I've never really understood the doctrine of the divine right of kings

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Throughout history there have been many kings. Moreso in the past. Often religions justified their kings by some sort of doctrine of a divine right. The king was there because God put him there. There seems even to be Christian versions of this. And of course in the OT, God finally allowed Israel a king, but didn't originally want to do so.

Can anyone explain this idea of the divine right of kings to me.

After all, many lineages were inbred and suffered mental retardation from inter-marrriage and were quite inferior specimens. The kings were not exactly ubermensch material for the most part. Not that democracy has fared much better...but I am curious why nobody spoke of the divine right of the demos, but many speak of the divine right of kings.
 
Pergamum said:
Throughout history there have been many kings. Moreso in the past. Often religions justified their kings by some sort of doctrine of a divine right. The king was there because God put him there. There seems even to be Christian versions of this. And of course in the OT, God finally allowed Israel a king, but didn't originally want to do so.

Can anyone explain this idea of the divine right of kings to me.

After all, many lineages were inbred and suffered mental retardation from inter-marrriage and were quite inferior specimens. The kings were not exactly ubermensch material for the most part. Not that democracy has fared much better...but I am curious why nobody spoke of the divine right of the demos, but many speak of the divine right of kings.
Click to expand...

One way to look at it is that the kings had a chrism of grace. That would override the mental redardation aspects.

The greatest book ever written on political theology, Kantorowicz's The King's Two Bodies, discusses this.
 
Yes, Kantorowicz's book is seminal on the subject for the Christian version of the divine right of kings.

The notion that the king is himself divine in some sense (the "sacred king" view) or his will can in no proper way be checked (he is solely answerable to God or the gods) occurs across all cultures, certainly in the East (think of Japanese Emporer worship).

James VI of Scotland (James I of England, 1603-1625) could not convince his fellows of it and Britain as a whole would not hear of it, regarding the king as himself under law and bound by a constitution, thus developing a "constitutional monarchy."

James was not only rebelling against the teaching of his tutor, George Buchanan, who taught that the king was subject to checks, but also showing the influence of his French relatives, who did develop their own view of divine right as the foundation of French Absolutism: think Louis XIV and "l’état, c’est moi" in answer to a challenge of his authority. This came crashing down in 1789.

The British developed more of a consensus view, over against the more radical Cromwellian view of the Civil War, expressed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89: a constitutional monarchy in which checks existed, something to which the American colonists looked in 1776 in developing their own views in rejecting the divine right of kings.

The Bible makes clear that the king in Israel is under law (Deut. 17:14-20). In fact, no earthly power (a father in the home, minister in the church, ruler in the state) exercises absolute rule, being checked by others in their proper spheres, and under divine law. The outworking of the divine right theory has made the king absolute and his word law, the recipe for tyranny.

Just a few quick thoughts about the divine right of kings view(s).

Peace,
Alan
 
Alan D. Strange said:
The outworking of the divine right theory has made the king absolute and his word law, the recipe for tyranny.
Click to expand...
If Nero was the emperor when Peter wrote his first epistle, in which he instructed his readers to “honor the emperor”, wouldn’t he have been encouraging them to support a guy who clearly held himself in absolute power?
 
Wretched Man said:
If Nero was the emperor when Peter wrote his first epistle, in which he instructed his readers to “honor the emperor”, wouldn’t he have been encouraging them to support a guy who clearly held himself in absolute power?
Click to expand...

The Roman Emperor at this point ruled with the pretense that Rome was still a Republic, in some measure, with the Senate possessing a degree of authority. So, no, Nero was not an absolute ruler, though there was also a divine right claim of sorts in terms of Emperor adoration or worship.

Let's say, for arguments' sake, that Nero had an undisputed claim to absolute unchecked power and that he claimed to be divine or semi-divine. That really has nothing to do with justifying such audacious and ridiculous claims because Peter instructs Christians to "honor the king." Clearly he meant to render the submission due to him but not undue submission (as our Lord put it when he commanded due submission to Caesar).

A father in a house and a pastor in a church may think that he governs absolutely, though he doesn't according to God's Word. An absolutist claim, though wrong, does not nullify rightful authority.

Peace,
Alan
 
Ancient kings normally wouldn't have understood themselves to be "ruling with absolute power." That's truer of enlightenment kings. Even kings that claimed to be God's vice-regent on earth, such as the Byzantine emperors, while nominally absolute, knew that their power often depended on not angering the monks.
 
Many of us have been trained, consciously or unconsciously, to see all hierarchy as rather dreadful. And no doubt every actual hierarchy in the human sphere has witnessed enough abuses that skepticism about the whole idea is understandable.

But part of what that does is leave us without is an ability to imagine the joy of taking up our proper place within a hierarchy. There are psychological as well as social rewards to embracing your dependent loyalty on a feudal overlord, or on a patron whose client you are. The qualities still appear today, but without a structure and open recognition, it might be seen most clearly in things like the loyalty members can have to a gang and their capo.
 
Last edited:
py3ak said:
Many of us have been trained, consciously or unconsciously, to see all hierarchy as rather dreadful. And no doubt every actual hierarchy in the human sphere has witnessed enough abuses that skepticism about the whole idea is understandable.

But part of what that does is leave us without an ability to imagine the joy of taking up our proper place within a hierarchy. There are psychological as well as social rewards to embracing your dependent loyalty on a feudal overlord, or on a patron whose client you are. The qualities still appear today, but without a structure and open recognition, it might be seen most clearly in things like the loyalty members can have to a gang and their capo.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite movie scenes of all time was from the end of The Big Country, when the “Major” determines he and his clan shall venture into a canyon to save a girl who had been captured and held hostage by a rival clan. He is then questioned by his protege, played by Charleston Heston, whom indirectly influences a tentative mutiny from his men who are fearing for their lives. The following scene illustrates the die-hard loyalty his men ultimately have for him as they follow him into the canyon.


I’ve been in many leadership positions and have never enjoyed them, because I always fall short. I’ve also never had a leader or organization I truly loved working for and felt a strong loyalty towards. I have long envied Charleston Heston’s character in desiring a leader or organization I could loyally follow in this life - which makes me anxiously await all the more our risen Lord.
 
py3ak said:
Many of us have been trained, consciously or unconsciously, to see all hierarchy as rather dreadful. And no doubt every actual hierarchy in the human sphere has witnessed enough abuses that skepticism about the whole idea is understandable.

But part of what that does is leave us without an ability to imagine the joy of taking up our proper place within a hierarchy. There are psychological as well as social rewards to embracing your dependent loyalty on a feudal overlord, or on a patron whose client you are. The qualities still appear today, but without a structure and open recognition, it might be seen most clearly in things like the loyalty members can have to a gang and their capo.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I suspect a lot of that has to do with a Whig interpretation of history.

Further, even the most absolute, so-perceived, of monarchs, the Russian Tsar, never dreamed of the ability to shut down an entire country lik Dr Fauci did. (I'm not criticizing Fauci, per se, (well, I sort of am), just noting the contrast).
 
Pergamum said:
Throughout history there have been many kings. Moreso in the past. Often religions justified their kings by some sort of doctrine of a divine right. The king was there because God put him there. There seems even to be Christian versions of this. And of course in the OT, God finally allowed Israel a king, but didn't originally want to do so.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say God finally allowed a king. The law made a provision for the Israelites to have a king (Deut 17:14-20) if they so choose. Their problem, when they ask Samuel for a king was that they desired a king contrary to this law. They wanted a king like the tyrants that were reigning in the surrounding nations and not after Deut 17:14-20. That is what they ended up with in King Saul, as he later proved out to be. They would later do better when the people select David and his posterity as their king (and thus fulfilling certain typologies and prophecies).

Basically in a nutshell, the divine right of kings is that the king is chosen by God ( Also absolute monarchy is the best and only lawful form of government), and is accountable only to God, and is endued with an absolute unrestrained power to do what he wants in church and state and all people are subject to him and cannot lawfully resist him without sinning against God.

An excellent book I recommend on this subject is Samuel Rutherfords "Lex Rex" or "The Law and the Prince" which Reformation Heritage Book has on sale for $12 right now.

This Sprinkle edition also has George Buchanans "De Jure Regni Apud Scotos, or A dialogue concerning the rights of the crown in scotland" at the back of this edition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top