Alright, since we’ve put the gloves on, let’s talk like grown men with open Bibles rather than like YouTube commenters armed with half a seminary syllabus and a Red Bull. You claim I misquoted Scripture and that all kings are bad because Solomon and Ahab went off the rails. Let’s untangle this without breaking a sweat or a commandment.

1. The Problem Isn’t Kingship; It’s Apostasy

Yes, Solomon sinned. Yes, Ahab was a grease fire of a monarch. But pointing to bad kings to prove that kingship itself is evil is like pointing to Judas and concluding that apostleship is a bad idea. The fact that some kings were wicked does not make the office itself wicked. The same logic would condemn pastors, judges, and, frankly, voters.

If the existence of bad kings invalidates kingship, then the existence of corrupt republics invalidates democracy. You might want to sit down before you Google “Congress approval rating.”

2. God Himself Sanctioned Kingship

Before you start quoting 1 Samuel 8 again like it’s the mic drop of the millennium, remember this: Deuteronomy 17 came before Israel ever asked for a king. That chapter reads like a constitutional charter for monarchy. God didn’t forbid a king; He gave blueprints for a godly one.

You’re right that the Israelites botched it by wanting to be like the nations. They wanted a king instead of God. But that’s a heart issue, not a constitutional one. The office was legitimate; the motivation was rotten. God even promised in 2 Samuel 7 that David’s throne would be established forever. Funny thing for God to say if He thought monarchy was inherently evil.

3. Kings Were Meant to Rule Under God’s Law

The real pattern throughout Kings and Chronicles is not “every king is bad,” but “every king who abandoned God’s law was bad.” There were righteous kings too—Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, Asa—and they’re commended in the same Bible you quoted.

Scripture’s verdict on kings is consistent: a good king leads his people in covenant faithfulness; a bad one leads them into idolatry. Replace “king” with “president” or “senator,” and the same principle applies today. The moral standard hasn’t changed; only the job titles have.

4. America Isn’t Immune to the Same Problem

You say, “There’s no place for earthly kings.” Sure, but tell that to the modern man who bows to the god of autonomy, the idol of the self. We dethroned kings and replaced them with a mob of little monarchs, each one demanding his own truth. At least an ancient king could be rebuked by a prophet. Who’s rebuking the modern “I did my own research” crowd?

5. Christ Is the Ultimate King—But He Delegates

You end by saying, “Christ is King.” Amen. Absolutely. That’s the whole point. Christ is the King of kings, not the King instead of kings. Psalm 2 commands the rulers of the earth to “kiss the Son.” That means there will be rulers, and they are to govern under His lordship.

The Bible doesn’t abolish earthly authority; it redeems it. It doesn’t flatten creation order; it restores it. If you think that recognizing Christ’s universal kingship means no earthly magistrates or rulers, then congratulations—you’ve just joined the anarchist wing of pietism.

6. The Judges Argument Fails Too

Yes, Israel had judges before kings. And how did that go? “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25). That’s not a compliment. The book of Judges is a horror show of moral chaos that makes the evening news look like Sunday school. The longing for a righteous king grows directly out of that disorder.

7. Closing Argument

So, to wrap this up neatly:

God instituted kingship under His law.

Kingship went bad when men ignored that law.

The same thing happens in republics.

Christ’s kingship doesn’t erase earthly rule; it defines and limits it.

The biblical answer is not no kings but righteous kings under Christ. Whether you call them kings, presidents, or prime ministers, the issue is submission to divine authority.

So if you want to argue that “no kings” is the biblical position, you’ll need to explain why God crowned David, why Jesus is called David’s heir, and why the new heavens and new earth are described as a kingdom. Until then, your “no kings” theology is just an overcooked version of American exceptionalism dressed in Sunday clothes.

The Bible doesn’t forbid crowns—it forbids knuckleheads from wearing them.

Sounds like you're trying to make it genetic logical fallacy.

So full of major and obvious Miss quotes that you didn't bother to name any?

Right ....

I'm not responding to this particular thread anymore. Try to reply to just one comment, one time instead of trying to call somebody you're on the line with from a different number in the middle of your first call.