How did the social contract differ from the divine right of kings? have a short answer.

The social contract saw the authority of a ruler coming from the people, whereas the diving right of kings saw a ruler's authority coming from God.

Philosophers of the Enlightenment era were famous for arguing the idea of a "social contract."  According to this view, a government's power to govern comes from the consent of the people themselves -- those who are to be governed.  This was a change from the previous ideas of "divine right monarchy" -- that a king ruled because God appointed him to be the ruler.  One of the most influential of the social contract theorists was John Locke, who repudiated the views of divine right monarchy in his First Treatise on Civil Government.  In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke then argued for the rights of the people to create their own governments according to their own desires and for the sake of protecting and enhancing their own life, liberty, and property.   This also meant that the people could replace a government if it was not serving the people's interests properly.  A divine right monarchy resisted any change of rulership because it was seen as interfering with a ruler appointed by God.

everything about this just does not make sense. what is the question?