Handel's "Saul" and the Divine Right of Kings

Many of Handel’s oratorios were written with the political situation of the time in mind.  Saul is one of them.  In 1685, King James II came to power, but he was a Catholic, and the English were afraid he would force the country into Catholicism.  They urged William of Orange to take the throne instead, and James was forced to flee.  The debate still raged on three decades later, over whether it was right to usurp the throne of a king, as kings were supposedly appointed by God.

 

Handel's "Saul"

The concept of the divine right of kings comes from the Old Testament.  Not content with the judges who led them, the Israelites pestered God for an earthly king.  God chose Saul, and the prophet Samuel anointed him with oil to signify that he had been given authority by God to reign as His representative.

But the power conferred on Saul did not really belong to him.  He was merely God’s agent, so to speak; he couldn’t just do what he wanted.  Just as the Israelites were subject to him, so he was subject to God.  His position was a responsibility far more than a privilege.

If he didn’t fulfil his responsibilities, he could be replaced as king.  And that’s exactly what happened.  When the Israelites went to war against the Amalekites, God commanded Saul to destroy every person and animal.  But Saul disobeyed and kept some of the best livestock, and also spared the life of their king Agag.  God removed the kingship from Saul’s line and named David as the next king.  Saul did stay on as king, but he no longer had any divine authority.

The Christians of the 18^th century believed that a monarch was untouchable; that to act against him was to act against God.  They had forgotten – or chosen to ignore – that a king is not the ultimate authority; that he is accountable to God; that he is never infallible.  But they put him in the place of God – and that’s idolatry.

This is still a failing in Christanity today – often we place leaders of churches on pedestals, and claim that to criticize them amounts to speaking against God.  For example, the recent events in America – last year it came to light that Bill Gothard, a famous American minister, had been molesting teenage girls who worked for him.  He was placed on indefinite leave and ended up resigning.  But it had been going on for years, and people had been ignoring their suspicions – because Gothard was God’s anointed, and he wouldn’t do anything like that!

But most of this is irrelevant in a modern-day context.  Kings (or politicians) are no longer divinely appointed.  God gives spiritual authority to all Christians – some as pastors, others as prophets or Sunday School teachers – and all of us as messengers of His Word.  There is no need any more for an intermediary between us and God.

This is made pretty clear in the New Testament, leading to the question of why the people of Handel’s time were so hung up on this idea.  One reason is power, of course.  It’s much easier to keep your subjects from rebelling if they think you’ve been put there by God Himself.  Throughout history, churches and governments have twisted Scripture to back up unbiblical ideas.  But I don’t think that is the only reason.

One of the reasons that the Israelites wanted a king is that they believed it would make them a stronger nation.  But they were already a force to be reckoned with; they had conquered much of the Promised Land, and God would lead them to further victories.  The problem was that they didn’t have enough faith in God; they wanted a human king to lead them.  Likewise, the 18^th-century Christians put their faith first and foremost in the king.

My last reason is about the Church of England itself.  Christianity in England had always been different from Roman Catholicism, due to their relative isolation from the continent, and the influence of Celtic tradition.  They were united with Rome, though, until Henry VIII threw a tantrum over not being allowed to divorce his wife, and separated entirely from Rome.  Until then, the Church had still been under the Pope’s jurisdiction.  Now, though, Henry styled himself, and all subsequent monarchs, head of the church.

It’s obvious from even a cursory reading of the related texts that the divine right of kings was NOT absolute; moreover, that it was in fact an Old Testament custom and had no place in the Christian era.