I have a rebuttal but simply no time to type it up unfortunately. The core idea is that translating the teachings of a middle eastern rabbi almost 1900 years into the future and comparing them to a western European economist is going to be difficult so don't read too much into it.

The teachings of Jesus weren't macropolitical and any government form claiming to be "the way Jesus would have wanted a country run" is wrong.

When James spoke of helping the poor, he said, "is is not enough to say 'be warm and well fed', you must actually give him food and clothing". He might also have said, "it is not enough to say, 'be healed!', you must also pay his medical bill".

Also, the "divine monarchist" point is a weird one. When asked about it, Jesus asserted that his kingdom is "not of this world". And when the Israelite demanded of them relief from the anarchy of the period of the Judges in the form of "a king like the nations have", the response was "don't you already have an even better one?" Which is what John Locke cited when writing against monarchy as practiced at the time.