What Makes a “Good King”
And Why That Standard Is So Uncomfortable for American Presidents
When the Bible calls a king “good,” it does not mean successful.
It does not mean popular.
It does not mean victorious in war, economically prosperous, or admired by neighboring nations.
In fact, many kings who delivered security, growth, and national pride are condemned outright in the Old Testament.
This should give Americans pause—because we tend to praise presidents for exactly the things Scripture treats with suspicion.
If we take the Old Testament seriously on its own terms, the question is not “Which presidents made America stronger?”
The question is:
Who ruled with righteousness, restraint, and accountability under law?
How the Old Testament Defines a “Good King”
The Bible’s evaluation of kings—especially in Kings and Chronicles—is strikingly consistent. Each reign is summarized not by outcomes, but by orientation.
A king is judged on faithfulness, not effectiveness.
The Core Criteria
Across Israel and Judah, a “good king” is one who:
Did what was right, even when it cost him power or popularity
Submitted himself to the law, rather than bending the law to his will
Refused to exploit the poor or vulnerable
Did not trust in military might, wealth, or empire
Repented when confronted, rather than defending himself
Did not pass injustice down to the next generation
Military success, territorial expansion, and economic growth are secondary—and sometimes treated as spiritual liabilities.
Who Were the “Good Kings” in the Old Testament?
The list is surprisingly short.
Even among Israel’s dozens of kings, only a handful are described without heavy condemnation.
Clear Examples
David
Not because he was morally clean—he wasn’t—but because he repented, accepted judgment, and never claimed innocence.Hezekiah
Trusted God rather than alliances or military strength; dismantled systems of idolatry tied to power.Josiah
Rediscovered the law, submitted to it, and reformed the nation even though destruction was still coming.
What’s notable is what these kings did not do:
They did not justify injustice as “necessary”
They did not claim divine approval for empire
They did not confuse national survival with moral righteousness
The Kings the Bible Condemns (Even When They “Succeed”)
Many kings who stabilized Israel or expanded its power are condemned because:
They centralized authority
They taxed and conscripted the people into exhaustion
They preserved unjust systems for political peace
They treated national success as proof of divine favor
In Scripture, results do not excuse injustice.
That principle alone disqualifies most modern political leaders—across ideologies.
Applying the Same Yardstick to U.S. Presidents
If we judge American presidents by the same standard the Bible uses for kings, the outcome is uncomfortable.
Why Most Presidents Fail Immediately
By biblical standards, these are red flags:
Empire-building justified as “security”
Economic systems that entrench poverty
Violence without repentance or restitution
Religious language used to sanctify power
“Everyone did it” as a moral defense
That eliminates a large majority of presidents without much debate.
Presidents Who Come Closest to the “Good King” Standard
This is not about perfection.
Biblical “good kings” are deeply flawed—but oriented toward righteousness and restraint.
Strongest Candidates
George Washington
Voluntarily relinquished power. Refused monarchy. This act alone would earn rare biblical praise.Abraham Lincoln
Spoke of judgment rather than triumph. Treated the Civil War as a moral reckoning, not a holy crusade.Jimmy Carter
Governed honestly, defended the poor, limited American power abroad—and paid for it politically. That pattern is profoundly biblical.
Borderline, Heavily Debated
Ulysses S. Grant
Earnestly enforced Reconstruction and defended freed slaves, though plagued by corruption he did not personally profit from.Harry S. Truman
Plain-spoken and accountable, but atomic warfare presents a moral weight Scripture does not allow us to minimize.
What About the “Great” Presidents?
Presidents often ranked highly—strong administrators, wartime leaders, empire builders—frequently resemble the kings Scripture condemns most harshly.
In the Bible:
Strength without justice is failure
Prosperity built on exploitation invites judgment
Security gained through violence is not righteousness
The prophets are relentless on this point.
The Prophetic Problem America Can’t Avoid
Israel did not fall because it lacked capable rulers.
It fell because its rulers confused survival with obedience.
That is a temptation every empire faces—including ours.
If American Christians applied biblical standards consistently, we would stop asking:
“Did this president make us strong?”
And start asking:
“Did this president restrain power, defend the vulnerable, and submit to law?”
By that measure, “good presidents” are rare—not because America is uniquely evil, but because power rarely produces righteousness.
The Unsettling Conclusion
Out of 46 presidencies:
2–3 align clearly with the biblical “good king” model
2–3 are arguable with serious caveats
The rest fail not because they were ineffective—but because they were unrestrained
That is exactly the ratio Scripture gives us.
And it leaves us with an uncomfortable but honest thought:
God never promised us strong rulers.
He warned us what kings would do.
The tragedy is not that America has had few “good kings.”
The tragedy is that we keep rewarding the ones Scripture would condemn.