Tags
Recently, VanDrunen’s monograph on a Reformed approach to the doctrine of Two Kingdoms has generated interest. VanDrunen relies on looking at several different Reformed Scholastics, and Witsius is no exception.
The kingdom of Christ is two-fold. 1. He has a Divine, or essential kingdom, which he possesses in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. 2. He has a Mediatorial, or personal kingdom, as God-man. This distinction, however, must not be understood to imply, that Christ’s dominion as Mediatior over the Church, so far as it involves a plentitude of power, and a name above every name, to which every knee must bow, differs in substance from the essential kingdom, or denotes a majesty of dominion inferior to the dominion of the Most High God: For this kingdom is of such a nature, that it imports a substantial demonstration of the true divinity of Christ, and of his being of the same essence, and of equal dignity, with the Father. It is of such a nature, in a word, that it can belong to no mere creature: “For Jehovah is our Judge; Jehovah is our Lawgiver; Jehovah is our King” (Is 33:22).
…
Further, the Mediatorial kingdom, is either Universal, by which he rules over all creatures with sovereign authority, yet with a certain respect to the Church, as he makes use of all creatures for her benefit. Or, it is Particular, being a sovereign and glorious power to build and preserve the Church, collected from all nations. “He gave him to be the Head over all things to the Church.”
Symbolum XX.XXII
Clearly, Witsius understands a dual distinction with regards to Christ’s regal dominion, and as such seems to fit with the broad consensus of Reformed Orthodoxy.
I have yet to read VanDrunen on this (it is on my list). Please help me understand this. Let me preface this by saying that I am very sympathetic to what I understand of VanDrunen’s thesis, although I think Meredith Kline perhaps understands it better by way of a covenant of grace and a covenant of common grace.
But this quote from Witsius doesn’t sound like it supports a two-kingdom perspective: “This distinction, however, must not be understood to imply, that Christ’s dominion as Mediatior over the Church, so far as it involves a plentitude of power, and a name above every name, to which every knee must bow, differs in substance from the essential kingdom, or denotes a majesty of dominion inferior to the dominion of the Most High God: For this kingdom is of such a nature, that it imports a substantial demonstration of the true divinity of Christ, and of his being of the same essence, and of equal dignity, with the Father.”
It sounds to me like Witsius is arguing for one kingdom.