The Divine Right of Kings is a belief older than the term. “It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.” [1]

Charles I of England, with a divine hand moving his crown

For Christians today, it seems obvious. 1 Samuel shows God anointing Saul, and then David, to be king over His people. Coupled with certain interpretations of Romans 13, it doesn’t even look questionable that the Divine Right of Kings is a legitimate Christian doctrine. But is it? Do Christians acknowledge this as a doctrine?

Whether Christians acknowledge it or not, we’ve recently had public comments from Paula White that would certainly lead one to think so,
“God says that he raises up and places all people in places of authority. It is God who raises up a king. It is God that sets one down. When you fight against the plan of God, you are fighting against the hand of God.”

Not surprisingly, these comments were well received from the American evangelical conservative/ religious right. Regardless of the glaring contradiction of their push-back to Bill & Hillary, Obama, Carter (registered Democrats), it would do us well to read further into 2 Samuel (12-17).

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’ ” In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.

This verse is widely recognized as showing us Christ as the fulfillment of the King over God’s people. This is the beginning to scripture telling us Christ is King of kings. We need to be very mindful of the culmination of all these statements. If Christ was the fulfillment of the Kingship of God’s people, then is it applicable, as Mrs. White has echoed the heart of American Christians, that Trump is a king raised up By God? Are we placing him in the Davidic and Messianic line?

People in agreement with White will quickly disagree with these implications of American Christian beliefs, and those critical will nod in satisfaction. What should be acknowledged, whether we believe it’s happening now or not, is that this Divine Right of Kings leads to unaccountable rulers and blind allegiance.

Richard I of England, exemplifies the unaccountable ruler under his divine right when he declared at his trial during the diet at Speyer in 1193 (of which he was accused of criminal activity, such as: unjustly capturing Cyprus, insulting a Duke, and assassination of a Marquis, among other things), “I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions.“

As well, Hobbe’s Leviathan has stood out as a powerful description of the Divine Right. The cover’s Latin inscription, “Non est potestas Super Terram quae Comparetur ei” translates to, “There is no power on earth to be compared to him,” as it appears along with a colossus king overlooking his land.

Blind allegiance might be harder to pin down. Everyone can point to someone, or group, in history that they might rightfully call blindly allegiant to some dictator or mass murderer, but would hardly hold themselves to the same standard. Without diving too far into the weeds, or becoming guilty of turning yet another internet entry into an argumentum ad Führer, let’s table this for another article.

In closing, the point I most want reflected on is that impostor kings arrogate a crown over their subjects. No King but Christ is more than a cliché. Unfortunately, Christians are all too willing to anoint a new king. We see it in 1 Samuel as clearly as we see it in Paula White’s remarks. When we become wrapped up in nationalistic fervor, we need to stop and ask ourselves, are we assuming the hand placing the divine crown on the head of the king? Are we placing the true king’s crown on an impostor?