Google defines the divine right of kings as follows (clause numbers edited in): “[1.] the doctrine that kings derive their authority from God, [2.] not from their subjects, [3.] from which it follows that rebellion is the worst of political crimes.”
It seems to me that Scripture and tradition support clause #1 and contradict clauses #2 and #3.
Clause #1: “kings derive their authority from God”
Scripture says:
Romans 13:1-7 – “[T]here is no authority except from God.”
And: “[T]hose that exist have been instituted by God.”
And: “[W]hoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed.”
And: “[He] is God’s servant for your good.”
And: “[He] is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”
1 Peter 2:13-17 – “[G]overnors [are] sent by [God] to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God.”
And: “Fear God. Honor the emperor.”
1 Samuel 10:1 – “Is it not that the Lord hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance?”
2 Kings 9:3 – “This is what the LORD says: I anoint you king over Israel.”
I think that all of these passages can be used to support the view that kings receive power from God.
Clause #2: “not from their subjects”
Scripture says:
Deuteronomy 17:14-15 – “When you…say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me’; you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose.”
2 Samuel 2:4 – “Then the men of Judah came to Hebron, and there they anointed David king over the tribe of Judah.”
2 Samuel 2:7 – “[T]he house of Judah have anointed me king over them.”
2 Samuel 5:3 – “When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a covenant with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel.”
Tradition says:
St. Augustine - “It is a general pact of human society to obey its own kings.” (Confessions Book 3 Chapter 8)
St. Thomas Aquinas - “[We] must observe that dominion and authority are institutions of human law.” (Summa Theologica 2-2 Question 10 Article 10)
I think that all of these passages can be used to support the view that kings receive power from their subjects.
Clause #3: “rebellion is the worst of political crimes”
Scripture says:
Exodus 14:8 – “And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the people of Israel as they went forth defiantly.”
1 Maccabees 2:27-28 – “Then Mattathias cried out in the city with a loud voice, saying: ‘Let every one who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me!’ And he and his sons fled to the hills and left all that they had in the city.”
I think that these passages can be used to support the view that there can be justified rebellions.
Scripture also says:
Acts 5:29 – “We must obey God rather than men.”
Acts 4:19-20 – “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
1 Maccabees 2:22 – “We will not obey the king’s words by turning aside from our religion to the right hand or to the left.”
I think that all of these passages can be used to support the view that unjust laws can legitimately be disobeyed. And I think that is a kind of rebellion.
Tradition says:
In 726 A.D., Pope Gregory II excommunicated Emperor Leo and “made Rome with the whole of Italy withdraw” from Leo’s empire. Suarez seems to say that this “is reported from Zonaras and others by Baronius for the year 726, no.24. And the same was afterwards confirmed by Gregory III, as Platina reports.”
In 731 A.D., Pope Gregory III excommunicated Emperor Leo and “took the Roman people and the taxes of the West away from him.” (Sigbert, Chronicle for the year 731)
In 1076 A.D., Pope St. Gregory VII excommunicated Emperor Henry IV and declared, “I forbid any person to do him any of the service due to kings.” (Decree Excommunicating Henry IV)
In 1215 A.D., the Twelfth Ecumenical Council declared, “If [a king] refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics.”
In 1245 A.D., the Thirteenth Ecumenical Council declared, “We absolve from their oath for ever all those who are bound to [the emperor] by an oath of loyalty, firmly forbidding by our apostolic authority anyone in the future to obey or heed him as emperor or king.”
Suarez cites several examples where the Church excommunicated some civil authorities before these dates, but I don’t think the Church was as explicit about releasing Christians from legal obligations to the civil authorities in those cases. I haven’t read the source texts for all of them, but one important one was the time when Pope Innocent I excommunicated Arcadius and Eudoxus “as is clear from the last of his epistles, and from Nicephorus, XIII. 34; and the same is related by Gregory VII, Registrum, VIII. 21.”
In sum, I think Scripture and Tradition support clause 1 of Google’s definition of the divine right theory, but not clauses 2 or 3.
For all these reasons, I don’t think it is true to say that the divine right of kings is or used to be a doctrine or custom of the Church. Rather, I think the Church has always opposed that theory by arguing that kings receive authority from the people and that rebellions can be legitimate.
Please let me know what you think of that evidence.
