Well, sometimes that takes a commitment of faith on our part, especially when you're going through some of the troubles that David has been going through. If you turn with me to 2 Samuel chapter 20, we've been going through this book verse by verse, and we're just going to deal with the first two verses of this chapter, but I'm going to go ahead and read the first several just to get a little bit of context. And there happened to be there a rebel whose name was Sheba, the son of Bikri, a Benjamite. And he blew a trumpet and said, we have no share in David, nor do we have inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to his tent, so Israel. So every man of Israel deserted David and followed Sheba, the son of Bikri. But the men of Judah from the Jordan as far as Jerusalem remained loyal to their king. Now David came to his house at Jerusalem and the king took the 10 women, his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house and put them in seclusion and supported them, but did not go into them. So they were shut up to the day of their death, living in widowhood. And the king said to Amasa, assemble the men of Judah for me within three days and be present here yourself. So Amasa went to assemble the men of Judah, but he delayed longer than the set time, which David had appointed him. And David said to Abishai, now Sheba, the son of Bichri will do us more harm than Absalom. Take your Lord's servants and pursue him, lest he find for himself fortified cities and escape us. So Joab's men, the Cherithites, the Pelethites, and all the mighty men went out after him. And they went out of Jerusalem to pursue Sheba, the son of Bichri. When they were at the large stone, which is in Gibeon, Amasa came before them. Now Joab was dressed in battle armor. On it was a belt with a sword fastened in its sheath at his hips, and as he was going forward, it fell out. Then Joab said to Amasa, are you in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him, but Amasa did not notice the sword that was in Joab's hand, and he struck him with it in the stomach, and his entrails poured out on the ground, and he did not strike him again. Thus he died. Then Joab and Abishai, his brother, pursued Sheba the son of Bichri. Meanwhile, one of Joab's men stood near Amasa and said, whoever favors Joab and whoever is for David, follow Joab. But Amasa wallowed in his blood in the middle of the highway. And when the man saw that all the people stood still, he moved Amasa from the highway to the field and threw a garment over him. When he saw that everyone who came upon him halted, When he was removed from the highway, all the people went on after Joab to pursue Sheba, the son of Bichri. Father, these are difficult words, tough words. When we see rebellion and the fruits of rebellion in life, when we see the the hatred and the treachery of man. It grieves our hearts and we long to see the restoration of social relations of even nations under King Jesus. And we pray that you would hasten that time when righteousness and the knowledge of your son would fill the earth. But in the meantime, we pray, Father, that we would not react as the world frequently reacts, being pulled to and fro and being manipulated by others, but we would see clearly the principles of your word so that we could walk the straight and narrow path. We pray that you would bless this preaching of your word and bless each one here with a strength and a resolve to follow you faithfully all the days of their life. And it's in Christ's name that we pray this. Amen. Well, this world has seen many civil rebellions. I've never seen a list that claims to be complete, but I've seen a lot of incredibly long lists of rebellions in various history websites. And I'll just give you one little example. Apparently, between the years 1590 and 1715, so that's 125 year period, Southwestern France experienced 450 armed peasant rebellions. 450, that's incredible. Now granted, most countries don't have anywhere near that many, but when you traverse into the 1800s and especially into the 1900s, it is unbelievable the number of rebellions that you find around the world, and we as Christians need to be able to distinguish between lawful resistance to tyranny and unlawful rebellion against tyranny. Many times the two are lumped together and they should not be. They are quite, quite distinct. We spent some sermons in the past looking at the characteristics of lawful, even lawful armed resistance like happened in the American War for Independence, and always there was at least one principle that is present, and that is that there are magistrates in the executive office who are authorizing this resistance to tyranny against another magistrate. Now obviously there's a lot of other principles that we've looked at as well, but at least that was there. It's not a bunch of people riding horses against the BLM, okay? There are a whole bunch of principles that the Scripture sets in place as checks and balances. And this morning we're going to be looking at a portrait of unlawful civil rebellion Then, Lord willing, next week we'll look at the absolutely disastrous results of such rebellion. Now, we know it's unlawful rebellion because God calls it rebellion, okay? And verses 1 through 2 give us 10 telltale signs of what rebellion looks like. Now, I've given you an 11th one under point A from the previous chapter. And even though we preached on that already, I'd like to look again at the last four verses of chapter 19 to see this characteristic that you know it's an ungodly rebellion when it is fueled more by emotion than it is by legal substance. In chapter 19, all 12 tribes were quite okay with going along with David. They didn't have any legal objection. They didn't have any constitutional objection to David. The only thing that made them quit was that they were offended. They were very, very offended. So take a look, beginning to read at chapter 19 verse 40. Now the king went on to Gilgal and Chimham went on with him and all the people of Judah escorted the king and also half the people of Israel. Just then all the men of Israel came to the king and said to the king, why have our brother and the men of Judah stolen you away and brought the king, his household and all David's men with him across the Jordan? So all the men of Judah answered the men of Israel, because the king's a close relative of ours. Why then are you angry over this matter? Have we ever eaten at the king's expense, or has he given us any gift? And the men of Israel answered the men of Judah and said, we have 10 shares in the king. Now keep that in mind. When we look in chapter 20, they claim they don't have any share in the king. But here they say, we have 10 shares in the king. Therefore we also have more right to David than you. Why then do you despise us? Were we not the first to advise bringing back our king? Yet the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel. There was no substance to their offense. It was all emotion. Okay, and we saw when we preached on that, we saw that this was complicated by a regional and cultural differences that existed between the North and the South. There were prejudices that added fuel to the fire, but this whole outburst was emotional. And when you get into groups that resist the government, and all you hear is anger over injustice, and there's not a lot of constitutional or legal or theological arguments, watch out. Rebellion is often rooted in emotion. Now contrast that with the stable emotions that you find in George Washington and the colonial magistrates. They had these very well-reasoned tracts, and they had longer articles, and they had books that were written trying to help people to understand why this was a legal resistance to the Brits, and cautioning them against any kind of what they called a Jacobite attitude. That was the revolutionary attitude of the French that was not lawful. Just to show you the difference in attitudes and reading levels, the federalist papers that, you know, homeschoolers like, wow, do I really need to slog through that? And the anti-federalist papers. That was like regular newspaper reading that everybody was dialoguing. You couldn't find probably a farmer that hadn't read these things and could argue and debate with you on those things. That was the kind of level of intellectual debating. Is this really lawful? Is this something God would have us to be involved in? So they had a much higher level of reading were not so easily duped. So anyway, this is the first thing to watch out for. Is there more to this than simply people being upset and offended? And of course, this is true in other areas of life as well. When resistance to parents is based on emotion more than it is on calm, humbled, well-reasoned petitions to their parents, it's likely rebellion. When resistance to church tyranny is based on emotion, it's likely growing in the demonic soil of rebellion rather than divine rights Presbyterianism, which by the way, you guys ought to probably study because divine right Presbyterianism talked about the laws that govern a church and it shows the lawful ways to resist tyranny within the church. It's some great stuff that was written in the 15 and 1600s. When resistance to the state is fueled more by emotion than it is by substance, run, don't walk to the nearest exit. Those kinds of meetings will appeal to your baser nature and they're going to probably start causing these emotions of rebellion to rise up within yourself. Now let's look at 10 additional signs of rebellion that we can see in verses 1 through 2 of chapter 20. Verse 1 begins by saying, And there happened to be there a rebel. there happened to be there indicates a spontaneous action, not something that's well thought through and planned. And it makes sense that there's going to be a spontaneous action to the spontaneous emotion that occurred in the previous chapter. Somebody lights a match, people get all upset and some wise guys say, hey, we ought to secede. And everybody gets on the bandwagon and they go ahead and do that. But it has not been very carefully thought through. When we get to chapter 20, but verse 14, Lord willing next week, we're going to be seeing that Sheba obviously is not very well known. He's not able to gain a very good following. He has no strategy and he just jumps into action. I've known children who have run away from home. They have never thought through what they are going to do when they leave the home. It's a spontaneous action That's just based on emotion. They've not thought through and whether this is lawful, what they're engaged in, whether it will be successful. You know, Jesus commands us to think about whether even a lawful action is going to be successful in Luke chapter 14. You know, building a tower, whether you should go out against this force. They've not thought through those things. They've not thought through the long-term consequences, the short-term consequences. You probably read in the newspaper last week of this kid that ran away from home and he climbed up into the wheel well of of a jet that flowed to Hawaii. What was it, a five-hour trip or something like that? Almost froze to death. But that's what we're talking about. Spontaneous, not well thought through. Okay? Now I'll hasten to say that rebellion is not always that way. It was not that way with Absalom, but such rashness never distinguishes true biblical resistance. That's the point. Such spontaneity frequently will either cause a person to leave in a hush or push somebody else out the door in a huff. The third telltale sign is the character of the leadership. Rebellions are often run by ungodly people. Now the literal Hebrew here is if you look at the margin is son of Belial. Now I don't know several months ago we looked at that that phrase son of Belial. Belial was a synonym for Satan and so there he's the prince of rebels and that's why the name here but there could be some demonic behind this probably is when it talks about son of Belial but at a very minimum it springs from an ungodly character. Now this to me makes absolutely total sense. If your methodology is ungodly, it's likely that your character is going to be rebellious and ungodly as well. So it's not enough to ask, is the goal that these people are involved in a good and a godly goal? It may be a good and a godly goal, but it still may not be right. There were a lot of people who agreed with the godly goal of getting rid of slavery in America. But they had no idea that when they were siding with John Brown, they were siding with a son of Belial, and it was going to be absolute disaster that would result. John Brown said this, if any obstacle stands in your way, you may properly break all the Decalogue, and that means all the Ten Commandments, in order to get rid of it. So he did not have the godly character to be able to resist effectively this institutional evil. And this is why I am so reluctant to jump on the bandwagon of modern resistance movements that are led by Sons of Belial. Now, if I lived back in the 1800s, I would have been seeking to oppose this institutional evil of slavery, but I for sure would not have gotten on the bandwagon of Abraham Lincoln's Ungodly rebellion and it was rebellion against God's law and I could demonstrate that it was rebellion against the Constitution For sure I would not have joined with John Brown and the secret six who funded the raid on Harper's Ferry in 1859 because if you knew the character of those men You would have known immediately. This is not godly resistance this is going to be a rebellion and I'm going to be in trouble if I get involved in it and And so we need to be thinking, worldview thinking, when we have our passions stirred up, whether it's in the, you know, in a little club that you meet in or on the internet or something else. We've got to be thinking in terms of biblical worldview. They were revolutionaries, not true advocates for biblical law. So if you oppose unlawfulness with unlawful means, unlawful methods, you've got rebellion on your hands. That's what you've got. And I would say that most American politics today is simply unlawful resistance to unlawfulness with unlawful means. It's rebellion. And I'd be happy to discuss the whys and the wherefores of that with you. Fourth telltale sign of its rebellious character was that Sheba was asking these people to break with a known entity, David, and follow an unknown entity, Sheba. And the unstated implication is you just need to trust my rhetoric. We need change. I'm all about change. Does that sound familiar? We have these kinds of attitudes. Well, verse 1 says, there happened to be there a rebel whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite. Other than that description, we don't know much of anything about this Sheba. He was definitely not any of the officers, major or minor, because we've got long lists of officers. We've got long lists of magistrates who are out there. He's not on this list. And yet, despite the fact he's almost an unknown entity, it says in verse two, so every man of Israel deserted David and followed Sheba, the son of Bichri. It's odd that people would do this, but with their emotions inflamed, Sheba saw an opportunity to rally people into a secessionist movement. Now, did David deserve to have some resistance? Did he have some bad moves in the past? And we saw absolutely. Yes, he did. He deserved to be impeached. But because the process, they could not go through that. He still was a lawfully elected person in power. And I would much rather follow a known entity who is good, but not perfect. than an unknown entity whose only characteristic that we know about him is that, you know, the day before he supported David, now he does not support David, but he definitely knew how to rally the crowds. Now contrast that with the American War for Independence. Every leader of the American War for Independence was either well-known locally, well, they were all well-known locally, but most of them were well-known even throughout the entire nation. Or contrast America's war with the French Revolution. French Revolution was much more like Sheba's revolution. In 1789, there were leaders in the Estates General who were seeking to bring about reform, but the crowds didn't have the patience for their slow methods of reform. They wanted reform now, and there was so much emotion that was generated in Paris that they followed the eloquent speeches of Camille de Moulin rather than the known reformers. Now, obviously, it's a lot more complicated than that, but it's just clear. Every history you read on the French Revolution, they were following people that they really did not know that well. When a crowd blindly follows the ravings of a person whom they really do not know, run, don't walk to the nearest exit. It is rebellion, not lawful resistance, and it will not end well. They say, trust my rhetoric. You don't need to know about my past or about my birth certificate or anything else. And if we just blindly follow any American from any party, And we're running after them into the charge without knowing much about them. Just because they've made promises to us, we are not very smart. We'll find that the Sheba who rebels against the problems in a David has just as many problems, if not more. Well, verse 1 goes on to say, And he blew a trumpet and said, so there's sound calling to action. That's what the trumpet was for. And there was speech designed to rouse up and stir up the emotions. And some people are pretty good at sound bites, but can stir the emotions and want to make you follow them. During the French revolution, the lawful reformers themselves were actually pretty eloquent. But they spent so much time grounding their arguments in the law, in history, in legal means to make change, which is good. That's what they should be doing. But their speeches were lost on the crowds. But Danton, Marat, and Robespierre understood the language of the people. Even though there was almost zero substance to their speeches, they knew how to stir the emotions of the people, how to connect with those people's frustrations. And there was a lot to be frustrated about. Marat was fabulously wealthy, but he dressed poorly and pretended to be poor and, you know, pretended to love the poor. And his speeches were designed to motivate and to manipulate the rabble to action. And of course, it was disastrous actions that followed because that rebellion spawned constant rebellion everywhere. And many of the leaders got executed themselves. Biblical resistance to evil is much more than sound calling to action and speech designed to stir the emotions. It is substantive. But a lot of people are too lazy and too impatient for biblical resistance. The sixth telltale sign of rebellion is when its leaders presume to speak for your future. In verse one he says, we have no share in David, nor do we have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. Now with that we, he was speaking on behalf of the people. And a good question to have asked is like, who appointed you to represent the people and who are you anyway? They did not really know this man and he did not know them that well, and yet he speaks for them. The leaders of rebellion always presume to speak for the people. During the French Revolution, Revolutionary leaders always spoke of the people. Communists always do that too, but it was the wishes of the people, the will of the people, the tribunal of the people, and the name of the people, the friend of the people, the people, the people, the people. And it was just all lies because these guys were not really representing the people, but it made the people feel important. It made them feel like they were part of a groundswell of something that was important. It was an easy and an empty way of identifying with the crowds and getting them to rally. Now you've got a picture in your outline there. One of the worst dictators and tyrants in Africa is a guy by the name of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. And the communists who trained him said, oh yeah, you always have to speak in the name of the people. When he came to power, he gave a speech that stirred the crowds like no one before him had been able to do. And his speech, which you can read online, titled Declaration of the Authority of the People is amazingly eloquent and all the way through he presumes to speak for the people. I'll just give you a couple of excerpts. He said, From the desert, the dawn of a new age shines upon humanity, the age of the masses. For the desert is neither arid nor desolate. From the desert and on this fateful day in the life of our people, nation and mankind comes forth the ringing voice of a people announcing the establishment of the authority of the people. the birth of Jamahariya, the beginning of the age of the masses. Popular direct authority is the basis of the political system and the socialist people's Libyan Arab Jamahariya. The authority is for the people who alone should have authority. The people exercise their authority through the popular congresses, the people's committees, the syndicates, the unions, the professional associations, and the general people's congress. And he just goes on and on presuming to speak for the people. It's all about the people. Yeah, right. He was one of the worst dictators to put the people under his boot. But this is common rhetoric that we need to recognize is out there. Well, we've got politicians who presume to do the same thing here in America. Rather than speaking on behalf of the Constitution, which they are sworn to do, they speak for the people, which sounds nice. But what does it mean? It is really empty. When a leader presumes to speak for your future, to speak your mind and your will, run, don't walk to the nearest exit. Most politicians in America are rebels against the Constitution and against God's law, which they should be speaking to and speaking for. And instead, they foment rebellion against the Constitution in the name of the people. Let me give you just one tiny example from one slice of American life. One of the most eloquent defenses of this concept was the book Common Law by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was a revolutionary book that masterminded judicial rebellion against Christian common law in the courts of our nation and substituted a concept of a living constitution that moves ever leftward to reflect the supposed will of the people. Now, of course, it just happens to be unelected members of the court that tell you what the will of the people is and what the mind of the people is, but Whether it's abortion, whether it's homosexuality, or anything else, it's an evolutionary concept that's always being in tune with the people. That's the concept that's in that book. He masterminded a massive rebellion in the courts, and this was one of the principles he used to eloquently do so. The courts, for the most part in America, have become rebels against the Constitution, but far more importantly, rebels against God's law. The seventh telltale sign of rebellion is when people want to lead against lawful leadership. In other words, they inconsistently seek to overturn leadership and overturn authority, resist authority, while wanting people to follow their leadership and their authority. Okay, that's the inconsistency there. Virtually every revolution in Africa has been that way. Sheba is encouraging the people to rebel against lawful authority, but he's hoping that in their rebellion, they will follow his leadership. Now, why would people do that? They actually do. But why would they do that? Well, they do it because it's not just leaders who have rebel hearts. And here is the problem. If you rebel against lawful authority, you are modeling to others that it's OK for them to rebel against your authority. OK. People don't always realize that this is the long-term consequence of rebellion, but it eventually does come back to bite them. And the only way that a rebel like Sheba can continue to hold power is by seizing so much tyrannical power that he ends up being worse than the tyrant that he overthrew. And that's what happened to the French Revolution. Once the current evil order was overthrown, The revolutionary leaders realized that in order to maintain control, they had to crack down on any dissent. They were constantly killing off the counterrevolutionaries, what they called counterrevolutionaries, anybody that criticized them. So the more radical revolutionaries eventually came along and they killed Robespierre, they killed Marat and the other people that were there. So if you're a rebel you either have to become a master tyrant or a master manipulator or you end up getting overthrown. Okay? So it's no wonder to me that David absolutely resisted this idea of being revolutionary and overturning the authority of Saul. He said it's got to be lawful. He refused to raise the sword against Saul except under certain very restricted biblical circumstances. He knew it would backfire. Well, Sheba didn't have time to become a Muammar Gaddafi. He didn't have time to consolidate power. But you can see the lack of respect that the people had for him in verses 14 and following. We just got up to 14 and reading there. He goes through all Israel trying to get support. And commentators point out, yeah, there's people from all over Israel that follow him, but hardly anybody really does follow him. It's enough to just barely, they can fit into a tiny little city, okay? So it gives you a little bit of perspective of how few. followed him. Rebellion looks fun until things get serious and you start facing the bayonets. Well, whenever you see any person seeking to lead against leadership, and you need to apply this not just to civil government, apply it to all of the governments, family, church, or state. Anytime you see a person seeking to lead against leadership, run, don't walk, to the nearest exit. Don't go along with their rebellion or you will be a rebel yourself. And this has huge implications for the family, the church, and the civil government. When mothers undermine leadership of the fathers, they don't realize they are modeling rebellion. And they shouldn't be surprised that they get disrespect and abandonment down the road. They think initially that they're happy, but it comes back to bite them. Sheba's don't succeed without becoming more and more controlling and manipulative with their rebellion. The eighth telltale sign of rebellion is when it leverages other issues than legal or theological issues to get you to see things their way. Sheba doesn't appeal to the Bible for what he is saying. He does not appeal to a law above man's law. He can't because the Bible is against him. What does he appeal to? He appeals to party principle or more specifically to being against a given party. It's easier to be against something. So he says, we have no share in David, nor do we have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. He forgot to mention what share do they have in Sheba? They hardly even know who he is, but that's beside the point. And I get calls all the time that are doing this Sheba number with me. The Republican National Party Committee, they call me up on the phone quite a number of times and they say, we want to thank you for your generous support to the National Republican Committee. And I say, I have not supported you guys in the last three decades or more. And they say, well, would you like to start? No. And they say, but we really need to work hard in getting together to keep the Democrats out of Congress. And what they're saying is we have no share in the Democratic Party. OK, we have no inheritance there. And I say, well, what about keeping unconstitutional Republicans out of the Congress as well? And it really doesn't do much good to argue with them, because for every argument that you give, they just lower the price. Well, how about 50 bucks? How about 30? 25? 15? And I say, well, how about nothing until you guys quit putting forward Republicans who are against the Constitutional and are radical? You know, you need to be cutting this out. I don't care about the party. I want people who are godly in government, and I want people in government who really will honor their pledge to uphold the Constitution like they swear to do. It doesn't do me any good to argue with them except for feeling better. Now what's weird about this statement here is that Sheba, what he is doing here is doing the exact opposite of what he had said just a few hours earlier behind the scenes. He was supporting David. It was an incredible political switcheroo. In chapter 19 verse 43 he said, We have ten shares in the king. We have no share. They had earlier argued vigorously they had as much a right to be on David's administration as anybody else had the right. And I don't think I need to flesh this out for you to see that there's nothing new under the sun. These kinds of things have happened all down through history. But it's important that we start calling these politicians what they really are. They are rebels. They are rebels against God. They are rebels against the Constitution. And I am not interested in supporting rebellion. I'm interested in supporting lawful resistance to tyranny, and we need a groundswell of lawful resistance to the traitors in both parties in Washington. We need a back-to-God movement, a back-to-the-Bible movement, and a back-to-the-Constitution movement. Now, on this Bundy situation, why are conservatives arguing that we should wrest this property out of the communistic control of the Bureau of Land Management, the federal government, and put it into state control. I mean, if it's in state control, that's just as communistic, isn't it? It makes no sense to me to argue conservative. Conservative against what? You know, you're just a few steps behind the radicals of our generation. We need to be arguing against an absolute standard, and it's the standard of God's law. But there really is no justification for the state or the feds to be involved in that. But with rebellion, It doesn't have to make sense. You just have to be against something. The ninth tentail sign of rebellion is that it is frequently, I won't say always, but it is frequently motivated by redistribution of wealth and class envy. Verse 1 goes on to say, nor do we have an inheritance in the son of Jesse. Well, nobody is supposed to have an inheritance in the king. Deuteronomy forbids a redistribution like that. That's not godly leadership. That is corruption. But this has been the perpetual temptation in politics to want handouts if you're not in government, or if you are in government, to make promises and also to be cashing in on some of those promises yourself because the only way you can redistribute money is if you steal it in the first place like King Saul did. Socialism is built on complaining about the riches of productive Christians and appeasing the envy of people through promises and yet the poor never get richer. It is not anything that has ever worked. They are just further enslaved. Sheba thought that the haves should give an inheritance to the have-nots. Nesta Webster's history of the French Revolution showed the constant appeal to class envy and constant promises that if they followed the revolutionaries, they would get rich at the expense of the nobles. That's what the revolutionaries promised in Ethiopia, where I grew up. And eventually, people bought it, and they had a communist revolution. This is the kind of thing you see in almost every rebellion. It's at the heart of the Occupy movement. Anyway, in Nesta Webster's History of the French Revolution, he said this. Here is a remark habitual to Danton. The revolution should profit those who make it, and if the kings enrich nobles, the revolution should enrich patriots. We shall find Danton giving vent to the same sentiments up to the very foot of the scaffold. Danton's own greed for gold led him to believe that the people were to be won by the same means, money he held to be the great lever by which the revolutionary mobs could be moved to action. Well, to a large degree, he was exactly right. Promises of inheritance from government have caused most revolutions in the last 300 years, and this has been the perpetual policy in America since FDR. People feel that the government owes them, and the politicians make themselves powerful by manipulating the population with such redistribution. On Thursday, I posted this quote from, Gary sent it to me and put it on Facebook, but it said, Prolutsky wrote, a reader of mine, we'll call Ray, sent me six contradictions that sum up the thinking of progressives. And he calls them progressives, not Democrats, because both the Republicans and the Democrats, for the most part, have become progressives. They've really abandoned the Constitution. But he says, these sum up the thinking of progressives, or at least what passes for thinking in those bizarre quarters. It begins, one, America is capitalist and greedy, and yet half the population is subsidized. Two, half the population is subsidized, yet they regard themselves as victims. Three, they think they are victims, yet their representatives run the government. Four, their representatives run the government, yet the poor keep getting poorer. Five, the poor keep getting poorer, yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about. Six, they have things that people in other countries only dream about, yet they want America to be more like those other countries, a.k.a. Obamacare and all of the other socialistic programs that have really impoverished other nations. So it's a bundle of contradictions that you see in these kinds of rebellious movements. Anyway, I thought it was well said, and as I said before, This is at the heart of the Occupy movement protests around America. Okay, those are not lawful protests against tyranny. Those are unlawful examples of rebellion and the envy can be seen everywhere. In effect, they're saying we reject this government because it's not giving enough. Where's our inheritance? This indignation over economic inequality is at the heart of the Spanish Indignados protests. Anytime you see a protest against government that has anger over economic inequality, and wants the government to do something about it, by definition, you've got rebellion. That's part of God's definition of civil rebellion. The protest demanding that the Republicans create jobs is a protest spawned by rebellion. And if you do not understand the difference between rebellion against tyranny and lawful resistance against tyranny, don't even get involved because you're going to be manipulated. Just like everybody else, you're going to be manipulated. Lawful resistance always appeals to God's lawful order. And if you want to get educated on this whole subject, I would encourage you to read some of the books from the 15 and 16 and 1700s. Those guys were brilliant. They thought through exegetically all of the scriptural basis for it. Books like Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants, which you can download from Biblical Blueprints. Pen name, Junius Brutus. It wasn't his real name because he would have probably been killed if it was put onto the book. Junius Brutus, excellent, excellent author. Another book would be Samuel Rutherford's book, Lex Rex, which means law is king, not the king is law. Point J says that you can tell that it's rebellion by the fact that it appeals to individualism and anarchy rather than to the covenant. I've seen some Thomas Paine's booklets being circulated around. Let me assure you, Thomas Paine was not covenantal in the least. He was an individualist. He did not understand these principles. Most of our founding fathers did, but not Thomas Paine. They were very nervous about him. Anyway, the last part of verse 1 says, Every man to his tents, O Israel. This is not the states resisting tyranny lawfully. This is every man to his tense. This is not cities interposing themselves against David. Sheba actually had no authority to call either one, which would have been lawful forms of resistance. No, it was a call to individualism and anarchy, every man doing that which is right in his own eyes, rather than appeal to any civil covenant. One commentator said, this proverbial expression was the usual watchword of national insurrection and from the actual temper of the people it was followed by effects beyond what he probably anticipated. There is no covenant connection when every woman Child, man, you know, makes decisions independently. And some people's hackles will get up, you know, in some circles anyway. Am I even making that statement? But it is absolutely true. Rebellion is the opposite of covenant relationships. The American War for Independence was not a revolution. It was not a rebellion. It was covenantal to the core. You read the Declaration of Independence, it doesn't make any sense apart from covenant theology. It's appealing to broken covenants. It's appealing to God's law order. And so, covenant families. They should have a solidarity, and if there is a need for resistance to tyranny within the family, it should be done lawfully by way of appeal to the elders. Covenant churches should have solidarity, and if resistance is needed, God has provided ways of appeal, even to presbytery. Same is true of various civil governments. There are lawful ways that the Bible gives to resist sin and tyranny within covenantal units. But rebellion has no patience for that. Rebellion takes matters into its own hand, and if the covenant unit won't listen up, we're out of here. You know, they just walk. It's independence. Lawful resistance is always covenantal. Hopefully I've emphasized that enough. Rebellion appeals to the individuals, to my desires, to what I am willing to put up with. And that has nothing to do with it. Covenantalism needs to look to what God wants you to put up with, not what you are willing to put up with. They may pretend to be doing this on behalf of the people, but rebellion always ignores the people who were in covenant with each other and ends up embracing anarchy. The last telltale sign of rebellion is that it is incapable of loyalty because there is no transcendent basis for resistance or for loyalty. Verse 2, so every man of Israel deserted David and followed Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah from the Jordan as far as Jerusalem remained loyal to their king. So there's clearly loyalty on one side. There's no loyalty on the other side. But we need to ask why. Why was there the difference there? And I want us to take this verse apart piece by piece. The desertion is obvious, but I want you to notice it isn't 10 tribes deserting David. It's every man deserting David. They're not being loyal to the tribe. They're not being loyal to the covenant. They are not even being loyal to Sheba. Now it may look like they're being loyal to Sheba because it says right there in the text. And they followed Sheba. But in what way did they follow him? They followed him in his rebellion OK, they followed him by imitating his rebellion, but not by being loyal to him. They liked his rebellion, not him. They didn't even know who he was. How could they be loyal to him? OK, Lord willing, next week we'll see several disastrous consequences of rebellion. But verse 14 and following highlight disastrous consequences to Sheba as well. Sheba went through all Israel trying to find some followers and commentators point out, even though there were some from all of Israel that followed Sheba, It wasn't what he had hoped for. In fact, it was such a small number that they were able to easily fit in a small, tiny city. And verse 15, and rather than fighting for him, in the following verses, they chop off his head, give his head to Joab so as to avoid fighting. They're not loyal to him. Oh, sure, yeah, yeah, you can have his head. They were not loyal to him at all. So you know that it is likely rebellion when there is not any good basis for loyalty to the cause. They were against something in these verses, but they weren't for something. Since there was nothing transcendent to form the basis for their resistance, there was nothing transcendent that could form the basis for loyalty. The most that they could say is, you know, there's resistance for selfish reasons. Well, that's never going to take you through. It's not going to be a good basis. When push comes to shove, promising cell phones is not a very good basis for loyalty to Obama. Now, if there is no push or shove, yeah, people will take handouts. They will like them. But when times get tough, it takes the tough to keep going in resisting tyranny in either party. And unless they have a transcendent reason to do so, it will fizzle, it will fall apart. Now what do I mean by transcendent reasons? These would be reasons that go beyond my own selfish interests. They are reasons that are bigger than myself. In fact, they're such big reasons I am willing to lay down my life for this cause. That's what I'm talking about, transcendent reasons. What made the founding fathers of America willing to lose their fortunes and their lives in fighting against the Brits? It was obviously not selfish reasons because they lost Many of them, most of the things that selfish people would be fighting to retain. No, they were willingly giving those things up. What they fought for was freedom, the rule of law, liberties for their children and for their grandchildren, cause of God and truth. They were driven by a vision that was way bigger than them, way bigger than just that generation. They were looking to the future. It was a vision that inspired them. Rebels have too small a vision to do that. But the signers of the Declaration of Independence said, and for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. When you are driven by the big causes of the laws of nature and of nature's God, when you have a hatred for tyranny and unlawfulness and rebellion against God, when you have a passion for liberty, not just for your generation, but for coming generations, you're going to have the kind of passion that's going to enable you to fight and to resist like they did. But that's worlds apart from the rebellion of Sheba. Most of our founding fathers despised, absolutely despised the Sheba kind of rebellion, what they called a Jacobite rebellion. They recognized the dangers that we have looked at this morning. As I mentioned earlier, Thomas Paine was blind to them, but most of our founding fathers were covenantal and they understood the dangers and they resisted them. And as things get worse and worse in America, there will be the temptation to join with every rebel group that hates being told what to do. And I would encourage you don't join those groups. It's just it's going to be a disaster. The Sheba's of this world will not bring you liberty. They will bring you further bondage. Instead, join with patriots around America who have a vision that is bigger than themselves, bigger than our generation. Be willing to make sacrifices needed to restore our nation to being a nation under God, under His law. So resistance, yes. Rebellion, no. Make David your example of liberty under God. Amen. Father God, we thank you that in this upside down world and even with imperfect models, you have set before us sufficient examples and sufficient laws in your holy word that can guide us and can protect us from falling into danger. There is constantly appeals to draw us away from loyalty to your law, and I pray that they would not be successful upon any of us. Help us, Father. to cast off all rebellion, to model steadfast hearts, steadfast loyalty to your covenant and to the covenant relationships that you have brought us into. Cause your word to triumph in our lives, we pray in Christ's name, amen.