In preaching on Romans 13, I left out a more biblical defense of the American revolution. I wanted to jot briefly those thoughts here. Romans 13 has two main viewpoints: 1) It is a biblical prescription for a healthy government & argument against anarchy. 2) The divine right of kings, so the passage is absolute. After all, this was written under Nero who was not a godly king. The first viewpoint was the predominate view until King James 1. The second viewpoint, launched by King James because of those pesky reformers was held by the likes of John MacArthur and those who fled to Canada in 1776. I hold to the first viewpoint, Romans 13 is a biblical prescription for healthy politics. Here is why I believe the American Revolution did not violate Romans 13:

Violation of law

It is argued and read that Britain was not aboding by the law established. The move in Britain was towards equality under the law, and the monarchy was subjugated to the law via the Magna Carta. When The United States of America established herself as a country, the law as king was more firmly articulated. In terms of governance, the king was in a real sense not obeying Romans 13. The colonists were making great strides to reconcile. Those efforts were rebuffed militarily. The colonists, in Romans 13, were not over throwing government, which God established, but overthrowing tyranny. This is significant given the last verse of Romans 12 to “not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Loving your neighbor

A key aspect to the Gospel is to love your neighbor as yourself. Biblically that means putting another’s needs ahead of your own. When your neighbors are being persecuted by their own government what are you to do? The heroes of Hebrews 11 were known for standing opposed to the government in faith. How does one juxtapose these kinds of heroes with Romans 13? Hebrews 11 is a New Testament Church prescription. To outright say to overthrow a king would be treason. We know the Apostles were shrewd in their dealings with Rome. Rome is called Babylon in Revelation is an example. To stand apposed to tyranny for the sake of your neighbor is an act of faith. Hence the revolutionary phrase: “Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.”

Tyranny is to be apposed

Rev. Jacob Duché stated in his sermon “The Duty of Standing Fast in our Spiritual and Temporal Liberties” that: “Inasmuch as all rulers are in fact the servants of the public and appointed for no other purpose than to be “a terror to evil-doers and a praise to them that do well” [c.f., Rom. 13:3], whenever this Divine order is inverted – whenever these rulers abuse their sacred trust by unrighteous attempts to injure, oppress, and enslave those very persons from whom alone, under God, their power is derived – 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.” It should be noted that Rev. Jacob supported Britain.

For the Lord’s sake

Another incongruous thought the colonists rightfully had was how does one submit to tyranny “for the Lord’s sake” when doing so is aiding unrighteousness. To them, and for most of church history I’d presume, submission ends at tyranny. After all throughout biblical history people stood against governing authorities. Some were destroyed in their defiance, others delivered, but the pattern is there. Government is instituted by God, and thus anarchy is forbidden. A healthy government or politics will promote what is good and punish evil, the purpose upon which God ordained government. Our submission to government is to be a decent and orderly people under Christ.

Let’s go defense

The colonists also rightly believed that an offensive war was immoral. Often forgotten is how the colonists taught reconciliation while their neighbors were killed or harmed. The Revolutionary War was a defensive action by colonists, not an overthrow of government. Even the Bible declares to lay down one’s life for a friend is noble.

Conclusion

If Romans 13 was the only statement concerning governing and Saints’ interactions with government, then the dive right of kings viewpoint has merits. Held to other passages of Scripture and the historical actions of the Apostles, the idea of divine right of kinds loses its force. Christians are not to be militant anarchists, nor are they to be doormats. It takes shrewdness to discern what is the best course of action. But the operative orders in Romans is to not be overcome by evil, but to overcome evil with good. To stand opposed to tyranny for the sake of your neighbors is biblically noble. I believe the colonists were correct, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.