What is the divine right of kings?

The "divine right of kings" is a faulty expression. The authority of kings is indeed divine, but so also is every authority in the world, whether it be that of a king, or the president of a republic; whether it be that of a governor, a judge, or a magistrate down even to a policeman or a taxgatherer; and, in other spheres, an officer of an army or a ship, or a foreman of labourers, a husband, a father, or a schoolmaster. All existent authority in the world is divine; and government in the present fallen state of man is a divine blessing. Man may abuse the authority entrusted to him, and for that will give account in the judgment. But the authority which he either uses or abuses is placed in his hand from above; and as long as it exists, cannot be disobeyed with impunity. The dogma that "power proceeds from the people," is a fallacy. Historically, it has not been the fact. Under a democratic government it may appear to be so, simply because God may permit that form of administering. His power; but in the history of mankind, democracy has been exceptional, and the prevailing governments of Christendom, excepting America and France, are even now, either of a mixed nature, or, as in Russia, autocratic. The case of Russia itself refutes the axiom. The population is over 125 millions; power is not with the people there, much less does it proceed from them; indeed, they are engaged in a frantic struggle to clutch it. British India contains one-seventh of the population of the globe. Does power inhere in its people? On the contrary, its millions have been controlled to the present time by a handful of Englishmen.

Noah was the first man to whom authority over his fellows was given. The sword was put by God into his hand. Men now deride the "divine right" of kings. But the right and authority to govern is the gift of God, and does not depend upon the use made of it. What use did Pilate make of his power, when he condemned the Lord Jesus to be crucified, saying, while condemning, that He was a man in whom he found no fault? Yet did the Lord say that Pilate's power was given from above. (John 19:11.) Men deceive themselves in saying the source of authority is with them. It never was — it never will be. "Vox populi" may be trumpeted forth as sovereign. It is Satan's means to deny the prerogative of God, and vain foolish man falls easily into the snare. "Vox Dei," they say, is but the cunning of priestcraft. When God ceases to appoint rulers, Satan will. He will give his power to the beast. Democracy in essence is from beneath; it is Satan's opposition to the appointment of God. Its most strenuous advocates are found in the ranks of infidelity.

No man has any prescriptive right to exercise authority over his fellows except he has received it from God. Hence in such passages as Rom. 14:1-6 and 1 Peter 2:13-15 obedience to the ruling authorities is enjoined upon the Christian. The Apostle Paul tells us "There is no authority except from God; and those that exist are set up by God" (New Translation).

Again, "authorities in power" (ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις) is an expression that embraces every form of governing power, monarchical, aristocratic, or republican. All cavil on this score is therefore foreclosed. The Spirit insists not merely on the divine right of kings but that "there is no authority except from God." Nor is there an excuse on this plea for change; yet if a revolution should overthrow one form and set up another, the Christian's duty is plain: "those that exist are ordained by God." His interests are elsewhere, are heavenly, are in Christ; his responsibility is to acknowledge what is in power as a fact, trusting God as to the consequences and in no case behaving as a partisan. Never is he warranted in setting himself up against the authority as such; for this were to resist the ordinances of God, and those that resist shall receive judgment for themselves. For it is by no means "damnation," but "sentence," or the charge for which he is condemned. Scripture is ever sober, as the apostle said he was, for our sakes: if he were ecstatic, it was for God, as it might well be. Other scriptures show that, where the authority demands that which is offensive to Him, as for instance that an apostle should speak no more of Jesus or that a Christian should sacrifice to an idol or an emperor, we must obey God rather than man, but suffering, not resisting, if we cannot quietly leave the scene of persecution. For it is evident that it is impossible to plead God's authority for obeying a command which dishonours and denies Him. Every relation has its limits in conduct which virtually nullifies it; and that is a requirement which undermines its own authority by antagonism to Him who set it up. But Calvin seems to speak unwarrantably when he goes so far as to say that tyrannies are not an ordained government; and those who listened to him or shared his thoughts have proved that they did not count it beneath Christians to take an active part in overthrowing what they considered tyrannical.

It is a wholly inadequate apprehension to regard the magistrate on the side of man only. Not that he may not be chosen in ever so various a form by man, but that he is God's servant, as here repeatedly said. He is His servant for good, not for evil. But if you practise evil, what then? Fear; for not in vain does he wear the sword; for he is God's servant, an avenger for wrath to him that does evil. To see God in the magistrate brings in conscience. Wherefore one must need be subject not only on account of wrath (this would be merely a question of consequences from man), but also on account of conscience. "For on this account also ye pay tribute." This is connected with the foregoing exhortation as to magistrates, and prepares the way for more general relationships in the world. "For they are God's ministers [or officers], attending diligently unto this very thing." Thus they are designated God's διάκονοι and also His λειτουργοί, the one as doing the work prescribed to them in keeping the order of the world in obedience to the laws, the other as public functionaries or officially appointed to it. The payment of φόρος was for the administation of government, a tribute or tax on persons or property or both, as τέλος was on merchandize and therefore fairly translated "custom." Hence the apostle (ver. 7) exhorts, "Render to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour." The greater and the lesser are thus taken in, each in its just measure; which the Christian can heartily say, inasmuch as he is entitled to acknowledge God in all without seeking anything for himself. For we are here occupied with what is of God in the repression of evil, and hence external to the proper sphere of christian life, save as honouring God in every respect,

(V. 1). Already we have been told not to be conformed to the world, marked, as it is, by lust and pride, but, by the renewing of the mind, to exhibit a character that is in entire contrast to the man of the world. Nevertheless, the Christian is to recognise that government has been established in the world, and that the authority to govern is from God. This government was instituted after the flood, when Noah was definitely told that "Whoso sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed" (Gen. 9:6).

It is important to see the bearing of this Scripture. It definitely asserts that the authority to govern has been given by God. It does not say that the particular individuals who exercise the authority are of God, or that the way they may use their authority is of God. Those who exercise authority may be, and often are, thoroughly wicked men, who may abuse the power for their own ends. The fact, however, remains, that the authority they wield had been instituted of God.

Scripture however is plain and decided: it is not enough that it be for wrath's sake, but for conscience. God is concerned in our subjection, for there is no authority but of God; those that be are ordained of God; monarchical, republican, or any mixture of the two, they are ordained of God. "Wherefore he that resisteth authority withstandeth the ordinance of God." Nor does it matter whether it be a supreme ruler or those commissioned by him, as the apostle Peter lets us know (1 Peter 2:13-14), "For thus is the will of God." It was ordered in His providence that when the apostle wrote to the saints at Rome, one of the most cruel despots reigned: even so "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher authorities." The worst ruler is better than anarchy. Nevertheless it is not because of this reason of utility that the word of God speaks. Whoever he may be, he is the minister of God for good. He beareth not the sword in vain. He is a minister of God, and avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. If this doctrine is strange in our day, it is the more incumbent on the faithful, not only to believe, but to practise accordingly.

But here the call is external even to submit to every human institution; for they might assume different shapes, all involving trial to the Christian. But as the apostle Paul wrote to the saints in Rome (Rom. 13:1), where these were chiefly Gentiles, and a cruel and unscrupulous and depraved emperor reigned, "Let every soul be subject to the authorities that are above [him]. For there is no authority except from God, and those that be are set up by God." Here it is not the secret providence that comes before us, but the manifest fact. In both the duty is to subject oneself; and here "for the Lord's sake" as there for conscience. A republic had its claim no less than royalty. The only relation revealed as to the believer is subjection without one word here or anywhere else in the N.T. for exercising authority in the present evil age. The grace of Christ is the pattern for every Christian; and "for the Lord's sake" does not import His relation to the human creation, though He is indeed Lord of all, but His appeal to the saints themselves, that they obey Him in submission to the powers of the world.

As regards the kings of Israel, they were chosen of God, and responsible to rule in the acknowledgement that they held their kingly authority from Him, and if they did evil He made them to suffer for the evil that they did. They were to have the law of the Lord ever before them, and they were to read therein all their days, in order that they might learn to fear Him. The heart of the king was not to be lifted up above his brethren, nor was he to turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left (Deut. 17:14-20).

This is because David is not only a type of Christ but also — we will see this many times as the book continues — the representative of a kingdom entrusted to the hands of man and responsible to maintain it. As king, David possesses power (but not yet all power) on behalf of God. He is free to use this power for good as he sees fit; he is free to humble or exalt the men who surround him at his pleasure and to engage them for his purposes; lastly, he is free to issue ordinances and decrees for the good of his people and for the glory of his God. But, alas! this formidable responsibility and this almost unlimited power have been entrusted to a mere man. Indeed, originally royalty was not restricted, as in our days, by all sorts of laws, nor was it more or less under the control of the will of the people. The king, according to the Word, was responsible only to God. He answered for the behavior of the people, and if the people fell into error the king had to bear the consequent judgment. We shall see what becomes of this authority in David's hands.

The resultant feebleness led to an outcry for a king like the nations (1 Sam. 8:5), and after the episode of the wilful king of the people's choice, God raised up David and established kingly authority on a proper basis. He was to be ruler over God's people, and the executor of judgment on their enemies (2 Sam. 7:8-9). He was also to "feed" Israel His inheritance. So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands (Ps. 78:71-72). David's authority was absolute, and he was to rule. He was to execute judgment if and as needs be, but also to feed his subjects and to guide them. His rule was to be absolute but wholly beneficent.