Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Realms: Dual Citizenship

A microscopic percentage of the world’s population holds dual citizenship. Although the topic of dual citizenship is popular in casual conversation, few people have it. Many people mistakenly believe that they have dual citizenship. It can be established only by the appropriate paperwork from two separate countries.

For those who truly have dual citizenship, it has both advantages and disadvantages. Travel is easier with two passports. Dual citizens have twice as many civil rights as other people. But they are subject to being drafted into two armies instead of one, and sometimes have to pay more taxes, because they are paying to two countries.

By analogy, many people have a spiritual form of dual citizenship. Martin Luther explained that there are two domains: the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world. These two realms both lay claim to a person’s life. Having already received a legal status from a worldly kingdom, people owe taxes and obedience. Having already received eternal salvation from God, people owe thanks and praise to God, and kindness to one’s fellow human being.

Just as a person with two nationalities carries two passports, so spiritually a person wears two hats: simultaneously living and working in the Kingdom of God and in the kingdom of this world, as Erwin Mülhaupt writes:

Ein gläubiger Christ gehört hier auf Erden zugleich beiden Reichen an, so wie ein Christ zugleich Kirchengemeinderat und Polizist, zugleich Vater und Lehrer, zugleich Christ und Richter sein kann.

A Christian moves back and forth between the two roles. In a time of worship, he is humble and does not coerce others; in his worldly role, perhaps as an employee of a governmental regulatory agency, he imposes his decisions on others. Quoting Luther (WA 39 II, pg. 81, line 17), Mülhaupt points to the fact that the Christian in both realms is a subordinate — a subject in the etymological sense — to an authority:

So hat auch ein Christ »zweierlei Bürgerrecht, in dem er im Glauben Christus untertan ist, dem Kaiser aber mit seinem Leib.«

This recalls Luther’s dictum in Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, where he explains that “A Christian man is the most free master of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.”

This paradox served Luther in that text as he explored Christian living; a similar paradox serves in the investigation of the two realms. It is a paradox, not a contradiction, because it can be systematically sorted into consistent applications, as Mülhaupt notes:

Das ist kein Widerspruch, weil ein Christ nicht nur bei seinesgleichen, sondern auch unter den härteren Bedingungen des weltlichen Regiments zu Dienst und Liebe verpflichtet bleibt.

The doctrine of the two kingdoms prevents any pattern of Christians withdrawing from the world, although this doctrine serves other purposes as well. The doctrine pushes the Christian into the worldly realm and demands that he take action there. Luther is steering away from monasticism and asceticism. Avoiding the world is bad enough, but it’s even worse when it is done in alleged obedience to God. The Christian is called not only be in the world, but to do something there, as Mülhaupt reports:

Gott will keine Weltflucht und keinen Rückzug auf die eigene Innerlichkeit, namentlich nicht aus angeblich religiösen Gründen.

Luther offers (WA 40 III, pg. 207, lines 30ff) a list of prophets whom God sent into political and economic situations, to speak to, and interact with, the government’s leaders. That such leaders were princes and kings in the past, and presidents and prime ministers in the present, makes no difference. God uses His people to steer the events of history; to this end, they must be involved in worldly matters.

Those who withdraw from the world, Luther writes (WA 57, part 2, pg. 107, line 10), fail to love allegedly for the sake of love: they fail to be pious, claiming that isolation is piety.

Thus the doctrine of the two realms gets to the core of the Gospel: it shows Christians how, when, and where to show true charity, whether in the Kingdom of God or the kingdom of this world, as Mülhaupt concludes:

Die Pflicht zur Nächstenliebe gilt in beiden Reichen. Was sollte hieran zu überholen sein?

This doctrine seems, at first glance, confined to politics and government, but it unfolds to shape all aspects of the life of faith.

Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Realms: Both Kingdoms Are Necessary

Martin Luther explains his ‘doctrine of the two realms’ by explaining the unique and peculiar features, both of the kingdom of this world, and of the kingdom of God. He continues by examining the interplay between the two, and explains why both are necessary, why both can and must complete each other, and why neither is sufficient by itself. The two realms complement each other.

Erwin Mülhaupt notes that Luther first advocates a clear distinction between the two realms and second summarizes the tasks of each: the kingdom of God is to make people pious, and the kingdom of this world is to establish peace and oppose evil deeds:

Beide Regimente sind nötig, beide müssen und können sich ergänzen, keines ist für sich allein genug. Daher der berühmten Sätze Luthers in seine für die Zweireichelehre grundlegenden Schrift ‘Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei’ 1523: ‘man muß die beiden Regimente mit Fleiß unterscheiden und beide bestehen lassen, eines, das fromm macht, das andre, das äußerlich Frieden schafft und bösen Werken wehrt.

The word ‘theocracy’ has caused much trouble over the centuries. To unravel the confusion, it helps to remember that what is commonly called a ‘theocracy’ is actually an ecclesiocracy or a hierocracy. God is perfect. The church, its leaders, and its individual members remain flawed, imperfect, and sinful. Luther rejects the idea of any kind of ecclesiocracy or hierocracy — i.e., he rejects that which is commonly called a ‘theocracy’ because it is not “God’s reign” despite what the name literally implies.

What Luther envisions is perhaps a cosmic version of the concept of ‘check and balance’ or ‘separation of powers’ as the reader is familiar with it from history. Neither the realm of this world nor Christ’s kingdom is to have dictatorial powers, because neither is perfect. Because Christ is perfect, it may seem counterintuitive to say that Christ’s kingdom is imperfect. But Christ has welcomed into His kingdom people who are both sinful and sinners.

Luther clearly rejects the idea of all power being concentrated in a single organization or person, as Erwin Mülhaupt explains:

Luther lehnt also eine Ein-Reich-Lehre ab, ob es die Lehre von einem Reich mit dem Papst an der Spitze ist oder von einem Reich mit einem Politiker an der Spitze.

Each of the two spheres is in some sense limited or incomplete. Luther reminds the kingdom of this world that it cannot create faith and love by means of laws, violence, and administration — which are its only instruments — and therefore cannot create a paradise on earth. He reminds the spiritual kingdom that it cannot, with its means, bring about order, peace, justice, and prosperity.

Erwin Mülhaupt poses a rhetorical question: Is it obsolete to remind each of the two kingdoms to remain in its assigned role? To stay in its lane?

Er mahnte vielmehr das geistliche Regiment daran, daß es mit seinen Mitteln allein Ordnung, Frieden, Recht, Wohlstand nicht erreichen kann, und umgekehrt das weltliche Regiment daran, daß es mit Gesetz Gewalt und Organisation keinen Glauben und keine Liebe schaffen und also niemals ein Paradies oder das Reich Gottes auf Erden erreichen kann. Frage: ist es überholt, in dieser Weise sowohl das geistliche Regiment oder die Kirche als auch das weltliche Regiment oder die Politiker bescheiden an ihre Grenzen zu erinnern, weil ‘keins ohne das andre gnug ist in der Welt?’

Luther had already preemptively answered ​​Mülhaupt’s question. The worldly realm, by itself, produces mere hypocrisy, because even if it issues decrees which correspond exactly to God’s own commands, the people cannot be properly pious without the Holy Spirit in their hearts, even if they do the most magnificent works. In Christ’s realm, by itself, evil is unrestrained, because the world can neither accept nor understand Christ’s kingdom, as Luther writes:

Denn ohne Christi geistliches Regiment kann niemand fromm werden vor Gott durchs weltliche Regiment. So geht Christi Regiment nicht über alle Menschen, sondern allezeit gibt es der Christen am wenigsten und sie sind mitten unter den Unchristen. Wenn nun weltliches Regiment oder Gesetze allein regiert, da muss eitel Heuchelei sein, wenn’s auch gleich Gottes Gebot selber wären, denn ohne den heiligen Geist im Herzen wird niemand recht fromm, wenn er auch die feinsten Werke tun mag. Wenn aber das geistliche Regiment allein regiert über Land und Leute, da wird der Bosheit der Zaum abgenommen und aller Büberei Raum gegeben, denn die gemeine Welt kann es weder annehmen noch verstehen.

In this way, Luther arrives at his conclusion, that both realms are necessary.

Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Realms: Why Worldly Systems of Governance Are Needed

Christ says to Pilate: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” In so saying, He uses the phrase ‘my kingdom’ three times. This leads the reader to wonder: Against which other kingdom is Christ contrasting His?

In writing about this “Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” Erwin Mülhaupt explains that the “worldly kingdom,” while not Christ’s kingdom, is still a gracious gift from God. It is a sort of concession to the reality that the world after the Day of Pentecost but before the advent of “a new heaven and a new earth” is still, despite the presence of the Savior, a fallen and broken place.

The earthly kingdom has been instituted by God to limit the evil, chaos, and violence which would otherwise run amok on this earth.

The New Testament has a clear-eyed view of the present world: “not all have faith.” Even among those who have faith, who receive Jesus, sin still appears: “I do not do the good I want.” Because sin is present, God has instituted the kingdom of the world, to limit and restrain sin. Legislating restrictions against sin, and enforcing those boundaries, is the task of the worldly kingdom. As such, it is a negative kingdom, because, as Mülhaupt writes, one cannot command people to act out of love.

So God institutes this kingdom “of the left hand,” which operates by means of laws, regulations, legal systems, and ultimately by means of violence, in order to achieve a relative amount of humaneness, justice, and peace. It is clear that the “humaneness, justice, and peace” of the worldly kingdom is deficient, limited, and minimal. Yet it is still a grace, because without it, the earth would be flooded with evil.

The necessity of this arrangement arises from the fallen nature of human beings. When Luther crafted this doctrine, he was not under the illusion that people are good, and that evil resides only in the structures and organizations of the world.

A kingdom could be supplied with the best culture, civilization, and society; it could have the best economic, political, and governmental system; yet it would be plagued with the problems which all human society encounters, because its structures and organizations, however good they may be, are filled with human beings, and thereby filled with evil.

Erwin Mülhaupt writes:

Weil nie alle das Wort Gottes annehmen und weil der Glaube ‘nicht jedermanns Ding ist’ (2. Thess. 3,2) und weil man die Liebe nicht befehlen kann, darum ist es gut und nötig, daß es neben dem Reich Christi noch ein ‘Reich mit der linken Hand’ Gottes oder ein weltliches Regiment gibt, das mit Gesetz, Sitten, Ordnungen, Rechten und mit Gewalt wenigstens eine relative Menschlichkeit, Gerechtigkeit und relativen Frieden sichert und dem stets im Menschen lauernden Chaos wehrt; denn den Aberglauben, daß der Mensch gut sei und daß dsa Böse nur in den Strukturen und Ordnungen steckt, teilte Luther nicht.

Some people might think that Christians — or at least the really good Christians — wouldn’t need or want this worldly governance. A really good Christian would be acting with self-discipline and out of altruistic selflessness, always working for the good of his fellow man and for the good of his community.

This is a complete misunderstanding! Christians, even the best of them, are imperfect, flawed, and sinful, and don’t always do the right thing. All human beings are faced with, and need to face up to, the reality that they often do the wrong thing.

So Christians see the need for a worldly regime to keep civic order and promote peace. Christians see that they need this for themselves as guardrails to prevent themselves from running amok. They also see that this is good for the community as a whole, to promote more humane, just, and peaceful behavior from everyone, as Mülhaupt writes:

Ein Christ, der auf der Höhe des christlichen Glaubens und der christlichen Liebe steht, braucht das alles freilich nicht und ist nicht auf Gesetz, Sitte, Ordnung und Recht angewiesen, um das Richtige zu tun. Aber ersten gibt es hier auf dieser Erde diesen Christen gar nicht, der wirklich auf der Höhe des Glaubens und der Liebe steht, und zweitens gebietet die christliche Liebe, um des Nächsten willen alle Bemühungen des weltlichen Regiments um etwas mehr Menschlichkeit, Gerechtigkeit und Frieden zu unterstützen. Frage: ist solch nüchtern, aber dennoch positive Einschätzung und Unterstützung des weltlichen Regiments überholt oder nicht?

Mülhaupt poses a seemingly rhetorical question: Is Luther’s understanding of the two realms outdated? Have people changed? Has human nature changed, that we are so good now that we don’t need a worldly governance to maintain peace, justice, and humaneness?

Luther's Doctrine of the Two Realms: The Distinctive Features of Christ’s Kingdom

Luther’s Zwei-Reiche-Lehre is the “doctrine of the two kingdoms,” and here one must ask: What type of kingdoms are there? Obviously, Jesus (John 18:36) said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” His kingdom is not a kingdom like England, Denmark, or Norway. It does not have geographical borders, a military, or a unit of currency.

The word Reich can be rendered as ‘kingdom, empire, realm, dominion’ — i.e., that over which someone rules or has jurisdiction. God rules over the entire universe: over everything which is in space and time, and over anything which is not in space and time. God is omnipresent and omnipotent.

Which empire can oppose an empire which already rules over everything everywhere? This opposing empire is a usurpation and a rebellion.

God’s kingdom is not a physical kingdom, and yet has a universal dominion. The opposing kingdom, the kingdom of the devil, is also not a physical kingdom, has dominion over nothing, yet claims dominion over everything. This is a conflict on the largest possible scale.

Christ’s kingdom is unique, and Luther’s doctrine articulates this uniqueness, as Erwin Mülhaupt writes:

Die Eigenart des Reiches Christi wird von Luther in einer Predigt über den geliebten 8. Psalm folgendermaßen definiert: ‘Christi Reich wird nicht durch äußerliche Gewalt und leiblich Schwert angerichtet, gestärkt und erhalten, sonder … durch Wort Glauben und Geist.’

There is a legitimate debate about whether Christianity entails moderate pacifism or extreme pacifism, but Luther’s words about make it clear — or should make it clear — that violence is not part of the modus operandi of Christianity.

This pacifism is often obscured when those opposed to Christianity try to describe Christianity. Sometimes, even those who claim to be Christians obscure the non-violent inclination which is intrinsic to faith in Jesus.

Every non-violent movement or ideology is borrowing, either knowingly or unknowingly, from the ideas of Jesus. Mühaupt’s writing on this topic carry the title Muß Man Luthers Zweireichelehre Überholen? and thereby pose the question: Are these ideas from Jesus, echoed by Luther, truly timeless? Are they still valid today? Mühaupt continues:

Die einzige Art und Weise wie im Reich Christi regiert und gearbeitet wird, ist also die unentwegte Verkündigung des Wortes, in dem Wort steckt der Geist Gottes, und wenn Gott Gnade gibt, dann wirkt das Wort bei Menschen den Glauben, einen Glauben, der nach Gal. 5,6 ‘durch die Liebe tätig ist.’ Frage: ist Glaube und Liebe überholt? wer will sich anmaßen, über den Glauben herauszukommen, ‘der aus dem Wort gezeuget und durch das Wort sich nährt u. vor dem Wort sich beuget und mit dem Wort sich wehrt,’ und über die Liebe hinauszukommen, ‘die seiner Liebe Furcht, die anderen so begegnet, wie er das Herz bewegt, die segnet, wie er segnet und trägt, wie er sie trägt?’

If non-violence is a premise, then what is the conclusion? Unlike the kingdoms of this world, whose foundation includes a monopoly on violence, God’s kingdom must use a different set of tools to accomplish its goal. Those tools consist of the Word, the Spirit in the Word, grace which guides the process in which the Word works faith, and the actions which result from this. These tools are the alternative to violence.

The passage from which Mühaupt quotes is a sermon delivered by Luther and then edited for printing in 1537. In the paragraph in question, Luther writes about Christ’s conversation with Pilate. The text, lightly modernized, reads:

Damit unterscheidet er gewaltig sein Reich und das Reich der Welt, und lehrt, wie sein Reich gestaltet sei. Das Reich des Kaisers, spricht er, ist von dieser Welt, gehört in diese Welt und nimmt ein Ende mit dieser Welt. Aber mein Reich ist nicht von dieser Welt, gehört auch nicht in diese Welt, ob es schon in dieser Welt geht, und nimmt kein Ende mit dieser Welt, sondern gehört in eine andere Welt und bleibt ewig. Das römische Reich bleibt wohl vor meinem Reich, so es nur selbst will. Denn mein Reich wird nicht durch äußerliche Gewalt und leibliches Schwert angerichtet, gestärkt und erhalten wie das Reich der Welt durch leiblich Gewalt und Schwert angerichtet, gestärkt, und erhalten wird, sondern wird erbauet, gestärkt, und erhalten durchs Wort, Glauben, und Geist. Die Welt ist voll Schalkheit, voll Heuchelei, voll Lügen, voll Faulheit, voll Untreue. Alle äußerliches weltliches Regiment, sie seien gleich mit Tugend, Redlichkeit, und Recht gegründet und gefasst aufs Beste, als sie immer mögen, so sind sie doch voll Falschheit und Lügen vor Gott, und ist kein wahrhaftiges rechtschaffenes Wesen darin.

The distinctive features of Christ’s kingdom are truth and pacifism. The characteristics of the worldly kingdom are falsehood and violence. Luther acknowledges that the worldly kingdom may well be founded with an eye toward virtue, honesty, and justice, but inevitably devolve into, and are sullied by, deception and lies.

Erwin Mülhaupt does a great service by pointing out that Christ’s kingdom is distinctive and in a class by itself.

The difference between Christ’s realm and every other realm is not a difference of degree: it is not merely that Christ’s realm is larger, or endures longer, or more perfectly manifests the virtues which one would desire in a kingdom. Rather, the difference is a difference of kind: Christ’s dominion is absolutely unique and peculiar. The contrast is between Christ’s kingdom and all other kingdoms. It is one-of-a-kind and unrepeatable.

Luther's Doctrine of the Two Realms: The New Testament Foundation for Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms

Since Jesus began preaching in Galilee, His followers have been struggling to conceptualize the proper relationship between worldly authority and spiritual authority. This has been a universal topic of discussion among Christians for the last 2,000 years.

Martin Luther made a major contribution to this discussion when he formulated his doctrine of the two kingdoms. There are historical antecedents to Luther’s articulation: “render unto Caesar” (Luke 20, Mark 12, Matthew 22), Augustine’s two cities, and the medieval concept of two swords (Luke 22).

Luther did not systematically or clearly express this doctrine, but rather mentions it in passing when it is relevant to his discussion of some other topic. It remains an exegetical challenge for scholars to gather from various writings Luther’s incidental remarks on this topic, and assemble them into a precise set of theses. In this way, Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms is a construct that Luther himself might not have recognized, and competing formulations exist.

The reader may be tempted to quickly place Luther’s teaching about the “two kingdoms” into a pigeonhole labeled “church and state,” but that would do a disservice to Luther’s thought. The modern framing of the question began with the American Revolution, around 250 years after Luther’s time. The modern “church and state” question, no matter which answers may be proposed, is not the same as Luther’s question. To be sure, there are some similarities between the two, but Luther’s context was markedly different than Thomas Jefferson’s.

Not only was Luther’s context different, his method was different. Luther began with Scripture.

Erwin Mülhaupt explains that Luther’s method included a habit of examining what Scripture says, and comparing this to what many readers think it says. Mülhaupt describes Luther’s understanding of John 18:36 and the kingdom of God:

Luther hebt auf diese Stelle oft ab, bei vielen modernen Theologen scheint dies Bibelwort fast vergessen. Man kann auf den Verdacht kommen, es wäre ihnen eigentlich lieber, in Joh. 18,36 stünde: mein Reich ist vor allem für diese Welt, denn ich erhebe den Herrschaftsanpruch über Pilatus und Herodes und den römischen Kaiser und alle Bereiche des menschlichen und politischen Lebens! Aber statt dessen findet Luther, daß Christus im Neuen Testament anerkennende Worte für das Reich des Kaisers, die Macht des Pilatus und Herodes und mancherlei Obrigkeit findet: das Reich des Kaisers hat auch seine Berechtigung Matth. 22,21ff, die Macht des Pilatus ist ihm auch von oben gegeben Joh. 19,11 und mancherlei Obrigkeiten sind auch nicht vom Teufel, sondern »von Gott verordnet« Röm. 13,1. Die Zwei-Reiche-Lehre war also für Luther biblisch begründet. Die biblische Begründung war für ihn sehr wichtig.

For those who’ve already been exposed to Luther’s texts, it’s possible that there’s little new or surprising in what Erwin Mülhaupt states about Luther’s relation to Scripture. Luther’s insistence on seeing Scripture as the foundation and starting-point for theology was a departure from the usual theological methodology of the time. Luther was so successful in propagating his method that it hardly seems controversial now to assert that Scripture is axiomatic. Even those who disagree with Luther often use Scripture in their argumentation, and thereby follow Luther’s example.

Luther defines two domains, each with its own purpose, and each with its own governance. These two realms need to be properly distinguished from each other. Luther summarizes his explanation of the nature and function of the two kingdoms:

Darum hat Gott die zwei Regimente verordnet, das geistliche, das die Menschen zu Christen und zu frommen Leuten macht durch den heiligen Geist unter Christus, und das weltliche, das den Unchristen und Bösen wehrt, so daß sie äußerlich Frieden halten und still sein müssen, ob sie wollen oder nicht.

The German word Reich can be rendered as ‘realm, domain, or kingdom’ in this context. It can possibly be translated with still other English words. Researchers refer to Luther’s idea as the Zweireichelehre or Zwei-Reiche-Lehre.

Luther’s schema here is simple yet profound: God established two governances; the spiritual governance, which makes people into Christians and into pious persons by means of the Holy Spirit and under the authority of Christ; the worldly governance, which restrains the non-Christians and evil people, so that external peace is maintained and so that they will be civil whether they want to or not.

In this articulation, the worldly government is expressly authorized to maintain peace against the will of the individual. The questions pose themselves: Does the spiritual government refrain from overriding the will of the individual? Does God ever override the will of the individual? The answers to these questions, and many related questions, will be left as an exercise for the reader.

Although working out the details of Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms will get complicated, the basic framework is simple enough, as is his method of working from Scripture. Again, it shows how successful he was, that what seems simple to the twenty-first century reader was new to the sixteenth-century reader.

Theses on Ministry and Theology

Students who are preparing to do ministry, whether as ordained pastors or in some other role, are almost always required to study a certain amount of theology. Why? Some observers criticize such requirements as needlessly abstract and theoretical, an academic distraction from practical hands-on ministry. Other observers argue that ministers, ordained or non-ordained, need more theological training in order to provide guidance and foundations for practical ministry.

(1) Ministry and theology are two distinct and different things. Both are valuable.

(2) Ministry is to theology as the practice of medicine is to biology.

(3) Ecclesiology can be either useful or hindersome to both theology and ministry.

(4) Theology is the pursuit of knowledge. Ministry is the taking of action.

(5) Theology values precision over time. Ministry values time over precision.

(6) Theology informs ministry. Ministry applies theology.

These theses can be seen in a concrete example. A pastor might need to decide whether to invite a specific person to receive the sacrament. This is a well-known topic; scholars write books about it and debate about it. These discussions and publications can stretch out over years.

But in the moment, the pastor must make a decision, and in some cases must make the decision quickly. In a minute, he must take action regarding a topic which the scholars have dissected for years.

This is not to say that the pastor should despise theology; on the contrary, it is for this moment that he has studied theology. Nor should the theologian despise the pastor; the theologian’s task is to provide a toolbox of concepts which are available to the pastor as he does ministry.

These theses are starting points, not conclusions.

Theses on Doctrine and Emotion

(1) It is an error to base doctrine on emotion.

(2) It is an error to fail to base emotion on doctrine.

(3) Doctrine indicates that the emotions of the other must inform the action of the agent.

The error of basing doctrine and belief on emotions has been so well discussed and documented that no further examination of this thesis is needed.

An understanding and internalization of the doctrine of salvation by grace, of the doctrine of God’s omnibenevolence, of God’s unconditional positive regard and affection for every human being, of God’s forgiveness and mercy, and of God’s bestowal of unearned and unmerited favor on every human being is so powerful that it necessarily affects human emotion, and human emotion cannot help but be affected by such understanding.

Any rational ethic must factor the emotions of the other into its calculus of utility. It is a sin to needlessly inflict a negative emotion onto another — sadness, grief, etc. It is a sin to needlessly fail to empower a positive emotion in another — happiness, relief, etc. In a multifactorial calculation of utility, emotion must be considered and weighed against other types of utility.