After listening to Dr. Smith’s podcast # 2, and reading the following essay, students must write a blog post on the following question: was the American Revolution a biblical event? Compare and contrast the two arguments and determine which you think is most persuasive and why. Good posts will be between 300-500 words and will be graded based on execution and content.
Make your post in the comments section below by Saturday, 11:59 P.M. EST.
P.A.C. Blog 
To be truthful, I had never even entertained the possibility that the American revolutionary war was unbiblical before listening to Dr. Smith’s podcast. Previously, I had always simply considered it a just rebellion, and was convinced that the colonists were clearly in the right, and the British government was wrong. Essentially I thought that the colonists deserved to rebel and British deserved to lose.Today, I am second guessing my initial opinion.
First, it interests be to find out if the British monarchy was really acting unjustly toward their people in the way that the founding fathers portrayed. I do not deny it. According to David Barton in his essay, serious religious persecution, along with political persecution was present within the British domain as far back as King James I. In addition, a clear, yet decidedly long, list of grievances against the King listed in the Declaration of Independence allows me to understand why the colonists called for change. This still, according to Romans 13 provides no biblical grounds to initiate a rebellion.
But was it technically a rebellion? Frances Hopkinson defines as a rebellion as. “…A great number of people, headed by one or more factious leaders, [that] aim at deposing their lawful prince without any just cause of complaint in order to place another on his throne.” Hopkinson immediately clarified that the act of America was far from a rebellion. I don’t buy it. A just cause to one group is equally unjust to another group. There is nothing that is black and white about this definition.
Dr. Smith also brings up a few solid points in his podcast. First, Britain was the clear legal authority over the colonists. This fact cannot be denied. While the colonists were being mistreated, no one was directly forcing them to sin. Even if they were forced to sin, biblical examples show to not obey the government and pay the consequences, not overthrow the government. Also, as far as we know this rebellion was not directly ordered by God. So far, there is no indication that gives the colonists the right to disobey Paul’s teaching in Romans 13.
As I finish, I have a few interesting points to bring up myself. Thinking as a founding father like Jefferson, would the fact that the central government being across a large ocean have any factor on the decision to rebel? It is possible that, the colonists, being fully aware of the bibles teachings, may have justified the war claiming that it was essentially between one government and another. Although this may not be historically accurate, it could seem like it being thousands of miles apart. Next, if the revolutionary war was unbiblical, is it also wrong to celebrate the fourth of July? In other words, is it wrong to celebrate something that was sin? Let me know what you guys think.
Overall, I would argue that the American revolution could easily be called unbiblical.
UNIT 2
American Revolution: A Biblical Event?
Many Americans are taught that the Revolution that gave our country independence was supported by God and Scripture. Although the Founding Fathers were heavily learned in biblical teachings, were their actions and appeals for freedom grounded in truth? If they were alive today, we would get a resounding “Yes.” They believed that what they were doing was not rebelling against an institution of government that God had ordained, but rather they were withstanding tyranny. In their minds the institution of government was different than the tyrannical rule of that government. In the article we read John Quincy Adams says, “there was no anarchy…They were bound by the laws of God and by the laws of the Gospel.” These Revolutionaries knew that government was ordained by God, but that did not mean that God had approved of oppression that Britain had on them.
However, in listening to the podcast, there are a lot of arguments against the Revolution as a biblical event. Britain was the clear, legal authority of the colonies. They may have been unjust and oppressive but they were in the authority that God had given them. The Fathers probably weren’t directly ordered by God to rebel against the British. Although these men knew the biblical principles of government relayed in Scripture, their philosophy of authority in the consent of the governed was not very biblical. They were under the rule of another authority, and liberties may have been taken away, but we can probably guess that they weren’t being forced to sin. Although I can definitely see the situation from their point of view, their rebellion was not completely founded in truth. I believe that God has used this rebellion to create a free, united nation that has been a force for good. It is sometimes hard to say that it wasn’t right for the Founding Fathers to overthrow the British because we would be a very different country/colony than we are today. But simply recognizing the unbiblical areas involved with the Revolution helps us understand how our country was founded.
American Revolution: An act of Biblical Rebellion?
Whether the American Revolution was biblically based or not is a very controversial topic. In the reading, “The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?” by David Barton presents both sides to this controversy. Many people, such as John McArthur, Albert Soto, and Daryl Cornett, believe it was an act of Biblical rebellion. McArthur believed that too many people think that democracy and political freedom come through Christianity, and that is wrong. In his argument, the Declaration goes against the Bible because it gives “divinely endowed freedoms” such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. God is the authority though, not the government. Blessings come from God. Soto, an Oklahoma church leader, agreed with McArthur. He called the Colonist leaders “Deists”. Though they used the Bible for their actions, Soto argues that they were devious about it and used it as a “tool of propaganda”. There were others that agreed with McArthur and Soto.
Others argued that the American Revolution was not an act of Biblical rebellion. On this side of the argument it is pointed out that civil disobedience came about before the enlightenment. Even in the Bible there are stories of people who were blessed or rewarded by God after they were disobedient to authority. People such as; Daniel, Hebrew midwives, and Moses. Civil disobedience was in this period of time because the Rulers of the time were tyrants. Many people on this side of the argument felt that they really were following the Bible and what God would have willed. Reverend Jacob Duché argued this side very well. He used a passage from Romans 13:3 and Galatians 5:1. He said that the government, the monarchy, was not using its power correctly according to the Romans passage which states, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.” The monarchy was oppressing the people and the people really felt that they could rebel under these conditions. The Christians felt they were being called to do as Galatians says, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” They stood up against a government they felt was not following the ways of God and they felt that had freedom from this oppression in Christ.
This article was a lot of information all at once. It took me a long time to digest and figure out each argument. There was way too much information to include in this paper but I think that those who argued that the American Revolution was not an act of Biblical rebellion had a better argument. I agreed with both arguments but in the end I felt more strongly with the last arguments, especially the argument by Duché. I felt that those who did not think the Revolution was an act of Biblical rebellion used more biblical context for their arguments and had a more solid argument. Like I said, it was a lot of information for me to digest but I side with the argument against the American Revolution being an act of Biblical rebellion.
Work on execution and show evidence of the listening to the podcast.
The Biblicality of the American Revolution has been a subject of debate since the moment it began. Both sides have their own passages to back up their positions and their own schools of thought, but one must examine both arguments carefully to make a reasonable judgement.
On one hand, we have those who believe that the American Revolution was unbiblical. They point to such passages as Romans 13 and others like it to justify this position. The Bible clearly states that we are to submit to government unless they are causing us to do evil. Therefore, without sin being mandated, rebellion cannot be biblical.
In the case of the American Revolution, the British government, though heavily oppressing and exploiting its colonies, was not commanding them to sin. The colonists were not forced to do wrong; wrong was done to them. By this logic, according to Romans 13, any rebellion on the part of the colonists would indeed be unbiblical.
Others, however, interpret things a bit differently. According to this school of thought, the government ceases to take its authority from God when it oppresses its people. They cite, among a variety of other passages including much of the Old Testament, Romans 13.13, which states that the government is supposed to be “a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well,” and that when they cease to perform this function, they are no longer a legitimate government. If they are no longer a legitimate government at that point, rebellion would no longer be out of the question.
Applying this to our nation’s revolution, this would certainly neutralize the other side’s argument. Britain was certainly NOT a terror to evildoers -even their governors and soldiers were perpetrators of heinous crimes against the colonists. Furthermore, they punished those beneath them who worked hard and did well through taxation and abuse of power. From this point of view, one would very clearly find a rebellion of the American colonies to be quite within their biblical rights.
My own opinion, however, takes a different turn than both sides. If we consider the Revolution a rebellion, then I would have to agree with those who claim it unbiblical. I don’t think we can define a government the way that the pro-biblical side claims. I take a rather different view altogether, though, because of a simple definition that neither side considers.
I don’t think that the American Revolution can strictly be considered a rebellion. A rebellion is characterized by a faction attempting to overtake a country, depose the current ruler, and take control of its government. However, the colonies did not want to depose King George; they merely wanted to separate themselves from his rule. They were not attempting a takeover of Britain; the only land they wanted was that which they already owned. The only part that you could possibly claim resembled a rebellion was the fact that they intended to throw off the British government and institute their own.
This being the case, I don’t believe that the Revolution was indeed a rebellion -in fact, the colonies tried to separate with the utmost possible respect for the authority from which they were distancing themselves. It was Britain that attempted to slaughter the people back into submission. The colonies resorted to separation only as the very last resort.
Furthermore, the only way to twist the Revolution into a true rebellion is to fulfill the other two main tenets of one. In that case, you would have to call the colonies a country -which would mean that Britain had no rightful rule over them, anyway, since the colonies were a separate country.
Therefore, all things considered, I must go with a very decided “I don’t know,” since the Bible never actually discusses the biblicality of two nations separating.
Very well done. However, did the Brits “slaughter” Americans? Also, doesn’t separation without consent require a rebellion? Regardless, good job.
As we examine the American Revolution, we discover the controversial idea of whether or not it was an act of biblical rebellion. In “The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?” by David Barton, we see both sides presented and debated. Also, Dr. Smith presented us with a few ideas in his podcasts about the situation. It is our job to examine both sides of the argument and establish what side is more persuasive.
As we examine the side of it not being a biblical rebellion, we discover many well-presented ideas of why it is not biblical rebellion. First, Rev. Dr. Jonathan Mayhew says, “God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.). The fact that the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and was not an offensive war undertaken by the Americans remained a point of frequent spiritual appeal for the Founding Fathers.” This tells us that we didn’t start the American Revolution, and God wouldn’t allow us to have started it. Also, a manifesto issued by the Continental Congress says, “We, therefore, the Congress of the United States of America, do solemnly declare and proclaim that. . . . [w]e appeal to the God Who searcheth the hearts of men for the rectitude of our intentions.” This shows us that the Founding Fathers knew that God was watching what they did, and He knew their intentions. He would be the judge later in life that decided if they had the right motives. Therefore, they didn’t believe they were doing anything wrong. Finally, John Quincy Adams said, “They were bound by the laws of God (which they all) and by the laws of the Gospel (which they nearly all) acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.” His statement tells us that God has set rules for us that we are expected to follow, and he believed that the Founding Fathers knew these rules and tried to follow them. Thus, examining the perspective of the American Revolution begins our journey to decide whether we believe it was a biblical rebellion or not.
Although the American Revolution can be seen as not a biblical rebellion, we also find it can be a biblical rebellion. First, in Dr. Mills’ podcast, he talks about the source of the government’s power. To the Founding Fathers, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, we find they believe that the government’s power comes from the consent of the governed. Christians find in Romans 13 that the government get power from God. This shows us the differing beliefs of where the power of government comes from, and this is crucial to understand because it lays down the basis of the law. Next, Dr. Daryl Cornett says, “American Revolution occurred because… Deistic and Unitarian tendencies in regards to religion… were of such strength that even orthodox Christians were swept up into rebellion against their governing authorities…” This shows us that even Christians started to believe in these unbiblical theories. This also makes us question if the Founding Fathers also started to believe in these, which would make them not obey God’s law. Lastly, John McArthur states, “They follow the arguments of the Declaration of Independence, which declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are Divinely endowed rights… But such a position is contrary to the clear teachings and commands of Romans 13:1-7.” His statement tells us that the Founding Fathers’ words were against the Bible, which shows that America may not be based on biblical principles like we may have first believed. In conclusion, there are many arguments that the American Revolution was a biblical rebellion.
Personally, I believe that it is very easy for us to see the American Revolution as being a biblical rebellion because of very well-stated and supported refutes. These men point out that the Founding Fathers didn’t follow the Bible when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. If they didn’t follow the teachings of the Bible, then how can we consider it as not a biblical rebellion because they were rebelling against the Bible when they wrote it. Also, we found the Founding Fathers, who claimed to be Christians, may have gotten swept up into the rebellion. These previously stated claims show that the American Revolution could possibly been a biblical rebellion.
This is a bit muddled…
Growing up in America, one is told with pride that your country fought valiantly for the rights you take for granted. Your founding fathers bravely fought an imperialist empire so that you could live the life you deserved as an equal member of this nation. Never once does this story of pride every falter. Never once do you question that perhaps this fight was not as clear and taintless as it first seemed. However, there are real facts to consider when taking this event in light of Biblical principles.
First of all, the government’s power is first and foremost from God. However, our founding statement is that the government’s power is from the consent of the governed. This means that at the very core of our view of government is not in line with our Christian beliefs. The American Revolution itself, as Dr. Smith explained in his podcast, also had an improper basis for separation. According to Romans 13:1-7, Paul calls us to respect our government and give it our due authority. He says to love our personal foes. This truth governs Christians in today’s age the same as it did back in 1776. Britain was not sinning against us, even though it may have been unjust to us. And only sin is a righteous reason to not obey the government. The very reasons for our revolution were not founded on biblical principles.
The counterargument to this view is basically a summary of the “Just War” view. This theory believes that there can be war only if it is: 1) a last resort, 2) declared by a legitimate authority, 3) for self-defense or justice, and 4) for peace. It is also built off the basis that “God had ordained the institution of civil government”. And secondly, “God had explicitly authorized civil self-dense”. With these points in mind, it becomes evident that fighting was not only what God allows, but is a responsibility we have to our government, which God placed above us.
In light of these Biblical principles, I believe that the American Revolution was not a biblical event. It was, indeed, a significant event for the birth of our nation. Nevertheless, I would say it was not biblical. The founding fathers argued from the Bible from passages like Hebrews 11, giving examples like Moses. However, I would say that these Old Testament examples are not valid to more current arguments. This is because during the time of the Old Testament, Israel was a theocracy. It was solely governed by God as their king. In our government here in America, and even in its earliest days, it was not a theocracy governed by God at its head. In closing, while America did not necessarily have foundations only built on Biblical principles, it does not mean the American Revolution still “taints our future”.
Looking back at the American Revolution we rarely question its intent. But looking at it from a Christian perspective we see it in a new light. We see the authors of the Declaration of Independence utilizing Christian themes, speaking of the Creator, God, men created equally, and divine Providence, but does that justify the Declaration on Biblical terms? Most of the signers had a strong Biblical background, but also were enthralled by enlightenment ideas. Even with all the mentions of God in the Declaration we see a decision that was apart from the Word of God.
We see many Biblical examples of war and overthrowing of different groups, but we also see example of suffrage under very oppressive political systems. Paul tells Timothy to “Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient” (Titus 3:1). Paul wasn’t reminding them to be subject and obedient only under ideal conditions. Paul and the early Church were under extreme persecution, the church was being openly attacked by the political system yet Paul reminds them to be obedient. The only times we are to disobey government is when it causes us to sin, yet in those instances we must be ready to accept the consequences of our disobedience.
The American colonists may have felt oppressed and unfairly treated by England, but they were not being forced into sinful behavior. The Wall Builders article by David Barton stated that: “The Founders clearly believed that they were not in rebellion to God’s ordained institution of civil government; they were only resisting tyranny and not the institution itself” (Barton, 2009). The founders may have believed they were only resisting tyranny, but by doing this they were still rebelling against God’s ordained leaders. The founders were striving for equality and a better form of government within the states, but they were ignoring Biblical teaching. It is clear from many examples of the early Church that God intended us to preserve under hardship and tyrannical Governments. As Dr. Smith said, even Jesus accepted that Pilot was ordained by God to rule. Although the founders may have had the wrong intentions we cannot deny that God has had a gracious hand in the forming of America, and we must not forget that as we push forward.
Whether or not the American Revolution was biblically based it is still an extremely controversial issue. In the reading, “The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?” by David Barton, allows both sides to be presented in this controversy. It is almost always automatically assumed by many that the American Revolution was a biblical event. Many try to equate the American Revolution with battles that took place in the bible, but after listening to Dr. Smith’s podcast it is clear that it was not right. There are many arguments that support this theory. First of all, Britain was clearly the legal authority of the colonies; although, they were oppressive they were still in authority from God. In this argument it is pointed out that civil disobedience came about before the enlightenment. Passages are also pointed out to back this up, which include Romans 13, which states we are to submit to government unless they are causing evil. So without sin being mandated, rebellion cannot be biblical.
In the specific case of the American Revolution, like stated earlier the British government, though heavily exploiting its colonies, was not in any way commanding them to commit sin. Therefore, the colonists were not forced to commit any wrongdoings, although there was wrong which was done to them. So then by this logic it would be assumed that according to Romans 13, rebellion on the colonists part would be unbiblical.
On the other hand, it is very easy for many to see the American Revolution as being biblical because of very well stated and supported refutes. Many saw it as giving our country independence; therefore, it had to be supported by God. But even though our Founding Fathers were heavily learned in biblical teachings, were their actions and appeals for freedom grounded in truth? If still around today I believe the answer would be yes because they believed that what they were doing was not rebelling against an institution of government that God had ordained, but rather they were withstanding tyranny. In their minds the institution of government was different than the tyrannical rule of that government. In the article we read John Quincy Adams says, “there was no anarchy… They were bound by the laws of God and by the laws of the Gospel.” These Revolutionaries knew that government was ordained by God, but that did not mean that God had approved of oppression that Britain had on them.
With this being said I still believe as Christians we can recognize that the American Revolution was not biblical. God does not call us into a life of disobedience; rather He would like to see us submit to the authority He has put in place. Through His grace and mercy God took something bad and transformed it into something good, which is why we have the freedom, we do today. I think its important we ground ourselves in the Word so that we can decipher what is biblical and what is unbiblical.
I also had never thought of the American Revolution as a non-biblical based decision. When I was listening to Dr. Smith’s podcast was when it first occurred to me and actually made sense. The argument that it was not a biblically based decision is that we are required by God to follow government no matter what. The only instance that we should be allowed to disobey government is when it requires us to sin. Now Britain was definitely taking away some of our liberties and not being very fair but they never made any laws or anything that required us to sin.
On the other side, the typical way the American Revolution is explained is that Britain was oppressing us and that was a terrible time. They were taxing us regularly on all things just to pay for their war that they had debts in. Also they were trying to board troops in our houses over here. So we decided we had enough and came up with the declarion of Independence, requiring them to recognize us as a free and independent country. This argument always sounds very good. As an American citizen you are always taught about this and that Britain was wrong and we took action against them. We make it out that we are the heroes and we defeated Britain.
I was always taught in school about how the American Revolution was such a good thing. It almost gives you a sense of patriotism to think that our country fought hard enough to beat Britain who was much more experienced than us and better equipped. Although, now that I see the other side of the argument I see now that it was not a biblically based decision. We decided to overthrow our government (Britain) and try and start our own just because they were taxing us and it wasn’t fair. As stated earlier none of this caused us to sin and was not reason for civil disobedience and the eventual overthrowing of the government.
Was the American Revolution a biblical event?
The American Revolution was a complex event. There are multiple reasons why the founding fathers decided to separate from Britain. Some of these reasons are valid, some are not. Essentially, the Deistic founding fathers believed that it was their duty to separate from the tyrannical British government because their Deistic views affirmed that God would do nothing about it.
The view that rebellion against a generally bad political system is justified by the Bible (which Jefferson and other founding fathers held) is false. In Romans 13, we are called to submit to political authority unless it is forcing us to sin. This means that a government that is making our lives somewhat more uncomfortable does not justify a violent revolution.
Now that we have not established that a violent rebellion under the circumstances that were present in the time of the American revolution is not justified in the Bible, we need to deal with the question of whether or not the American revolution was an act of self defense. The founding fathers clearly believe it was an act of self defense – they include a long list of grievances that they believe justify the revolution. However, I don’t think these grievances necessarily warrant a violent revolution. There is definitely a place for self defense among individuals and families, but I don’t think the American revolution was justified as a Biblical act of “self defense.”
It is true that the primary motivation for the revolution was based on a secular political philosophy. For example, the source of government’s power does not come from the consent of the governed (as stated in the Declaration of Independence); it comes from God. However, this does not taint America’s future as a nation. As we have seen, America has primarily been a force for good in this world. In conclusion, the American Revolution may not be completely in line with the word of God, especially Romans 13; but it was not an act of direct rebellion against God by all Americans – it was rather the product of misinterpretation of Old Testament rebellions coupled with Deistic leaders.
Works Cited:
“The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?” http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=24548. David Barton, 5/2009. Web. October 4, 2011.
Good work on this.
Was the American Revolution a Biblical Event?
I really had never considered the American Revolution to be anything but a justified split from the oppressive British government. I always just assumed that our founding fathers were right in splitting off the way they did. After this week’s reading however, I think I am reevaluating my stance.
As Dr. Smith points out in his podcasts, the only biblical grounds for disobeying one’s government is if that government forces an individual to sin in some way. Romans 13 clearly states that it is a Christian’s responsibility to honor and obey his government, whether he agrees with it or not. In this passage Paul writes that it is God who gives authorities to all governments. If this is true, then surely Christians should trust Him, even when there is an oppressive government in power. Paul even goes on to say that “whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted.”
So, the question needs to be asked: was the British government forcing the founding fathers to sin in any way? I don’t believe that they were. The British government was certainly oppressive and unjust, but I don’t think they ever gave the founding fathers biblical justification for rebelling.
One thing that was interesting to me in the article was the argument that the Deist leaders were at the head of the rebellion, and were able to persuade their more orthodox brothers with scripture, while ignoring Romans 13. The Deist position really allowed the leaders to interpret what they thought was good in their own eyes. If God was not directly involved in the affairs of men, then it was up to man to do what he thought was best.
So after this week’s learning, I’d have to admit that my position has changed. I do not believe that the American Revolution was Biblically based. The Christians of that period should have stood up to the deist leaders and pointed out the undeniable tone in Romans 13.
Whether or not the American Revolution had Biblical justification has haunted Christians for over two centuries. The answer, however, is not immediately obvious. The founding father’s argued that their rebellion clearly adhered to scripture. Recently, critics have asserted that the American Revolution directly violated the Word of God. Looking at the Bible, the latter argument proves most persuasive. The American Revolution lacks Biblical authority because: 1) The founding fathers misinterpreted and used the Bible selectively; 2) The founding fathers held an erroneous view of the rights of man. I will examine each reason and compare each with the opposing viewpoint.
At the outset of the Revolutionary War, most founding fathers believed their insurrection to have Biblical justification. Jacob Duché, chaplain of the Continental Congress, quoted Galatians 5:1 in a sermon, calling Christians to “stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ….hath made them free!” This type of argument sounds wonderful from an oppressed colonist’s viewpoint. Such an assertion shattered any doubts in the minds of Christians that their rebellion was indeed Biblical. However, Duché’s argument contains exegetical flaws. In this particular instance, Duché grossly butchers the meaning of Galatians 5:1. “Standing fast in the liberty of Christ” does not refer to political liberty. This call to stand fast in liberty refers to the fact that Christ has fulfilled the Jewish law. Galatians 5:1 presents the idea that Christians are no longer bound to legalism under the law. Nevertheless, Duché twisted the meaning of this text to defend his biased view of the rebellion.
In addition to misinterpreting scripture, the founding fathers must have virtually ignored the commandments in Romans 13. Paul states in verses 1-2 of this chapter: “ Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by god. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement.” By revolting against the Crown, the colonists directly violated this commandment. Rebelling against England was, in essence, resisting God’s authority. Under this commandment, the colonists did not have Biblical grounds on which to revolt. Selecting only certain applicable portions of the bible and ignoring others does not give Biblical authority to the colonists.
By looking at the world and scripture subjectively, the founding fathers naturally came to some unBiblical assumptions. Thomas Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ” Looking at scripture, however, I find no basis for these assertions. First, this passage consists largely of Jefferson’s opinion, stating that these truths are self evident. These “truths” represent Jefferson’s ideal scenario, not what actually exists. Jefferson also states that men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” This is an example of the founding fathers spiritualizing their rebellion by using Christian terminology such as “Creator”. Colonists latched on to these phrases, justifying their disobedience. In the Declaration, Jefferson also assumes that all men have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that men have rights simply by being human. Jefferson is instead basing his Declaration on secular political philosophy while using Christian terminology. Indeed, believing that God has given us these rights sounds appealing but this idea is still not Biblically based.
Looking back at the American Revolution, I am convinced that it was an act of rebellion against God and Scripture. This does not excuse the British, as they abused their God-given authority. Though the Colonists were oppressed, they were not forced to sin, which gives them no grounds for disobedience. Sadly, though this was an unBiblical Revolution, the Founding fathers used scripture to suit their needs. They interwove enough “Christian sounding” ideas into their contemporary philosophies, leading many to believe they were justified.
While the American Revolution may have lacked Biblical reasons, I do not believe that America is inherently evil because of it. God has the amazing ability to turn even an act of sin into something good. When Joseph was sold into slavery it was most definitely an unrighteous act. God reversed the situation and elevated Joseph to a position of authority. Therefore, while its origins may lack Biblical justification, God has, and by His grace will continue to use America for His glory.
Well reasoned.
Many patriotic Americans would like to believe that the Founders inspired revolution based on entirely biblical reasons. To support this position, they cite the Bible’s examples of civil disobedience and war, but tend to reinterpret New Testament passages about submitting to authorities. Those who see the Revolution as unbiblical point out both the numerous examples in the New Testament where the Bible says to submit to authorities—even unjust ones—and note that even in the Old Testament the Israelites never truly rebelled against their legitimate authority. Thus, a biblical interpretation of the American Revolution suggests that it was not justified in God’s sight.
Those who believe the Revolution justified can cite some Scriptures that seem to support the idea, but such Scriptures generally fall through. Some, as in the essay we read, point out that many believers disobeyed the government. Granted. But they did not try to overthrow the government. Without exception, those they named disobeyed the rulers because those rulers had ordered them to sin. Such actions stand up under biblical scrutiny. A stronger point is that the Israelites threw off their Canaanite oppressors not once but numerous times in the book of Judges. However, we must remember that the Israelites were God’s people, and thus legitimately ruled by God alone. The Canaanites were not authorities even remotely established by God; he clearly opposed them in a way that he did not clearly oppose King George. Nor did the Canaanites set up a legitimate government. They acted far more as invaders than rulers. Although those who cite civil disobedience and the Israelite rebellions in Judges as Scriptural basis do have some reasonable points, their support does not hold up.
A more thorough interpretation of many passages of Scripture, however, implies no real biblical basis for the American Revolution. Many passages, including verses in Romans 13, Titus 3, Hebrews 13, and 1 Peter 2, tell believer in no uncertain terms to submit to their authorities. And 2 Peter 2 and Jude both speak of those who despise authority with condemnation. Only when the government commands us to disobey God does Scripture give any reason to disregard authority, as in Daniel 3 and 6 and Acts 5. Some believers in a biblical Revolution interpret these passages to mean that we should not rebel against authority in general, but this view does not stand up; a plain interpretation of the Scriptures in question supports the idea of submitting to particular governments, rather than government in general. Since King George commanded Americans mainly to pay more taxes and house soldiers, rather than worship in a certain way or disobey God, the Americans were not biblically justified in rebelling.
To summarize, the belief that the American Revolution was justified biblically simply does not stand up. The weight of Scripture falls heavily on obeying authorities, except if they command us to disobey God. King George did no such thing, and so the colonists had no biblical justification for throwing off British rule.
The main argument associated with determining whether the American Revolution can be supported Biblically or not, is whether Christians have been granted permission of self defense or not. There are quality arguments towards the direction that we have been called to submit to higher powers, and there are also quality arguments towards the idea that Christians are allowed to defend themselves. While both appear to have significant Biblical evidence, it is most clear that the Bible really expresses many ways that it is our job as citizens to support the government unless we are specifically called to sin.
One argument in Barton’s essay was that the Americans had been attacked for two years before they finally announced separation. Personally, my perspective seems to understand that the Bible does not have a time frame for which we are allowed to choose our own direction. We are told to obey those in authority to us. It does not say that if you have been enduring an unjust government for over two years you may then overthrow it. Romans 13:1-7 clearly states that we are to render honor, respect, and even taxes to our government. This does not tell us to only respect them if they are doing what we want.
One thing I agree with from the podcasts is the idea that even though the government is not being handled the way we think it should be, it can still be Biblical. Ultimately, God is in control of the government. If he chooses to have a certain leader in power for this particular time that we do not like, we may not understand God’s plans. There must be a purpose for his office, even if we do not see the reason now.
From the essay, the idea of “Don’t fire unless fired upon,” really shows support for the position of respecting the government without rebellion. We are not to rebel against the government unless they have specifically caused us to sin. Just because they are oppressive or unjust does not mean they were forcing any citizen to sin. The correct outcome of an oppressive government is to have another government step in and challenge it.
Christians have never been called to blindly submit to all laws in a government. We are to carefully discern that each thing we do is not sinful towards the all powerful God. There are multiple examples throughout Hebrews 11 of those who did exactly what they were told as far as obedience to government. While we see death of those martyrs as something that is wrong or bad, ultimately we should understand that they have reached the best reward of being with Jesus. That is what it is all about.
Although the essay supports civil self-defense, the scripture behind it is weak. Romans 13 quickly has much more sustenance to it that Nehemiah 4:13-14, where the people were fighting in defense of the honor of God. That verse seems to be taken out of context.
In eighth grade years ago, I had the opportunity to participate in a debate on this very topic: the biblical justification of the American Revolution. At the time, I ardently believed that the colonists were indeed justified, but as I researched the issue, my opinion slowly changed. Although I am very proud to be an American citizen, I cannot, as a Christian, argue that the American Revolution was a biblical event.
Paul’s words to the Roman Christians provide a straightforward argument against the American Revolution. He writes, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” (Rom.13:1, NIV). The Roman government to which the early Christians had to submit was by no means God-honoring. It tortured and killed thousands of Christians; in obedience to God’s command, the Christians submitted, even though many gave their lives while doing so. Paul’s appeal to submit to the authorities includes overbearing, tyrannical, and perverted governments. Although the colonists cited many injustices as reason to rebel, their situation did not come close to that of the early church. The citizens of a country, including the colonists of Great Britain, must submit to the government regardless of the nature of that government, because all authority has been given by God.
The disciple Peter also encourages submission to the government, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors” (1Pet.2:13-14). He beseeches Christians to obey the authorities because they are God’s agents to carry out justice. However, even if a government is not a just one, Christians should still submit. If a government requires wrong behavior, even then believers should obey the laws as much as possible. Daniel provides an excellent example of this. Although King Darius outlawed prayer to God, Daniel did not start a rebellion. Instead, he obeyed the king as much as he could while quietly disobeying in the one area that crossed God’s command. According to the words of Peter and the example of Daniel, the colonists had no biblical justification for the Revolution.
Too often Christians throw down the weapon of prayer and exchange it for petitions, lobbying, or, in the colonists’ situation, rebellion. Absolutely no justification for taking one or all of these actions exists until the situation has been placed before God in prayer. The Bible requires Christians to submit to and pray for (1Tim2:1-2) their government leaders. There are no qualifications or exceptions. While the colonists may have felt mistreated or abused, Daniel and the early Christians put their complaints to shame. The colonists needed to follow these biblical examples of submission.
The American colonists cited many injustices in the Declaration of Independence, but none of them biblically justified a revolution. After studying and considering the question of the biblical justification for the American fight for independence, I must conclude, as I did in eighth grade, that the American Revolution did not have biblical support.
The American Revolution is often taught or held up as a totally just and right act in history, which often leads many Christians to the assumption that it is Biblical. However, there is actually quite a debate and question over whether or not it was based on history and Scripture. Thus, a deeper examination must be made than a simple skimming. In this conflict especially, as there are strong advocates and varied arguments on both sides, we need to turn to Scripture primarily to make sure its infallible word is what the final decision is based on so as to hopefully avoid error.
First, because the Founders use much spiritual language in the Declaration of Independence, we assume they are Christians even as we are today. However, historical evidence differs with this theory as, for example, Thomas Jefferson called the book of Revelations, “the ravings of a maniac,” and cut out in his famous Jefferson Bible all the miracles because they did not make logical sense. The point of this is that when we use Scripture to defend the actions of men who tore from its infallible text sections they disagreed with and mocked Christian traditions, we must be very cautious. Even so, the defenders of the American Revolution as a Biblical event point out that God did at times allow civil self-defense(Nehemiah for example) and at other times he even overthrew Israel’s governing authority, several times in Judges and throughout the Old Testament. However, what is not taken into account is that He was divinely leading Israel in this period as they were his chosen people, not necessarily so for the Founders during the Revolution.
Further, the civil self-defense arrgument does not necessarily work either. Sticking with the Nehemiah example, who did the Israelites take up arms in self-defense against? Their true ruling authority was the Persian Empire and during the entire conflict they obeyed its wishes and Nehemiah obtained its consent for his mission. The Israelites instead defended themselves against other conspiring nations that had no authority over them, for example as the colonists did when they supported England in the French and Indian War.
However, there is clear Scriptural support for the position that the American Revolution was an unbiblical event. As Dr. Smith points out in his podcast, the English government were not truly causing the colonists to sin, though they were being unjust. Paul’s Romans 13 teaching calls for obedience to government and its authority, unless it forces you to sin, which crosses against a higher authority, that of God. Further verses in the New Testament support this position and even speak with condemnation for those who despise the authority that God has placed over them. thus, while the Founders may have appealed to a “Supreme Judge,” if they had perhaps better understood or trusted his word as Christians should have, they might not have been as quick to call for his judgement of who was in the right in the conflict. It therefore seems to me that Scriptural evidence does not stand with the American Revolution as a biblical act. However, I conclude again that this does not prohibit patriotic feeling in America as a nation because it has, in my opinion, been mainly a force for good in the world, one that I can celebrate while still acknowledging its unbiblical beginnings and praying to God that His will be done through us despite our many mistakes.
Stan–good work.
The American Revolution: Unbiblical?
To be honest, I had never really considered the possibility of the American Revolution being unbiblical. However, as I listened to the podcasts, I realized that there was a lot more to our beginnings, as Americans, than I could ever have considered. First of all, as stated in the podcast, Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the Declaration of Independence, was probably not a Christian. Many of those originally trying to get the Declaration of Independence ratified were probably deists and were not necessarily concerned with God providing a clear direction for America. King George had made life tough on the new Americans, but he was not threatening their lives by any means. He was not forcing them, by his actions, to commit sin in any way either. These reasons may support the idea that the American Revolution was not a biblical choice led by God.
On the other side, those promoting the idea that the American Revolution was definitely biblical may say that there is evidence in the Bible where the Israelites were being oppressed by a government and eventually rebelled against that government. Also, God did allow for Israel to defend itself against oppression.
However, arguments asserting that the American Revolution was biblical do not hold much water. The Israelites were definitely oppressed by invaders and were allowed to fend them off to defend their country. Granted, these invaders were not causing Israel to sin, but God still allowed Israel to rebel against them. So why would God do such a thing? The reason is: Israel belong truly to God and God alone. When Israel disobeyed God, He allowed them to be oppressed, but also allowed them to rebel so they could be faithful to Him again. It is because Israel belonged to God that he allowed them to throw off their oppressive authority, recognizing that God, Himself, is the true authority over them.
In conclusion, I believe that the American Revolution was not an event endorsed by the values presented in the Bible. God allowed it to happen, but I do not believe that it directly follows the path laid out in Scripture that we should follow in overthrowing oppressive government. The main reason I believe it was unbiblical to overthrow the British government was that the early Americans were not being forced to sin and therefore had no right to overthrow the authority. Do not get me wrong, I am very thankful that we live in a free country without an oppressive government, but I am saying that I do not believe that God endorsed the overthrow of the British government that He had placed in early America.
Unit 2: The American Experiment
The American Revolution: A Biblical Event?
I have often wondered whether the American Revolution had any Biblical support for its cause. Was it actually necessary to completely break ties with Britain and declare war? Could there have been a way to submit peacefully to the British government? Sometimes I feel that we, as Christians, blindly uphold the statements and beliefs that our founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence without actually considering the Biblical value of those statements.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that the government derives its “just powers from the consent of the governed.” At first glance this statement does not seem to be a problem. However, as Dr. Smith pointed out in this week’s podcasts, this statement implies that the government and those being governed are on equal terms. If the government were above those being governed, the consent would inevitably be more forced than actual, true consent. So were the writers of the Declaration of Independence correct in stating that the power of the government comes from the consent of those being governed? Romans 13:1 says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (ESV). According to this verse, it is God who gives governments their power, not the consent of those being governed. In fact, this verse simply states that those being governed must submit to the governing authorities. If this were the only time the Bible mentioned the government, one might conclude that the leaders of the American Revolution were definitely in the wrong. However, there are certain instances in the Bible where civil disobedience seems to be all right. For example, Hebrews 11 tells that Moses led the people of Israel out of the cruel hands of Pharaoh in Egypt by faith. Also, the Hebrew midwives disobeyed the commands of Pharaoh by hiding the baby Moses in the weeds. Another instance where civil disobedience occurs in the Bible is in Acts 4. Peter and John had been proclaiming to the people around them about the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This enraged the Sadducees–the religious leaders of the time–and they ordered Peter and John not to talk about Jesus any more. However, verse 19 says, “But peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard'” (ESV). It is clear from this passage that no earthly authority could ever discourage Peter and John from following God and His commands. From the various Bible passages above, it is clear that God is the ultimate authority to whom we pledge our allegiance. Yes, He has ordained earthly government to bring order on the earth. But when the government turns from God and requires us to sin, it is our responsibility as Christians to disobey the government and instead honor God.
Throughout the Bible, the cases for civil disobedience seemed to occur either because an innocent person’s life was in danger or because the alternative would be to sin. In the case of the American Revolution however, I am not convinced this was the situation. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson’s list of grievances against King George include the following: increased taxation without representation, cut off trade, sent an army over to the colonies, and ignored petitions made to Parliament. According to this list, it does not appear that the British government was forcing any of their subjects to sin. However, one could make the claim that by sending an army to the colonies King George was endangering the lives of innocent people. The leaders of the American Revolution, therefore, viewed the resulting war as an act of self-defense on their part. In the article “The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?” David Barton states, “After all, Great Britain had attacked America, not vice versa; the Americans had never fired the first shot–not in the Boston Massacre of 1770, the bombing of Boston and burning of Charlestown in 1774, or in the attacks on Williamsburg, Concord, or Lexington in 1775.” It was this view of acting in self-defense that the leaders of the rebellion justified their actions. Barton also goes on to note that the people in the American colonies did try to first settle their disputes with the British government peaceably. However, King George would not listen to their petitions. From this viewpoint, it seems as though separation and war were the last options for the leaders of the American Revolution.
After quickly looking at both sides of the argument, it appears that America’s founding fathers had their hearts in the right place when they decided to lead the American colonies in separating themselves from Britain. Only after peaceful methods had no success did they finally turn to separation. And even then, they did not initiate war. Instead they fought in self-defense. But what about Romans 13 and the command to “be subject to the governing authorities”? The popular interpretation of this scripture at that time was that God set up the idea of government. However, this did not mean that God approved of every specific government. Therefore, the leaders of the American Revolution saw their specific government as a tyranny and saw themselves as obeying God by overthrowing the tyrannical government and starting a new, just government in its place. Even though one may not agree with this interpretation of scripture, he or she must admit that the leaders behind the American Revolution were trying to honor and obey God through their acts.
Interesting. I disagree, but interesting.
Individual Writing Assignment No.2
Many Americans just assume that because the democratic form of government was more ‘fair’ and ‘just’, the Founding Fathers were doing the right thing in overthrowing the British monarchy and establishing our constitutional government, and we as Christians often agree. However, the question of whether or not the American Revolution was Biblically justified has historically been a topic of much debate. Some argue that the Revolution was not Biblical because the Americans were rebelling against their God-given authority, while others affirm the revolutionary statement that God is the only king who can justifiably rule by divine right and that therefore the revolutionaries were correct in overthrowing a form of government that was unjust.
Those who say that the Revolution is Biblically vindicated assert that the revolutionaries fought a defensive war, and were not on the offensive. They point out that the Americans were being taxed unfairly and state that therefore they had a right to rebel against this injustice. Christians who defend the Revolution quote scriptural passages which contain such characters as Rahab, Moses, and Daniel, who stood up for what they believed to be right, despite the fact that they were disobeying the government of that time. However those who say that the revolution was not Biblically based state that though the king was unjust and his troop’s actions were inflammatory, it was still not right for the colonists to rise up in rebellion.1 Peter 2:13-14 says “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for God’s sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or to governors, as unto them that are sent by him…”. On the point of taxes, Romans 13:6-7 says “For because of this (conscience) you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers, attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, and honor to whom honor.“ We can all agree that the colonists certainly did not obey these commands. Even though they believed that they were being treated and taxed unfairly, they still were not allowed to simply get rid of that government; in rebelling against King George III, they were in a way rebelling against God. And as for the Biblical characters who could have been used as examples of civil disobedience for the revolutionaries, none were trying to overthrow the government and replace it with a new system; they were peacefully standing up for what they knew was right.
The question of whether or not the War for Independence was Biblical or not has bothered me for quite some time. I certainly appreciate the effects of the Revolution, and I’m glad to be a free American, but because of verses like Romans 13:1-7 I believe that the war was not scripturally based, and cannot be justified Biblical principles.
Individual Writing Assignment #2
Was the Revolutionary War a Biblical Event?
There are two opinions of the Biblical basis for the Revolutionary War. One opinion holds that the war was Biblically justified. This view argues that our founding fathers acted only in defense during the war. They were never the ones to start the battle. They also argue that we have a duty as Christians to protect the weak and powerless. Securing these rights of others played a role in the basis of the war. The founding fathers believed that their rebellion was not rebellion against God, but rebellion against tyranny. This view of the war is also argued by looking at the nation of Israel and how God led them out of oppression of Pharaoh.
Another opinion of the Revolutionary War is that the war was not Biblical. While I believe that both sides have good arguments, I think that I lean towards this view of the war. This view argues that our founding fathers did not obey New Testament principles. For example, Romans 13:1-7 says that we are to submit to governing authorities, because all authority comes from God. We are only justified in disobeying the government if it is causing us to sin. The basis of the Revolutionary War lies with what the Declaration of Independence calls our unalienable rights. These rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since we were not being caused to sin, only having certain “rights” taken from us it is hard to argue that our founding fathers’ action were Biblically justified. I think it is also questionable to compare ourselves to the Israelites because we are not God’s chosen people. We do not have the same relationship with God that Moses and that nation did. I believe that Biblically we are commanded to submit to authority even when we are not treated fairly. Christ submitted to authority when He was without a doubt treated unfairly. I believe that being Christ like includes submitting to authority the same way that Christ did.
David Dombrowski
Individual Assignment #2
10/07/2011
Was the American Revolution a Biblical Event?
Was the American Revolution a biblical event? This question has been debated for over two hundred years. Even before the revolution began, many of the Founding Fathers had to decide this issue for themselves. As demonstrated by this week’s reading and podcast, modern day Christians still do not agree. David Barton, author of “The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion” would argue that it is biblically justifiable, while Dr. Smith would disagree.
Barton identifies two major beliefs of the Founding Era to back up his stance. First, “…that while they were forbidden to overthrow the institution of government and live in anarchy, they were not required blindly to submit to every law and policy. Those in the Founding Era understood that the general institution of government was unequivocally ordained by God and was not to be overthrown, but that did not mean that God approved every specific government; God had ordained government in lieu of anarchy…” This lined up directly with the Deistic views common among the Founding Fathers. The colonists did not believe they were rebelling against God because they were instituting their own government, not living in anarchy. Second, they believed “that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense.” Barton goes on to show that the causes at the beginning of the war were all started by the British, thus he says that the Americans were justified because they fought in self-defense. This, in Barton’s eyes, was the Founding Fathers’ ultimate justification.
Dr. Smith, however, disagrees. As he states in his podcast, Britain was the clear legal authority. From his view of scripture, each government is instituted by God, and that rebelling against the God given authority is sin. He notes that although the liberties of the colonists were threatened, their life was not, and therefore their resistance was not self defense. Dr. Smith further points out that the colonists were not being forced to sin, which is the only biblical basis for defiance to the government. The colonies were also not an independent nation fighting another, which would have been Biblically permissible. He shows that the primary motive of the Founding Fathers was their secular philosophy of government. Dr. Smith’s arguments proves that they were incorrect in their belief that government exists to secure the rights of the people, and shows that scripture says that all governments, not just the organizations, are instituted by God.
Strong and compelling arguments can be made on both sides, but after much thought, I have come to view the position that the American Revolution was not justified as more persuasive. Dr. Smith excellently explained the position, and presented a convincing, biblically solid argument for his position. His views align much better with a literal interpretation of scripture. Dr. Smith shows that the main reasons which the Founding Fathers used to justify the revolution were not biblical, and therefore has convinced me that the American Revolution was not biblically justified.
Was the American Revolution Unbiblical?
Growing up, I have always been a proud American Patriot and loved reading about American history and especially about the wars. The thought that the American Revolution was an act of rebellion against God and the Bible never even crossed my mind until this week and listening to Dr. Smith’s podcast.
There are two views on this subject, one that states that the American Revolution was conducted in a manner that was not in rebellion to God or the Scripture on the basis that “God Himself had ordained the institution of civil government and that God had explicitly authorized civil self-defense”. Whereas others state that the American Revolution was unbiblical and disobedient towards God. The interesting thing however, is that both sides argue their points using Scripture.
One of the Founding Fathers, James Wilson states that, “The defense of one’s self . . . is not, nor can it be, abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defense is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man. It is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those to whom he bears a peculiar relation – of his wife, of his parent, of his child. . . . As a man is justified in defending, so he is justified in retaking his property. . . . Man does not exist for the sake of government, but government is instituted for the sake of man.”
From this statement we can see that according to the Founders’ Biblical understanding, the American Revolution was an act of self-defense and not an offensive war and therefore justifies their actions and makes it acceptable as well as biblical. One of the scriptural viewpoints embraced by most Americans during the Revolution was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense. They found this in Nehemiah 4:13-14 where it says, “Therefore I stationed some of the people behind the lowest points of the wall at the exposed places, posting them by families, with their swords, spears and bows. 14 After I looked things over, I stood up and said to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people, “Don’t be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes.”” A few other Bible verses embraced by these people include Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, and Nehemiah 4:20-21.
Those that believe that the American Revolution was an unbiblical and disobedient act towards God say that, “the United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Father.” They also claim that the Colonists’ act of rebellion “flies in the face” of Romans 13:1-7 where it says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”
Until recently, I had the same idea and thought process as the Founding Fathers that the American Revolution was merely self-defense and completely justified and acceptable. However, after listening to Dr. Smith’s podcast and learning a few more things about the government, God and the Bible I have come to the realization that the American Revolution was in fact an act of rebellion against God and the Bible. God gave and established for us authority figures and we are to obey them assuming they are not having us do sinful things in which case we are to disobey but take any punishment due to disobeying them accordingly.
In today’s society, it is easy to assume that the American Revolution must have been morally and biblically justified. Wasn’t America founded on Christian principles? Although many people have these presuppositions, it is important to step back and analyze the viewpoints that defined the Revolution. It is important to determine whether the events leading up to the Revolution were actually justified under biblical principles. Let’s look at arguments both for and against the justification of the revolution. We shall attempt to determine which is more persuasive and biblically correct.
In a lecture on The Worldviews of the Founding Fathers, Dr. Smith laid out several points which showed that the American Revolution was not biblically justified. This was in direct contrast to an essay on the subject by David Barton of Wallbuilders. Most importantly, Dr. Smith pointed out that Christians ought to honor and obey governmental authority unless it specifically calls one to sin. Britain was the clear legal authority at the time and the colonists were required by law to receive the same rights and treatment as the rest of the British citizens. The colonists were treated unjustly and in an oppressive manner. Apart from the aforementioned, there is another occasion in which a Christian may resist government. This happens when such a government’s oppression extends to tyranny, and warlike subjugation. As David Barton extrapolated on in his article, the founders clearly believed that they were acting in self defense. Although God did not specifically speak to the founders and command them to revolt, American theological greats of the time like George Whitefield truly believed that America’s actions were in accordance to the will of God. Both sides of the issue made excellent points which make one stop and rethink the issue.
Now that we have seen a few of the arguments laid on the table, let us determine which position was more persuasive? While both sides had several relevant arguments, the two sides clashed significantly on the issue of self defense. David Barton quoted several opinions of the time showing that the founders were legitimately acting within the boundaries of self defense. Dr. Smith explained that the colonists had no cause for self defense because, although their liberty was threatened, their lives and property were still intact. I believe, especially on this issue, that David Barton provided a more persuasive argument. Solidifying his points with quotes from various founders and historical examples, Barton’s argument carried the most weight. The colonists’ property might have been intact, but it was still being forcibly taken over by the British militia. The colonists’ lives might have been safe, but severe threats were definitely looming on the horizon. The British sent warships to blockade the Boston harbor, an obvious military threat. Many Christians believed that their actions were clear measures of self defense which the Bible allows for. They tried for several unsuccessful years to regain peace with the British. These and several other points brought up by David Barton were definitely more persuasive than those brought up by Dr. Smith.
While it is important to step back and rethink the issue, from the arguements and historical evidence given, the American Revolution was biblically justified.
The Americans were being oppressed. They were having their governmental privileges stripped away. They were forced to quarter troops and had no representatives in the English parliament. The king obstructed justice, and harassed the American people. The American people finally could not stand being under the British monarchy anymore, so they rebelled. However, it was not for biblical principles that they revolted, even though the Founding Fathers tried to justify it that way, it was for political reasons.
The essay, “The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?” argues that the American Revolution was biblically based and that the colonies had every right to seperate. It starts by quoting John McArthur, Albert Soto, and Dr. Daryl Cornett, men from our time, on their opinions that the American Revolution was biblically based. It then goes through a short history of government persecution including the Saint Bartholomew Day Massacre, the reign of Bloody Mary, the persecution of religion under James II, and finishes with the American Revolution. At that point, it quotes several Founding Fathers including John Dickenson, Samuel Adams, and Francis Hopkinson on their opinions that the American Revolution was biblically based. Then it argued that the Americans rebelled in civil self-defense. This idea was summed up in the famous command to the Lexington Minutemen, “Don’t fire unless fired upon!” The essay finished by quoting several more founding fathers and then reasserted the point that the American Revolution was biblically based.
Yet, the American Revolution was not justified by Scripture. In Romans 13:5, the Bible says “Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.” People would agree that England was the authority at the time. They were not being forced to sin by the English government. They just could not stand to be under the King of England anymore. Yet the American people should have submitted to the king in accordance to the Bible. Their rebellion was not ordered by God and it was not in self defense. The primary reason for separation from England was a secular motive, freedom from England.
There is an argument about whether or not the American Revolution was really a biblical event that honored God. Many biblical leaders in recent years, (including John MacArthur and Albert Soto) think that the American Revolution was a rebellion against God and did not have a sound biblical basis. On the other hand, the Founding Fathers were convinced that their rebellion was biblical and that they were in the right when they fought against the British in the American Revolution.
John MacArthur and Alberto Soto think that the American’s were not conducting good exegesis when they looked into the Scriptures for wisdom on whether or not they were right in fighting the British. Both church leaders point out Romans 13 and what it says about God placing leaders in authority. Dr. Daryl Cornett also agrees that the American Revolution was unbiblical; he thinks that the Deistic and Unitarian principles of the time caused orthodox Christians to be swept up into the rebellion and not to consider the Scriptures with proper exegesis and application.
On the other hand, the Founding Fathers thought that they were right in fighting for their rights in the American Revolution. They claimed to have looked through Scriptures and to have found that they were completely justified in fighting against the tyranny of Britain. During the Founding Era, there were two modes of thought that were preached that convinced the people of America that they were right in fighting in the American Revolution: the first thought was that they did not have to submit to every law and policy blindly; they believed that God opposed anarchy, rebellion, lawlessness, and wickedness. The second idea the American’s believed in the Founding Era was that God would allow them to fight for civil self-defense, but He would not honor an offensive war.
I think that John MacArthur and the other leading church leaders and theologians of today are correct in claiming that the American Revolution was not an event that was honoring to God. Britain was putting a lot of pressure on the colonies, but Britain was not causing them to sin. God put the British government over the people and they did not respect the government that was put in place over them, therefore it was not honoring to God for them to fight against the British in the American Revolution.
No evidence of listening to the podcast….
The American Revolution: Biblically sound or simply rebellion?
The American Revolution, the fight that has given us our freedom, that is seen as one of the proudest moments in U.S. History, for without this battle we would remain enslaved to the monarchy of England. This is the battle that gave freedom its wings.
Despite the fact that we, as a nation, admire the bravery of those men who fought for our freedom, we as Christians have to analyze the biblical truth behind it. Was it Biblically sound or was it simply rebellion? Throughout my middle-school and high-school years, American history always fascinated me. I’ve always enjoyed hearing about the Declaration of Independence and the grounds on which our nation was built. Personally, I have always been proud of the previous generation’s devotion to their desire for freedom. It was always perceived as noble. Time and time again I have been taught to believe that our nation was founded and deeply rooted in Christian principles; however, after reading this module and listening to the podcast, my understanding is put into question. Thomas Jefferson listed the issues he held against Britain in the Declaration of Independence. Along with his list, he argued that it is the responsibility of the governed to abolish or amend the government when it is necessary. When the government over-steps their bounds, we must then take up the reigns and correct it. As far as the revolution is concerned, many claim that it was God-ordained, that God supported this act of terrorism to set a nation free. This is not the case.
Through his many writings and even further study, we understand that Jefferson was not a particularly ‘Godly Man’. In the Declaration of Independence, he clearly states that the power of government is administered by the governed, where it states clearly in Romans, that government receives its power from God, and only God. If his motives were truly of Christian morale, this fact would be instilled in our nations documents; especially the one that marks the beginning of this country. To be honest, in some respect, I am concerned that our founding fathers may have used the excuse of God to justify their actions. As if to deceive those taking part into thinking that their acts of violence were supported by God. This also is not the case. There is no biblical evidence supporting the acts of violence and terrorism our fore-fathers carried out nor is there any physical evidence other than their own desire for freedom.
In conclusion, as we are all grateful for the bravery and sacrifice of the American Revolution, as well as the fact that God has not turned his back on our nation, but instead blessed it, it is upsetting that our nation was conceived and fought for through the use of God’s blessing given by man.
Well stated. I feel many of the same conflicts within me.
Was the American Revolution a Biblical event? Many Christians would say yes immediately without giving this question much thought. I had never even considered the concept that the American Revolution was unbiblical, although after listening to the podcast, I now see that I was mistaken. I also realize that this issue deserves more discussion and thought than it is given.
As Dr. Smith discussed, the Scriptures give us the permission to disobey government only if it forces us to sin. Even then, we are to disobey peacefully and then accept the consequences. In this way, the American Revolution cannot be seen as a Biblical event for several reasons. The view expressed in the Declaration of Independence that the government’s power comes from “the consent of the governed”, instead of from God, is flawed. Also, the colonists did not necessarily have suitable grounds for separation. Britain was well-defined authority and the Bible commands us to obey those that are put in authority over us. Britain was not commanding their citizens to sin. The citizens of Britain were not being made to worship anyone or anything other than God. The separation was not a protective measure, as the people of Britain were not in any danger of losing their lives. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the colonists were not directly ordered by God to separate. One could say that they were taking matters into their own hands.
However, if we look to past events, we can see instances that may cause us to question this position. Are we to obey laws of a conquering country? In other words, is it acceptable to disobey government during war time? Many know about the life of Corrie Ten Boom, who harbored Jews in her home during the holocaust. Another example is Irena Sendler, who saved many Jewish children during the German occupation of Poland. Something else to consider is the civil rights movement. Even the African Americans themselves, such as Rosa Parks, were disobeying the law. The civil rights movement was certainly the right thing to do, even though it was not legal. Since God created all humans and they all deserve equal rights, shouldn’t we fight for issues such as these? Is there a difference between a war and civil disobedience? I would argue that peaceful demonstrations, such as those of the civil rights movement, are acceptable and even good. In Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan, the law dictated that the Samaritan and the Jew were not allowed to interact. However, Jesus said of this, “Go and do likewise.” We also see this in the Scriptures regarding healing on the Sabbath. Where do we draw the line between obeying government and knowing that we need to do something to change it? Are we to obey government blindly until we are directly asked to sin? When we see injustices, are we to ignore them in the name of obeying government?
In the end, I feel like the first argument is the more persuasive. The fact is that, in rebelling against their government, the colonists were not being obedient to the Word of God. It is still difficult, however, to make this observation because the belief in the honor and bravery of these colonists is so engrained in our culture. Growing up in a Christian environment, I was always taught that the reason for the separation was religious freedom. That sounded pretty good to me and was always shown in a positive light. My ignorance in regards to this issue is one of the many examples of my need for a more in depth meditation on the Scriptures.
Was the American Revolution a Biblical Event?
The Declaration of Independence was written on July 4, 1776 declaring the United States “second founding”. It declared the United States of America as having its own political sphere, outside that of the King’s. It was a statement of ideals and values, structured in a way a lawyer would win over a judge. It was written by the deist Thomas Jefferson, who in it, spells out the many shortcomings of the King of Great Britain, giving proper justice to the colonies breaking away from the “absolute tyranny”.
In Podcast #2, Dr. Smith spelled out multiple Christian critiques as to why the basis for separation of the colonies was unbiblical. He began with the biblical statement in Romans 13 that the government’s power is from God alone, not the people, and that it is the citizen’s responsibility to honor, obey, and submit to the government, whom God has placed over them. In this day, Britain was the colonies clear, legal authority and was not forcing the colonists to sin. Although the colonists were being oppressed, they were not being forced into sin, nor were they defending their lives, Dr. Smith said. Not only that, but the colonists were not being ordered from God, nor was it a religious war since the bible never mandates government by consent.
On the other hand, David Barton spells out the many reasons, in that day, colonists chose to break away from Britain control. He gives two reasons that the colonists cited as biblical proof for independence. “The first was that most Christian denominations during the Founding Era held that while they were forbidden to overthrow the institution of government and live in anarchy, they were not required blindly to submit to every law and policy.” The second reason colonists used to uphold their decision of independence was, “The second Scriptural viewpoint overwhelmingly embraced by most Americans during the Revolutionary Era was that God would not honor an offensive war, but that He did permit civil self-defense (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12, etc.).”
Contrary to Dr. Smith and many other’s views, Barton reveals the current standing of many Christian denominations, and citizens at that time. I find his argument to be far more convincing because of the “state-of-mind” he offers his perspective, and the proof of that. I find that it can be very easy for any of us to say what is or is not biblical during a previous time period. However, the circumstances they were under and the many steps they took to avoid war show, in my opinion, that the rebellion against the crown was not a rebellion at all, but rather an act of self-defense. If Dr. Smith had used more references and proof, I would have given his argument more thought, but, the proof Mr. Barton provided was enough for me to side with his position.
UNIT 2
Was the American Revolution a biblical event?
Before coming to Cedarville and looking at every aspect in life from a biblical view, we were taught in public school that the Declaration of Independence was just and righteous to us, fellow Americans. The American Revolution was definitely a huge part of our United States history and is the foundation of our political founding. Many Americans look at the American Revolution as the most important part of our history. I believe this is all true, but the real deep question we need to ask ourselves, as Christians, is was the American Revolution a biblical event?
Some would say yes because of the fact of freedom, which most of us were taught. Others would say no because they were not causing us to sin. The issue here is what is the purpose of government and what causes some one to separate from the authority and power of the government. As Christians, we look to God’s Word for answers to these questions. As addressed in the Declaration of Independence, government is to secure the people’s rights. Although this should be true, separation from the government is only if they are forcing us to sin. Britain was not forcing us to sin, as seen in Daniel. When Daniel did not obey the laws of the government because it would have caused him to sin against God, they threw him in the lion’s den. Britain did not force the people of the colonies to sin against God.
Therefore, looking at the American Revolution from a biblical view, I would conclude that it was not a biblical event. They spilt blood over this issue with the Britain government, when this was not a just situation for them to act upon. I have changed my view on the American Revolution in a huge way. This event was not a biblical event, but it is impact our country in a huge way. Just as Dr. Smith spoke on, this was a mistake in the past does not taint our American future.
you need more evidence that you considered the arguments in detail. Use specifics.
Was the American revolutionary way unbiblical?
I think the American Revolution was not biblical because the people were not being forced to sin because of the rules of the King over the colonies.
On one side, some may argue that the king of that time was allowing for religious persecution, but that wouldn’t give way for Biblical grounds for rebellion against authority. Scripture tells us that we as believers will endure hard times because we live for Him. 1 Peter 4:13 states that we should rejoice in the sufferings we will be sharing with Christ. If the colonists fully understood that, than I think they may have accepted the persecution better or learn to adapt. The colonists had a list of grievances that were not helping their quality of life and understandably so, but that still didn’t give them a right to rebel. I am sure they thought that the King/ruling needed to have a change, but I think there could have been better ways of going about that. Romans 13 also states that we should rejoice and exult in hope because of our suffering and tribulation, which is what the King of the Colonies was doing to the colonies.
A rebellion is an “opposition to one in authority or dominance an open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government or an instance of such defiance or resistance” according to Mirriam Webster dictionary. The American colonists were trying to overthrow the Government which is not a biblical concept at all. It was clear that the Brittan government was ruling over the American colonists. With that in mind, the government wasn’t forcing the colonists to sin, even though the colonists may have been under oppression and may have been treated unfairly, that isn’t a biblical reason for a rebellion. The American revolution didn’t meet the standards for having to disobey Gods word in order to obey the government, therefore, the American Colonists didn’t have a biblical stand point for their rebellion. The rebellion wasn’t a religious war either, the king wasn’t taking away our liberties, even though the people were being persecuted for their religious beliefs. The Americans justification or motivation for the rebellion was, if the government fails to secure our rights, we can overthrow them, again, this isn’t biblical at all.
An alternative the Colonists should have thought of was to have another government assist them in trying to overthrow the Brittan authority. They not only would have gone about it in a more ‘godly’/biblical way but they may have been more successful too.
430 words
At the time of the American Revolution and in the centuries that have since passed, Christians have debated whether it was a Biblical event. Those who contend it was take one of two main positions. One group claimed that the Revolution was not a resistance against government (which would be in violation of Romans 13) but only a resistance against tyranny, a resistance which they argued was Biblical. The other group took the position that the Revolution was an act of self-defense and cited various Old Testament passages in support of the Biblical nature of their position. On the other side, some Christians argue that the Revolution did not conform to Biblical principles at all. They state that civil disobedience is not Scriptural unless the civil authorities are demanding that one sin. Since in their view the king of England was not demanding that the colonists sin, the rebellion was wrong.
In my opinion, the argument for the latter viewpoint (that the Revolution was not a Biblical event) is more persuasive. The first argument for considering the Revolution as a Biblical event states that it was fine for the colonists to rebel because they weren’t really rebelling against government, they were rebelling against tyranny. To me, this distinction sounds like an attempt to justify something by quibbling about minutiae. Secondly, even if it were true, I’m not convinced that a rebellion against tyranny would be Biblical either. After all, the early Christians were supposed to submit to the authorities (except in cases where submission would cause sin, as when they were told to worship the emperor). Those authorities were responsible for the torture and murder of countless Christians carried out at the command of emperors who could justifiably be deemed tyrants. And yet, they were not called to rebel against those tyrants.
The second argument that attempts to justify the Revolution with Scripture claims that the rebellion was carried out in self-defense, and that such a rebellion would be Scriptural. One might argue that the rebellion was not strictly an act of self-defense, but even if one supposes it was, I don’t think that the Old Testament passages cited in support of rebellion against government in self-defense being Scriptural really apply to the situation. These passages all involve foreign powers marching upon the cities of Israel. I see three problems with the application of this Scripture to the Revolution. First, Israel was a special people chosen by God, and America is not, so what applied to the Israelites may not have applied to the Founding Fathers. Second, America was not innocently standing by to be attacked by a war-thirsty Britain; Britain attacked after provocation in the form of our rebellion. This situation was not the same as that of the Israelites. Finally, Israel was its own nation, established by God. She was not under a foreign power’s control and if she fought to defend her cities she was not rebelling against the foreign power. The case was exactly the opposite for the colonists.
I believe that the argument that the Revolution was not Biblical is most sound; Romans 13 is clear in its statement that Christians should obey the government except when it demands they sin against the God who is above the government. As this was clearly not the case for the colonists, I don’t believe the Revolution was Biblically justifiable.
Was the American Revolution a biblical event? This is a topic that has been in question for years. According to the words of David Barton in “The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Rebellion,” both sides are portrayed. John McArthur believes that the Declaration goes against the bible. He believes this because the declaration gives divinely endowed freedoms such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He believes that God is the main source of authority not the government. Others believed that the bible was an act of the bible. They believed this way because the bible says that God blesses even the sinners. They believed that this was a rebellion that was acceptable by God.
This argument is greatly supported by a passage from the bible. Romans 13 says- “ Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
According to Smith, the declaration is an appeal to authority. Jefferson was the main writer of the declaration. Although he believed that God existed he did not believe in revelation. He was known as a deist meaning, he believed that God was involved in the creative process and then stepped back. So Jefferson’s views pointed towards only the ethical truths. A deistic God is comfortable with rebellion. This is clearly wrong because like Romans says above, we are to submit to authority as long as it doesn’t cause us to sin. Rebelling would be considered a sin. With Jefferson believing in a deistic God he could not have written the declaration in proper views of the bible.
Because of Romans 13 and Jefferson’s deistic views I believe that the American revolution was an act of rebellion. It goes against God words. Even if God rewards the people who disobey authority it is because he is a loving God who gives us grace not because we have rebelled. We should try to follow his plan and give back to him at least a little of what he gave us!
Some argue that the american revolution was indeed a biblical event. This idea stems mainly from the founding fathers who boldly believed that all they did was not against God. Rather, they believed they were only protecting their rights which were “divinely endowed”, and thus they were in line with obedience to God and even justified in asking Him for help and strength to overcome Britain. Today, many take a biblical stance simply because of the strong use of scripture in defense of the founding fathers actions and system. The people believed that because the government was “unrighteous”, they could take a stand and rebel against it. There was even a proposed motto of “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”. I believe that this argument is the strongest and has the most support due to the fact that so many agreed with it during the founding of our nation. Rev. Jacob Duche made a statement with supporting scripture that I personally took resonance with and agree with. “does not humanity, does not reason, does not Scripture, call upon the man, the citizen, the Christian of such a community to “stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ….hath made them free!” [Galatians 5:1] The Apostle enjoins us to “submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake,” but surely a submission to the unrighteous ordinances of unrighteous men, cannot be “for the Lord’s sake,” for “He loveth righteousness and His countenance beholds the things that are just.”
The other argument that states that the american revolution was not a biblical event, due to the fact that the rebellion against the government was not ordained by God. This view is based strongly on the idea that unless the government is forcing a citizen to sin, they are not justified by God to rebel against it. The legal authority set by Britain on the colonists was not forcing them to sin, although unrighteous and unjust. The podcasts emphasize also that the overthrow was not directly ordered by God, however, many strong decisions that are not sinful are made without direct order by the Lord today. Another point this argument makes is that the overthrow should’ve been made by another government and not the people. However, the power of the people can be positively influential over the government in other strong topics today that the church agrees with, why not this one? Overall, although this argument does not undermine the greatness of America and all we have accomplished as a nation, I believe the freedom to take a stand against injustice in the government is one that should be practiced and one that does not go directly against God.
The issue of whether the American Revolution was Biblical is very controversial. David Barton has written an essay asserting that it was, in fact, Biblical. In this writing, he appeals to the fact that many Biblical figures disobeyed, and in some cases, helped overthrow the government and were afterwards praised for it. Examples cited include the stories of Daniel, the Hebrew midwives, Rahab, Moses, the Apostles, and the judges: Gideon, Ehud, Jepthah, Samson, and Deborah. This argument is combatted by pointing out that those Biblical figures were not in the same circumstance as the colonists in America. These stories can be for the most part placed into three categories. Either their governments were telling them to disobey God, they were actually overthrowing the governments of other people, not their own, or they were following a direct command given to them by God in a way that he does not speak to people anymore. The signers of the Declaration of Independence and the colonists as a whole can claim none of these things. Romans 13:1-2 requires submission to governing authority and gives no exceptions to obedience. Acts 5:29 does clarify that we are to obey God rather than man, but as already stated, the colonists were not being forced to disobey God.
Another angle taken for the defense of the American Revolution is that the colonists were acting purely out of self-defense and did not initiate the war. This view assumes that the British acted first in events that led to the war such as the Boston Massacre, the actual beginning of the war at Lexington, and even the remainder of violent action throughout the war. As far as the Boston Massacre, the Redcoats who fired into the crowd and killed several men may not have been completely justified in their actions, but they were dealing with an angry crowd that had the potential of becoming a riot. These British soldiers were even defended in court by John Adams, who was certainly no friend of England. At Lexington, no one knows who fired the first shot, but we do know that the Minutemen were told not to shoot first. Regardless of who actually fired the first shot, the colonists were giving a show of armed resistance to their king by blocking the path of the Redcoats and being armed. Their purpose for resisting was to prevent the Redcoats from confiscating their weapons, it is not as if the British were on their way to actually attacking people and homes.
In the end, one must conclude that the primary causes for the rebellion of American were not religious in nature, but merely to remove oppressive government. America was founded on very noble principles and very intelligent men set up its exemplary government; however, just because America was able to separate from England’s oppression and gain rights and liberty does not make the rebellion Biblical. Although the colonists relied heavily on God, and it is evident that God, in many cases, even worked in their favor, one must return to the direct words of Scripture that command submission to government and conclude that the American Revolution was not an act of Biblical rebellion.
Unit Two: The American Experiment: Individual Assignment #2
The American Revolution: An Unbiblical Event?
Today, many Americans assume the Revolutionary War was biblically justified. However, the possibility that the American Revolution might have been justified according to human sin nature is rarely considered. When studied carefully, the reasons laid out in the decision for America to separate from Great Britain do not stand in the face of biblical truth. In the following paragraphs, we will analyze how the Founding Fathers justified the rebellion, and we will identify the errors in their arguments. Then, we will ascertain what the Bible says about government and our relationship thereof.
Albert Soto rightly said, “Scripture was the Forefathers’ most useful tool of propaganda.” These educated men used their extensive knowledge of biblical teachings to persuade Americans of the biblical validity of their actions. In several instances, Scripture was grossly taken out of context. For example, Reverend Jacob Duché quotes a section of Galatians 5:1 saying that American citizens must “stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ…hath made them free!”. Although inspiring, we must consider the context this scripture was taken from. In the book of Galatians, Paul is talking about the freedom Christians have in Christ, which no longer binds them to the unachievable demands of the Jewish law. This example is one of many. The Founding Fathers felt justified in their separation from their mother country because of the injustice inflicted upon them by the British. We must note that, while certainly unjust, the British authorities did not ask or force Americans to sin against God’s Word. Another argument leaders used was the biblical justification of self-defense. While self-defense is biblically justified, one must wonder whether the self-defense of American would have been necessary had the Declaration of Independence not been initiated. Clearly then, many flaws exist in the arguments laid out by the Founding Fathers.
God’s Word lays out for us the proper relationship we as Christians should have with the government. Romans 13:1 says, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God” (NKJV). God did not add any qualifiers such as “good” or “just” before “governing authorities”. He meant to submit to all authorities. Only if the government asks us to sin against God are we allowed to disobey. None would disagree that Britain was the clear, legal authority at the time. Thus, by rebelling against the authority America disobeyed the clear commands of God.
Considering these examples, we must come to the conclusion that the American Revolution was not biblically based. Rather, it was based on deistic and cultural assumptions that did not line up with the Word of God. Even though America’s birth surrounded itself with unbiblical principles, it cannot be said the God cannot or will not use America for His glory and ultimate good.
The American Revolution – Biblical or Not?
The American Revolution is portrayed as a historic throwing off of tyrannical power, which was unprecedented in its time. Most people believe without a doubt that it was the right thing to do, so it is unquestioned by history books, both secular and Christian. But why should we just blindly say it was right? How do we justify it without comparing it to biblical standards? The standard that we judge the Revolution on should not be a patriotic fever for country, but rather the teaching of Christ. We must turn to Scripture and the principles that God has given us to determine if the American Revolution was biblical.
One of the main arguments for justifying the Revolution was that the colonists were acting in self defense, and that the British government started the firing at the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770, when five colonial protesters died after being fired upon by British troops. To answer if the revolution was truly self defense, we have to look at what really happened here. On this day, a mob had formed around a British sentry who was subjected to verbal abuse and harassment. A small British company came as support for the sentry, and was also subjected to verbal threats, and objects being thrown at them. Without any orders to do so, the company fired upon the crowd, killing three on the spot, and two more from injuries. This was not an act ordered by any British official, but an act of a few overzealous men making a rash decision. This was not truly a good reason for the colonists to throw off their government; it was just a deadly mishap caused by high tensions between the colonists and the government. This lets us rule out self-defense as a possible justification.
Another argument justifying the Revolution is that the colonists were protecting their property. The colonists also believed their property was being taken from them through the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774. These acts gave British troops the right to be housed in private property at the command of the governor. The Quartering Act of 1765 was passed during the French and Indian War in order to cheaply house troops. At the time of its passing, British troops would secure private residences, sometimes forcibly, for use as barracks, but after the war ended, most colonial legislatures ignored the act thereby releasing the citizens from any obligation to it. The Quartering Act of 1774 was one of the Intolerable Acts that were passed in reaction to the Boston Tea Party. It gave the provision that if suitable accommodation for troops were not found, unoccupied buildings could be used to house troops. This meant that if no residential building could be found to house the troops, another unoccupied building, such as a barn or warehouse, could be used. This really wasn’t a big threat to the colonist’s property. They were not being forced to give up their homes to troops, only to provide quarters in unoccupied buildings. This act may have not been fair, but it didn’t justify the throwing off of government.
The American Revolution may be widely accepted today as what was right, but from what we see really happened, it may have not been the biblical choice. The British government may have not been fair or just, but the colonists had no biblical reason to rebel against the government. As it says in Romans 13:1, “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” It goes on to say that rebelling against authority without biblical cause is rebelling against God. Scripture clearly teaches that all authority comes from God, and the only time we are to disobey that authority is when it directly is forcing us to sin. The colonists of the American Revolution may have had good motives to rebel against the British, but they clearly had no true biblical justification to do so.
Was the American revolution a biblical event?
The American Revolution is a hard event because of what the revolution consisted of. It had rebellion, loss of life, and destruction of creation. All of the founding fathers all believed that they were able to fight justly under God’s seeing.
The war would have been against the bible if it was an offensive war but because of the fact that the war took place out of self-defense towards the British, the founding fathers found it just under God’s presence. Within the essay War was defined as a curse of mankind. It is also mentioned that we have all been given wit, power, and freedom to conduct ourselves how we want to however there are some people who use those gifts to injury others. It is defensive war that is justified.
Scripture was used as propaganda for the forefathers’. Due to the fact that the leaders were under civil opposition, they found much guidance on the subject of civil disobedience and resistance of civil authority. Within the essay it is said that the two theological understandings were that God himself had ordained the institution of civil government and the fact that God had explicitly authorized civil self-defense allowing for the revolution to be justifiable.
I believe that the Revolutionary War is justifiable because of the fact that the Americans were under attack. There freedom from the British was being pressured and toiled with resulting in the rebellion of the people and the revolutionary war. Also if it weren’t for the war than we would not have the freedom and the government setup that we have now. We would also not have as many of the documents that construct our country as a whole.
Was the American revolution a biblical event?
The American Revolution is a hard event because of what the revolution consisted of. It had rebellion, loss of life, and destruction of creation. All of the founding fathers all believed that they were able to fight justly under God’s seeing.
The war would have been against the bible if it was an offensive war but because of the fact that the war took place out of self-defense towards the British, the founding fathers found it just under God’s presence. Within the essay War was defined as a curse of mankind. It is also mentioned that we have all been given wit, power, and freedom to conduct ourselves how we want to however there are some people who use those gifts to injury others. It is defensive war that is justified.
Scripture was used as propaganda for the forefathers’. Due to the fact that the leaders were under civil opposition, they found much guidance on the subject of civil disobedience and resistance of civil authority. Within the essay it is said that the two theological understandings were that God himself had ordained the institution of civil government and the fact that God had explicitly authorized civil self-defense allowing for the revolution to be justifiable.
I believe that the Revolutionary War is justifiable because of the fact that the Americans were under attack. There freedom from the British was being pressured and toiled with resulting in the rebellion of the people and the revolutionary war. Also if it weren’t for the war than we would not have the freedom and the government setup that we have now. We would also not have as many of the documents that construct our country as a whole.
Was the American revolution a biblical event?
The American Revolution is a hard event because of what the revolution consisted of. It had rebellion, loss of life, and destruction of creation. All of the founding fathers all believed that they were able to fight justly under God’s seeing.
The war would have been against the bible if it was an offensive war but because of the fact that the war took place out of self-defense towards the British, the founding fathers found it just under God’s presence. Within the essay War was defined as a curse of mankind. It is also mentioned that we have all been given wit, power, and freedom to conduct ourselves how we want to however there are some people who use those gifts to injury others. It is defensive war that is justified.
Scripture was used as propaganda for the forefathers’. Due to the fact that the leaders were under civil opposition, they found much guidance on the subject of civil disobedience and resistance of civil authority. Within the essay it is said that the two theological understandings were that God himself had ordained the institution of civil government and the fact that God had explicitly authorized civil self-defense allowing for the revolution to be justifiable.
I believe that the Revolutionary War is justifiable because of the fact that the Americans were under attack. There freedom from the British was being pressured and toiled with resulting in the rebellion of the people and the revolutionary war. Also if it weren’t for the war than we would not have the freedom and the government setup that we have now. We would also not have as many of the documents that construct our country as a whole.
Unit 2: Was the Revolutionary War an Act of Biblical Rebellion?
Along with some of the rest of the class I too had never considered the idea that the Revolutionary War was not biblically based. In the article, John MacArthur talks about how he believes that many believers associate patriotism/democracy with Christianity. Throughout my history classes in high school and even in college this event was considered to be one of great nobility. However, I am now reconsidering this opinion on the war due to Dr. Smith’s podcast talking about the Declaration of independence. I believe that the Declaration should cause believers to raise some serious questions in reference to the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence.
Was the Revolutionary War a biblical event? This question is addressed in two different lights in the article, “The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion” by David Barton. Barton begins by expressing the ideas of men such as John McArthur, Albert Soto, and Dr. Daryl Cornett. These men believe that the Revolutionary War was in fact an act of biblical rebellion. They use the argument that according to the Declaration of Independence we deserve the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Romans 13 clearly tells us, however, that this is not what the Bible says about how we are supposed to respond to Government. On the other hand other people argued that this was not an act of biblical rebellion but rather a case of civil disobedience. There are several examples found in the Bible in reference to this ideal such as Rehab, Moses, etc. People stood up to government and then they were rewarded by God for doing such things.
This is a much debated topic in the political circles and as I sit here and think about what I believe on the matter it becomes very overwhelming. The article gave so many different reasons for why each viewpoint could be correct but I think I would have to agree more so with the first argument. When I look at what the Bible says about different issues most of the time it is clearly laid out what He expects of us. Romans 13:1-7 I believe is a perfect example to use for this argument. I do not believe that we were being required to sin by our authorities but I do believe it was not the ideal situation. There are many things that are going on in our nation currently that I do not believe is right but none of them are causing me personally to sin. Therefore, I am called according to the Bible to adhere to and pray for our governmental authorities. The article used the example of Rehab in reference to civil disobedience but I think that this is a topic that is misused. Rehab lied in order to save lives yes, but I do not believe that the Lord was necessarily condoning her disobedience. I know that this topic is one that it would be difficult to decide exactly what happened but I feel that it is impossible to say whether this was an act of her following the Lord or if it was an act of freewill. Who is to say whether the Lord would have saved the spies in a different way had she not lied and submitted to authority. Do I think she was wrong in lying? I honestly don’t know but I think it is something to consider and when we are talking about the Revolutionary War and the Declaration of Independence I think it is important to look at the direct instruction that the Lord gives us through the Bible.
Both the podcast and the article use scripture to defend their views, but the interpretation of scripture is very different.
According to the podcast the American Revolution was not biblical event. Jefferson’s arguments are not in line with the scriptures. While God used the United States as a source of justice throughout history during WWI,WWII, The Cold War, and The Korean war we still have blemishes such as slavery and the treatment of Native Americans. Scripture also states that a government’s true source of power comes from God, not the consent of the governed as the Declaration of Independence states.
The other view held by the essay is that the American Revolution was a biblical event. Some of the Founding Fathers were Deists, meaning God was involved in the creative process of creation and then let everything unfold. In this view, God allows rebellion. “God and Scripture was the vehicle of mobilization that unified the cause, gave it credence, and allowed the Deist leaders at the top to move the masses toward rebellion. Scripture was the Forefathers’ most useful tool of propaganda”.
In my opinion the American Revolution was not a biblical event. As the essay mentions Romans 13:1-2 is overlooked by the Founding Fathers. This passage states “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment”. We are to only disobey our government when we are forced to sin. Britain was not forcing the colonists to sin therefor they should not have started the American Revolution.
UNIT 2
The American Revolution: Was it a Biblical Event?
As Americans, the question of the morality of the American Revolution is a touchy subject – and one that is hard to address without bias. But, after considering the two sides of the debate presented by Barton and Dr. Smith, I find that the evidence shows that the American Revolution was not biblically based.
David Barton’s premier argument in his essay, The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?, states that the American Revolution was biblically based because England did not fit the description of a biblical government provided in Romans 13:3, which states, “For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.” He says that the colonies had a right to rebel or “secede” because England was persecuting them unjustly and was being a terror for those who do right. However, he takes this passage out of context. Just before, in Romans 13:1, Paul sates, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.” As Dr. Smith points out, the King of England was the clear, legal authority. Therefore, according to scripture, it was the colonists’ duty to be subservient of the King. So the rebellion was not justifiable by the Bible.
Another one of Barton’s arguments is that the colonists were engaging in self-defense. He cites the example of the Minutemen, who were known to say: “Do not fire until fired upon.” But, as Dr. Smith points out, the colonists were not defending their lives: they were defending their liberty. And liberty does not equal life. So the colonists may have been defending themselves when they fired back on the British, but they were not engaging in self-defense when they seceded in the first place.
The Bible does give one instance, though, when it is correct to rebel against an authority, and that is when we are called to sin. God is our highest authority; therefore, we must obey Him above all. But, the colonists were not called to sin: they were called to pay high taxes and harbor British forces, which is by no means tantamount to asking the Israelite midwives to slay all the male babies born in Egypt.
Dr. Smith’s final point is that it is not the duty of citizens to uphold justice. For a citizen to rise up against his or her governing authority is to rebel, but for a government to rise up against another government that is doing wrong is to uphold justice. So if another government stepped in and freed the states from the tyranny of the King of England, it would be a biblically sound action.
American is a country that is very proud of its heritage, but, when we think about it, that heritage is not as pure as many think – or hope. The American Revolution simply was not a Biblically based event. But, as Dr. Smith says, that does not mean our entire past or future is tainted. America has risen to be a power for good in the world, regardless of its past, and God can and will still use it to further his purposes, whatever they may be.
I do believe that there could be some truth to the statement that the United States Revolution was not Biblical, but at the same time I think that the founding fathers were really doing what was best for the people as a whole. I think that some of the arguments made in this essay were over analytical and very negative, saying that the Founding Fathers intentionally twisted the words of the Bible to make it say what they wanted. Although this could be the case, I think it is right to be respectful of them and their views, as we will never know if that was actually the truth. The people of this time period obviously did not have the same understanding of the world as we do today, and they may not have understood the Bible in the same way either. Even if they were trying to use the Bible to support their own ideas, I believe that it is to be expected if they were not truly Christians. Because evidence points to these people as Deists, I believe it is unfair to critique them as if they were Christians, and using the Bible to get their way. These critiques of the intentions may be a bit extreme, but I do see the point in saying this act of declaring ourselves as our own nation was an act of rebellion against the government of the time period. We are told to submit to our authority and government. We are only to do differently if they are causing us to sin, and I’m not sure if that was the case for this time period. The actions may have been wrong, but I’m not sure that it is a good idea to hold these men to the same standards we would if it were someone that we knew and knew that they were indeed followers of Christ.
If I had to answer this question a week ago, I would have undoubtedly said that I believed that the American Revolution was a biblical event. Growing up I was taught that the Americans were so oppressed under the British government and that their religious freedoms were at stake because of the way they were treated by those in authority. Because of this threat, and as Burton mentioned the need for self-defense, I would have argued that the Revolution was totally biblical and acceptable.
Though the “popular” opinion in America would be that the Revolution was completely biblical, we should know by now that what is popular is not always right. After listening to the podcast, I can totally see why some would not call the Revolution biblical and how a very strong argument can be formed against it. We have been told that the government gets their power from the consent of the people and that without their consent, the government is useless. However, when we examine it from a Christian perspective we see that a government based not on consent is not necessarily a bad thing. It might not work as well as one which was based on the consent of the people, but biblically it is justified. God established government and it functions to carry out His will. Romans 13 clearly tells us that we are to honor those in authority above us. Civil disobedience is only permissible when we are being forced to do something that goes against what God has commanded us. Britain was established by God as the legal authority over us and they technically never forced us to sin.
Even though oppression may have been felt under the British and a better life was possible if a war was started, I would now have to say I have changed my position and believe that the American Revolution was not biblical.
The American Revolution was a result of The Declaration of Independence and the colonies want of separation from Britain. It is up for debate today if the revolution was biblical. Both sides must be examined. In order to know if the revolution was biblical or not, you must look at the reasoning for it in the first place.
The reason for the revolution was the colonies want of independence from Britain. This birthed The Declaration of Independence. In the declaration, Jefferson discusses that the authority of the government is only given by the consent of the governed. It is government’s job to protect the “unalienable Rights” of the people. If the government does not fulfill their duties, the people are entitled to eliminate or change it. Many people think that since many of the authors of The Declaration of Independence were “Christians” that it was God leading them to separate from Britain. They used God and scripture to support their separation from Britain. This would be support today for people who think the American Revolution was biblical.
However, there are a few things wrong with that view. One is in the wording of The Declaration of Independence itself. When Jefferson talks about it is up to the consent of the governed that authority is given to the government is not entirely biblical. In the Bible it talks about how God gives government authority. In Romans 13 it teaches that the governed are supposed to obey the government. The only time that they can disobey is when the government would cause them to sin. Britain may have been unjust, but they were not forcing the colonist to sin in any way. The Forefathers knew that religion was very important to the colonist. It was the “most useful tool of propaganda.” If the reasoning behind the revolution is not entirely biblical then I do not see a way that the revolution itself could be biblical.
The reason that most people argue that the revolution was biblical is because they are uneducated about the topic. It is obvious from scripture that the American Revolution was due to The Declaration of Independence. Since the declaration does not hold entirely true biblical, it is not possible for the revolution to be either.
Coming from a continent where rebellion, wars, coups have always been the order of the day. Where getting to one fight or revolution or whatever it may be is supported with justifiable reason depending on who is committing it and who is at the receiving end. I find it a little hard to take in, because is the Declaration of Independence classic example of the end justifying the means?
The end being a country where everybody is equal by virtue of our abilities, where the consent of the governed is always taken into consideration, where the rule of law is applied in respective of color, social status, religion or sex. I love this country, an epitome of democracy, equal opportunities and access to the simple amenities of life. I believe this was the dream of the fathers, this was exactly what they envisaged when they decided to rebel.
But the bowl of contention is that was this biblical, was the American Revolution an Act of Biblical Rebellion? Well for me the premise for the rebellion was wrong, our father believe that the source of government’s power is from the governed. From the teachings of Romans 13: 1-7, the government derive it’s just power from God, God establishes government, He institutes government. Government is a means of God’s grace and as such since the governed did not institute it they cannot rebel against it. Putting a government in the hands of the people is certainly not biblical. A classic example is when David got the chance to kill King Saul, the Bible says David knew God had anointed Saul King over Israel and as believed that God would chose when Saul should no longer be king.
In addition the clear long list of grievances against the King brings to the fall the reason why the colonist called for a change. Let’s assume all these grievances where true, does it constitute a reason to rebel? The Israelis where oppressed in the land of Egypt and all they said was that one day they know God would intervene on their behalf. Our allegiance should be unconditional; we are supposed to submit to govern. In respective of the action of the government this does not warrant a rebel. Dr Smith gave a clear and classic example when he said that only time we can rebel is when we are forced to sin, someone might say how about Daniel, three Hebrew Children, well were asked to bow to other gods which to them was against the Almighty God.
As I conclude, I do not think celebrating the revolution is glorifying sin, because governments who have taken the consent of the governed into consideration have been successful. But that being said the American Revolution was unbiblical.
Interesting perspective.
In examining the Declaration of Independence, there are differing opinions in determining whether it was biblically justified or not. Those supporting that is was not justified argue that the Declaration is filled with Deist phrases such as “consent of the governed” and “we hold these truths to be self-evident” and do not recognized God’s involvement and significance in our lives. Specifically, “the consent of the governed” is being used against God’s authoritative power, and thus denies that He is the source of authority by giving that power to the people. Moreover, when dissecting the grievances, it is argued that they were not worth the destruction of government, and that none of them were about the colonists being forced to sin. There was no religious war taking place between England and the colonies, nor was there the need to defend lives (only the defense of personal liberty). Last of all, there is no justification to a rebellion when citizens lead it, as opposed to another government. Because the colonists led a revolt against their mother country, they were in turn violating the principle laid out in Romans 13, commanding men to submit to authority.
On the other hand, it is argued that it was indeed Biblical due to the initial crimes of the king and the means of separation by the colonists. For this reason, I have to agree with the latter argument. The first reason is the blasphemous principles of “The Divine Right of Kinds” that were rejected by both the Christian and Deist colonists. Romans 13 never endorsed that philosophy, and the King of England sinfully placed himself as a God-head, especially over America. Furthermore, contracts and compacts were established between leaders in the colonies and the king that explicitly declared that the he would not directly reign over them, but through elected leaders. After continuous violations of these covenants, the colonists repeatedly called for redress of grievances, to which the king outright ignored. When the Declaration of Independence was finally written, not only were the founding fathers very cautious in approaching the situation, but they had no intent to start a war. It was the king’s response that stirred violence. Most importantly, the founding fathers were following Romans 13 by submitting to the lesser magistrates, recognized by the king, to lawfully resist oppression. In this case, it was completely necessary for America to separate, not only because of the obvious political reasons, but because there was a legitimate government leading the cause. In examining the Declaration of Independence, it is important to take this concept to its logical conclusion: should men never be able resist tyranny, regional government, or uphold justice in any situation? Because the colonists had designated and recognized authorities leading the separation, I believe that the Revolutionary war was just and principled.
Individual Assignment #2
Inasmuch as most of America believes the Declaration of Independence to be derived from the very mouth of God, God-breathed, if you will, a deeper study of both the bible and the events of America’s separation from Britain has shown that there is an improper biblical basis for separation. In the scripture of Romans 13 we find irrevocable truth that God institutes government and government is a means of God’s grace, thus we are to honor, obey and submit to government unconditionally, even if we do not necessarily agree with their moralistic standpoints. In the case of the separation from Britain, the latter was established clearly as the legal authority, and for the Colonists to have rebelled against them was clearly unbiblical, as according to Romans 13.
However, there is no doubt that there also exists biblical evidence for the uprising of people against their governments, and many have cited these passages as rationale for the separation from Britain. In lieu of a government that acts unjustly towards its people, as in the case of Daniel, Moses and numerous others, citizens do possess the right to rebel. When taking into account Britain’s actions in America, one might conclude that the Colonists did have the right to rebel. According to David Barton, these tendencies to cite Biblical text for rebellions “had been a subject of serious theological inquiries for centuries before the Enlightenment,” especially during the Reformation. Thus it could be concluded that it has been the tendencies of humans for ages to believe in their biblical rights to rise up against governments. Reverend Jacob Duche argues that “a submission to the unrighteous ordinances of unrighteous men, cannot be ‘for the Lord’s sake’” thus the Bible commends rebellion from abusive and oppressive governments.
In conclusion, though the Colonists might have been harboring the correct principles from certain parts of the bible, they failed to recognize that first and foremost, the government, which was Britain at the time, was ordained by God and though the latter might have been oppressive, they did not deprive the Colonists of life or property or religious rights, and ultimately, the Colonists were not forced to sin.
The debate over whether or not the American Revolution was a Biblical rebellion has been going on ever since the event occurred, and can become very heated at times. To be honest, I had never considered the American Revolution to be anything but Biblical until listening to the podcasts this week. But, the readings and podcasts of this week have caused me to reevaluate and analyze this important event in our country’s history and consider the possibility that our founding fathers may not have been correct in their decision to rebel.
The case for the American Revolution being a Biblical rebellion is a very strong one, and one that is extremely difficult to argue against from a logical perspective. The colonists and founding fathers were people very devoted to Scripture, and did not disregard the Bible when making this decision. In fact, one passage they looked at was Hebrews 11, which is the “Faith Hall of Fame.” In this passage, many of the people listed there took part in some level of civil disobedience when they were alive. Another supporting factor for the Rebellion was that many of the founding fathers believed that they were not in rebellion to God’s ordained institution of government, but instead they were simply resisting a tyranny present over them and not the institution itself. Thirdly, the colonists’ role in this fight was one of self-defense. They had tried several times to humbly approach the King of England and ask for changes to be made, only to be met with more strict laws and more British soldiers. Also, the British were the attackers in the Rebellion. They were the ones that fired the first shot and instigated the war, which justified Revolution for many of the founding fathers.
From a logical sense, the Revolution has a lot of support behind it. However, the goal is to evaluate the American Revolution from a Biblical view, which completely changes how we look at this event. From a Biblical perspective, Britain was the clear legal authority over the colonies, ordained by God and set in place by Him. The colonists could not and would not argue that before the Revolution, they were under the authority of the King of England. Also, the rules of this authority, however cruel and tyrannical they may have been, were not causing the colonists to sin against God. These rules were neither fair nor just, but they did not force anyone into sinning. The Revolution did not come from a direct order from God. Another important factor is the issue of self-defense is not accurately applicable here because what was in jeopardy was the colonists’ liberty, not their life. As difficult as it may be to admit, these two things are not equal and therefore this war was not about the colonies saving their own lives as much as it was about protecting their liberty. The American Revolution, though it turned out to be a good thing, was not a Biblically sound event and the credit is due to God for turning the sinful actions of man into something glorifying to Him.
This is definitely an interesting question. After reading David Barton’s piece on this topic along with listening to the podcast, whether or not the American Revolution was a biblical event is clearly a debate that has valid points and valid people on both sides. It was difficult to process all the information given but after analyzing and critiquing the arguments on both sides, I do not believe that the American Revolution was a biblical event.
There are several reasons for this. First, while the enlightenment, as some scholars disputed in Barton’s article, had not happened, the fact still remains that the new covenant was in place. That is to say that the people were still living in a time where Jesus had already come and paid for their sins. The New Testament had been written and delivered to the people. Therefore, while the biblical events that happened in the Old Testament are valid and are, in some ways, similar to the American Revolution, they are still very, very different from what happened in the American Revolution. The people living in the time of the Old Testament were living under a different covenant than the people living in the time of the American Revolution.
And, while the American people did not like how they were being treated (and rightfully so), I do not think there is enough proof to show that the American people were treated so unjustly that their life depended on the separation between America and England, unlike many biblical events where the lives of the people depended on winning a battle or war.
We also do not see any biblical examples of a war like the American Revolution in the New Testament. The people in many parts of the New Testament were oppressed severely and still yet they were commanded to obey the law or suffer the consequences gracefully. Never does Paul, for example, tell his people to rise up and start a war against the Romans despite the Roman harsh, unfair treatment of Christians. Instead, he says that if they must disobey the law, to accept the consequences.
Since the people during the American Revolution were under the new covenant and because there are no New Testament examples given for declaring war against the government because of oppression or disagreement, I have to say that I do not think the American Revolution was a biblical event. As Christians, instead of rising up against the law, we are called to obey it or gracefully accept the consequences of our disobeying. I do not think the American Revolution does this and is therefore not considered an event of the Bible.
Was the American Revolution Biblically defensible? It is an interesting question, and I would have to say no, but I am glad that it happened. As was pointed out in both the podcast and the essay, the Bible makes it clear that the government is to be respected based on it’s position of authority. We are to give to Cesar that which is Cesar’s, and give to God that which is God’s. As long as obeying “Cesar” doesn’t lead to sin, we have no basis to rebel and take the matter of government into our own hands. Nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, I am glad that it happened. Because of that revolution, a new government was born that has given us unparalleled freedoms and great opportunities to live our lives in the way we wish. We have no reason to fear the government as some Christians throughout history or throughout the world today have and do.