Is Revolution Biblical?

In 1776 the British colony in the Americas revolted against the king. In a heroic war against tyranny, they threw out the British government and established the United States of America. We Americans were raised on this historic story and celebrate it every July 4th. We celebrate the victory of the "Patriots" against the "Loyalists" (or "Tories") and their crown. Their cry was "no taxation without representation" and "Don't tread on me." They threw tea into the Boston harbor. They dissolved their "political bands" because their government had refused to secure their God-given rights or to recognize that the power of the government is derived from the governed. They decried a "long train of abuses and usurpations" and "Tyranny". (By the way, those aren't "scare quotes"; they're just quotes from the Declaration of Independence.) There was a long list of grievances, including the requirement to quarter troops in their homes, cutting off and taxing trade with other countries, and actual murder of citizens. They appealed to "the Supreme Judge of the world" for their right to be free and independent and pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."

I think it's abundantly clear that the American Revolution was premised largely on a Christian basis, despite what historians would have us believe today. I think it is equally clear that today's world would have no such basis, having eliminated it as a possibility. But the question I have is this: Was that revolution biblical? They stood on rights bestowed by the Creator and depended on the protection of Divine Providence, but was there a biblical basis for any of this?

First, I think it's important to note, based on the Christian influence on the Declaration of Independence, that Americans linked liberty and "the consent of the governed" (democracy) to Christianity, that Christianity affirmed these as God-given rights. I don't suppose, in fact, that many American Christians today would disagree. But can you find that in Scripture?

Next, you may wonder why I ask the question about whether the Revolution was biblical? If they saw their freedoms and rights as given by God, isn't that the basis? Well, there is a question here. Paul wrote, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment" (Rom 13:1-2). Given that all governing authority comes from God, is it ever right to fail to submit to governing authority? Peter wrote

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. (1 Peter 2:13-17)

Remembering that Peter wrote about an emperor that declared himself god and sought the deaths of Christians, this whole thing becomes a serious question.

Of course, it doesn't take but a moment to realize that this biblical requirement is not a blanket requirement. That is, Scripture declares, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). So it is not always the case that we must simply submit to governing authorities. And, if you think about it for a moment, it makes perfect sense. Since the source of the authority for government is God, when that government defies the God that instituted it, it would seem clearly necessary to choose to obey the higher authority. That, then, would be the principle that would allow Christians to refuse to obey government -- when they require us to do or not do what God has commanded us not to or to do. So, as in the Acts 5 example, if a government required that we not preach the Gospel and we have clearly been commanded to preach the Gospel, we have no option but to disobey the government and obey God.

The question, then, is whether or not this was the case in the 1770's. (The question is not "Did people use the Bible to justify the Revolutionary War?" They did, no doubt. The question is whether the Bible agrees with them.) The reasons for the revolution were demands for God-given rights. Are those rights genuine rights, as in actual commands? A prominent Congregational minister at the time argued that government should be obeyed as long as they don't abuse their power and trust, but exercise it for the good of the governed. That looks to me like "You must submit as long as you're comfortable with it and, if not, revolution is justified." This would be a problematic view of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 since Paul and Peter were both writing during the time of a true despot, Emperor Nero. If Paul didn't list him as an exception, on what basis would we list King George?

So the question seems to hang in the air. Given the Scriptures on the topic and the belief among Bible-believing Christians that God's Word is the primary authority in matters of faith and practice, on what grounds could we justify the American Revolution? You know where this goes next, don't you? By extension, on what grounds would we justify resisting authority today?

Postscript
I understand that this may disturb some Americans who don't like the idea that the very origin of the country might have been counter-biblical. I just want to point out that I wrote this as a question, not as a statement. Something to think about, to ponder, to even dismiss if you wish. I also understand that some Americans worship America and what it stands for (especially today) above Christ, making such a question offensive, so there is that to consider as well.