Biblical Refutation of the Divine Right of Kings Theology

The Divine Right of Kings theology asserts that monarchs derive absolute authority directly from God, making their rule unquestionable by human authorities. However, throughout history, significant opposition emerged, grounded firmly in biblical texts and interpretations, challenging the absolutist claims of monarchs and advocating for rulers’ accountability under divine and moral law. This essay demonstrates how the biblical refutation of Divine Right theology emerged, gained prominence through influential theologians and historical events, transitioned from a minority to majority viewpoint, and ultimately reshaped Western political thought toward constitutionalism, accountability, and democratic governance.

Biblical Basis for Refutation

Opponents of Divine Right emphasized several key biblical themes:

1. Rulers Accountable to God’s Law

Opponents argued rulers were bound to adhere strictly to God’s commandments rather than having unconditional divine endorsement. Deuteronomy 17:18-20 explicitly reflects this accountability:

“When he [the king] takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself…a copy of this law…so that he may…not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law.”

This verse clearly indicates that kings must be guided by divine law, underscoring limits on royal power.

John Calvin directly supported this interpretation, arguing in Institutes of the Christian Religion that rulers are “ministers of divine justice,” obligated to uphold God’s commands, and thus were accountable rather than absolute.

2. Conditional Authority (Romans 13:3-4)

Romans 13, typically cited to support absolute monarchy, was interpreted differently by critics who emphasized conditional authority given for justice rather than tyranny:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong… For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good.”

Samuel Rutherford, in his seminal work Lex, Rex (1644), underscored this conditional reading, asserting:

“The king is under the law because he is from God, and the law is from God… the king’s power is conditional upon him ruling justly and according to God’s laws.”

Thus, rulers who ceased to govern justly forfeited divine legitimacy and could rightfully be resisted.

3. Obedience to God Over Humans (Acts 5:29)

Opponents cited Acts 5:29 to justify resistance to unjust authority explicitly:

“We must obey God rather than human beings!”

Theodore Beza utilized this verse to argue that loyalty to God supersedes loyalty to tyrannical rulers, legitimizing resistance in circumstances where rulers violated biblical mandates.

4. Divine Judgment on Tyranny (Proverbs 29:2, 4)

Biblical wisdom literature further supported opposition by clearly distinguishing righteous rule from oppressive leadership:

“When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.” (Prov. 29:2)

“By justice a king gives a country stability, but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down.” (Prov. 29:4)

These scriptures directly challenged claims of absolute royal authority by emphasizing the negative consequences of unjust rule and the legitimacy of resistance to tyranny.

Theologians and Reformers Who Opposed Divine Right

Several influential theologians provided critical leadership and theological justification for opposing absolute monarchy:

Historical Context for Opposition

Opposition developed against a backdrop of religious and political upheaval, particularly during:

Protestant Reformation (16th Century)

Reformers like Calvin and Melanchthon contested papal and royal absolutism, advocating scriptural supremacy. Their teachings laid foundational biblical arguments challenging absolute monarchy.

English Civil War (1642–1651)

Charles I’s uncompromising divine-right claims prompted widespread opposition, explicitly using biblical arguments. Presbyterians, Puritans, and Parliamentarians resisted his rule, emphasizing rulers’ conditional authority under God’s law, culminating in Charles’s execution and the establishment of the English Commonwealth, marking a decisive rejection of divine right.

Glorious Revolution (1688–1689)

This revolution cemented parliamentary supremacy over royal absolutism in England. The English Bill of Rights (1689) explicitly codified constitutional constraints on monarchial power, reflecting biblical arguments for accountability and conditional governance.

American Revolution (1775–1783)

American revolutionaries explicitly utilized biblical interpretations of conditional authority and accountability to justify independence, citing these principles within revolutionary documents and sermons that argued against monarchical tyranny.

Outcomes and Results of Opposition

Biblical opposition had profound historical consequences:

Emergence of Constitutionalism and Parliamentary Governance

The English Civil War and Glorious Revolution created lasting structures limiting royal power through constitutional and parliamentary checks, explicitly influenced by biblical interpretations from theologians like Rutherford and Locke.

Rise of Democratic Ideals

John Locke’s biblically-informed political philosophy significantly shaped Western democratic ideals. His arguments in Two Treatises of Government emphasized government by consent and accountability, becoming foundational to constitutional democracy, most notably influencing the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the United States Constitution (1787).

Reduction of Religious and Political Tyranny

Opposition contributed directly to reducing absolute political authority, curtailing religious persecution, and establishing the foundations for religious liberty and freedom of conscience across Europe and America.

Shift from Minority to Majority View

Initially, opponents of Divine Right were a vocal minority, limited primarily to radical Protestant groups:

• 16th to Early 17th Centuries:
  Opposition was initially marginal, voiced mainly by Calvinist reformers advocating scriptural accountability over absolute rule.

• Mid-17th Century (English Civil War):
  Marked a crucial turning point. Presbyterians, Puritans, and Parliamentarians openly challenged absolute monarchy. Their successful resistance to Charles I significantly advanced accountability-based biblical arguments into mainstream acceptance.

• Late 17th Century (Glorious Revolution and Locke’s writings):
  Locke’s biblical and philosophical arguments became highly influential, further cementing accountability and conditional authority in political discourse, shifting public opinion decisively against divine right claims.

• 18th Century (Enlightenment and American Revolution):
  By this period, opposition to divine right became dominant. Enlightenment ideals, underpinned by Locke’s biblical interpretations, widely replaced absolutist doctrines across Western political thought, culminating in the widespread acceptance of constitutionalism and representative governance.

Conclusion

The biblical refutation of Divine Right theology, initially articulated by theologians such as Calvin, Beza, Rutherford, and Locke, fundamentally reshaped political thought and governance in the West. Initially a minority position, it gradually gained widespread acceptance through influential historical events and figures, promoting constitutional governance, parliamentary accountability, and democratic ideals. This profound shift highlights the transformative power of biblical interpretation within social and political contexts, illustrating its capacity not only to critique oppressive systems but also to foster lasting principles of justice, liberty, and accountability in governance.