Old Theology Fights: Locke v. Filmer

How Two Thinkers Misread Adam’s Kingship and What They Missed About Christ

John Locke, the famous father of liberalism, spent a lot of time debunking bad theology. Locke was a self-identified Christian who argued for the reasonableness of Christianity. His conception of innate human rights is firmly informed by the doctrine of the Imago Dei. This doctrine declares that human beings are made in the image of God and therefore have intrinsic worth and dignity. Universal human rights are rooted in recognizing and respecting that intrinsic value.

Locke argues that we can arrive at these conclusions through human reason, yet it’s hard to disentangle how many of his conclusions came from pure reason and how many came from his Christian beliefs. I knew Locke was deeply influenced by a Christian worldview, and yet I was struck by how often he engaged in explicitly theological arguments.

One argument demanded further inquiry: Robert Filmer’s use of Adam as biblical support for the divine right of kings and Locke’s critique of that reasoning. Filmer wrote in defense of the absolute sovereignty of monarchs—the “divine right of kings,” as we were taught in high school. He based part of his argument on his view of Adam’s kingship in the garden. Locke has several valid critiques of Filmer’s position, and yet still fails to account for the kingly responsibilities Adam had—and failed at.

We see in this debate a weaker theological position dismantled by a stronger theologian, and yet a debate that still fails to grasp biblical kingship and the purpose of that kingship. Locke successfully dismantled Filmer’s divine-right theology, but both men misunderstood Adam’s true kingship: a kingship fulfilled only in Christ and shared by His people.

Filmer’s Failed Fight for Adam’s Monarchy of the World

Filmer contended that Adam, by virtue of being the first man and the dominion he was given over all creation, was the monarch of the world. Filmer also roots Adam’s lineal monarchy in his fatherhood.

Men are not born free, and therefore could never have the liberty to choose either governors or forms of government. Princes have their power absolute, and by divine right; for slaves could never have a right to compact or consent. Adam was an absolute monarch, and so are all princes ever since. —John Locke (paraphrasing Filmer), The Two Treatises of Government, Hollis Edition.

For Filmer, Adam’s paternal authority extends over the entire political realm. He claims that kings, as Adam’s descendants, inherit his absolute monarchy. He uses the command “Honor thy father and mother” as prescriptive for citizens in obeying their kings. All of this provides theological justification for the elimination of citizen freedom.

Locke knocks this down with aplomb. He takes Filmer’s theological arguments and dismantles them from within the same theological framework. As they were both Christians, it’s understandable to see how that happened. Locke didn’t have to meet Filmer on his own ground, but he does—and wins the argument. His first critique is to ask, ‘How does it follow that Adam sets the template for kingship through all time before there are any humans to govern?’

“But let us see, how he puts his creation and this appointment together. By the appointment of God, says Sir Robert, as soon as Adam was created, he was monarch of the world, though he had no subjects; for though there could not be actual government till there were subjects.” —John Locke, The Two Treatises of Government, Hollis Edition, Book 1 §16.

Locke later makes the point: if all kings inherit their kingship from Adam, where’s the genealogy? But to take this even further,if all humanity is descended from Adam, aren’t all human beings kings in some sense? That’s closer to truth of Genesis 1 . Locke also rightly understands that man’s dominion over creation is something extended to all of humanity, not simply to kings. This is classic Imago Dei reasoning.

Locke defeats Filmer on philosophical and theological grounds alike, but Filmer’s problem runs even deeper. His entire hermeneutic is distorted: the same impulse that made him see monarchy in Adam also makes him twist passages like 1 Peter 2 and Romans 13 to sanctify absolute kingship. Filmer’s mistake, which is common in our own day and age, is to grab any pretext from Scripture to support his preconceived point of view. He’s not understanding the Bible on its own terms but superimposing his belief in the divine right of kings onto the biblical figure of Adam. Consider 1 Peter 2:13–17

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, [14] or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. [15] For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. [16] Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. [17] Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Here’s how Filmer explains his understanding of that passage and Paul’s writing in Romans 13 about being subject to governing authorities:

Therefore St. Peter’s meaning is, in short, obey the laws of the King, or of his Ministers. By which it is evident that neither St. Peter nor St. Paul intended other form of government than only monarchical, much less any subjection of princes to human laws. -Filmer, Sir. Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings. Richard Chiswell, 1680.

This is self-evidently ridiculous. Peter names the Roman Emperor as an example of the types of human governing institutions Christians can be subject to—not as an endorsement of hereditary monarchy. More importantly, Peter is teaching believers how to endure faithfully under persecution.

All of this seems obvious to a modern reader, but there are far too many Christians who make mistakes in the same category: the desire to see the political policies we wish to see, rather than the correct reading of the text.

Locke’s Lack of a Fuller Theological Picture of Kingship in Adam

In his First and Second Treatises, Locke does something quite clever. He takes apart Filmer’s argument theologically and then grounds his own case for limited, constitutional government in natural rights and the consent of the governed. There are multiple overlaps between Christian principles and Locke’s conclusions, but he doesn’t make a theological argument so much as one based in reason. He avoids Filmer’s mistake.

Yet in debunking Filmer, Locke misses something crucial about Christianity and the office of kingship. Adam clearly displays kingly attributes. He is the first human to be given dominion, he organizes the animals by naming them, and that authority comes by virtue of being made in God’s image. By removing Adam’s kingship entirely, Locke erases an important theological type: Adam as the first king, whose failure anticipates Christ’s fulfillment. Humanity was intended to rule creation and fill the earth with worshippers. This is the mandate to be fruitful and multiply. The children of Adam were meant to glorify God through worship and by ruling and stewarding all creation. In light of Christ, the dominion mandate found in Genesis 1:26–28 becomes a picture of royal authority that fails where Christ succeeded.

Christ fulfills this kingly office perfectly in every way. He succeeds where Adam fails and creates a new humanity, his church, that can return to mankind’s original purpose. Peter shows how the saints now join in Christ’s work as a royal priesthood, empowered by the Holy Spirit.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. [10] Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.-1 Peter 2:9–10, ESV.

What We Can Learn

There’s a real temptation to read our own political preferences into Scripture. This is an example of eisegesis: reading our own beliefs into a text and making Scripture serve us instead of the other way around.

We should also be careful when reading Old Testament narrative into current political debates. The Bible is not a public policy document. Arguments against theological opponents can lead us to overstate our case. Locke declared there was no authority in Adam other than paternal, which misses the direct tie to how Christ fulfills biblical kingship perfectly. It also misses how Adam failed in his kingly duties—he didn’t immediately kill the snake when it entered the garden, he didn’t restrain Eve’s sinful choices, and he joined them.

Locke’s case would be stronger if he examined Adam’s failures as a king, and it would have benefited from demonstrating how Christ’s kingship is meant for the flourishing of Christ’s people. Whatever Locke’s motives, it appears he was so eager to destroy his opponent’s arguments that he missed some nuances of Scripture. But that’s not what Locke was trying to do. His aim was largely confined to the realm of political philosophy. By being so focused on the temporal, he missed the eternal.

Filmer used theology to justify tyranny. Locke used reason to dismantle it. But a truly biblical view of kingship, rooted in Adam’s failure and Christ’s fulfillment, guards us from both errors.