The THEOLOGY of REVOLUTION
http://www.amprpress.com/revolution.htm
THE PILGRIMS
But in spite of their propensity for disobedience and rebellion to earthly governments they were not a lawless people. Their rebellions stemmed not from a spirit of anarchy, but rather from a true reverence for law. When the laws of men conflicted with the laws of God they did not submit but rather turned to the scriptures. The Bible was their textbook of political science and their only source of law. From the scriptures they maintained the sovereignty of God over against the sovereignty of kings and rulers. From the scriptures they maintained the supremacy of God's law over all other. And from the scriptures they developed the "theology of rebellion" that was the foundation of the liberties of our present civilization.
Their writings on the subject were legion. With the law of God as their sword they smote tyranny hip and thigh, and their scriptural expositions on government have ever been the nemesis of tyranny. Faced with tyranny they searched the scriptures, preached the scriptures, lived the scriptures, and fought the scriptures. As Bunyan said, who spent twelve years in Bedford jail for his nonconformity, during which he penned the immortal Pilgrim's Progress and other classic works, "I fought till my sword did cleave to my hand; and when they were joined together, as if a sword grew out of my arm; and when the blood ran through my fingers, then I fought with most courage."
THE PROBLEM
The problem is one of sovereignty and one of authority, who has it and how much, and under what restrictions. The problem then was a pope who claimed to rule with total authority on this earth as the Vicar of Christ and the Stuart monarchs who reigned with absolute power by the divine right of kings. The problem today is a federal government that considers itself absolute, total and sovereign, and a Supreme court that considers itself as the final and ultimate standard of all law. Their question was, if the powers that be (i.e. exist) are ordained of God, and they are, and if the pope and the king exist, and they do, must we submit, and hope and pray for better times. The question today is, when the Supreme Court has spoken (as it has on prayer, Bible reading, and abortion) do Christians have no alternative but to submit and obey the law of the land. The Puritans answered with a resounding NO as they led Charles I to the scaffold, drove James II from his throne, and stripped George III of his American colonies. So far Christians in America have meekly answered yes, and we are reaping the consequences.
HISTORY
The history of the theology of rebellion is the history of the Reformation. Before the Reformation the defense of the rights and liberties of the people was sporadic, and submission was the rule. The triumphs of Magna Charta and other ancient charters, liberties and privileges were never effectually maintained. The Reformation, heralding the sovereignty of God and the absoluteness of his word, challenged the usurped authorities of men. Suddenly works on the limitations of government, the inalienable rights of the people, and the right of resistance to tyranny became legion.
A major turning point was the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre that took place in France in 1572, in which untold thousands of Huguenots were slaughtered in Paris, precipitating three weeks of carnage throughout the realm, all with the complicity of the king. Before that the French Protestants had been fervent in their allegiance to the king, seeking to win his favor and being model subjects. After the massacre a series of classic works on the rights of the people, the limitations of government, and the right of rebellion against tyranny were issued by the Huguenots. The greatest of these, a timeless classic, is still the best work on the subject to this date.
WILLIAM OF ORANGE
But the most noble, dramatic and courageous of such works was the famed Apology of William of Orange (1580). It was the first one to transcend theory, applying it to the immediate hour, and the first to put such principles into practice. The year 1559 found France and Spain at war in the then Spanish Netherlands. In the providence of God William of Orange was selected as one of the ambassadors of peace. After the treaty was signed, Henry II of France confided to Orange that they had made peace with each other that they might wage war on their own subjects and destroy Protestantism from their realms. William said nothing of such perfidy, earning for himself the title of William the Silent, but in his heart he knew that such a king was no king at all, but an outlaw and he determined to defend his people from such treachery.
The bloody despotism and foul treachery of Philip II of Spain have long blotted and darkened the pages of history. For twenty years Orange had been the bulwark and defense of his people. For twenty years Orange had been the soul of the revolt of the United Netherlands, when Philip put a price on his ,head and placed him under the ban of the empire as a common outlaw.
"For these causes", concluded the ban, "we declare him traitor and miscreant, enemy of ourselves and of the country. As such we banish him perpetually from all our realms…We expose the said William Nassau as an enemy of the human race—giving his property to all who may seize it: And if any of our subjects or any stranger should be found sufficiently generous of heart to rid us of this pest, delivering him to us, alive or dead, or taking his life, we will cause to be furnished to him immediately after the deed shall have been done, the sum of twenty-five thousand crowns in gold. If he have committed any crime, however heinous, we promise to pardon him; and if he be not already noble, we will enoble him for his valor".
It was answered before the end of the year by the memorable "Apology of the Prince of Orange" one of the most startling documents in history.
The proscribed rebel, towering to a moral and even social superiority over the man who had affected to be his master by right divine, swept down upon his antagonist with crushing effect: He repudiated the idea of a king in the Netherlands. The word might be legitimate in Castille, or Naples, or the Indies, but the provinces knew no such title. PHILIP HAD INHERITED IN THOSE COUNTRIES ONLY THE POWER OF DUKE OR COUNT - A POWER CLOSELY LIMITED BY CONSTITUTIONS MORE ANCIENT THAN HIS BIRTHRIGHT. ORANGE WAS NO REBEL THEN - PHILIP NO LEGITIMATE MONARCH…
But whatever the hereditary claims of Philip in the country, HE HAD FORFEITED THEM BY THE VIOLATIONS OF HIS OATH, BY HIS TYRANNICAL SUPPRESSION OF THE CHARTER OF THE LAND; while by his personal crimes he had lost all pretension to sit in judgement upon his fellow man. WAS A PEOPLE NOT JUSTIFIED IN RISING AGAINST AUTHORITY WHEN ALL THEIR LAWS HAD BEEN TRODDEN UNDER FOOT, "NOT ONCE ONLY, BUT A MILLION OF TIMES?" (VN: Now does that not sound VERY FAMILIAR? Have not our laws been troddened over the same amount of times with no justice? When you have homeland security threatening to arrest dissidents as domestic terrorists for exercising their right to free speech, BUT THEN THEY DO NOTHING WHEN A GENUINE ACT OF TERROR IS COMMITTED BY PAULSON IN THREATENING OUR CONGRESS IF THEY DO NOT ACT AS ORDERED, then that is a classic case of fully defined act of terror, yet HLS did nothing about it when citizens tried to file a request to investigate, nada, no justice laws broken and ignored, same as the pilgrims who came here) - and was William of Orange, lawful husband of the virtuous Charlotte de Bourbon, to be denounced for moral delinquency by a lascivious, incestuous, adulterous and murderous king? With horrible distinctness he laid before the monarch all the crimes of which he believed 'him guilty, and having thus told Philip to his beard, "Thus diddest thou", he had a withering word for the priest who stood at his back. "Tell me," he cried, "by whose command Cardinal Granvelle administered poison to the Emperor Maximilian? I know what the Emperor told me…
He treated with scorn the price set upon his head, ridiculing this project to terrify him…and asking the monarch if he supposed the rebel ignorant of the various bargains which had frequently been made before with cutthroats and poisoners to take away his life. "I am in the hand of God," said William of Orange; "my worldly goods and my life hays been long since dedicated to His service. He will dispose of them as seems best for His glory and my salvation. " (Motley, Rise of the Dutch Republic, vol. 3 pp 493-496, emphasis mine).
VINDICIAE CONTRA TYRANNOS
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (A Defense Of Liberty Against Tyrants) is the most enduring and historically effective classic in its field. Originally published in Latin in 1579 and of necessity under the pseudonym of Junius Brutus, it was the greatest of the Huguenot works on the subject. Written in reaction to the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre it was subtitled Of The Lawful Power Of The Prince Over The People And Of The People Over The Prince, an obvious reference to the limitations of government and the rights of the people. For the next hundred years it was consistently reprinted whenever a theological defence was needed to either prepare for a coming onslaught against tyranny or to justify a recent overthrow of it. It was reprinted in Amsterdam in 1581, scarcely a year after the famed Apology, and echoed the same principles in thorough detail and with irrefutable logic. For the next century it was reprinted eight times, including such crucial dates in history as 1648 (overthrow of Charles I), 1660 (The Stuart Restoration), and 1689 (The Glorious Revolution).
THUS SAITH THE LORD
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos towers head and shoulders above other works striving to fill the same need and defend the same concepts. The strength of Vindiciae is the strength of Scripture. In a day and age when often even theologians were prone to exalt reason, classical learning and natural law, Vindiciae combines a logical development of the issues at stake with a Scriptural defense of each point. Vindiciae is the most thorough, consistent, logical and scriptural treatise of political science produced by the Reformation. Its foundation is the laws of Moses and that divine political science promulgated from Mount Sinai that established the Hebrew Republic. In fact Vindiciae assumes a knowledge, now so rare, of the republican elements of the Hebrew theocracy which formed the foundation for the American Republic. While patriots even now are prone to turn to the cultural dregs of ancient pagan Rome and Greece, Vindiciae turns to the true fountain of civil liberty, the law of God. Liberty is the exclusive product of the Christian faith, and Vindiciae was written for the Lord's people to give them a thus saith the Lord. The twentieth century has been an age of apostasy, spiritual sterility and therefore an age of totalitarianism and tyranny. Vindiciae was reprinted again in 1924 but never with more futility and less historical impact. Vindiciae will never harmonize with the spirit of this age, but it was written that even in this age the Lord's people might stand fast in defense of Christian liberty.
THE COVENANTS
The nature of government is covenantal. That is, it is based on covenants or contracts or what we today would call constitutions. Vindiciae establishes basically two such covenants as the basis of government. The first covenant is between God and the king, the second between God and the people. There are also mutual covenants between the king and the people. Thus the king makes a covenant with God and with the people, and the people make covenants with God and the king. The king covenants with God to rule as his minister, upholding his law. Then the king covenants with the people to rule them according to God's law, respecting their liberties and maintaining their unalienable God given rights. The people then covenant with God to be his people ruled by his law and they covenant with the king to submit to his authority as God's minister AS LONG AS HE RULES THEM BY GOD'S LAW AND RESPECTS THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Democracy sees only the covenant between the king and the people. Thus democracy ascribes all power to the people, ascribes sovereignty to the people and says that the voice of the people is the voice of God. This was the spirit of the French Revolution and is today parroted in the Maoist slogan Power to the People. Absolute monarchy sees only the covenant between God and the king. All power and sovereignty lies in the king who is appointed by God to rule as his minister on earth and is to be obeyed as God. This was the Stuart doctrine of 'Divine Right of Kings'. Both the above ideologies are conducive to absolutism and tyranny. Both of these place sovereignty and absolutism here on earth in man. Vindiciae avoids both these pitfalls of totalitarianism. Vindiciae finds power, but limited power, in both the people and the king and traces that power in each case back to God, the true depository of power and sovereignty. Thus both the rulers and the ruled, both king and people are under God and under God's law. Both the king and the people are a mutual check and balance on each other to keep each other within the bounds of God's law.
THE HEBREW REPUBLIC
One might well ask, but where do all these covenants come from? The beauty of all this is not only its simplicity and logic but, that it is eminently scriptural. The source of these covenants is found in the HEBREW REPUBLIC as established by God under Moses. In the original theocracy Jehovah was both God and king, thus simplifying the situation to a single covenant between the people and Jehovah. This covenant was promulgated by God from Mount Sinai and was ratified by the people in Exodus 24:3 and later again in Joshua 24:14-25. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20 we find the covenants that are to govern the future kings of Israel. In verse 15 the people covenant with God to set over themselves (elect) as king only him whom God should choose (nominate). In verses 18 & 19 the king covenants with God to rule according to his word. The rest of the passage contains constitutional limitations on government that the king covenants to keep.
These relationships can be clearly identified as working throughout the history of the Old Testament Hebrews. The covenant between God and the people was self-perpetuating unless rescinded due to apostasy. The other three covenants were renewed every time a new king was established in Israel. Both Saul and David, for example, were anointed by the prophet of God, establishing their covenantal relationship to God. They were anointed to rule as God's ministers over his people under God's law. However, neither Saul nor David became king till they were subsequently elected by the people. (I Sam. 10:1, 24; I Samuel 11:14-15; 1 Samuel 16:13; 2 Samuel 2:4; 2 Samuel 5:1-3). At the coronation of the king the people and the monarch make their mutual covenants, and no king is king till these covenants are made. The powers that be are ordained of God, but the God that ordained the end also ordained the means, and they are not kings or rulers till elected by the people.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Vindiciae is divided into four parts, each answering a fundamental question of political science. The first one deals with the question of civil disobedience, asking "Whether subjects are bound and ought to obey Princes, if they command that which is against the Law of God."
The answer to this question is NO, and it is the simplest one to answer. The king has unconditionally covenanted to rule according to God's law. The people have conditionally covenanted to obey him ONLY AS LONG AS HE DOES SO. The people have the obvious advantage and are not in the least obligated to obey a king who has violated his constitution with the people. Both the rulers and the ruled are under God's law and the people have covenanted to obey God, not an apostate king. Daniel and his three friends in Babylon echoed in their actions the words of the apostle Peter that we ought to obey God rather than men. (See Issue No. 3, Civil Government).
I DISAGREE WITH THIS PART, AND I DON'T SEE THIS AS TRUE(JO):
Christians disgusted with the civil disobedience of a Martin Luther King, Jr. ought to be careful to distinguish the difference. King was a lawless man whose doctrines brought anarchy and riot. He made man his own standard, a law unto himself, and his doctrine of selective compliance gave any man the right to disobey the laws he chose to. The Bible gives no man such right, but rather puts all under God's law. Scriptural civil disobedience is legal and lawful and upholds God's law in the face of a lawless ruler.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
The second question is "Whether it is lawful do resist a Prince which doth infringe the Law of God, or ruin the Church…". The answer given is YES! Properly stated, Vindiciae having already established the right to disobey ungodly laws, goes on to establish the right to resist, overthrow and remove ungodly rulers for the cause of religious liberty.
Although all men may be obligated to worship God, all such worship must be voluntary, and both Joshua and Elijah on Mount Carmel require the people to choose this day whom ye will serve', establishing the foundation of religious liberty. When Athaliah usurped the kingdom and caused idolatry to prosper she was overthrown and killed by the people, and the worship of Jehovah was restored. (2 Kings 11:17-21). The covenantal nature of government, too, comes into play again. The people have covenanted to worship Jehovah, and the king's idolatrous breach of his covenant with God in no wise abrogates the people's covenant with God and their duty to maintain it.
The king has, by his broken covenants, FORFEITED the right to rule, and the people have not only the RIGHT, but the DUTY to RESIST, REMOVE and REPLACE him. When the people fail in this duty they clearly share in God's judgments on the ruler, as the Bible persistently demonstrates. For example, when David sinned privately in the affair of Bathsheba the judgment of God fell only on his family. However, when David publicly transgressed God's law in the matter of the census, and the people failed to correct him as they had the power and the duty to do, the whole nation suffered the judgment of God in the matter (2 Samuel 12 and 24). God would not have a people covenant directly with him nor would he pronounce his judgments upon them if they were scripturally required to submit to wicked government. Rather God endows the people with authority to correct and remove wicked government and the responsibility to exercise that duty or suffer the consequences.
CIVIL LIBERTY
The third question, answered in the affirmative, is "Whether it be lawful to resist a Prince who doth oppress or ruin a public state". Here is established the people's right to overthrow civil tyranny, and here we find a scriptural foundation for all the principles of William of Orange's famed Apology. The constitutional arguments are similar to those of the previous question. Also no man has ever been born with a scepter in his hand or a crown on his brow, but as we have seen the powers that be are ordained (appointed) of God and elected by the people. They are thus responsible and under constitutional obligations to both. Kings are neither above the law nor can they make laws but rather are themselves under law and bound to uphold the law.
The basic law is God's law, and the people through their representatives may legislate others so long as they be in conformity with God's law. In 1 Samuel 14:24 Saul tries to legislate in the matter of eating food. In verse 44 Saul tries to condemn Jonathan his son on the basis of that law, and in the next verse the people rescue Jonathan from Saul's illegal actions. Not only does this prove that governments are not a law unto themselves, but also that they have no more power over the lives of their subjects than they do over their property, as the story of Naboth's vineyard clearly demonstrates. (1 KINGS 21).
Rulers are under law, and have no right to pardon the guilty or execute the innocent or expropriate property by eminent domain or any other device. When rulers fail to maintain the law they are OUTLAWS and REBELS, and those who love the law have the DUTY to punish them to the full extent of the law. When men govern according to law they are just rulers and when they do not they are tyrants and usurpers. Tyranny is lawlessness and must be met with the full force of the law. Submission in such a case is in itself lawlessness and CONSTITUTES SIN!!! When rulers violate their constitutional obligations to God and the people they FORFEIT THEIR RIGHT TO RULE. When the people acquiesce and submit to such lawlessness they FORFEIT their right to LIBERTY and must henceforth share in God's judgments on that nation.
In his old age Solomon apostatized and violated the covenant of Deuteronomy 17, and all of Samuel's predictions and warnings of 1 Samuel 8 regarding an apostate king came to pass. The people were oppressed, burdened and heavily taxed to support a king in opulent splendor. When Solomon died the tribes assembled in Shechem to elect a new king. Rehoboam, Solomon's son, foolishly refused to be bound by God's law or restricted by the ancient rights of the people. Rehoboam refused to covenant with the leaders of Israel according to the requirements of God's law. Rehoboam refused to be a constitutional monarch of a limited government.
The ten northern tribes, however, did not submit but simply refused to make him their king, and went on to elect Jeroboam as their king. (1 Kings 12). All of this was strictly legal and in accordance with God's will, as both kings were appointed by him (1 Kings 11:30-37), again emphasizing that kings are appointed of God and elected of the people and that no man is a legal king or ruler till both these covenants have been fulfilled. Thus the ten northern tribes overthrew the Davidic dynasty for reasons of civil oppression and tyranny, and what could be a better lesson for both Christians and oppressive governments today.
On the other hand, rebellion against legal and constitutional government is a crime that God will not fail to punish, as he did so dramatically in the case of Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Numbers 16), the earth swallowing them up in destruction. Again we see the supremacy of law, God's law. Rebellion against God's law is a frightful crime, rebellion in favor of God's law is a fearful duty.
THE CAUSE OF LIBERTY
The fourth question answered again in the affirmative is "Whether neighbour princes may, or are bound by law to aid the subjects of other princes, persecuted for true religion, or oppressed by manifest tyranny".
Our duties do not end with our own nation. The body of Christ is one. Paul says when one member suffers all suffer. Christ has said if ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto me. Are we to indolently enjoy our liberties and leave the body of Christ to suffer persecution and tyranny elsewhere? Moses compares those who abandon their brethren to the rebels of Kadesh-barnea. The parable of the Good Samaritan extends our obligations not only to our brethren in Christ but to any stranger unjustly afflicted.
It is a poor commentary on this nation that while so many foreign patriots flocked to our standard in 1776, no Americans flocked to the standard of the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956. It is a sad commentary on the professing church of Jesus Christ in this nation that we have suffered the church behind the iron and bamboo curtains to be annihilated. How will Christ be answered on judgment day when he says, "I was afflicted and ye aided me not"?
UNLIMITED SUBMISSION
None are so blind as those that will not see. The apostles of unqualified obedience will take these scriptures and do with them according to the apostle Peter when he said, "which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction". When the Bible exhorts the Lord's people to obedience to government, what kind of government does the scripture refer to? The Bible defines its own terns, and obviously in this case the scriptures refer to Biblically, constituted, legal governments.
Tyrants are not legal rulers, but rather are rebels and outlaws and not worthy of the obedience of the Lord's people. Peter's exhortation in 1 Peter 2:13 to "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man" is qualified in the next verse as referring to those sent by God as his ministers to punish evil and enforce God's law. Paul's injunction, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers" in Romans 13:1 is equally clear. To resist good government, acting as the minister of God (verse 4) enforcing God's law (verse 9); is obviously resisting God himself as charged (verse 2). But to apply this to tyrants is truly wresting the scriptures to our own destruction.
UNLIMITED SUBMISSION IS LAWLESSNESS!
UNLIMITED SUBMISSION IS SIN I !
UNLIMITED SUBMISSION TO ANY OTHER THAN GOD IS IDOLATRY!!!
CONCLUSION
While the governments of this world are maintaining their covenant with death and their agreement with hell, let us keep our covenant with God. While the ungodly are putting their trust in princes, let us put our trust in God. While the world is preparing to receive the Anti-Christ, the man of sin, the Lawless One, let us be prepared to maintain Gods law, whatever the price. John Bunyan spent 12 years in jail because of his conformity to Gods law. Nathan Hale rejoiced that he had at least one life to sacrifice in the cause of liberty. Let us be prepared to do likewise. AMEN!
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Vatic Clerk Tips: After 7 days, all comments to an article go into the moderation queue for approval which happens at least once a day. Please be patient.
Be respectful in your comments, keeping in mind that these discussions will become the Zeitgeist of our time that future database archeologists will discover. Make your comments worthy and on the founding father's level in their respectfulness, reasoning, and sound argumentation. Prove we weren't all idiots in our day and age. Comments that advocate sedition or violence are not encouraged. Racist, ad hominem, and troll-baiting comments might never see the light of day.