sanctificationis) in the execution of saving grace as Paul states in Rom 8:9 and 1 Cor 3:16:

Meanwhile, we ought not to forget those most excellent benefits of the divine Spirit, which he distributes to whomever he wills, for the common good of mankind. The understanding and knowledge of Bezalel and Oholiab, needed to construct the Tabernacle, had to be instilled in them by the Spirit of God [Ex. 31:2-11; 35:30-35]. It is no wonder, then that the knowledge of all that is most excellent in human life is said to be communicated to us through the Spirit of God. Nor is there reason for anyone to ask, What have the impious, who are utterly estranged from God, to do with his Spirit? We ought to understand the statement that the Spirit of God dwells only in believers [Rom. 8:9] as referring to the Spirit of sanctification through whom we are consecrated as temples to God [I Cor. 3:16]. Nonetheless he fills, moves, and quickens all things by the power of the same Spirit, and does so according to the character that he bestowed upon each kind by the law of creation.[7]

Recognizing the benefits of God’s common grace, Calvin emphasized that believers ought to enjoy and share the benefits received by common grace such as “physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines” although they were developed by non-Christians: “But if the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines, by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God’s free gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just judgment for our sloths.”[8]

As such, Calvin properly used the concepts of natural law in the milieu of general revelation and the distinction between common grace and saving grace not only to present a biblical worldview but also the theological background of a distinction between church and state in terms of the two kingdoms.[9]

Having used these theological sources and tools, Calvin developed the concept of the two kingdoms to make a distinction between church and state against the medieval ideal of the official state church. Calvin viewed medieval European political philosophy as unbiblical, and then developed the distinction between church and state in the context of the two kingdoms. Certainly, Calvin viewed the idea of the official state church as an amalgam of church and state. That is the reason why he carefully reflected upon the relationship between church and state in light of the Bible. Calvin recognized that there is “a twofold government in man”; there are spiritual and political governments. The spiritual government takes care of and concerns “the life of the soul” while the political government concerns “the present life”:

Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately.[10]

Calvin analyzed the church as an institution, which primarily takes care of “the life of the soul” as “the spiritual kingdom” (regnum spirituale). And he defined the role of the state, directly related to “the present life,” as “the political kingdom” (regnum politicum):

The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.[11]

Calvin carefully used the distinction between church and state as an effective biblical concept to provide a succinct critique for those who oppose the idea of the two kingdoms. Calvin was aware of the unhealthy political philosophies, promoted by the Anabaptists, denying the authority of the state on the one hand, and the abuse of tyrannical power, promoted by the political philosophy of Machiavelli, represented by his monumental work II Principe, on the other hand.[12] Calvin responded to the European political context of the sixteenth century, which was darkly overshadowed by medieval Christendom. Calvin argued that the Anabaptists endeavored to overturn the state, which is a “divinely established order,” exclusively emphasizing Christ’s spiritual kingdom while “the flatterers of princes” excessively praised their own “political power,” rejecting “the rule of God” in the arena of politics:

For although this topic seems by nature alien to the spiritual doctrine of faith which I have undertaken to discuss, what follows will show that I am right in joining them, in fact, that necessity compels me to do so. This is especially true since, from one side, insane and barbarous men furiously strive to overturn this divinely established order: while, on the other side, the flatterers of princes, immoderately praising their power, do not hesitate to set them against the rule of God himself. Unless both these evils are checked, purity of faith will perish. Besides, it is of no slight importance to us to know how lovingly God has provided in this respect for mankind, that greater zeal for piety may flourish in us to attest our gratefulness.[13]

Developing and adopting the idea of the two kingdoms, Calvin tried to balance the roles of church and state. During the Protestant Reformation, the Anabaptists denied the authority of the rulers of the state because they only recognized Christ’s spiritual kingdom, denying Christ’s indirect rule over the state through the ordination of earthly kings and magistrates.

The first Anabaptistic confession, the Schleitheim Confession, formulated in 1527, suggests that the political philosophy of the Anabaptists was based upon a radical dualism, which provided a pessimistic worldview and complete detachment from the activities of the political kingdom:

IV. We have been united concerning the separation that shall take place from the evil and the wickedness which the devil has planted in the world, simply in this; that we have no fellowship with them, and do not run with them in the confusion of their abominations. So it is; since all who have not entered into the obedience of faith and have not united themselves with God so that they will to do His will, are a great abomination before God, therefore nothing else can or really will grow or spring forth from them than abominable things. Now there is nothing else in the world and all creation than good or evil, believing and unbelieving, darkness and light, the world and those who are [come] out of the world, God’s temple and idols, Christ and Belial, and none will have part with the other.[14]

The Anabaptists also denied the Christian’s right to be “a magistrate,” who has the power and authority to use “the sword,” arguing that Jesus rejected being the earthly King of Israel although his followers insisted:

Third, is asked concerning the sword: whether the Christian should be a magistrate if he is chosen thereto. This is answered thus: Christ was to be made king, but He fled and did not discern the ordinance of His Father. Thus we should also do as He did and follow after Him, and we shall not walk in darkness. For He Himself says: “Whoever would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” He Himself further forbids the violence of the sword when He says: “The princes of this world lord it over them etc., but among you it shall not be so.”[15]

Observing the biblical nature of dualities such as “the flesh” as opposed to “the Spirit” and “worldly” as opposed to “Christians,” the Anabaptists read these dualities from the perspective of a radical dualism. In doing so, they denied the Christian’s dual citizenship in the spiritual kingdom which is ultimate, and his citizenship in the political kingdom which is temporary. And they concluded that “a Christian” should not be “a magistrate”:

Lastly one can see in the following points that it does not befit a Christian to be a magistrate: the rule of the government is according to the flesh, that of the Christians according to the Spirit. Their houses and dwelling remain in this world, that of the Christians is in heaven. Their citizenship is in this world, that of the Christians is in heaven. The weapons of their battie and warfare are carnal and only against the flesh, but the weapons of Christians are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldly are armed with steel and iron, but Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation, and with the Word of God.[16]

I briefly explored the Anabaptistic political philosophy that was founded upon a radical dualism which is a misrepresentation of dualities as presented in the Bible. In addition, this philosophy completely lacked the concept and implications of common grace, and the proper understanding and implications of natural revelation, which are foundational not only for the biblical worldview but also for the idea of the two kingdoms, with which Calvin was dealing.

Calvin responded critically to the Anabaptistic rejection of the legitimacy of the use of sword by the state and Christian participation in political activities and the right to be a magistrate of the state. Alluding to the principle of “the teaching of the gospel” in Luke 21:19 and Rom 12:21, Calvin argued that believers should be patient and conquer “evil by doing good” in their personal lives. So, the believers’ arms in their personal lives are not “force and violence” but “prayer and gentleness in order to pass their days.” However, Calvin carefully noted that “the public sword” was ordained by God to protect the citizens of a state as Paul described in Rom 13:4. Moreover, “the Spirit of God Himself” warranted “the public sword,” and “the magistrate” is “a minister of God” for the benefit of citizens to restrain and prevent “the violence of the wicked.” In that sense, Calvin argued that the rejection of “the public sword” by the Anabaptists is “a blasphemy against God Himself”:

Now it is true that the usage of the sword in particular must not be entrusted to just anyone for resisting evil. For the arms of Christians are prayer and gentleness in order to pass their days in patience and conquer evil by doing good, in accordance with the teaching of the gospel (Luke 21:19; Rom. 12:21). Thus the duty of each of us is to suffer patiently when someone offends us rather than to use force and violence. 

But to condemn the public sword which God ordained for our protection is a blasphemy against God Himself. The Spirit of God Himself proclaims through Saint Paul (Rom. 13:4) that the magistrate is a minister of God for our benefit and on our behalf, for the purpose of restraining and preventing the violence of the wicked. And for that reason the sword is placed in his hands in order to punish crimes.[17]

Responding to the Anabaptists who argued that Christians cannot become magistrates in the political kingdom, Calvin noted that the office of magistrate is a holy vocation that is “holy and lawful,” ordained and approved by God. In addition, Calvin responded to the Anabaptistic rejection of the believer’s right to hold the position of magistrate from the perspective of redemptive history. Calvin observed that the Anabaptists correctly argued that “the civil government of the people of Israel” was a type of “the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ,” which lasted only until the first coming of Jesus. Agreeing with the Anabaptists about the typological nature of the kingdom of Israel in the OT, Calvin deduced the important notion that the kingdom of Israel in the OT was “a political government,” and the principle itself should be applied to all nations:

We worship the same God that the fathers of old did. We have the same law and rule that they had, showing us how to govern ourselves in order to walk rightly before God. It thus follows that a vocation that was considered holy and lawful then cannot be forbidden Christians today, for a vocation is the principal part of human life and the part that means the most to God. From which it follows that we should not deny ourselves the vocation of civil justice, nor drive it outside the Christian church. For our Lord has ordained it and approved it as good for the people of Israel. And He has appointed His most excellent servants to it and even His prophets. 

They will reply, possibly, that the civil government of the people of Israel was a figure of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ and lasted only until His coming. I will admit to them that, in part, it was a figure, but I deny that it was nothing more than this, and not without reason. For in itself it was a political government, which is a requirement among all people.[18]

Critiquing the Anabaptistic understanding of the relationship between church and state, Calvin used an analogy “between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life”:

First, before we enter into the matter itself, we must keep in mind that distinction which we previously laid down so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature. For certain men, when they hear that the gospel promises a freedom that acknowledges no king and no magistrate among men, but looks to Christ alone, think that they cannot benefit by their freedom so long as they see any power set up over them. They therefore think that nothing will be safe unless the whole world is reshaped to a new form, where there are neither courts, nor laws, nor magistrates, nor anything which in their opinion restricts their freedom. But whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct.[19]

Calvin was also critical of the Jewish political philosophy, which sought after Messiah’s earthly and visible kingdom. This view, according to Calvin, is another example of the amalgam between the church as “Christ’s spiritual kingdom” (spirituale Christi regnum) and the state as “the civil jurisdiction” (civilem ordinationem). Interpreting Pauline passages such as 1 Cor 7:21; Gal 3:28; 5:1; and Col 3:11, Calvin argued that the distinction between church and state under the New Covenant is a biblical ideal:

Since, then, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and enclose Christ’s Kingdom within the elements of this world, let us rather ponder that what Scripture clearly teaches is a spiritual fruit, which we gather from Christ’s grace; and let us remember to keep within its own limits all that freedom which is promised and offered to us in him. For why is it that the same apostle who bids us stand and not submit to the “yoke of bondage” [Gal. 5:1] elsewhere forbids slaves to be anxious about their state [I Cor. 7:21], unless it be that spiritual freedom can perfectly well exist along with civil bondage? These statements of his must also be taken in the same sense: In the Kingdom of God “there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, neither slave nor free” [Gal. 3:28, Vg: order changed]. And again, “there is not Jew nor Greek, uncircumcised and circumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman; but Christ is all in all” [Col. 3:11 p.]. By these statements he means that it makes no difference what your condition among men may be or under what nation’s laws you live, since the Kingdom of Christ does not at all consist in these things.[20]

Reading through the historical accounts of the four Gospels and the book of Acts, Calvin noted that the Jews falsely expected a Messianic earthly kingdom for Israel. Jesus’ disciples made similar mistakes “until after His resurrection” as Luke clearly witnesses the story in Acts 1:7. Thus, Jesus corrected the false expectation of the Messianic earthly kingdom that the Jews, including his disciples, anticipated. And he tried to correct it through his earthly ministry until his ascension:

Everyone knows the silly fantasy which the Jews had about the Messiah: that is, how they thought He would have a kingdom flourishing in this world, that they might live in this world in ease and comfort and triumph over others. So much so that even the apostles, until after His resurrection, held this notion in their heads, as Saint Luke points out in the first chapter of Acts (v. 6). That is what motivated the people to want to make Jesus Christ king by force, in order that by this means they might be free of subjection to the Romans. Therefore it is no surprise that our Lord hid himself, since that wish derived from a wicked and perverse error and would have had a most pernicious consequence.[21]

Although Calvin tried to maintain a distinction between church and state, he was unable to do so because his theological vision allowed the civil authorities to have the right and duty to guard the doctrinal matters of the church, which should be the sole responsibility of the church under the New Covenant.

II. An Amalgam Of Church And State

Calvin thought the concept of the Christian state or city was biblically warranted under the New Covenant, but he also thought the Jewish theocracy of OT Israel could not be reproduced. He considered the Jewish theocracy in the Promised Land as a type of eternal theocracy in heaven. Calvin, citing Cicero’s Laws. viewed the law and the magistrate as essential components of the civil state:

Next to the magistracy in the civil state come the laws, stoutest sinews of the commonwealth, or, as Cicero, after Plato, calls them, the souls, without which the magistracy cannot stand, even as they themselves have no force apart from the magistracy. Accordingly, nothing truer could be said than that the law is a silent magistrate; the magistrate, a living law.[22]

Calvin recognized the formation and ruling of the Christian state or city where Christians are dominant. In doing so, Calvin called it “a Christian state” (Christiana politia) to separate it from medieval Christendom. In reference to governing the Christian state, Calvin argued that laws may not apply and directly imitate “the political system of Moses” (Mose politicis), but they reflect it because the ceremonial and judicial laws of the Jewish state are abrogated. Calvin insisted that the “common laws of nations” (communibus gentium legibus), which are the diverse reflections of natural law, may be comprehensive enough to rule the Christian state:

But because I have undertaken to say with what laws a Christian state ought to be governed, this is no reason why anyone should expect a long discourse concerning the best kind of laws. This would be endless and would not pertain to the present purpose and place. I shall in but a few words, and as in passing note what laws can piously be used before God, and be rightly administered among men. 

I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish.[23]

Calvin accepted a theological tradition where “the whole law of God” (universam Dei Legem) is divided into “moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws” (mores, ceremonias, iudicia). In doing so, Calvin argued that the moral laws are perpetually binding while ceremonial and judicial laws are abrogated after the first coming of Jesus Christ. Calvin insisted that the moral law is essential for “true holiness of morals” because it is “an unchangeable rule of right living”:

We must bear in mind that common division of the whole law of God published by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws. And we must consider each of these parts, that we may understand what there is in them that pertains to us, and what does not. In the meantime, let no one be concerned over the small point that ceremonial and judicial laws pertain also to morals. For the ancient writers who taught this division, although they were not ignorant that these two latter parts had some bearing upon morals, still, because these could be changed or abrogated while morals remained untouched, did not call them moral laws. They applied this name only to the first part, without which the true holiness of morals cannot stand, nor an unchangeable rule of right living.[24]

Calvin emphasized the importance of “the moral law” (lex moralis) because it is perpetually binding as “the true and eternal rule of righteousness.” God prescribed the moral law, transcending culture and time, to all human beings of “all nations and times.” Calvin described the perpetual nature of the moral law as follows:

The moral law (to begin first with it) is contained under two heads, one of which simply commands us to worship God with pure faith and piety; the other, to embrace men with sincere affection. Accordingly, it is the true and eternal rule of righteousness, prescribed for men of all nations and times, who wish to conform their lives to God’s will. For it is his eternal and unchangeable will that he himself indeed be worshiped by us all, and that we love one another.[25]

Reflecting upon Calvin’s concepts about the Mosaic laws, their implications in the Jewish nation, and the abrogation of judicial and ceremonial laws under the New Covenant, we are certain that Calvin believed that the Jewish theocracy is irreproducible because God allowed it only within the Jewish state in the OT. Nevertheless, Calvin thought that the formation and government of the Christian state is desirable under the New Covenant where Christians are dominant. Desiring the Christian state, Calvin provided theological and practical grounds for its justification. Interpreting Rom 13:4 and 1 Tim 2:2, Calvin provided the biblical rationale for the usefulness of “the laws, judgments, and magistrates” for “the common society of Christians” (communem Christianorum societatem), which is another expression of the Christian state or city:

It now remains for us to examine what we had set in the last place: what usefulness the laws, judgments, and magistrates have for the common society of Christians. To this is also joined another question: how much deference private individuals ought to yield to their magistrates, and how far their obedience ought to go. To very many the office of magistrate seems superfluous among Christians, because they cannot piously call upon them for help, inasmuch as it is forbidden to them to take revenge, to sue before a court, or to go to law. But Paul clearly testifies to the contrary that the magistrate is minister of God for our good [Rom. 13:4]. By this we understand that he has been so ordained of God, that, defended by his hand and support against the wrongdoing and injustices of evil men, we may live a quiet and serene life [I Tim. 2:2] .[26]

Meanwhile, Calvin located both ceremonial and judicial laws in the spectrum of redemptive history. He argued that “the ceremonial law” (ceremonialis) served “the tutelage of the Jews” (Iudaeorum paedagogia) so that it was abrogated when Jesus Christ came. Similarly, “the judicial law” (Iudidalis) was given to the Jewish civil government in the OT. Calvin had clarity of insight to connect the ceremonial law to “the church of the Jews” (Iudaeorum ecclesiam), while he related the judicial law to the “civil government” (politiae) of the Jews in the OT. In the end, Calvin properly concluded that both ceremonial and judicial laws were abrogated while the moral law was perpetually binding:

The ceremonial law was the tutelage of the Jews, with which it seemed good to the Lord to train this people, as it were, in their childhood, until the fullness of time should come [Gal. 4:3-4; cf. ch. 3:23-24], in order that he might fully manifest his wisdom to the nations, and show the truth of those things which then were foreshadowed in figures. The judicial law, given to them for civil government, imparted certain formulas of equity and justice, by which they might live together blamelessly and peaceably. Those ceremonial practices indeed properly belonged to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as they kept the church of the Jews in service and reverence to God, and yet could be distinguished from piety itself. In like manner, the form of their judicial laws, although it had no other intent than how best to preserve that very love which is enjoined by God’s eternal law, had something distinct from that precept of love. Therefore, as ceremonial laws could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain.[27]

Calvin identified the moral law as “a testimony of natural law” (naturalis legis testimonium). God engraved and prescribed the moral law on “the minds of men” throughout the history of human civilization. So, Calvin suggested that equity reflected by the moral law, should be “the goal and rule and limit of all laws.” Calvin argued that the formation of laws should be flexible in different times and countries. And laws may be different from the Jewish judicial law in the OT, which Calvin identified as “the Jewish law” (lege Iudaica). Calvin specified the judicial law in the OT to govern “the Jewish state” (politia Iudaeorum) as “the Jewish law” because God does not demand it to be applied and obeyed outside of OT Israel:

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. Consequently the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws. Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to the goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves.[28]

Calvin carefully observed that natural law and equity are the proper means to govern different nations under various circumstances. So then, we see that the abrogation under the New Covenant of the judicial law does not dishonor the Mosaic laws in the OT, but rather properly understands the implications of the appropriate context of redemptive history God did not intend the judicial law to be “proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere.” Rather, he gave it uniquely to defend and keep “the Jewish nation” (Iudaicam gentem). Calvin carefully selected the words “the Jewish nation” to emphasize the unique application of the judicial law to the nation of Israel in the OT:

For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain. For others are not preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of times, place, and nation; or when that law is abrogated which was never enacted for us. For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and—as became a wise lawgiver—he had special concern for it in making its laws.[29]

Calvin argued that the governments of church and state are not antithetical, although he carefully maintained the distinction between church and state. He was concerned with the Anabaptists who maintained a complete detachment from the political matters of state. Indicating a false interpretation of Col 2:20 by the Anabaptists and calling them “certain fanatics” (quidem fanatici), Calvin strongly condemned the Anabaptistic detachment from civil duties toward the state:

Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men. That is what, indeed, certain fanatics who delight in unbridled license shout and boast: after we have died through Christ to the elements of this world [Col. 2:20], are transported to God’s Kingdom, and sit among heavenly beings, it is a thing unworthy of us and set far beneath our excellence to be occupied with those vile and worldly cares which have to do with business foreign to a Christian man.[30]

Although Calvin made the distinction between church and state in light of the two kingdoms, his distinction is inconsistent because he was not able to break away completely from the political philosophy of a medieval Christendom. That evidence is clearly manifested through his description of the appointed end of civil government:

Yet civil government has its appointed end, so long as we live among men, to cherish and protect the outward worship of God, to defend sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church, to adjust our life to the society of men, to form our social behavior to civil righteousness, to reconcile us with one another, and to promote general peace and tranquility.[31]

I think Calvin’s idea of the appointed end of civil government provides a hermeneutical and theological foundation to support the intrusion of government authorities in matters of doctrinal concern to the church. And this foundation is evident in Calvin’s support and affirmation of Servetus’s execution for his heretical teachings in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Referring to Rom 13:1-4, Calvin argued that “the office of magistrate” is “an ordinance of God.” And he viewed the rulers of the state as “ministers of God” (ministros Dei), for those who do “good unto praise”; for those who do “evil, avengers unto wrath.” Mentioning the political and religious leaders of OT Israel, Calvin concluded that “civil authority” (civilis potestas) is “a calling” (vocatio) in the presence of God:

But Paul speaks much more clearly when he undertakes a just discussion of this matter. For he states both that power is an ordinance of God [Rom. 13:2], and that there are no powers except those ordained by God [Rom. 13:1]. Further, that princes are ministers of God, for those doing good unto praise; for those doing evil, avengers unto wrath [Rom. 13:3-4]. To this may be added the examples of holy men, of whom some possessed kingdoms, as David, Josiah, and Hezekiah; others, lordships, as Joseph and Daniel; others, civil rule among a free people, as Moses, Joshua, and the judges. The Lord has declared his approval of their offices. Accordingly, no one ought to doubt that civil authority is a calling, not only holy and lawful before God, but also the most sacred and by far the most honorable of all callings in the whole life of mortal men.[32]

As such, Calvin argued that the magistrates and rulers of the state or city are ordained by God. And civil authority is a holy and lawful calling in the presence of God. However, Calvin’s idea that the magistrates of the state have the right and duty to safeguard “sound doctrine of piety and the position of the church” opened a hermeneutical and theological door leading to Christian theocracy in the thinking of his followers. And it became the political ideal for the Puritans in the seventeenth century both in England and New England in America.

The prime example is found in the formulation and adaptation of this political philosophy by the Westminster divines. The Westminster divines adopted Calvin’s political philosophy that the government authorities of the state have the right and duty to interfere in the doctrinal and religious matters of the church, which should be dealt with solely by the church under the New Covenant. So, it is worthwhile to quote the political philosophy of the Westminster divines, which was amended later in 1789 when “the first American Assembly of 1789” amended it before its adoption:

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.[33]

Calvin’s idea of the role of the magistrate in the Christian state decisively contributed to the affirmation of Servetus’s death sentence and execution in the city of Geneva although he maintained the distinction between church and state. In this sense, let us discuss Calvin’s role in Servetus’s death sentence and execution, which is a representative example of Calvin’s political philosophy in his own life context.

III. Calvin And Servetus

Calvin was very critical of the Anabaptists who were known as the Radical Reformers during the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Michael Servetus (1511—1553), one of the representative leaders of the Anabaptists, was one of the chief theological enemies of Calvin.[34]

Servetus was best known as an Anabaptist; he vehemently rejected the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The culmination of Servetus’s rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity was manifested in his publication of Restitution of the Christian Religion (Christianismi restitutio) in 1553, which suggested that he was attacking Calvin’s theology, summarized in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin responded to Servetus’s denial of the doctrine of the Trinity in his Institutes. This historical evidence suggests that there was strong personal and theological animosity between Calvin and Servetus. Responding to Servetus’s denial of the doctrine of the Trinity, Calvin pointed out that Servetus denied Christ as “the Son of God” due to the logic that he was “begotten of the Holy Spirit” in the virgin Mary’s womb. Calvin rightly insisted that Servetus, denying “the distinction of the two natures” (duplicis naturae distinctione) in Christ, made a fatal theological mistake, mixing “some divine and some human elements.” In the end. Calvin summarized that Servetus denied Christ as “both God and man.” About this matter, Calvin wrote as follows:

But in our own age too, a no less deadly monster has emerged, Michael Servetus, who has supposed the Son of God to be a figment compounded from God’s essence, spirit, flesh, and three uncreated elements. First of all, he denies that Christ is the Son of God for any other reason than that he was begotten of the Holy Spirit in the virgin’s womb. His subtlety takes this distinction: having overturned the distinction of the two natures, he regards Christ to be a mixture of some divine and some human elements, but not to be reckoned both God and man. For his whole logic bears upon the point before Christ was revealed in the flesh there were only shadow figures in God; the truth or effect of these appeared only when the Word, who had been destined for this honor, truly began to be the Son of God.[35]

After the publication of Servetus’s controversial book, the Roman Catholic authorities in France arrested him. He managed to escape, although he was condemned “in absentia for his heresy and would have been executed” if he had been rearrested in France. For more than a thousand years, medieval Christendom in Europe practiced capital punishment, mostly burning at the stake those who rejected and attacked the doctrine of the Trinity. Escaping France, Servetus entered the city of Geneva in August of 1553 and was arrested by the government authorities. In October, the trial against Servetus took place in the city of Geneva. He was condemned for heresy and was executed due to his heretical teaching concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. In this trial, Calvin was the chief prosecutor. Godfrey briefly and comprehensively summarizes the process of Servetus’s arrest, trial, and execution in Geneva as follows:

In October the trial finally took place. Members of the city council served as judges, and Calvin functioned as the chief prosecutor. Servetus was condemned and ordered to be executed by burning at the stake, the traditional medieval punishment for heresy. Calvin and the other ministers pled that the punishment should be changed to beheading, a much quicker and less painful form of execution. The city council refused. Justice moved swiftly in those days: he was tried on October 20, condemned on October 21, and executed on October 26. 

Calvin and the other ministers continued to appeal to Servetus to repent right up to the time of his execution, but Servetus adamantly maintained his heresy. His dying words were, “Jesus, son of the eternal God, have mercy on me.” By those words Servetus maintained even in the flames that Jesus was not himself eternal God.[36]

Historically, Calvin, the chief prosecutor at Servetus’s trial in the city of Geneva, affirmed and supported Servetus’s capital punishment for his heretical teaching concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. It is my assessment that Calvin’s affirmation of Servetus’s death sentence and execution was not accidental but a result of his hermeneutical and theological reflection. Calvin thought that the government authorities of the Christian state had the right to prosecute and execute those who commit and teach heresy against the biblical religion, which was represented by Servetus in his own ecclesiastical and political contexts in the city of Geneva.[37] Calvin’s affirmation of Servetus’s death sentence and execution is consistent with his political philosophy in light of his understanding of the two kingdoms.[38]

Although Calvin upheld a distinction between church and state, his distinction was inconsistent. He thought hermeneutically and theologically that the Christian state has a right to intrude in the doctrinal matters of the church and prosecute and even carry out a death sentence due to heretical teachings.

IV. Conclusion

As we live in the Global Mission Age, it is vital to have a sound biblical world-view as believers, missionaries, pastors, and theologians. I do not think it is biblical to promote and pursue the concept and ideal of the Christian state or theocracy under the New Covenant no matter what motivations people may have. In the history of redemption, God formed the Jewish theocracy under the Old Covenant, as Calvin rightly perceived. However, the idea of the Jewish theocracy as a unique institution is not a biblical ideal to be reproduced under the New Covenant, even as the modified form of the Christian state or city. The Jewish theocracy under the Old Covenant was a type or shadow of the eternal heavenly theocracy, which will be consummated when Jesus Christ returns with his glory That ideal should not be desired in the present world because believers’ lives in the present world are, at best, a pilgrimage, yearning for the consummation of the ultimate heavenly theocratic kingdom, which was typified in the Jewish theocracy in the OT.

Calvin was a great Reformer, theologian, pastor, and political leader in the city of Geneva. His hermeneutical, theological, and practical contributions have been immense throughout the past five centuries, transcending linguistic, cultural, and political boundaries. However, his views on the two kingdoms require further reformation because the Bible teaches that, while heresy was punished as a capital offense in the OT (for instance, by stoning to death) under the Jewish theocracy, during the New Covenant age (the time between the first and second coming of Jesus Christ), heresy is to be punished by church authorities and does not involve any form of physical force. The famous dictum, “the Reformed church should be always reforming” (Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda est) may be the appropriate implication of Calvin’s political philosophy, summed up in his adaptation and exposition of the two kingdoms.

Notes

1. For a comprehensive analysis of Calvin’s concept of the two kingdoms and divergent views with respect to the church and the state in European history and their ethical implications in the Christian life, see W. Robert Godfrey “Kingdom and Kingdoms,” Evangelium 7 (2009): 6-9; David VanDrunen, “Calvin on the Church and Society,” Evangelium 6 (2008): 10-13; VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 67-118; VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms Doctrine and the Relationship of Church and State in the Early Reformed Tradition,” Journal of Church and State 49 (2007): 743-63; VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms and the Ordo Salutis: Life Beyond Judgment and the Question of a Dual Ethic,” WTJ 70 (2008): 207-24; VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin,” C7J40 (2005): 248-66; Willem van’t Spijker, “The Kingdom of Christ according to Bucer and Calvin,” in Calvin and the State (ed. Peter De Clerk; Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society 1993), 109-32.
2. VanDrunen, “Calvin on the Church and Society,” 10. See also VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 68: “Contrary to those who find Calvin a precursor to popular contemporary Reformed views of culture and the kingdom of God, Calvin clearly distinguished the two kingdoms and affirmed their continuing dual roles in this world (despite alleged tensions between his two kingdoms theology and the relation of church and state in Geneva). And certainly of significance for the present study, Calvin’s views of natural law and the two kingdoms were dependent upon each other in significant respects” (emphasis added). I am not critiquing VanDrunen’s overall interpretation of Calvin’s political philosophy. Rather, I insist that viewing Calvin’s perspective as a clear distinction between church and state could mislead readers because Calvin opened a theological and practical door to the possibility of the Christian theocratic state, as VanDrunen rightly notes. In that sense, my criticism of VanDrunen is not substantial but corrective and complimentary. VanDrunen writes: “Calvin in the eyes of many, was the tyrant of Geneva who ruled both church and state with an iron hand and bequeathed a theocratic legacy that Western society has struggled to shake off. What are we to make of this common conception of Calvin?” VanDrunen continues: “This conception, in short, is partly true and partly false. Calvin was indeed not a mere theologian but one who thought extensively about how theological truth was to play out in real life. He was not merely a preacher but also the most prominent man in Geneva, who had significant (though certainly not unlimited) opportunities to implement his ideas in the affairs of both church and state. He did bequeath a legacy to subsequent history in both church and society And his reputation as a theocratic tyrant is understandable in some respects, for he did advocate the state’s enforcement of certain religious matters. On the whole, however, this reputation as a tyrant does serious injustice to his ecclesiastical and social views as well as to the character of his historical influence” (VanDrunen, “Calvin on the Church and Society” 10).
3. I would argue that Augustine may be considered a forerunner of the idea of “the two kingdoms” although he did not use the terminology in his classical work, The City of God, where he defined the two cities as “the city of God” and “the city of man.” Cf. Augustine, The City of God [NPNF1 2:1-511). Reflecting the theological and practical problems of the medieval relationship between church and state, Luther coined the term “two kingdoms” to explain the relationship between church and state. Calvin adopted the basic ideas and concepts of the two kingdoms that Luther had defined and explained in his 1523 treatise, On Secular Authority (vol. 45 of Luther’s Works [ed. Walther I. Brandt; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1962], 81-129). For a comprehensive and critical analysis of Luther’s idea of the two kingdoms in the Reformation context, reflecting medieval Christendom’s views on Augustine, see Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in the Context of His Theology (trans. Karl H. Hertz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966); William J. Wright, Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two Kingdoms: A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism (Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010). For favorable interpretations of Luther’s two kingdoms, see Gerhard Ebeling, Word and Faith (trans. James W Leith; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963); Anders Nygren, “Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” The Ecumenical Review 1 (Spring 1949): 301-10. For the representative critique against Luther’s thought on the two kingdoms, see Karl Barth, This Christian Cause: A Letter to Great Britain from Switzerland (trans. E. L. H. Gordon and George Hill; New York: Macmillan, 1941); Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Ethics (ed. Eberhard Bethge; trans. Neville Horton Smith; New York: Macmillan, 1955). Barth’s critique of Luther’s two kingdoms is consistent with his critical posture towards the contrast between law and gospel, which is a vital hermeneutical tool for formulating the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which was the Reformation consensus between Luther and Calvin. In addition, Barth’s critique is his logical conclusion because he denies natural law in the milieu of general revelation, which is foundational for Luther’s idea of the two kingdoms as well as Calvin’s. I have interacted with Calvin’s doctrines of justification by faith in the context of the antithesis between law and gospel, union with Christ, double predestination, covenants, redemptive history and sacramental theology in light of contemporary discussion. See Jeong Koo Jeon, Calvin and the Federal Vision: Calvin’s Covenant Theology in Light of Contemporary Discussion (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2009); Covenant Theo logy: John Murray’s and Meredith G Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1999), 11-29: Covenant Theology and Justification by Faith: The Shepherd Controversy and Its Impacts (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 3-26.
4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (ed. John T McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 1:276 (2-2-17). The Latin phrases from Calvin’s Institutes are cited from Ioannis Calvini, Institutio Christianae Religionis (1559; repr., London: Berolnini, 1846). It is important to note that Calvin viewed God’s common grace in two categories, “the general grace of God” and “God’s special grace,” as the editor of the Institutes correctly recognizes: “Neither common grace nor the special grace here mentioned has any relation to the salvation of its possessor. Special grace is a special endowment of capacity, virtue, or heroism by which a man is fitted to serve the divine purpose in this world, while he himself may remain in the common state of human depravity” (Institutes, 1:276 n. 64).
5. Calvin, Institutes, 1:272-73 (2.2.13).
6. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (ed. and trans. John Owen; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 2:14.
7. Calvin, Institutes, 1:275 (2-2-16). Calvin had a clear theological consciousness of the distinction between common grace and saving grace. In that sense, saving grace as “special grace” (gratia speciali), according to Calvin, is bestowed on the elect alone: “If this be admitted, it will be indisputable that free will is not sufficient to enable man to do good works, unless he be helped by grace, indeed by special grace, which only the elect receive through regeneration. For I do not tarry over those fanatics who babble that grace is equally and indiscriminately distributed” (ibid., 1:262 [2-2-6]). For the classical affirmation of the distinction between common grace and saving grace in Calvin’s theology, see Herman Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace,” in Calvin and the Reformation: Four Studies (lectures by Bavinck, Emile Doumergue, August Lang and B. B. Warfield originally published in Princeton Theological Review, 1909, and recently edited by William Park Armstrong and published by Wipf & Stock, Eugene, Ore., 2004), 99-130; Herman Kuiper, Calvin on Common Grace (Grand Rapids: Smitter, 1928). In general, Reformed theologians adopted the antithesis between common grace and saving grace after the pattern of Calvin, and developed and applied the doctrine of common grace to the areas of biblical worldview, Christian apologetics, biblical and systematic theology, etc., although there are variations of the understanding and implications of common grace. Here I mention a few selective, yet influential and important works. See Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics (ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend; 4 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003-2008); Meredith G. Kline, God, Heaven and Har Magedon: A Covenantal Tale of Cosmos and Telos (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2006); Kline. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2006): Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 1997); Abraham Kuyper, Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader (ed. James D. Bratt; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); Kuyper, De Gemeene Gratie (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1945); Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1931); John Murray, Selected Lectures in Systematic Theology (vol. 2 of Collected Writings of John Murray; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1984); Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace and the Gospel (Phillipsburg. NJ.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1972). However, there are some who deny the validity of the doctrine of common grace in Calvin’s theology and worldview Representative theologians who reject the distinction between common grace and saving grace in Calvin’s theology include Herman Hoeksema and Klass Schilder. Cf. John Barber, “Common Grace: A Critical Assessment of Doctrine,” online at http://www.cornerstone-presbyterian.org/common_grace.pdf; Barry Gritters, “Grace Uncommon: A Protestant Reformed Look at the Doctrine of Common Grace,” online at http://www.kalamazooprc.org/resources/ pamphlets/Grace%20Uncommon.pdf; Herman Hoeksema, God’s Goodness Always Particular (Jenison, Mich.: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1939); Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (2 vols.: Jenison, Mich.: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 2005); Klass Schilder, Christ and Culture {trans,. G van Rongen and W Helder; Winnipeg: Premier, 1977; also online at http://www.reformed.org/ master/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/cc/christ_and_culture.html).
8. Calvin, Institutes, 1:275 (2.2.16).
9. Surprisingly, there is a general tendency for scholars who interpret Calvin’s concept of the two kingdoms and political thought to relate it exclusively to natural law, overlooking the importance of the distinction between common grace and saving grace.
10. Calvin, Institutes, 1:847 (3.19.15).
11. Ibid.
12. The editor of the Institutes rightly suggests that Calvin was aware of Machiavelli’s political philosophy through the Latin translation of Il Principe. See Institutes, 2:1486 n. 4: “These sentences (1559) evidently refer to the Anabaptists on the one hand, and on the other to Machiavelli, whose Italian Il Principe was only in 1553 translated into Latin. (OS V 474.) Calvin may also have in mind the emperor-cult of antiquity.” I would identify Machiavelli’s political philosophy as a tyrannical political philosophy which has been demonstrated and practiced by a number of countries, especially in the twentieth century such as Hitler’s German Nazism, Mussolini’s Italian Facism, communistic regimes, military dictatorships, and others.
13. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1485-86 (4.20.1). The ultimate kingship of Christ both in church and state in Calvin’s idea of the two kingdoms is well summarized by Godfrey: “The language of two kingdoms (church and state) clearly did not mean for Calvin that one kingdom belonged to Christ and the other did not. It did not mean that one kingdom was for Christian living and the other was not. It did not mean that one kingdom glorified God and the other did not. Christ for Calvin was truly and fully king in both kingdoms, but ruled the two kingdoms differently” (Godfrey “Kingdom and Kingdoms,” 7).
14. The Schleitheim Confession (ed. and trans. John Howard Yoder; Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press. 1977), IV Hillerbrand, sympathetic to the Anabaptistic worldview and political philosophy, agrees with my interpretation that the Anabaptistic political philosophy was based upon a radical or sharp dualism as Farley briefly summarizes it: “As for the state, Hillerbrand notes that the Anabaptists have always recognized that it is ordained of God to punish evildoers and to protect the law-biding Hence ‘the notion of rebellion or revolution must therefore have been utterly foreign to the Anabaptist mind.’ With respect to the state substantial discrepancies appear between the Anabaptists and the Reformers only in the area of the limitations of government and religious liberty. Hillerbrand acknowledges, however, that ‘Anabaptist thinking does not attempt a synthesis’ of its rejection of office holding with its recognition of the state’s divine institution. Hence, he admits that ‘a basic paradox remains unanswered in Anabaptistic thinking’—the very paradox which Calvin probes. . . . Hillerbrand further explains that the Anabaptist view of the state is based on both a New Testament monism’ and a sharp dualism between the kingdom of Christ and the ‘world.’ But then these are inseparable characteristics of the ‘Anabaptist Vision’“ (editor’s comments in Calvin. Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines [ed. and trans. Benjamin Wirt Farley; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982], 31-32). Cf. Hans J. Hillerbrand, “The Anabaptist View of the State,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 32 (1958): 83-110.
15. Schleitheim Confession, VI.
16. Ibid.
17. Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, 72.
18. Ibid., 78.
19. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1486 (4.20.1).
20. Ibid.
21. Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, 86.
22. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1502 (4.20.14).
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., 2:1503(4.20.15).
26. Ibid., 2:1505-6(4.20.17).
27. Ibid., 2:1503(4.20.15).
28. Ibid., 2:1504 (4.20.16). There are numerous secondary writings which deal with Calvin and natural law in the Reformation context and its related issues in the milieu of medieval predecessors and other Reformers. I mention here a select few of the secondary resources. For a comprehensive and critical discussion of Calvin’s view of the natural law in relation to other Reformers, Aquinas, and other medieval theologians, its role in Calvin’s thought, and its related topics, see Irena Backus. “Calvin’s Concept of Natural and Roman Law,” CTJ 38 (2003): 7-26; R. S. Clark, “Calvin and the Lex Naturalis” STJ 6 (1998): 1-22; Paul Helm, “Calvin and Natural Law,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 2 (1984): 5-22; Jeffrey K. Jue, “Theologia Naturalis: A Reformed Tradition,” in Revelation and Reason: Mew Essays in Reformed Apologetics (ed. K. Scott Oliphint and Lane G. Tipton; Phillipsburg NJ.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2007): 168-89; William Klempa, “John Calvin on Natural Law,” in John Calvin and the Church: A Prism of Reform (ed. Timothy George; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1990), 72-95; August Lang “The Reformation and Natural Law,” in Calvin and the Reformation: Four Studies (trans. J. Gresham Machen; New York: Fleming H. Revell. 1909), 56-98; John T. McNeill, “Natural Law in the Teaching of the Reformers,” JR 26 (1946): 168-82; C. Scott Pryor, “God’s Bridle: John Calvin’s Application of Natural Law,” Journal of Law and Religion 22 (2006-2007): 225-54; Susan E. Schreiner, “Calvin’s Use of Natural Law,” in A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law (ed. Michael Cromartie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1997), 51-76; Schreiner, The Theater of His Glory: Mature and the Natural Order in the Thought of John Calvin (Durham, N.C.: Labyrinth, 1991); David VanDrunen, “The Context of Natural Law: John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms” Journal of Church and State 46 (2004): 503-25; VanDrunen. “Medieval Natural Law and the Reformation: A Comparison of Aquinas and Calvin,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (2006): 77-98; VanDrunen, “Natural Law, Custom, and Common Law in the Theology of Aquinas and Calvin,” University of British Columbia Law Review 33 (2000): 699-717; VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 21-118; Daniel Westburg, “The Reformed Tradition and Natural Law,” in A Preserving Grace: Protestants, Catholics, and Natural Law, 103-17.
29. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1504 (4.20.16). The close relationship between equity and natural law in Calvin’s ethics and political philosophy has been discussed by several scholars. See Guenther H. Haas, The Concept of Equity in Calvin’s Ethics^ (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1997): Ralph C. Hancock, Calvin and the Foundation of Modern Politics (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. 1989), 86; Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 363-67; VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 108-10. I would argue that the Reformed theonomists’ political vision of theonomic polity is incompatible with Calvin. The Reformed theonomists, represented by Rushdoony Bahnsen, and their followers, insist that the judicial or civil law in OT Israel should be applied in contemporary states under the New Covenant. In doing so, they deny the abrogation of the OT judicial law, which was a key principle in Calvin’s understanding of the Mosaic laws and its application to his political philosophy See Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics: Expanded Edition with Replies to Critics (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1984); James B. Jordan, The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21—23 (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984); Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (3 vols.; Nutley NJ.: Craig, 1973). For a critical evaluation of the Reformed theonomic ethics and political philosophy see William S. Barker and Robert W Godfrey eds., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1990); T David Gordon, “Van Til and Theonomic Ethics,” in Creator, Redeemer, Consummator: A Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline (ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Muether; Greenville, S.C.: Reformed Academic Press, 2000), 271-78: Jeong Koo Jeon, “Covenant Theology and Old Testament Ethics: Meredith G Kline’s Intrusion Ethics,” Kerux (2002): 3-33; VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 408-11.
30. Calvin, Institutes, 2:1487 (4.20.2).
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., 2:1490(4.20.4).
33. Westminster Confession of Faith, 23.3, in The Westminster Standards: An Original Fascimile (Original English Edition 1648; Princeton, NJ.: Old Paths Publication, 1997), emphasis added. The American amendment in 1789 suggests that the newly adopted form of WCF 23.3 avoids the concept of the Christian state, which was Calvin’s political ideal as well as that of the Westminster divines who formulated the original Westminster Standards: “Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any common wealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance” (emphasis added).
34. For a comprehensive and critical sketch of Servetus’s life and theology, his attitude towards Calvin, Calvin’s affirmation of his execution in Geneva, and evaluation from different perspectives, see Roland H. Bainton, Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus [1511—1553] (Boston: Beacon, 1953); Jerome Friedman, Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Total Heresy (Geneva: Droz, 1978): Godfrey, John Calvin, 132-34; Marian Hillar, The Case of Michael Servetus (1511—1553): The Turning Point in the Struggle for Freedom of Conscience (Lewiston, N.Y: Edwin Mellen Press, 1997); Hillar, Michael Servetus: Intellectual Giant, Humanist, and Martyr (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America), 2002: Eric Kayayan, “The Case of Michael Servetus,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 8 (1992): 117-46: Robert M. Kingdon, “Social Control and Political Control in Calvin’s Geneva,” in Die Reformation in Deutschland und Europa: Interpretationen und Debatten (ed. Hans R. Guggisberg; Gtitersloh: Gtitersloher Verlagshaus, 1993), 521-32; T H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 146-54; Andrew Pettegree, “Michael Servetus and the Limits of Tolerance,” History Today 40 (1990): 40-45.
35. Calvin, Institutes, 1:487 (2-14.5). The culmination of the theological debate in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity between Calvin and Servetus is manifested when Calvin identified Servetus as a “foul dog.” I do not endorse Calvin’s personal attitude in his theological debate against Servetus, although it is understandable when we reflect upon the religious and political contexts of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation: “Sane readers will gather from this summary that the crafty evasions of this foul dog utterly extinguished the hope of salvation. For if flesh were divinity itself, it would cease to be the temple of divinity. Only he can be our redeemer who, begotten of the seed of Abraham and David, was truly made man according to the flesh. Servetus perversely bases his position on John’s words: ‘The Word was made flesh’ [John 1:14]. For, as these words resist Nestorius’ error, they also give no support to that impious fabrication whose author was Eutyches, inasmuch as the sole purpose of the Evangelist was to declare unity of person in the two natures” [Institutes, 1:493 [2.14.8]).
36. Godfrey, John Calvin, 133-34.
37. For Calvin’s political thought, its influence in the Reformation context and on later generations, as well as the general principles and practices of the political system in Geneva and Calvin’s influence on them, and the relationship between church and state in the city of Geneva, see Arthur David Ainsworth, The Relations between Church and State in the City and Canton of Geneva (Atlanta, Ga: Stein Printing Company 1965); David W Hall, “Calvin on Human Government and the State,” in Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes: Essays and Analysis (ed. David W Hall and Peter A. Lillback: Calvin 500; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2008), 411-40; Hall, The Legacy of John Calvin: His Influence on the Modern World (Calvin 500; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed. 2008), 20-26; Ralph C. Hancock, Calvin and the Foundations of Modern Politics (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 1989), 62-81; Harro Hopfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Robert M. Kingdon, Calvin and Calvinism: Sources of Democracy (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath & Co., 1970); Kingdon, “Calvin and the Government of Geneva,” in Calvinus Ecclesiae Genevesis Gustos (ed. Wilhelm Neuser; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1984), 49-67; John T McNeill, “Calvin and Civil Government,” in Readings in Calvin’s Theology (ed. Donald McKim: Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984); McNeill, “John Calvin on Civil Government,” in Calvinism and the Political Order (ed. George L. Hunt; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965); E. William Monter, Studies in Genevan Government, 1536—1605 (Geneva: Droz, 1964); William R. Stevenson, Jr., “Calvin and Political Issues,” in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin (ed. Donald K. McKim; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 173-87. Calvin’s influence in the shaping of the political system in the city of Geneva is well summarized by Hall, The Legacy of John Calvin, 24-25: “One of the procedural safeguards of the 1543 civic reform—a hallmark of the Calvinistic governing ethos—was that the various branches of local government (councils) could no longer act unilaterally; henceforth, at least two councils were required to approve measures before ratification. This early republican mechanism, which prevented consolidation of all governmental power into a single council, predated Montesquieu’s separation of powers doctrine by two centuries—a Calvinistic contribution that is not always recognized. The driving rationale for this dispersed authority was a simple but scriptural idea: even the best of leaders could think blindly and selfishly, so they needed a format for mutual correction and accountability This kind of thinking, already incorporated into Geneva’s ecclesiastical sphere (imbedded in the 1541 Ecclesiastical Ordinances) and essentially derived from biblical sources, anticipated many later instances of political federalism. The structure of Genevan Presbyterianism began to influence Genevan civil politics; in turn, that also furthered the separation of powers and provided protection from oligarchy The result was a far more open and stable society than previously and Calvin’s orientation toward the practical is obvious in these areas.”
38. As Parker properly indicates, Calvin’s political philosophy in respect to the religious heresy and the attitude of the magistrate of the Christian state had been consistent from the publication of the first edition of the Institutes in 1536 to the final edition of it in 1559: “Should the state punish heresy as a crime? Calvin’s doctrine of civil government stands almost unaltered from the first edition of the Institutio to the last, and it is restated in the Defensio orthodoxae fidei, which he wrote on the Servetus affair at the request of the German cities. ‘Is it lawful for Christian princes and judges to punish heretics?’ The purpose of civil government is not only that ‘men may breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed, although it certainly includes all these when it provides for human society But it also exists so that idolatry sacrilege of the name of God, blasphemies against his truth and other public offences against religion may not emerge and may not be disseminated. . . . Finally that among Christians the public face of religion may exist and among men humanity.’” Parker summarizes Calvin’s view: “Thus it is the duty of the state to establish true religion and to maintain that religion once it is established. The state and its administration are in no way secular or unclean, a neutral or antagonistic realm to the church. On the contrary, the laws and those who administer them are ordained by God for the economy of the world. The rulers are ministers and servants of God and as such bear the authority not only of an earthly office but of the Lord by whom and for whom they execute their office. Granted that it is the duty of the state to establish and maintain true religion, what is a government to do if it sees true religion fundamentally attacked?” (Parker. John Calvin: A Biography, 152-53).