abstract: Legitimate political interposition occurs when a magistrate ends rebellion of a people or another magistrate. Jesus stands between God's holy wrath and those who by grace accept His death on the cross as salvation for their sins. Christ interposes politically. He uses the agency of men He calls, to warn rebellious peoples and rulers. Watchmen, if not magistrates, are to warn and call to repentance. The magistrate is called to heed the warning of rebellion against God's law, and avenge those oppressed by the rebel peoples or magistrates. Rulers are no more above the law than the people. Only the magistrate is ordained to bring to bear the sword of justice against all who rebel against God's law. Thus he serves God and man. Today magistrates need to interpose themselves even in cases where superior magistrates rebel against King Jesus. Historically Americans have done this. The electorate needs to vote for such interposition.

Skip Navigation

by Larry Pratt

This article is the text of an address that was delivered at the annual meeting of the National Reform Association on October 24, 1997 at Geneva College.

Interposition is to intervene, to come between. Politically, interposition occurs when a magistrate ends a rebellion--by some of the people, or by other magistrates.

Interposition in the sense of quelling the rebellion of a group of people seems to be readily understood. Most people agree that quelling rebellions of the people is a legitimate role of a magistrate. Agreement drops off quickly when we add that interposition also applies to a magistrate who quells the rebellion of another magistrate--even one of superior rank.

Interposition of Jesus

Jesus Christ provides us with the greatest example of interposition. He stands between those who have been saved by grace and the consuming wrath of a Holy God. To accomplish this great act of interposition, He actually gave His life for sinners who deserved to suffer eternally the wrath of God. In the Old Testament, the office of the avenger of blood mirrors the salvational office of Christ. The blood of murdered victims cried out from the land. The life of the murderer had to be taken or the wrath of God would fall upon the land. The avenger of blood, in slaying the murderer, saved the people of the land. In the New Testament, as we will see, this function is placed in the hands of the magistrate.

As if that were not enough, Jesus also interposes Himself between us and rebellious rulers. He breaks them with a rod of iron and dashes them to pieces like a potter's vessel. This passage in Psalm 2:9 is preceded by the good news that the nations belong to Jesus - they are His inheritance. This information helps us understand how a ruler can be in rebellion. Earthly rulers are not supreme. They do not own their realms. Jesus does. What is seen as coming in the future in Psalm 2 has already happened in Revelation 12:5 when Psalm 2 is quoted.

Interposition of the Watchman

The prophet Ezekiel described interposition when he recorded the Lord's call for a watchman to warn the people, clergy, and rulers to repent, or come under His wrath:

And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, "Son of man, say to her: 'You are a land that is not cleansed or rained on in the day of indignation.' The conspiracy of her prophets in her midst is like a roaring lion tearing the prey; they have devoured people; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in her midst. Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. Her princes in her midst are like wolves tearing the prey, to shed blood, to destroy people, and to get dishonest gain. Her prophets plastered them with untempered mortar, seeing false visions, and divining lies for them, saying, 'Thus says the Lord God,' when the Lord had not spoken. The people of the land have used oppressions, committed robbery, and mistreated the poor and needy; and they wrongfully oppress the stranger. So I sought for a man among them who would make a wall, and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found no one. Therefore I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; and I have recompensed their deeds on their own heads," says the Lord God (Ez. 22:23-31).

Role of the Magistrate

Revenge, whether in the Old or in the New Testaments, was never a private prerogative. It is the Lord's (Deut. 32:35 and Rom. 12:19). In Romans 13 we are told that the magistrate is the one who takes revenge against evil doers, even murderers.

In Romans 13:1 we read: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God." Some would render this as an instruction for all citizens to obey whatever a ruler says. This would place the ruler over the law of God, allowing the ruler to command abortions of non-licensed children or compelling children to be taught to believe that Jesus Christ has nothing to do with their studies (in other words, knowledge is "neutral").

Romans 13:1 says that every soul is to be subject to the governing authorities. That includes rulers. Since they are also to be subject to governing authorities (a higher law), it follows that rulers cannot be supreme or above the law. God's law is a governing authority, and rulers have to be subject to it. Many rulers, and even many Christians, believe that politics and government cannot be governed by biblical law. In effect, they are saying that there is at least this one area of human activity outside of God's law. God may be seen as controlling the affairs of men, but not requiring accountability to His law as found in the Bible.

The King as Rebel

Romans 13:2 has also suffered twisting at the hands of those who would have us yield blind obedience to our rulers. The verse says: "Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." One prominent evangelical who tends to this view cited part of 1 Samuel 15:23 to nail down the point that resistance to our rulers is wrong: "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." But let's look at the entire verse:

For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king.

While it is certainly possible for a popular resistance to a ruler to be rebellion, rulers are not excluded from this sin. In this passage from 1 Samuel 15, the ruler being addressed was Saul, and it was Saul who was being rebuked for his rebellion. So, whether in the Old or the New Testament, we are being taught that the ruler, along with everyone else, is under the law, subject to the governing authorities.

Rulers Bound by the Law of God

Paul proceeds to explain what the job of a ruler is in Romans 13:3: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same." How is the ruler to define good apart from the Bible? If he has other definitions, he risks falling into rebellion.

Paul continues this idea in the next verse: "For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Clearly the ruler must be wise about the good. But Paul tells us a couple of other things in this verse. God's prerogative of vengeance is being specifically entrusted to the ruler. This vengeance includes capital punishment, since the ruler does not bear the sword in vain.

Paul is also telling us that the ruler is to go after those who practice evil. He is not required to keep evil from happening, but he is responsible for using his power against those who have already done wrong. Although it is beyond the focus of our present study, it is worth noting in passing that the ruler is given little else to do. Lastly, consider the significance of calling the magistrate a minister. That comes from the Greek word for servant. Christ spoke against rulers who lord it over others (Luke 22:25-26). The model of Christ the King as Servant is reflected in the designation of the magistrate as a minister, a servant. The Bible warns against the rebel servant-ruler and calls him a beast:

Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like the feet of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation (Rev. 13:1-2, 7).

Elsewhere in Revelation, John refers to a particular beast as 666. Interestingly, Solomon was referred to by the same number. He had rebelled against God by multiplying wives, horses, and gold. The amount of the gold he received as tribute each year was 666 talents (See 1 Kings 10:14). Rulers are to obey God's law whether or not they are in covenant with Him. Moses warned the Hebrews not to fall into the sins listed in Leviticus 18 and 20 lest they be vomited out from the land the same as the Canaanites. Jonah and Obadiah warned the people and ruler of Nineveh to repent or fall under God's wrath. Isaiah and Jeremiah warned various of the surrounding nations that judgment would fall upon them for their rebellion. The Bible expects peoples and rulers alike, regardless of their nationality, to obey the law of God.

Interposition of Old Testament Rulers

Judges were raised up by God in the Old Testament to interpose themselves between tyrants oppressing Israel and the people. Sometimes the magistrate's interposition came as a leader of an army in battle, as Gideon against the Midianites. Other judges delivered the Hebrews by personally removing the tyrant, as Ehud did when he killed King Eglon.

Other Old Testament cases of interposition include Jeroboam, the first king of Israel who had been made a magistrate by Solomon (1 Kings 11:28). Later, Jeroboam led Israel against the tax tyranny of Solomon's son, Re-hoboam, and established the Northern Kingdom (see 1 Kings 12). Amaziah defeated the Edomites, then had their gods brought to him so he could worship them! His idolatry led to his assassination (see 2 Chron. 25:14ff).

Athaliah, the granddaughter of Ahab and Jezebel killed all of Joash's brothers who could have claimed the throne. But infant Joash was hidden. Years later, the day the boy was anointed king, Athaliah was executed by the temple guard and other officers at the command of the regent. Athaliah cried treason as she was being led to her execution, but of course there can be no treason against one who has rebelled against God (see 2 Kings 11).

Christ as Watchman

In Matthew 23 and 24, Jesus warned of the destruction that was to come on that generation of Jews who had rebelled against God. Acting as a watchman on the wall, Jesus warned those who believed in Him to flee when they saw the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet ("surrounded by armies" in Luke's account). When this sign was manifest in A.D. 69, the Christians fled Jerusalem, history records, and none of them were taken up in the terrible slaughter and devastation committed by the Romans in A.D. 70. For quite a while in the early Christian era, there were no Christian magistrates, so Christians were limited to flight as their response to tyranny.

Interposition of Ambrose of Milan

In A.D. 390, a riot occurred in Thessalonica and the Roman Governor, Botheric, was killed. Theodosius, the Roman emperor at the time, invited the people of the city for games and entertainment in the Hippodrome and then had 7,000 of them slain.

Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, rose to the role of the good shepherd ready to lay down his life for his sheep. He wrote to Theodosius and told him to publicly repent for the evil he had done. Roman emperors were not in the habit of humbling themselves, and Theodosius refused Ambroses' demand. That set the stage for the high drama that ensued. As Theodosius attempted to enter the church he attended, Ambrose literally interposed himself between Theodosius and the entrance (and hence the people, the church). Ambrose clearly believed that the emperor was under God's law and should humble himself and serve that law. By the grace of God, Theodosius yielded. He stripped himself of his imperial insignia, entered the church and publicly called upon the Lord to forgive his sin in the matter. The good news kept coming - Ambrose became an unofficial counselor to Theodosius and was thus in a position to have a hand in rewriting Roman law to provide for what we now call due process. Ambrose believed, and happily Theodosius concurred, that the law of God is over the king because the King of kings of every realm is King Jesus who has the nations of the earth as His inheritance.1

What a shock to those of our time who incorrectly claim that there is a constitutional separation of church and state. Ambrose was clearly not functioning as a magistrate, but he did instruct in a very conspicuous fashion his head of state. Moreover, when the magistrate became beast, Ambrose exposed him for what he was. What a boost to the prestige of the gospel in the eyes of the people. Do the people of our time get an equally vibrant view of the crown rights of King Jesus?

Interposition of Clergymen

John Knox was a later day Elijah. Even as Elijah had condemned the rebellion of Ahab and Jezebel, so Knox denounced the tyrannies and idolatry of Queen Mary. And both had to flee for their efforts. In fact, Knox even spent some time as a galley slave in a French naval vessel.

The American clergy during the colonial era preached for years against the beast of London, otherwise known as King George III. Lexington, Massachusetts Congregational pastor, Jonas Clark, prepared his men for battle with his sermons. They were involved in the very first battle of the War for Independence. Anglican pastor Peter Muhlenberg served a church in Woodstock, Virginia. In 1775, Pastor Muhlenberg preached a sermon on Ecclesiastes 3. At the conclusion of his sermon he proclaimed that there is a time for war, so he removed his clerical garb and stood before the congregation in the uniform of an officer of the Continental Army. He proceeded outside where he mustered 300 men and then marched off to the battle of Charleston.

According to historian J. R. Sizzo, all of the Continental colonels but one were Presbyterian elders at the battle of Yorktown. No wonder that the War for Independence was known in England as the Presbyterian rebellion. It is said that the British most feared the black regiment, the clergymen of colonial America known by their black clerical gowns.

Was King George III a Rebel?

The justification for the War for Independence was widely debated in America. The Tory view held that Romans 13 requires citizens to obey the governing authorities and to suffer injustice at the hands of mother England. The Whig response was that the King is not above the law, and in the case of King George III, he had violated the rights of Englishmen that belonged to American colonists, as well as violating the colonial charters he was bound by.

The case against the King included his disapproval of the formation of missionary societies, presuming to name prelates of American churches, rendering null the right to jury trials, invading homes and businesses without search warrants, paying colonial officials from London rather than continue to have the Americans pay them, quartering troops in their homes, and taxing them as if the country were still at war even though the French and Indian Wars had been over for more than a decade by the start of hostilities in 1775. There was an excellent case that the King was a rebel, and the duty of interposition was carried out by American magistrates who were accountable to the people. A long case against George III can be found listed in the Declaration of Independence.

Interposition Since the Founding of the Republic

Shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, the Federalist-controlled Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Among other things, criticizing a federal official was made a federal crime. Madison, a federalist, had argued during the ratification debates, that the federal government only had police powers for counterfeiting, piracy, and offenses involving the laws of nations. He authored a Nullification Resolution for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Jefferson authored an even stronger one for Kentucky.

Madison's resolution explicitly declared that states have the duty to "interpose for arresting the progress of the evil." Jefferson's was even more explicit: the Kentucky resolution declared that the Acts were unconstitutional, and therefore, would not be enforced in that commonwealth. Under Jefferson's presidency, the Acts were repealed.

Prior to the Civil War the Wisconsin legislature passed a resolution of interposition declaring that the fugitive slave laws would not be enforced in that state. Twenty-two states declared that the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court (upholding the fugitive slave laws) would not be binding in their states. Wisconsin's resolution denounced the Supreme Court for "assumption of power" and declared "that the several states...have the unquestionable right" to exercise "positive defiance" in behalf of their interpretation of the powers reserved to the states by the Constitution.2

Contemporary examples of interposition underscore the importance of the office of sheriff. Sheriffs Richard Mack and Jay Printz refused to enforce the Brady background check which they were required to do under that federal law. They argued that the federal government had no authority to make them agents of that government. The Supreme Court agreed in Printz v. U.S., and in the process, gave added life to the nearly-forgotten Tenth Amendment.

Because these sheriffs were willing to interpose against the illegitimate action of the federal government, the intended bounds of federal action might possibly yet be restored if others are willing to follow suit.

Sheriff Ed Phillips of Millard County, Utah led the effort in his state to deny federal agents blanket state law enforcement credentials. They can no longer arrest people on state charges. They must now request deputization on a case by case basis from the county sheriffs.

Sheriff Dave Mattis of Big Horn County, Wyoming has gotten the feds to sign a consent agreement that provides for notification of the sheriff before they enter the county, and if there are issues of civil rights violations, he will have authority to investigate the feds.

Judge Ray Moore of Gadsen, Alabama for years has had a wood carving he made himself of the Ten Commandments hanging behind his bench in his courtroom. He also has local clergymen open the court, before the jury, with prayer. Another state judge has told him to cease and desist, to which Judge Moore replied in so many words, "I'll see you in court." The case is now before the Alabama Supreme Court. The Governor of the state, Fob James, has promised to use the state guard and state police to protect the judge should federal agents try to take the Ten Commandments down. Moore has pointed to the irony of a Supreme Court that opens with prayer claiming to be in a position to tell other government bodies to divorce themselves from religion.

Missing in action so far are magistrates willing to use their state laws, in many cases with still extant prohibitions on abortion, to prosecute abortionists. Resolutions of interposition such as those passed after the Dred Scott decision would also help set the stage to return the constitutional balance of power away from government by an unauthorized oligarchy of nine judges on the Supreme Court. In fact, resolutions of interposition on a wide range of subjects from educational policy, work place legislation, environmental regulation, federalization of crimes that belong in the state's venue, to name a few, are also overdue for interposition.

Elections are still being held. The citizenry needs to be jealous enough for its own liberty, not to mention the need to hold magistrates accountable to the standards of biblical law, that candidates will be selected and elected who are willing to bow the knee to King Jesus rather than go along with unaccountable federal autocrats on the bench and in the faceless bureaucracies on the Potomac.

Larry Pratt is the executive director of Gun Owners of America, 8001 Forbes Place, Springfield, VA 22151. He is also a member of the National Reform Association Board of Directors and a ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.

Endnotes:

1. I am indebted to Wayne Sedlak's position paper, "Tearing the Sheepskins off Wolves" for this discussion of the interposition of Ambrose. (Available at P.I.N., Box 733, Elm Grove, WI 53122.)

2. Felix Morley, Freedom and Federalism (Regnery, 1959), pp. 218-219.