Citizen Soldier

Army. What do you think of when someone says army?
Duh, camo of course.
Camo is a universal symbol of the Army. All over the world, almost every nations' military uniform is some knockoff of some type of camouflage.

  

Unless you are a hunter or an outdoorsy person, camo has a sole link to the armed forces of our particular nation. 

The Army. We sorta take it for granted, don't we? It's there, it's camo, and it keeps us safe and other nations in line.

What I am about to say, is going to be rather shocking, for several reasons.
One, probably because you may have never even heard of this debate before. I only heard about it through studying the revolution and the papers and debates that were flying around at the time.
Two, my dad is is the army. 

So are you ready for the shock? Brace yourselves......

Is having an army Biblical? 

You just got a really confused look on your face. 

It went like this.

"Huh? Of course it is, I mean, Israel had an army, King David had an army, God told them to have an army. Of course its Biblical!"

Well, were gonna take three steps back and look at this thing from a different angle. To start properly, we have to go all the way back. That's right, Old Testament. 

Back before Man sinned, there was no army. *Rolling eyes* Obviously, since there was nobody needing protection for any bad-guys, since bad-guys didn't exist, there was no need of an army to protect anybody. 

Ok, now we have run into a undefined term that we had better straighten up. What's an army? 

Here's the 1828 dictionary on that. 

1. A collection or body of men armed for war, and organized in companies, battalions, regiments, brigades and divisions, under proper officers. In general, an army in modern times consists of infantry and cavalry, with artillery; although the union of all is not essential to the constitution of an army. Among savages, armies are differently formed.

2. A great number; a vast multitude; as an army of locusts or caterpillars. Joel 2:25.

Ok, now the 1913 version.

Army (army)
n.	((?))
Ar"my
[F. armée, fr. L. armata, fem. of armatus, p. p. of armare to arm. Cf. Armada.]

A collection or body of men armed for war, esp. one organized in companies, battalions, regiments, brigades, and divisions, under proper officers.









A body of persons organized for the advancement of a cause; as, the Blue Ribbon Army.










A great number; a vast multitude; a host.
An army of good words.
Shak.
Standing army, a permanent army of professional soldiers, as distinguished from militia or volunteers.

Ok, well, that helps a little bit. 

A collection of men, all got together to fight - put in layman terms.

Ah, but notice that last line of the 1913. 

Standing army, a permanent army of professional soldiers, as distinguished from militia or volunteers.

Ok, keep that in the back of your mind as we go back to the Old Testament. 

The first time you hear of God's people having or being in an army, as far as I can tell, is when the Israelites were leaving the Egypt for the Promise land. 

Since they had an army, and God told them to have it, we are going to assume that having an "Army" is Biblical. 

Great! So then what's the debate? We just determined that an army is Biblical, didn't we? 

The great debate is over the nature of said Army.  

Huh?

Ok, I know I am really starting to confuse you, but hear me out. Let's keep going in our study of the OT.

So, Israel had an army. What did that army look like? 

Well, if you read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and the like, their "army" was not what we think of today (and I am not talking about weaponry).

Today's army is owned, operated, and ran by the government. The "Department of Defense" is our branch of the government that has the duty of maintaining our army, training our army, and making sure our troops are up to date on what they need to be to be a soldier. 

The Israeli army was a tad different. 

It was what would be called nowadays a "citizen militia". It was a group of people, who lived their everyday lives doing their everyday things, being whatever they were (butcher, baker, candlemaker, etc.) and when God called the signal, the butcher, the baker and the candlemaker all dropped what they were doing, grabbed up their swords, organized themselves, went wherever God told them to go, and whopped the pants off whoever God had pitted them against.

That's about all there was to it. They got categorized by tribe and family, but besides that, there wasn't much else to it as far as I can see.   

No formal training. No drills. No..... anything. Nowadays you sign up and you are a "soldier", owned by the government, and you are federal property. 

Which one is right? Does it really matter anyway? 

Well, it actually has more significance than one would first think. The founding fathers of this country realized the seriousness of this issue, and a great many debates that spanned close to ten years were had on the issue of federalization or antifederalization. Basically, it was a debate over whether we were gonna have a government that was ruled by officials, picked by the people, to make decisions, or were we gonna have a government of basically no officials, minimal regulations, keeping the people free, but having punishments for when people stepped outside of God's law. 

One of the main debates was on whether or not America should have a standing army. 

That right there is the whole key. 

Standing army. 

Up until then, America had had a " citizen militia", where everybody grabbed their guns and came out to fight to protect their neck of the woods, but every other nation they were up against had a standing army of trained, tried and true soldiers, looking down their gun-barrels at a "rag tag militia" as the Brits dubbed them. 

Side note.

Take a gander at this (this is really cool). Israel was a militia, and all the nations they went against were standing armies of bigger, badder, more heavily armed, trained troops.



America at the time had militia, and all the nations against them had bigger badder more heavily armed and trained troops. All the conflicts with colonial regulars (i.e. standing troops who lined up in field and tried to shoot the Brits before they shot them) failed, with few exceptions, rather miserably.  Militia had the best record (as far as local militia defending their homes) of whipping the pants off the Brits.

Eventually, both countries (Israel and America) won.

*hmm* Makes ya wonder.......

Anyway, moving on.

The federalists said that a standing army, maintained and armed by the federal government was critical to the security of a nation. If they were to take on any decent sized opposition, a strong and trained standing army was the only way to success. 

The anit-federalists said just the opposite. They said that a citizen militia, operated and ran by the people, was working just grand, and would do just dandy as the official defense of the nation.


"No free government under Heaven, with a well disciplined militia was ever yet subdued by mercenary troops."
Antifederalist Papers[3] John DeWitt IV[4] (1787)


The biggest problem the anti's had with the whole idea of a standing army, was that they knew what happens when a nation goes south. When political leaders in power want to make changes without the consent of the people, what do they do?

Look it up in the history of any nation out there. They send in government armed troops to make them do whatever the Government pleases.

This is what the anti's feared. If any state has ultimate power of the only source of protection of a nation, you are setting yourself up for tyranny and asked to be taken advantage of.

The Federalists said no, the government here would never do that, and if we don't have a standing army, we are gonna be slotched by the first big army that comes knocking on our door to try to take us over.

The two parties hammered at each-other for ages, but eventually the federalists won, and now, to this day, we have a standing army.

And, to this day, we know what will happen if we ever step out of line too far.

     

We will get our door kicked in and a whole squad of men armed with more guns and weapons that you knew existed will be taking you to someplace where you will be a little more manageable. 

That is exactly why the anti's didn't want a standing army. They knew if the feds started to take over, they could get nowhere if the feds had no serious armed force to make the people who really weren't too thrilled with what they were doing, obey their tyrannical rule.

If the people had all the big bad guns, all the planes and tanks they pleased, with all the weapons and guns on them they pleased, do you really think a tyrannical government would want to pick a fight? 

No, they are gonna shape up and fall back into their proper place. They don't want to pick a fight with somebody even remotely their size and strength. 

But if the government controlled force, with more weapons and tactical gear than the common people are allowed to have, ever decides that it is going to do some dirty deeds, a people armed with measly handguns and a few tactical rifles and a shotgun or two, aren't gonna be much of a threat (or so they think). 

If you think about it, that's exactly what Israel was up against. They were a citizen militia, every man over 20 a soldier when the need arose and not before, taking on bigger, badder, better trained armies, and winning. 

Why?

Because God was with them. When God was fighting for them they won against all odds. When God wasn't with them, they flopped terribly.

God is the only reason anybody ever won any fight period, and yet we think if we merely entrench ourselves in enough guns and men who know how to use them that somehow we will be ok. I believe that no army of any size is a match for a group of men fighting for God and their families.

I believe that, based upon the Biblical example, and a few of the reasons above, that we should not have a standing army, there should be no restrictions on what weapons a normal man can and cannot own, and the only use of the militia would be to defend our homes and surrounding area from invaders who would end our life and way of living. 

Radical? Yeah, unfortunately it is. Our country is so far off where it was, that even the "right wing" isn't very "right" anymore (pun intended).  : D

The government hates the sound of a militia. To them, it means the end of their reign, and a threat to their power. They have basically the whole country under their control. They make jobs (or they say they do), they keep us safe, and they feed us (or all those who are on welfare programs).  So when we rise up and say we are gonna be self-sufficient, and rule and take care of ourselves, we just threw down the glove to them.

However, it really doesn't matter if they get cranky at us does it? It doesn't matter if they are bigger, badder, and heavier armed. I mean, the Israelites were in the same boat weren't they? So were the early Americans. It all comes down to whether God is fighting on your side or not. 

Now of course, there are objections to this idea. Most go along these lines.

"You'll be toast! You'll be killed! The trained army would whoop your pants off in the first fight! Besides, just saying that God is with you doesn't mean you can do anything you please and get away with it!"

Well, that's what little ole Israel thought as well, against all them big bad armies. But they won. 

If God is on our side, what else matters? If God is for me, no brigade of tanks is a match for me and my .40. If God ain't for me, no army of tanks owned by me could win over someone else's .40. David took down (heavily armed) Goliath with a slingshot.

It all comes down to if God is fighting for you or not. That was the only key to their victory in the Old Testament. Period. No tactics or weapons or soldiers made a scrap of difference to God's army, just so long as they were obeying God and following Him in their hearts.

That is the only way any fight anywhere can go well. The only way is to have God fighting for you.

Granted, I don't think that means we don't practice and train to the best of our ability to defend our family and home, but it isn't the focus and sole hope of victory. We have a responsibility to do our best, but the results are up to God.

I do want to make it clear though, that I mean absolutely no disrespect to anybody who is in today's armed forces, or who fought to keep our nation free in our previous wars. Believe me, my dad is in the army, and I know what type of sacrifice it takes to do that. I take my hat off to them.

On the other hand, I also believe the only Biblical method of defending a country is a citizen based militia, organised and operated by the people. That means I believe that God fearing citizens be ready and trained to defend their home and family - not a force ran by the federal government.

If I were to start a militia, it would be only for the defense of my home and my immediate vicinity. Just like in the book of Nehemiah, each person worked on and defended the section of wall in front of his house. Some people want to start a militia and take out the capitol, or blockade Wall street, or some other offensive maneuver to try to turn this country around by force.

I believe only the Gospel can turn this country around, and assassinating political leaders that disagree with us isn't the way to go about it.

Anyway, I digress. I think America, or any nation period should have a citizen militia, NO firearm and weapon restrictions, and should defend their life and way of life from those who would end either or both.

Any thoughts? Drop a comment below and let me know what you think! I would love to hear it! Seriously!   

The Winner Is.......

Ok, so you all asked some good questions. First answer is going to Rachael.

What's your favorite period of history and why?

That, actually, is rather an easy one. The Revolutionary war era, and the late 1800's to early 1900's.
I like the Revolutionary era due to the nature of the political upheaval, and the way it was dealt with in the founding of our nation. Flooring. That, sadly, was also where our nation started down the wrong path. I intend to do a post on that someday....
The late 1800's and early 1900's were the old west and westward expansion days. From cowboys and Indians to cowboys and bank-robbers, to cowboys and.......Yeah, I like cowboys. That was the era of real cowboys. Most weren't saved, but the ones that were were, I believe, the toughest and best men this world has seen in a long time. I also like the clothes, tack, and weapons from that era. A Colt peacemaker with a five and a half inch barrel is still one of the best weapons ever to exist. Hats, boots, horses, snakes, guns, crooks, and all that sheebang - I love them all.

Savvy?

Well, that was nice and easy. Let's get down to a more gritty subject.

Sadie asked what my position on Replacement Theology was. This is a rather interesting topic. From what I understand, Replacement Theology states that Israel is no longer God's people, but the church as a whole is.
From what I understand of scripture, I don't agree with that. Granted, I don't believe every Jewish person that is alive today will be saved, but the Jewish people as a whole have not been chucked by the wayside. I think Paul made that very clear. Part of the whole reason stated that the Gentiles were let in was to make the Jews jealous and drive them back to God.
Granted, not all "Jews" today are really full-blooded Israelites, and I would say that those who weren't would - I guess - be classified under gentile.
That is my opinion as of right now. I did a minimal amount of study at one point, and came to this conclusion after some talks with some friends over this topic. Interesting subject though.

Aaaaannnnnnnnnd, one more for good measure.

Corey P. asked what was my all time favorite fiction book, and why.

Hmm. I haven't read a whole heap of really good fiction books. Most "good" books I have read have been books on particular interesting topics. The vast majority of fiction that I have read, falls under one author  - G.A. Henty. I have read all of his historical fiction pieces, and a few of his straight fiction ones. Of his straight fiction, I would have to say that "A Final Reckoning" was the best.  It is a tale of a British chap, who, after getting blamed for something he didn't do, heads to Australia for a rough, tough life as a sheriff in the bush, keeping down renegades ranging the open bush of Down Unda.  The book ends in a showdown between himself and the British renegade who got him there. 

So! That's all for now! Thanks for swingin by and readin!  

The Patriot: Review

Wow.

When I got finished seeing this movie, that was about all I could say.

The classic revolutionary war movie that hit my favorites easily.

Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson) is a South Carolinian farmer whose wife has recently died. Unwilling to go to war because of 7 kids and a farm to take care of, his oldest son (Heath Ledger) joins the army.
When the war comes home to Benjamin though, and strikes deep, things change.
Benjamin joins the army with his son and starts a guerrilla militia, fighting in the non-conventional style of ambushing the unsuspecting British and not lining up in neat lines to be shot.
Enter the antagonist.

Dragoon colonel Tavington is the epitome of "the ends justify the means", and brutality and horror is all fair game in war against traitors and rebels. Humiliated by constant attacks and losing every time, Tavington gets downright dirty to get Benjamin and his crew, and stops at nothing - literally - to get him.

The movie climaxes in the monumental battle of Cowpens, where Tavington and Benjamin finally go at it head to head.

The Good:

Oh my, where to start.

I am presently studying the revolutionary war, so this movie was perfectly timed. Also, with the state that our nation is in, it is doubly perfectly timed.

This movie portrays the monumental balance between trying to keep peace and staying home with your family, and then taking up arms to defend them when nothing else will do. Benjamin is haunted by his past military life, and shuns the commencement of it as long as he can, until Tavington strikes, which sends him out to war with his son and any other patriot that will join the cause for freedom. Then, when he seems to lose everything and he wants to back out, the vision that his son propounded of freedom and endurance in the cause, keeps him going to get the job done and fight for the freedom of those he loves.

This movie shows the sacrifice of the men who came out to fight the British, and the cost to them and their families, and the endurance it took to fight through all odds, even when it seemed it wasn't worth the effort, or a hopeless cause.

This movie shows how men need to rise up and fight for what they believe in, but it also shows the brutality of war and that it should be avoided at all costs and used only as the last stand when constant appeals to make peace were fruitless.

One neat thing that was played kinda low was the humility of Benjamin. In fact, in the end, it is the pride of Tavington that kills him, and Benjamin stays humble and calls his sons better men than himself. It was only a slight tone through the movie, but it still was there.

Also, (this may seem odd in the Good section) The bad guy was downright EVIL. I don't like bad guys who are bad but have a hint of good and are just outside of likable. I like bad guys who are so bad that you want to jump through the screen, punch him in the nose and shoot him where he lays.

Tavington was so bad, I wanted to jump through the screen, punch him in the nose and shoot him twice where he lays. He was that bad. Smooth tongued, but it was forked. Skilled, but from practice at evil. You could almost see the horns.

Then, the hero is not some image of human perfection. He is an average man, with his own struggles and faults, trying to do his best and do what was right.  

Needless to say, I loved it.




The Bad:

*sigh*
Take a wild guess. Cussing, of course. Actually, the amount of cussing (or lack thereof) really took me back. Sure it's there, but I would say its the least I have ever seen in any war movie ever. Probably under ten words for the entire two and a half hours of movie.

One lady, the main girl character, has her dress a *little tight* and a *little low* on the top.  Granted, part of it had to do with the corset and the style back then, but still, its there, and you have to guard your eyes as she traipses in and out of the screen.  

Premarital kissing. *Rolling eyes* Grrr. That's so annoying.

One interesting scene, handled fine, but still kinda objectionable, is when the son stays the night at the girl he wants to marry's house, and the father of the girl lets him sleep in the same room as her with the door shut.
*Ahem*
 BUT. To prevent any shenanigans, the family has a tradition of sewing the guy up in a complete body bag with only his head showing to keep any funny business from happening overnight. Interesting way to handle that, but I still completely don't agree with it.

Lots of gore. This is the Revolutionary War. There is blood, guts, and lots of it all over. There are a few scenes that took even me by surprise. So, you have to be able wade through that. Not exactly family friendly.

There is also a decent note of revenge through the movie, between Gabriel and his father, and the evil colonel Tavington. It ends up being the undoing of Gabriel, and Tavington in the end as well.

Overall, I rate the movie 4 stars. The one star is out mostly due to the immodesty of the one lady, the kissing, and the aspect of revenge though it.

Not recommended for kids under about 13.  

Whopping movie.

   

What do YOU want? : Round 2

That's right folks. Round 2.

 

You leave a comment on what you want me to write on, and after a week, I will sort through them and pick a topic to write on! Keep it clean and edifying of course, and I can't wait to see what you fellers come up with!

Whoppin Giveaway

Howdy ya'll. Sadie over at  http://irishragamuffinslilsister.blogspot.com/ is having a whopper of a giveaway. yeah, I said whopper, and I meant it. Mosey on by and check out the loot! Lots of neato stuff to oggle at and put in for a chance to win!

Why me?

Seriously. Me? Why? It kinda struck me as odd a while ago.
I am not the brightest guy in the world. I am only 18, going on 19.

I am a big ole sinner, just like the rest of you, probably worse. I am a just a mere Christian guy trying to make a living in this sinful old world, and trying to take it over for Christ and let him take over me. I am not exactly one who people come to on a regular basis for wise council or sage sayings.
That in mind, why do I  have 41 people who think enough of what I write to sit and read my ideas and thoughts? What about my writings make all you 41 people stick around?
I would love to hear what you like about me and my blog, what you don't, and what I could do to make it more God honoring and Christlike.
Please drop a comment and let me know! Seriously, Why me?!

Obey (Who?) First

This topic has been rattling around inside my head for ages now, and it has finally gotten big enough to be a blog post.  Several, for that matter.

The topic has been around for quite a while now in my area, about what to do with a government that is tyrannical, oppressive, and unbiblical. After all, with new legislation talking about the UN Rights of the Child, UN weapon bans, Obama trying to sign that now children can't be forced to work on their parents property, and the such like, Christians are starting to wonder what on earth to do.

I have grown up in the church, for the 18 years of my life, hearing, to the best of my knowledge, quoted from Romans 13 and 1 Peter that we are to submit to the government - period. No questions asked.  I have heard this propounded on by men I respect, and whom I have I high opinion of their beliefs. After all, they say, just look at the text.

Now, let me say right here, there are good and respectable honest Christian men on both sides of this topic, and I don't want to slam anybody on the other side of the line. I merely want to state from scripture my opinion on our Biblical duty in regards to the federal government when it is unbiblical and out if its lines.


Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
Romans 13:1 - 6


Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
1Peter 2: 13 - 17

The people I know read these verses and say that the verse requires total and complete submission to our federal government.

That sounds great on the outside, but upon a closer look I think we find that this isn't as clear cut as it at first seems.

Let's mosey on over to Acts to get a different perspective on this. 

Peter and John have been captured and jailed for preaching in the city, and they have been brought before the local authorities, and have told them that they are gonna preach the Gospel no matter what. The text below starts with the "authorities" response. 

But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. 

(Act 4:17-21)

Hmmmm. Interesting. So, in this instance, it seems ok to disobey the government if they are telling you to not spread the Gospel. It is the opinion of many respectable men, and I agree, that this text shows that we are to disobey the Government if the Governments command violates a previous command of God.
Ok, that makes it a little better. God said preach the Gospel + Government says don't = We share the Gospel anyway. So we do what God says first, and then obey the Government everywhere else.

Great! Move over UN Rights of the Child, God is coming through.

So, that verse isn't to be understood as saying that any government anywhere should be obeyed in everything no questions asked, no arguments allowed.

Most people stop right there however and say that the only God-allowed spot to rebel to the Government is when they tell us to preach the Gospel.

But..... Is that the only command that God has given us that the government contradicts?

Like, what about the principle that men are to be the protectors of their home. Tyrannical governments really don't like armed citizens.

What about the principle that the family is where children should be taught, but the government would really prefer if you handed them over to them lock-stock-and-barrel, for them to teach.

Now, in all of those instances, the government hasn't really cracked down, and (here in AZ)  we are still allowed to own firearms, carry them openly, homeschool our kids, and teach them what we believe.

According to some I know, we get these freedoms just so long as the government gives them to us, and when the government say they have to go, they go, and we can't complain, since "it is not a gospel issue".

Things are changing however.

Rumors are floating around that Obama is trying to ban all firearms period. Obama is passing laws restricting what we can and can't do with our own fruits and vegetables raised by our own hard work. ( You know, our taking dominion of the earth - sound familiar anyone?) Obama tried to pass laws saying that we can't *force* our kids to work on the farm anymore.

So, according to these gentlemen, we put our hands in the air, back up, let the tyrannical government do what they want with our kids, our land, our property (Eminent Domain is still used today) but hold tightly onto our Bible, because "that's all that matters," and "doing so shows them the Love of Christ".

I disagree with that. However, before we go anywhere with this, we need to go back to the biblical basics of government - just to make sure that we are all on the same page.

First, we need an intro of what the Government is, (or what it should be) and what it is not.

If you open the Bible at around Leviticus, (or any book of the Torah)  it appears to me that you had a system that looked something like this.

God had laws telling you not to do certain stuff, or do certain stuff.
If you busted the laws, then there was a few options. If its was intentional, most of the time you were taken out and stoned. If it was unintentional, there were a variety of different ways for it to be handled depending on the situation, anything from restitution of property, to sacrifices, to (worst case scenario) run to a certain town before someone kills you (and yes, that was allowed sometimes).

AND. THAT'S. IT.

Period.

No laws that you had to register your donkey for public use. No laws that you had to get a permit to put up another tent on your property. No laws that you had to have the Priests permission to carry a sword or dagger around (in fact, in the case of daggers, it was rather assumed you would). Nothing. Period.

Some people would say that was then and this is now, and the list goes on of reasons they could give why our system of government nowadays is and should be different than it was then.

So, that's what it was then. Was that the perfect setup? Should we be like that?

We have to take a step back and go even further into the basics, which starts with (no surprise) the nature of man.

Man, as he was created, was created free. In the garden of Eden, God made man, told him what he needed to do, told him to do what he told them to do, and turned them loose to go obey Him.

Man was made to rule over himself, under God's rule. No governors, no police. Nothing. Since God said that it was "very good" we are going to assume that is the state man would be in if man had never sinned.

But he did. *sigh*

So they say, now we need a government to keep man in line since he is wicked to the core and can't do anything right.

Well, that's sorta right. Man is rotten to the core, and does need someone to keep him in line. The only problem is the only people to put over him is some more rotten sinners - so its sorta counter intuitive.

We DO however have someone ruling over us and giving us commands to obey - and he isn't dirty and rotten. God. He rules over us, and we obey Him.    

So, it is obvious that man is always under God, (and would always be even if he hadn't sinned). But should he be under other people in the civil world?

If you follow governmental history in the Bible, up until the book of First Samuel, all the wicked nations had kings, and Israel had something totally different. It had a system of very few men dealing with the case laws brought to them, and applying how the issue was to be dealt with based upon God's law. They weren't making new laws to regulate which donkeys crossed the road first, they weren't regulating who could sell food in their tent. They were merely solving problems for people who couldn't solve their squabbles themselves.

Then you had the priests being the intercessor between God and man, offering sacrifices daily for atonement for sins.

So, maybe he is to be under other people. Other people who were recognized as the best Godly guys in the community to apply God's law for the common people in the situation of breaches of the law. They had certain numbers of judges for certain numbers of people.

So, the old fashioned western justice style isn't as far off as I once thought. A sheriff over a certain area of people to solve squabbles between people who are to childlike to do it themselves.

You notice, the judges are not creating new laws - just applying the ones God had already said.

So, after all of that, you get to 1 Samuel, where the people say phooey on that, we want a king like everyone else.


To top it all off, when Samuel is talking to God, God says the turning to another system is them turning away from God. So, putting yourself under a king who has ultimate and complete rule over you is turning away from God.

So, in summary of all that, this is what I conclude.

Man, although sinful, is made free, and to rule over himself, under God. He is free to do what he pleases and how he pleases with his property and life as long as he stays under the law and will of God. There is to be a very minimal group of people, elected by the majority of Godly men, to carry out God's laws in the area he prescribed.

That's all it appears to be.


That is my understanding of Biblical government.


I gave you all of that so you have a foundation to base the rest of what I am going to say to you on. This is really important in our day and age.

What do we do with the bad government we have then?

Do we "submit" even though we know we are being tyrannically oppressed? I mean, the verse did say "submit to every ordinance".

Well, as we saw in Acts, it seems there are some circumstances where man is allowed to disobey the government over him. Also, it must be noted, when that statement was made, it was being made to a people who had been captured by a foreign country, and was in slavery for a judgement. Not in the context of a government set up by the people for the people. Keep that in mind.

However, we saw that it was ok to disobey when God had given a command (eg. spread the Gospel) even though the government commanded against it.

Do we stop at "Gospel" issues?

Most I know, say that we can go no further, since our main goal in life is to spread the Gospel, and the rest doesn't matter, as long as we are doing that.

Now, I suppose we could argue over the definition of "Gospel", but I am going to take and use the common definition of the gospel, as the message of Christ's redeeming blood paying the debt for sin for lost sinners.

Um, well, defining it like that, not quite. Our goal in life is to glorify God, and sharing the Gospel is just one way to do it. Granted, it is very important, but not the be-all-to-end-all.  If it were that way, everybody would be a street preacher or pastor - over a bunch of other pastors. No Christian could ever be a plumber or a electrician, but would be out on the street 24 hours a day, and would eventually die of sleep deprivation and starvation. See how that works out........

So, what about when the Government come for your kids? Do you hand them over? You were told to teach them the ways of the Lord, and you can't do that if they are in forced schooling behind locked doors with none of your say for 12 hours of the day. What about when the come for your guns? You were told to protect them, and fighting off a shotgun waving crook at 2:30 a.m. in your hallway with a butter-knife isn't exactly practical. You know that the crooks don't care that you can't have guns. That is why you are being assaulted.

So, what about these other circumstances where you have an order from God? Do we disobey then too?


1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

From what I understand - yes. Most definitely. You have an order to protect them, and to teach them, and you will answer to God for how good of a job you did.

So, that all being said, what about "submit to the authorities" as taught by Romans and Peter?

Well, due to my understanding of the rest of scripture, and the reading of that text, that means that we are to obey the Federal Government in their role of punishing evil and praising good. If they are outside God's jurisdiction for them, and their agreement made to the people as a peace officer, I do not believe you are obligated to obey. That theory has propounded on by many through the years, from John Locke to Samuel Rutherford and many others in-between.

Thinking that's a bit outside of scripture?

If you look hard enough, you might be surprised how many of the Godly men and prophets through the Bible disobeyed the government of their time when they came after them, told them to do things, and otherwise was stepping WAY out of bounds. David ran from Saul who was trying to kill him - the next God appointed heir to the throne. Elijah ran from Ahab and Jezebel who were trying to kill him - God's prophet preaching the commands of God to the nation. Nabal refused to give Ahab his vineyard, an inheritance from his father.
The list goes on, including the story of Paul in Acts. Mosey over to 2 Kings 13: 3-5. Israel, under judgement, was sent a "savior" to free them from the "oppressive" Syrians, (Yes, it said they were oppressive, and that was part of the reason God sent this certain savior - not Christ) and got them all back to their home land and to their normal way of life.

So, it's there. You just might not have seen it in that light before.

Yes folks, it's scary. Standing up for what you believe to be right in front of a system that might fry you to a crisp if you step out of bounds is really kinda freaky.

 As for me, I ain't worried. I mean, just as scared to do it as you, but I know I've got more cards in this game than those poor government officials ever dreamed about.


What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? - Romans 8:31



If the federal government comes for my kids, my guns, or my property, look out.

Protests are already rising in your head as you read this.

"But you'll be killed!" "It wouldn't do an good!" "What can one man do against such a system??!!"

Well, maybe. I have a duty before God to accomplish, and if I die, it's because I was obeying what God told me to do.

What does it matter if it wouldn't do any good, if we're obeying God anyway? Saying we shouldn't do something, especially when it has to do with obeying God, when it won't work, I believe is just pragmatics.

What can one man do against such a system? Well, not much, but a vast army of people is made up of a bunch of single men. If you stand for what's right even when you stand alone, it's never a lost cause. God is always with you. It also encourages others to stand with you. Every vast and mighty army that ever rose up for a reason started with one man standing up when everybody else was sitting down, and saying that something should be done no matter the cost.

A favorite phrase of mine is a paraphrase from Stonewall Jackson.

"Duty is ours; consequences are God's".

It doesn't matter what happens, just that we obey. Obey God that is. Another favorite quote is from Sergeant York.

"The fear of man makes a coward. The fear of God makes a hero."

Of course, you can't point out a problem without posing an answer as well.

If everybody in this country merely did what they were supposed to, we wouldn't have hardly any of the problems we know nowadays.

So basically, do what God told you and allows you to do. Period. Share the Gospel, create families, and take a stand when the government comes in and tells you to stop doing what God told you and allows you to do. Everything from sharing the Gospel, to target shooting in the desert, to reading your boy stories before bed. God told you to do it, in either principle or verbatim, God allows you freedom in your life to do things. If God allows it, who's got the gumption to stand up and say you can't?

Yes folks, doing what God allows and commands is (partially) illegal in this day and age.
So just how much do you want to obey? How far are you willing to go? What scares you more? Disobeying God and answering for it for eternity, or standing up to mortal man for a breath of time?

No matter how life threatening it is, God's plan is always better, always free-er (is that a word?) and always works. I saw a quote the other day. It said "I would rather have dangerous freedom than peaceful slavery".
It takes faith to believe that God is gonna pull you through, even when the deck is stacked against you. Fortunately for you and me, God makes more cards. : )

So, the main jist of this whole post is this. I am not advocating armed uprising. I am not advocating we shoot up the ones in office and put people we like up there. I think that is unbiblical.

I am advocating we all do as we should as defined by God - NO MATTER WHAT. No matter who is against you or opposing you. Armed Resistance to the government is the last ditch resort, and only in defense of home and family. That needs to be made clear - VERY clear. In this day and age, people are far to willing to pick up an AK and mow down all who stand in their way of having their own way - which isn't biblical.

I am advocating that we all do as we are allowed and commanded by God, by faith in his word - alone.

So folks, that be it. My opinion. No more, no less. if you disagree on a biblical basis I would love to hear your thoughts.

I know this is radical for most of you folks, but do some thinking on it and pray and see where the Lord leads you. This is a major shift in view on government for most folks, but believe me, I didn't get here quickly either. It took months of reading and thinking and praying. My friends can testify to that and tell tales of how I have been harping on this for ages.

Right now, I just wanted to encourage you to do what is right, no matter if the whole world is against you. You may think what is right is different, but as long as God is on your side, "you can do all things through Christ who strengthens you."
 - Philippians 4:13