Please turn in your Bibles to 2 Samuel chapter 16, and we'll be looking at a period of great darkness, but where some bright lights were shining. 2 Samuel 16, beginning to read at verse 15. Meanwhile, Absalom and all the people, the men of Israel, came to Jerusalem, and Ahithophel was with him. And so it was when Hushai the archite, David's friend, came to Absalom. But Hushai said to Absalom, long live the king. Long live the king. So Absalom said to Hushai, is this your loyalty to your friend? Why did you not go with your friend? And Hushai said to Absalom, no. but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel choose, his I will be and with him I will remain. Furthermore, whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of his son? As I have served in your father's presence, so will I be in your presence.' Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, give advice as to what we should do. And Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go into your father's concubines whom he has left to keep the house and all Israel will hear that you are abhorred by your father. Then the hands of all who are with you will be strong." So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the top of the house and Absalom went into his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. Now the advice of Ahithophel which he gave in those days was as if one had inquired at the Oracle of God So was all the advice of Ahithophel, both with David and with Absalom. Father, we thank you for your word. It is our joy to study it, to live it out. And we pray that by your Holy Spirit, you would empower us to do so. Receive our continued worship through the merits of Jesus Christ. In his name we pray, amen. At the time of the American War for Independence, there were loyalists who thought that God wanted them to be faithful and loyal to England, and there were patriots who thought that God wanted them to be loyal to the colonies, and there were puzzled people in between, kind of a tug-of-war between those two groups, including members of the same families who were on different sides of that war. Both sides accused the other side of being in rebellion to God, the loyalists claimed, that if you disobeyed the king, you were in clear disobedience to God. And they appeal to Romans chapter 13 as a descriptive statement. And the Patriots said, no, resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. And they appeal to Romans 13, not as a descriptive, but as a prescriptive statement. In other words, it describing the way government should be not the way that Rome actually was. And there were people on both sides who thought that the ones on the other side of the debate were engaged in revolution overthrowing law. And I am convinced that there were many Israelites living during this brief reign of Absalom who were somewhat puzzled about which government they should submit to. There were people who had elected and ordained Absalom to be king, and yet there were others who claimed that his reign was illegitimate. And even with hindsight, there are commentators today who have disagreements on some of these questions. For example, the debate is, were both Absalom and David revolutionaries? It depends on how you define the terms. There are people who say that David was a revolutionary. I mean, think about it. In chapter 18, when he's fighting against Absalom, who is he fighting against? He's fighting against a person who has been elected into government. And so some people say that he's the rebel, he's the revolutionary. In fact, there are some people who call David the original guerrilla revolutionary. Is that true? Well, I say no, but it depends on how you define the terms. The term revolution can be ambiguous. Some Christians in African countries have had to face these questions because their country has gone through one revolution after another. Are they supposed to submit to those who are currently in power, who were formerly revolutionaries? And are they supposed to fight against the revolutionaries of the next government? Or are they supposed to join with that revolutionary movement? And how would you know what basis you make your decisions on questions like this? How do you relate to a usurper who was illegitimately gained civil power without having fired a shot? In many ways, America over the last 60 years is in the same boat that Israel was in back then because Absalom, remember, had three years of intrigue, had taken over this country without having fired a shot. These are the kinds of questions that can make our relationship to civil government rather confusing sometimes. Now, today's sermon is titled Revolutions revolutionaries and counter revolutionaries. And immediately we've got a problem. And the problem is that the term revolution can be defined in different ways, even in the good literature. And that's okay. So long as people define what they mean by their terms, it's perfectly okay to give a different definition, sometimes the same author like a Rush Dooney will use the term revolution positively, and then he'll use it negatively. In fact, I'll give you a couple of quotes later on where in the same sentence, the word revolution is used with two totally different meanings. And so it is confusing reading the literature, but I've stuck with the confusing term revolution because I think it has some of the same ambiguities that our passage does. Sometimes the term revolution and revolutionary simply mean a radical change or a person who is committed to a radical change. And so in that sense, every Christian really ought to be a revolutionary because we're supposed to be converting the world, bringing the blessings of God's grace into every area of life. And that's pretty revolutionary, right? That is one dictionary definition of the term. I think it's a legitimate way to use it, but I'm this morning not going to be using the term in that positive sense. Instead, I am defining revolution as the unlawful overthrow of God's lawful order through unlawful means. Three parts to that definition, and any one of those three parts can make something revolutionary. It is the unlawful overthrow of God's lawful order through unlawful means. America's founding fathers said, hey, they're not overthrowing anything. They're trying to maintain the order that was there. They said it's the Brits who are overthrowing the law. And they said for sure that they were not overthrowing God's lawful order. And they claimed that they were not using unlawful means. They appealed to the Bible and they appealed to centuries of constitutional British history to justify the means of interposition that they were engaged in. So in their eyes, it was the British who were the revolutionaries. I think David Chilton is absolutely right when he says, Christianity has always been staunchly anti-revolutionary. And it's in that sense of the term that Rushduni has, in his writings, opposed all revolutions and all revolutionary methods and said that they were humanistic to the core. And yet he supports the American Revolution. which he prefers to call the First American War for Independence. And he says it really was not a revolution, but it was a lawful Christian resistance to tyranny. John W. Whitehead, the head of the Rutherford Institute, and by the way, that's an excellent organization you guys need to be aware of. Rutherford Institute has done some tremendous things in defending Christians down through the years. But anyway, the president of that, John Whitehead, has summed up the standard reform view when he says this, the American Revolution was actually a conservative counter-revolution. The colonists saw the British as the revolutionaries trying to overthrow the colonial governments. If not seen in this light, the American Revolution does not make sense." And I think he is absolutely right. Now, of course, you notice that he used the term revolution in two different ways there because the lawful American war for independence is often called a revolution in the literature. He goes ahead and calls it the American Revolution, but he says it's not really a revolution. It was the British who actually had engaged in a radical revolution, first of all, in putting the colonies now under the legislation of the Parliament for the first time. That was totally illegal. Secondly, by overthrowing contracts that had been written by the king with those colonies, Thirdly, unilaterally changing American laws, which Parliament had no jurisdiction to do. Fourthly, kidnapping people away from American courts, trying them in the secret Star Chamber in England. And actually, you read through the Declaration of Independence and it will list 27 unlawful acts of Britain, making them the radical revolutionaries and making the states, the colonies, the counter revolutionaries, but it was a revolution that the British had engaged in without firing a shot. I know this is a long introduction, but hopefully with that picture in your mind, we can more easily answer the question in your outlines. Who were the true revolutionaries? David and his followers or Absalom and his followers? Another way of asking the same question is this. Now that Absalom is in power, is he the legitimate king? And is David the one who is the rebel? And of course, God does not leave us in any doubt. The first word in verse 15 is meanwhile, and it is a time indicator that helps us to interpret the passage. Very, very important word. What it is indicating in the Hebrew, the grammar there indicates that the events that he is about to describe in the rest of this chapter happened at the same time as the events in verses 1 through 14. In fact, just to set the context, Take a look at the last verse of chapter 15. It says, An Absalom came into Jerusalem. Well, that's exactly the same thing that verse 15 of chapter 16 says. Absalom has just come into Jerusalem. So in chapter 16, verse 15, what we're doing is we're backing up to verse 1, and we're looking at what happened during the same time period. And that word meanwhile is encouraging us. Interpret the whole rest of the chapter in light of verses 1 through 14. So let's do that. To those who say that David is now the guerrilla rebel and that Absalom is the legitimate king, I would respond by saying that God has declared David to be the true king nine times in the first 14 verses. Take a look, for example, at verse 2. And the king said to Ziba, God is speaking, he's the narrator, he is the one speaking through the prophet, and God is saying, David is the one who was the true, the legitimate king. Look at verse 3, then the king said. Verse 4, so the king said to Ziba. Verse 5, now when King David came to Bahurin, and you can see similar references in verse 6, verse 9, verse 10, and verse 14. And so what is going on here is that these verses are indicating that God considers Absalom to be illegitimate even though he has been placed on the throne and David to still be the true king. And there are two other hints that supplement those clear statements. I'm not going to amplify on them because I think they should be fairly obvious. Subpoint 2 in your outlines just uses a simple logic to say that way back in chapter 11 God had prophesied, he had foretold about this coup and he said when that future takeover of the government happens it will be as sinful and as rebellious as David's adultery with Bathsheba and his killing of Uriah. So in effect, what that is saying is that Absalom is the lawbreaker, the rebel, and the revolutionary. He is the one who is illegitimately in office. So it's no wonder God emphasizes nine times in these first 14 verses, hey, David is the true king. We're going to see in a moment why this is the case, even though David had sinned as well. But in any case, it should therefore be no surprise to find that the verses that I've listed for you there under Subpoint 3 show that Zadok and Nathan supported David. Now if those two prophets supported David, then the implication is that God supported David, especially since in chapter 15, David had asked Zadok to confirm as a seer, in other words, as a prophet, whether his plan was God's plan. And so with these three subpoints, I think it's pretty clear, Absalom is the rebel, the revolutionary, the illegitimate usurper, and David was the counter-revolutionary patriot. Okay, if you buy into that if you can see that then the whole chapter opens up I think in a remarkable way And it gives us some very concrete guidance on how we relate to the ups and downs of civil government No matter where we live in the world So we're at point B in your outlines verse 15 says Meanwhile Absalom and all the people the men of Israel came to Jerusalem and Ahithophel was with him now that first phrase All the people indicates that a majority, the vast majority, had gone along with Ahithophel's and Absalom's coup. It may have been ignorantly, but they went along with it. If you turn back to chapter 15 and take a look at verses 12 through 13, It says, Then Absalom sent for Ahithophel the Giloite, David's counselor from his city, from Gilo, while he offered sacrifices. And the conspiracy grew strong, for the people with Absalom continually increased in number. Now a messenger came to David, saying, The hearts of the men of Israel are with Absalom. Now those three phrases that we've looked at so far, all the people, the people and the men of Israel indicates at least a majority. At least a majority. And that is so significant. What it means is that a majority vote does not necessarily legitimize a government or a ruler. Remember that nine times God has declared that David was the true king, and that means that this election is not recognized by God. It is an illegal election. Now this may be a little bit confusing, so let me give you an illustration from our modern history, from America, just to give an example of how this would work even in our country. Now, since our country, like Israel, is a constitutional republic and the government officials are bound to be following the law that is above them, the Constitution, it wouldn't matter if a majority of people were to vote for an 18-year-old to be a president or to be a congressman or to be a senator. No one would have to consider such an election valid because the Constitution is quite clear that, quote, No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years. And it's quite clear in the highest law of the land that no person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years. And it's quite clear concerning a president that it says, neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years. So it's pretty clear. Even if a majority has elected a president who is 18 years old, it really does not matter since we're not a democracy that is subject to the will of the people. Instead, we are a republic that is under the rule of law. Even if a majority has voted the president in, it's a null election. It cannot be considered a legitimate election. Okay, that's the point. that is being stated. There is a process for amending the Constitution, but if it's ignored, then the majority can be ignored. And in fact, I'll be citing a court case that overturned just such an election in America. We're not talking about something weird here. We're talking about very standard Western civilization, Christian civic government principles. Now, if what we've said is true of the election of an 18-year-old presidency, What about an election that violated other provisions of the Constitution? Well, it would be exactly the same problem. I've already mentioned several months ago that for the first time in US history, there are a growing number of citizens and sheriffs and actually elected officials who are saying that we have somebody in the White House today who is actually not lawfully the president. And it's because he's purportedly not a naturally born citizen. And I'm not going to get into all the arguments pro and con, but I would just hasten to say that Senator Ted Cruz, however wonderful he is, and I like Senator Cruz a lot on many levels, he is just as unqualified to be a president of the United States because his father was a Cuban and he was born in Canada. Okay. Now the constitution says he's qualified to be Senator. No problems there. but he's unqualified to be a president. And so conservatives need to be consistent and they need to oppose Cruz for Prez as well, unless it can be clearly demonstrated he's a naturally born citizen. I don't think that you're going to be able to successfully do that. So just to be even-handed, I'm going to apply our passage by criticizing somebody who I like very, very much if he indeed runs for president. There's been a lot of ink spilled on this question on the web. How do we know original intent? Now I've read some academic essays that say it's impossible we can't know the original intent on this it's just too confusing especially on that phrase a natural-born citizen which is the constitutional phrase that's all abuzz all over the web right now. Now interestingly those essays that say we really can't know the original intent I've looked at quite a few of them not a one of them references Battelle's book The Law of Nations, a book that was written in 1758 and was in constant use every day in the constitutional debates. Benjamin Franklin used that phrase, it's in continual use by the constitutional delegates. They were very familiar with the book. So it's odd that these essays completely ignore Vattel's book. That book defined a natural born citizen as a citizen who had the following four additional characteristics. You could be a citizen without being natural born. So it would be a citizen with the following four additional characteristics. First, he could not have dual citizenship because that would immediately put him with dual loyalty, something that they debated extensively. They did not want to happen. Second, both of his parents had to be citizens at the time of his birth. Third, a natural-born citizen had to have his citizenship conferred by the father. They stress the father's role in this very much, not just the mother. And fourth, the person had to be born on American soil. Now, special action was taken to change that last provision and to allow a natural-born citizen to be born abroad. In the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Congress took special measures that from that time forward, before that it couldn't be, but from that time forward, to allow citizens born abroad to be natural born citizens, be counted as natural born citizens, if the rest of the qualifications were still true and if one additional qualification was true, and that is that the citizen father, and again, it's the father that's emphasized, not the mother, that the citizen father had to be a resident of the USA when his child was born abroad. In other words, the baby was born while they were on a trip, but they still were residents of the USA. So it's a very, very tight definition of what a natural born citizen is. And as late as 1814, Supreme Court case of the Venus The provision is clearly stated that the father must be a citizen. Now, there's a lot more evidence that you could go through that disqualify both Obama and Cruz and some other potential candidates as well. And if we are not to be revolutionaries, we need to take these facts into consideration when we vote for the 2016 potential candidates for president. So, I don't think that the fact that Senator Cruz was born outside the USA should be an obstacle, even though the birther movement says it is. I don't think it really should be. But the fact that his father was a Cuban, did not become an American until 2005, completely disqualifies him, Senator Rand Paul notwithstanding. Research I've done on this just seems too overwhelming. Now, why do I bring this up? Well, it's to illustrate the principle of Absalom's illegitimacy. Okay, the whole controversy about Obama and Cruz illustrates that if an election proves to be an illegal election, maybe a couple months down the road or a few years down the road, then what happens is that that person is not considered a president from the time he was sworn into office, not simply from the time that some court maybe decides that it was an illegal election. It would be just like the author treats Absalom here. This is why it's such a sticky issue. It would mean that all of our current president's actions would become null and void once that decision was made. And that's a pretty fascinating concept, considering some of the actions that he has taken. Well, it's a very similar situation with Absalom. Chapter 15, verse 11 says that there were a number of people who were duped, and the implication is there's a lot of others just like those 200, okay? They were duped into supporting Absalom. They didn't know this was a conspiracy. They didn't know that Absalom was deposing David or that his reign was illegitimate. It says in the text that they were innocent, knowing nothing. How was it that they could not know? Well, Psalms 39 through 41 say that the The rumors that were being spread by Ahithophel everywhere was that David was dying of a sickness and that this was a peaceful transition. So why would they suspect anything? They wouldn't think anything different. So here was a majority that had been duped into putting a lying tyrant into power. And yet nine times in the previous 14 verses, God says that Absalom is not the king. David is. Everybody's treating him as the king. They call him the king. His own court calls him the king. But according to God's infallible word, he was not the king because he was not constitutionally qualified. On several levels, actually. Since his mother was the daughter of Amihud, the king of Geshur, he had dual loyalties. In fact, he used those loyalties in the previous chapter to get asylum, to escape from being punished within Israel. Now, why would a king want to have dual loyalties? That would be a disqualification right off the bat. But the process of election was irregular. It was not public. It was secret. The current king was not removed by constitutional provisions of impeachment, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So Absalom was the revolutionary, even though a majority supported him. Second principle is that a successful coup does not automatically legitimize a government. Winning a war does not legitimize a government. Verse 15 says that the people of Israel came into Jerusalem. There was a successful coup. Now because David fled, he did not fight, they were able to take over the country without firing a shot. When Hitler took over Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, France, and other countries, did Romans 13 require the citizens to now submit to Hitler Or was his rule illegitimate? That's the question citizens at that time would have to think through. Well, this phrase indicates that a successful coup does not automatically mean you have to submit to the government. There's other issues that have to be taken into consideration, and we've examined those issues in 1 Samuel. And like David, many in Israel did not submit to Absalom. In fact, by chapter 18, it had become a huge growing movement, numbering in the tens of thousands of people. We don't know exactly how many, but we know it's got to be at least in the tens of thousands of people who had joined with David, far more than left Jerusalem in this chapter. The third point indicates that becoming a de facto ruler does not make you a de jure ruler. Now those are two handy little terms that's good to know what they mean. A de facto ruler is a ruler who is in power in fact, okay? Whereas a de jure ruler is a ruler who was a lawful ruler. He's not just gained the throne, but he has lawfully gained that throne. Absalom, it says here, came into the city, into Jerusalem to sit on the throne. So he had become the de facto ruler, but God did not consider him to be the lawful ruler, the de jure ruler, nor did David. Now, I'm convinced that if Absalom was both the de facto ruler and the de jure ruler, that David would not have fought against him. And when we get to chapter 18, you'll be seeing some of the reasons why. He didn't really want to fight against Absalom, but he was duty-bound to do so. But an immediate objection that might come to your minds is, well, if that's the case, why did David not oppose Saul? Saul was disqualified. God said, you don't have the character qualifications to be a king. So if Absalom's not the lawful ruler, why was Saul treated as being the lawful ruler when God had rejected him? And the answer is actually quite simple. Saul had never been impeached by the people. Until he had been impeached and until David had with lawful elections been put into office, he was both the de facto and the de jure ruler. And David treated him as both de facto and de jure ruler of that nation. He wasn't a good one. He was morally disqualified. And he should have been impeached. But until that happened, he was still lawfully in office. Well, the same is true of David. They had never properly impeached him. And Absalom was not put into office with public open elections. It was all secretly done. It was by conspiracy. So there really is no inconsistency. David treated Saul as the ruler and as God's anointed. And by the way, that did not let the lower magistrates off the hook because they were still duty bound. according to their pledges, to impeach, well whoever, impeach Saul previously. But until impeachment happens, the earlier David is modeling to us how citizens relate to a person like Saul. Okay, it doesn't mean you automatically have to submit to everything that they say, but David never went so far as to declare Saul's kingship illegitimate. And in the same way, I consider some of the previous rulers of America who have been tyrannical rulers to be both de facto and de jure rulers and I've honored their office. Okay? It doesn't mean that everything that they said was constitutional. It was not. But Absalom was not a de jure ruler and therefore David did not consider his position to be legitimate. Absalom had no lawful authority over the citizens of Israel, even though he was a de facto king. God himself still calls David the king and Absalom is therefore the usurper. I know I'm spending a lot of time on this, but to properly understand even our own independence from Britain, You've got to understand these key issues. Otherwise what's going to happen is you'll fall into the ditch of revolution on the one hand or you'll fall into the ditch of abject slavery on the other hand. These issues help us to walk the straight and narrow even in modern America. Case 7.4, verse 15 says that Ahithophel was with him, and chapter 15 indicated that there were other leaders who supported Absalom. And yet even that did not legitimize his government. So I don't care how many public officials would support a hypothetical 18-year-old president of the United States, just as one example of qualifications, no one would have to recognize his office because the law trumps what public officials have said. And remember, this is God's interpretation. I'm not giving something weird here. This has got nine times in the previous 14 verses, God says, David is king. And even the Supreme Court of the United States has said the same thing about de facto rulers and laws and de jure rulers and laws. I want you to listen to this reasoning from the Supreme Court case of Norton v. Shelby County. in the year 1886, and they were actually ruling on an Absalom-like kind of election at county level, and they declared it to be null and void because it was unconstitutional. They didn't even have an existence as far as the law was concerned. The Supreme Court said, while acts of a de facto incumbent of an office lawfully created by law and existing are often held to be binding from reasons of public policy, The actions, the acts of a person assuming to fulfill and perform the duties of an office which does not exist de jure can have no validity whatever in law. An unconstitutional act is not a law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties. It affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Some of you have wondered why I don't recognize the current occupant of the White House as being president. It's because in its illegal election. The Supreme Court on a number of occasions has made exactly the same ruling. And I think that's a great summary of the biblical view of what's going on in this chapter. David's followers didn't need to feel any guilt by ignoring Absalom's decrees. He had no authority to command them to do anything. Though public officials had officially declared Absalom's election legal, had declared David to be an outlaw, since it was a revolutionary act against Israel's constitution, any citizen could have ignored it lawfully and could have sided with David. Why? Because the highest ruler in Israel was not the king, it was the law. And it's the same in America. Our founding fathers said that the king of America is the law, not a man. American jurisprudence, which is the compendium of our American laws, reaffirms this understanding. It says, no one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. And this is what the nullification movement is all about. People who don't have this understanding, they criticize South Carolina and Oklahoma and North Dakota and other states that have either already nullified Obamacare or are in the process of doing so. And they say, that's revolutionary. They can't be doing that. That's illegal. And they say the reason it's illegal is the president and the Congress and the Senate and the Supreme Court have all said Obamacare is constitutional. And so these states need to submit rather than fighting against it. Well, the response that really should be given is the same response that you will find in this passage here, and that is that it doesn't matter how many public officials have declared an illegal thing to be legal, it doesn't make it legal, not at all. And so Absalom is the revolutionary. David is the counter-revolutionary. And in the same way, it is Obamacare that is an unconstitutional, rebellious, revolutionary action. And those states that are seeking to nullify that unconstitutional act, they're the counter-revolutionaries. They are the heroes. And we need to be standing behind them. We need to be encouraging them on what they are doing. Hopefully you can see that. Now this concept is so important that I want to read the whole context of that last quote that I gave from America's current laws. This is from 16 American jurisprudence. It says, the general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute to be valid must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid. One must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose. Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision, so branding it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. And here comes the part I quoted earlier. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. Now, in today's culture wars, it is imperative that we understand who the revolutionaries are and who the counter revolutionaries are, and we start supporting the counter revolutionaries. If you go to the Tenth Amendment Center, you'll see all kinds of encouraging acts and laws that are being passed in various states. They're passing these things because we're having absolums in this world, unconstitutional people who are giving unconstitutional acts. And it's very encouraging to me, but they cannot do it alone. Citizens need to stand behind the states to give them the moral courage to stand strong. These Davids need to know that there are citizens willing to stand behind them. Now, I know there's a lot of issues to keep track of, but there's organizations out there doing it for you. So you go to the Tenth Amendment Center, and you'll see one example of counterrevolutionaries trying to do what they can. You go to downsized DC, and you'll see another organization acting like a David. And there's many organizations out there But Christians must get educated in biblical civics and do what they can to oppose the revolutionaries of our society Now question often comes up. How do you go about it? I'm not going to tell you today Because this passage mainly deals with the lawfulness of resistance. It doesn't deal with all of the specifics. It deals with a few. But it's the lawfulness of it. But because you can run with this principle and do crazy things, I do want to caution you to go ahead and read or listen to the previous sermons that I've given on the specifics of how you go about this. Because the Bible sets limits and boundaries and parameters. It gives cautions. of how to go about this because you cannot answer revolution with revolution. That's the wrong way. That's an unbiblical way of approaching this. So we've got to look at the checks and balances out there to make sure that we don't begin to involve ourselves in revolutionary actions. It's a mistake too many people make. Now I highly recommend Samuel Rutherford, he was a Scottish reformer. He's got a masterful book called Lex Rex, which translated into English means The Law is King. And it's a tremendous, exegetical book that America's founding fathers studied and re-studied prior to declaring independence. Another book that they studied and re-studied, we're very familiar with, is Junius Brutus' book, A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants. That's a book you can download from the Biblical Blueprints website for free. And those books show the limits and the extent of our powers to resist tyrants such as Absalom. You don't want to answer revolution with revolution like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson did. They were advocating. That book keeps us in the happy middle that avoids humanistic revolution and that avoids humanistic slave mentality, what some people call sheeple people. Now back to our definition. Revolution is the unlawful overthrow of God's lawful order through unlawful means. And we'll look at some of the unlawful means in a bit. But let me end Roman numeral I with two quotes that I think summarize the issues rather well. The first is a quote from James Jordan. He said, Kelvin advocated resistance to preserve the existing constitutional, customary, and godly order against centralization, abuses of power, and violations of rights and liberties by a tyrannical central power when initiated and led by lesser powers that be, by lesser magistrates. Calvin's pervasive concern was for legitimacy in the rule of law, a concern which led him to qualify and limit the Christian's duty of obedience to God's appointed civil authorities. Like the later American colonists, the goal of Calvin and his followers was not the revolutionary overthrow of the existing order, but rather the preservation of revealed and historically given law against the usurpations of tyrants. I think it's just very, very well said. The second quote is from Tom Rose. He said the American Revolution, as I have stated above, was not a lawless rebellion against authority, as some historians claim. Rather, it was a legal interposition of one lawfully elected level of government, the colonial legislatures, against a king who insisted in obdurately breaking his feudal contract with the colonies. Even a cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence shows 27 specific points which the colonies claimed King George III broke in his feudal contract with them, thus negating his right of rule. So the first 15 verses of this chapter are designed to help us recognize the difference between revolutionaries and counter revolutionaries. The Bible condemns all revolutionaries. And it supports, at least in this negative definition of the term, and it supports and it praises the counter-revolutionary patriots. So this passage gives us the legal basis for resistance. Well, let's continue reading in verses 16 through 19, see what kinds of resistance Hushai engaged in. We're going to just kind of rush through this material. Even though Hushai was not fighting with slings and swords and spears, he was fighting. He was a spy with the resistance now our spies legitimate. Yes, they are The law of God authorized the work of spies or espionage in Numbers 13, Numbers 14, Numbers 21, Deuteronomy 1, and it is crystal clear from those passages that spies do not owe the enemy the truth. And so Absalom here deceives the enemy, okay? He deceives, he pretends to be loyal to Absalom, like many in the Nazi era resistance were judges, police, mayors, legislators, and spies within the Nazi system. Verse 16. And so it was when Hushai the Archite, David's friend, came to Absalom that Hushai said to Absalom, long live the king, long live the king. Robert Bergen in his commentary says it better than I can say it, so let me just quote. Hushai began carrying out one of the most successful acts of deceit and subterfuge recorded in Israelite history. The greatness of Hushai's performance can only be appreciated as one understands that Hushai was a master of double entendre. Then after quoting Hushai's words, long live the king, he asks, did these words refer to Absalom, as a social context would indicate, or were they in fact a wish that the king in exile be granted life? The careful reader suspects the latter. So Hushai was pledged to be David's friend. God himself says he really was David's friend, but here he pretends to be loyal to Absalom without actually lying, but it was intended to deceive as a good spy must. Absalom appears to be somewhat suspicious initially, verse 17. So Absalom said to Hushai, is this your loyalty to your friend? Why did you not go with your friend? I mean, what a hypocrite to be accusing Hushai of disloyalty to his friend. One commentator said, Hushai could have said the same thing to Absalom. Is this the way you show loyalty to your dad after all that your dad has done for you? Now, Hushai is a little too smart to say that, but it does highlight the fact that revolutionaries, because they are in a revolt against God's law order, tend to be blinded to things like that, inconsistencies. Rush Dooney has pointed out that Congress has repeatedly and hypocritically accused the executive office of unethical behavior, the same unethical behavior that Congress routinely engages in. But hypocrisy is common to man. In any case, Hushai continues with an amazingly deceptive series of double entendres in verses 18 and 19. And Hushai said to Absalom, No. Now what's he saying no to? Of whether he's unloyal to David or whether he's going to be, you know, it doesn't really specify. So he says, No, but whom the Lord and this people and all the men of Israel chose choose his I will be and with him I will remain." Now Absalom thinks he's thinking talking about him, right? But since 1st and 2nd Samuel say that God chose David, And the only one who's actually legitimately been chosen by the people through public elections as David, he could just as easily have been referring to David. And so Bergen says, thus for Hushai to declare his loyalty to an unnamed individual chosen by the Lord and Israel was to take his stand with David. Hushai continues. Furthermore, whom should I serve? Should I not serve in the presence of His Son? As I have served in your Father's presence, so will I be in your presence. Now how did Hushai serve in David's presence? Well as a loyal friend, right? And so if he's going to serve in Absalom's presence in exactly the same way that he served in David's presence, he's going to serve in Absalom's presence as a loyal friend to David, right? So it really is a masterful deception. We should never do this kind of thing, by the way, in our day-to-day relationships. We always have to be above board, but the law of God does allow this in war, and I believe in war alone, you know, in those adversarial kinds of situations. You do not have to tell the enemy the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And if you think you do, well you just better go ahead and put a sign on the front door every time you leave and say, hey all burglars, we're not home, instead of turning the lights on and making it look like somebody's home. Anyway, Absalom seems to have totally missed the fact that Hushai's words Could be taken in two different ways. And so Hushai is admitted into the inner council of Absalom. And he's going to use his position there to undermine. It's a very risky business. But hey, being a spy is always risky. But it was absolutely essential to David's success. So these few verses justify the work of counter revolutionaries. And they're fighting to do what? They're fighting to restore law, order, and legitimacy to government. It justifies working outside the system, justifies working inside the system. And we need such counter revolutionaries today when the Marxist revolutionaries have almost completely taken over this country. Now let's take a look at the lawless revolutionary Ahithophel. Verse 20 introduces us to him. Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, give advice as to what we should do. Now Ahithophel is in this with Absalom up to his neck, so surely Absalom should be able to trust Ahithophel. But no, we're going to see Ahithophel's advice cannot be trusted. Is there really honor among thieves and liars? No. They're just as likely to steal from you and to lie to you. Revolutionary societies always tend to fall apart unless They engage in absolute dictatorial tyranny. That's the only thing that can hold liars and thieves together. Okay? How do you trust a person who's been lying about David for the last three years? You can't. Well, anyway, Absalom apparently does. Look at Ahithophel's advice at verse 21. And Ahithophel said to Absalom, Go into your father's concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you are abhorred by your father. Then the hands of all who are with you will be strong. Now, the first thing to see is that Hithophel is pushing Absalom to do something not only unlawful, but it is something so heinous that the Bible calls for the death penalty for it. It's a breathtaking suggestion. Leviticus 20, 10 through 11 is just one of many passages that show this is an abomination on two levels, incest and adultery. It says, the man who commits adultery with another man's wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. The man who lies with his father's wife has uncovered his father's nakedness. Both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. Now in a moment we'll see why it is that Absalom went along with such a plan, but I want to point out here I want to highlight that the unlawful revolution immediately establishes in the most public way possible the fact that it is not subject to the law of God. And in this it stands hand in hand with every revolution in history except for the American Revolution because it wasn't a revolution, okay? The reason David couldn't just go along with this is that it would establish Israel as a lawless nation. It would destroy Israel. We see in chapter 18 that David would much rather have not fought against Absalom, but he had to do so to be a legitimate king. It was his sworn duty to uphold God's law order. Michael Gilstrap says, the point, therefore, at which resistance becomes legitimate is, according to Calvin, always a question of actual law breaking. What is common in every actual case of resistance is that illegitimacy is determined by departure from the legitimate order. Resistance is therefore really a means of bringing the legitimate order back to its rightful place. Resistance is carried out against the particular magistrate in office and not against the office itself. Although it is a fine line, it spells the difference between revolution and an act of Christian resistance. It all revolves around the law. Why do Democrats force a litmus test on judge appointees that they be pro-homosexual or pro-abortion? rather than judges who hold a strict construction on the Constitution. Well, it's because they're revolutionaries and intuitively they're committed to it even though it will eventually backfire on them. David's engagement in counter-revolution was an engagement to uphold God's order. And this is why most of our founding fathers spoke of the war as a lawful resistance and why Thomas Paine spoke of it as a revolution. See, they were subject to the law of God. Thomas Paine was not, even though he gave some lip service to it. But I would just encourage you, I know there's these booklets that go around that Thomas Paine has written, you know, on how we should resist government. Ignore those things. He's a revolutionary. He was not, in fact, the founding fathers did not like him at all. They considered him a Jacobite. So the first point is that Ahithophel's advice is clearly contrary to the law and yet Absalom does it without any hesitation. Verse 22, so they pitched a tent for Absalom on the top of the house and Absalom went into his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. Now there were no witnesses to prosecute David's adultery, but all Israel was a witness to this act of incest and adultery. Now, even if this had not been adultery and incest, it would still be wrong. The source of this idea is thoroughly pagan. And of course, anything not biblical is pagan. There is no neutrality. Your political actions are either biblical or they are revolutionary. And most of what is going on in American politics today is revolutionary. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew how the Bible and God were being excluded from the courts and from public office and how you don't dare ever quote the Bible in a court. The Bible is excluded completely from that. And they think this is being religiously neutral. It is not. There is always a religion that governs a nation's actions and the religion of humanism has been ruling for a long time. There is no neutrality. And unfortunately, too many Christians have been siding with the revolutionaries on this issue of law rather than siding with David. They're either afraid to bring the Bible into the public sphere, or they are philosophically opposed to bringing the Bible there. But Christ said, he who is not with me is against me. And that includes politicians. He who is not with me is against me. Joe Moorcraft said, religious neutrality in politics, then, is a subversive, revolutionary, and anti-Christian principle. And I say, amen. But the fact that most Christians think you are a nutcase to say something like that shows just how far the revolution has taken root in our nation. Though through government re-education programs, humanism has taken over Christianity, and Christians are shocked to hear pastors preaching sermons like I'm preaching today. Well, back in the 1700s, almost all of the pastors routinely preached sermons like I am preaching today. That was not considered unusual at all. Alliance Defending Freedom is trying to get pastors to once again apply the Bible to all of life, including politics. And yet the church has lost its nerve to have such a prophetic voice. But the point is that all political actions are either biblical or anti-biblical. There can be no neutrality. We still have in God we trust on our money, but it's a lie. And even Christians have rejected God's laws and civics more thoroughly than Absalom has. Much more thoroughly than he has rejected it. Let me give you a couple quotes just to show you the radical and revolutionary change that has occurred in the last 60 to 70 years. I've got a big fat book put together by a wonderful Jewish scholar who quotes from many people from every branch of local, state, and federal government from the 1600s to the 1900s. And he shows how all the branches on all levels have many people who have said that they were unreservedly, and our nation has been unreservedly committed to biblical laws and to Christ's rule over this nation. Just remarkable, remarkable quotations. from the Supreme Court, numerous, numerous Supreme Courts of states, Supreme Courts of the United States. One is the case of the Holy Trinity, and in their proof for this one case, they just give an enormous amount of information demonstrating the fact this has always been a Christian nation, unreservedly, no religion, a religious test for denominations, But it rejected the idea that there was equality with any other religion other than Christianity. So it was establishment of Christianity, not of any one particular denomination, is what the Supreme Court said at that time. Now I've given that book to quite a number of politicians who have been blown away by it and said they had no idea that this was true. And the reason they had no idea is because Ahithophils and Absaloms have been secretly at work for generations. trying to bring humanism into our society, brainwashing the people for at least the last 60 years. For most of our founding fathers, Thomas Paine's idea of neutrality or secularism was revolutionary. They called it Jacobite, which was their disparaging term for any supporter of the French Revolution. They despised the French Revolution. And you know, it's interesting, Paine He almost got Madame Guillotine on his neck, and he still supported them. He's just an anomaly. He's hard to figure out. I don't understand Thomas Paine very well, but in contrast to him, our founding fathers, with very few exceptions, were anti-revolutionary because they supported the scriptures. Our first president, George Washington, said, it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. He said, impossible. as recognizing there can be no neutrality when judge nathaniel freeman instructed a grand jury in eighteen oh two he said this and try to imagine the outcry for judge modern judge said anything like this the laws of the christian system is embraced in the bible must be respected as of high authority in all our courts and it cannot be thought improper for the officers of such a government to acknowledge their obligation to be governed by its rule People today would be stupefied if a judge said something like that. He'd probably instantly be evicted from court. Andrew Jackson on June 8, 1848 said in reference to the Bible, that book, sir, is the rock upon which our republic rests. Now, I'm no fan of Harry S. Truman, but even as late as his presidency, that was 1945 through 1953, he could say with an absolutely straight face, The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the rights for anybody except for the state. And he wasn't talking to a friend when he said that. That was given as a speech to the Attorney General's Conference, February 1950. It's just astonishing how far we have come since that day. Quotes from hundreds of public officials in that book have convinced me that most public officials prior to the 1960s would consider most people in government today as radical revolutionaries. They would consider themselves the counter revolutionaries. We need a new generation of counter revolutionaries to stand up against the absolums of our day. Now the third thing. that made this lawless was that it was revenge. At least most commentaries assumed that it was revenge. One commentator said, for Ahithophel personally, the scheme must have seemed like a particularly satisfying application of the Torah's lex talionis, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. David had had unlawful sexual relations with Ahithophel's granddaughter at the royal palace in Jerusalem. though she was married to another. So now unlawful sexual relations with David's harem would take place at the same palace only in this case the retributive act would be ten times greater than the original offense and in public. That's not justice. That is personal revenge that was contrary to the Bible. But how many political actions today are actions that punish non-supporters and reward supporters? I mean, why should unions get exemptions from Obamacare when other companies can't get them? And why would there be such punishment inflicted trying to destroy Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A, $1.3 million a day if they don't sign up? Thankfully, the courts have ruled against Obama on this. But anyway, commentators point out that Ahithophel's strange advice was designed to make sure that Absalom could never again be reconciled with his father David. Ahithophel was not going to be the fall guy if things did not work out. Once Absalom did this lawless act, he would be committed. And every revolution down through history has had to do that. Revolutions and lawlessness are logically wrapped up in each other. And anyone who gets queasy and wants to return to the old law order suddenly becomes an enemy of the state. Very, very quickly, the outline points out that Ahithophel's advice was followed. First, because it would demonstrate to the fearful in Israel that Absalom was committed all the way. So there is a certain logic to it. Second, it showed that he was willing to radically burn all bridges of escape. Now, if he's willing to do that, then maybe others might be willing to do it too. If he's going to stick his neck out, maybe others will as well. But the main reason given in verse 23 is astonishing, and it is that Absalom and others in their circle treated Ahithophel's advice on a par with scripture. Verse 23. Now the advice of Ahithophel which he gave in those days was and most translations say something to the effect was treated as if one had inquired at the Oracle of God. So was all the advice of Ahithophel both with David and with Absalom. Now his advice was absolutely stupid on one level But it was treated as being as wise as scripture. In other words, anytime Ahithophel gave advice to David or gave advice to Absalom, people thought, yeah, sounds good. Let's do it. He had become an authority equal with the Bible. And that's astonishing. That is revolutionary. And you might wonder, how could they treat anyone as having authority and their wisdom equal with the Bible? That's a good question. It's a question I've asked Christians all the time, because it's not just in politics. In so many areas of life, Christians do exactly this. and parenting, and men's issues, women's issues, counseling, on so many different issues, they look to the wisdom of the world. But when it comes to politics, things are actually worse today than they were in Absalom's time. Ahithophels are often being treated as having more wisdom than the Bible. Certainly they get more respect than the biblical wisdom does, and it makes sense. The revolution had only been going on for three years in Israel, at least in terms of propaganda. But the revolution has been going on in America for a long, long time, at least in terms of the propaganda stage. So we're further down the road than they were. No wonder things are worse. Now, the fly in the ointment for Absalom was that this horrific act of incest and adultery mandated the death penalty in the law. To begin his kingdom with such an unlawful act was to commit the kingdom to overthrow God's law order. It had to. Because if it didn't, Absalom would constantly be in danger of impeachment and execution. You know, the law of God's justice would be constantly standing over his head. Prior to this act of adultery and incest, most Jews probably did not have any inkling that Absalom was actually a revolutionary. Now it is crystal clear where he stands and from this point on citizens have to make a choice. Are they going to follow Absalom or are they going to follow God's law? That's where it became a clear, clear divide. And many who might otherwise have been loyal subjects to Absalom switch sides and in chapter 18 we find tens of thousands of people who have defected to David. They became the counter-revolutionaries seeking to reestablish God's law order. And it may take something this shocking, this in-your-face, by our modern revolutionaries before Christians wake up to the fact that we cannot embrace the compromised incrementalism of either major party. Too many Christians are drifting with the revolutionaries. Sure, they complain about them a lot, but they're drifting with the revolutionaries rather than standing strong with the counter revolutionaries. And so the question comes this morning, which side are you on? When a revolution against God's law order happens in any society, citizens have to make a choice. To do nothing is automatically to side with the revolution. Now, it's easier to do that. It's easier to allow things to just slip, slip, slip away into apostasy. But if you do that, you are part of the problem. And so I call upon all Christians to do what they can to stem the slide and to reverse it. Now some will be counter-revolutionaries by getting involved within the system like Hushai did. And that's tough. That's a really tough situation. Others will actually take far greater risk by facing Absalom's wrath. by being a prophetic voice against it like Zadok and Abiathar and their two sons. There are others who are going to financially support the counter-revolutionaries or politically support it or maybe they will pray for it. That's maybe all some people can do. In a moment we're going to be singing a prayer. It's an imprecatory prayer. Psalm, and David wrote a number of those during this period of time. I think these should be sung in faith by the church, because as far as I'm concerned, they are the nuclear weapons of the church, and they must not be neglected. I think the tide could be turned if the church would once again embrace these imprecatory Psalms and we might be able to see just as the prayers of Moses. In fact I want to end with that image in your mind of Exodus 17 where the Amalekites are fighting against the Israelites and Moses is up there on the hill raising his hands and as long as his hands stay up They are winning against the revolutionaries. And I call them revolutionaries because in Exodus 17 it says the Amalekites were seizing the throne of God or seeking to overturn the throne of God, depending on the version. So as long as his hands were up and he was praying, The counter-revolutionaries were winning. When his hands came down, the revolutionaries were winning. And there was such a direct correlation between his prayers and which side won that his brothers Aaron and Hur came alongside of him, had him sit down, and they held his hands up throughout the duration, guaranteeing the victory of the counterrevolutionaries. Praise God, we still have some counterrevolutionaries within the civil government, but they desperately need your prayers, your moral encouragement, your financial and political support. And so my final exhortation to you is don't side, whether actively or even passively, with the revolutionaries. And the only way to avoid that is by committing yourself unreservedly to God's law order and to doing everything you can to restore constitutional and biblical foundations of our country. And don't say it's impossible. You know, what David's going to be engaging in the next couple chapters from a human perspective is impossible, incredible odds that we're against him. And yet David believed that nothing is impossible with God. So instead of defeatism, commit yourself to God and to the scriptures and trust Him for the victory. As the next two chapters show, God can bless the counterrevolutionaries against enormous odds. Amen. Father, may it be so. May you raise up many, many people who would join with the godly and the principled counter revolutionaries of our day. And Father, may you do a great thing, even as you did in this time of great stress, distress in the time of David and Absalom. We pray that you would give us wisdom to know in what ways that we can be involved and And to not grow disheartened, but to know that even with the little that we are able to do, that you can multiply it, even as you multiplied the loaves and the fishes. And so encourage this, your people, bless them, and help us to be a part of the greater army of counter revolutionaries. And we pray this in the strong name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Amen.