Northeastern Political Science Association

Hobbes & the Two Kingdoms of God

Author(s): Joel Schwartz
Source: Polity, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 7-24
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3234730
Accessed: 19-01-2016 04:04 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Northeastern Political Science Association and Palgrave Macmillan Journals are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Polity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hobbes & the
Two Kingdomsof God

JoelSchwartz
of Michigan
University

Therewasonce,underMoses and hissuccessors, a kingdom of God

and therewillbe anotherafterthesecondcomingof Christ.Butno
suchkingdom can existin thepresent,and thereforerebellion
against
thesovereign,hereand now,cannotbejustifiedin itsname.Going
beyondthisgenerally well-understood purposeof Hobbes'stheology,
ProfessorSchwartz argues herethat thedistinction
betweentheJewish
and ChristianKingdomsof God, as Hobbes it,informs
presents his
discussion
of a well-ordered
commonwealth in Leviathan.This
commonwealth avoidsthedefectsof theJewishkingdom-instability
and confusion fromincorrect
resulting notionsofsovereignty,
liberty,
and humannature-anditssubjects,likethoseof thefutureChristian
kingdom, are obedientto sovereign authority.

JoelSchwartzis Assistant ofPoliticalScienceat the

Professor
ofMichigan.He is theauthorof The SexualPoliticsof
University
Rousseau(1984)and articlesin PoliticalTheoryand
Jean-Jacques
WesternPoliticalQuarterly.

According toThomasHobbes,"thegreatest andmainabuseofScripture

... to whichalmostall therestare eitherconsequent or subservient,is
thewresting ofit,to provethatthekingdom ofGod,mentioned so often
in the Scripture,is thepresentChurch,"'or any otherinstitution or
groupof individualsexistingin the present.It is the greatestabuse
becausepoliticallyitis themostdangerous.IfGod's kingdom and
exists,
differs fromtheexistingkingdoms governedby mortals, peoplemay
construetheirmembership (or desireformembership) in it so as to
requirethemto countenance rebellion
againsttheirmortalsovereigns.
Politicsand religionintersect
in theBiblicaldepictionof God as a
king.In Books Threeand Four of Leviathan,Hobbes discussesthe
FormeandPowerofa Commonwealth
1. Leviathan:Or,theMatter, and
Ecclesiasticall
Civil,ed. MichaelOakeshott 1962),ch.44, p. 438.
(London:Collier-Macmillan,

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 of God
8 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms

politicalas wellas thetheological implicationsof thedoctrineof the

kingdom ofGod at greatlength. He doesso, heexplains, becausecorrect
orincorrect understandings ofitsmeaning canhavefavorable oradverse
consequences forthestabilityof kingdoms establishedbymen.2
Sinceincorrect conceptions of thekingdom of God can threaten the
authority of thesovereign, Hobbeshas to providea validconception,
meaningone thatwouldbe compatible withsuchauthority. He accom-
this
plishes bycontending thatthe kingdom of God is it
eschatological:
doesnotandcannotexistinthepresent, butwillinsteadonlybe restored
uponearthbyChristat hissecondcoming.It willcomeintobeingonly
"at thelastday," upon"thegeneralresurrection ofthedead."' Hence
no politicalrebellion
canbejustified inordertohastenitsarrival,oras a
resultofthebeliefthatitalreadyexists."The authority ofearthlysover-
eigns[is]notto be putdowntillthedayofjudgment."4
Hobbesianeschatology waslongignored byscholars, butithasrecent-
ly receivedconsiderable attention,chieflybecauseof a thoughtful and
provocativeessay by J. G. A. Pocock.' He arguesthat Hobbes's
eschatology pointsto a significant dimension
historical in thelatter's
thought. Pocockrightly reminds us thatalthough thefirsttwobooksof
LeviathancontainHobbes'ssecularahistorical philosophy,thefocusin
thelasttwobooksshiftsto a highly accountof divinerevela-
historical
tion.In theChristian understanding, to whichHobbesis at leastsuper-
God manifested
ficiallyfaithful, Himselfto His followers in thepast,
andwilldo so againinthefuture, at thesecondcomingofChrist.Thus,
saysPocock,"Hobbes affirms theexistence of a sacredhistory."6
ButPocock'sinterpretation wouldseemto overlooksomeimportant
elementsof Hobbes's analysisof the kingdomof God.7 For all of
2. Leviathan, 38, pp. 329-330.
3. Leviathan, 44, p. 438; 41, p. 353.
4. Leviathan, 42, p. 367.
5. "Time,Historyand Eschatology in theThoughtof ThomasHobbes,"in J. G. A.
Pocock,Politics,Language,and Time(NewYork:Atheneum, 1973),pp. 148-201.Briefer
expositionsofHobbes'seschatology, inall ofwhichPocock'sinfluence is discernible,
can
be foundin thefollowing works:PatriciaSpringborg, "Leviathanand theProblemof
Ecclesiastical
Authority," PoliticalTheory3 (1975):289-303;Eldon J. Eisenach,Two
Worlds ofLiberalism: Religion andPoliticsinHobbes,Locke,andMill(ChicagoandLon-
don: University of ChicagoPress,1981); Eisenach,"Hobbes on Church,Stateand
Religion,"History ofPoliticalThought 3 (1982):215-243.
6. Pocock,pp. 159-160.
7. Furthermore, although I do notwishtoinvolve myselfintheinterminable debateover
thesincerityorinsincerityofHobbes'sreligious convictions,itis alsotruethatonerespect
inwhichPocock'sinterpretation is notpersuasiveconcernshisargument inbehalfoftheir
See p. 162:"Although
sincerity. esoteric reasonshavebeensuggested whyHobbesshould
havewritten whathedidnotbelieve, thedifficultyremainsofimagining whya notoriously

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JoelSchwartz 9

Pocock'semphasis on history, thereis a senseinwhichhisanalysisis not

historicalenough. For he does notfullyconsiderthefactthatHobbes
discussesnotone buttwodifferent kingdoms of God: one, theJewish
kingdom described in theOld Testament, existed inthepast,withGod as
rulerrepresented by Moses and his successors; other,theChristian
the
kingdom foretold in theNew Testament, is to existin thefuture, with
God as rulerrepresented by Christ upon Christ's second coming.Since
thereis a historical kingdom of God as wellas an eschatological one,I
willcomparethetwokingdoms, andconsider theimplications ofthehis-
toricalexperience of theformer fortheprospects of thelatter.
Pocockis notunawareof Hobbes'sdistinction between thetwoking-
domsof God; he recognizes thatHobbesportrays theoriginalkingdom
ofGod as theantetype ofthekingdom ofGod thatis to come.8In typo-
logical arguments, frequently employedby the theologiansamong
Hobbes'scontemporaries, descriptions of eventsin theOld Testament
arethought to be anticipations oflatereventsthataredescribed or fore-
toldintheNewTestament. Theantetypical eventis similarbutnotiden-
ticalto thelaterevent,whichis patterned afterit. Thusto speakof the
originalkingdom as the antetypical forerunner of its successoris to
acknowledge that there are differences as well as similarities between the
twokingdoms.
My argument hereis thatthedifferences betweenthetwokingdoms
mustbe thoroughly consideredif the politicalimportof Hobbes's
eschatology is to be properly understood. Thesedifferences relateto the
respects in whichtheearlierJewishkingdom is inferior to itsChristian
successor. WhilePocockis hardlyoblivioustotheformer's deficiencies,9

arrogantthinker, vehement inhisdislikeof'insignificantspeech,'shouldhavewritten and

afterwards defended sixteenchaptersofwhatheheldtobe nonsense, andexposedthemto
thescrutiny of a publicwhichdidnotconsider thiskindof thingnonsense at all." Upon
consideration,this"difficulty"doesnotstrikemeas beingverydifficult. Precisely because
the"public. . . did notconsider[thekingdom of God] nonsense,"it wouldhavebeen
necessary forHobbesto explainhowbeliefin thekingdom of God couldbe compatible
withhispolitical philosophy,whether ornothehimself didbelieveittobe "nonsense."In
viewofHobbes'srecognition 38,pp.329-330)ofthe"greatinfluence"
(Leviathan, of"the
pointsof doctrine concerningthekingdom of God ... on thekingdom ofman," thiswould
makesense,evenifHobbesthought thatonly"thekingdom of man" reallyexisted.
8. See Pocock,p. 173,fora discussion of Hobbes's"typological modeof argument."
SeealsoRichardSherlock, "The Theology ofLeviathan: HobbesonReligion," Interpreta-
tion10 (1982):50-51.
9. See especiallyPocock,p. 170,wherehe refers to the"farfrominfallible [Israelite]
publicopinion,"whichdecidedwhether or notto obeytheprophets whopurported to be
God's representatives.Pocockalso notesthatGod ruledtheJews"through lieutenants of
twokinds"at thesametime-priests andlaterkingson theonehand,andprophets on the
other.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms
of God

itis nevertheless thecase thathismajorconcernleadshimto groupthe

twokingdoms ofGod together. He emphasizes Hobbes'semployment of
traditional Christian theologicalcategories: in doingso, he speaksof
"theHebrew... elements in seventeenth-century thought," andclaims
thatHobbes"mostrigorously separatedtheHellenicfromtheHebraic
components of his culturaltradition and wentfurther thananymajor
philosopher sinceAugustine inrejecting theformer andrelying uponthe
latter."'0 Pocock wants to highlight theseriousness with which Hobbes
approaches both the Old and the New Testaments, but he does not con-
siderthedifferences (and the significanceof the differences) between
Hobbes'sassessments oftheOld andNewTestaments-or oftheJewish
andChristian components of the "Hebraic" tradition. I shallattempt to
demonstrate thatHobbes'streatment ofthesubjectincorporates a com-
parisonbetweenOld and NewTestaments, reflected in hiscomparison
between theJewish and Christian of
kingdoms God, and thatthiscom-
parisonrevealsHobbes's consciouspreference for the politicsof the
Christian kingdom of God to thatof theJewish kingdom.
Thedifferences between thetwokingdoms ofGod arepoliticalas well
as religious. Pocockrightly speaksof "theliteraland politicalkingdom
of God uponearththatexistedfromMosesto Samuel."" The original
kingdom was indeedpolitical.Its deficiencies emergewhenwe examine
its characteristics in lightof Hobbes's explicitcriteriaforjudgingthe
goodnessorbadnessofpoliticalinstitutions. We canthenunderstand the
futurekingdomof God and in a sensetheLeviathan-state as wellas
Hobbes'sproposedsolutions to thepoliticalproblems exemplified inthe
originalkingdom of God. Hobbescelebrates theChristian kingdom of
God to comeas a utopiansolutionto thepoliticalproblems withwhich
theLeviathan-state canmoreorlesssuccessfully deal,andwithwhichthe
originalkingdom of God notably failedto deal. The Leviathan-state
solvescertain politicalproblems which the
destroyed original kingdom of
God; to some extentit does so byadopting features which willbe charac-
of thefuture
teristic kingdom of God.
As Pocockobserves,Hobbes'sdiscussion of theeschatological king-
domofGod is muchmoreprominent inLeviathanthanitis inDe Cive.'
Thisis nicelybalancedbythefactthathiscriticism oftheoriginal Jewish
kingdom is in certainrespects much more explicitin De Cive than itis in
Leviathan.My comparisonbetweenthe two kingdomsaccordingly
beginswithHobbes'sdepictionof the Jewishkingdomof God in De
Cive.
10. Pocock,pp. 161,200.
11. Pocock,p. 172.
12. Pocock, pp. 172, 181.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JoelSchwartz 11

I. TheJewishKingdom ofGod inDe Cive

ChapterXVIofDe Civeconcerns"theKingdomof God undertheOld
Covenant."Hobbesspeaksthereof God's covenantswithAdam and
laterwithAbraham, butnotesthatonlyunderMosesdidthekingdom of
God comeintobeing,whentheIsraelites consented to makeGod their
kingandto obeyHis laws."3HobbesexplainsthattheIsraelites agreedto
makeGod theirkingbecausetheyweredetermined neverto subject
themselves againto humanrule.Theywere"notonlythefreest [people],
butalso thegreatest enemyto humansubjection, byreasonof thefresh
memory oftheirEgyptian bondage."" Byrenewing theircovenant with
God, theyestablished "a priestlykingdom, a government mostfree,in
whichtheywereto be subjectto no humanpower."'"
It is trulyremarkable forHobbesto speakof a freepeople,or a free
government, because byhisowndefinitions itis altogetherunclearwhat
hecanmeanbytheseterms.Onemight takehimtomeanthatas a people
theIsraeliteswerein somewaycollectively or communally freerthan
otherpeoples.ThismaywellhavebeentheIsraelites' self-understanding,
which philosophersother than Hobbes could perhaps support.'6
Hobbes'sownprinciples, however,prevent himfromagreeing withthe
Israelites and theotherphilosophers. For,according to theseprinciples,
all communities are equallyfreebecauseequallysovereign: "the city's
liberty"is no different in "a citywhichis governed bythepeople,than
[itis in one]whichis ruledbya monarch. "'7 In Hobbes'sview,political
liberty'8 is insteadguaranteed bythesilenceof thelaws: "each manis
said to enjoyhis liberty"by virtueof the "infinitecases whichare
neither commanded norprohibited, buteverymanmayeitherdo or not
do themas he listshimself.""9 But thenin view of the incredibly
numerousand detailed"politic,judicial,and ceremonial laws which

13. De Cive, xvI, 9-10.

14. De Cive,xvi,8. Leo Strausspointsto Hobbes'semphasis upontheintensityofthe
Jewish desireforliberty:
see "On theBasisofHobbes'sPoliticalPhilosophy," in Whatis
PoliticalPhilosophy?and OtherStudies(1959;rpt.Westport, Conn.:Greenwood, 1973),
p. 188.
15. De Cive,xvii,7. Hereas elsewhere, theemphases inquotationsareHobbes's.
16. I havein mind"Greek,andLatinauthors,"advocatesof communal whom
liberty
HobbescriticizesinLeviathan:seebelow.
17. De Cive,x, 8.
18. In making thisargument I assumethattheadjective"free"andthenoun"liberty"
can be consideredvariants of an identical
word.Hobbes'sLatinversionofDe Civesup-
portsthisassumption: in xvI,8, he speaksof theIsraelites
as "populus... liberrimus,
"
andinxvii,7, he refersto their"regimen liberrimum."
19. De Cive,xni,15. See alsox, 8.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 of God
12 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms

onlybelonged to theJews,"20andwhichtheIsraelites obligedthemselves

to obeyat Sinai,it wouldbe hardto finda less freepeoplethanthe
BiblicalJews.
SincetheIsraelites wereno morecommunally freethanotherpeoples,
and weresubjected to a multitude oflaws, Hobbes mustmeanthatthey
werefreebecausetheyweresubjectedonlyto God, and notto other
humanbeings.Humanauthority did existwithinthekingdom of God,
buthumans(firstMoses,and afterhisdeaththehighpriests) ruledonly
insofaras theycouldpersuasively claimto be theauthorized interpreters
of God's commands.2' Theywerenot,however, empowered to enforce
thosecommands.
Thusthesubjectsofthekingdom ofGod rejected notonlyhumanrule
whendevoidof God's sanction;to a verygreatextenttheyrejectedit
altogether.According to Hobbes,thiskingdom was a politicalfailure,
becauseit represented a quasi-anarchic attempt to eliminate authorized
enforcement of the law. The Israelitesmayhave thoughttheywere
rejectingsubmission to humanrulein thenameof submission to divine
rule.But,in effect, theirgovernment embodiedtheirfailureto under-
stand the ineluctablenecessityof humanrule, specifically human
enforcement of thelaw. Hobbesspeaksin De Cive of thefreedom of
Israelitegovernment; hisdoingso, however, merely reflects
the Israelite
assumption thatfreedom is incompatible withsubmission to theauthor-
ityof other humans. But this is an assumption which elsewhere in De
CiveHobbesexplicitly rejectsas erroneous: toassertthatthosewhoobey
arenotfreeis to "miscalldominion liberty.""Whenprivate menorsub-
jectsdemandliberty, underthenameof liberty theyask notforliberty
but dominion.""22 It is suggestive thatin LeviathanHobbesceasedto
speak of the freedomof the Israelitepeopleand government;23 con-
ceivablyhe did so becausehe becameawareof thetensionbetweenhis
criticismof thefallaciousunderstanding of libertyand hisascription to
theIsraelitesthemselves of thatunderstanding.
Hobbes'scriticism of theIsraeliteunderstanding of libertyis perhaps
mostapparentin a passagewhichhe quotesinDe CivefromJosephus'
Antiquitiesof theJews:

20. De Cive, xvI, 10.

21. De Cive,xvI,13-15.
22. De Cive,x, 8.
23. Cf.Leviathan, 12,p. 94: "theJews"aresaidto be "thepeculiarkingdom ofGod,
[who]thought itunlawful to acknowledge subjectionto anymortalkingor statewhatso-
ever";theyarenot,however, saidto be a freepeople.Cf. 30,p. 251,and40,p. 343:"the
werefreed,"and"redeemed
Israelites ... from ... labourinEgypt,"butthey
theirservile
areagainnotsaidto be "free"orto haveestablished a "free"government.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JoelSchwartz 13

But JudasGalilaeuswas the[leaderof a Jewishsect.He and his

followers]agreein all therestwiththePharisees,excepting that
theyburnwitha mostconstantdesireof liberty;believing God
aloneto be heldfortheirLordand prince;and willsoonerendure
eventhemostexquisite kindsoftorments, together withtheirkins-
folksand dearestfriends, thancall anymortalmantheirLord.2'
JudasGalilaeus,who initiatedhis sectnot long afterJesus'birth,
rejectedRomanruleoverJudea,andinstigated a rebellionagainstit.He
didso becausehebelievedthatthekingdom ofGod stillexisted,notwith-
standing theRomanconquestof Judea:althoughthekingdom of God
hadcometo an endwiththeelevation ofSaul as theIsraelites'
king,they
renewed it "aftertheirreturn fromBabylonian bondage.""2Judasand
his followersbelievedthattheywerestillsubjectsof thekingdomof
God, eventhoughit had beenunableto exertsovereign authority fora
long time.They denied that theywere of
subjects Rome, the
despite fact
thattheRomansdidexertsovereign authority.
Onereasonforthepoliticalcollapseoftherenewed kingdom ofGod is
clear:thelocusof sovereign authority within
it was altogetherindeter-
minate."It is notexpresslysetdown,thatthereturned Jewsdidgiveup
therightof sovereignty
eitherto Esdras, . . . or to any otherbeside God
himself.... It cannotbe understood outof thehistory of thosetimes,
where[thesupreme civil]authority Onemaysurmise
resided."''26 thatthe
renewed kingdom of God fellpreyto foreign conquerors at leastin part
becauseits founders failedto comprehend theneedforhumansover-
eigns,whoseauthority is evidentto all. Accordingly,theJews,whodid
notknowwhomto obey,weredefeated bytheRomans,whodid.Judas
Galilaeus'rebellion
reflected thepersistence ofthisJewish misapprehen-
sionaboutpolitics,whichstemmed fromthemistaken beliefthatliberty
on theone handand humanauthority on theotherwereincompatible.
one wouldnotexpectHobbesto havemuchsympathy
Intuitively, for
JudasGalilaeus'attempt to overthrow Romanauthority-particularly
insofaras hestroveto defeata government inwhichthelocusofauthor-
itywasclear,andto restore initssteadoneinwhichitwouldagainhave
beenobscureand incomprehensible. It is appropriate
to quoteat length
fromJosephus'accountof the causes and effectsof thisrebellion,

24. De Cive,xvI,9. NotethatheretoothediscussioninDe Civediffers

fromtheequiva-
lentdiscussioninLeviathan(35, pp. 299-300):inLeviathanHobbesretainstwoBiblical
quotationsthatheemployed inDe Cive(1 Samuel8:7 and1 Samuel12:12),butdeletesthe
quotationfromJosephus.
25. De Cive,xvI,16-17.
26. De Cive,xvi,17.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms
of God

becauseit so strikingly
resemblestheHobbesiananalysisof thecauses
and effectsof otherrebellions:
A certainJudas,a Gaulanitefroma citynamedGamala,whohad
enlistedtheaid ofSaddok,a Pharisee,threw himselfintothecause
of rebellion.Theysaid thattheassessment carriedwithit a status
amounting to downright slavery,no less, and appealedto the
nationto makea bidforindependence. Theyurgedthatin caseof
successthe Jewswouldhave laid the foundation of prosperity,
whileif theyfailedto obtainany such boon, theywouldwin
honourand renownfortheirloftyaim;andthatHeavenwouldbe
theirzealoushelperto no lesserend thanthefurthering of their
enterprise untilitsucceeded-allthemoreifwithhighdevotionin
theirheartstheystoodfirmanddidnotshrink fromthebloodshed
thatmight be necessary.Sincethepopulace,whentheyheardtheir
appeals,responded gladly,theplotto strikeboldlymadeserious
progress; and so thesemensowedtheseedofeverykindofmisery,
whichso afflicted thenationthatwordsareinadequate. Whenwars
are set afootthatare boundto ragebeyondcontrol,and when
friendsaredoneawaywithwhomight havealleviated thesuffering,
whenraidsare madebygreathordesof brigands and menof the
highest standing areassassinated,itis supposedto be thecommon
welfare thatis upheld,butthetruth is thatinsuchcasesthemotive
is privategain.Theysowedtheseedfromwhichsprangstrife be-
tweenfactions andtheslaughter offellowcitizens. Somewereslain
incivilstrife,forthesemenmadlyhadrecourse tobutchery ofeach
otherand of themselves froma longing notto be outdonebytheir
opponents;otherswereslainby the enemyin war. Then came
famine,reserved to exhibitthelastdegreeof shamelessness, fol-
lowedbythestorming andrazingofcitiesuntilat lasttheverytem-
ple of God was ravagedby theenemy'sfirethrough thisrevolt.
Hereis a lessonthatan innovation and reform in ancestraltradi-
tionsweighsheavily inthescaleinleadingtothedestruction ofthe
congregation ofthepeople.... Thezeal whichJudasand Saddok
inspired in theyounger element meanttheruinof ourcause."
Josephus'analysismight almosthavebeentakenfromBehemoth: the
to taxationand thereligious
resistance zealotrywhichhe the
describes,
seedsofcivilwarwhichhe discerns inthedesireforindividual
advance-

27. JewishAntiquities, Mass.,andLondon:Loeb

trans.LouisH. Feldman(Cambridge,
ClassicalLibrary,
1965),Book18,Chapter1--orshortly thepassagefromJosephus
before
quotedby Hobbes.(Book 18 appearsin theninthvolumeof theLoeb translation of
Josephus.)

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JoelSchwartz 15

ment,themoraland physicalcalamities whichhe seeswrought bythe

breakdown in legalorder,theopposition whichhe statesto intellectual
attacksuponthatlegalorder,areall strongly reminiscent oftheEnglish
CivilWaras Hobbeswouldlaterdescribe it.ThatHobbesand Josephus
shouldholdtheiranalysisincommonis notwhollycoincidental; forthey
owe a commonintellectual debtto theirpredecessor in theanalysisof
civilwar,Thucydides.28 In anyevent,therebellionof JudasGalilaeus
clearlysuggests theincalculable
politicalharmthatcanbe donebythose
who "burn witha constantdesirefor liberty,"motivatedby their
"belie[f]thatGod alone[is]theirLordand prince."
Hobbesemphasizes thedangersposedbyfallacious understandings of
libertymuchmorein Leviathanthanhe does in De Cive,devoting an
entirechapterto thesubject.Thatdiscussion is usefulforourpurposes,
becauseit mayhelpto explainwhyHobbesomitshisdiscussions of the
freedom of theIsraelites
(and hisquotationfromJosephus) in thelater
work.In Leviathan,Hobbes ascribestheblamefortheprevalence of
rebellionintheChristian Westtotheinfluence ofclassicalhistoriansand
politicalphilosophers,who,hecontends, expounded a communal under-
standing of libertythatwas inaccurateand pernicious:
AndbyreadingoftheseGreek,andLatinauthors, menfromtheir
childhoodhavegottena habit,undera falseshowof liberty, of
favouring tumults,andoflicentious controlling theactionsoftheir
sovereigns andagainofcontrollingthosecontrollers; withtheeffu-
sionof so muchblood,as I thinkI maytrulysay,therewas never
anythingso dearlybought,as thesewestern partshaveboughtthe
learningof theGreekand Latintongues.29
Butit is apparentfromJosephus (and fromDe Cive)thatthereis a
secondsourceforthisfallaciouscommunalunderstanding of liberty,
resultingin rebellionagainstthe rule of othermortals-namely, the
Jewishbeliefin membership in the kingdomof God. For obvious
rhetoricalreasons,Hobbesis noteagerto emphasizethefactthathis
doctrineincorporatesa critiqueof Biblicalpolitics;hencehe choosesto
ascribetheerroneous viewof liberty onlyto Greekand Roman,notto
Jewishprecedents. One is therefore tempted to concludethatHobbes
28. See Feldman'snotea on pp. 6-7 (commenting on thepassagequotedabove),where
hepointsto affinities
between Josephus'wordingandthewording employed byThucydides
in i.122andiii.82-84ofhishistory. Feldmanobserves thatsomeclassicalscholars
explain
thesimilaritiesbyhypothesizing thatthissectionof theAntiquities"is theworknotof
Josephusbut of an assistantwho was steepedin Thucydides";others"assum[e]that
Josephus was ... making an intensive
studyofThucydides ... to improvehisstyle,"in
preparationforwriting thissectionoftheAntiquities.
29. Leviathan, 21, p. 163.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms
of God

"improves"thepresentation of hispositioninLeviathan,bymakingit
lessobvioustherethanitis inDe Civethattheinfluence oftheHebrew
authorsof theBibleand thelearning of theHebrewtonguecouldcon-
ceivablyalso be blamedforthepoliticalinstabilityof theWest.
We haveseenhownostalgic desiresto restore
thekingdom of God to
prominence were responsiblefor "a falseshow of liberty,"in which
rebels"favour[ed]tumults."It is evenmoreimportant, however,to
realizethattheJudaicinsistence had
uponliberty alreadyimpaired the
properfunctioning of thekingdom of God duringits earlier
and more
successful
period.OnlyduringtheruleofMoses,and duringtheruleof
thehighpriestinthelifetime ofJoshua,wassovereignty inthiskingdom
botheffective and absolute.Thereafter rulewas divided,in waysthat
werepredictably harmful to thewelfareof thekingdom."The supreme
civil power was . . . rightlydue by God's own institutionto the high
priest;butactuallythatpowerwasintheprophets, to whom(beingrais-
ed byGod inan extraordinary manner) theIsraelites,a peoplegreedy of
prophets, submitted themselvesto be protectedandjudged,byreasonof
thegreatesteemtheyhadofprophecies."'3 SinceHobbesexplicitly states
thatthebelief"thatthesupremeauthority maybe divided"is fatal"to
all commonweals,"3l he necessarily condemnsthe institutional ar-
rangements of thekingdom of God, in whichno singlegroupof rulers
was able to exercisesupreme authority.
Whydidthehighpriestslackthenecessary powerto enforce thelaw
thattheyproclaimed? The answerto thisquestionliesonceagainin the
Jewish concern withliberty,andtheconcomitant reluctanceto submit to
anysinglegroup of human rulers.In the
effect, Israeliteswere able to
play one set of rulersoffagainst the other.32Hobbes to
appears deny
this,in thathe contends thattheprophets'rulewas absolute(ifnotde
jure),33whichimpliesthattheycouldenforce thelaw. Butwealso learn
fromHobbes's own testimony thatthe prophets'authority was not
always absolute. A prophet's claim to authority is oftenquestionable,
becauseit is notcertainthatsomeoneis a prophetuntilafterhispro-
phecyeitherhas or has notbeenfulfilled. In themeantime, is he to be
30. De Cive, xvI, 15.
31. De Cive, xII, 5.
32. Hobbesmakesthiscriticism moreexplicitlyinLeviathanthanhe doesinDe Cive,
although theLeviathan discussionconcerns notthekingdom ofGod butinsteadthedivi-
sionofpowerbetween prophets andkingswhichtookplaceafteritsdemise.SeeLeviathan,
"alwayskeptinstorea pretext,
40, p. 350:theIsraelites either todis-
ofjusticeorreligion,
chargethemselves of theirobedience,whensoever theyhad hopeto prevail."
33. See De Cive,xvI,15: "If we considerthefact,["thesupreme civilpowerandthe
authority God'sword"]wereunitedintheprophets
ofinterpreting whojudgedIsrael.For
as judges,theyhadthecivilauthority; as prophets, God's word."
theyinterpreted

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JoelSchwartz 17

obeyed?TheIsraelites werenotalwaysabletoresolvethisquestionsatis-
sincetherewerethosewhomtheJews"slewwhentheyprophe-
factorily;
sied,"whose"writings" they"esteemed... forprophetic afterward,""34
Hobbesineffect concedesthatprophetic authorityamongthemwasnot
alwaysabsolute.
The ruleof thede jure authorities was not absolutebecauseof the
interferenceof thedefactoauthorities;theruleofthedefactoauthori-
tieswas notabsoluteeither,as evidenced bythefactthatsomeof them
werekilledbytheirsupposedsubjects.As Hobbesexplains, theabsence
of absoluteauthorityin thekingdom of God resultedfromthefactthat
no individualor groupof individuals possessedthechiefrequisiteof
sovereignauthority: power punish."For thesecurity
the to ofparticular
men,and,byconsequence, the is
for commonpeace,it necessary thatthe
rightof usingtheswordforpunishment be transferred
to somemanor
council;thatmanor councilis necessarily understood byrightto have
thesupremepowerin thecity.""3In thisrespect,thekingdom of God
wasunlikeall othercommonwealths thathaveeverexisted:"The rightof
inflictingpunishment dependedwhollyon privatejudgment;and it
belongedto a dissolute
multitude andeachsinglepersonto punishornot
to punish,accordingas theirprivatezeal shouldstirthemup."6 The
retentionbyprivateindividuals of therightto punishcausestheJewish
kingdom ofGod,atleastinthisonerespect, morecloselytoresemble the
Hobbesianstateof naturethananyconceivableHobbesiancommon-
wealth.Hobbes'scommentary on theidiosyncratic
character oftheking-
domof God in thisrespectis of particularinterest:
Now thiswas conformable to thenatureof God's peculiarking-
dom.For thereGod reignsindeed,wherehislawsare obeyednot
forfearof men,butforfearof himself. And truly,if menwere
suchas theyshouldbe, thiswerean excellentstateofcivilgovern-
power(inwhichI compre-
ment;butas menare,thereis a coercive
hendbothrightand might)necessary to rulethem.37
The Bibleitself,Hobbescontends, acknowledges this:"And therefore
also God, fromthebeginning, lawsbyMosesforthefuture
prescribed
kings."38
Hobbes'scriticalanalysisof theJewishkingdom of God reflects
his
34. De Cive, xvI, 12.
35. De Cive,vi,6.
36. De Cive,xvi,15.
thatevenifprophetic
37. De Cive,xvI,15. Notetheimplication rulehadbeenabsolute
withinthekingdom becauseprophetic
ofGod,itwouldstillhavebeendefective; rulewas
onlydefacto,itpossessedonly"might,"not"right."
38. De Cive,xvI,15.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 of God
18 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms

understanding oftheway"menare" as opposedtotheway"theyshould

be." For thisreasonit is morethanjust a recondite detailwithinhis
politicalphilosophy; insteadit embodieshisjudgment as to "whatthe
quality ofhuman nature is, in whatmattersitis, in what not,fittomake
up a civil The
government.""9 importance of Hobbes's discussion ofthe
impracticability of the Jewish kingdom of God is also suggested by its
affinities to Rousseau's analysisof democracy,and to Madison's
analysisofanarchy: all threeanalysesrejectas infeasible thosevisionsof
communal lifewhichfailtorecognize thattheshortcomings ofhumanity
necessitate theexistence ofa strong andpotentially punitive governmen-
talauthority.40 Hobbes'sanalysisinDe Civealso foreshadows hissome-
whatmorecelebrated analysisin Leviathanof theroleplayedby fear
within thepoliticalcommunity: although"thepowerofspirits invisible"
is "greater" than "the powerof ... men . .. yetthefearof thelatteris
commonly thegreater Menbeing"as menare," civilpeacecan
fear."41'
mosteffectuallybe maintainedwithinthekingdom ofmanbymeansof
thefearfeltbyhumansubjectsof theirhumansovereigns, endowedas
thelatterarewiththeswordofpunishment; bycontrast,thekingdom of
God can succeed(and, we learnin Leviathan,willsucceed)onlywhen
humanbeingsare eschatologically transformed,at the end of days
becoming "suchas theyshouldbe."

II. TheChristian ofGod inLeviathan

Kingdom
"The kingdomof God is a civil kingdom;. . . whichkingdom,having
beencastoffin theelectionof Saul, theprophets foretold,shouldbe
restoredby Christ.'"42 Although it is Christ'smission to restore the
originalkingdom ofGod,itis also hismission toreignoveran improved
kingdom. Theoriginal kingdom ofGod wasdefective, inthatrulewithin
and subjectto rebellion,
it was turbulent and in thatthosewho lived
within itwerenot"suchas theyshouldbe." We can nowconsiderhow
thesecondkingdom of God is superior to itsforerunner,and also con-
sidertheimplications of thissuperiority forHobbes'spoliticalthought.
The Christiankingdomof God willbe superiorbecauseit willbe

39. De Cive,TheAuthor'sPrefaceto theReader,thirdparagraph.

40. Cf. Rousseau'sdiscussionof democracy in Social Contract,trans.JudithR.
Masters,ed. RogerD. Masters,in On theSocial Contract withGenevaManuscript and
4: "If therewerea peopleofGods,
PoliticalEconomy(NewYork:St. Martin's,1978),111,
itwouldgovern itself Sucha perfect
democratically. government is notsuitedtomen."Cf.
alsoMadison'sdiscussionofanarchy 51: "If menwereangels,nogovernment
inFederalist
wouldbe necessary."
41. Leviathan,14,p. 111.
42. Leviathan,35,p. 301.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JoelSchwartz 19

whichis to saythatitwillappearonlyat theendofdays.

eschatological,
Bycontrast, theJewish kingdom ofGod cameintobeing,butthenwent
out of being.Thishad unfortunate politicalconsequences,in thatthe
Jews'memories oftheirmembership inthekingdom ofGod subsequent-
lyprevented themfrombeingloyalsubjectswithindiversekingdoms of
man,and evokedwithinthemtherebellious desireforcibly
to recreate
thekingdom of God. BecausetheChristian kingdom of God is to come
at an appointedtime,and onlyas a resultof Jesus'secondcoming,its
arrivalcannotbe hastenedbyhumanactions.Hobbesthinksthatwhile
memories of theJewish kingdom of God incitedrebellion,anticipation
of theChristian kingdom of God willnotdo so."/Christ's"wordsor
actions"do not"tendto theoverthrow of ... civilgovernment," since
"theauthority ofearthlysovereigns[is]nottobe putdowntillthedayof
judgment."44
ThustheChristian kingdom of God cannotendanger thesecurity of
politicalcommunities, fornonewillsucceedit. In addition, thelocusof
authority within
theChristian kingdom willbe morecertainthanit was
withintheJewish kingdom. TheJewish refusalto obeyhumanbeings,as
opposedto God, dividedauthority and reduceditseffectiveness within
the originalkingdomof God. This willnot be a problemwithinthe
Christian kingdom, presumablybecauseJesus,although human,is more
divinethanevenMoses,thesupreme rulerwithin theoriginal kingdom of
God: Mosesis not"equal withChrist,in whomonlytheGodhead...
dwelleth bodily."'5In anyevent,sovereigntywillbe moreunifiedand
in theChristian
lessparticipatory kingdom God, whichwillbe more
of
of an actual kingdomthanwas its predecessor. In viewof the dis-
organized characterof the punitive
processwithin the Jewish kingdom,
wherein "therightof inflicting
punishment dependedwhollyon private
judgment,"'6 theJewish kingdom mightmoreaccurately be classified
as
theanarchy ofGod. Bycontrast, to
authority judge and to executejudg-
mentswithintherestored kingdom of God willbe concentrated within
the sovereign:"all judicature[will] appertainto Christand his
apostles";"our Saviorshalljudgetheworld."47

43. Note that the Hobbesianunderstanding requiresChristiansto acknowledge

(Leviathan,32, p. 275) that"miraclesceasing,
prophetscease"; thusno "privateman"
todaycan claim(as did JudasGalilaeus,a privatemanlivingat thetimeof Christ)that
can be justified,
rebellion becauseof hisknowledge that"Heavenw[ill]be [its]zealous
helper."
44. Leviathan,41, p. 355;42, p. 367.
45. Leviathan,36,p. 312.
46. De Cive, xvI, 15.
47. Leviathan,
44,p. 458;42,p. 419.Alsosee44,p. 458,whereHobbesnotesthatatthe
secondcomingtherewillno longerbe "a distinction
... ofcourtsofjustice,as therewas

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 of God
20 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms

In De Cive Hobbessuggests thattheJewishresistance to authority

stemmed fromtheirmistaken conception ofliberty.We haveseenthatin
Hobbes'sownview,politicalliberty consistsnotinthepowerto control
one's government, butinsteadin freedom fromlegalconstraint. In this
context,it is worthnotingthat,at leastin De Cive (althoughnot in
Leviathan),HobbesdeclaresthattheChristian kingdom of God willbe
altogether unlikeits Jewishpredecessor, becausecharacterized by the
totalabsenceoflegalconstraint: "In thekingdom ofGod afterthislife,
therewillbe no laws;partly,becausethereis no roomforlaws,where
thereis noneforsins;partly, becauselawsweregivenus fromGod, not
to directus in heaven,butuntoheaven.""8If liberty is understood as
Hobbesthinksit shouldbe, it was notfoundin theJewish kingdom of
God, butwillbe foundin theChristian kingdom.
Thesecondexplanation forthefailure oftheoriginalkingdom ofGod
liesinthefactthatitsinhabitants werenot"suchas theyshouldbe," but
wereinsteadsuch"as menare." Thisis thesecondrespect in whichthe
restored kingdom ofGod willimprove uponitspredecessor. It willbe a
"spiritualcommonwealth," which"shall be in thenextworldat the
resurrection,whentheythathavelivedjustly,and believedthathe was
theChrist,shall,thoughtheydiednaturalbodies,risespiritual bodies;
and thenit is, thatour Savourshalljudgetheworld,and conquerhis
adversaries,andmakea spiritual commonwealth." Thekingdom ofGod
can onlybe eschatological, can onlycomeintobeingat theresurrection.
"In themeantime, seeingthereare no menon earthwhosebodiesare
spiritual,therecan be no spiritualcommonwealth amongst menthatare
yetin theflesh."49
Thislaststatement byHobbesis ofparticular interest.
He makesitto
refute thearguments of thosewhobelievethatrebellion couldbe justi-
fiedbecauseit couldlead to therecreation of thekingdomof God."5
Upon reflection, however,his argument mustimplynot onlythata
spiritualcommonwealth cannot existin the butalso thatitcan-
present,
nottrulyhaveexistedin thepast,in Moses'time;forwhatever miracles

amongst theJewsin ourSaviour'stime,to hear,anddetermine diverssortsofcrimes, as

thejudges,andthecouncil."
48. De Cive,xvII,8. See alsoEisenach,TwoWorlds, p. 68: Hobbes's"interpretationof
sacredhistory denigratestherulesoftheOld Testament anddemonstrates a lackofrules
afterChrist'scoming."
49. Leviathan,42, p. 419.
50. Seen in itshistoricalcontext,Hobbes'scritiqueof therebellious Jewishattempt
forciblyto recreate
thekingdom of God uponearthis, of course,also a critique
of the
Protestant rebellions
sectarian inhisowntime.See Pocock,pp.
authority
againstpolitical
180-181,198-199.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JoelSchwartz 21

God mayhaveperformed fortheIsraelites,the"bodies" oftheIsraelites

werenot "spiritual";the Israeliteswere"men that[were]yetin the
flesh."
Whatit meansto have "spiritualbodies," Hobbesexplains,is that
"thefaithful" shallbe resurrected,"shallneithermarry norbe givenin
marriage,noreatand drink,as they didin theirnaturalbodies;butlive
foreverin theirindividualbodies,withoutthe specificaleternity of
generation.""In theChristian kingdom of God, then,menwillfinally
have become"such as theyshouldbe." Being"withoutdesire"and
"withoutfear,"theywillenjoythe"perpetualtranquillity of mind"or
[that]God hathordainedto themthatdevoutly
"felicity honourHim,"
whichis "incomprehensible" "whilewe livehere."52The supernatural
characterofthekingdom of God to comeis doubtless themostobvious
thingaboutit. ButnotethatHobbes'sdescription ofitis notaltogether
capturedbypreviousinterpreters whohaveemphasized thesimilarities,
ratherthanthedrasticdifferences, between ourworldandChrist'sking-
domto come.53
Thekingdom ofGod tocomeis thusa Hobbesianutopiainwhichmen
ceasetobe menas knowninthisworld.Lackingtheself-regarding bodily
its
passions, subjects willbe of
incapable opposingauthority.5" Because
theinhabitants of thekingdom of God to comewilllackself-regarding
one
passions, might be to
inclined thinkthatitcouldnotserveas a model
fortheLeviathan-state. Butina wayitdoes.Foritsmajorcharacteristic
accordswellwiththemajoraim of theLeviathan-state. The Christian
kingdomof God is primarily characterized by the immortality of the
faithful;Christ'ssuprememissionis to restoreto them the personal
immortality thatwaslostwhenAdamsinned.55 Insofaras hismissionis
toeliminatedeath,itis thesameas thatoftheLeviathan-state,56 withthe

51. Leviathan, 44, p. 451.

52. Leviathan, 6, p. 55. Becausetherestoration ofthekingdom ofGod is to takeplace
on earth,Hobbesshouldhavewritten "whilewelivenow,"not"whilewelivehere."See
below.
53. Cf. Pocock,p. 174:twosentences beforenotingthat"therisensaintswillneither
begetnordie," he assertsthatHobbes's" 'worldto come'so closelyreplicates thisworld
thatthedistinctiontendsto disappear."
54. In makingthisargument I assumethatthesubjectsof thekingdom of God, being
"withoutdesire,"willlackin particular thedesireto takeprecedence overothers,from
whichvanitystems,and of whichrebelliousness The "perpetual
is a manifestation. and
restlessdesireof powerafterpower,thatceasethonlyin death"(Leviathan, 11,p. 80) is
undoubtedly notrestored to therighteous at theirresurrection.
Wereitrestored, itis hard
to seehowtheycouldenjoy"felicity" whilebeingsubjected to God's rule.
55. Leviathan, 35,p. 297; 38,pp. 325-326;44, p. 444.
56. Fora corollary tothisargument, seeSpringborg, p. 295:"Hobbes... depict[s] Hell
as an eternalstateof nature,analogousto thestateof permanent civilwar."

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
22 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms
of God

obviousandimportant differencethatwhileChristcanensureeternal life

forthefaithful, thesovereign can onlyprevent theneedlesscurtailment
of ephemeral lifeforhissubjects.Leviathanitself,afterall, is only"a
mortalGod.""
Theanalogybetween theLeviathan-state andtherestored kingdom of
God becomesclearestin Hobbes'sdiscussion of theScriptural meaning
of the words"salvation"and "kingdom.""To be saved,is to be
secured,eitherrespectively, againstspecialevils,or absolutely, against
all evils,comprehending want,sickness, and deathitself."Salvationis
specificallysecurityagainstdeath.Furthermore, "remission of sin,and
salvationfromdeathandmisery, is thesamething."Thus,"sincedeath
andmisery werethepunishments ofsin,thedischarge ofsinmustalsobe
a discharge of deathand misery.""
To be securefromdeathis to be securefromsin.TheLeviathan-state
cannotcompletely secureus fromdeath,butno otherimaginable human
contrivance can,inHobbes'sview,so wellsecureus fromavoidablecon-
flictualdeath.Similarly,theLeviathan-state cannotsecureus againstsin;
butitis onlyinsofar as weabstainfromsin-or, at anyrate,complywith
the laws of nature-thatwe can reasonablyhope to maintainthe
Leviathan-state, andtherewith to preservethesecurityof ourindividual
lives.19
"Kingdom, " Hobbesgoeson to assert,"is an estateordainedbymen
fortheirperpetual securityagainstenemiesandwant."For thisreason,
"it seemeththatthissalvation[providedby therestoredkingdomof
God] shouldbe on earth."6'Thusthekingdom of God is calleda king-
dombecausethebenefits whichit can provideitssubjectsare benefits
whichtheycan enjoyon earth;whichis againto saythattheachieve-
mentsoftherestored kingdom of God fulfilltheaimsoftheLeviathan-
state.61
ofthekingdom
The achievements of God to comearemadepossible,
as we have seen,by thetransformation
of man. The Leviathan-state

57. Leviathan,17,p. 132.

58. Leviathan, 38,p. 334.
59. Furthermore, it is onlyinsofaras we complywiththe laws of nature,which
(Leviathan, 43, p. 426) includethe"law of God" that"command[s us] to obeyourcivil
sovereigns," thatwecan(p. 425)attain"eternalsalvation"andenter into"thekingdom of
heaven."Notonly,then,doestheaimoftheLeviathan-state theaccomplishment
prefigure
of thekingdomof God to come;in addition,compliance withthecommands of the
Leviathan-state helpstomakepossibleoursubsequent entrance intothekingdom ofGodto
come.
60. Leviathan, 38, p. 335.
61. It is inthisverysignificantsensethatPocockis righttostresstheanalogiesbetween
thisworldand Hobbes'sworldto come.See note53 above.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 JoelSchwartz 23

hopeto achievemanyof itsaims,despitethefact

itselfcan reasonably
thatitssubjectshavenotbeentransformed. Thesubjectsofthekingdom
of God have"spiritualbodies,"and are "such as theyshouldbe," in
thattheyare secureagainstdeath.But thesubjectsof theLeviathan-
state,whohavecorporealbodiesand are "as menare," desiresecurity
againstdeath.Addressing itselfto itssubjects'overridingdesireto avoid
death,theLeviathan-state can convert passionateand potentiallyrebel-
liousmenintoobedient subjects who are "such as [men]should be." The
subjects of theLeviathan-state resemble the rebellious of
subjects the
Jewish kingdom ofGod interms of theirhavingpassions;butbecauseof
theirproperunderstanding of thepriority of thefearof deathamong
theirpassions,theywill also resemblethe obedientsubjectsof the
Christiankingdomof God in termsof theirsubmissionto their
sovereign.

III. Conclusion
The Christiankingdomof God is a moresuccessfulversionof the
Leviathan-state, in thatitssubjectsobeytheirsovereign and do notdie.
In addition,the politicalarrangements of the Christian(but not the
Jewish) kingdom ofGod callto mindsomeofthepoliticalarrangements
oftheLeviathan-state. Bothcallforobedience to a centralized
authority,
andallowno splitbetween dejure and defactoauthority;inbothliberty
is to be foundinthesilenceofthelaws,notinresistance to,orparticipa-
tionin,themakingof politicaldecisions.
Thusthekingdom of God employssomeoftheinstitutional arrange-
mentsof the Leviathan-state and transforms humannature,so as to
guarantee theachievement of thegoalsof theLeviathan-state.In these
the
respects kingdom ofGod to come differs from
radically thekingdom
ofGod thatwas. In theoriginal kingdom ofGod,humannaturewasthe
same as it is today,but institutional arrangements weresignificantly
worsethanthoseoftheLeviathan-state. Accordingly, theoriginalking-
domofGod wasfarfroma Hobbesianutopia,inthatitfailedto achieve
thegoalsof theLeviathan-state, and therefore to ful-
failedsufficiently
fillthedeepestdesiresof humannature.
In Hobbes'sconception ofuniversalhistory,wearesuspended intime
between thetwokingdoms ofGod. As Pocockhasargued,theseemingly
ahistorical humanbeingsdescribed inBooksI andII ofLeviathanarenot
altogether fortheyremember
ahistorical, thekingdom ofGod thatwas,
and anticipatethe kingdomof God thatis to come. In one sense,as we
have seen,theoriginalkingdomof God is an antetypeof itssuccessor;in
another sense, however,the Leviathan-statetoo, ruled as it is by a

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
24 Hobbes& theTwo Kingdoms
of God

"sovereignprophet,"62 can be regarded as suchan antetype. Obedience

to thesovereignis necessary foradmission to theChristian kingdom of
God, butsuch obedience is possibleonly if thepoliticaldeficiencies
of
theJewish kingdom ofGod arebothrecognized andrectified. In bothof
theserespects,thesacredhistory acceptedbytheChristian subjectsof
theLeviathan-state illuminatesandcomplements thesecularpolitics
that
theyderivefromBooksI and II ofLeviathan.
Pendingtherestoration of thekingdomof God, humanbeingsare
governed by "theauthority of earthly
sovereigns," whichis "not to be
putdowntillthedayof judgment."''Undoubtedly, theirconditionis
worsethanit willbe withinGod's restored kingdom. Buttheycan con-
sole themselves withthe realizationthattheirconditionwithinthe
is alsoundoubtedly
Leviathan-state betterthanitwouldhavebeenwithin
God's originalkingdom.
62. Leviathan,36, p. 316.
63. Leviathan,42, p. 367.

This content downloaded from 128.6.218.72 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 04:04:30 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions