On Christian Monarchy


Same-sex marriage. Abortion and infanticide by the millions. Brazen occult imagery at the Olympic ceremonies, the Grammy Awards, and the Oscars. Teaching sodomy to our five year olds in public schools. Allowing monuments to Satan in public places. The body politic seems to have gone insane.

While the idea of restoring monarchism to government may sound a bit over the top, considering how bad things have gotten, any idea is worth considering these days, no matter how ancient or odd.

We were raised with stories about how kings were terrible tyrants. But does that justify doing away with monarchy in general? Did we throw out the baby with the bathwater? The arguments behind our revolutions to overthrow and even kill kings—are they biblical, or did they come from a different source?

Lucifer olympics

Olympic ceremony in London features burning Lucifer topped by a masonic compass.

I did not write this article expecting to persuade many people to become monarchists. I am not one, at least not yet. However, monarchism is a concept still alive and well in the circles of Eastern Orthodoxy, of which I am a member. Because of that, and because of how bankrupt our current system has become, I am willing to entertain the concept.

Because Christians claim to base their beliefs on the bible, this article becomes quite relevant, it seems to me.

And the idea is not as far-fetched as one may think. A couple of years ago, members of parliament for the Republic of Georgia discussed returning to a monarchy. “I’m for a parliamentary republic. I’m also for the possibility of restoring the constitutional monarchy here,” said Freedom Party leader Koka Gamsakhurdia.

His comments came in response to the Georgian Patriarch calling for a restoration of  their king in November of 2013: “The Bagrationi Dynasty was terminated in 1801, and since then Georgian people have nurtured a dream to restore the ancient, divinely blessed dynasty,” he said.

Georgian patriacrch Illia II

Georgian patriarch Illia II

According to a poll taken around that same time in Russia, 28 percent of citizens would like to see a return of the Czar. A former member of Parliament formed the Monarchist Party there in 2012.

Regardless of how realistic the idea may be, all Christians should be interested in what the Bible says on the matter.

(Note: This article is an attempt to lay out the plausibility for monarchy. I did not seek to provide “equal time” for democracy. I’m letting 500 years of western civilization do that job.)

(Also, I realize that there are democracies, republics, and democratic republics. I know the difference, but the terms are used here interchangeably.)

1. The bible clearly acknowledges monarchy. Nowhere does it endorse or even mention republics or democracies.

For those of you smart enough to know the arguments, we will get to I Samuel 8 in a minute. Otherwise, the Scriptures seem quite vocal in support of Kings.

Since the New Testament interprets the Old, let’s start there:

“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.” (I Peter 2:13-14)

“Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.” (I Peter 2:17)

“Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.” (I Tim. 2:1-2)

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is referred to as the “King” and the “King of kings.” He is not referred to as a president, chairman, prime minister, spokesperson, or figurehead.

Jesus and the Apostles knew about democracy. According to Fr. Joseph Gleason (Antiochian Orthodox, Omaha, Iliniois): “In the New Testament, many people spoke Greek, and the entire Roman empire was deeply influenced by the Greek culture, which had already been aware of democracy for over 500 years. Yet, Jesus and the apostles never suggest that we should replace monarchies with democracies (or with any other form of government).”

Christians and rome

Early Christians defied Rome’s edicts but never revolted or called for a removal of the Emperor.

Gleason provides a nice list (very minimal) of Old Testament endorsements of monarchism:

  • In Genesis 14, King Melchizedek prophetically acts out the first proto-Eucharist in Scripture, blessing Abraham with bread and wine.
  • In Genesis 17, God promises to bless Abraham with kings for descendants.
  • In Genesis 35, God promises to bless Jacob with kings for descendants.
  • In Genesis 49, God promises that Israel’s kings will come from the tribe of Judah.
  • In Deuteronomy 17, Moses lays out the blueprint for Israel to have godly kings.
  • In 1 Samuel 2, Hannah prophesies about the coming monarchy (verse 10) in a very positive context, focusing on the Lord’s anointed monarch.Melchizedek oval
  • When Israel’s kings are very good, Scripture never suggests that
    they should have been “good enough to abolish
    monarchy, and establish some better form of government”.
  • Similarly, when Israel’s kings are very wicked, Scripture never suggests that “being a king” was part of their sin.

Proverbs 24:21 best sums up the biblical argument against the overthrow of monarchism: “Fear the LORD and the king, my son, and do not join with rebellious officials.”

2. Samuel did not rebuke Israel for wanting a king

Biblicists who oppose monarchy are quick to turn to I Samuel 8, as it is the best passage, if not the only passage, that provides some kind of rationale for something other than a monarchical government.

In the story, Samuel has led Israel well for decades as a “judge,” not a king, but his sons are corrupt, and the elders insist that Samuel install “a king to judge us like all the nations.” Samuel is displeased, prays about it, and God tells him to do what they asked. “They have not rejected you, but rejected me,” God says, “that I should not reign over them.” (I Sam. 8:7)

On it’s face, this passage seems to provide nice ammo for refuting monarchism, but it has a number of serious weaknesses.

♦ Firstly, it is strange for Israel to get rebuked for wanting a king when a few hundred years before Moses laid out some rules for kings in Israel: “When you come to the land … and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses.” (Deut. 17:14-15)

♦ Secondly, Israel wasn’t rebuked for wanting a king. They were rebuked for wanting a king “like all the nations.” (This seems to fit with the previous point that God had already made proscriptions for a king.) Biblical scholar James Jordan points out that this phrase “like all the nations” can mean, in the original language, two possible things.

1: A king, as other nations have kings.
2. A king that acts like other nations’s kings, not one tied to Moses’s code of laws.

Jordan believes, because of the context of the passage, and Deut. 17, that the elders of Israel were asking for the second option. And this explains the verses surrounding both Deut 17 and I Sam. 8, warning against kings multiplying horses, gold, and wives. Other nations’ kings built military machines (horses), heavily taxed their subjects (gold), and sported large harems. Moses and Samuel both warn Israel’s king not to go in that direction.

♦ Thirdly, the days of Israel’s judges was no panacea for godly society. The book ends with a woman being raped in front of her passive husband, who then chops her up and sends the pieces to the twelve tribes to point out how corrupt things had gotten. The book is filled with similar atrocities. Judges ends by saying, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” (21:25). According to Gleason, “the lack of monarchy implies anarchy.  The consciences of the populous were insufficient for bringing righteousness to the nation. A godly king was needed.”

♦ Fourthly, one of the reasons the Israelites were rejecting God by asking for a king was because to do so, at that time, would be violating the mosaic law. Jacob declared at the end of his life, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah.” (Gen. 49:10). The Israelites

Judah and Tamar (from Tamar of the Terebinths)

Judah and Tamar (from Tamar of the Terebinths)

knew their king was to come from Judah, but that tribe was temporarily disqualified due to sexual immorality: “One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation.” (Deut. 23:2)

Judah had slept with his daughter-in-law Tamar (unwittingly—she posed as a prostitute), and she gave birth to Perez (see Gen. 38, a rather bizarre interruption to an otherwise thrilling drama about Joseph). The tribe of Judah was in it’s ninth generation when the elders of Israel demanded a king. Saul had to be taken from another tribe, Benjamin. But he was replaced a generation later by David, from the tribe of Judah, who was now qualified to be king.

The writer of Ruth makes this crystal clear at the very end of the book, naming ten generations from Perez to David: “Now this is the genealogy of Perez: Perez begot Hezron; Hezron begot Ram, and Ram begot Amminadab; Amminadab begot Nahshon, and Nahshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Obed; Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David. (Ruth 4:13-22)

Pretty cool, huh? (Jordan explains this point well in the podcast link already provided, and Gleason writes about it here.)

♦ Lastly, those who use I Samuel 8 to argue against monarchy certainly cannot use it to argue for democratic republics as we know them today. The system under Samuel was a theocracy, a nation under specific laws from God. Whatever is argued for today, whether it be democracies, republics, loose confederations, or pseudo-anarchism, to argue that Israel before its monarchy modeled the ideal government is to argue for something even more radical for today’s sensibilities than monarchy. A few actually do this, but everyone else needs to chill a little bit.

Fr. John Whiteford, an Orthodox priest in Texas (ROCOR), wraps up his excellent article on this topic with this conclusion: “So one could argue that the most ideal form of government is a theocracy, but as the history of Israel up to this point demonstrated, such a theocracy only worked out well for the people when they were zealous to obey God, which very often was not the case. So monarchy is perhaps the second best system of government, but not one without problems … because for monarchy to work out well, you need a king that is pious.”

3. The early church fathers support monarchy.

Gregory the Theologian

Gregory the Theologian

For those who know that anybody can make the bible say just about anything (including Christians wanting to kill kings and foment revolution), it is always helpful, indeed necessary, to consult the early church fathers’ interpretation.

As previously mentioned, Christians of the early centuries knew all about democracy. But it is never endorsed as an option.

“Monarchy is superior to every other constitution and form of government. For polyarchy, where everyone competes on equal terms, is really anarchy and discord.” Eusebius of Caesaria (4th Century)

“The three most ancient opinions about God are atheism (or anarchy), polytheism (or polyarchy), and monotheism (or monarchy). The children of Greece played with the first two; let us leave them to their games. For anarchy is disorder: and polyarchy implies factious division, and therefore anarchy and disorder. Both these lead in the same direction – to disorder; and disorder leads to disintegration; for disorder is the prelude to disintegration. What we honour is monarchy”—St. Gregory the Theologian (4th Century)

In the 14th Century, St. Gregory of Palamas encountered a movement of revolution and democracy that he condemned:

St. John of Kronstadt

St. John of Kronstadt

“God has counted the Emperors worthy to rule over His inheritance, over His earthly Church.”

A more recent saint, John of Kronstadt, put it more tersely:

“Hell is a democracy. Heaven is a kingdom.”

However one may try to develop a theory of democracy over monarchism, he will not get there by citing the church fathers.

4. Monarchists can also claim to “know them by their fruit.”

A common argument by Christians is that you “can know them by their fruit” as Jesus famously said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:16).  While the sins of various monarchs are well known to history, it is worth noting that democracy and republicanism has it’s own load of dirty laundry. These facts may not be enough to win the argument for monarchy, but they may at least keep things at a stalemate.

Starting with democracy’s best case, the American experiment, the movement cannot be described as thoroughly rooted in Christianity. Yes, the Declaration mentions “nature’s God,” but nowhere else is the Deity acknowledged, though some resort to the Constitution citing “A.D. 1789” as acknowledging the Latin “In the year of our Lord.”

Declaration rights of man by Jean-Jacques-François Le Barbier, featuring the All Seeing Eye, was prominently featured to the public during the French Revolution.

Many if not most of the Founding Fathers were masons, a universalist religion that, like the founding documents, has no interest in naming that most controversial of names, Jesus Christ.

The American Revolution was rooted, not in explicit Christianity, but in the Reason of the Enlightenment, best demonstrated politically during the French Revolution and it’s charter the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Thought leaders of this movement were implicit, if not explicit, atheists, usually quite hostile to Jesus Christ.

Jean Jeacques Rousseau: “Christ preached only servitude and dependence … True Christians are made to be slaves.”

Voltaire: “Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.”

Denis Diderot: “Man will only be free when the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

While Enlightenment political thought was less violent in America, the French Revolution was a bloodbath that ended in tyranny. And it’s philosophical heirs, particularly Russia’s Bolshevism, lay claim to the greatest genocides in human history. According to cultural and philosophical critic Jay Dyer:

“French Revolutionary demagogues, such as Danton, Robespierre, the Duke of Orleans, Marat, and St. Just, were all members of secret societies and Illuminist orders. Many communists leaders such as Vladimir Lenin were also “Illuminists.’ Through infiltrating Freemasonry, many of these bloody men were also inducted into a deeper, darker society within the ranks known as the Illuminati.”

French King Louis XVI embraces his children before his execution by guillotine.

French King Louis XVI embraces his children before his execution by guillotine.

“The Illuminati had been formed in 1776 by an ex-Jesuit canon lawyer named Adam Weishaupt, in Bavaria. Weishaupt, who was immersed in rationalism, intended to organize an elite group that would eventually install a one-world, socialistic order and abolish theology. Weishaupt seems to have been the key ideological figure behind the revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries that ultimately removed all forms of monarchy and effectively cut off Christianity from having any cultural influence.”

Modern governments have no contract with God but rather claim a “social contract” between the government and its subjects. Instead of God being the highest authority, that role now belongs to “the people.”

Jesus Christ is not part of the contract. Compare this to the vows made by a King such as Russia’s Czar Nicholas II at his coronation:

“May my heart be in Thy hand, to accomplish all that is to the profit of the people committed to my charge and to Thy glory, that so in the day of Thy judgment I may give Thee account of my stewardship without blame; through the grace and mercy of Thy Son, Who was once crucified for us, to Whom be all honor and glory with Thee and the Holy Spirit, the Giver of Life, unto ages of ages. Amen.”

Czar Nicholas II and his entire family were murdered by the Bolsheviks four years after this photo was taken in 1913.

Christian monarchs are compelled by their vows before God himself to serve the people of their country and fight for their best interests. Masons take “secret vows” that allow their oaths as leaders of nations to be trumped by what they and their ilk may consider a more important, global agenda that supercedes the interests of the nation-state they serve. (Orthodox Christianity does not, by its own laws and traditions, allow masons to become members of the church. See here and here.)

A school of thought quite prominent in Eastern Orthodox tradition is the concept of the King serving as the earthly “restrainer of evil” against Satan’s continual effort to bring Anti-Christ thinking and leaders to prominence. As the Apostle says in II Thess. 2:7:

“The mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.”

Prominent Church Father John Chrysostom identifies this “Restrainer” as the head of the Roman Empire. Some continue that tradition by identifying the Czar of Russia as the Emperor of the “Third Rome,” (First Rome, then Constantinople when Rome fell, than Russia when the Byzantine Empire fell). “Czar” is a shortened version of “Caesar.” Their arguments are not weakened by the 100 million estimated murders committed by the Bolsheviks and their followers after the murder of Czar Nicholas II and his family in 1917.

While both Monarchism and other forms of government have “fruits”

Read The Third Rome online.

Read The Third Rome online.

on both sides of the equation, writers like Vladimir Moss believe monarchy has the better record for both Christians and humanity:

“Of course, no political system can ensure permanent stability—the human race is fallen and mutable by nature. Nevertheless, logic suggests and history demonstrates that monarchies have been much more stable than democracies in their adherence to Christian faith and morality. The history of democracy since the French Revolution shows an ever-accelerating decline in faith and morality, and an ever-expanding undermining of the natural hierarchical relations that God has placed in human society, whether these be between parents and children, husbands and wives, teachers and pupils, or political rulers and their subjects. And by undermining these natural heirarchical relations, it implicitly undermines the most important heirarchical relationship of all, that between God and man. The Orthodox monarchy, on the other hand, strengthens all these relationships, and orients society as a whole to spiritual goals rather than the exclusively secular and material goals of contemporary democracy.”


In conclusion, these four arguments set forth here are not expected to win the day politically any time soon. I’m not even willing to say that I am a monarchist. However, I do believe that the case for democracy is not air tight, if the starting point is the Scriptures or church tradition. And the way things are going today in the U.S. and the West, every idea, however old or shocking, needs to be reconsidered as an option.

Meanwhile, Fr. Michael Azkoul provides an excellent charge for Orthodox Christians that applies to all Christians today:

“ … an Orthodox Christian is faced with the dilemma of living in a society which is basically hostile and alien to him. Of course, we must honor the president, obey just laws and do no harm to any man. Yet we cannot allow ourselves to become an intrinsic part of secular society. The early Christians were accused of being ‘anti-social’ because they would not become involved in the affairs of the pagan Roman Empire, so we must expect the same reproach.”

Saint Helen with her son Constantine, Emperor of Rome who ended the persecution of Christians.

Saint Helen with her son Constantine, Emperor of Rome, who ended the persecution of Christians.


36 thoughts on “On Christian Monarchy

  1. “And Gideon said unto them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the LORD shall rule over you.” [Judges 8:23] … and more recently …
    “People, as individuals, or as groups, have no right to give honour, glory and worshipful obedience to any other individual or group of people – The Lord shall rule over people.” [Thomas Paine]

  2. That’s a good verse. I think the response would be Fr. Whiteford’s response in the article—that monarchy is the second-best system behind Theocracy (which I doubt you are supporting if you quote the like of Thomas Paine, lol.)

    • I am a “minarchist” because we simpley cannot make the “world” into the “kingdom of God” or the other way around. “The Christian is called, not to individualism but to membership in the mystical Body. A consideration of the differences between the secular collective and the mystical Body is therefore the first step to understanding how Christianity without being individualistic can yet counteract collectivism.”[C S Lewis]

    • I have not dug too deeply into the etymological roots of the word myself but in a nutshell “minarchism”, sometimes known as “minimal statism”, is a governmental framework that aims to keep government as small as possible. The smaller and the lesser the “worldly” authority the better.

  3. On your topic, I’ve glanced at this book, which may be quite relevant. “The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society” by Dennis Fahey.


    Here’s a short review from Michael Tozer (who is Orthodox): “This is truly one of the most important and well written books I have ever read. Between the pages of these covers, Father Fahey explains, in exquisite detail, the reasons why modern society is in such sad shape, together with a workable solution. What more can we ask of a 600-page book?

    Father Fahey was an expert on the scholastic philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, history, economics, and law. He combines all of these disciplines beautifully in this masterful work. And to these disciplines, he adds the wonderful touch of a master communicator. The result is spell binding and terribly enlightening.

    […] Pick up a copy. Read it. And come to understand not only the state of the world, but also how adherance to the principles of the Mystical Body of Christ can finally cure our ills. God bless.”


    • “The Presence Of the Kingdom” is a short but incisive book on this topic. “The disciple of Jesus Christ is in the world, he has a social life, he is the citizen of a nation, he has a place in a family, he has a situation and he must work to earn money. His environment and his situation in that environment is the same as that of other men, he shares with other men the same nature and conditions. On the other hand, he cannot belong to this world (2Peter 1:13 and Hebrews 11:13), it is a temporary situation, he belongs to another Kingdom, he has another King, he derives his way of thinking from another source. He thinks in that Kingdom’s terms, that Kingdom’s traditions, he has that Kingdom’s criterion of discernment, judgement, actions, emotions and feelings. His spirit, his soul and his very thinking are elsewhere, his existence and life must be subversive to any worldly environment. It is possible to conform to the world and have a conformist attitude to its prince and its governments, and yet be a revolutionary. Here the idea of revolution is much deeper. The concern is not essentially to change the form of the presiding government but the underlying foundation and framework of its civilization. Change of this nature will lead indirectly to very deep political, economic and religious institutional changes but changes of this kind need not inevitably lead to a direct conflict with worldly authority, unless the latter insists on championing the disorder which exists and openly challenges the Truth of God.” [Jaques Ellul]

  4. Constitutional Monarchy with a democratic element is probably the best system. Note that “Same-sex marriage. Abortion and infanticide by the millions. Brazen occult imagery at the Olympic ceremonies, the Grammy Awards, and the Oscars. Teaching sodomy to our five year olds in public schools. Allowing monuments to Satan in public places” are rarely things that the people actually voted for; on the rare occasions that they do so it is under massive pressure from the elites. Monarchs tend to be much closer to the people than are the elites, and can often act as a counterweight to elite dominance. All societies need elites, but a corrupt elite lacking any sense of duty, and susceptible to neither popular influence nor monarchic restraint, is a terrible thing. That is what we have now throughout most of the West.

  5. This quote from Tolkien adds to the argument that leaders should be acquired from some other means than elections:

    “Yet our system obliges us to elevate to office precisely those persons who have the ego-besotted effrontery to ask us to do so; it is rather like being compelled to cede the steering wheel to the drunkard in the back seat loudly proclaiming that he knows how to get us there in half the time. More to the point, since our perpetual electoral cycle is now largely a matter of product recognition, advertising, and marketing strategies, we must be content often to vote for persons willing to lie to us with some regularity or, if not that, at least to speak to us evasively and insincerely. In a better, purer world—the world that cannot be—ambition would be an absolute disqualification for political authority.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

    • Great quote, I would have said that anyone who has a desire to rule over others should be disqualified from any form of authority and responsibility. “The will of the world is always a will to death, a will to suicide. … The world is neither capable of preserving itself, nor is it capable of finding remedies for its spiritual situation (which controls everything else). It carries the weight of sin, it is the realm of Satan which leads it toward separation from God.” [Jacques Ellul]

      • Great article. I went from being a full-on Democrat believer to Minarchism to Anarcho-Capitalism to Monarchy. While I still think that a non-voluntary demand of tribute at gun-point (taxes) is inherently immoral, one could only live a peaceful life according to the Non-Aggression-Principle somewhere in the woods by himself or in a group consisting of like-minded moral people. Otherwise one has to deal with constant cries for equality and Socialism from the greedy part of an atheist society. Atheism does not provide a code of ethics and as these people don’t believe in judgement before their creator there is a need for big government and punishment to prevent Sodom and Gomorrah.
        I would take a Christian monarch every day over an atheist democratic government. Even from an economics point of view Democracy makes no sense. Hans-Herrman Hoppe wrote about that in “Democracy – The God That Failed”. Speaking of Europe: decades of capital consumption and a society under the rule of godless people that emerge in a process of adverse selection, it is foreseeable where this will end.

  6. Some excellent observations here, but the obvious, honest ones, are conveniently left out. Among them are the fact that, while the majority religion of the American War for Independence

    (this a minor point, but a salient one, nevertheless- Our English ancestors did NOT consider this war a Revolution, but a war for Independence from a kingly power that had become despotic. It was only later, and from minds inimical to the concept of a godly reign, who deigned to call it ‘the Revolutionary War,’ for their own obvious reasons (1917, WWI, the Bolshevik Revolution, etc.)

    was Presbyterian Calvinism, the overtly Augustinian ‘flavor’ of the Americas in the time frame 1776-1789, should never be ‘passed over’ in any discussion of our nation’s founding. Moreover, the entire turning toward a more Biblical analysis of the ‘problems’ of a Representative Republic, a Democracy, or what we now have as a system of governance in the USA, reverts back to this wing of the Christian mind – namely, via the seminal works of Rousas John Rushdoony, his magnum opus, ‘Institutes of Biblical Law’ and the men and movements that flowed from that calvinist enclave. The quoting of James Jordan is a case in point, even in this article. Along with David Chilton, (who almost came into Antioch’s orbit) and Ray Sutton (now a bishop in the Reformed Episcopal Church of North America, tenuously tied with the ACNA (Anglican Church in N.A.), these three writers were the ‘young bucks’ of the Christian Reconstruction movement, along with Rush, and his erstwhile son-in-law, Dr. Gary North. It would appear one cannot build an Orthodox phronema in discussing the American issue, WITHOUT acknowledging and dealing with the Calvinists ‘who have gone before us.’

    Going back even further, in discussing the ‘Christian Nature of the American Experiment,’ it is too facile to state that the Americans were merely the ‘kindler, gentler’ version of the French Reign of Terror, and their ‘Democratic urge.’ The online author, “Cambria will not Yield” weekly points out the flaws in THAT argument.

    In addition, one should not, must not ignore (as the secularists, and merely judaizing elements in post-1920’s American institutions, starting with Columbia University and the denizens of the (((“Frankfurt School”))) in assuming the Deist argument is valid, just because ‘they’ say it is so…. the recent reprinting of Morris’ tome on the Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (written originally in 1864, and online here- https://archive.org/details/ChristianLifeAndCharacterOfTheCivilInstitutionsOfTheUnitedStates
    by an ostensibly Reformed/ Presbyterian book concern:


    brings us back again to those ‘pesky Calvinists’ and their vision for America- clearly, one that was: predestined for success, as long as we held God’s Law (Theonomy – cf. Bahnsen’s Theonomy in Christian Ethics) as the hallmark of our jurisprudence; an exclusionary, tribal/racial nature to our citizenry;

    (following the Israelite/Biblical Example) even to having 13 Colonies, mirroring the 13 Tribes of post-Davidic Israel (!) again noted in the phrase ‘for US and OUR posterity’, and maintained until those false tribalists [Rev. 2:9] appeared along with Bolshevism, after the Russian REVOLUTION, in 1920’s America- who were then halted (at least in the desire to miscegenate the ‘Founding Stock,’ via the 1924 Immigration Control Act) and a desire to ‘have no king but King Jesus.’

    This last was maintained until 1961 in most School districts, with hymns and reading of the Holy Scripture, until (again) a (((certain foreign ethos ))) sought to disenfranchise us of our patristic heritage, and was given a ‘wound unto death’ with the events of Nov. 22, 1963….

    But the older, Western construct that Pagan, Greek modes of thought were a Divine preparation for the implantation of the Gospel in the Ecumene, was a touchstone among scholars and educators, even in my elementary Parochial education, prior to the ‘Deforms’ of Vatican II, and is noted in a marvelous book called:

    ‘Plato’s Gift to Christianity- the Gentile Preparation and the Making of the Christian Faith’ by one Jerry Dell Ehrlich – http://www.jerrydellehrlich.com/category/jerrys-books/platos-gift-to-christianity/

    We cannot, dare not (as Orthodox, and as Christians in the larger sphere) cease to be ‘catholic’ in our vision, merely because it is easier to do so- often, assuming the negations of the fallen world about is, confuses us to the reality of God’s Revelation, for ‘he loveth mankind.’

  7. A Theocracy can never work, who’s going to be the people that let you know what God is thinking?? Oh. The priests. Just like in the middle ages, when a priest could commit any crime, such as murder, and say 3 hail Mary’s for punishment. The Levites ( priests) wrote the law of Moses in Deuteronomy, which was the first actual book written and read to the people of Judah in 458 BC. The other 10 tribes, or True Israel already intermingled and melted with humanity under a Universal salvation by the time this was written. The racially exclusive doctrine that the Levites were pushing was what Israel was against. The reason Israel wanted a King was to check the power of the tribe of Judah, the southern kingdom under control of the Levites. That’s why the first King chosen was Saul, who was just a strong warrior and NOT a Judahite. His dynasty died when he did. The Northern kingdom, true Israel was later captured by Babylon, broken apart and was NEVER a nation again. That’s why the Talmud says that the other 10 tribes will not partake in the ruling of the world. Only the Levites facilitated by the tribe of Judah will reign. The whole of the “old Testament” was basically a political program. It was written by the priests for whatever they needed to handle at the time. Judah, not Israel, was finally completely destroyed by Rome in 70? AD ( forgive me if my dates are a bit off I am going from memory). The reasons Jews hate Christianity is because its soul purpose, initially was to break the Jews, by up ending their doctrine and claiming it was fulfilled by Yahshua, a descendent of David( a Judahite) and Salvation was UNIVERSAL. The reason why non Christians question why the old and new testaments seem to contradict each other is because simply they do. Both Doctrines oppose each other. They are literally both a weapon. God is real I do believe that. And I believe he is love. The only way to have a Theocracy would be for humanity to stop hating each other and start loving each other, as Christ loved the world. With the 2 and now 3 ( Islam) religions we have now that will not happen. Christianity has the best chance because it doesn’t exclude any one like Judaism and Islam do.

    • Why do individuals look to another, person or organization, to assume responsibility for life, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” [1Timothy 2:5]?

  8. Sacred Royalty: from the Pharaoh to the Most Christian King

    Excerpt: http://themathesontrust.org/publications-files/MTexcerpt-Royalty.pdf
    Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power


    Ananda K.Coomaraswamy

  9. But you confuse the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven with the kingdoms of men, and attempt to show that co-mingling them somehow justifies an earthly monarch.

    You ignore 500 years of the history of ancient Israel in which the people lived without a king, mentioning only the decades Samuel ruled as judge. They had judges upon judges.

    You greatly misinterpret I Samuel 8. That was primarily a rejection of the people of God as King (the Kingdom of Heaven) and that view has caused you to misinterpret the New Testament references to kings. The exhortations to obey kings is not an endorsement of monarchy, rather it is a commandment to obey God.

    Honoring the king is simply honoring God, because that is what he has commanded through his apostles. Did the early Fathers support monarchy, or humbly support God by humbling themselves before the king? The discussion is difficult because our view is tainted by modern politics, but the Fathers were probably not demonstrating in the streets very much in favor of monarchies.

    I also am an Orthodox Christian, and I have been exposed to the Orthodox idea of monarchy, mostly on this blog, but I am unconvinced by your interpretations of the New Testament examples and by your failure to see that from the earthly standpoint I Samuel 8 in context is a definite Plan B. Plan A is (and was for 500 years, longer than Western democracies) a stateless society where God is King, on earth as he is in Heaven. It is a type and shadow of the Kingdom of Heaven. From the heavenly standpoint I Samuel 8 is realized in the Bride of Christ, worshipping Christ her King unto ages upon ages. Before there was separation of Church and State, there was the Church seeing the big picture of eternity with Christ our King and separating ourselves from the world. Because of him, the earthly kings we can endure.

    I am open to being convinced about (earthly) monarchy because I am tracking with you about the Orthodox angle, but this isn’t cutting it. It might be a good beginning though, with some editing and further thinking.

    • I have for a long time agreed with you that I Samuel 8 in context is God’s Plan B, especially in the light of Jeremiah 31:33-34 but when you consider that God always had predetermined Christ as our King and David as King of the Jews, and that Scripture seems to prophesy these two kings as inevitable, I am not so sure.

      • You make valid points that cannot easily be set aside, but my response would be Plan A was always Christ as our King, and King David looked forward in time to Christ as King, and was himself a type of Christ the King, we might even say in his office as king he was a living icon of Christ.

        Christ made a clear distinction between the Kingdom of Heaven and the kings of this earth when he said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. He called us to a different path. I have come to the conclusion that the yearning that I and probably you have for right government on this earth will only be fulfilled when the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ. The yearning we feel is the yearning for Heaven on earth.

        We touch that in worship, in the meeting of Heaven and earth. Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages.

      • I don’t think we can yearn for right government because, as Jaques Ellul puts it …”We must give up believing that we can “improve” the world, make mankind better, or devise and create some system that will somehow improve human nature. To think or talk like this is to play into the hands of the Prince of this world, Satan. We are caught between two facts which no human (without the faith of Jesus Christ) can alter: it is impossible for us to make the world less sinful and it is impossible for us to accept the world as it is. With God though, all things are possible.

  10. So, is it even possible to differentiate biblically between the ancient idea of hereditary monarchs and modern elected heads of state? I am not sure you can, their functions and powers are very similar, and the Bible is not really a treatise on political philosphy.

  11. Plato must be of relevance here both as an anti-democrat and the idea of the philosopher king … Mark E Smith himself said he reckons it’s time to let QEII have a go at ruling in spite of his dislike of William of Orange …

  12. Tsarism can be the only legitimate standing of a Christian. Civilization’s highest goal is to mirror that which is above, by the ancient maxim ‘as above, so below’. Heaven is not a democracy, it is a kingdom. Do we think we know better than the Heavenly Father which form of authority is best?

    The Christian ideal has, by divine providence (in hoc signo vinces) become synonymous with the Roman ideal, that of Imperial Rome with its caesar. We have been robbed of this by our enemies, attacked from within justified by no legitimate grievance. It is our duty to restore the nations of the Occident to God, to which they have signed themselves in blood. This inevitably involves ending democracy, for good.

    • Neither Tsarism or Caesar worship are necessarily implied by the statement – “as above so below”, you are merely propsing what the ancient Greeks ended up proposing as the best form of government – a benign dictator. This form of government, like any form of human authority, is as corruptible as any human is.
      The ending of democracy will only lead to Tsarism or Caesar worship which also has been tried and failed.
      The Kingdom of God is anywhere God is obeyed as King, the extent or area (physically, mentally and spiritually, anywhere) where He is obeyed.This leaves us at 1Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” still with the problem of extending the area where God is King (the great commission).

      • When one says all forms of government have tried and failed, he is not making a statement about the system itself, but only about human nature. Tsarism is not caeser-worship. It is the Roman model of authority in the Christian context; the temporal mirror of the Divine Realm. The tsar is the head of state, God is the head of the monarchy, His wishes guarded by the priesthood via-a-vis the royal figure.

      • Sysyems exist only in the minds and actions of individuals – “…the collective has no existence and reality but in the actions of individuals. It comes into existence by ideas that move individuals to behave as members of a definite group and goes out of existence when the persuasive power of these ideas subsides.” [Ludwig von Mises]. There are only two kingdoms, humanity is incapable of creating a third. Besides the royal priesthood of believers (His Body/Kingdom/Church), there are only two occurrences of the combination of king/priest in scripture, Jesus – when He returns as King of the Jews, and Melchizedek. – Gen 14:18. The “temporal mirror of the Divine Realm” you mention can only be the kingdom of this world, a counterfeit kingdom with an anti-Christian trinity (religion – Behemoth, politics – Leviathan, and finance-Mammon) and they placed Jesus on the cross. Jesus tells us that His Kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). “We are caught between two facts which no human (without the faith of Jesus Christ) can alter: it is impossible for us to make the world less sinful and it is impossible for us to accept the world as it is. With God though, all things are possible.” [Jaques Ellul]

  13. The USA is certainly not “democracy’s best case”! The American form of democracy is one of the most flawed: Nepotism, patronage, corruption and the influence of big business and the military-industrial complex, not to mention slavery, Tammany, lynchings, segregation and gerrymandering until relatively recently. The USA has one of the most inflexible and poorly conceived constitutions of any country. Any European parliamentary democracy is superior to the American system. The crowning argument has to be that if the USA, with 320 million people, can only come up with a choice between Clinton or Trump for president, something has to be seriously wrong with the system.

    • The ancient Greeks determined that democracy was the worst form of government so one would have to have assessed all the various democratic experiments throughout history to make a judgement on the USA. The interference of “collectivism” or “globalism” and the extent of its influence on the American experiment may be why the USA is left with no real “choice” anymore, because, as you say, Trump or Clinton is not a real choice.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s