---
Modern political thought treats monarchy as an historical accident — a primitive arrangement superseded by the more rational forms of republican government and democratic consent. This essay argues the opposite: that monarchy is not an aberration of human political history but its natural form, that this naturalness is visible in the witness of Scripture, confirmed by the broad testimony of classical and Christian tradition, and that the mechanism by which monarchy is properly constituted — the oath of fealty — reveals something about political obligation that democratic consent mechanisms structurally cannot replicate.
The argument proceeds in four stages. First, I establish that monarchy is natural in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense — that it arises from the nature of human community and from the logic of just rule. Second, I show that Scripture does not reluctantly accommodate monarchy but positively institutes and regulates it as the expected form of organized political life. Third, I focus on the oath structure through which the monarchical bond is constituted, using Fulbert of Chartres's 1020 letter on feudal obligations as the pivot point, and argue that the pre-modern oath of fealty is not a legal formality but a covenantal act — theologically distinct from, and weightier than, the mechanisms of democratic consent. Fourth, I draw these threads together and suggest that the eschatological horizon of Scripture gives the entire argument its proper frame: all earthly monarchy is a type, anticipating and subordinate to the eternal reign of the one true King.
A note on method: this essay works within a confessional Reformed Baptist framework. Scripture is the final authority; natural law and tradition are corroborating witnesses, not independent foundations. Where classical or medieval argument is used, it is because it tracks what Scripture teaches, not as a substitute for it.
---
The case from nature begins with Aristotle. In Politics Book III, Aristotle identifies five forms of kingship and argues that the highest — what he calls pambasileia, absolute kingship — is the natural terminus of virtue-based rule: "If there be one person, or more than one, although not enough to form a complete state, whose virtue is so preeminent that the virtues or the political capacity of all the rest admit of no comparison with his or theirs, he or they can be no longer regarded as part of a state... Such a one may truly be deemed a god among men."[^1] The logic is not merely that outstanding men deserve power, but that rule naturally consolidates in the direction of unity. Divided rule is a compromise; unified rule is the ideal toward which political communities tend when their conditions allow.
Thomas Aquinas takes this argument and gives it theological depth. In De Regno — written for the King of Cyprus around 1267 — Aquinas argues that monarchy is the best form of government because unity of rule mirrors the order of creation: "Since the rule of one man, which is the best, is to be preferred, and since it may happen that it change into a tyranny, which is the worst... a king oughtt o be set up in such a way that his people are not easily able to become a tyranny... For this end, the best constitution for a state or kingdom is one where one man is placed at the head, governing by virtue of his pre-eminence."[^2] The argument is cosmological: as one God governs the universe, as one soul governs the body, as reason governs the faculties, so one king best governs a political community. Unity of rule is not a contingent historical preference but a reflection of the structure of ordered being.
This is the natural law case. It does not require revelation — it follows from observation of how well-ordered rule works. But it is not indifferent to revelation; it is what one would expect if the God of Scripture is also the God of nature.
More recent secular thinkers have updated the argument without its theological content. Curtis Yarvin, writing as Mencius Moldbug, argues that divided sovereignty is not a solution to tyranny but a recipe for hidden, unaccountable power: "Wherever there is government, there is sovereignty. The question is not whether power will exist but whether it will be formal or informal, visible or concealed."[^3] When sovereignty is formally concentrated in a single executive, responsibility is unambiguous; when it is distributed across competing institutions, it becomes unlocatable — and therefore unaccountable. Hans-Hermann Hoppe makes the economic version of the argument: a hereditary monarch governs with low time preference (his descendants inherit the territory) while an elected official governs with high time preference (he extracts maximum value before the next election).[^4] These secular arguments corroborate the Thomistic case from the outside: the structure of sound governance, examined without theological premises, tends toward unified, stable, long-horizon rule.
The secular arguments are useful but insufficient. They establish what monarchy is and why it tends to work; they cannot establish why it is the normatively right form — the form that God has sanctioned and that his people are called to recognize. For that, we turn to Scripture.
---
The standard reading of 1 Samuel 8 treats Israel's demand for a king as an act of apostasy, a rejection of God's direct rule, a second fall. This reading is too quick. It misses the prior legislation of Deuteronomy 17.
Deuteronomy 17:14–20 does not merely permit monarchy. It anticipates it, regulates it, and legitimates it as an expected feature of Israel's national life: "When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,' you may indeed set a king over you." The conditional is not God warning Israel away from monarchy but God providing in advance for the institution when it arrives. The king is to be chosen by God, to be an Israelite, not to multiply horses or wives or gold, and above all to "write for himself in a book a copy of this law... and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the LORD his God." The king is not above the law; he is its most devoted student. This is the theology of regulated, covenantal monarchy, written into Torah before Israel ever had a king.
When 1 Samuel 8 arrives, the problem is not that Israel asked for a king. The problem is threefold: they rejected this particular king (God himself, who had been their direct sovereign — v. 7); they wanted a king like the nations, not a king shaped by Deut 17; and they were driven by fear rather than trust (v. 20: "that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles"). Samuel's warning in vv. 10–18 is not a case against monarchy; it is a description of what ungodly monarchy looks like — the exploitative version, the king who takes rather than serves. God grants the request, anoints Saul, and by 1 Samuel 10–11 the kingdom is renewed at Gilgal before the LORD — covenantal language signaling not reluctant accommodation but genuine institution.
The apex of the OT monarchy theology is 2 Samuel 7, the Davidic covenant. Here God does not merely permit a human king; he constitutes a dynasty, makes an unconditional promise, and ties his own name to the persistence of David's throne: "Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever." This is not a political arrangement — it is a divine covenant, with the same structural weight as the Abrahamic covenant. The Davidic king is not merely Israel's executive; he is the mediator through whom God governs his people, and the type through whom the eschatological king will come.
Ecclesiastes 8:2 provides the bridge from the institution of monarchy to the oath structure: "Keep the king's command, because of God's oath" (ESV) — or in the alternative reading, "because of your oath before God." Either rendering establishes the same point: the subject's obligation to the king is not grounded in the king's raw power, or in his justice, or in a social contract, but in the oath — an oath that has God as its witness and guarantor. The political bond is oath-mediated. To break it is not merely to defy authority; it is to break covenant before God.
---
The oath structure implicit in the OT reaches its most articulate pre-modern expression in the feudal tradition, and the clearest single statement of feudal oath theology comes from Fulbert, Bishop of Chartres, in a letter written in 1020 to Duke William V of Aquitaine.
William had asked Fulbert what a vassal owes his lord. Fulbert's answer is careful and layered. The vassal who swears fealty must be to his lord "harmless, safe, honorable, useful, easy, practicable" — he must not harm the lord's body, secrets, defenses, justice, possessions, or capacity to act. But Fulbert immediately insists this is only half the obligation: "it is not sufficient to abstain from evil, unless what is good is done also" — the vassal must actively counsel and aid his lord in all six matters, not merely avoid harming him. And then the mutual obligation, stated with full symmetry: "The lord also ought to act toward his faithful vassal reciprocally in all these things. And if he does not do this he will be justly considered guilty of bad faith, just as the former, if he should be detected in the avoidance of or the doing of or the consenting to them, would be perfidious and perjured."[^5]
This brief passage contains the entire structure of monarchical oath theology:
First, the oath is mutual. The lord owes the vassal the same quality of faithful dealing that the vassal owes the lord. This is not a unilateral submission but a covenantal bond. It maps directly onto 2 Samuel 5:1–3, where the elders of Israel come to David at Hebron, make a covenant with him before the LORD, and anoint him — a covenantal act in which David receives kingship under obligations, not above them. The Davidic king is the shepherd who owes his flock faithful care; the flock owes him loyal obedience. Neither obligation is unconditional in the sense of being indifferent to the other, but neither is the bond dissolved by failure of performance — it is covenantal, not contractual.
Second, the oath is before God. Fulbert makes this explicit in his language of sanction: the vassal who violates fealty is not merely a political rebel but "perfidious and perjured" — a perjurer, one who has broken an oath. Oaths in the medieval world were sworn on the Gospels or on relics, invoking God as witness and guarantor. To break the oath is therefore not only to wrong the lord but to sin against God before whom the oath was sworn. This is exactly the structure of Ecclesiastes 8:2: the subject's obligation to the king is grounded in the oath before God, not in the king's raw power or the subject's current preferences. Political obligation is not self-grounding. It derives its weight from the God who witnesses and guarantees the oath. The English coronation oath makes the same point from the other direction: the king's authority too is sworn before God — he is not above the oath but bound by it.
Third, the oath is comprehensive. It covers the vassal's whole person and capacity — body, secrets, defenses, honor, property, action. This is not a narrowly defined contractual obligation that can be fulfilled by meeting specified performance criteria. It is a total orientation of the person toward the lord's welfare. The feudal oath is not a service contract; it is closer to the covenant of marriage, which also covers the whole person and cannot be reduced to a set of performance metrics.
This three-part structure — mutual, before God, comprehensive — explains why the pre-modern oath of fealty is politically weightier than the modern mechanisms of democratic consent. A vote is an anonymous, discrete act with no ongoing obligation. A tax payment is a legal transaction. Neither invokes God as witness; neither creates an ongoing covenantal bond; neither covers the whole person. The pre-modern oath of fealty does all three. It creates a different kind of political obligation — one that cannot be rescinded by a change in preference, that persists even when the lord fails (within limits), and that carries eternal consequences if broken without just cause.
The coronation oath extends this structure to the king himself. The English coronation oath — in forms traceable at least to King Edgar's coronation in 973 AD, preserved in the Leofric Missal and related sources — commits the king to three promises: to protect the Church, to forbid robbery and injustice, and to maintain justice and mercy in all judgments.[^6] The king swears this oath to God, in the presence of the people whose acclamation acknowledges what God has done. The people do not make the king; they recognize the king God has appointed and swear their fealty in response. This is the political theology of anointing — the king's authority comes from above, the people's loyalty is their covenantal response to that prior divine act.
Henry de Bracton captures this in the 13th century with his definitive formulation: "Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem" — "The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king."[^7] Not under the people; not constrained by democratic consent; but under God, whose law the king is bound by oath to uphold, and under the law, which is itself the expression of divine justice given form in a particular political community. The final clause — quia lex facit regem, law makes the king — is the political theology of covenant in miniature: the king's authority is constituted by and accountable to a law that stands above him, a law that ultimately derives from God.
---
Objection 1: 1 Samuel 8 shows that God opposed monarchy.
The response has been given above: Deuteronomy 17 anticipates and regulates monarchy before 1 Samuel 8. The problem in 1 Samuel 8 is not the institution of monarchy but the spirit in which it was requested — rejection of God's direct rule, desire to be like the nations, fear rather than faith. God grants the request, anoints the king, and constitutes the monarchy covenantally in chapters 10–11. The Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 makes clear that monarchy is not a concession but a vehicle of divine promise.
Objection 2: The oath structure can ground limited monarchy or aristocracy as easily as monarchy proper.
This is partly true and partly a category error. The feudal oath structure does create a network of mutual obligations that can limit arbitrary power — and should. Deut 17's regulations on the king are precisely this kind of covenant-mediated limitation. But this is not an argument against monarchy; it is an argument for covenantal monarchy, which is exactly the OT form. The alternative to covenantal monarchy is not aristocracy or democracy but tyranny — rule without covenantal accountability. The oath structure does not disperse sovereignty; it obligates sovereignty. The king remains the king; the oath ensures he remembers before whom he is king.
Objection 3: Modern thinkers like Yarvin offer a secular version of this argument. Is the theological grounding necessary?
Necessary for what? If the goal is merely to describe why monarchy tends to produce stable governance, then Yarvin and Hoppe suffice. But if the goal is to explain why monarchy is normatively right — why subjects are morally and covenantally obligated to the king, and why that obligation has a weight that can never be generated by democratic consent — then the theological grounding is indispensable. Yarvin's accountability mechanism is exit (citizens leave bad patches). This is consumers leaving a bad product. It generates zero covenantal obligation, zero oath weight, and no theological warrant for obedience in hard times. The pre-modern oath of fealty generates obligations that persist under difficulty because they are sworn before God. A political theology that replaces the oath with exit has replaced covenant with consumerism. It does not describe the same thing.
---
The final reason monarchy is not merely the natural political form but the right one is eschatological. All earthly kingship is a type — a provisional, partial, anticipatory form — of the reign of the one true King.
Isaiah 9:6–7: "The government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom." The OT monarchy, with all its failures and corruptions, points forward to a perfect Davidic king whose throne will be eternal. The Davidic covenant does not terminate with the exile; it is perfected in the Incarnation and consummated at the Parousia.
Revelation 19:16 gives the final word: "On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." All earthly kings are subordinate to and derivative of this King. The political order toward which history moves is not democratic but monarchical — not the aggregate will of the people but the sovereign rule of the one who is worthy. Every human monarchy in history, good or bad, is a type of and pointer toward this reign.
This does not mean every earthly monarchy is good or that every king should be obeyed without qualification. It means that monarchy is the form that political order takes when it is properly ordered — that the instinct toward kingship written into human political life is not a vestige of primitive barbarism but a feature of the image of God, oriented toward the King for whom we were made.
---
The case for monarchy as natural political order rests on three converging lines of evidence. Natural reason, from Aristotle through Aquinas to contemporary thinkers, demonstrates that unity of rule is the most rational and stable form of governance. Scripture, from Deuteronomy 17 through the Davidic covenant to the eschatological reign of Christ, shows that God not only accommodates but institutes, regulates, and ultimately perfects monarchy as the form of his people's political life. And the oath structure, articulated most precisely by Fulbert of Chartres but present across the entire pre-modern tradition, shows that the mechanism through which monarchical loyalty is constituted — the covenantal oath before God — creates a qualitatively different and weightier form of political obligation than any democratic consent mechanism can generate.
The question posed by Ecclesiastes 8:2 — why obey the king? — is answered not by power, not by efficiency, not by contract, but by the oath before God. That answer is as old as kingship itself. It is the answer that feudal bishops, Davidic elders, and Israelite subjects all gave. It is the answer that the pre-modern political tradition preserved and that modernity abandoned. This essay argues it is the right answer — and that recovering it is not antiquarianism but fidelity to the order God built into his world and inscribed in his Word.
---
<!-- markdownlint-disable MD013 -->
[^1]: Aristotle, Politics III.13, trans. Jowett; available at <https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.3.three.html> [^2]: Thomas Aquinas, De Regno I.6, trans. Phelan/Eschmann; available at <https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/DeRegno.htm> [^3]: Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), "A Formalist Manifesto," Unqualified Reservations, April 2007; available at <https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted/> [^4]: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed (Transaction, 2001), ch. 1; available at <https://dn721606.ca.archive.org/0/items/911-material/Pdfs/Democracy%20The%20God%20That%20Failed.pdf> [^5]: Fulbert of Chartres, Letter to Duke William of Aquitaine (1020), trans. E.P. Cheyney; available at <https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/fulbert1.asp> [^6]: The English coronation oath in its historical forms, including the Leofric Missal text (c. 973) and the 1689 statutory form, is surveyed in UK Parliament Research Briefing SN00435; archived at <https://web.archive.org/web/20240911012220/https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00435/SN00435.pdf> [^7]: Henry de Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England), c. 1235, vol. 2, p. 33, ll. 8–9: "Ipse autem rex non debet esse sub homine sed sub deo et sub lege, quia lex facit regem" ("The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because law makes the king"); Latin: <https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/Bracton/Unframed/Latin/v2/33.htm> — English: <https://amesfoundation.law.harvard.edu/Bracton/Unframed/English/v2/33.htm>
<!-- markdownlint-enable MD013 -->