This question has vexed lovers of freedom for millennia.

by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

When is it justifiable for a Christian to take up arms against a tyrannical government? As we witness the relentless erosion of our rights, the purposeful skyrocketing cost of living and erosion of the value of our currency, and the undeniably increasingly authoritarian actions of those in power, many believers are grappling with a profound question: At what point must we follow the example of our forefathers at Lexington and Concord? Should Christians, whose faith commands peace, also stand ready to resist tyranny with force when necessary? Where does our duty to God intersect with our duty to defend liberty? When is enough, enough?

These are profound questions to which present circumstances demand answers. There are forces now polarizing America and goading Americans toward civil war. The enemies of liberty would prematurely precipitate deadly conflict to tear apart our union, and there are reckless, foolish and impatient souls who are willing to oblige them. On the other side are the timid and pacifistic, who argue that even contemplating armed resistance to tyranny is to be “anti-government,” an “extremist,” a criminal “insurgent,” or a “terrorist.” Must we accept oppression upon oppression until we are reduced to a state of utter despotism? Where is the prudent and responsible patriot to look for guidance in the rapidly accelerating troubles of our times?

Read the following quotations and see if you can detect the faint outline of a template for when it is morally justifiable to take up arms against tyrants.

From the Declaration of Independence: “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

From Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations (1758): “As it is very difficult to oppose an absolute prince, and it cannot be done without raising great disturbances in the state, and the most violent and dangerous commotions, it ought to be attempted only in cases of extremity, when the public misery is raised to such a height that the people may say with Tacitus — miseram pacem vel bello bene mutari — that it is better to expose themselves to a civil war than to endure them.”

From Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government (1698): “If it be said that the word sedition implies that which is evil; I answer, that it ought not then to be applied to those who seek nothing but that which is just; and tho the ways of delivering an oppressed people from the violence of a wicked magistrate, who having armed a crew of lewd villains, and fatted them with the blood and confiscations of such as were most ready to oppose him, be extraordinary, the inward righteousness of the act doth fully justify the authors. He that has virtue and power to save a people, can never want a right of doing it.”

From Hugo Grotius’ The Rights of War and Peace (1625): “A free people may make war against their prince. First therefore, those princes who depend on the people, whether they at first were established on that foot, or their authority was thus rendered subordinate by a posterior agreement, as in Sparta, if they offend against the laws, and the State, may not only be resisted by force; but if it be necessary, may be punished by death.”

From John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon’s Cato’s Letter, No. 55 (1720-1723): “If we read the stories of the most celebrated heroes of antiquity (men of whom the present world is not worthy) and consider the actions that gained them their highest reverence and renown, and recommended their names to posterity with the most advantage; we shall find those in the first rank of glory, who have resisted, destroyed, or expelled tyrants and usurpers, the pests, the burdens, and the butchers of mankind. What can be more meritorious, what more beneficent to the world, than the saving of millions of men at the expense of one grand murderer, one merciless and universal plunderer? And can there be any better or other reason given for the killing of any guilty man, but the preserving of the innocent?”

From Patrick Henry in debates at the Virginia convention for ratifying the Constitution (1788): “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed.… Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

Time to fight: The Battle of Lexington marked the first armed resistance to British tyranny, setting a precedent for the Americans’ fight to protect their independence and liberty, even to the taking up of arms. (Wikipedia/Public Domain)

Do these wise words from these wise men — men from whom our Founding Fathers derived their concepts of good government and the right of the people to make and destroy government — provide any help in answering the question with which we opened this article?

War is the ultimate trial by force to which otherwise peaceful people resort when all other methods to preserve, protect, and defend their lives, liberty, and property have proven futile.

When the laws of God and man are trampled upon by those who wield power with impunity, when the ambitions of the powerful surpass the restraints of the courts, when all peaceable and legal pleas for redress have been spurned, when there is no other recourse, and the plain result of additional forbearance will be to subject oneself and society to complete despotism, then rebellion and resistance are not only justified — they are demanded by both divine and human law.

It is not necessary to exhaustively catalog every situation that justifies such resistance, but three circumstances consistently lead to righteous rebellion.

First, when an individual or group seizes the mantle of leadership without rightful authority — when they claim power that is not theirs by law or by the consent of the governed — they become tyrants, and resistance becomes a duty.

Second, when those who have been legitimately elected or appointed to office extend their term beyond the limits set by law, they defy the very principles that gave them their position. They become usurpers, and to oppose them is to stand with the law.

Third, even within the bounds of a lawful term, if those in power overreach — if they wield their authority in ways not sanctioned by law or twist their lawful powers to serve ends that betray the spirit of the law — then they have turned into oppressors. In such cases, resistance is not only justifiable, but obligatory.

The clarity of these truths is so evident, so fundamentally clear, that they scarcely require explanation. To deny these principles is to deny the right of self-preservation, a right embedded in every living being. This is a truth so self-evident that any attempt to argue against it is futile. Those who cherish their rights and the liberty of their country need no further proof of this undeniable right to defend oneself.

Yet, there are individuals among us who are so corrupted in nature and so malignant in their beliefs that they twist the natural law and undermine both civil law and divine mandates. It is against these adversaries that we must stand firm. It is for the sake of the righteous, for those who have lost or may lose loved ones in the noble defense of liberty, that I write these words — not to convince the incorrigible, but to strengthen the resolve of the virtuous.

The right to self-defense is a principle as old as humanity itself. It is not a mere human construct, but a divine imperative, written into the very fabric of existence. Every creature, from the smallest to the mightiest, is endowed with the instinct to preserve its life and liberty.

Throughout history, this right has been recognized and upheld by the greatest men and the most enduring nations. It is a principle sanctified by the blood of those who have suffered and died for it. The annals of history are replete with examples of those who stood firm against tyranny, sealing the truth of self-defense with their sacrifices.

Consider the era of British tyranny in America. From the first shots fired at Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, to the bitter struggles at Bunker Hill, Americans did not rush headlong into war. They petitioned, they remonstrated, they sought every peaceful means to avoid bloodshed. But when their pleas were dismissed with contempt and it became clear that nothing less than total submission would satisfy their oppressors, they took up arms in defense of their God-given rights. Their success was a testament to the righteousness of their cause, a cause that was, and still is, blessed by the Almighty.

This, then, is the legacy we inherit: the right to resist tyranny, to defend our lives, our liberties, and our sacred honor. When the government becomes a terror to the people it is meant to serve, when it forsakes the laws of God and man, then resistance is not only justified — it is commanded by the highest laws of heaven and earth. Let those who love liberty stand firm, for in the defense of our God-given rights we find our highest duty and our greatest honor.

To defend the lawfulness of taking up arms against tyranny, we need only turn to the writings of history’s most learned defenders of liberty — works such as Lex, Rex (Samuel Rutherford, 1644), Killing No Murder (anonymous, 1657), A Hind Let Loose (Alexander Shields, 1687), and Jus Populi Vindicatum (Sir James Stewart, 1669). The champions of justice who wrote these works argue compellingly for defensive war, whether under the direction of a lawful assembly or against the abuse of power when all other means of safeguarding rights and liberties have been exhausted. Their message is clear and relevant: When all other avenues of recourse fail, the oppressed have the divine and moral right to rise in defense of their freedom.

Consider our own American experience. The Colonists had no British Parliament to turn to; instead, they placed their trust in a Congress of their own making. They never contested the king’s right to govern within the bounds of law, but when he and his ministers began ruling contrary to those laws, the Colonists justly took up arms to defend themselves.

The principle that self-defense is both lawful and necessary is not just theoretical; it is deeply rooted in history. Consider the Maccabees, who resisted the tyranny of Antiochus Epiphanes with remarkable bravery, defending their religion and their freedoms against overwhelming odds. Their victory, celebrated in Jewish tradition as Hannukah, stands as a testament to the righteousness of their cause. Similarly, the people of Helvetia (modern-day Switzerland) fought back against their tyrannical nobles and succeeded in forming a free state.

In both cases, these oppressed peoples were justified in their resistance, and their courage led to triumph.

In more modern times, the Dutch threw off the shackles of Spanish tyranny and established a flourishing state. The French Huguenots defended their religion and liberties against royal persecution. The Hungarians, Poles, Danes, and Swedes each resisted their oppressive rulers, proving that the right to resist tyranny is universal and timeless.

Scripture, too, offers numerous examples supporting this principle. The Israelites resisted the Midianites, Moabites, and Philistines when these nations oppressed them. Gideon, with a small force, defeated the Midianites with God’s blessing. The Israelites resisted King Rehoboam’s harsh rule and established a new kingdom. The city of Libnah revolted against King Jehoram because of his idolatry, and the priest Jehoiada led a successful revolt against the usurper Athaliah, installing Joash as the rightful king.

Scriptural precepts further reinforce our duty to resist tyranny. Proverbs 24:11-12 urges us to rescue those being led to death, Isaiah 1:17 calls us to defend the oppressed, and Zechariah 2:7 commands Zion to deliver herself from oppression. In Luke 22:36, Jesus advises His disciples to provide for their defense, even if it means acquiring swords. These teachings seemingly make it clear: Christians have a moral imperative to protect themselves and others from unjust aggression.

The prayers of the saints often include pleas for divine assistance in resisting oppressors. Psalm 44 expresses hope in God’s help in defeating enemies, and Psalm 149 celebrates the honor of executing judgment upon oppressive rulers. These prayers reflect a profound belief in the righteousness of self-defense and the expectation of divine support in such endeavors.

Some argue that resisting authority is never lawful, reducing people to passive subjects of tyranny. But this view is dangerously flawed. It is our duty to resist both the abuse of lawful power and the usurpation of power to protect our lives, liberties, and the future of our country. To fail in this duty by cowardice or indifference is to betray our nation, our brethren, and our posterity, surrendering them to the yoke of tyranny.

The Bible teaches that lawful magistrates ordained by God should not be resisted. However, when those in power become tyrants, they forfeit their claim to divine ordination and can be resisted without fear of damnation. Rebellion against lawful authority is indeed a grievous sin, as illustrated by the punishment of Korah, Sheba, and Absalom for their rebellion against Moses and David. But resistance to tyrants is not only lawful — it is necessary.

Looking to the apostles and early Christians, we see no contradiction to this principle. They did not resist Roman authorities, not because it was unlawful, but because their mission was spiritual, not political. Their submission to suffering was a testimony to their faith, an example of how to endure persecution for the sake of Christ. However, this does not negate the right to resist when the cause is just and the means necessary to preserve life and liberty.

The notion that all forms of resistance are unlawful is a gross misinterpretation of Scripture and history. The resistance of Moses to Pharaoh and the judges of Israel against their oppressors, and the revolts led by righteous leaders in the Bible, show there is a time and place for resistance. These actions were not rebellions against lawful authority, but necessary efforts to restore justice and order.

The American War for Independence is a perfect illustration of this principle. The Colonists did not seek to overthrow lawful authority; they sought to resist the unlawful and tyrannical actions of the British Crown. They fought to defend their rights and liberties, which were being systematically eroded by unjust laws and oppressive measures. Their cause was just, and their resistance was a lawful and necessary response to tyranny.

Next, let us turn briefly, but crucially, to the wisdom of a couple of immeasurably influential Christian thinkers: Saint Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

When facing the question of whether it is justifiable for Christians to take up arms against tyrants, it is essential to first understand when Christians are justified in taking up arms in the first place. This inquiry is not just a matter of strategy, but one of deep spiritual and moral significance, rooted in the teachings of our faith. The wisdom of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas offers profound insights into this issue. These great thinkers, whose writings have guided Christian thought for centuries, grappled with the moral complexities of war, justice, and resistance. Their reflections are not merely academic; they are practical tools for navigating the turbulent waters of tyranny and oppression.

As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers, yet we are also called to defend the innocent and uphold justice. How do we reconcile these commands when faced with a government that tramples on our God-given rights and liberties? To answer this, we must delve into the teachings of Augustine and Aquinas, who provide a framework for understanding the conditions under which armed resistance is not only permissible, but necessary. Their wisdom is a beacon, illuminating the path for those who seek to balance the demands of justice with the call to live in peace.

Understanding their teachings is not just an intellectual exercise; it is a preparation for the moral decisions that may confront us in our time. If we are to stand against tyranny as our forefathers did, we must first know when it is justifiable to take up arms as Christians. Only then can we act with the confidence that our cause is righteous, and our actions are in line with the will of God.

God-given right: The natural right of self-defense includes the moral imperative and legal right to the armed protection of life and liberty against criminal and tyrannical threats.

Saint Augustine of Hippo

Saint Augustine’s thoughts on just war, particularly in his City of God and Confessions, provide an early Christian perspective on the morality of warfare. For Augustine (354-430 A.D.), as well as for Aquinas (1225-1274 A.D.), there are prerequisites that must be met in order for Christians to be morally certain that their choice to fight evil with the force of arms is justified.

Defense of Peace and Justice: Augustine sees the defense of peace and justice as a legitimate reason for war. He argues that war can be a necessary tool to maintain or restore order and protect the innocent from harm.

Love and Charity: Augustine emphasizes that even in the context of war, Christians must act out of love and charity. This means that the ultimate goal should always be the restoration of peace and the protection of human dignity. Augustine’s perspective is that war should be an act of love toward the oppressed and a means of correcting the oppressor.

Divine Command: Augustine acknowledges that war can be justified if it is commanded by God. This notion is rooted in the biblical tradition in which certain wars were seen as divinely sanctioned. For Augustine, divine command provides a moral justification for war that transcends human reasoning.

Punishment of Evil: Augustine supports the idea that war can be a legitimate means of punishing evildoers. This aligns with his belief in the moral responsibility of the state to maintain order and justice.

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas’ comprehensive treatment of just war in Summa Theologica (II-II, Q. 40) remains foundational in both theological and philosophical discussions of warfare. For Aquinas, there are certain preexisting conditions that must be present in order for followers of Christ to be morally certain that the Lord will hold them blameless in taking up arms against enemies, foreign or domestic:

Just Cause: Aquinas identifies specific scenarios that qualify as just causes for war, such as defense against unjust aggression, recovery of stolen property, and punishment of evil. He believes that without a just cause, the use of force is morally indefensible.

Legitimate Authority: By emphasizing that only legitimate authorities can declare war, Aquinas ensures that the decision to go to war is subject to public accountability and not left to private individuals. This criterion helps to prevent personal vendettas and ensures that war is declared in the interest of the common good.

Right Intention: Aquinas insists that the intent behind waging war must be to promote peace and justice. Even with a just cause and legitimate authority, war must be conducted with the intention of achieving a good outcome, such as restoring peace or protecting the innocent, rather than for personal gain or revenge.

Last Resort: Aquinas underscores that all other means of resolving a conflict must be exhausted before resorting to war. This criterion highlights the preference for peaceful resolution and diplomacy, reflecting the Christian emphasis on peace.

Proportionality and Probability of Success: Later interpretations of Aquinas incorporate the principles of proportionality and probability of success. Proportionality ensures that the violence used in war is not excessive relative to the injury suffered, while the probability of success criterion discourages futile or reckless wars. It also incorporates the principles of immunity for noncombatants (especially women and children) and humane treatment of prisoners of war.

Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas offer a robust framework for evaluating the morality of war from a Christian perspective. Augustine introduces the importance of love, charity, and divine command in the context of war, framing it as an act of protection and restoration of peace and justice, while Aquinas provides structured criteria that emphasize just cause, legitimate authority, right intention, and the necessity of war as a last resort.

These thinkers contribute to a nuanced understanding of just war that balances moral, legal and practical considerations. Their combined insights help to ensure that war, when deemed necessary, is conducted in a way that minimizes harm, upholds justice, and ultimately aims for the restoration of peace. This framework continues to influence contemporary discussions on the ethics of war, providing a moral compass for evaluating military actions in a complex world.

Moral Duty

It is crucial to recognize that the right to self-defense is not only a natural right, but a moral duty. To stand idly by while tyranny and oppression destroy the lives and liberties of ourselves and others is to be complicit in evil. We are called to actively defend justice and to take up arms when necessary to protect the innocent and preserve our freedoms.

The success of the American War for Independence testifies to the righteousness of that cause. Against overwhelming odds, the Colonists stood firm in their conviction and ultimately achieved victory. Their struggle and sacrifice laid the foundation for a nation built on the principles of liberty and justice. Their example continues to inspire and remind us of the importance of defending our rights and freedoms against all forms of tyranny.

The lawfulness, then, of taking up arms against tyranny is supported by the law of nature, historical precedent, scriptural examples, and divine precepts. It is our duty to defend our rights, liberties, and religion against unjust rulers. This truth, grounded in reason and faith, is self-evident and undeniable to those who value liberty and justice.

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D., is best known for his unwavering dedication to constitutional education and advocacy and has established himself as a prominent figure in American legal and political circles. His career, marked by a deep commitment to preserving and interpreting the principles of the U.S. Constitution, has made him a respected voice among scholars and activists alike. Before embarking on this latest endeavor, Joe was an educator, and he believes he was born to teach.