American Revolution - Biblical?

I put the American Revolution in the subject, but my question is really just in general: is it biblical to revolt against the government?

Yes

OK, in an attempt to generate a little more discussion, I'll expand my question a bit. Could you please explain your answer in light of Romans 13?

With which definition of revolution?

I'm talking about overthrowing the government.

Judges 3:12-30 would seem to indicate an affirmative answer to the question, "Is it every right to resist and even overthrow a tyrannical civil magistrate." The Bible does not teach unquestioned allegiance to any human ruler be it in the family, church or state. That allegiance belongs only to God, for all authority is from Him (Romans 13). To have blind allegiance to a human ruler would be to put him in the place of God and is the same as idolatry. Of course as individuals, we have no right to overthrow a civil ruler. That can only be done by a lawfully ordained civil magistrate and only after every other means has been exhausted (as was done in the American War for Independence - sometimes falsely labeled a Revolution).

What I'm hearing from you is that only part of the government (a lawfully ordained civil magistrate) can overthrow the rest of the government At that point, individuals could follow that part of the government that's taking over. So the passage in Romans is telling individuals to submit to the government, but that doesn't apply if you're lawfully part of the government. Am I reading you right?

Not entirely. It does not necessarily have to be a part of the government of the rulers you are resisting. Although this was the case when the colonial legislatures resisted King George, the biblical example in Judges chapter three that I referenced was carried out by a man (Ehud) who was commissioned by the people of Israel to assassinate the tyrant who was ruling over Israel (Eglon). But in both instances, it was done under ordained human rulers . . . not individually. What the Bible forbids is lawlessness and anarchy. It is better to have bad government than no government. Paul had to remind the Roman Christians to submit to the Roman government even though it in many ways acted tyrannically. This address was to individuals in a church. Therefore private individuals are forbidden to take up arms against a civil magistrate. They must be led by a properly ordained civil ruler, otherwise they are in rebellion.

OK, so if the situation gets bad enough, people can set up another government, which can then legitimately resist/fight the previous government if needed.

In the Judges case, does it change anything that it was more of a theocracy, and that God raised up Moab to punish the Israelites, and then Ehud to deliver them when they cried out to Him?

Also, do you see any guidelines in Scripture for when people can set up another government?

The founding Fathers had a covenant with King George III and their king proved to be unlawful when he refused to protect them from the unjust parliament who wasn't a real government to them at all, for how could a Parliament that did not allow them any voice be able to pass any ruling against them. "No King but King Jesus!", "Lex Rex!" they cried. They sought to put themselves under the law of God, not under the mad whims of tyrants, so they established Representative Government based on the system of Judges in the Old Testament and off of multiple other government systems which had their basis in scripture. It is not unlawful to have a king if that king is obedient to the law of God. The only guidelines I can see are the options given by God in scripture of how to set up their individual governments and I guess the same is to be applied in setting up a new one if their only one completely collapses. Kings have negative connotations. The kings represent the hearts of the people and God gives the people the rulers they deserve, so its not that kings are inherently evil, but good checks and balances are good at delaying the utter downfall of a system.

I think the Judges case is applicable to all cases where a system was based off of scripture. There are lawful and unlawful ways of removing a tyrant. I like the way Oliver Cromwell and the protestants did it. King Charles 1st promised to protect protestantism, but turned around and attacked it. The people could have rolled over and subjected themselves to tyranny, but they sought to use Parliament to protect their God given rights and to request the king turn from such wickedness and Repent. The King responded by disbanding Parliament and had previously sent out minions to ravage the land, stealing land from Protestants and acting unjustly to them. It was lawful for the protestants to rise up and remove their tyrannical king who sought to send the Irish, Scottish, French, and Danish against his own people to make them subject to him. The case in Judges was special in that God brought the tyrant to punish His people, but a precedence was established where people were to remain obedient to their rulers until they started persecuting them and would not relent. Israel was God's chosen people, we as Christians are God's chosen. Correct me if I'm wrong.

tuubaaku wrote:OK, so if the situation gets bad enough, people can set up another government, which can then legitimately resist/fight the previous government if needed.

In the Judges case, does it change anything that it was more of a theocracy, and that God raised up Moab to punish the Israelites, and then Ehud to deliver them when they cried out to Him?

I don't see the difference. All civil governments should be under God as per Romans 13. I don't see where the change came in.

tuubaaku wrote:Also, do you see any guidelines in Scripture for when people can set up another government?

This has been dealt with at great length from a biblical perspective by Christians who lived under heavy persecution. There are some good online resources to look at . . .

1) A Short Treatise on Political Power, and of the true obedience which subjects owe to kings and other civil governors, with an Exhortation to all true and natural English men. by Dr. John Ponet, Bishop of Rochester and Worchester. 1556
www.constitution.org/cmt/ponet/polpower.htm

2) How Superior Powers Ought To Be Obeyed By Their Subjects: And Wherein They May Lawfully By God's Word Be Disobeyed and Resisted. by Christopher Goodman, Geneva, 1558
www.constitution.org/cmt/goodman/obeyed.htm

3) Concerning the Rights of Rulers Over Their Subjects and the Duty Of Subjects Towards Their Rulers: A brief and clear treatise particularly indispensable to either class in these troubled times. by Theodore Beza, Geneva, 1574
www.constitution.org/cmt/beza/magistrates.htm

4) Franco-Gallia, or, An Account of the Ancient Free State of France, and Most Other Parts of Europe, Before the Loss of Their Liberties. by Francois Hotman, 1573
www.constitution.org/cmt/hotman/franco-gallia.htm

5) Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos: A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants. by Junius Brutus, 1579
www.constitution.org/vct/vindiciae.htm

6) Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince. by Samuel Rutherford, 1644
www.constitution.org/sr/lexrex.htm

We as Americans, are subject to far far worse unbiblical rule under our current government, than the relatively small injustices our founding fathers threw off.

Watch this video, SKIP THE FIRST 40 MINUTES AND THE WRAP UP AT THE END. (Its pretty out there new age/atheism crap)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHhc67GopM

Obviously some of the conclusions, and motivations of the makers of this film are way out of line, but the facts are correct.

The facts about the Federal Reserve in particular are very enlightening

YoungStonewall wrote:We as Americans, are subject to far far worse unbiblical rule under our current government, than the relatively small injustices our founding fathers threw off.

And notice how the Christians are content to bear this yoke. This is a good indicator of the state of the church in this country. Christians were in the minority in this country at its founding, yet they were able to set up a Christian commonwealth. Why is it that Christians are so impotent today in affecting the society in which they live?

Christians were in the minority in this country at its founding

Not sure where you got this info, can you elaborate?

I remember reading it somewhere . . . does that help? I will look into it more for you.

Interestingly enough, I just listened to part of a lecture series called "The American Mind of 1776" by Joe Morecraft. In one of the lectures, the pastor points out that Alexis DeTocqueville in his great work Democracy in America discovered that the Christian way of thinking and acting so predominated the culture at the time of the War for Independence that even those who were not Christians would behave like Christians so that they would not be out of step with the culture.

My main point though is that it does not take a lot of Christians to change a society, just ones committed to the Great Commission.