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?

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.