Can Rebellion Ever Be Justified?
 

The Bible says,

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;


1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.

These two scriptures say that we should submit unto kings and that rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

That being said, how in the light of these scriptures can one "scripturally" defend the original colonies rebellion against King George's rule and the Revolutionary war?

Remember, I am neither a Monarchist nor a defender of King George, I just wonder how in light of scripture can one justify Rebellion?

This should be interesting!:hypercoffee

Hmmm........

Was it rebellion for the Israelites to want to leave Pharaoh and Egypt for the promised land?

David did not allow Saul to kill him and lead men away from Saul. Was that rebellion?

Was it rebellious for Jesus to teach against the Pharisaical system that was in power in His day?

Interesting...

But....none of those scriptures involved "Armed Conflict" in rebellion.

Moses, Jesus, & David all let God fight for them-did he not?:hypercoffee

Paul also said
Rom 12:18 If it is possible, as far as is in you, being in peace with all men.

And Peter said
Act 5:29 And Peter and the apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

They engaged in Armed Conflict to kick the pagans out of the land they were to inherit

So it's only rebellion if it involves armed conflict?

Did anyone define what rebellion means?

BTW is Rebellion simply the act of doing bellion all over again? :killinme

It was the Crown that set up the Colonies.:hypercoffee

So God authorized the rebellion against the Crown?
Didn't he contradict his word?:hypercoffee

No it isn't.
That is a good point.

Shouldn't the colonies have allowed God to set them free?
After all, if the USA was ordained of God, couldn't God have defeated the British through some other means?:hypercoffee

have to tell you bro, i believe god built this country but we are fading from out roots, god help us, dt:hypercoffee

I believe your original question dealt with the death penalty under the NT dispensation of grace. In this scripture; 1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, The Apostle Paul indicates that the law is for the lawless. IMHO those that commit crimes punishable by death are under the law and therefore are candidates for any punishment rendered under the law.

This is a difficult question.
Yes, we are to obey the government which is in place
but
some times there may be a higher law
some times laws are unjust
etc.

The Apostles disobeyed the rules set down by the religious leaders of their day. That verse was previously quoted about obeying God rather than man.

In Holland, Christians hid Jews in defiance to the law by the government. Christians lied and practiced deception in getting forged documents and ration cards to feed Jews that they were hiding. How can we justify lying? Yet they were doing it for a greater good.

Yes, a group of rebels set up a new government in defiance to the established government of the Crown. Were they right or wrong? There are differences of opinion on that. They believed they were doing the right thing and asked God's blessing on it. Today looking back we are glad they did what they did.

What about unjust and unScriptural laws, requirements, and "standards" preached by a pastor. We are supposed to submit to our pastor but at times "we ought to obey God rather than man."

Sam, that is a good point.

Again, I am not a Monarchist, and I think King George was mad.
There is some evidence that he had syphilis & was a little off the deep end.

It is an interesting question though in that can "Rebellion" ever be justified &
in what circumstances.:hypercoffee

The founding fathers of the U.S. actually thought that there had been something of an "eschatological revolution" and that a "New World Order" existed. Look at the back of your dollar bill. The primary intellectual behind this way of thinking was none other than Sir Isaac Newton.

A few years ago a large trunk filled with unpublished and heretofore unknown writings of Sir Isaac was found. Many scholars were excited because they thought that they had found a treasure trove of scientific discovery from one of the greatest, if not the greatest scientific mind in human history.

Instead what they found was a huge cache of writings on the Books of Daniel and Revelation. It was Newton's theological studies for the the "end" of the "Great Chain of Being" and the foundation of the "New World."

The way the founding fathers looked at it, they weren't really "rebelling." They we simply following what "God" had started with the scientific revolution and adjusting the political world to better fit the new vision of the way things should be in Nature. It was all steeped in Deist philosophy, of course.

We got a dollar Coin & on the back is HM QE 2!:hypercoffee

Whoa... my bad. I forgot that you're one of those folks who knew better than to engage in that particular rebellion. LOL!

Oh, and congrats! That dollar is now worth the same as my dollar!

An example of divinely-appointed rebellion:


2 Chron 10:15-19 So the king hearkened not unto the people: for the cause was of God, that the LORD might perform his word, which he spake by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat. And when all Israel saw that the king would not hearken unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? and we have none inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to your tents, O Israel: and now, David, see to thine own house. So all Israel went to their tents. But as for the children of Israel that dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. Then king Rehoboam sent Hadoram that was over the tribute; and the children of Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. But king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. And Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day

1 Kings 11:26-40 The reason for the rebellion

I would rather have a dollar bill instead of a coin myself.
I think the monarchy thing is ready to go by the wayside myself.

That is an interesting scripture, however was God happy for them rebelling, or did he just allow it to accomplish his purposes?

you do realize you totally missed the point don't you?

I know everyone seems to be missing the question as well-is rebellion ever justified and in what context?:hypercoffee

I thought I answered that. When the laws or authorities act in such a way as to try to force you to disobey God.

Being taxed without proper representation is a proper excuse to go to war?

I ask this in light off a disscussion I had with another preacher who has seen a Pastor being unethical & doing questionable things.

He could have brought him before "AUTHORITIES" but God plainly spoke to him and to another minister and God said to"leave him alone" & that if they went after him God would, "go after them."

So would that be seen as being in rebellion to God appointed authorities & back to the original discussion, couldn't God have brought about the establishment of the USA without armed rebellion?:hypercoffee

I thought it was people who left the crown that set up the colonies. It was later that the "crown" saw the financial benefit of commandeering the political aspect of the colonies under the "authority" of the king. Were the pilgrims in the mayflower under jurisdiction of the king, or were they fleeing the tyranny of a diabolical monarchy? If they established their own "colony" free of tyranny, then the tyrant king presupposes authority that never was his to begin with, who are the real rebels? Wasn't the english parliament passing legislation with regard to the colonies without giving the constituents of the colonies a representative voice in parliament? It seems to me that the "crown" was overstepping his boundaries, and not the colonists. The "revolutionary" war was really a war of self defense (remember the boston massacre), rather than an uprising and rebellion. The colonists had fled english tyranny... the tyrant (like pharoah) attempted to subdue the people ex post facto liberation. The colonist's fight was a fight to preserve their liberty, not gain it! imo...

I believe that He was "happy" "to accomplish His purposes".

Define "rebellion". Then look at a case by case basis to see if it was true rebellion and whether God was "happy" with it.