You can listen to the interview here:

http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5434&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=rad_

Any ordinary schoolchild can tell you (with today’s public indoctrination camps, let me say that hopefully can tell you) that the whole history of the United States Constitution began when our nation, in particular our Founding Fathers, decided to become a nation independent of the government and laws of Great Britain. But was the motive, or even the very act of revolting from England — an act of blatant civil disobedience — in accordance with Scripture? What about the Romans 13 passage, that says to be subject to civil authorities?

Of course, in both the Christian and non-Christian sphere, there are those who oppose the idea that the Revolution was biblically justified. This opposition is based upon several erroneous presuppositions.

The most notable of these erroneous presuppositions is that the Romans 13 passage establishes the doctrine of the “divine right of kings.” This heretical doctrine is not only absurd, but it is clearly unbiblical. God never once told the prophets of the Old Testament to keep quiet or to “be subject” to the wicked decrees of kings and queens; God often harshly rebuked these kings through the prophets for their unjust acts. Because Israel had such an enormous problem with many evil kings, the Old Testament is filled with accounts of such rebukes and punishments. Such Old Testament passages, and even the Romans 13 passage itself, disprove the idea that God established the “divine right of kings.” Let us examine the Romans passage more closely:

“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. Therefore, whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this 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 are due, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor” (Romans 13:1-7; NKJV).

There are several things that needed to be pointed out in this passage. First of all, Paul gives the definition of true authority. Authority, which is the essence of government, is ultimately derived from God — in other words, the institution of government has been created by God for the purpose of controlling mankind from devouring one another due to their sinful and selfish nature. Because the institution of government is created by God, those in government are accountable to God for the way in which they relate to the supreme authority of God’s law (revealed in the Scriptures). Second, the Apostle Paul qualifies who true rulers are — a terror not to good works but to evil; who “bears the sword” to punish evildoers.

To read this passage with the assumption that Paul said to blindly obey whatever the government should decree is erroneous. The early Christians, and Paul himself, often practiced civil disobedience when the decrees of the Roman emperors or the commands of the Jewish leaders contradicted the laws and commandments of God. In one such case, the Apostle Peter (the same Apostle who wrote “fear God, honor the king” in 1 Peter 2:17) boldly declared to the Jewish priests “Whether is it right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20). As to the letter that Peter wrote years later, when he said “Fear God. Honor the king,” notice that he said “Fear God” first. Godly fear is the first priority. And why shouldn’t it be? God created mankind, and when the first man sinned and passed on to the human race a corrupted human nature, God created the institution of government. Therefore, all governments and all rulers owe their own authority and allegiance to God, and are expected to rule justly according to God’s commandments. When rulers and governments scorn and spurn God’s law, than those under the authority of such rulers have the obligation before God to commit civil disobedience, and obey God rather than man.

How then do we “honor the king,” as the Bible commands us? In the same passage that Peter wrote those words, he wrote these words, which echo the theme of the Romans 13 passage:

“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men — as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king” (1 Peter 2:13-17; emphasis added).

Peter’s words simply mean that we are to show respect to authority by “obeying every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” If, therefore, the king or ruler should declare an ordinance contrary to God’s law, we do not observe that ordinance for the Lord’s sake. But because government is an institution created by God, and rulers have a great responsibility, we are obligated to observe and obey their decrees, so long as those decrees to not require a transgression of God’s law on our part.

The second most notable erroneous supposition which leads people to view the American Revolution as being unbiblical is a great misunderstanding of why we separated from Great Britain and became our own nation. Most Americans have been and are being brought up with the great deception that the feud between America and Great Britain began with Parliament’s issuance of the Stamp Act in 1765. The Americans are portrayed as having a problem with being taxed to the hilt, and therefore, they decided that their government was tyrannical. After the course of several years, the Americans decided to become independent, and form a democratic form of government in which everyone was given an equal say in the affairs of government. But a look into the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves, and the Founding Documents themselves, disproves this common view of the American Revolution.

Alexander Hamilton himself refuted this presupposition:<

“That they have an invincible aversion to common-sense is apparent in many respects … even that our contest with Britain is founded entirely upon the petty duty of three pence per pound on East India tea, whereas the whole world knows it is built upon this interesting question, whether the inhabitants of Great Britain have a right to dispose of the lives and properties of the inhabitants of America, or not. … But some people try to make you believe we [American patriots] are disputing about the foolish trifle of three pence duty upon tea. They may as well tell you that black is white. Surely you can judge for yourselves. Is a dispute, whether the Parliament of Great Britain shall make what laws and impose what taxes they please upon us, or not; I say, is this a dispute about three pence duty upon tea? The man that affirms it deserves to be laughed at.” (1)

Hamilton continues:

“It is true, we are denying to pay the duty upon tea; but it is not for the value of the thing itself. It is because we cannot submit to that without acknowledging the principle upon which it is founded; and that principle is, a right to tax us in all cases whatsoever.

“You [Americans] have heretofore experienced the benefit of being taxed by your own Assemblies only. Your burdens are so light that you scarcely feel them. You’d soon find the difference, if you were once to let the Parliament have the management of these matters.”

Hamilton subsequently brings the issue into focus, and his words make clear that the Americans did not risk all they owned in a war in which victory was not guaranteed merely because of heavy taxation (if such was the case, then Americans in the present generation should have revolted against our own government years ago). He brings to attention the fact that because the Parliament was imposing cruel and unjust acts upon the colonists, when the colonists had never consented to be subject to the decrees of Parliament in the first place, our basic human rights were now at stake. He writes:

“But being ruined by taxes is not the worst you have to fear. What security would you have for your lives? How can any of you be sure you would have the free enjoyment of your religion long? Would you put your religion in the power of any set of men living? Remember civil and religious liberty always go together: if the foundation of the one be sapped, the other will fall of course.”

Indeed, the Americans had far greater troubles that confronted them than mere taxation. Taxation was heavy and unjust, and just as Hamilton said, the colonists resisted it, because Parliament was taking what did not belong to it, without the consent of the colonists.

But Jesus never commanded his disciples to resist the heavy, nay, unjust taxes of the Roman emperors, and start a new country. Was this action by the Americans unbiblical? Not in any way. Here is the true story of the beginning of the American Revolution.

When the first colonists landed upon the shores of America, they did acknowledge their allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and the charters of early America show that the early Americans did consent to be colonies of Great Britain. These charters delineated the relationship between the American colonies and the King of England. The colonists agreed to be British citizens, and in return, the King promised the colonists the protection of his army and navy. The charters allowed the colonists to be governed under the decrees of their own colonial governments, instead of the British Parliament. As was the case in most of the colonies, the colonial officials were confirmed or appointed by the British crown.

America had begun to make moves toward unifying into a single nation or confederation, but the sense of national unity never came until the French and Indian War broke out over a land dispute between Britain and France. Both countries claimed that the American colonies, or large parts of them, belonged to themselves. Of course, the American colonists sided with England, and during the course of the war, Americans were united like never before as they faced their common enemy: France. As history shows, the contest ended in success for Great Britain, and France grudgingly accepted defeat — and the fact that they had lost Canadian territory, adjacent to northern New York State, to the British.

After the war ended, King George III came to power, and like several of his royal predecessors, he tried to take advantage of the colonies, and usurp more power and eliminate their self-government (the English Kings did have a fear that they would lose their American colonies, if enough colonists got the notion of forming an independent nation). Unlike most of the previous kings before him, George III decided to use Parliament as his weapon, instead of allowing that body to be his contestant. He bribed many of the members of Parliament into passing laws that would restrict the colonies from growing and prospering economically without direct intercourse with Britain (sounds eerily familiar). He sent his troops over to the colonies in droves, in order to plunder the people of their weapons; furthermore, these troops were given full permission by the British government to force to be housed in the homes of private Americans. If these troops acted disorderly, the homeowner was punished for complaining about the King’s soldiers. The rights of trial by jury of one’s peers was also stripped from the colonists. As there began to be mounting clout about what the British government was doing, Great Britain cast the last straw, by dissolving the colonial legislatures, and appointing all of the members itself!

The actions of the British government were a total violation of the charters that England and the colonies had agreed to. America did not decide then and there that we needed to become independent; all of English law and all of the legal precedent was on our side. In addition, there was extreme danger of declaring independence immediately. Great Britain was the only source of unity among the American colonies — besides that, each colony had its own form of government (although the basic forms among all were generally the same), their own laws, which were made independently of other colonies, and their own currencies. So, for the initial years of struggle between America and the mother country; however, the King constantly postponed and then ignored whatever the colonial diplomats had to say. How could the colonists make their complaints known to the King if he wouldn’t even listen? Furthermore, if he refused to listen, was it really worth trying to make their way into the King’s Court?

Since the King would do nothing about the colonists’ struggles with English government — Parliament in particular, because Parliament had, according to the colonial charters, no right to pass acts binding upon the colonists, especially acts that allowed the English government to do anything whatever to the colonists — the colonists decided to fend for themselves. The most famous act of self-defense against English tyranny that erupted during this time was the Boston Tea Party, a non-violent act of protest against the cruel acts of Parliament.

As may have been expected, the British government was furious when news of the “tea Party” reached London. George III declared the colonies to be in rebellion, and declared war on them. This fact is also extremely important in our understanding of the American Revolution. The American colonists never did anything to instigate the war. Great Britain started the War for Independence, not the American colonists. Therefore, as far as the Americans were concerned, the Revolution was a 100% defensive warfare. They were defending themselves from the “invaders,” “intruders,” and “conquerers.” Oftentimes, General Washington would refuse offers by the British to surrender his forces (when the war actually began, of course), because such would mean that he would then bear the responsibility of making his countrymen vulnerable to the onslaughts of the “invaders.” Defensive warfare is biblical; offensive warfare (for the sake of gain, spite, etc.) are unbiblical. The American Revolution, in this respect is perfectly biblical. John Jay, on of New York State’s earliest patriots, and one of the first members of the First Continental Congress, wrote an essay on biblical war and non-biblical war, and demonstrated that the Revolutionary War was biblical, because it was a defensive war.

Upon declaring the colonies in manifest rebellion, George III sent the whole force of his navy to bombard and blockade Boston Harbor, with the intent of starving the city to extinction. He did likewise to the port of Charleston, South Carolina. When news of this reached the First Continental Congress, which was formed earlier that year in 1774, the delegates immediately decided to open their next session with prayer. The prayer that they opened was nothing like the formal prayers with which Congress is opened today; would to God that those prayers would make the Congressmen and Congresswomen weep! –at least! Such was the case with the first prayer in the Continental Congress. You can read about this prayer here.

This prayer is another fact worth noting in the context of the Christian-nation, biblical revolution/debate. Those who claim that the Revolution was unbiblical may declaim it as such, all they please, but anyone who reads this prayer and the documents relating to the event must answer why the Founders immediately fell to their knees and sought God for wisdom at such a critical time. They clearly appealed to the Christian God, for Jesus Christ is mentioned as being God’s Son. They never considered bringing in a non-Christian religious leader to pray, and they did not bring in all or many world faiths into the opening prayer at Congress. The tone for the Revolution was overwhelmingly Christian.

A fascinating glimpse of this Christian tone can be caught simply by reading the first volume of John Church Hamilton’s (Alexander Hamilton’s son) History of the Republic of the United States …, volume one pages 111-114:

“Three months later, the people of North Carolina, fired by the blood shed at Lexington, took the decisive step of declaring at Mecklenburg [footnote: "May 31, 1775"], ‘We dissolve the political bands which have connected us with our mother country — we absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown — declare ourselves a free and independent people, are and of right ought to be, a sovereign, self-governing association, under the control of no power other than that of our God, and the general government of Congress — to the maintenance of which Independence we solemnly pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our most sacred honor.’ Words imperishable, richer than the rich gold of their hills and valleys.

“Ere the close of this year, a writer with all the solemnity of religious feeling and fresh hope of the festive season [footnote: " 'Salus populi,' Dec. 27, 1775"], wrote in Philadelphia on Christmas eve, ‘We may believe the Divine counsel to the united colonies is, Now is your time to form one general plan of an American union and constitution which shall dissolve only with the last breath of your expiring liberty; which under my protection will for an everlasting barrier against tyrannical encroachments — an American empire of liberty.’ ‘The rattlesnake on the drum of a marine, “Don’t tread on me,” among other its habits, is solitary, and associates with her kind only when it is necessary for their preservation. In WINTER the warmth of a number together will preserve their lives, while singly they would probably perish.’ [footnote: "American Archives, iv. 469"]

“New Hampshire exclaimed, ‘Thanks be to Heaven! There is yet a way open to us, not only to escape the threatened ruin, but to become a happy, wealthy, powerful, respectable people. By declaring an immediate independency, proclaiming a neutrality, opening and declaring free all our ports, promoting manufactories,’ wise words from the far East.

“Nathaniel Greene, passing from the plough and the forge where his Quaker father had taught him virtue and labor, to that high place for which nature extended him, writes in the opening year of seventy-six from Rhode island, where he had harangued, collected, and was drilling his troops, with all the sublimity of the theme and of his own true spirit. ‘Permit me to recommend from the sincerity of my heart, ready to bleed in my country’s cause, a declaration of independence; and call upon the world and the great God who governs it, to witness the necessity, propriety, and rectitude of it. You stand the representatives, not of AMERICA only, but of the whole world, the friends of liberty and the supporters of human nature.’ [footnote: "Jan. 4, 1776. To Samuel Ward, in Congress"] …

” ‘But where is the king of America? He reigns above. Let it be that in America the law is king.’ “[footnote: " 'Plain Hints.' March 13, 1776."]

“Connecticut was told to make use of her charter government as a popular government, carrying the elective principle to its fullest extent, and upon that basis to from a continental government. …

Judge Drayton in South Carolina charged a grand jury fully on the doctrines of allegiance and abdication, and drew a part of the outline of the declaration of independence in its very words. [footnote: "American Archives, v. 1026"] ‘It is my duty boldly to declare the law, that George the Third, king of Great Britain, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant; that is, he has not authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him.’ ‘The Almighty created America to be independent of Great Britain.’ …

” ‘My hand and heart are full of it,’ wrote the clear, strong-minded Hawley from among the hills of western Massachusetts. ‘There will be no abiding UNION without it. When the colonies came to be pressed with taxes, they will divide and crumble to pieces. Will a government stand on recommendations? Can we subsist and support our trading people without trade? It appears more and more every day in the country and army that we cannot. Nay, without a real continental government our army will overrun us; and people will, by and by, sooner than you may be aware of, call for their old constitutions. For God’s sake, let there be a full revolution, or all is done in vain. Independency and a well-planned government will save us. God bless you. Amen and amen.’ [footnote: "Joseph Hawley to Elbridge Gerry, May 1 -- American Archives."]

” ‘We have passed the rubicon, there is no retreat,’ was told to a hesitating man in Pennsylvania. ‘My prayer is, that America may rise triumphant, blossom as the rose, and swell with increasing splendor like the growing beauties of the spring, bearing in her right and the great charter of salvation — the Gospel of the Heavenly Jesus; and in her left the unfolded volumes of peace, liberty, and truth.’ [footnote: "Cosmopolitan, No. x. May. -- Ibid."]“

Earlier in this same book, John C. Hamilton writes:

“While the question [of submission to Parliament, unjust taxation, etc.] had assumed this grave form, the public feeling of the easter and middle colonies was aroused by a discussion of intense interest. As early as the reign of Queen Anne, the project of establishing an episcopate in America had been contemplated. It was supposed that the good humor consequent of the repeal of the stamp act might warrant the experiment, and a sermon of an English bishop [footnote: "Bishop of Landaff."], indicating its policy, was now received in America. To a vast population of Dissenters, nothing could be more offensive. The press teemed. The Episcopal clergy of New York banded together in its advocacy. The gauntlet was taken up. The dangers and arrogance of a prelacy were depicted. An endowed mitre, with a dependent and controlled clergy, were but the prelude tot he Established Church. Ecclesiastical courts will follow. Where would religious freedom next take refuge? No greater error can be committed than to undervalue the power of religious sentiment in this great revolution. The rights of dissent were at its foundation. And thus it was, that in this discussion, an acrimony much sharper than all the aggressions of the crown had caused, was shown; and, ere its close, that the first open declaration and prophecy of a near INDEPENDENCE was uttered. “(emphasis added)

” ‘Courage, Americans,’ said the American Whig, ‘liberty, religion, and sciences are on the wing to these shores. The finger of God points out a mighty empire to your sons. The savages of the wilderness were never expelled to make room for IDOLATERS and SLAVES. The land we possess is the gift of Heaven to our fathers, and Divine Providence seems to have decreed it to our latest posterity. The day dawns, in which the foundation of this mighty empire is to be laid, by the establishment of a regular AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. All that has hitherto been done seems to be little beside the collection of materials for this glorious fabric. ‘Tis time to put them together. The transfer of the European family is so vast, and our growth so swift, that before seven years roll over our heads, the first stone must be laid.’ [footnote: "American Whig, No. V., April 11; begun March 14, 1768, in N.Y. Weekly Gazette. These essays were by William Livingston, afterwards Governor of New Jersey. -- Life by Theodore Sedgwick, 145."] (pp.

Astounding. The “first stone” was laid seven years and eight days later — on April 19, 1775, at Lexington Green in Massachusetts, when the “shot hear ’round toe world” was fired.

And note Hamilton’s statement which I put in italics: “No greater error can be committed than to undervalue the power of religious sentiment in this great revolution. The rights of dissent were at its foundation.” (pp. 24-25) Is this an overstatement? I answer: How can it be? After all the evidence he cited, than it is out of the question.John Church Hamilton’s impression of the Revolution being fueled by the concern of Dissenters for their religious freedom is not surprising. It was the concern of his father, Alexander Hamilton. At about the same time that Alexander Hamilton was eloquently defending the rights of Americans in such pamphlets as “A Full Vindication of the Measure of the Continental Congress …” and “The Farmer Refuted,” he penned “Remarks on the Quebec Bill,” which had two “Parts.” He wrote:

he privilege of worshipping [sic] the Deity in the manner his conscience dictates, which is one of the dearest he enjoys, must in that case be rendered insecure and precarious.” (2)

Hamilton expressed his own fears, as well as the fears of his fellow Americans:

“For what can more nearly concern the safety and happiness of subjects, than the wise economy, and equitable constitution of those courts in which trials for life, liberty, property, and religion are to be conducted? Should it ever comport with the designs of an ambitious and wicked minister, we may see an Inquisition erected in Canada, and priestly tyranny hereafter find as propitious a soil in America as it ever has in Spain or Portugal.”

It is worth noting that the Quebec Acts were not binding upon Americans, but Canadians. However, the Founders were concerned about the effect of the Acts upon American liberties, and as Hamilton did in this pamphlet, pointed to the Acts as a fearful example of the ways in which the British government was unjustly assuming authority over the lives of Americans. “If they can do this terrible thing in Canada, than they can do it to us,” was their apprehension. Samuel Adams (“Father of the American Revolution”) had feared the encroachment of the Catholic leadership ever since 1768, when he wrote:

“While it is frown fashionable, for men of ingenuity and public spirit, with a noble ardour [sic], to warn us against a tame submission to the iron rods; and LIBERTY, LIBERTY, is the Cry: I confess I am surpriz’d to find, that so little attention is given to the danger we are in, of the utter loss of those religious Rights, the enjoyment of which our good forefathers had more especially in their intention, when they explored and settled this new world. To say the truth, I have from long observation been apprehensive, that what we have above everything else to fear, is POPERY … There is a variety of ways in which POPERY, the idolatry of christians, may be introduced into America: which at present I shall not so much as hint at, but shall point them out hereafter in their proper order. Yet, my dear countrymen — suffer me at this time, in the bowels of my compassion, to warn you all, as you value your precious civil Liberty, and everything you can call dear to you, to be upon your guard against POPERY. My fears of POPERY have induced me to travel thro’ this great continent to satisfy myself: And the more I know of the circumstances of America, I am sorry to say it, the more reason I be apprehensive of POPERY.” ( ; emphasis original) (3)

So we see that the Revolution was not unbiblical. The Founders did not fight because they were upset at taxation, and wanted to establish a democracy. The Americans did not instigate the War; they defended themselves against tyrannical rule and oppression. When their own government turned on them in an unequivocal act of war and terrorism, they turned to God in earnest prayer. When they separated themselves from the mother country, they appealed to God and His law as the vindicator of their cause, and they openly stated that they viewed no government to be supreme to His, and that therefore, earthly kings did not hold absolute authority over people. Was this standpoint unbiblical? Hardly.

One of the Founding Fathers, one of the greatest and most powerful voices for liberty and American independence, eloquently and passionately disproved the idea that the Founders forged this Revolution in spite of God. Patrick Henry spoke the following words in the speech which made him immortal in the minds of his countrymen, in his “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death” address on March 23, 1775, approximately one month before his prophecy “The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!” was fulfilled on April 19 of that year. Henry said:

If we wish to be free–if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. … Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. … It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace–but there is no peace [1 Thessalonians 5:3]. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

This speech, is apparently, no longer required reading in public schools. I suppose they are to afraid of the Anti-Christian Liberties Union, who would denounce a speech of a Founding Father as un-constitutional, and psychologically harmful to children. Oh! the insanity.

In my next post, I shall take a look at the motto of the American Revolution, “No King but King Jesus,” which completely disproves the claim that our Revolution was unbiblical.

Then, in the succeeding posts, we shall look at how the Founders progressed their biblical worldview in the form of government that they established.