Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Christian & Civil Government

Biblical Principles of Secession

Transcript: AI Transcript

Professor: John Weaver

Subject: Civil Government

Genre: Sermon

Dictation Name:

Date: 2009-07-26

Synopsis: John Weaver examines 1 Kings 12 to derive biblical principles for secession, arguing that withdrawal from a tyrannical government is scriptural when rulers are wicked, violate covenantal obligations, rule by force, and steal from the people. He warns that secession must lead to a society built on God's law, not humanism, to avoid trading a bad for a worse.

[John Weaver] Let's open our Bibles then today, if you would please, to the book of 1 Kings chapter 12. 1 Kings chapter 12. Let me just say that you haven't started yet, Roy. Let me just say that I'm going to go over a few things today that you probably already know, but I'm going to say them not just for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who will hear the tape that do not know them. First Kings, Chapter 12, and let's begin reading there with verse 1.

[John Weaver] The message is entitled, Biblical Principles for Secession. First Kings, Chapter 12, verse 1, And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king. And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it, for he was fled from the presence of King Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt. that they sent and called him in Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our yoke grievous. Now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father and his heavy yoke which he put upon us lighter, and we will serve thee. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me, and the people departed. And King Rehoboam consulted with the old men that stood before Solomon, his father, while he yet lived, and said, How do you advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever.

[John Weaver] But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, which stood before him. And he said unto them, What counsel give you, that we may answer this? People who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter. And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that speak unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us. Thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. Now whereas my father did laid you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

[John Weaver] So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed. saying, Come to me again the third day. And the king answered the people roughly and forsook the old men's counsel that they gave him and spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke. My father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore, the king hearkened not unto the people, for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by Hygia, the Shillinite, and the Jeroboam, the son of Nebat. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel, now see divine on house David. So Israel departed into their tents. But as for the children of Israel, which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them.

[John Weaver] Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute, and all Israel stoned him with stones that he died. Therefore, King Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot to flee to Jerusalem. So all Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. And it came to pass when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation and made him king over all Israel. There was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only. And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, 104,000 chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam, the son of Solomon. But the word of God came to Shemaiah, the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rims of the people, saying, Thus saith the Lord, You shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, the

[John Weaver] children of Israel. Return every man to his house, for this thing is from me. They hearkened, therefore, to the word of the Lord, and returned to depart according to the word of the Lord. Biblical principles for secession. Let me just point out the fact that some of you may or may not be aware, but there are numerous states in this country that are very seriously considering seceding.

[John Weaver] In fact, it has been talked about openly in the book, in the state of Hawaii, for instance, in the state of Alaska, in the state of Vermont, in the state of Montana, in fact, Northern California, has wanted to secede from Southern California for years. In fact, there is a confederation that is talking about that at this particular time. There have been numerous conferences through this land, I can think of about four of them right now, that have really entertained seceding from the United States.

[John Weaver] Now, the question has to be asked, should we go or should we stay? Let's put the question another way. Is it time to consider leaving the Union of the States as it now exists and forming a new union or a new confederation of states? I suppose we could really boil it down to a much simpler question. Do we wish to stay under the regime of Washington, D.C. as it now is? Or we could even go further Do we wish to stay under the regime in many state capitals as they now are because, unhappily, many state capitals are just as wicked and just as corrupt and just as perverse as Washington, D.C. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't want to be under Atlanta, Georgia any more than I want to be under Washington, D.C. To me, both of them are just equally corrupt.

[John Weaver] Now, someone is going to say, well, why this talk about secession? Don't you know that the war settled that principle once and for all? No. The war did not settle the principle of secession. Force never, ever negates right, righteousness, or a principle of truth. Just because a bully wins does not make the bully right. You would not adopt that attitude if you were walking down the street and a man stepped around the corner. He's larger than you. He's bigger than you. He's stronger than you.

[John Weaver] Moreover, he has a weapon and he sticks it between your eyes and says, give me all your money. And he robs you of several thousand dollars. But thankfully, he leaves you your life. And as he escapes, do you think to yourself, well, That's settled. The money's gone. I no longer need it. I no longer want it. And it's over and done with. I don't have to call the law. I don't have to try to see him captured. I don't have to try to get my money back. No, no, no.

[John Weaver] He would never do it like that. You would say what he's done is wicked and wrong. He may have been stronger. He may have been able to take it, but that does not make right what he did. So just simply because the North won a war, does not mean that they have negated a historical, a constitutional, or a biblical principle. So, when we ask the question, should we go or should we stay?

[John Weaver] There are many ways that you could look at the answer. One of those ways is historically. I've done that before. I'm not going to do that today. If you will listen to the message that I have preached, was secession treasonous? I give you many historical illustrations there concerning secession. But when you look to history for direction and guidance, you certainly will get some. But for the child of God, the question has to be resolved based upon the word of God. So I want to give you a biblical principle, or I might point out several principles that lead to secession.

[John Weaver] Now, the term secession is derived from the Latin word se sedere, which literally means an act of withdrawal. which is what secession literally means. Secession is not revolution, nor is secession anarchy. It is simply a withdrawal from one union or one government in order that you might establish another union or another government.

[John Weaver] Now, secession was understood even by many in the North who hated and despised the South. For instance, Horace Greeley, who was certainly no friend of the South, editor of the Republican New York Tribune, declared on February 23, 1861, after a confederacy had been formed by the seven Gulf states, or cotton states, Horace Greeley wrote this, We have repeatedly said that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, is sound and just. And that if the cotton states, or the Gulf states only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so. Whenever it shall become clear that the great body of Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views. Listen to what Horace really said. If the South wants to secede, let them go. It is their right.

[John Weaver] In our text before us in 1 Kings chapter 12, the ten northern tribes seceded from King Rehoboam. Now Rehoboam was the son of Solomon who was the son of David. God had certainly entered into a covenant with David And God told David that as long as his sons obeyed him, he would not want for a son to sit upon the throne of Israel. Let me give you just a quick overview of Rehoboam. This was written by Matthew Henry in his commentary, and I found it very interesting what he said about King Rehoboam. Now remember, Rehoboam is the son of Solomon. Who was the son of David? Here's what Matthew Henry wrote. Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines, yet we read of what one son he had to bear up his name, and he is a fool.

[John Weaver] It is said in Hosea 4.10, they shall commit whoredom and shall not increase. Sin is a bad way of building up a family. Rehoboam was the son of the wisest of men, yet did not inherit his father's wisdom. And then it stood him in little stead to inherit his father's throne. Neither wisdom nor grace runs in the blood. Solomon came to the crown very young, yet he was then a wise man. Rehoboam came to the crown at forty years old, when men will be wise, if they ever will, yet he was then foolish. Wisdom does not go by age, nor is it the multitude of years, nor the advantage of education that reaches it. Solomon's court was a mart of wisdom, and the rendezvous of learned men And Rehoboam was the darling of the court, and yet all was not sufficient to make him a wise man. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. No dispute is made of Rehoboam's succession.

[John Weaver] Upon the death of his father, he was immediately proclaimed king. I find that very interesting. He's pointing out how neither wisdom nor grace runs in the blood, and just because you're the son of a wise man certainly does not make you wise. Rehoboam was indeed a lawful descendant of David, yet he had none of David's godliness nor any of Solomon's wisdom. He had been lawfully appointed to rule, but he had no inclination to rule lawfully.

[John Weaver] He had no intention of governing covenantally or constitutionally. You have to remember this about Solomon. Solomon in his last days fell into idolatry and tyranny. And incidentally, those two things always go together. It is impossible to be a tyrant and rule according to the Word of God. Tyrants are only made when they forsake God and God's law. If you rule biblically and lawfully, it is impossible to be a tyrant. But when you forsake God and His law, tyranny is always the result because fallen man always wants to play God.

[John Weaver] Lord Acton of England said this, There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. The office does not make a man wise or graceful or sanctified in any way. Many times you will find a fool in office. William Pitt of England rose in the House of Lords to defend the freedom of speech. And in part, here's what he said. Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. And this I know, my Lords, that where law ends, there tyranny begins. I can assure you that whenever one allows the law of God to be set aside, tyranny will be the result.

[John Weaver] Listen to what he said. Whenever one allows the law of God to be set aside, tyranny will be the result. You want to know what happened in this country? You want to know why we are, where we are, because we have allowed the law of God to be set aside.

[John Weaver] Now, when Rehoboam took over the kingdom, Israel wanted and needed relief from the excessive burdens that had been placed upon them during the last days of King Solomon. If you will look in 1 Kings chapter 12 and verse 4, Jeroboam has become the spokesman for Israel And they speak to Rehoboam, verse 3, we'll read it, and they sent and called him, and Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came and spake to Rehoboam the king, saying, now look what they say in verse 4, thy father made our yoke grievous. Now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he hath put upon us lighter, and we will serve thee. Note all they are asking right now is to lighten the grievous load that the Father has put upon them.

[John Weaver] They were ready to stay. They were ready to work things out. If Rehoboam would only listen, do that which was right, and grant them relief. Do you realize that that was exactly the position of our Founding Fathers? Our Founding Fathers did not initially want to be independent of England. Listen, if you would, to the Declaration of Independence. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and institute a new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.

[John Weaver] Now listen, Patience or prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient reasons or causes, and accordingly, all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Now, what did our Founding Fathers say? If we can just make things right, we're not willing to abolish the form of government that we're used to.

[John Weaver] In fact, that is why, and I'll read some of them later, that is why the Fairfax Resolves were written in 1774. Because our founding fathers at that particular time were beseeching George III to keep his end of the covenant. And they were saying, we're willing to be your servants, but we're not willing to be your slaves. So Israel then, according to verse 4, was willing to suffer and to keep Rehoboam as their king as long as he would grant them relief and that he would rule benevolently. In fact, they stated very plainly in verse 4, we will serve thee.

[John Weaver] So their initial plan was to stay. We don't want to leave necessarily. And I want you to note, they did not ask the king to resign. They did not ask the king to withdraw. They did not ask the king to violate the covenant. All they wanted the king to do was to rule covenantally or constitutionally.

[John Weaver] Now, when they came to Rehoboam in verse 4 and said, look, make everything lighter, do what you're supposed to do and we'll serve thee. The only wise thing that Rehoboam did throughout this entire situation was that he asked three days to consider their request. If you look in verse 5, and he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, and come again to me, and the people departed. So he's asked for three days now so that he might consult and get some counsel. Now, I want you to look, beginning with verse 6, He first asked counsel of the old men. I want you to note that there is a difference between the counsel of old men and the counsel of young men. There is a vast difference between the counsel of old men and the thinking of old men and the counsel and thinking of young men. Have you ever noticed why the military always wants all young men? Police departments always want young men.

[John Weaver] You'll see why in just a moment. But look in verse six. And King Rehoboam consulted with the old man that stood before Solomon, his father, while he yet lived, and said, How do you advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, that they will be thy servants for ever. But he forsook the counsel of the old men which they had given him, and consulted with the young men which were grown up with him, and which stood before him. And he said unto them, What counsel give you that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter upon us.

[John Weaver] Thus shalt thou say unto them, My little fingers shall be thicker than my father's loins. Now, whereas my father did laid you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke. My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.

[John Weaver] Now, I want to go back and just show you the difference between the counsel of the old men and the counsel of the young men. If you look in verse 7, here's what the old men told Rehoboam. And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them and speak good words of them, then they will be thy servants forever.

[John Weaver] Now, let me put something out that probably you have not gotten just by reading the English, but here it is. The word servant. In verse 7, when they tell the king if you will be the servant of this people. The Hebrew word is the word Ebed, which literally means a slave, a bond slave, a manservant. So they said, now look, King, if you're willing to be the slave or the servant of this people, if you're willing to recognize that you reign not only by the decree of God, but also by the consent of the governed, fine. If you will be their servant, notice if you would, in verse 7, then they will be thy servants forever. And in other words, if you will be a slave to the people, and the same word is used in the latter part, then they, the people, will be a slave to you. In other words, there is a reciprocity in covenantal obligations. So the king, then, is covenantally obligated to be a slave or servant to the people.

[John Weaver] And as he serves them, then in return, they turn around and serve him. Now let me point out again, I've said this innumerable times, all government is covenantal in nature. I don't care if you're talking about family government, church government, or civil government. In fact, when David was made king of Israel, and you remember that David was chosen by God, you remember that? But just because God chose David to be king did not mean that God just threw him down and said, there he is boys, he's your king whether you like it or not. No, no, no. Although David was chosen by God to be king, he was also chosen by the people. And in 1 Chronicles 11 verse 3, we read this, Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king of Hebron, And David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel according to the word of the Lord by Samuel. Now, notice God chose Samuel, but He chose him immediately, that is, through the will and the recognition of the people, and the people then entered into a covenant with David.

[John Weaver] There was a kingly covenant. There was a kingly constitution. It was true under David. It was true under Solomon. It certainly was true under Rehoboam as well. Let me ask this question. Why did God choose David? And why did God allow David to ascend to the throne? We could enlarge that question. And we could ask, why does God allow anyone to have a position of authority? Well, if you look in your Bibles, hold 1 Kings, but look in your Bibles to 2 Samuel chapter 5 and verse 12. I want you to read what David understood, and here is where most civil rulers fail in their understanding. In 2 Samuel chapter 5 and verse 12, I want you to note what David perceived David understood. 2 Samuel 5 verse 12, And David perceived that the Lord had established him king over Israel and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel's sake. Why did God establish David? Why did God exalt his kingdom? For his people Israel's sake. In other words, a true ruler, listen carefully, a true ruler does not rule for himself, He does not rule for his position.

[John Weaver] He does not rule for his program. He does not rule for his party. But he rules for the people over which God has placed him. A true ruler is always a servant. We used to have in this country a phrase referring to our rulers. We called them public servants. You use that today on a bureaucrat. And he'll be very visibly upset because no politician today ever thinks he's your servant. He thinks he is your master.

[John Weaver] Now, let me ask the question. If secession is biblical, if it is lawful, if it is constitutional, what are the principles that lead to it? You remember, if you would now, these young men said, you answer the people this way, my little finger will be thicker than my father's loins. Now, you see my little finger? You see my loins? What was he saying? My little finger. In other words, I'm going to be tougher. I'm going to be rougher. I'm going to be crueler. I'm going to be meaner than you can ever dream of.

[John Weaver] My father beat you with whips. I'll beat you with scorpions. I'll have something that will really sting. My father made your yoke heavy. I'm going to make it heavier. I'm going to add to that yoke. You know, I told you earlier there's a difference between the thinking of old men and thinking of young men. Old men usually think biblically. They think of working things out. Young men always think of force and aggression.

[John Weaver] What are the principles now that will lead to secession? I'm going to show you from 1 Kings chapter 12. When is it time to secede? Well, according to the Bible, it is time to secede when rulers are wicked, ungodly and tyrannical. when civil rulers are wicked, ungodly, and tyrannical." Listen to this statement. When power and authority become tyrannical, resistance is a duty. God has never ordained a tyrannical or despotic form of government.

[John Weaver] I want you to understand this in light of Rehoboam especially. I want you to hold 1st Kings chapter 12, but I want you to turn, if you would please, to Romans 13. I know you know this passage. That's fine. But look in Romans chapter 13 at verses 3 and 4 and look at why God established civil government to begin with. Romans chapter 13. Look, if you would, at verses 3 and 4. He says this.

[John Weaver] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Will thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. For he, that is the civil ruler, 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. Now notice, if you would, God said that he ordained civil government for our good. Here's my question. How can one who steals your wealth, takes away your freedom, destroys your liberty, and enslaves your family be for your good? The subjection and the obedience that God demands from everyone in Romans 13 verses 1 and 2 is dependent upon the civil rulers being what God demands for them to be in verse 3, in verse 4, and in verse 6.

[John Weaver] Let me put it this way. Romans 1 and 2 are indeed conditional. Why did God ordain civil government? Let me just go over this very quickly. I know you know this. But here it is again. When the Bible says in Romans 13, verse 1, that let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God. The word powers is the word exousia, which means powers, authorities, or jurisdictions. So he says all jurisdictions are basically ordained by God. Then in verse 2, he says this, for whosoever resists the power, resists the ordinance of God. The word ordinance is diatage, which literally means that which has been established, an arrangement. In other words, God has given an orderly arrangement for authority in the family, in the church, and in the civil government. Now, in verse 3, the civil rulers are just simply referred to as rulers, which means chief ones or leaders. Fine. But when you get to verse 4 of Romans 13, for he is the minister of God to thee for good.

[John Weaver] And then later on in verse 4, for he is the minister of God. Twice in verse 4, the civil ruler is called a minister. The Greek word there is the word diakonos. It is where we get our English word deacon from. And it literally means a servant. So God then has ordained civil government to be His servant, to be His deacon. If civil government is to be His deacon, is to be His servant, what does that mean? It means it's to carry out God's word and God's will and to honor God by being His servant and being submissive to Him. In verse 4 again, he says this, for he is the minister of God, a revenger, to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. What does the word revenger mean? It is from the Greek word ekdikai, ek is a preposition which means out of or from, and dikaios is the Greek word for righteousness. What is a revenger? It's someone who exacts righteousness. So God, then, ordained civil government not just to be a ruler, but to be His deacon, His servant, to exact righteousness.

[John Weaver] In other words, God ordained civil government to fulfill and to carry out His law and apply His law based upon the authority that He gave them. When you get down to verse 6, The Bible again refers to them as ministers. They are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. The word ministers now is a different word. It's no longer the word deacon. It's the Greek word liturgos or liturgoi in the plural. It is where we get our English word liturgy from. What is a liturgy? It's a public worship. We come in, we have music, we have prayer, That's worship.

[John Weaver] I don't care if you're in a Roman Catholic church, an Episcopal church, or the most independent Baptist church you'll ever find. Every church has a liturgy. It's a public worship. Why did God ordain civil government? Here's why. Not just to be a raw power, not just to be an ordinance, just to have an ordinance, not just to have chief ones or leaders, but God gave authority, God gave the ordinance of government to be His deacon, His exactor of righteousness, and His public worship. Period. You see, most people today are willing to admit the government's power, but they're not willing to go as far as God goes and say that they have That a power from God, and that authority from God, and that power and that authority is only to be used according as God has directed. Now, you ask again, if government is to be God's deacon, who must it obey? The answer is God. If it is to be God's exactor of righteousness, whose righteousness must it exact? The answer is God's. If government is to be His public worship, whom then must it publicly worship?

[John Weaver] The answer is God. So how do we know whether or not secession is to be even entering in our mind? And the answer comes back when your civil rulers are ungodly, wicked and tyrannical. Here's the second one. You know, it's time to think of secession when rulers constantly and consistently violate their covenantal obligations. Now, I want you to think about this. When these people came to Rehoboam and said, make thou our burdens lighter. We will serve thee. It never entered Rehoboam's mind. Let me read our covenantal agreement. Let me paraphrase that. Let me read our constitution. No, no, no.

[John Weaver] He said, I'm going to consult. I'll get the counsel of the old man, and I'll get the counsel of the new man, the young man. So what did he do? He forsook the counsel of the old man, and he followed the counsel of the young man. You see, all rulers in Israel were to rule and judge according to the law of God. They were to be governed, they were to be controlled, and they were to be limited by that covenant and by God's law. Let me read to you what God said to the judges in 2 Chronicles 19 in verse 6. Listen carefully. And said to the judges, take heed what you do, for you judge not for man, but for the Lord who is with you in judgment. You judge not for man, but you judge for the Lord. Did you realize in Deuteronomy 17, verses 18 through 20, the law of God required the civil ruler to have his own personal copy of the law of God and he was to read therein day and night.

[John Weaver] Why? So that he could rule covenantally. So that he could rule biblically. I want you to turn, if you would, to 2 Samuel 23. Let me show you a very important passage. 2 Samuel 23. And let's begin reading there with verse 1. I want you to look at how many times David claims direct inspiration from God for one simple statement. David is claiming direct inspiration from God for one simple statement. 2 Samuel 23 verse 1. Now these be the last words of David. David, the son of Jesse, said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel, said, Now look, the Spirit of the Lord spake by me. That's once.

[John Weaver] And his word was in my tongue. That's twice. The God of Israel said, that's three times. The rock of Israel spake to me, that's four times. Four times David claims direct inspiration from God for this simple statement, he that ruleth over men must be just ruling in the fear of God. Notice, he that ruleth over men must be just ruling in the fear of God. It is impossible to rule in the fear of God apart from the Word of God. If you rule justly, you must rule biblically, for justice is only found in the Word of God. You cannot rule justly. You cannot rule righteously without ruling biblically.

[John Weaver] Let me point this out very clearly. Our fathers understood this principle. Did you know that when this nation was founded, Our forefathers required that their rulers be Christian and that they rule according to the Bible. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time proving this. There is a message that I preached many years ago, the biblical attitude toward ungodly rulers, in which I quote a number of these. But let me just give you a few just to demonstrate that our forefathers understood that the Bible is to be our law book.

[John Weaver] The New Haven Colony Charter, April the 3rd, 1644, adopted the rules for governing the courts of the New Haven Colony, stating the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses, are to be a rule in all the courts in this jurisdiction. Isn't that simple? Do you realize that juries used to determine verdicts based upon the Word of God? Judges used to walk into the courtroom with an open Bible and men stood out of respect for the Bible. Then they kicked the Bible out and now they want you to stand in respect of them. The Charter of Delaware in 1701 says this.

[John Weaver] And that also all persons who are who also profess to be believers in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, shall be capable, notwithstanding other persuasions and practices and point of conscience and religion, to serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively. Did you hear what they said? If you want to serve in Delaware in 1701, you had to be a Christian. You don't have to be a Baptist or you don't have to be a Presbyterian. But you had to be a Christian. The Constitution of Delaware in 1776, Article 22, says this.

[John Weaver] Every person that shall be chosen a member of either of the house or appointed to any office or place of trust before taking his seat or entering upon the execution of his office shall take the following oath or affirmation. You had to put your own name there. I blank. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." You could not hold an office when this country was begun unless you were a Christian. Unless you profess faith in Jesus Christ and believe the Bible to be the word of God. John Jay. Said this. Believe he was the first Supreme Court justice. He said Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is their duty as well as their privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.

[John Weaver] You know what we've done? We have done exactly. What Rehoboam has done in this country, we've set aside. The law of God is our covenant.

[John Weaver] Now, what we did is we adopted a constitution. An interesting thing, even if you want to go constitutionally. I want you to listen to Article six, paragraph two of the United States Constitution. Here's what it says, this constitution. and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States. What's the authority of the United States? The Constitution. And which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, what does the Constitution say in Article 6, Paragraph 2? It is to be the supreme law of the land. Every officer is to take an oath that he's going to uphold the Constitution.

[John Weaver] And for years, the presidents took their oath of office with their hand upon Deuteronomy 28, which was the blessings and the curses. The Constitution is known as an express powers document or a limited powers document. When you refer to it as an express powers document, here's what it means. That the only authority, the only power that the federal government has is that which is expressed in the Constitution. When you call it a limited powers document, it means similarly that The only power, the only authority the federal government has is that which is limited to the Constitution. In other words, if it is not expressly stated in the Constitution that the federal government has such and such power, then they don't have it. You say, well, how did they get all this power? The answer is simple. They stole it. They usurped it. Any authority that has not been given to the federal government by the states or the people thereof has been usurped and stolen. Patrick Henry said, and I'm quoting, the Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate their lives.

[John Weaver] All I can say is we haven't been doing too much restraining, have we? Because it certainly has come to dominate our lives.

[John Weaver] Now, there's a principle, and I'm not going to enunciate it here other than just mention it. There's a principle in the Bible. It's clear not only in the Bible, but it's also clear in law that when one party violates the covenant, it releases the other party from obedience to the covenant. You remember the covenant was entered into by the spies and Rahab and Joshua chapter two. How that.

[John Weaver] They said, look, we agree that we will spare you and your family if you have all your family in this house and if you have this red cord hanging down because our men don't know who your family is and they don't know what your house is. And if any of your family comes out in the street and they get killed, that's tough. They should have stayed in the house. But if we enter your house and kill anybody, their blood's going to be on us.

[John Weaver] Once they agreed to this covenant, as she let the spies down, the spy said this in Joshua 2 and verse 20, and if thou utter any of this our business, then we will be quit of the oath which thou hast made us to swear. In other words, Rahab, if you violate your end of the covenant, we're not obligated to keep our end of the covenant. We'll kill you like we kill everyone else.

[John Weaver] So here we find that all government is covenantal in nature. We find that even our Constitution says that this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.

[John Weaver] Now let me just ask a few questions. Listen to these questions. Has the federal government consistently, constantly, and repeatedly usurped authority that was never, ever given to them. Let's ask it another way. Does the federal government consider, follow, and obey the Constitution? You know what we have failed to realize? Listen carefully. Rebellion can be on the part of government equally as it can be on the part of the people. You might remember that when our forefathers seceded and left the Union in 1861, our only president, Jefferson Davis, said this, I love the Union, but I had rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without the Constitution. And when the South seceded, it was not to destroy the Constitution, but it was to preserve the principles in that Constitution. And the Confederate Constitution embodied all of the principles of the original Constitution. Except the Confederate Constitution outlawed slavery, which the Federal Constitution did not. It was Benjamin Franklin Grady of North Carolina in 1899 who said this, The cause of the South was the cause of constitutional government, the cause of government regulated by law, and the cause of honesty and fidelity in public service.

[John Weaver] No nobler cause did man ever fight for. When is it time to think about secession, not only when you have rulers who are ungodly and wicked and tyrannical, but secondly, when they consistently and constantly violate their covenantal and constitutional oath. Thirdly, very quickly, it's time to think of secession when rulers endeavor to rule by force rather than by consent.

[John Weaver] Now, I read this just a little earlier, but I want to reread this section of the Declaration And I want you to listen carefully to what is said. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable or unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. It's important. for you and I to understand that just powers come from the consent of the governed. If there is no consent, power is only acquired by usurpation and force.

[John Weaver] Now, look back in 1 Kings 12 and verse 14.

[John Weaver] Rehoboam spake to the people after the words of the young men, and he said, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke. My father also chastened you with whips, but I will chasten you with scorpions. What was Rehoboam planning to do? He was planning to use force rather than consent. to get the people to serve him. Rehoboam planned to force the people to obey him and follow his will. He planned to use hurtful, harmful, and humanistic force to obtain submission. He threatened not only to squeeze them by taxes, but to chastise them by cruel laws and severe exactions upon them, which should not only be as whips, but scorpions with whips, which would fetch blood at every lash. In other words, In short, Rehoboam said, you are my sheep to be sheared. You are my brute beast to be laden with as heavy burdens as I put upon you.

[John Weaver] I don't care whether you love me or not. I don't care whether you respect me or not. But you will serve me because I will make you serve me. That was his attitude. Whenever there are penalties to force recognition of power for authority and penalties to force submission and recognition, it's time to consider secession. Martial law, heavy-handed tactics, a police state, laws and regulations that rely upon force are all indicators that secession needs to be considered.

[John Weaver] Thomas Jefferson said this, Jefferson said tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizens.

[John Weaver] Think about that. If it's legal for the government to do something that's illegal for you, if it's lawful for them to do something that's unlawful for you, he said that is tyranny. Jefferson also said this, when the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny. The fourth principle we find from 1 Kings chapter 12 is this, it is time to consider secession when rulers seek to steal from the people to support government that is contrary to the consent and will of the people.

[John Weaver] Now, I want you to know what happened when the king answered roughly to the people. You think I'm going to make things lighter for you, I'm going to make it worse. My father beat you with the whips, I'm going to whip you with scorpions. In verse 16, look at it. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened, not in them, the people answered the king saying, what portion have we in David?

[John Weaver] Neither have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel, now see to thine own house, David." So Israel departed unto their tents. Now, Israel left Judah and Judah's king. There was a formal declaration of secession. We have no right in David. We have no right in you. To your tents, O Israel. What portion of we and David. What inheritance do we have in this son of David? No. We're leaving. You take care of your own business. We'll take care of yours.

[John Weaver] Now, evidently, Abraham Lincoln learned from Rehoboam. Because Lincoln, like Rehoboam, planned on collecting taxes from people who did not owe taxes. He planned on collecting taxes from states that had seceded from the Union. See, Rehoboam's going to do the same thing. Israel has seceded. Israel has withdrawn. But Rehoboam says, you're going to pay for my government anyhow. Well, look, if you would please, in verse 17, But as for the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute, and all Israel stoned him with stones that he died. Therefore, King Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot to flee to Jerusalem. So Rehoboam sent Adoram. his head tax collector to Israel to collect the taxes. And Rehoboam went along just to make sure they understood he had royal authority to collect those taxes. And the people of Israel stoned him with stones. And when Rehoboam said, hmm, things aren't working out quite the way I want to. I better get back to Jerusalem while I can.

[John Weaver] And he fled. Do you realize that King George III of England was going to do the same thing. He was going to try to force collection of taxes upon the American colonists. The American colonists did not owe those taxes. They were never under Parliament. They had their own legislatures. They knew that a war was coming, so in an effort to head off that war, George Washington George Mason and Charles Broadwater met in Fairfax, Virginia in July of 1774, and they drew up what are known as the Fairfax Resolves. There were 24 of those resolves.

[John Weaver] I want to just read two of them to you. Listen to resolve number five. It does sound like Congress now, so pay attention. This was written in 1774. Resolve. that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament of making all such laws as they think fit to govern the people of these colonies and to extort from us our money without our consent is only diametrically contrary to the first principles of the Constitution and the original compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and government.

[John Weaver] but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural rights of mankind, will render our own legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery." Now listen to what they said. Resolve that the claim lately assumed an exercise by the British Parliament of making all such laws as they think fit.

[John Weaver] You know what your Congress is doing? They're trying to force upon you a nationalized health care system, but they have exempted themselves from that same national health care system. They're trying to make all such laws as they think fit, regardless of whether you consent to those laws or not. Regardless of whether you want them or not. And they said, and to extort from us our money without our consent. It's diametrically opposed.

[John Weaver] to the covenants, to the constitutions that we have with George III. They said it's calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and misery, from freedom and happiness to slavery and misery. Listen to number six. This is just unbelievable. Number six. Resolve that taxation and representation are in their nature inseparable and the right of withholding or of giving and granting their own money, is the only effectual security to a free people against the encroachments of despotism and tyranny, and that whenever they yield to the one, they must quickly fall prey to the other."

[John Weaver] Now, I want to tell you what George Washington, the first president, said. George Mason, Charles Broadwater, they said this, if you do not have the right to withhold your money or give your money to government at your pleasure, You're a slave. That's what they just said. That the right of withholding or giving or granting their own money is the only effectual security of a free people. In other words, if we don't like what government does, we don't support it. It can't do it. It has no money. If we like what it's doing, we support it. It does have money. But if government then can force us to give us, give them our money, Then we're slaves. That's what George Washington said. That's what Charles Broadwater said. That's what George Mason said. So despotism and tyranny, according to these men, is the inability to withhold one's money or to grant one's money. And if you don't have that ability, they said it's tyranny.

[John Weaver] Jefferson, in 1826, said this. The mass of mankind has not been born with a saddle on their backs. nor favor few booted and spurred ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God." Jefferson also said, to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves in abhors is sinful and tyrannical. So let's ask a question. Is the secession biblical? And the answer is, of course it is.

[John Weaver] We're bidden over and over in Scripture, and I didn't quote all these passages, to separate ourselves from wickedness and ungodliness. In fact, if you look in verse 15, we know that it's biblical because the Bible says, 1 Kings 12, verse 15, Wherefore the king hearken not unto the people, help me out now, for the cause was from the Lord. Hmm. Look, if you would, in verse 24, thus said the Lord, you shall not go up nor fight against your brethren, the children of Israel, return every man to his house for this thing is from me.

[John Weaver] God said, I'm the one that ordained the secession, I'm the one that ordained the separation. God oftentimes uses the wickedness. The impotence, the stubbornness and the stupidity of rulers. to bring about a separation of his people from them. You say, now wait a minute, Brother Weaver. If you're trying to tell me that Israel seceded here and that this thing was from God, how do you explain verse 19? Look at verse 19. So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day.

[John Weaver] Well, the answer is very simple. The root word for rebel there literally means to step, to march, to step forward or step away. Literally what it says is this. So Israel stepped away, marched away from the house of David unto this day. You know, that's exactly what secession is. Secession is a stepping away. It's a walking away. It's leaving one confederation and beginning a different one.

[John Weaver] Now, before I close, I'm going to give you one vastly important application. And I want your undivided attention. Secession is biblical. Secession is constitutional. In fact, I've preached several messages on the biblical doctrine of secession before. I pointed out that it's a state's right, it's a sovereign's right, and it's a scriptural right. But I want you to note something. Here is my application. Here is my warning.

[John Weaver] We cannot, and we must not, trade a bad for a worse. Now, what do I mean by that? Here's what I mean. Israel left Rehoboam. It is true that Rehoboam was a tyrant. It is true that he was wicked and unbiblical and ungodly. But stupid Israel turned around and made Jeroboam their king, who was also idolatry and a tyrant as well. An idolatrous man and a tyrant as well. You cannot replace humanism with humanism.

[John Weaver] Why in the world would you jump out of the frying pan into the fire? If we have to withdraw from a wicked, ungodly, humanistic confederation, we have to have something better to replace it with. You cannot replace something with nothing. Let me just ask you this question, and you answer it in your own mind. You think about this. If our society as we know it collapsed today.

[John Weaver] I mean a total complete collapse. And you had to rebuild this society from scratch. And you could start tomorrow rebuilding. Here's my question. What law structure would you use to rebuild society? Would you use God's law structure, or would you use man's law structure? If you say, well, we're going to use man's law structure, then you're headed right back to the same place that you wanted to leave from.

[John Weaver] You remember what the theme of the book of Judges is? You'll find it in Judges 17 and Judges 21. In those days, there was no king in Israel. Every man did that which was right in his own eyes. When you build on humanism, inevitably, invariably, you're either going to end up in anarchy or totalitarianism. It is only God's law that is designed for liberty and freedom and responsibility. Man's law is designed to enslave and destroy. You remember what our Lord said in Proverbs 8?

[John Weaver] All they that hate me love death. The only society that man can build apart from Jesus Christ and without him is a society of death. John Winthrop said this, men in a word must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or the bayonet. Those who will not be ruled and governed by the Bible will have to be ruled by the bayonet. If you cannot rebuild a society based upon the word of God, you're rebuilding to be destroyed again.

[John Weaver] John Quincy Adams said, the law given from Sinai, that is the Ten Commandments, was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code. Charles Carroll, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence said this, without morals a republic cannot subsist for any length of time. They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governance. And George Washington said it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.

[John Weaver] You say, Brother Weaver, do you think some of these states will ever secede? I don't know. I surely hope so, but I will tell you this and I will give you this warning. If you do successfully secede. And you do not build upon the Word of God. And have the Lord Jesus Christ as your true King and only King. You're wasting your time. And you'll end up again in servitude and slavery.

[John Weaver] Do not trade a bad for a worse. If we secede, let's rebuild based upon the Word of God. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we bow to Thee. We thank Thee for Your Word. We thank Thee for the principles and the truth of Your Word. Help us clarify our thinking. Give us wisdom, Lord, that we may serve Thee and obey Thee in every area of our lives. In Christ's name we pray, Amen.

Biblical Principles of Secession

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	1050912257
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Christian & Civil Government
Genre	Sermon
Date	2009-07-26
Dictation Name
Book	Book 008: Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13 — Chapter 12
Source Timed Segments	88

Formatted Transcript

Opening

Let's open our Bibles then today, if you would please, to the book of 1 Kings chapter 12. 1 Kings chapter 12. Let me just say that you haven't started yet, Roy. Let me just say that I'm going to go over a few things today that you probably already know, but I'm going to say them not just for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who will hear the tape that do not know them. First Kings, Chapter 12, and let's begin reading there with verse 1. The message is entitled, Biblical Principles for Secession. First Kings, Chapter 12, verse 1,

Scripture Reading — 1 Kings 12:1-24

"And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king. And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it, (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) that they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed. And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever." "But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men's counsel that they gave him; And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD, that he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them." "Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only. And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD, and returned to depart, according to the word of the LORD."

Biblical principles for secession. Let me just point out the fact that some of you may or may not be aware, but there are numerous states in this country that are very seriously considering seceding.

Introduction: The Question of Secession

Weaver introduces the topic by noting that many states are considering secession and frames the question as whether to stay under corrupt regimes in Washington, D.C. and state capitals.

In fact, it has been talked about openly in the state of Hawaii, for instance, in the state of Alaska, in the state of Vermont, in the state of Montana. In fact, Northern California has wanted to secede from Southern California for years. In fact, there is a confederation that is talking about that at this particular time. There have been numerous conferences through this land, I can think of about four of them right now, that have really entertained seceding from the United States.

Now, the question has to be asked, should we go or should we stay? Let's put the question another way. Is it time to consider leaving the Union of the States as it now exists and forming a new union or a new confederation of states? I suppose we could really boil it down to a much simpler question. Do we wish to stay under the regime of Washington, D.C. as it now is? Or we could even go further: Do we wish to stay under the regime in many state capitals as they now are? Because, unhappily, many state capitals are just as wicked and just as corrupt and just as perverse as Washington, D.C. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't want to be under Atlanta, Georgia any more than I want to be under Washington, D.C. To me, both of them are just equally corrupt.

Now, someone is going to say, well, why this talk about secession? Don't you know that the war settled that principle once and for all? No. The war did not settle the principle of secession. Force never, ever negates right, righteousness, or a principle of truth. Just because a bully wins does not make the bully right. You would not adopt that attitude if you were walking down the street and a man stepped around the corner. He's larger than you. He's bigger than you. He's stronger than you.

Force Does Not Negate Right

Weaver argues that the Civil War did not settle the principle of secession because force never negates righteousness, using the analogy of a robbery.

Moreover, he has a weapon and he sticks it between your eyes and says, give me all your money. And he robs you of several thousand dollars. But thankfully, he leaves you your life. And as he escapes, do you think to yourself, well, that's settled. The money's gone. I no longer need it. I no longer want it. And it's over and done with. I don't have to call the law. I don't have to try to see him captured. I don't have to try to get my money back. No, no, no.

You would never do it like that. You would say what he's done is wicked and wrong. He may have been stronger. He may have been able to take it, but that does not make right what he did. So just simply because the North won a war, does not mean that they have negated a historical, a constitutional, or a biblical principle. So, when we ask the question, should we go or should we stay?

Definition and Historical Context of Secession

Secession is defined as an act of withdrawal, distinct from revolution or anarchy. Historical support is cited from Horace Greeley, who acknowledged the South's moral right to secede.

Now, the term secession is derived from the Latin word "secedere," which literally means an act of withdrawal. Which is what secession literally means. Secession is not revolution, nor is secession anarchy. It is simply a withdrawal from one union or one government in order that you might establish another union or another government.

Now, secession was understood even by many in the North who hated and despised the South. For instance, Horace Greeley, who was certainly no friend of the South, editor of the Republican New York Tribune, declared on February 23, 1861, after a confederacy had been formed by the seven Gulf states, or cotton states, Horace Greeley wrote this: "We have repeatedly said that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, is sound and just. And that if the cotton states, or the Gulf states only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so. Whenever it shall become clear that the great body of Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views." Listen to what Horace really said. If the South wants to secede, let them go. It is their right.

In our text before us in 1 Kings chapter 12, the ten northern tribes seceded from King Rehoboam. Now Rehoboam was the son of Solomon who was the son of David. God had certainly entered into a covenant with David, and God told David that as long as his sons obeyed him, he would not want for a son to sit upon the throne of Israel. Let me give you just a quick overview of Rehoboam. This was written by Matthew Henry in his commentary, and I found it very interesting what he said about King Rehoboam. Now remember, Rehoboam is the son of Solomon, who was the son of David. Here's what Matthew Henry wrote: "Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines, yet we read of but one son he had to bear up his name, and he is a fool."

Rehoboam's Foolishness and Tyranny

Weaver describes Rehoboam as a foolish king who inherited the throne but lacked wisdom and godliness, setting the stage for the northern tribes' secession.

It is said in Hosea 4:10,

Scripture Reading — Hosea 4:10

"they shall commit whoredom and shall not increase."

Sin is a bad way of building up a family. Rehoboam was the son of the wisest of men, yet did not inherit his father's wisdom. And then it stood him in little stead to inherit his father's throne. Neither wisdom nor grace runs in the blood. Solomon came to the crown very young, yet he was then a wise man. Rehoboam came to the crown at forty years old, when men will be wise, if they ever will, yet he was then foolish. Wisdom does not go by age, nor is it the multitude of years, nor the advantage of education that reaches it. Solomon's court was a mart of wisdom, and the rendezvous of learned men, and Rehoboam was the darling of the court, and yet all was not sufficient to make him a wise man. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. No dispute is made of Rehoboam's succession.

Upon the death of his father, he was immediately proclaimed king. I find that very interesting. He's pointing out how neither wisdom nor grace runs in the blood, and just because you're the son of a wise man certainly does not make you wise. Rehoboam was indeed a lawful descendant of David, yet he had none of David's godliness nor any of Solomon's wisdom. He had been lawfully appointed to rule, but he had no inclination to rule lawfully. He had no intention of governing covenantally or constitutionally. You have to remember this about Solomon. Solomon in his last days fell into idolatry and tyranny. And incidentally, those two things always go together. It is impossible to be a tyrant and rule according to the Word of God. Tyrants are only made when they forsake God and God's law. If you rule biblically and lawfully, it is impossible to be a tyrant. But when you forsake God and His law, tyranny is always the result because fallen man always wants to play God.

The People's Request and Rehoboam's Counsel

The people ask for lighter burdens, and Rehoboam seeks counsel. The old men advise servanthood, but Rehoboam follows the young men's advice to increase oppression.

They were ready to stay. They were ready to work things out. If Rehoboam would only listen, do that which was right, and grant them relief. Do you realize that that was exactly the position of our Founding Fathers? Our Founding Fathers did not initially want to be independent of England. Listen, if you would, to the Declaration of Independence. "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Now listen, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Now, what did our Founding Fathers say? If we can just make things right, we're not willing to abolish the form of government that we're used to. In fact, that is why, and I'll read some of them later, that is why the Fairfax Resolves were written in 1774. Because our founding fathers at that particular time were beseeching George III to keep his end of the covenant. And they were saying, we're willing to be your servants, but we're not willing to be your slaves. So Israel then, according to verse 4, was willing to suffer and to keep Rehoboam as their king as long as he would grant them relief and that he would rule benevolently. In fact, they stated very plainly in verse 4, "we will serve thee."

So their initial plan was to stay. We don't want to leave necessarily. And I want you to note, they did not ask the king to resign. They did not ask the king to withdraw. They did not ask the king to violate the covenant. All they wanted the king to do was to rule covenantally or constitutionally.

Now, when they came to Rehoboam in verse 4 and said, look, make everything lighter, do what you're supposed to do and we'll serve thee. The only wise thing that Rehoboam did throughout this entire situation was that he asked three days to consider their request. If you look in verse 5, "And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed." So he's asked for three days now so that he might consult and get some counsel. Now, I want you to look, beginning with verse 6. He first asked counsel of the old men. I want you to note that there is a difference between the counsel of old men and the counsel of young men. There is a vast difference between the counsel of old men and the thinking of old men and the counsel and thinking of young men. Have you ever noticed why the military always wants all young men? Police departments always want young men.

You'll see why in just a moment. But look in verse six. "And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever. But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us;"

"Thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions."

Covenantal Nature of Government

Weaver explains that all government is covenantal, with rulers obligated to serve the people. David's covenant with Israel and the purpose of civil government as God's deacon are emphasized.

Now, let me put something out that probably you have not gotten just by reading the English, but here it is. The word servant. In verse 7, when they tell the king if you will be the servant of this people. The Hebrew word is the word "Ebed," which literally means a slave, a bond slave, a manservant. So they said, now look, King, if you're willing to be the slave or the servant of this people, if you're willing to recognize that you reign not only by the decree of God, but also by the consent of the governed, fine. If you will be their servant, notice if you would, in verse 7, then they will be thy servants for ever. And in other words, if you will be a slave to the people, and the same word is used in the latter part, then they, the people, will be a slave to you. In other words, there is a reciprocity in covenantal obligations. So the king, then, is covenantally obligated to be a slave or servant to the people.

And as he serves them, then in return, they turn around and serve him. Now let me point out again, I've said this innumerable times, all government is covenantal in nature. I don't care if you're talking about family government, church government, or civil government. In fact, when David was made king of Israel, and you remember that David was chosen by God, you remember that? But just because God chose David to be king did not mean that God just threw him down and said, there he is boys, he's your king whether you like it or not. No, no, no. Although David was chosen by God to be king, he was also chosen by the people. And in 1 Chronicles 11:3, we read this, "Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel." Now, notice God chose David, but He chose him mediately, that is, through the will and the recognition of the people, and the people then entered into a covenant with David.

There was a kingly covenant. There was a kingly constitution. It was true under David. It was true under Solomon. It certainly was true under Rehoboam as well. Let me ask this question. Why did God choose David? And why did God allow David to ascend to the throne? We could enlarge that question. And we could ask, why does God allow anyone to have a position of authority? Well, if you look in your Bibles, hold 1 Kings, but look in your Bibles to 2 Samuel chapter 5 and verse 12. I want you to read what David understood, and here is where most civil rulers fail in their understanding. In 2 Samuel chapter 5 and verse 12, I want you to note what David perceived. David understood. 2 Samuel 5:12, "And David perceived that the LORD had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel's sake." Why did God establish David? Why did God exalt his kingdom? For his people Israel's sake. In other words, a true ruler, listen carefully, a true ruler does not rule for himself. He does not rule for his position.

He does not rule for his program. He does not rule for his party. But he rules for the people over which God has placed him. A true ruler is always a servant. We used to have in this country a phrase referring to our rulers. We called them public servants. You use that today on a bureaucrat, and he'll be very visibly upset because no politician today ever thinks he's your servant. He thinks he is your master.

Biblical Principles Leading to Secession

Four principles are outlined: when rulers are wicked and tyrannical, when they violate covenantal obligations, when they rule by force, and when they steal from the people.

My father beat you with whips. I'll beat you with scorpions. I'll have something that will really sting. My father made your yoke heavy. I'm going to make it heavier. I'm going to add to that yoke. You know, I told you earlier there's a difference between the thinking of old men and thinking of young men. Old men usually think biblically. They think of working things out. Young men always think of force and aggression.

What are the principles now that will lead to secession? I'm going to show you from 1 Kings chapter 12. When is it time to secede? Well, according to the Bible, it is time to secede when rulers are wicked, ungodly and tyrannical. When civil rulers are wicked, ungodly, and tyrannical. Listen to this statement. When power and authority become tyrannical, resistance is a duty. God has never ordained a tyrannical or despotic form of government.

I want you to understand this in light of Rehoboam especially. I want you to hold 1st Kings chapter 12, but I want you to turn, if you would please, to Romans 13. I know you know this passage. That's fine. But look in Romans chapter 13 at verses 3 and 4 and look at why God established civil government to begin with. Romans chapter 13. Look, if you would, at verses 3 and 4. He says this.

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:1-6

"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."

Now notice, if you would, God said that he ordained civil government for our good. Here's my question. How can one who steals your wealth, takes away your freedom, destroys your liberty, and enslaves your family be for your good? The subjection and the obedience that God demands from everyone in Romans 13 verses 1 and 2 is dependent upon the civil rulers being what God demands for them to be in verse 3, in verse 4, and in verse 6. Let me put it this way. Romans 1 and 2 are indeed conditional. Why did God ordain civil government? Let me just go over this very quickly. I know you know this. But here it is again. When the Bible says in Romans 13, verse 1, that

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:1-6

"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."

The word powers is the word "exousia," which means powers, authorities, or jurisdictions. So he says all jurisdictions are basically ordained by God. Then in verse 2, he says this, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." The word ordinance is "diatage," which literally means that which has been established, an arrangement. In other words, God has given an orderly arrangement for authority in the family, in the church, and in the civil government. Now, in verse 3, the civil rulers are just simply referred to as rulers, which means chief ones or leaders. Fine. But when you get to verse 4 of Romans 13, "for he is the minister of God to thee for good."

And then later on in verse 4, "for he is the minister of God." Twice in verse 4, the civil ruler is called a minister. The Greek word there is the word "diakonos." It is where we get our English word deacon from. And it literally means a servant. So God then has ordained civil government to be His servant, to be His deacon. If civil government is to be His deacon, is to be His servant, what does that mean? It means it's to carry out God's word and God's will and to honor God by being His servant and being submissive to Him. In verse 4 again, he says this, "for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." What does the word revenger mean? It is from the Greek word "ekdikos." "Ek" is a preposition which means out of or from, and "dikaios" is the Greek word for righteousness. What is a revenger? It's someone who exacts righteousness. So God, then, ordained civil government not just to be a ruler, but to be His deacon, His servant, to exact righteousness.

In other words, God ordained civil government to fulfill and to carry out His law and apply His law based upon the authority that He gave them. When you get down to verse 6, the Bible again refers to them as ministers. They are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. The word ministers now is a different word. It's no longer the word deacon. It's the Greek word "leitourgos" or "leitourgoi" in the plural. It is where we get our English word liturgy from. What is a liturgy? It's a public worship. We come in, we have music, we have prayer, that's worship.

I don't care if you're in a Roman Catholic church, an Episcopal church, or the most independent Baptist church you'll ever find. Every church has a liturgy. It's a public worship. Why did God ordain civil government? Here's why. Not just to be a raw power, not just to be an ordinance, just to have an ordinance, not just to have chief ones or leaders, but God gave authority, God gave the ordinance of government to be His deacon, His exactor of righteousness, and His public worship. Period. You see, most people today are willing to admit the government's power, but they're not willing to go as far as God goes and say that they have that power from God, and that authority from God, and that power and that authority is only to be used according as God has directed. Now, you ask again, if government is to be God's deacon, who must it obey? The answer is God. If it is to be God's exactor of righteousness, whose righteousness must it exact? The answer is God's. If government is to be His public worship, whom then must it publicly worship?

The answer is God. So how do we know whether or not secession is to be even entering in our mind? And the answer comes back when your civil rulers are ungodly, wicked and tyrannical. Here's the second one. You know, it's time to think of secession when rulers constantly and consistently violate their covenantal obligations. Now, I want you to think about this. When these people came to Rehoboam and said, make thou our burdens lighter. We will serve thee. It never entered Rehoboam's mind. Let me read our covenantal agreement. Let me paraphrase that. Let me read our constitution. No, no, no.

The Role of God's Law and the Constitution

Weaver argues that rulers must govern by God's law, and the U.S. Constitution is a limited powers document. Violation of the covenant releases the people from obedience.

He said, I'm going to consult. I'll get the counsel of the old man, and I'll get the counsel of the new man, the young man. So what did he do? He forsook the counsel of the old man, and he followed the counsel of the young man. You see, all rulers in Israel were to rule and judge according to the law of God. They were to be governed, they were to be controlled, and they were to be limited by that covenant and by God's law. Let me read to you what God said to the judges in 2 Chronicles 19:6. Listen carefully. "And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment." You judge not for man, but you judge for the Lord. Did you realize in Deuteronomy 17, verses 18 through 20, the law of God required the civil ruler to have his own personal copy of the law of God and he was to read therein day and night.

Why? So that he could rule covenantally. So that he could rule biblically. I want you to turn, if you would, to 2 Samuel 23. Let me show you a very important passage. 2 Samuel 23. And let's begin reading there with verse 1. I want you to look at how many times David claims direct inspiration from God for one simple statement. David is claiming direct inspiration from God for one simple statement. 2 Samuel 23 verse 1. "Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said," Now look, "The Spirit of the LORD spake by me." That's once.

"And his word was in my tongue." That's twice. "The God of Israel said," that's three times. "the Rock of Israel spake to me," that's four times. Four times David claims direct inspiration from God for this simple statement, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." Notice, he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. It is impossible to rule in the fear of God apart from the Word of God. If you rule justly, you must rule biblically, for justice is only found in the Word of God. You cannot rule justly. You cannot rule righteously without ruling biblically.

Let me point this out very clearly. Our fathers understood this principle. Did you know that when this nation was founded, our forefathers required that their rulers be Christian and that they rule according to the Bible. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time proving this. There is a message that I preached many years ago, "The Biblical Attitude Toward Ungodly Rulers," in which I quote a number of these. But let me just give you a few just to demonstrate that our forefathers understood that the Bible is to be our law book. The New Haven Colony Charter, April the 3rd, 1644, adopted the rules for governing the courts of the New Haven Colony, stating "the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses, are to be a rule in all the courts in this jurisdiction." Isn't that simple? Do you realize that juries used to determine verdicts based upon the Word of God? Judges used to walk into the courtroom with an open Bible and men stood out of respect for the Bible. Then they kicked the Bible out and now they want you to stand in respect of them. The Charter of Delaware in 1701 says this.

"And that also all persons who also profess to be believers in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, shall be capable, notwithstanding other persuasions and practices in point of conscience and religion, to serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively." Did you hear what they said? If you want to serve in Delaware in 1701, you had to be a Christian. You don't have to be a Baptist or you don't have to be a Presbyterian. But you had to be a Christian. The Constitution of Delaware in 1776, Article 22, says this. "Every person that shall be chosen a member of either of the houses or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath or affirmation." You had to put your own name there. "I, [blank], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." You could not hold an office when this country was begun unless you were a Christian. Unless you profess faith in Jesus Christ and believe the Bible to be the word of God. John Jay, said this. Believe he was the first Supreme Court justice. He said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is their duty as well as their privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

You know what we've done? We have done exactly what Rehoboam has done in this country, we've set aside the law of God as our covenant. Now, what we did is we adopted a constitution. An interesting thing, even if you want to go constitutionally. I want you to listen to Article six, paragraph two of the United States Constitution. Here's what it says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States," what's the authority of the United States? The Constitution. "and which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Now, what does the Constitution say in Article 6, Paragraph 2? It is to be the supreme law of the land. Every officer is to take an oath that he's going to uphold the Constitution.

And for years, the presidents took their oath of office with their hand upon Deuteronomy 28, which was the blessings and the curses. The Constitution is known as an express powers document or a limited powers document. When you refer to it as an express powers document, here's what it means. That the only authority, the only power that the federal government has is that which is expressed in the Constitution. When you call it a limited powers document, it means similarly that the only power, the only authority the federal government has is that which is limited to the Constitution. In other words, if it is not expressly stated in the Constitution that the federal government has such and such power, then they don't have it. You say, well, how did they get all this power? The answer is simple. They stole it. They usurped it. Any authority that has not been given to the federal government by the states or the people thereof has been usurped and stolen. Patrick Henry said, and I'm quoting, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate their lives."

All I can say is we haven't been doing too much restraining, have we? Because it certainly has come to dominate our lives. Now, there's a principle, and I'm not going to enunciate it here other than just mention it. There's a principle in the Bible. It's clear not only in the Bible, but it's also clear in law that when one party violates the covenant, it releases the other party from obedience to the covenant. You remember the covenant was entered into by the spies and Rahab in Joshua chapter two. How that.

They said, look, we agree that we will spare you and your family if you have all your family in this house and if you have this red cord hanging down because our men don't know who your family is and they don't know what your house is. And if any of your family comes out in the street and they get killed, that's tough. They should have stayed in the house. But if we enter your house and kill anybody, their blood's going to be on us. Once they agreed to this covenant, as she let the spies down, the spy said this in Joshua 2 and verse 20,

Scripture Reading — Joshua 2:20

"And if thou utter this our business, then we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear."

In other words, Rahab, if you violate your end of the covenant, we're not obligated to keep our end of the covenant. We'll kill you like we kill everyone else.

So here we find that all government is covenantal in nature. We find that even our Constitution says that this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.

Historical Parallels and the Fairfax Resolves

The American founding fathers' resistance to British taxation without consent is paralleled with Rehoboam's tax collection, illustrating the right to withhold money from tyrannical government.

Now, I want you to know what happened when the king answered roughly to the people. You think I'm going to make things lighter for you, I'm going to make it worse. My father beat you with the whips, I'm going to whip you with scorpions. In verse 16, look at it. "So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David?" "Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents." Now, Israel left Judah and Judah's king. There was a formal declaration of secession. We have no right in David. We have no right in you. To your tents, O Israel. What portion have we in David? What inheritance do we have in this son of David? No. We're leaving. You take care of your own business. We'll take care of ours.

Now, evidently, Abraham Lincoln learned from Rehoboam. Because Lincoln, like Rehoboam, planned on collecting taxes from people who did not owe taxes. He planned on collecting taxes from states that had seceded from the Union. See, Rehoboam's going to do the same thing. Israel has seceded. Israel has withdrawn. But Rehoboam says, you're going to pay for my government anyhow. Well, look, if you would please, in verse 17, "But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem." So Rehoboam sent Adoram, his head tax collector, to Israel to collect the taxes. And Rehoboam went along just to make sure they understood he had royal authority to collect those taxes. And the people of Israel stoned him with stones. And when Rehoboam said, hmm, things aren't working out quite the way I want to, I better get back to Jerusalem while I can.

And he fled. Do you realize that King George III of England was going to do the same thing. He was going to try to force collection of taxes upon the American colonists. The American colonists did not owe those taxes. They were never under Parliament. They had their own legislatures. They knew that a war was coming, so in an effort to head off that war, George Washington, George Mason and Charles Broadwater met in Fairfax, Virginia in July of 1774, and they drew up what are known as the Fairfax Resolves. There were 24 of those resolves.

I want to just read two of them to you. Listen to resolve number five. It does sound like Congress now, so pay attention. This was written in 1774. "Resolved, that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament of making all such laws as they think fit to govern the people of these colonies and to extort from us our money without our consent is not only diametrically contrary to the first principles of the Constitution and the original compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and government," "but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural rights of mankind, will render our own legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery." Now listen to what they said. "Resolved, that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament of making all such laws as they think fit."

You know what your Congress is doing? They're trying to force upon you a nationalized health care system, but they have exempted themselves from that same national health care system. They're trying to make all such laws as they think fit, regardless of whether you consent to those laws or not. Regardless of whether you want them or not. And they said, "and to extort from us our money without our consent." It's diametrically opposed. to the covenants, to the constitutions that we have with George III. They said it's calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery. Listen to number six. This is just unbelievable. Number six. "Resolved, that taxation and representation are in their nature inseparable, and the right of withholding or of giving and granting their own money, is the only effectual security to a free people against the encroachments of despotism and tyranny, and that whenever they yield to the one, they must quickly fall prey to the other."

Now, I want to tell you what George Washington, the first president, said. George Mason, Charles Broadwater, they said this, if you do not have the right to withhold your money or give your money to government at your pleasure, you're a slave. That's what they just said. That the right of withholding or giving or granting their own money is the only effectual security of a free people. In other words, if we don't like what government does, we don't support it. It can't do it. It has no money. If we like what it's doing, we support it. It does have money. But if government then can force us to give them our money, then we're slaves. That's what George Washington said. That's what Charles Broadwater said. That's what George Mason said. So despotism and tyranny, according to these men, is the inability to withhold one's money or to grant one's money. And if you don't have that ability, they said it's tyranny.

God's Ordination of Secession

Weaver shows from 1 Kings 12:15 and 24 that the secession was from the Lord, and the Hebrew word for 'rebelled' means to step away, aligning with the concept of secession.

We're bidden over and over in Scripture, and I didn't quote all these passages, to separate ourselves from wickedness and ungodliness. In fact, if you look in verse 15, we know that it's biblical because the Bible says, 1 Kings 12, verse 15, "Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people," help me out now, "for the cause was from the LORD." Hmm. Look, if you would, in verse 24, "Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me." God said, I'm the one that ordained the secession, I'm the one that ordained the separation. God oftentimes uses the wickedness, the impotence, the stubbornness and the stupidity of rulers to bring about a separation of his people from them. You say, now wait a minute, Brother Weaver. If you're trying to tell me that Israel seceded here and that this thing was from God, how do you explain verse 19? Look at verse 19. "So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day."

Well, the answer is very simple. The root word for rebel there literally means to step, to march, to step forward or step away. Literally what it says is this. So Israel stepped away, marched away from the house of David unto this day. You know, that's exactly what secession is. Secession is a stepping away. It's a walking away. It's leaving one confederation and beginning a different one.

Warning: Do Not Trade a Bad for a Worse

Weaver warns that secession must be followed by rebuilding on God's law, not humanism, or the new society will become as tyrannical as the old, citing Israel's choice of Jeroboam.

We cannot, and we must not, trade a bad for a worse. Now, what do I mean by that? Here's what I mean. Israel left Rehoboam. It is true that Rehoboam was a tyrant. It is true that he was wicked and unbiblical and ungodly. But stupid Israel turned around and made Jeroboam their king, who was also idolatrous and a tyrant as well. An idolatrous man and a tyrant as well. You cannot replace humanism with humanism.

Why in the world would you jump out of the frying pan into the fire? If we have to withdraw from a wicked, ungodly, humanistic confederation, we have to have something better to replace it with. You cannot replace something with nothing. Let me just ask you this question, and you answer it in your own mind. You think about this. If our society as we know it collapsed today. I mean a total complete collapse. And you had to rebuild this society from scratch. And you could start tomorrow rebuilding. Here's my question. What law structure would you use to rebuild society? Would you use God's law structure, or would you use man's law structure? If you say, well, we're going to use man's law structure, then you're headed right back to the same place that you wanted to leave from.

You remember what the theme of the book of Judges is? You'll find it in Judges 17 and Judges 21. "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." When you build on humanism, inevitably, invariably, you're either going to end up in anarchy or totalitarianism. It is only God's law that is designed for liberty and freedom and responsibility. Man's law is designed to enslave and destroy. You remember what our Lord said in Proverbs 8?

Scripture Reading — Proverbs 8:36

"All they that hate me love death."

The only society that man can build apart from Jesus Christ and without him is a society of death. John Winthrop said this, "Men in a word must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or the bayonet." Those who will not be ruled and governed by the Bible will have to be ruled by the bayonet. If you cannot rebuild a society based upon the word of God, you're rebuilding to be destroyed again.

John Quincy Adams said, "The law given from Sinai, that is the Ten Commandments, was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code." Charles Carroll, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence said this, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist for any length of time. They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governance." And George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." You say, Brother Weaver, do you think some of these states will ever secede? I don't know. I surely hope so, but I will tell you this and I will give you this warning. If you do successfully secede, and you do not build upon the Word of God, and have the Lord Jesus Christ as your true King and only King, you're wasting your time. And you'll end up again in servitude and slavery.

Conclusion and Prayer

Weaver concludes with a call to rebuild on the Word of God and prays for wisdom to obey God in all areas of life.

Do not trade a bad for a worse. If we secede, let's rebuild based upon the Word of God. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we bow to Thee. We thank Thee for Your Word. We thank Thee for the principles and the truth of Your Word. Help us clarify our thinking. Give us wisdom, Lord, that we may serve Thee and obey Thee in every area of our lives. In Christ's name we pray, Amen.

Study Guide

Major Themes

Biblical Basis for Secession

Summary: Secession is presented as a scriptural right when government becomes tyrannical, as demonstrated by the northern tribes' withdrawal from Rehoboam.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'Is secession biblical? And the answer is, of course it is.' He cites 1 Kings 12:15 and 24 to show God's ordination of the separation.

Covenantal Government

Summary: All government is covenantal, requiring rulers to serve the people and obey God's law; violation of the covenant releases the people from obedience.

Evidence: Weaver explains, 'all government is covenantal in nature' and uses the example of David's covenant with Israel and the spies' covenant with Rahab.

Tyranny and Resistance

Summary: When rulers become tyrannical, resistance is a duty. Tyranny is defined as government acting legally while citizens cannot, and ruling by force rather than consent.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'When power and authority become tyrannical, resistance is a duty.' He quotes Jefferson: 'When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny.'

God's Law as the Foundation for Society

Summary: A just society must be built on God's law; humanism leads to anarchy or totalitarianism. Secession without a biblical foundation is futile.

Evidence: Weaver warns, 'If you cannot rebuild a society based upon the word of God, you're rebuilding to be destroyed again.' He cites John Winthrop: 'either by the Bible or the bayonet.'

Consent of the Governed

Summary: Just powers derive from the consent of the governed; taxation without consent is tyranny. The Fairfax Resolves and Declaration of Independence are cited.

Evidence: Weaver reads from the Declaration: 'deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' He quotes the Fairfax Resolves on the right to withhold money.

Historical Precedent for Secession

Summary: Historical figures like Horace Greeley and the founding fathers acknowledged the right of secession. The South seceded to preserve constitutional principles.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Greeley: 'if the cotton states... choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so.' He cites Jefferson Davis on leaving with the Constitution.

The Role of Civil Government as God's Minister

Summary: Civil government is ordained by God to be His deacon, exactor of righteousness, and public worship, serving the people for their good.

Evidence: Weaver expounds Romans 13:4, noting the Greek words for 'minister' (diakonos) and 'revenger' (ekdikos), emphasizing government's duty to exact God's righteousness.

Warning Against Replacing Tyranny with Tyranny

Summary: Secession must not trade a bad government for a worse one; Israel's choice of Jeroboam, an idolatrous tyrant, serves as a cautionary tale.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'We cannot, and we must not, trade a bad for a worse... You cannot replace humanism with humanism.' He points to Israel making Jeroboam king.

Key Arguments

Force does not settle moral principles

Summary: The Civil War did not negate the right of secession because might does not make right, illustrated by the robbery analogy.

Evidence: Weaver argues, 'Force never, ever negates right, righteousness, or a principle of truth. Just because a bully wins does not make the bully right.'

Secession is a withdrawal, not revolution

Summary: Secession is defined as an act of withdrawal to form a new government, distinct from revolution or anarchy.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'Secession is not revolution, nor is secession anarchy. It is simply a withdrawal from one union or one government in order that you might establish another union or another government.'

Rulers must be servants

Summary: Biblical rulers are to be servants (ebed) of the people, ruling for their sake, not for personal power.

Evidence: Weaver explains the Hebrew word 'ebed' in 1 Kings 12:7 and cites 2 Samuel 5:12: 'he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel's sake.'

Government is covenantal and conditional

Summary: Obedience to government is conditional upon rulers fulfilling their God-ordained role as ministers of good; violation releases the people.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'The subjection and the obedience that God demands... is dependent upon the civil rulers being what God demands for them to be.' He cites the covenant with Rahab.

Tyranny is defined by force and lack of consent

Summary: When rulers use force instead of consent, and when government actions are legal for them but illegal for citizens, it is tyranny.

Evidence: Weaver quotes Jefferson: 'tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizens.' He points to Rehoboam's threat of scorpions.

Taxation without consent is theft

Summary: Forcing people to fund a government they do not consent to is tyrannical and sinful, as argued in the Fairfax Resolves.

Evidence: Weaver reads the Fairfax Resolves: 'to extort from us our money without our consent is... totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people.'

God ordains secession as a judgment

Summary: God uses the wickedness of rulers to bring about separation, as seen in 1 Kings 12:15 and 24 where the secession is declared to be from the Lord.

Evidence: Weaver points to the verses: 'for the cause was from the LORD' and 'for this thing is from me.'

Rebuilding must be on God's law

Summary: Any new society after secession must be founded on biblical law, or it will repeat the cycle of tyranny, as Israel did with Jeroboam.

Evidence: Weaver warns, 'If you do successfully secede, and you do not build upon the Word of God... you're wasting your time.' He cites the book of Judges theme.

Scripture References

1 Kings 12:1-24

Context: The entire narrative of Rehoboam and the secession of the ten northern tribes is read and expounded as the primary text.

Hosea 4:10

Context: Quoted by Matthew Henry to illustrate that sin does not build up a family, in reference to Solomon's many wives but only one foolish son.

1 Chronicles 11:3

Context: Cited to show that David made a covenant with the elders of Israel before being anointed king, demonstrating covenantal government.

2 Samuel 5:12

Context: Used to prove that David understood his kingdom was exalted for the people's sake, not his own, establishing the servant nature of rulers.

Romans 13:1-6

Context: Expounded to show that civil government is ordained by God as a minister for good, a deacon, an exactor of righteousness, and a public worship.

2 Chronicles 19:6

Context: Quoted to emphasize that judges judge not for man but for the Lord, reinforcing the need for rulers to follow God's law.

Deuteronomy 17:18-20

Context: Referenced to show that the law required the king to have his own copy of the law and read it daily to rule covenantally.

2 Samuel 23:1-3

Context: Quoted to demonstrate David's claim of divine inspiration for the principle that rulers must be just and rule in the fear of God.

Joshua 2:20

Context: Used to illustrate the covenantal principle that violation by one party releases the other from obligation.

Judges 17:6; 21:25

Context: Cited to show the theme of Judges: when there is no king, everyone does what is right in his own eyes, leading to anarchy or totalitarianism.

Proverbs 8:36

Context: Quoted to support that those who hate God love death, implying that a society without Christ is a society of death.

Historical References

Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, February 23, 1861

Context: Greeley, a Northern editor, acknowledged the moral right of the cotton states to secede if they chose.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on Rehoboam

Context: Weaver quotes Henry's assessment of Rehoboam as a fool, despite being Solomon's son, to illustrate that wisdom does not run in blood.

Lord Acton

Context: Quoted: 'There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it,' to argue that office does not make a ruler wise or godly.

William Pitt

Context: Quoted: 'Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it... where law ends, there tyranny begins,' to support the need for law.

Declaration of Independence

Context: Quoted to show that governments derive just powers from consent and that prudence dictates not changing for light causes.

Fairfax Resolves, 1774

Context: Resolves 5 and 6 are read to show the founding fathers' protest against taxation without consent and the right to withhold money.

New Haven Colony Charter, 1644

Context: Cited as an example of early American law requiring the judicial laws of God as delivered by Moses to rule in courts.

Delaware Charter of 1701 and Constitution of 1776, Article 22

Context: Used to show that early American governments required officeholders to profess faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible.

John Jay

Context: Quoted: 'Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers... to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.'

Jefferson Davis

Context: Quoted: 'I love the Union, but I had rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without the Constitution.'

Important Quotes

Force never, ever negates right, righteousness, or a principle of truth. Just because a bully wins does not make the bully right.

Significance: Establishes the foundational argument that the Civil War did not settle the moral right of secession.

Secession is not revolution, nor is secession anarchy. It is simply a withdrawal from one union or one government in order that you might establish another union or another government.

Significance: Defines secession clearly to distinguish it from other forms of political change.

When power and authority become tyrannical, resistance is a duty. God has never ordained a tyrannical or despotic form of government.

Significance: States the moral imperative to resist tyranny as a biblical duty.

The subjection and the obedience that God demands from everyone in Romans 13 verses 1 and 2 is dependent upon the civil rulers being what God demands for them to be in verse 3, in verse 4, and in verse 6.

Significance: Argues that biblical submission to government is conditional on the government fulfilling its God-given role.

If you cannot rebuild a society based upon the word of God, you're rebuilding to be destroyed again.

Significance: Warns that secession without a biblical foundation will lead to repeated tyranny.

We cannot, and we must not, trade a bad for a worse.

Significance: Central application warning against replacing one tyrannical government with another.

Those who will not be ruled and governed by the Bible will have to be ruled by the bayonet.

Significance: Summarizes the choice between self-governance under God's law and external coercion.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate their lives.

Significance: Quotes Patrick Henry to emphasize the proper role of the Constitution as a limit on government power.

Discussion Questions

How does the analogy of the robbery illustrate the principle that force does not negate right, and how does this apply to the Civil War and secession?

Context: Weaver uses the robbery analogy to argue that the North's victory did not settle the moral question of secession.

In what ways does Rehoboam's rejection of the old men's counsel and acceptance of the young men's counsel reflect a rejection of covenantal, servant leadership?

Context: The contrast between the two counsels highlights the difference between ruling by consent and ruling by force.

How does the concept of government as God's 'deacon' or 'minister' in Romans 13 shape our understanding of when resistance to government is justified?

Context: Weaver expounds the Greek words to show that government must serve God's purposes, implying limits to its authority.

What parallels can be drawn between the Fairfax Resolves' protest against taxation without consent and modern governmental overreach?

Context: Weaver reads the resolves to show the founding fathers' view that forced taxation is tyranny.

Why does Weaver insist that secession must be followed by rebuilding on God's law, and what are the dangers of rebuilding on humanism?

Context: The warning against trading a bad for a worse is based on Israel's choice of Jeroboam and the cycle in Judges.

How does the covenantal nature of government, as seen in David's covenant with Israel, affect the legitimacy of a government that violates its covenant?

Context: Weaver argues that violation of covenant releases the people from obedience, using Rahab as an example.

What does it mean for a ruler to be a 'servant' (ebed) of the people, and how does this contrast with modern political leadership?

Context: The Hebrew word for servant implies a bond slave, emphasizing the ruler's duty to serve rather than be served.

How should Christians evaluate whether current governmental actions constitute the kind of tyranny that warrants consideration of secession?

Context: Weaver lists principles such as wickedness, covenant violation, rule by force, and theft as indicators.

Applications

Evaluate Government by Biblical Standards

Summary: Believers must assess civil rulers based on whether they fulfill their God-ordained role as ministers for good, not merely on their power.

Evidence: Weaver says, 'The subjection and the obedience that God demands... is dependent upon the civil rulers being what God demands for them to be.'

Recognize Covenantal Violations

Summary: When government consistently violates its constitutional or covenantal obligations, it may be time to consider withdrawal.

Evidence: Weaver states, 'when rulers constantly and consistently violate their covenantal obligations... it's time to think of secession.'

Resist Tyranny as a Duty

Summary: Resistance to tyrannical government is not only a right but a duty, as God has not ordained despotism.

Evidence: Weaver declares, 'When power and authority become tyrannical, resistance is a duty.'

Withhold Support from Tyrannical Government

Summary: Citizens have a right and duty to withhold their money from a government that acts without consent, as the Fairfax Resolves argue.

Evidence: Weaver reads, 'the right of withholding or of giving and granting their own money, is the only effectual security to a free people.'

Build Society on God's Law

Summary: Any new government or society must be founded on biblical law to avoid repeating the cycle of tyranny; humanism leads to destruction.

Evidence: Weaver warns, 'If you cannot rebuild a society based upon the word of God, you're rebuilding to be destroyed again.'

Do Not Trade Tyranny for Tyranny

Summary: In seeking secession, ensure that the replacement government is godly, not merely a different form of humanistic tyranny.

Evidence: Weaver cautions, 'We cannot, and we must not, trade a bad for a worse... You cannot replace humanism with humanism.'

Seek Rulers Who Fear God

Summary: Christians should select and prefer leaders who profess faith in Christ and govern by the Bible, as early American charters required.

Evidence: Weaver cites John Jay: 'select and prefer Christians for their rulers' and the Delaware Constitution's requirement of Christian faith.

Understand Secession as a Biblical Option

Summary: Secession is a scriptural principle that may be considered when government becomes irredeemably wicked and oppressive.

Evidence: Weaver concludes, 'Is secession biblical? And the answer is, of course it is.'

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T03:27:22Z

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T16:18:19Z

Clean Transcript

Biblical Principles of Secession

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

Let's open our Bibles then today, if you would please, to the book of 1 Kings chapter 12. 1 Kings chapter 12. Let me just say that you haven't started yet, Roy. Let me just say that I'm going to go over a few things today that you probably already know, but I'm going to say them not just for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who will hear the tape that do not know them. First Kings, Chapter 12, and let's begin reading there with verse 1.
#1 | 0:02 to 0:35 | cleaned
The message is entitled, Biblical Principles for Secession. First Kings, Chapter 12, verse 1, "And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king. And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it, (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) that they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed. And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever."
#2 | 0:35 to 1:37 | cleaned
"But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions."
#3 | 1:38 to 2:20 | cleaned
"So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men's counsel that they gave him; And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD, that he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them."
#4 | 2:21 to 3:16 | cleaned
"Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only. And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, the
#5 | 3:17 to 4:15 | cleaned
children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD, and returned to depart, according to the word of the LORD." Biblical principles for secession. Let me just point out the fact that some of you may or may not be aware, but there are numerous states in this country that are very seriously considering seceding.
#6 | 4:15 to 4:43 | cleaned
In fact, it has been talked about openly in the state of Hawaii, for instance, in the state of Alaska, in the state of Vermont, in the state of Montana. In fact, Northern California has wanted to secede from Southern California for years. In fact, there is a confederation that is talking about that at this particular time. There have been numerous conferences through this land, I can think of about four of them right now, that have really entertained seceding from the United States.
#7 | 4:44 to 5:20 | cleaned
Now, the question has to be asked, should we go or should we stay? Let's put the question another way. Is it time to consider leaving the Union of the States as it now exists and forming a new union or a new confederation of states? I suppose we could really boil it down to a much simpler question. Do we wish to stay under the regime of Washington, D.C. as it now is? Or we could even go further: Do we wish to stay under the regime in many state capitals as they now are? Because, unhappily, many state capitals are just as wicked and just as corrupt and just as perverse as Washington, D.C. Now, I don't know about you, but I don't want to be under Atlanta, Georgia any more than I want to be under Washington, D.C. To me, both of them are just equally corrupt.
#8 | 5:21 to 6:23 | cleaned
Now, someone is going to say, well, why this talk about secession? Don't you know that the war settled that principle once and for all? No. The war did not settle the principle of secession. Force never, ever negates right, righteousness, or a principle of truth. Just because a bully wins does not make the bully right. You would not adopt that attitude if you were walking down the street and a man stepped around the corner. He's larger than you. He's bigger than you. He's stronger than you.
#9 | 6:24 to 7:03 | cleaned
Moreover, he has a weapon and he sticks it between your eyes and says, give me all your money. And he robs you of several thousand dollars. But thankfully, he leaves you your life. And as he escapes, do you think to yourself, well, that's settled. The money's gone. I no longer need it. I no longer want it. And it's over and done with. I don't have to call the law. I don't have to try to see him captured. I don't have to try to get my money back. No, no, no.
#10 | 7:03 to 7:32 | cleaned
You would never do it like that. You would say what he's done is wicked and wrong. He may have been stronger. He may have been able to take it, but that does not make right what he did. So just simply because the North won a war, does not mean that they have negated a historical, a constitutional, or a biblical principle. So, when we ask the question, should we go or should we stay?
#11 | 7:32 to 7:59 | cleaned
There are many ways that you could look at the answer. One of those ways is historically. I've done that before. I'm not going to do that today. If you will listen to the message that I have preached, "Was Secession Treasonous?" I give you many historical illustrations there concerning secession. But when you look to history for direction and guidance, you certainly will get some. But for the child of God, the question has to be resolved based upon the word of God. So I want to give you a biblical principle, or I might point out several principles that lead to secession.
#12 | 8:00 to 8:34 | cleaned
Now, the term secession is derived from the Latin word "secedere," which literally means an act of withdrawal. Which is what secession literally means. Secession is not revolution, nor is secession anarchy. It is simply a withdrawal from one union or one government in order that you might establish another union or another government.
#13 | 8:35 to 9:03 | cleaned
Now, secession was understood even by many in the North who hated and despised the South. For instance, Horace Greeley, who was certainly no friend of the South, editor of the Republican New York Tribune, declared on February 23, 1861, after a confederacy had been formed by the seven Gulf states, or cotton states, Horace Greeley wrote this: "We have repeatedly said that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, is sound and just. And that if the cotton states, or the Gulf states only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so. Whenever it shall become clear that the great body of Southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will do our best to forward their views." Listen to what Horace really said. If the South wants to secede, let them go. It is their right.
#14 | 9:04 to 10:18 | cleaned
In our text before us in 1 Kings chapter 12, the ten northern tribes seceded from King Rehoboam. Now Rehoboam was the son of Solomon who was the son of David. God had certainly entered into a covenant with David, and God told David that as long as his sons obeyed him, he would not want for a son to sit upon the throne of Israel. Let me give you just a quick overview of Rehoboam. This was written by Matthew Henry in his commentary, and I found it very interesting what he said about King Rehoboam. Now remember, Rehoboam is the son of Solomon, who was the son of David. Here's what Matthew Henry wrote: "Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines, yet we read of but one son he had to bear up his name, and he is a fool."
#15 | 10:19 to 11:17 | cleaned
It is said in Hosea 4:10, "they shall commit whoredom and shall not increase." Sin is a bad way of building up a family. Rehoboam was the son of the wisest of men, yet did not inherit his father's wisdom. And then it stood him in little stead to inherit his father's throne. Neither wisdom nor grace runs in the blood. Solomon came to the crown very young, yet he was then a wise man. Rehoboam came to the crown at forty years old, when men will be wise, if they ever will, yet he was then foolish. Wisdom does not go by age, nor is it the multitude of years, nor the advantage of education that reaches it. Solomon's court was a mart of wisdom, and the rendezvous of learned men, and Rehoboam was the darling of the court, and yet all was not sufficient to make him a wise man. The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. No dispute is made of Rehoboam's succession.
#16 | 11:18 to 12:17 | cleaned
Upon the death of his father, he was immediately proclaimed king. I find that very interesting. He's pointing out how neither wisdom nor grace runs in the blood, and just because you're the son of a wise man certainly does not make you wise. Rehoboam was indeed a lawful descendant of David, yet he had none of David's godliness nor any of Solomon's wisdom. He had been lawfully appointed to rule, but he had no inclination to rule lawfully.
#17 | 12:17 to 12:52 | cleaned
He had no intention of governing covenantally or constitutionally. You have to remember this about Solomon. Solomon in his last days fell into idolatry and tyranny. And incidentally, those two things always go together. It is impossible to be a tyrant and rule according to the Word of God. Tyrants are only made when they forsake God and God's law. If you rule biblically and lawfully, it is impossible to be a tyrant. But when you forsake God and His law, tyranny is always the result because fallen man always wants to play God.
#18 | 12:53 to 13:43 | cleaned
Lord Acton of England said this, "There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." The office does not make a man wise or graceful or sanctified in any way. Many times you will find a fool in office. William Pitt of England rose in the House of Lords to defend the freedom of speech. And in part, here's what he said. "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. And this I know, my Lords, that where law ends, there tyranny begins." I can assure you that whenever one allows the law of God to be set aside, tyranny will be the result.
#19 | 13:44 to 14:34 | cleaned
Listen to what he said. Whenever one allows the law of God to be set aside, tyranny will be the result. You want to know what happened in this country? You want to know why we are where we are? Because we have allowed the law of God to be set aside.
#20 | 14:36 to 14:51 | cleaned
Now, when Rehoboam took over the kingdom, Israel wanted and needed relief from the excessive burdens that had been placed upon them during the last days of King Solomon. If you will look in 1 Kings chapter 12 and verse 4, Jeroboam has become the spokesman for Israel. And they speak to Rehoboam, verse 3, we'll read it, "And they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam the king, saying," now look what they say in verse 4, "Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he hath put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee." Note all they are asking right now is to lighten the grievous load that the father has put upon them.
#21 | 14:52 to 15:50 | cleaned
They were ready to stay. They were ready to work things out. If Rehoboam would only listen, do that which was right, and grant them relief. Do you realize that that was exactly the position of our Founding Fathers? Our Founding Fathers did not initially want to be independent of England. Listen, if you would, to the Declaration of Independence. "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
#22 | 15:52 to 16:41 | cleaned
Now listen, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Now, what did our Founding Fathers say? If we can just make things right, we're not willing to abolish the form of government that we're used to.
#23 | 16:41 to 17:15 | cleaned
In fact, that is why, and I'll read some of them later, that is why the Fairfax Resolves were written in 1774. Because our founding fathers at that particular time were beseeching George III to keep his end of the covenant. And they were saying, we're willing to be your servants, but we're not willing to be your slaves. So Israel then, according to verse 4, was willing to suffer and to keep Rehoboam as their king as long as he would grant them relief and that he would rule benevolently. In fact, they stated very plainly in verse 4, "we will serve thee."
#24 | 17:16 to 17:58 | cleaned
So their initial plan was to stay. We don't want to leave necessarily. And I want you to note, they did not ask the king to resign. They did not ask the king to withdraw. They did not ask the king to violate the covenant. All they wanted the king to do was to rule covenantally or constitutionally.
#25 | 17:59 to 18:22 | cleaned
Now, when they came to Rehoboam in verse 4 and said, look, make everything lighter, do what you're supposed to do and we'll serve thee. The only wise thing that Rehoboam did throughout this entire situation was that he asked three days to consider their request. If you look in verse 5, "And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed." So he's asked for three days now so that he might consult and get some counsel. Now, I want you to look, beginning with verse 6. He first asked counsel of the old men. I want you to note that there is a difference between the counsel of old men and the counsel of young men. There is a vast difference between the counsel of old men and the thinking of old men and the counsel and thinking of young men. Have you ever noticed why the military always wants all young men? Police departments always want young men.
#26 | 18:24 to 19:39 | cleaned
You'll see why in just a moment. But look in verse six. "And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever. But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us;"
#27 | 19:41 to 20:32 | cleaned
"Thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions."
#28 | 20:33 to 20:46 | cleaned
Now, I want to go back and just show you the difference between the counsel of the old men and the counsel of the young men. If you look in verse 7, here's what the old men told Rehoboam. "And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever."
#29 | 20:47 to 21:13 | cleaned
Now, let me put something out that probably you have not gotten just by reading the English, but here it is. The word servant. In verse 7, when they tell the king if you will be the servant of this people. The Hebrew word is the word "Ebed," which literally means a slave, a bond slave, a manservant. So they said, now look, King, if you're willing to be the slave or the servant of this people, if you're willing to recognize that you reign not only by the decree of God, but also by the consent of the governed, fine. If you will be their servant, notice if you would, in verse 7, then they will be thy servants for ever. And in other words, if you will be a slave to the people, and the same word is used in the latter part, then they, the people, will be a slave to you. In other words, there is a reciprocity in covenantal obligations. So the king, then, is covenantally obligated to be a slave or servant to the people.
#30 | 21:14 to 22:28 | cleaned
And as he serves them, then in return, they turn around and serve him. Now let me point out again, I've said this innumerable times, all government is covenantal in nature. I don't care if you're talking about family government, church government, or civil government. In fact, when David was made king of Israel, and you remember that David was chosen by God, you remember that? But just because God chose David to be king did not mean that God just threw him down and said, there he is boys, he's your king whether you like it or not. No, no, no. Although David was chosen by God to be king, he was also chosen by the people. And in 1 Chronicles 11:3, we read this, "Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel." Now, notice God chose David, but He chose him mediately, that is, through the will and the recognition of the people, and the people then entered into a covenant with David.
#31 | 22:29 to 23:43 | cleaned
There was a kingly covenant. There was a kingly constitution. It was true under David. It was true under Solomon. It certainly was true under Rehoboam as well. Let me ask this question. Why did God choose David? And why did God allow David to ascend to the throne? We could enlarge that question. And we could ask, why does God allow anyone to have a position of authority? Well, if you look in your Bibles, hold 1 Kings, but look in your Bibles to 2 Samuel chapter 5 and verse 12. I want you to read what David understood, and here is where most civil rulers fail in their understanding. In 2 Samuel chapter 5 and verse 12, I want you to note what David perceived. David understood. 2 Samuel 5:12, "And David perceived that the LORD had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel's sake." Why did God establish David? Why did God exalt his kingdom? For his people Israel's sake. In other words, a true ruler, listen carefully, a true ruler does not rule for himself. He does not rule for his position.
#32 | 23:44 to 25:17 | cleaned
He does not rule for his program. He does not rule for his party. But he rules for the people over which God has placed him. A true ruler is always a servant. We used to have in this country a phrase referring to our rulers. We called them public servants. You use that today on a bureaucrat, and he'll be very visibly upset because no politician today ever thinks he's your servant. He thinks he is your master.
#33 | 25:17 to 25:51 | cleaned
Now, let me ask the question. If secession is biblical, if it is lawful, if it is constitutional, what are the principles that lead to it? You remember, if you would now, these young men said, you answer the people this way, my little finger will be thicker than my father's loins. Now, you see my little finger? You see my loins? What was he saying? My little finger. In other words, I'm going to be tougher. I'm going to be rougher. I'm going to be crueler. I'm going to be meaner than you can ever dream of.
#34 | 25:54 to 26:39 | cleaned
My father beat you with whips. I'll beat you with scorpions. I'll have something that will really sting. My father made your yoke heavy. I'm going to make it heavier. I'm going to add to that yoke. You know, I told you earlier there's a difference between the thinking of old men and thinking of young men. Old men usually think biblically. They think of working things out. Young men always think of force and aggression.
#35 | 26:41 to 27:16 | cleaned
What are the principles now that will lead to secession? I'm going to show you from 1 Kings chapter 12. When is it time to secede? Well, according to the Bible, it is time to secede when rulers are wicked, ungodly and tyrannical. When civil rulers are wicked, ungodly, and tyrannical. Listen to this statement. When power and authority become tyrannical, resistance is a duty. God has never ordained a tyrannical or despotic form of government.
#36 | 27:20 to 28:03 | cleaned
I want you to understand this in light of Rehoboam especially. I want you to hold 1st Kings chapter 12, but I want you to turn, if you would please, to Romans 13. I know you know this passage. That's fine. But look in Romans chapter 13 at verses 3 and 4 and look at why God established civil government to begin with. Romans chapter 13. Look, if you would, at verses 3 and 4. He says this.
#37 | 28:04 to 28:32 | cleaned
"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." Now notice, if you would, God said that he ordained civil government for our good. Here's my question. How can one who steals your wealth, takes away your freedom, destroys your liberty, and enslaves your family be for your good? The subjection and the obedience that God demands from everyone in Romans 13 verses 1 and 2 is dependent upon the civil rulers being what God demands for them to be in verse 3, in verse 4, and in verse 6.
#38 | 28:33 to 29:40 | cleaned
Let me put it this way. Romans 1 and 2 are indeed conditional. Why did God ordain civil government? Let me just go over this very quickly. I know you know this. But here it is again. When the Bible says in Romans 13, verse 1, that "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." The word powers is the word "exousia," which means powers, authorities, or jurisdictions. So he says all jurisdictions are basically ordained by God. Then in verse 2, he says this, "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." The word ordinance is "diatage," which literally means that which has been established, an arrangement. In other words, God has given an orderly arrangement for authority in the family, in the church, and in the civil government. Now, in verse 3, the civil rulers are just simply referred to as rulers, which means chief ones or leaders. Fine. But when you get to verse 4 of Romans 13, "for he is the minister of God to thee for good."
#39 | 29:40 to 30:50 | cleaned
And then later on in verse 4, "for he is the minister of God." Twice in verse 4, the civil ruler is called a minister. The Greek word there is the word "diakonos." It is where we get our English word deacon from. And it literally means a servant. So God then has ordained civil government to be His servant, to be His deacon. If civil government is to be His deacon, is to be His servant, what does that mean? It means it's to carry out God's word and God's will and to honor God by being His servant and being submissive to Him. In verse 4 again, he says this, "for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." What does the word revenger mean? It is from the Greek word "ekdikos." "Ek" is a preposition which means out of or from, and "dikaios" is the Greek word for righteousness. What is a revenger? It's someone who exacts righteousness. So God, then, ordained civil government not just to be a ruler, but to be His deacon, His servant, to exact righteousness.
#40 | 30:51 to 32:01 | cleaned
In other words, God ordained civil government to fulfill and to carry out His law and apply His law based upon the authority that He gave them. When you get down to verse 6, the Bible again refers to them as ministers. They are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing. The word ministers now is a different word. It's no longer the word deacon. It's the Greek word "leitourgos" or "leitourgoi" in the plural. It is where we get our English word liturgy from. What is a liturgy? It's a public worship. We come in, we have music, we have prayer, that's worship.
#41 | 32:01 to 32:46 | cleaned
I don't care if you're in a Roman Catholic church, an Episcopal church, or the most independent Baptist church you'll ever find. Every church has a liturgy. It's a public worship. Why did God ordain civil government? Here's why. Not just to be a raw power, not just to be an ordinance, just to have an ordinance, not just to have chief ones or leaders, but God gave authority, God gave the ordinance of government to be His deacon, His exactor of righteousness, and His public worship. Period. You see, most people today are willing to admit the government's power, but they're not willing to go as far as God goes and say that they have that power from God, and that authority from God, and that power and that authority is only to be used according as God has directed. Now, you ask again, if government is to be God's deacon, who must it obey? The answer is God. If it is to be God's exactor of righteousness, whose righteousness must it exact? The answer is God's. If government is to be His public worship, whom then must it publicly worship?
#42 | 32:47 to 33:55 | cleaned
The answer is God. So how do we know whether or not secession is to be even entering in our mind? And the answer comes back when your civil rulers are ungodly, wicked and tyrannical. Here's the second one. You know, it's time to think of secession when rulers constantly and consistently violate their covenantal obligations. Now, I want you to think about this. When these people came to Rehoboam and said, make thou our burdens lighter. We will serve thee. It never entered Rehoboam's mind. Let me read our covenantal agreement. Let me paraphrase that. Let me read our constitution. No, no, no.
#43 | 33:55 to 34:53 | cleaned
He said, I'm going to consult. I'll get the counsel of the old man, and I'll get the counsel of the new man, the young man. So what did he do? He forsook the counsel of the old man, and he followed the counsel of the young man. You see, all rulers in Israel were to rule and judge according to the law of God. They were to be governed, they were to be controlled, and they were to be limited by that covenant and by God's law. Let me read to you what God said to the judges in 2 Chronicles 19:6. Listen carefully. "And said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the LORD, who is with you in the judgment." You judge not for man, but you judge for the Lord. Did you realize in Deuteronomy 17, verses 18 through 20, the law of God required the civil ruler to have his own personal copy of the law of God and he was to read therein day and night.
#44 | 34:54 to 36:06 | cleaned
Why? So that he could rule covenantally. So that he could rule biblically. I want you to turn, if you would, to 2 Samuel 23. Let me show you a very important passage. 2 Samuel 23. And let's begin reading there with verse 1. I want you to look at how many times David claims direct inspiration from God for one simple statement. David is claiming direct inspiration from God for one simple statement. 2 Samuel 23 verse 1. "Now these be the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said," Now look, "The Spirit of the LORD spake by me." That's once.
#45 | 36:07 to 36:59 | cleaned
"And his word was in my tongue." That's twice. "The God of Israel said," that's three times. "the Rock of Israel spake to me," that's four times. Four times David claims direct inspiration from God for this simple statement, "He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God." Notice, he that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. It is impossible to rule in the fear of God apart from the Word of God. If you rule justly, you must rule biblically, for justice is only found in the Word of God. You cannot rule justly. You cannot rule righteously without ruling biblically.
#46 | 37:00 to 37:48 | cleaned
Let me point this out very clearly. Our fathers understood this principle. Did you know that when this nation was founded, our forefathers required that their rulers be Christian and that they rule according to the Bible. I'm not going to spend a great deal of time proving this. There is a message that I preached many years ago, "The Biblical Attitude Toward Ungodly Rulers," in which I quote a number of these. But let me just give you a few just to demonstrate that our forefathers understood that the Bible is to be our law book.
#47 | 37:48 to 38:36 | cleaned
The New Haven Colony Charter, April the 3rd, 1644, adopted the rules for governing the courts of the New Haven Colony, stating "the judicial laws of God, as they were delivered by Moses, are to be a rule in all the courts in this jurisdiction." Isn't that simple? Do you realize that juries used to determine verdicts based upon the Word of God? Judges used to walk into the courtroom with an open Bible and men stood out of respect for the Bible. Then they kicked the Bible out and now they want you to stand in respect of them. The Charter of Delaware in 1701 says this.
#48 | 38:39 to 39:27 | cleaned
"And that also all persons who also profess to be believers in Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, shall be capable, notwithstanding other persuasions and practices in point of conscience and religion, to serve this government in any capacity, both legislatively and executively." Did you hear what they said? If you want to serve in Delaware in 1701, you had to be a Christian. You don't have to be a Baptist or you don't have to be a Presbyterian. But you had to be a Christian. The Constitution of Delaware in 1776, Article 22, says this.
#49 | 39:30 to 40:06 | cleaned
"Every person that shall be chosen a member of either of the houses or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath or affirmation." You had to put your own name there. "I, [blank], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration." You could not hold an office when this country was begun unless you were a Christian. Unless you profess faith in Jesus Christ and believe the Bible to be the word of God. John Jay, said this. Believe he was the first Supreme Court justice. He said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is their duty as well as their privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
#50 | 40:07 to 41:21 | cleaned
You know what we've done? We have done exactly what Rehoboam has done in this country, we've set aside the law of God as our covenant.
#51 | 41:26 to 41:41 | cleaned
Now, what we did is we adopted a constitution. An interesting thing, even if you want to go constitutionally. I want you to listen to Article six, paragraph two of the United States Constitution. Here's what it says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States," what's the authority of the United States? The Constitution. "and which shall be made under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Now, what does the Constitution say in Article 6, Paragraph 2? It is to be the supreme law of the land. Every officer is to take an oath that he's going to uphold the Constitution.
#52 | 41:44 to 42:51 | cleaned
And for years, the presidents took their oath of office with their hand upon Deuteronomy 28, which was the blessings and the curses. The Constitution is known as an express powers document or a limited powers document. When you refer to it as an express powers document, here's what it means. That the only authority, the only power that the federal government has is that which is expressed in the Constitution. When you call it a limited powers document, it means similarly that the only power, the only authority the federal government has is that which is limited to the Constitution. In other words, if it is not expressly stated in the Constitution that the federal government has such and such power, then they don't have it. You say, well, how did they get all this power? The answer is simple. They stole it. They usurped it. Any authority that has not been given to the federal government by the states or the people thereof has been usurped and stolen. Patrick Henry said, and I'm quoting, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate their lives."
#53 | 42:53 to 44:16 | cleaned
All I can say is we haven't been doing too much restraining, have we? Because it certainly has come to dominate our lives.
#54 | 44:23 to 44:30 | cleaned
Now, there's a principle, and I'm not going to enunciate it here other than just mention it. There's a principle in the Bible. It's clear not only in the Bible, but it's also clear in law that when one party violates the covenant, it releases the other party from obedience to the covenant. You remember the covenant was entered into by the spies and Rahab in Joshua chapter two. How that.
#55 | 44:31 to 45:00 | cleaned
They said, look, we agree that we will spare you and your family if you have all your family in this house and if you have this red cord hanging down because our men don't know who your family is and they don't know what your house is. And if any of your family comes out in the street and they get killed, that's tough. They should have stayed in the house. But if we enter your house and kill anybody, their blood's going to be on us.
#56 | 45:02 to 45:27 | cleaned
Once they agreed to this covenant, as she let the spies down, the spy said this in Joshua 2 and verse 20, "And if thou utter this our business, then we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear." In other words, Rahab, if you violate your end of the covenant, we're not obligated to keep our end of the covenant. We'll kill you like we kill everyone else.
#57 | 45:28 to 45:54 | cleaned
So here we find that all government is covenantal in nature. We find that even our Constitution says that this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.
#58 | 45:55 to 46:08 | cleaned
Now let me just ask a few questions. Listen to these questions. Has the federal government consistently, constantly, and repeatedly usurped authority that was never, ever given to them. Let's ask it another way. Does the federal government consider, follow, and obey the Constitution? You know what we have failed to realize? Listen carefully. Rebellion can be on the part of government equally as it can be on the part of the people. You might remember that when our forefathers seceded and left the Union in 1861, our only president, Jefferson Davis, said this, "I love the Union, but I had rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without the Constitution." And when the South seceded, it was not to destroy the Constitution, but it was to preserve the principles in that Constitution. And the Confederate Constitution embodied all of the principles of the original Constitution. Except the Confederate Constitution outlawed slavery, which the Federal Constitution did not. It was Benjamin Franklin Grady of North Carolina in 1899 who said this, "The cause of the South was the cause of constitutional government, the cause of government regulated by law, and the cause of honesty and fidelity in public service."
#59 | 46:08 to 48:05 | cleaned
"No nobler cause did man ever fight for." When is it time to think about secession, not only when you have rulers who are ungodly and wicked and tyrannical, but secondly, when they consistently and constantly violate their covenantal and constitutional oath. Thirdly, very quickly, it's time to think of secession when rulers endeavor to rule by force rather than by consent.
#60 | 48:06 to 48:35 | cleaned
Now, I read this just a little earlier, but I want to reread this section of the Declaration. And I want you to listen carefully to what is said. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It's important for you and I to understand that just powers come from the consent of the governed. If there is no consent, power is only acquired by usurpation and force.
#61 | 48:37 to 49:29 | cleaned
Now, look back in 1 Kings 12 and verse 14.
#62 | 49:31 to 49:33 | cleaned
Rehoboam spake to the people after the words of the young men, and he said, "My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." What was Rehoboam planning to do? He was planning to use force rather than consent to get the people to serve him. Rehoboam planned to force the people to obey him and follow his will. He planned to use hurtful, harmful, and humanistic force to obtain submission. He threatened not only to squeeze them by taxes, but to chastise them by cruel laws and severe exactions upon them, which should not only be as whips, but scorpions with whips, which would fetch blood at every lash. In other words, in short, Rehoboam said, you are my sheep to be sheared. You are my brute beast to be laden with as heavy burdens as I put upon you.
#63 | 49:43 to 50:50 | cleaned
I don't care whether you love me or not. I don't care whether you respect me or not. But you will serve me because I will make you serve me. That was his attitude. Whenever there are penalties to force recognition of power for authority and penalties to force submission and recognition, it's time to consider secession. Martial law, heavy-handed tactics, a police state, laws and regulations that rely upon force are all indicators that secession needs to be considered.
#64 | 50:51 to 51:33 | cleaned
Thomas Jefferson said this, Jefferson said tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizens.
#65 | 51:34 to 51:46 | cleaned
Think about that. If it's legal for the government to do something that's illegal for you, if it's lawful for them to do something that's unlawful for you, he said that is tyranny. Jefferson also said this, "When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the people fear the government there is tyranny." The fourth principle we find from 1 Kings chapter 12 is this, it is time to consider secession when rulers seek to steal from the people to support government that is contrary to the consent and will of the people.
#66 | 51:55 to 52:36 | cleaned
Now, I want you to know what happened when the king answered roughly to the people. You think I'm going to make things lighter for you, I'm going to make it worse. My father beat you with the whips, I'm going to whip you with scorpions. In verse 16, look at it. "So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David?"
#67 | 52:37 to 53:04 | cleaned
"Neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents." Now, Israel left Judah and Judah's king. There was a formal declaration of secession. We have no right in David. We have no right in you. To your tents, O Israel. What portion have we in David? What inheritance do we have in this son of David? No. We're leaving. You take care of your own business. We'll take care of ours.
#68 | 53:05 to 53:45 | cleaned
Now, evidently, Abraham Lincoln learned from Rehoboam. Because Lincoln, like Rehoboam, planned on collecting taxes from people who did not owe taxes. He planned on collecting taxes from states that had seceded from the Union. See, Rehoboam's going to do the same thing. Israel has seceded. Israel has withdrawn. But Rehoboam says, you're going to pay for my government anyhow. Well, look, if you would please, in verse 17, "But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them. Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem." So Rehoboam sent Adoram, his head tax collector, to Israel to collect the taxes. And Rehoboam went along just to make sure they understood he had royal authority to collect those taxes. And the people of Israel stoned him with stones. And when Rehoboam said, hmm, things aren't working out quite the way I want to, I better get back to Jerusalem while I can.
#69 | 53:46 to 55:11 | cleaned
And he fled. Do you realize that King George III of England was going to do the same thing. He was going to try to force collection of taxes upon the American colonists. The American colonists did not owe those taxes. They were never under Parliament. They had their own legislatures. They knew that a war was coming, so in an effort to head off that war, George Washington, George Mason and Charles Broadwater met in Fairfax, Virginia in July of 1774, and they drew up what are known as the Fairfax Resolves. There were 24 of those resolves.
#70 | 55:12 to 55:53 | cleaned
I want to just read two of them to you. Listen to resolve number five. It does sound like Congress now, so pay attention. This was written in 1774. "Resolved, that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament of making all such laws as they think fit to govern the people of these colonies and to extort from us our money without our consent is not only diametrically contrary to the first principles of the Constitution and the original compacts by which we are dependent upon the British Crown and government,"
#71 | 55:54 to 56:31 | cleaned
"but is totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people, and the natural rights of mankind, will render our own legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery." Now listen to what they said. "Resolved, that the claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament of making all such laws as they think fit."
#72 | 56:31 to 56:55 | cleaned
You know what your Congress is doing? They're trying to force upon you a nationalized health care system, but they have exempted themselves from that same national health care system. They're trying to make all such laws as they think fit, regardless of whether you consent to those laws or not. Regardless of whether you want them or not. And they said, "and to extort from us our money without our consent." It's diametrically opposed.
#73 | 56:59 to 57:31 | cleaned
to the covenants, to the constitutions that we have with George III. They said it's calculated to reduce us from a state of freedom and happiness to slavery and misery. Listen to number six. This is just unbelievable. Number six. "Resolved, that taxation and representation are in their nature inseparable, and the right of withholding or of giving and granting their own money, is the only effectual security to a free people against the encroachments of despotism and tyranny, and that whenever they yield to the one, they must quickly fall prey to the other."
#74 | 57:32 to 58:09 | cleaned
Now, I want to tell you what George Washington, the first president, said. George Mason, Charles Broadwater, they said this, if you do not have the right to withhold your money or give your money to government at your pleasure, you're a slave. That's what they just said. That the right of withholding or giving or granting their own money is the only effectual security of a free people. In other words, if we don't like what government does, we don't support it. It can't do it. It has no money. If we like what it's doing, we support it. It does have money. But if government then can force us to give them our money, then we're slaves. That's what George Washington said. That's what Charles Broadwater said. That's what George Mason said. So despotism and tyranny, according to these men, is the inability to withhold one's money or to grant one's money. And if you don't have that ability, they said it's tyranny.
#75 | 58:11 to 59:13 | cleaned
Jefferson, in 1826, said this. "The mass of mankind has not been born with a saddle on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." Jefferson also said, "to compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." So let's ask a question. Is secession biblical? And the answer is, of course it is.
#76 | 59:13 to 59:48 | cleaned
We're bidden over and over in Scripture, and I didn't quote all these passages, to separate ourselves from wickedness and ungodliness. In fact, if you look in verse 15, we know that it's biblical because the Bible says, 1 Kings 12, verse 15, "Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people," help me out now, "for the cause was from the LORD." Hmm. Look, if you would, in verse 24, "Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me."
#77 | 59:48 to 1:00:27 | cleaned
God said, I'm the one that ordained the secession, I'm the one that ordained the separation. God oftentimes uses the wickedness, the impotence, the stubbornness and the stupidity of rulers to bring about a separation of his people from them. You say, now wait a minute, Brother Weaver. If you're trying to tell me that Israel seceded here and that this thing was from God, how do you explain verse 19? Look at verse 19. "So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day."
#78 | 1:00:29 to 1:01:11 | cleaned
Well, the answer is very simple. The root word for rebel there literally means to step, to march, to step forward or step away. Literally what it says is this. So Israel stepped away, marched away from the house of David unto this day. You know, that's exactly what secession is. Secession is a stepping away. It's a walking away. It's leaving one confederation and beginning a different one.
#79 | 1:01:13 to 1:01:44 | cleaned
Now, before I close, I'm going to give you one vastly important application. And I want your undivided attention. Secession is biblical. Secession is constitutional. In fact, I've preached several messages on the biblical doctrine of secession before. I pointed out that it's a state's right, it's a sovereign's right, and it's a scriptural right. But I want you to note something. Here is my application. Here is my warning.
#80 | 1:01:49 to 1:02:31 | cleaned
We cannot, and we must not, trade a bad for a worse. Now, what do I mean by that? Here's what I mean. Israel left Rehoboam. It is true that Rehoboam was a tyrant. It is true that he was wicked and unbiblical and ungodly. But stupid Israel turned around and made Jeroboam their king, who was also idolatrous and a tyrant as well. An idolatrous man and a tyrant as well. You cannot replace humanism with humanism.
#81 | 1:02:33 to 1:03:18 | cleaned
Why in the world would you jump out of the frying pan into the fire? If we have to withdraw from a wicked, ungodly, humanistic confederation, we have to have something better to replace it with. You cannot replace something with nothing. Let me just ask you this question, and you answer it in your own mind. You think about this. If our society as we know it collapsed today.
#82 | 1:03:19 to 1:03:54 | cleaned
I mean a total complete collapse. And you had to rebuild this society from scratch. And you could start tomorrow rebuilding. Here's my question. What law structure would you use to rebuild society? Would you use God's law structure, or would you use man's law structure? If you say, well, we're going to use man's law structure, then you're headed right back to the same place that you wanted to leave from.
#83 | 1:03:56 to 1:04:33 | cleaned
You remember what the theme of the book of Judges is? You'll find it in Judges 17 and Judges 21. "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." When you build on humanism, inevitably, invariably, you're either going to end up in anarchy or totalitarianism. It is only God's law that is designed for liberty and freedom and responsibility. Man's law is designed to enslave and destroy. You remember what our Lord said in Proverbs 8?
#84 | 1:04:33 to 1:05:08 | cleaned
"All they that hate me love death." The only society that man can build apart from Jesus Christ and without him is a society of death. John Winthrop said this, "Men in a word must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them, either by the word of God or by the strong arm of man, either by the Bible or the bayonet." Those who will not be ruled and governed by the Bible will have to be ruled by the bayonet. If you cannot rebuild a society based upon the word of God, you're rebuilding to be destroyed again.
#85 | 1:05:10 to 1:05:57 | cleaned
John Quincy Adams said, "The law given from Sinai, that is the Ten Commandments, was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code." Charles Carroll, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence said this, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist for any length of time. They therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governance." And George Washington said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
#86 | 1:05:57 to 1:06:39 | cleaned
You say, Brother Weaver, do you think some of these states will ever secede? I don't know. I surely hope so, but I will tell you this and I will give you this warning. If you do successfully secede, and you do not build upon the Word of God, and have the Lord Jesus Christ as your true King and only King, you're wasting your time. And you'll end up again in servitude and slavery.
#87 | 1:06:43 to 1:07:16 | cleaned
Do not trade a bad for a worse. If we secede, let's rebuild based upon the Word of God. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we bow to Thee. We thank Thee for Your Word. We thank Thee for the principles and the truth of Your Word. Help us clarify our thinking. Give us wisdom, Lord, that we may serve Thee and obey Thee in every area of our lives. In Christ's name we pray, Amen.
#88 | 1:07:17 to 1:07:48 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T03:27:22Z

Biblical Principles of Secession

John Weaver | Freedom Ministries

John Weaver examines 1 Kings 12 to derive biblical principles for secession, arguing that withdrawal from a tyrannical government is scriptural when rulers are wicked, violate covenantal obligations, rule by force, and steal from the people. He warns that secession must lead to a society built on God's law, not humanism, to avoid trading a bad for a worse.

Opening

Scripture Reading — 1 Kings 12:1-24

"And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king. And it came to pass, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who was yet in Egypt, heard of it, (for he was fled from the presence of king Solomon, and Jeroboam dwelt in Egypt;) that they sent and called him. And Jeroboam and all the congregation of Israel came, and spake unto Rehoboam, saying, Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee. And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed. And king Rehoboam consulted with the old men, that stood before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever." "But he forsook the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consulted with the young men that were grown up with him, and which stood before him: And he said unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loins. And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions." "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day. And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men's counsel that they gave him; And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. Wherefore the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the LORD, that he might perform his saying, which the LORD spake by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat. So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents. But as for the children of Israel which dwelt in the cities of Judah, Rehoboam reigned over them." "Then king Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was over the tribute; and all Israel stoned him with stones, that he died. Therefore king Rehoboam made speed to get him up to his chariot, to flee to Jerusalem. So Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day. And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only. And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon. But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying, Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren, the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the LORD, and returned to depart, according to the word of the LORD."

Biblical principles for secession. Let me just point out the fact that some of you may or may not be aware, but there are numerous states in this country that are very seriously considering seceding.

Introduction: The Question of Secession

Weaver introduces the topic by noting that many states are considering secession and frames the question as whether to stay under corrupt regimes in Washington, D.C. and state capitals.

Force Does Not Negate Right

Weaver argues that the Civil War did not settle the principle of secession because force never negates righteousness, using the analogy of a robbery.

Definition and Historical Context of Secession

Secession is defined as an act of withdrawal, distinct from revolution or anarchy. Historical support is cited from Horace Greeley, who acknowledged the South's moral right to secede.

Rehoboam's Foolishness and Tyranny

Weaver describes Rehoboam as a foolish king who inherited the throne but lacked wisdom and godliness, setting the stage for the northern tribes' secession.

It is said in Hosea 4:10,

Scripture Reading — Hosea 4:10

"they shall commit whoredom and shall not increase."

The People's Request and Rehoboam's Counsel

The people ask for lighter burdens, and Rehoboam seeks counsel. The old men advise servanthood, but Rehoboam follows the young men's advice to increase oppression.

Covenantal Nature of Government

Weaver explains that all government is covenantal, with rulers obligated to serve the people. David's covenant with Israel and the purpose of civil government as God's deacon are emphasized.

Biblical Principles Leading to Secession

Four principles are outlined: when rulers are wicked and tyrannical, when they violate covenantal obligations, when they rule by force, and when they steal from the people.

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:1-6

"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."

Scripture Reading — Romans 13:1-6

"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."

The Role of God's Law and the Constitution

Weaver argues that rulers must govern by God's law, and the U.S. Constitution is a limited powers document. Violation of the covenant releases the people from obedience.

Scripture Reading — Joshua 2:20

"And if thou utter this our business, then we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear."

In other words, Rahab, if you violate your end of the covenant, we're not obligated to keep our end of the covenant. We'll kill you like we kill everyone else.

So here we find that all government is covenantal in nature. We find that even our Constitution says that this Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land.

Historical Parallels and the Fairfax Resolves

The American founding fathers' resistance to British taxation without consent is paralleled with Rehoboam's tax collection, illustrating the right to withhold money from tyrannical government.

God's Ordination of Secession

Weaver shows from 1 Kings 12:15 and 24 that the secession was from the Lord, and the Hebrew word for 'rebelled' means to step away, aligning with the concept of secession.

Warning: Do Not Trade a Bad for a Worse

Weaver warns that secession must be followed by rebuilding on God's law, not humanism, or the new society will become as tyrannical as the old, citing Israel's choice of Jeroboam.

Scripture Reading — Proverbs 8:36

"All they that hate me love death."

Conclusion and Prayer

Weaver concludes with a call to rebuild on the Word of God and prays for wisdom to obey God in all areas of life.

Biblical Principles of Secession

John Weaver | SermonAudio

Lecture Metadata	Details
Speaker	John Weaver
Source	SermonAudio
Media ID	1050912257
Subject	Civil Government
Course	Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13: Christian & Civil Government
Genre	Sermon
Date	2009-07-26
Dictation Name
Book	Book 008: Civil Government: Magistracy, Authority, and Romans 13 — Chapter 12
Source Timed Segments	88

Lecture Guide

Outline

Introduction: The Question of Secession: Weaver introduces the topic by noting that many states are considering secession and frames the question as whether to stay under corrupt regimes in Washington, D.C. and state capitals.
Force Does Not Negate Right: Weaver argues that the Civil War did not settle the principle of secession because force never negates righteousness, using the analogy of a robbery.
Definition and Historical Context of Secession: Secession is defined as an act of withdrawal, distinct from revolution or anarchy. Historical support is cited from Horace Greeley, who acknowledged the South's moral right to secede.
Rehoboam's Foolishness and Tyranny: Weaver describes Rehoboam as a foolish king who inherited the throne but lacked wisdom and godliness, setting the stage for the northern tribes' secession.
The People's Request and Rehoboam's Counsel: The people ask for lighter burdens, and Rehoboam seeks counsel. The old men advise servanthood, but Rehoboam follows the young men's advice to increase oppression.
Covenantal Nature of Government: Weaver explains that all government is covenantal, with rulers obligated to serve the people. David's covenant with Israel and the purpose of civil government as God's deacon are emphasized.
Biblical Principles Leading to Secession: Four principles are outlined: when rulers are wicked and tyrannical, when they violate covenantal obligations, when they rule by force, and when they steal from the people.
The Role of God's Law and the Constitution: Weaver argues that rulers must govern by God's law, and the U.S. Constitution is a limited powers document. Violation of the covenant releases the people from obedience.
Historical Parallels and the Fairfax Resolves: The American founding fathers' resistance to British taxation without consent is paralleled with Rehoboam's tax collection, illustrating the right to withhold money from tyrannical government.
God's Ordination of Secession: Weaver shows from 1 Kings 12:15 and 24 that the secession was from the Lord, and the Hebrew word for 'rebelled' means to step away, aligning with the concept of secession.
Warning: Do Not Trade a Bad for a Worse: Weaver warns that secession must be followed by rebuilding on God's law, not humanism, or the new society will become as tyrannical as the old, citing Israel's choice of Jeroboam.
Conclusion and Prayer: Weaver concludes with a call to rebuild on the Word of God and prays for wisdom to obey God in all areas of life.

Major Themes

Key Arguments

Force does not settle moral principles

The Civil War did not negate the right of secession because might does not make right, illustrated by the robbery analogy.

Weaver argues, 'Force never, ever negates right, righteousness, or a principle of truth. Just because a bully wins does not make the bully right.'

Secession is a withdrawal, not revolution

Secession is defined as an act of withdrawal to form a new government, distinct from revolution or anarchy.

Weaver states, 'Secession is not revolution, nor is secession anarchy. It is simply a withdrawal from one union or one government in order that you might establish another union or another government.'

Rulers must be servants

Biblical rulers are to be servants (ebed) of the people, ruling for their sake, not for personal power.

Weaver explains the Hebrew word 'ebed' in 1 Kings 12:7 and cites 2 Samuel 5:12: 'he had exalted his kingdom for his people Israel's sake.'

Government is covenantal and conditional

Obedience to government is conditional upon rulers fulfilling their God-ordained role as ministers of good; violation releases the people.

Weaver says, 'The subjection and the obedience that God demands... is dependent upon the civil rulers being what God demands for them to be.' He cites the covenant with Rahab.

Tyranny is defined by force and lack of consent

When rulers use force instead of consent, and when government actions are legal for them but illegal for citizens, it is tyranny.

Weaver quotes Jefferson: 'tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government, but illegal for the citizens.' He points to Rehoboam's threat of scorpions.

Taxation without consent is theft

Forcing people to fund a government they do not consent to is tyrannical and sinful, as argued in the Fairfax Resolves.

Weaver reads the Fairfax Resolves: 'to extort from us our money without our consent is... totally incompatible with the privileges of a free people.'

God ordains secession as a judgment

God uses the wickedness of rulers to bring about separation, as seen in 1 Kings 12:15 and 24 where the secession is declared to be from the Lord.

Weaver points to the verses: 'for the cause was from the LORD' and 'for this thing is from me.'

Rebuilding must be on God's law

Any new society after secession must be founded on biblical law, or it will repeat the cycle of tyranny, as Israel did with Jeroboam.

Weaver warns, 'If you do successfully secede, and you do not build upon the Word of God... you're wasting your time.' He cites the book of Judges theme.

Scripture References

1 Kings 12:1-24: The entire narrative of Rehoboam and the secession of the ten northern tribes is read and expounded as the primary text.
Hosea 4:10: Quoted by Matthew Henry to illustrate that sin does not build up a family, in reference to Solomon's many wives but only one foolish son.
1 Chronicles 11:3: Cited to show that David made a covenant with the elders of Israel before being anointed king, demonstrating covenantal government.
2 Samuel 5:12: Used to prove that David understood his kingdom was exalted for the people's sake, not his own, establishing the servant nature of rulers.
Romans 13:1-6: Expounded to show that civil government is ordained by God as a minister for good, a deacon, an exactor of righteousness, and a public worship.
2 Chronicles 19:6: Quoted to emphasize that judges judge not for man but for the Lord, reinforcing the need for rulers to follow God's law.
Deuteronomy 17:18-20: Referenced to show that the law required the king to have his own copy of the law and read it daily to rule covenantally.
2 Samuel 23:1-3: Quoted to demonstrate David's claim of divine inspiration for the principle that rulers must be just and rule in the fear of God.
Joshua 2:20: Used to illustrate the covenantal principle that violation by one party releases the other from obligation.
Judges 17:6; 21:25: Cited to show the theme of Judges: when there is no king, everyone does what is right in his own eyes, leading to anarchy or totalitarianism.
Proverbs 8:36: Quoted to support that those who hate God love death, implying that a society without Christ is a society of death.

Historical References

Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, February 23, 1861: Greeley, a Northern editor, acknowledged the moral right of the cotton states to secede if they chose.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on Rehoboam: Weaver quotes Henry's assessment of Rehoboam as a fool, despite being Solomon's son, to illustrate that wisdom does not run in blood.
Lord Acton: Quoted: 'There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it,' to argue that office does not make a ruler wise or godly.
William Pitt: Quoted: 'Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it... where law ends, there tyranny begins,' to support the need for law.
Declaration of Independence: Quoted to show that governments derive just powers from consent and that prudence dictates not changing for light causes.
Fairfax Resolves, 1774: Resolves 5 and 6 are read to show the founding fathers' protest against taxation without consent and the right to withhold money.
New Haven Colony Charter, 1644: Cited as an example of early American law requiring the judicial laws of God as delivered by Moses to rule in courts.
Delaware Charter of 1701 and Constitution of 1776, Article 22: Used to show that early American governments required officeholders to profess faith in Jesus Christ and the Bible.
John Jay: Quoted: 'Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers... to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.'
Jefferson Davis: Quoted: 'I love the Union, but I had rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without the Constitution.'

Important Quotes

Force never, ever negates right, righteousness, or a principle of truth. Just because a bully wins does not make the bully right.

Establishes the foundational argument that the Civil War did not settle the moral right of secession.

Secession is not revolution, nor is secession anarchy. It is simply a withdrawal from one union or one government in order that you might establish another union or another government.

Defines secession clearly to distinguish it from other forms of political change.

When power and authority become tyrannical, resistance is a duty. God has never ordained a tyrannical or despotic form of government.

States the moral imperative to resist tyranny as a biblical duty.

The subjection and the obedience that God demands from everyone in Romans 13 verses 1 and 2 is dependent upon the civil rulers being what God demands for them to be in verse 3, in verse 4, and in verse 6.

Argues that biblical submission to government is conditional on the government fulfilling its God-given role.

If you cannot rebuild a society based upon the word of God, you're rebuilding to be destroyed again.

Warns that secession without a biblical foundation will lead to repeated tyranny.

We cannot, and we must not, trade a bad for a worse.

Central application warning against replacing one tyrannical government with another.

Those who will not be ruled and governed by the Bible will have to be ruled by the bayonet.

Summarizes the choice between self-governance under God's law and external coercion.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government lest it come to dominate their lives.

Quotes Patrick Henry to emphasize the proper role of the Constitution as a limit on government power.

Discussion Questions

[Question]

How does the analogy of the robbery illustrate the principle that force does not negate right, and how does this apply to the Civil War and secession?

[Context]

Weaver uses the robbery analogy to argue that the North's victory did not settle the moral question of secession.

[Question]

In what ways does Rehoboam's rejection of the old men's counsel and acceptance of the young men's counsel reflect a rejection of covenantal, servant leadership?

[Context]

The contrast between the two counsels highlights the difference between ruling by consent and ruling by force.

[Question]

How does the concept of government as God's 'deacon' or 'minister' in Romans 13 shape our understanding of when resistance to government is justified?

[Context]

Weaver expounds the Greek words to show that government must serve God's purposes, implying limits to its authority.

[Question]

What parallels can be drawn between the Fairfax Resolves' protest against taxation without consent and modern governmental overreach?

[Context]

Weaver reads the resolves to show the founding fathers' view that forced taxation is tyranny.

[Question]

Why does Weaver insist that secession must be followed by rebuilding on God's law, and what are the dangers of rebuilding on humanism?

[Context]

The warning against trading a bad for a worse is based on Israel's choice of Jeroboam and the cycle in Judges.

[Question]

How does the covenantal nature of government, as seen in David's covenant with Israel, affect the legitimacy of a government that violates its covenant?

[Context]

Weaver argues that violation of covenant releases the people from obedience, using Rahab as an example.

[Question]

What does it mean for a ruler to be a 'servant' (ebed) of the people, and how does this contrast with modern political leadership?

[Context]

The Hebrew word for servant implies a bond slave, emphasizing the ruler's duty to serve rather than be served.

[Question]

How should Christians evaluate whether current governmental actions constitute the kind of tyranny that warrants consideration of secession?

[Context]

Weaver lists principles such as wickedness, covenant violation, rule by force, and theft as indicators.

Applications

Format deepseek deepseek-v4-pro structured study JSON | Source Commentary.net transcript enrichment

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | weaver_study | 2026-06-06T16:18:19Z