It's springtime, which means that Princeton University Press is having its annual 50% off spring sale. From May 4th through June 9th, you can get 50% off nearly every single print, e-book, and audio book from Princeton University Press. Just go to press.prinston.edu to get 50% off incredible books like Disneyland and the Rise of Automation and Beyond Belief, how evidence shows what really works. There are so many fantastic books you can get an incredible deal on.
Go to press.prinston.edu and use the code spring50. That's sp-r-i-n-g-50 at press.prinston.edu. This sale only lasts for a month, so go and get some books. Welcome to the new books network.
Hello everybody and welcome back to New Books and Christian Studies, a channel on the New Books Network podcast. I'm your host, Crawford Griffin, and today my guest is Jonathan D. Beakey. Jonathan is an adjunct professor of historical theology, a puritan reform theological seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where he also serves as director of admissions and registrar.
Today we're talking to Jonathan about his brand new book, Juplex Regnam-Krissey Christ Two-Fold Kingdom and Reform Theology, just published by Brel in their prestigious series, Studies and Reform Theology. Jonathan, it's great to have you in the show. Congratulations in the book and we look forward to chatting about it. Thank you, Crawford.
Thank you for having me on. Well, pleasure. It's great to see you. Before we jump into Juplex Regnam-Krissey Christ Two-Fold Kingdom and Reform Theology, could you tell us a little bit about yourself?
Sure. Yes. Sorry, I'm married. I have four children.
I live here in Grand Rapids. I work at the seminary, a puritan seminary as you indicated. I have been here since 2011. Historical theology is my topic of interest and research and writing and study.
I work here as well as admissions director and registrar. I grew up in Ontario, Canada. So I'm a Canadian, so please don't hold that against me. Love hockey and coffee as a true Canadian would.
And went to, as I said, I got married, four children, went to both Westminster's actually, Westminster in California for my master's degree. And then went to Westminster in Philadelphia for PhD studies, but then finished at the University of Oregon in 2019. Very good. And this book is the foot of some of your recent research in this area, Jonathan, isn't it?
So this idea of two kingdoms or as you help us see in the book, Elsewhere in the tradition, a two-fold kingdom is a really big issue in a lot of recent conversation in popular and academic reform theology, isn't it? And one of the things you're doing that's really magisterial book is taking that problem of interpretation and dropping shafts into it to try to establish what the historical position has been as it has developed over the course of Christian history, more recently within the reform tradition. Massive project, massive range, complicated. So what were some of the challenges that faced you as you developed this project?
You talked in the introduction about vocabulary, regional variety, social political context and so on. What were some of the challenges that you faced? Yeah, very good. So let me just, before answering that, I can tell you a little bit about my interest in this topic, how I became interested in it and then the challenges faced in researching it.
So as I said, I grew up in Canada, Ontario. I went to Redeemer University where I studied under Al Walters. I know if you're familiar with him, you wrote the book, Creation Regained. I kind of got a foundation from more of a neo-Calvinist transformationalist type of background.
And then as I said, I went to Westminster Seminary in California and studied under David Vendrune in there. So kind of like both sides, you know, in my educational background, more from the transformationalist side of things and then from Dr. Vendrune. And what always plagued me was both sides or both camps, if you will, were drawing from a reformed background, reformed sources.
Both were claiming to be drawing from a historic, reformed, the historic, reformed position. And so it was always in the back of my mind, you know, how can both be drawing from this one source? What truly is the historic, reformed position on, you know, the two kingdom approach? So that really is what plagued me and was the central question in my mind as I came to this research.
Talking about challenges in this, a lot of challenges. Again, when you're trying to define what is the reformed position, you know, that in itself is a very difficult question. Right? I mean, you're dealing with a massive amount of period of history of figures, who to research, how to be selective in this.
As you can tell from the book, I tried to, well, there's a large swath of time that I'm covering from John of Chrysostom to Benedict Turitan. That's, you know, hundreds of years, right? So how do you bring this in a concise way? And how do you trace this historical progression of this doctrine over such a large period of time and get not be subject to the claim of cherry picking, right?
And then you know, selecting representatives just because they fit within, you know, what you want to discuss. So that was a massive challenge to me as I'm trying to trace, you know, what is the, the reformed position on this. And then, and then as you indicated, you know, in terms of terms and definitions as they, as they change over time, and how to relate that to the different contexts within which these terms were introduced and what they meant and why. So those were, those were significant challenges to me as well.
And then also a third challenge, I guess, is how as a historian, how I am to remain objective in this. Yes, I'm very interested in it personally as I described from my educational background. But how do I as a historian, how do I remain objective in this and give a, give a true picture of what these representatives taught and why they taught that. So yes, I tried to remain a distance objective in it.
And yet in the concluding chapter, how to bring this to bear on systematic reflections of the two full kingdom today. Yeah, it was, I guess, would be the three challenges. Yeah, good. Well, when we come back to that last one is towards the end of the conversation, Jonathan, when we think about the impact of the work.
I suppose one of the major arguments that stretches across the chapters is the argument that discussion within reformed systematic theology. The discussion of the two full kingdom or the two kingdoms moves from being placed within discussions of politics or ecclesiology eventually to be located within discussions of Christology. Now, maybe for some people listening, that seems like a very complex thing to get ahead around. So just in a nutshell, could you break that big argument down and help us understand what's happening and why that matters.
Sure. Yeah, that's a good question. As you said, that is a one of the major arguments of the book is that as you as we come across this doctrine within the Reformational figure is magisterial reformers that the discussion often happens as you are finding it within distinction between the magistrate and the church. So, you know, the discussion always happens within the context of ecclesiology.
So what the church is meant to be and how that's distinct from the civil magistrate. You see a shift over time as you get into reformed orthodoxy when the discussion happens much more in Christology in defining who Christ is and the person, his person, and his work. I described this as more of a bottom up approach in the conclusion as you know in the Reformational figures, more of a bottom up approach, whereas as you get into reformed orthodoxy more of a top down approach, you know, more of a more of a Christological approach. And I think that you know it's helpful to consider this because it's helpful to understand where do you begin with your distinctions and definitions what's the starting point for these definitions for the for the magisterial reformers.
The discussion became in the created order. So looking here as the church is the function of the church as distinct from the magistrate looking in this realm here, whereas in the reformed orthodoxy, it was, as I said, much more of a top down approach. It begins with who Christ is and his work and the distinction flows down from that. So it's important, it might seem like a minor difference, but for the reformed orthodoxy, it was actually a very important difference because it matters where you start in terms of definitions.
In terms of telling the story as well, doesn't it? So you begin your discussion with a very substantial chapter in pre-Reformation discussions of this idea of two kingdoms, or perhaps we should say two cities or two swords. Could you help us understand what's happening with this idea before the magisterial reformers begin their articulation? Yeah, very good.
Yes. As I said, I tried to give a broad sweep of history. And again, you know, in terms of intellectual history, you're trying to show the organic development over time. So yes, I do have one chapter.
It's a very select chapter beginning with ancient and medieval figures. So I begin with a John of Chrysostom. You know, prior to Augustine, John of Chrysostom was actually picked up by reformed orthodox figures in his distinction. And interestingly, in his comments on 1 Corinthians 15 in his language of, how did I describe it, a kingdom of creation and a kingdom of approbation.
So interestingly, 17th century reformed orthodox figures picked up on his language and his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 in their defense of twofold kingdoms. So they're looking for ancient and early church fathers to support their doctrine. And then, yes, of course, you have a massive figure of Augustine, right, in his two cities and two kingdoms work. So yes, certainly that is provides sort of the intellectual context for this later.
And interestingly for Augustine, he gives a much more of an eschological approach to this. That was, you know, very much part of, you know, the two kingdom approach. So yes, different figures within the early church. I only focused on a select few Chrysostom Augustine.
I did in the medieval figures, I focused on Aquinas and then William of Occam, and then also the two swords construct within the medieval period. So yes, it doesn't have the specific terminology of the reformed or the of the reformed orthodox, which was much more systematic and refined in their precise definitions. But I tried to demonstrate the organic flow of this, that it's not something that they are creating out of the sky. You know, there are ancient and medieval precursors to this, even though not everything is there organically it's related, but it's developing and they're drawing upon a different ancient and medieval precursors.
Very good. And with the discussion of the pre-formation church, take it immediately to Luther, don't you? And explain in that chapter that Luther is hard to read on this subject. His terminology isn't always fixed or precisely can sometimes use words with multiple significations.
And again, in terms of concepts, he talks about two realms, two governments and two peoples, doesn't he? What does Luther do to set up the discussion for Calvin and the later reformed orthodox of how to think about church and civil government? Yeah, yes, Luther is a figure to summarize well. And as I indicated in the introduction to this chapter on Luther, this is a massive discussion in Lutheran scholarship.
It's at the top of Lutheran scholarship. So to do justice to him in one chapter was certainly challenging. And therefore I had to rely on different summaries for Luther to try to summarize this well. And as you indicated, part of this was Luther wasn't a systematition.
He would employ various terms equivocally throughout his works. And so I did rely on Kraus, who did a dissertation on Luther, and I thought he did that quite well. And he suggested these three different overlays of Luther, the two realms, two rules, and two peoples. And these simultaneous overlays of Luther, and that that summarized well, summarize as well, Luther's two-kingdom doctrine.
So that, and that these three overlays had to be held simultaneously, and that that would give justice to the Lutheran doctrine. And then of course, without falling into the trap of having a simple distinction of church and state, but that this is tied to all of Luther's theology. A much more of a holistic approach to this, and that a lot of the paradoxes is held in Luther's theology of law and gospel, or different two kinds of righteousnesses, that this is important to consider all of that within Luther's theology. And then what I've also added to this as well is, even though it's not explicit in Luther's theology, that it's necessary to hold this as a post-lapsarian doctrine for Luther.
Many, I think, have failed and missed this point, that they've held that the two kingdoms doctrine for Luther was a natural distinction, one that was part of the created order. But I think it's much more helpful to understand it as a post-lapsarian distinction for Luther, even though he might not have explicitly stated that, I think it makes sense within his theology, that it presumes the presence of sin and the promise of a mediator in salvation, that this is important for him. But I think from Luther, you see that in carried on into Calvin and other Reform Orthodox figures as well, the need for sin to be there and the promise of a mediator for this distinction to make sense. And I suppose we see that very clearly in the chapter that you have on Martin Busser and John Calvin, and I thought it was really interesting the way that you you've decentered Calvin from the discussion by having him come after Martin Busser.
What was your thinking in doing that? What does Busser do for us? Maybe that Calvin doesn't in terms of this discussion? Well, yeah, that's interesting that you know, I didn't want to focus too much on Calvin and make him the sort of central figure and him to be the standard by which everybody else is measured, right?
That's certainly not the point. And perhaps part of what I'm trying to correct in terms of the historical presentation of this doctrine, that Calvin is the measure, or the terminology of Calvin is the measure for this particular doctrine. But yes, Busser I think is rightly placed before Calvin in this, and I think I was keyed on to that by Matthew Tuninga. Matthew Tuninga's work, very monumental work on Calvin and the Two Kingdoms, and he indicated as I noted in my book that Calvin has to be understood within the context of Busser's work on the Reginald Christie, and that that was a very formative for Calvin.
So yes, I relied on Tuninga's work for that. And what was the distinction in that chapter, Jonathan, between a two-kingdom theology or a two-fold kingdom theology? What's that all about? Right, so yes, I did note as well the importance of the singularity or the plurality of terms.
So from Calvin on, you actually have an indication of a singularity that the two-fold kingdom as opposed to two kingdoms in the plural. Two kingdoms in the plural is much more of a Lutheran term. Luther in fact used the plurality of terms as opposed to Calvin. So from Calvin on, even into the Reformed Orthodox period, you have the indication of a duplex regnum, the emphasis on the singularity there.
And I think that that's indicative of, well, it's not as catchy of a term as two kingdoms theology, to say two-fold kingdom theology is much more of a mouthful. But I think it's important to recognize that Christ's kingdom is singular, and to emphasize that as I made in the conclusion that from Calvin on, you didn't recognize a distinction of Christ's kingdom in terms of a scope or a spatial distinction. But in terms of mode, that to me is a significant difference in the history of this scholarship, that the Reformed Orthodox, especially, and I think drawing from Calvin and others, that they never distinguish the plurality of kingdoms in Christ. It's a universal kingdom, and yet there is a distinction between the kingdom that he administers as the Son of God and the kingdom that he administers as God man.
So this is a distinction in terms of mode, not in terms of scope. If it was in terms of scope, the plurality would make sense, right? That there are two separate kingdoms that Christ administers, but no, it's in terms of mode, and therefore it's a singular kingdom. Now, yes, Calvin is often criticized as the key Jonathan for the way in which sacred and civil government operated in Geneva, I'm thinking, of course, of a very famous execution.
Do you think that Calvin's practice was always consistent with his ideas of the relationship between the two parts of the single kingdom of Christ? Yeah, that's it. I do deal with that in a smaller section in the book. I call it Chapter 4, Section 5, Calvin's Two-Fold Kingdom, consistent or confused application.
And so I detail this a little bit in the book. I don't deal with it extensively, but as you rightly note, this is certainly one of the critiques that's leveled against him. Was he actually consistent in the application of this doctrine? And I give various representatives who do say yes, he was inconsistent in his approach.
And yet I try to moderate that a little bit with saying yes, he did have this. Again, I draw on Matthew Tuninga as well for some degree of this in his defense of Calvin in the two kingdoms. But it makes a little bit more sense. As I understand, you mentioned his execution of servitas, but it's interesting to note that Calvin did believe that even heretics such as servitas aired in two ways.
They aired both against the king, God's representative, and they aired against theology as well. So even if Calvin defended the execution of servitas, he did so in a sense defending his execution of this, because servitas was going against God's appointed representative. And so this was a civil matter as much as it was a theological matter as well. So I'm not arguing that Calvin was consistent in all matters, and yet he tried to live by that distinction even in this particular execution.
Interesting. I thought one of the really interesting ways in which the book was organized, Jonathan, was the way in which in the latter half of the book you focused on three representative locations, Lydin, Geneva, and then Edinburgh, as ways to show how in different social, political contexts reform thinkers were developing these ideas with particular kinds of emphases. And suppose in the chapter in Lydin, your discussion of Franciscus Junius was especially fascinating because you emphasized that it was Junius, who as far as we can tell was the first to make the distinction not just between X type and archetypal theology, but also between the essential kingship of Christ and the mediatorial kingship of Christ. Again, could you just break that down a little bit and tell us what is the essential kingship of Christ, what's the mediatorial kingship of Christ, and then how did this begin to feed into the tradition as it developed?
Yeah, so yes, as you say, so in part two, I transitioned to the Reformed Orthodoxy and again trying to demonstrate both the continuity and discontinuity from the Reformation period to Reformed Orthodoxy. And again, part of the challenge as I indicated before was how to slice up this history, right? How to give a good handle of this history? And so I drew on what's called institutional history, trying to look at these three representative centers as a good way of trying to give a handle of what Reformed Orthodoxy taught on this and focused on these three centers, Lydin, Geneva, and Edinburgh.
Again, part of the reason why I focused on these three centers was to give a different political context for each of Reformed Orthodoxy, so focusing on three different cities within three different political contexts. And then of course you have to again narrow it down a little bit more and then focus on representative figures who taught at these particular institutions. So yes, I did focus on Junius as one representative from Lydin, an early representative who taught there. And looked at Junius who's known for his deveret, theologia, and his archetypal, etypal distinction.
That's part of what he's well known for. And what I found was that he may have been, to my knowledge, the very first to use this precise distinction in terms of the two-fold kingdom of Christ. That's the earliest reference that I found for the very precise Latin terminology for the essential kingship of Christ as opposed to the medatorial kingship of Christ. And what from Junius and the whole of Reformed Orthodoxy, what they meant by that is an essential kingship of Christ is that kingship of Christ that he exercises as logos.
It's essential to him as a second person of the Trinity. This is distinct, very distinct from the medatorial kingship of Christ, that kingship that is given to him as God-man. And you think, well, how are they getting this? Where's this coming from?
Where's this terminology coming from? Well, they looked at particular verses such as Matthew 28 when it talks about a kingship that all authority is given to the Jesus Christ from the Father, or 1 Corinthians 15, when the son hands over a kingdom back to the Father. What kind of kingdom is that, or kingship is that referring to? And that's where the Reformed Orthodox came up with this distinction between an essential kingship and a medatorial kingship.
So anytime that it's talking about a transfer of power or authority, that's referring to this medatorial kingship that Jesus Christ holds as God-man and as mediator on behalf of his people. Interestingly, the context for this is, well, within, they're coming up to the SoCinians. The SoCinians have criticized the Reformed and are arguing for the subjugation of the son to the Father based on verses such as this. 1 Corinthians 15 or Matthew 28 when it's talking about the son receiving power from the Father.
Well, what does that mean? Does that mean that the son is less than the Father, right? That authority is not essential to the son. This is the context, the political context within which these terms have become important.
Something very different than what the Reformed have struggled with. These terms are not there within that context. And so, yes, as far as I know, Junius is the first one to have brought this precise terms to the forefront. Yeah, brilliant.
Well, if we could move the discussion to the Edinburgh location of Edinburgh in Scotland to Jonathan, I thought there your reading of David Dixon's work was incredibly insightful. And again, you emphasize what made Dixon distinctive was that he along with many other covenantors, I suppose, were arguing that while Christ's kingdom was twofold, the civil magistrate had responsibility to impose upon their subjects both tables of the law. How distinctive was that position within the tradition as a whole? Yeah, very good.
So, yes, Dixon was an interesting figure to cover as well as the other representative cover of the book. The other representative covered in Edinburgh was John Sharp, somebody less known than David Dixon, but both were certainly interesting to cover. But as you say, yes, Dixon, I focused on him. And actually quite forcefully, he indicates that the magistrate is to enforce both tables of the law.
This is something that doesn't ring very true in the modern ear. I just quote this from from page 212 of the book, if then the magistrate may punish evil doers who offend against the second table and force and compel them to obedience by the sword of justice, which God had put which God had put into his hand much more may he punish idolators and blasphemers who offend against the first table. That's not something that is very common in our context. But, but I don't think that this was a very uncommon position amongst the reform door.
In fact, actually the majority position for the reform door. The box was that the magistrate was to uphold both tables of the law. Again, with with clear distinctions. However, even even even Dixon, I think would argue like many other reform door.
But here a religion is proper to the duty of the magistrate only. So the things about religion, not the things vital to the essence of religion, but only the things that that circumvent against religion. So in that sense, they're still upholding the twofold kingdom distinction, even while holding to this, what may seem very strange to the modern ear that the magistrate is to enforce very forcefully both tables of the law. Well, that and much more Jonathan you develop in this brilliant new book, Duke likes Reichner, Christi Christuful Kingdom and Reform Theology, just published by Brill in the Studies and Reform Theology series.
We've taken up a lot of your time today, but it's been great to talk to you about the book Jonathan. Before we do wind up the conversation, could you tell us what you might be working on next? Yeah, good. I am working on an introduction to Francis Turitan.
That's one of the figures that I deal with as well in this book. His three volumes are actually going to be published in Portuguese. They're translated now into Spanish. So I have the task of writing an introduction and overview of his works, and then that will be appended in the introduction to this Portuguese translation of his three volumes.
So that's my next project. Very good. That sounds fascinating. Well, Jonathan, thanks for coming on to the show today.
Thanks for writing this book and thanks for being willing to talk about it. Thanks for your time and take care. Thank you, Grafford. Thanks for having me.
And thanks to everyone else for listening in today. I'll see you next time on New Books and Christian Studies, a channel on the New Books Network Podcast.