I’m not into flags. I have no interest in representing any culture and history that isn’t subject to the Covenant of Christ. But that doesn’t mean I won’t fight under one rebel flag or another for the sake of convenience.
Nor is it some principle of rebellion itself, supporting the underdog or anything like that. Rather, it’s the basic moral orientation that I’ve already enunciated several times: Nobody has any business ruling over your life it they aren’t related by blood or marriage. That’s a fundamental assumption of Biblical Law. You can justify fighting every human government on earth, if you need a justification.
Whether Biblical Law justifies actually fighting in your specific situation is another issue. It could, depending on your convictions and mission, but that’s highly individual. You cannot assume that biblical values uniformly condemn a revolt simply because the Apostles could not justify it in their specific context. The Roman Empire was permitted by God, so rebelling against it was rebellion against God. Even then, Paul took advantage of politics to game the system. It’s a matter of prophetic word and conscience regarding any human government and our disposition toward that government.
In general, if a covenant believer is going to resist a human government, he must decide what the issue of resistance is. You cannot justify it over heritage unless that heritage is directly tied to the Covenant of Christ. Oppression itself is not a good excuse, either. One man’s oppression is another man’s freedom. And the Bible never supports the concept of human rights.
No, the only valid basis for resistance is your mission and calling against the specific context. The threat of a mandatory vaxx? Yep, I’d take up arms to avoid it. Not because of a threat to life, but the technology itself could too easily lend itself to seeking control over human volition. It’s the principle of the mRNA technology, not the use of injections. I still accept some vaccines, but that’s currently under review, since the system may have started lying about vaccines in general. I already reject flu vaccines, and have added pneumonia vaccines because the current medical practice isn’t helpful to older people (adverse reactions are rising).
There are other things I might resist, with violence if necessary. You have to decide for yourself.
However, I would counsel that when the you discern resistance is necessary, make sure you understand for yourself the principles involved. You need to consider what happens if God calls you to resist even when He won’t give you victory. That does happen. If resistance itself is the thing, then the outcomes don’t matter.
If that be the case, then there can be no terms of surrender. You stop fighting when your body is no longer able to fight. Usually that means when you are dead. In such situations, it justifies every man, woman and child fighting. Satan is the Prince of This World, and if it is him you are fighting, then leaving this world is preferable to surrender. You fight until one side is dead, and show no mercy.
There’s a difference between tactics and strategy. The strategy is to make the other side stop their aggression. The tactics answer the question of how to accomplish that. You might spare some, and maybe for a limited time, because it could help you win, but their lives have no intrinsic value. Their lives are already forfeit, as are yours. In the end, you have to understand the enemy’s commitments.
That’s the true meaning behind, “If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.” You must decide if that’s the situation in which you find yourself. Once the time of the sword arrives, be sure you understand what it entails. It’s not a question of whether you will survive; it’s a question of how you will die. Make peace with that or don’t take up the sword.

NT Doctrine — Acts 10
Peter had already crossed every ritual barrier of exclusion keeping people from God’s Presence, violating every Jewish prejudice. Jews remained hostile to allowing the Covenant blessings to fall on Gentiles, the very thing for which God had originally called them as His Chosen. Their Covenant was vacated. The New Covenant would ignore all those boundaries. Now the Lord was going to nudge Peter to open the final treasure house, using the last of those keys Jesus had given Peter.
Cornelius was a Roman Army Captain stationed at the port city of Caesarea. He commanded a portion of prestigious troops from the Roman homeland. His position prevented him becoming circumcised and converting fully to Judaism, but he was genuinely observant of Moses otherwise. As part of that devotion to Jehovah, he prayed often and gave generously to Jewish charitable causes.
While thus praying midafternoon, he had a vision. It was highly specific; the Lord was pulling out all stops, not so much for Cornelius’ sake, but to ensure Peter didn’t fail to understand that this was a divine mandate. Cornelius was commended for his piety and commanded to send for Peter where he was staying with Simon the Tanner in Joppa, some 30 miles (48km) away. He called two of his household servants and one of the soldiers in attendance on him and related the vision. They would understand, since they were also believers, and he gave them the mission to fetch Peter.
They left early the next morning, and must have been traveling on, or drawn by, horses because they made the long journey by noon. There at Joppa, Peter had gone up on the rooftop to escape the bustle of a businessman’s ground floor. He was praying, waiting for lunch to be prepared. There he had a vision, again highly specific, about a tarp let down from the sky full of non-kosher animals, and a voice commanding him to capture and kill one of them for his lunch. Peter protested that he had always been kosher. But the Lord responded that what He called ritually clean was now no longer unclean. This same vision came three times, invoking his denial and restoration with Jesus. Then he was warned specifically of the three visitors coming his way, and that he was to embrace their mission as his own from God.
So just as Peter was puzzling over this bewildering experience, the trio from Cornelius arrived downstairs seeking Peter. Having been called, Peter came to see them and asked what they wanted. They told of their master’s vision. So Peter invited them to stay overnight so they could travel back together the next day.
And so it was that in the morning Peter set out with them, bringing a small entourage of Jewish Christians. Upon their arrival, the Centurion acted like Peter outranked him, but Peter insisted Cornelius recognize they were both just mere men in this context. The Roman had called together all his believing family and friends, expecting to hear an important message from the God they all worshiped.
First, Peter wanted to explain the significance of how God got his attention regarding something technically in violation of Jewish law. Clearly the Lord was behind this, nudging Peter to break with the old ceremonial laws and act according to the New Covenant. He outlined briefly how Jesus was the Messiah rejected by His own nation. His teaching and miracles should have been proof enough that God sent Him, but the Jews had long since lost their way.
Now raised from the dead, Jesus showed Himself only to those who would be part of His New Covenant nation. The risen Jesus very pointedly commanded His servants to cross all national borders and bring in those who were moved to commit their lives to His lordship. Peter affirmed that all of this was quite consistent with the Jewish prophecies that He would fulfill the original purpose of Israel to reach all nations.
At that moment, the same gift of the Holy Spirit fell on those Gentiles listening to this sermon. Peter was stunned, as were those who came with him. Clearly the Lord was claiming the folks in this household as His own. At this, Peter said it was time to baptize them into the New Covenant of the Messiah. Peter accepted their invitation to stay and they all spent the next few days together in fellowship and celebration.