Clean Transcript

The Doctrine Of Interposition Or The Lesser Magistrate

Clean readable transcript. This view follows the Commentary.net cleaned segment text while preserving timestamps for audio follow-along.

• Right. Romans chapter 13, and we're going to be reading the first seven verses. Romans 13, the first seven verses: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. And whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."

  #1 | 0:13 to 1:00 | cleaned

• "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." The message today is "The Doctrine of Interposition or the Lesser Magistrate." There's absolutely no one in America that's ignorant as to what has happened in the last week or so. We are, in essence, in a tyrannical state under the rule of tyrants. There's no two ways about that. Tyranny can only prevail through ignorance, apathy, and a refusal to exercise diligence and self-responsibility. I want to take just a moment and emphasize the part of ignorance when it comes to tyranny.

  #2 | 1:00 to 2:02 | cleaned

• There is a theological concept that will either promote tyranny or deter tyranny depending upon one's understanding or one's lack of understanding. And it is the concept of sovereignty. We have to understand that God alone is absolutely sovereign. He is the only absolute. He is the only ultimate. If you understand God's sovereignty, then tyranny will be deterred because the truth is made plain and simple to the individual that understands God's sovereignty, that only God is sovereign and that man therefore is limited. He's limited in every institution. He's limited in self-government, he's limited in family government, he's limited in civil government, and he's limited in church government. So a proper understanding of God's sovereignty will always dispel, deter, and deny tyranny. However, on the other hand, when one is willfully ignorant of God's sovereignty, or in rebellion, or conveniently forgets God's sovereignty, man must have an absolute. He must have an ultimate. He must have a sovereign. And so what he will do is he will either place sovereignty in himself or in some institution of man.

  #3 | 2:03 to 3:23 | cleaned

• And usually the institution that he places sovereignty in is the government of men. We're living in a day when people are absolutely, totally ignorant of what the Bible teaches concerning civil government, as well as what history teaches concerning civil government. Such ignorance could not take place in the first 100 years of the founding of America. Why? Because colonial preachers always preached election sermons and artillery sermons. They preached these sermons not only to the people, but to the rulers. It was impossible for any man to assume an office of responsibility in colonial America without hearing an election sermon. During that sermon, the pastor would always declare the duties and responsibilities of the rulers, not only to the people, but to the rulers themselves. They understood exactly what government was to be, what government could do, and the limitations on that government. Ignorance could not prevail in such a setting. However, today, ignorance is—I can assure you that it reigns supremely in our day and age. We adhere to the old adage that ignorance is bliss.

  #4 | 3:23 to 4:42 | cleaned

• And if ignorance is bliss, we should be the happiest people on the face of the earth, because we are absolutely totally ignorant when it comes to the plain teaching of the Word of God on civil government. Most people are totally ignorant not only of the simplest concepts, but also of the more complex ones as well. Consequently, we are easy prey for tyrants, and we are quickly consumed by despotic rulers.

  #5 | 4:43 to 5:09 | cleaned

• Tyranny can take many forms. Most of us are familiar with what you and I would call coercion, or hard-handed tactics, or pressure, or force. But C.S. Lewis said something about tyranny that is worth repeating. Listen carefully. He says, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under the robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep; his cupidity may at some point be satiated. But those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own consciences."

  #6 | 5:09 to 5:58 | cleaned

• And that's true. That's exactly true. Huxley, in his book, *Brave New World*, said it like this: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive or political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude." And when you stop and think, that is exactly where we are in America today. Americans love their servitude. They love their economic slavery. That's why they are in debt up to their eyeballs. We love our governmental slavery because look at all the rules and regulations and administrative procedures, as well as licenses, permits, and certifications that we must follow and we must possess.

  #7 | 5:58 to 6:52 | cleaned

• And we've been led to believe that all of these things are for our safety and our protection. And when you stop and think that our forefathers never had any of these things and yet they were protected and they had none of the problems whatsoever. So, obviously we are in slavery not only governmentally and economically, but we're in slavery spiritually. Because everyone loves their sins and their fleshly passions, and we've turned our backs upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently we've embraced pornography, and abortion, sodomy, fornication, adultery, theft, socialism, Marxism, communism, and progressivism. We've embraced any and everything that's absolutely contrary to the Word of God.

  #8 | 6:52 to 7:42 | cleaned

• We live in a day and age when everybody wants a free lunch, so to speak. Everyone wants the government to give, give, give. Everybody understands that in order for the government to give, it has to take from someone, and most people could care less just so it is not taken from them. They want it taken from everyone else so that it might be given to them. You have to understand that there is a difference between legal plunder and illegal plunder. In one sense of the word, they're synonymous.

  #9 | 7:43 to 8:16 | cleaned

• Because the result is the same on both of them. We end up plundered and robbed. Now, illegal plunder is if I took a pistol and pointed at your face and said, "Give me all of your money." Everybody understands that's illegal. And by the way, if you are an illegal plunderer or thief, you are in danger because the individual that you're plundering may be armed or he may fight, and you may be killed if you're the thief, or you may be injured, or you could be captured. And in that sense of the word, you're going to prison. But that's illegal plunder. But when you talk about legal plunder, that is when we are stolen from and robbed through means of regulations, statutes, and laws. In this instance, the legal thief is never in danger. Because unless you give according to their rule and their regulation, their law, then you're the one that faces prison.

  #10 | 8:17 to 9:23 | cleaned

• Well, the truth of the matter is, we have lost a lot of ground in this country. Have you ever wondered how we've lost our liberties? How we lost our freedoms? Have you ever wondered why this country is continuing to disintegrate and descend into what you and I would describe as absolute chaos? One answer to that is simply this: we have not grown weary of all the tyranny and abuses and usurpations and despotism with which we are constantly assaulted. Have you ever stopped to think what it took for the American Revolution?

  #11 | 9:24 to 10:05 | cleaned

• People finally had to say, "No more. We're just not going to take it anymore. That's it." But we haven't reached that point in this country. We have not grown weary with that. Moreover, we've not understood what it takes to thwart tyranny and abuse. When we get thoroughly exasperated with our system of incremental tyranny, maybe a number of people will learn about the doctrine of interposition and will find a lesser magistrate who's willing to fight the beast and stand behind him and support him and turn this country around. So I'm talking about the doctrine of interposition. It is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of the lesser magistrate.

  #12 | 10:06 to 10:52 | cleaned

• Now today I want to give you this truth in three different ways. I want to present it to you historically, legally, and theologically. I wish I could make each one of them just clear-cut but I cannot. They are going to be intermingled because I'm going to be having some scripture or theology in each of these as well as some history probably in each of them as well. So let me try to present this truth first of all historically.

  #13 | 10:52 to 11:20 | cleaned

• You have to understand that the doctrine of interposition goes back a long way. It's been around for many centuries. This point will even be clearer when we look at interposition theologically, but it was said that the Roman Emperor Trajan, while appointing a subordinate authority, handed him a sword and instructed him saying, "Listen, use this sword against my enemies if I give righteous commands, but if I give unrighteous commands, use it against me." And in that statement we can see not only the biblical doctrine of interposition and a historical doctrine of interposition, but we also see the authority and the power of what we would call a lesser magistrate. The Emperor in this instance would have been the higher magistrate; the subordinate would have been a lesser magistrate. Now all magistrates have their power from God. If you look in Romans 13, verses 1 and 2: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers"—or jurisdictions, or authorities—"for there is no power"—or jurisdiction, or authority—"but of God. The powers"—or jurisdictions, or authorities—"are ordained of God.

  #14 | 11:21 to 12:39 | cleaned

• Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." So God is telling us that every magistrate, every power, every authority is delegated from Him. Interestingly, one of the main words used for magistrate in the Bible is found in the book of Judges, chapter 18, in verse 7. And let me just quote it for you. In this passage the Bible says, "Then the five men departed, and came to Laish, and saw the people that were therein, how they dwelt careless, after the manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure; and there was no magistrate in the land, that might put them to shame in any thing; and they were far from the Zidonians, and had no business with any man." And so what had happened in this passage, the children of Dan were looking for

  #15 | 12:40 to 13:33 | cleaned

• an opportunity to expand their territory. And so they come to Laish, and these five men who are scouting out the land see that there is no magistrate in the land that might put them to shame.

  #16 | 13:34 to 13:45 | cleaned

• Now the word for magistrate here is the word *esser*, and it literally means a possessor of restraint. It means someone with power or authority to restrain. So since there was no authority there, there was no one with the legitimate power to restrain, the Danites went back to their tribe and said, "It's going to be easy pickings, boys. Let's just go get it. Because they have no one there to fight against us. And there's no one there to condemn us." And so they simply went and got it. So the word magistrate, first of all, means someone with the power of restraint, someone with the ability to hold back. The second time the word is used is in Ezra 7, in verse 25. And there the king told Ezra, "And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God that is in thy hand, set magistrates and judges, that they may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God, and teach ye them that know them not." Now here the Hebrew word is *Shaphat*.

  #17 | 13:46 to 14:54 | cleaned

• It's a different word. But I want you to note in this passage, first of all, the word here refers to someone who is able to litigate, someone who is able to pass sentence, someone who is able to punish. But yet here it is in the context, he says, "all who know the laws of thy God." So Ezra then was to only appoint magistrates who knew the law of God. If he appointed anyone that did not know the law of God, he had the responsibility to teach him the law of God. So a magistrate is not just someone that possesses power. He's not just someone who possesses authority. He's someone that also knows the law of God and rules under God. So obviously all magistrates then have the duty and responsibility to restrain evil and wickedness. But on the other hand, all magistrates also have the duty and responsibility to apply the law of God.

  #18 | 14:55 to 15:57 | cleaned

• Now, in Romans chapter 13, the Bible gives you two reasons why God instituted civil government, and only two. God gave two purposes for civil government. Number one, for the punishment of the wicked, and number two, for the protection of the righteous. So, here God has given these two purposes for civil government. What in the world has interposition got to do with this? Well, interposition is the doctrine that causes a lesser or lower magistrate to step in when a higher or superior magistrate begins to exercise tyranny or usurpation or begins to issue bad and wicked laws.

  #19 | 15:58 to 16:44 | cleaned

• Let me spell it out for you. Lesser magistrates are not to simply unquestionably obey their superiors. When they do so, they are not only denying their own personal responsibility and duty, their obedience therefore becomes positively evil. Do you remember when Ahab wanted the garden of Naboth? And Naboth would not sell it, because God had forbidden him to sell it. And Ahab went and turned his face to the wall and started crying like a baby.

  #20 | 16:44 to 17:18 | cleaned

• And Jezebel said, "What is it?" And he told her. And she said, "Art thou not the king of Israel? I'll take care of this for you." And so she wrote an order to the elders of Jezreel, put his seal upon it, and said, "Proclaim a fast, set Naboth up on high, get false witnesses against him, and take him out and stone him to death." And that's exactly what they did. They not only stoned Naboth to death, they also stoned his sons to death as well. They murdered the family.

  #21 | 17:18 to 17:48 | cleaned

• And then she turned around and gave the garden to Ahab and said, "It's yours. Naboth is not alive. He's dead. Go down and possess it." Now, interestingly, God charged Ahab with that murder. It was Jezebel who did everything, but God charged Ahab. His name was on that. Do you realize God also held the elders accountable? The elders of Jezreel. Had they not obeyed Jezebel, then Naboth and his sons would have lived.

  #22 | 17:49 to 18:17 | cleaned

• They had a duty, they had a responsibility to stand up against the wickedness of their superiors, but they simply did not. The fact is, if you have a civil ruler in the highest office—I do not care how high, he can be in the highest office with the most authority—that does not give him the right to tyrannize the people or issue unlawful or unjust or immoral laws. And here, a lesser magistrate is in the lowest office—I don't care how low—it does not give him the right, therefore, to say, "Well, I'm just following orders. I've got to do what I'm told." No. He has a duty and responsibility to resist the unjust and the immoral laws as well. He cannot take the "I'm just following orders" mentality. It is completely unbiblical. It is a denial of personal responsibility and duty.

  #23 | 18:19 to 19:18 | cleaned

• And when he does obey that superior magistrate when that superior magistrate is doing that which is wicked, wrong, and illegal, he becomes complicit in those sins, just like the elders of Jezreel did. Every lesser magistrate is required by God to judge every law and every action in light of the supreme law, and that is the Word of God. If he does not do so, he will not escape the righteous judgment of God. God will judge him. Now there's been a lot of perversion going on in this country for sometime now. This perversion is made legal. Hang on, I'm going to show you something because the truth is it ain't over until it's over. Do you understand that in America, every unconstitutional law is null and void, *ab initio*, that is, from the beginning.

  #24 | 19:19 to 20:24 | cleaned

• Here is from *American Jurisprudence*, 2nd edition. It says, "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for the purpose, for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it." Wow.

  #25 | 20:24 to 21:01 | cleaned

• How about the Supreme Court ruling in *Norton v. Shelby County*? It goes like this: "Any unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights. It imposes no duties, affords no protection. It creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as though it had never been passed." So the Supreme Court said you can safely disregard any unconstitutional law. History is replete with those that interpose themselves to resist tyranny and wicked and unjust laws.

  #26 | 21:02 to 21:43 | cleaned

• It was the barons and the nobles in 1215 who held King John accountable at Runnymede. It was their intervention, it was their interposition as well that led to the Magna Carta, and our Constitution has direct ties to the Magna Carta. Most of you are probably aware of the fact that Martin Luther, the reformer, was rescued by a lesser magistrate. Charles V, the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, had given Luther a safe conduct passage to and from the Diet of Worms, or the parliament in which they were meeting. And of course, you know how Luther refused to recant his views and recant his writings. And so, Charles V then, in violation of the safe conduct passage that he had given Martin Luther, he then demanded Luther's arrest and that this notorious heretic be brought to his court and punished.

  #27 | 21:44 to 22:51 | cleaned

• So therefore, the punishment would have been death. Luther was saved by Prince Frederick the Wise, the Elector of Saxony. And Prince Frederick was under Charles V. Charles V was the Emperor. And so what did Frederick do? He just totally ignored the Emperor's ungodly, wicked order. And what he did, he had Luther abducted or kidnapped and taken to a safe place. And therefore he did not go along with Charles V's order. He did not turn Luther over. He protected Luther. That is interposition. Obviously.

  #28 | 22:51 to 23:37 | cleaned

• The Germans had a great word for tyrants and tyranny. The word was *Beowulf*.

  #29 | 23:38 to 23:46 | cleaned

• Now Beowulf, of course, was a monster in German folklore. I suppose that if you can imagine a bear and a wolf together, that would be a pretty good monster. And so that's what they came up with. In fact, Luther used the bear-wolf in his writings as a symbol of tyranny. There was a soldier's song about the bear-wolf and it went like this: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, just as we read, but how much more so for the Lord God. As long as he does the Lord's will and lives in peace, Caesar's office we must honor. Should he transgress, he is no more emperor or lord, but an outlaw and a bear-wolf against which we must guard." That was 1548. So they said when the emperor violates God's law, he's no longer emperor or lord, he's an outlaw and a bear-wolf against which we must guard.

  #30 | 23:47 to 24:52 | cleaned

• In 1550, a number of Lutheran pastors wrote the Magdeburg Confession, which clearly and succinctly sets forth the doctrine of interposition and also describes the duties and responsibilities of the lesser magistrates. Now, we talk about usurpation. Usurpation is taking power or authority that has never been given or granted. Let me tell you this, usurpation is theft, plain and simple. When you consider that the United States Constitution limits the federal government and expressly states their limited powers, it should be obvious to you that a great deal of theft and usurpation has taken place in this country.

  #31 | 24:53 to 25:44 | cleaned

• Stop and think about this. Do you imagine, can you imagine all the bureaucracies, all the agencies, everything that has been usurped? Show me in the Constitution where the United States government has any control or power or authority over education, over welfare, over a lot of these things. It's not there. They've just simply usurped it. They have simply stolen it. I'm going to point this out a little bit later. So usurpation is the taking of power that has not been given or granted. Tyranny is the abuse of power.

  #32 | 25:45 to 26:23 | cleaned

• Now you have to understand that one may have obtained office or authority legally and justly in the beginning, but whenever he becomes abusive and destructive and detrimental to the citizenry, it is tyranny. Let me spell this out for you. Tyranny is not and has not ever been a God-ordained form of government. Nowhere in the Bible does God commend tyranny. In fact, the Bible condemns tyranny. If there was only one passage that I had to quote—and I could quote multitudes if I had time today—but if there's only one passage that I could rely upon, it would be Psalm 94, verses 20 and 21. Let me just read it for you: "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship

  #33 | 26:24 to 27:16 | cleaned

• with thee, which frameth mischief by a law?" Now listen: "They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood." Let me stop. "Shall the throne of iniquity." So a throne, we're talking about a civil government. It's a throne of iniquity. It is a wicked civil government. "Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by law?" Mischief is another word in the Bible for sin.

  #34 | 27:16 to 27:42 | cleaned

• So let me put it like this: Shall a wicked civil government have fellowship with God when that wicked civil government makes sin legal? And the answer is no. Obviously not. It has no fellowship with God. When a civil government comes along and says sodomy is legal, it is not in fellowship with God. It's contrary to God. When it says theft is legal, it's not in fellowship with God. It's contrary to God. When it says that abortion is legal, it's not legal. It's in disagreement with God. It's contrary to God. That's why the next verse says, "They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous and condemn the innocent blood." That's what aborticide is. It's condemnation of the innocent blood. John Calvin said it like this. Listen carefully. I love this. John Calvin wrote, "For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God, and are unworthy to be reckoned upon the number of mankind.

  #35 | 27:42 to 28:46 | cleaned

• We ought rather to spit upon their heads than to obey them." Listen, "For earthly princes lay aside their power when they rise up against God." In other words, they lose their power and are unworthy to be reckoned among the number of mankind. "We ought rather to spit upon their heads than to obey them."

  #36 | 28:46 to 29:07 | cleaned

• Now, I wouldn't consider spitting upon their head. Their face would be a better target, I would think, to show my absolute contempt for them. Frédéric Bastiat, in *The Law* in 1847, said this, listen: "When the law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing respect for the law." So we are now in a predicament in this country. We either have to respect the law or lose our morality. And you cannot respect the law without losing your morality. So if you keep your morality, then you disrespect the law because you understand that it is wicked and a violation of the law of God.

  #37 | 29:09 to 30:01 | cleaned

• Historically, the doctrine of interposition has been used down through the ages. Let me cover it legally. In the fourth edition of *Black's Law Dictionary*, there is the definition of interposition. Listen to this definition: "It is the doctrine that a state in the exercise of its sovereignty may reject a mandate of the federal government deemed to be unconstitutional or to exceed the powers delegated to the federal government. The doctrine denies constitutional obligations of states to respect Supreme Court decisions with which they do not agree." Wow. So the Law Dictionary says the doctrine of interposition is that the state is not obligated to respect or to obey an unconstitutional order or mandate handed down by the federal government. Hmm, or if that government exceeds its enumerated powers, the state is not obligated to obey. So according to this doctrine, then a state does not possess a constitutional obligation to obey everything that the federal government says or sends down the pike. Now, when we're talking about interposition, you have to understand this interposition

  #38 | 30:02 to 31:34 | cleaned

• may be done peaceably, as by resolution, remonstrance, or legislation, or it may proceed ultimately to nullification with forcible resistance. The concept of interposition in regards to the states actually emanated from a court case known as *Chisholm v. Georgia*. It's one of my favorite court cases. *Chisholm v. Georgia* took place in 1792. In South Carolina, Alexander Chisholm, the executor of the estate of Robert Farquhar, attempted to sue the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court of the United States over payments for goods that Farquhar had sent to the state of Georgia during the Revolutionary War. In fact, Farquhar had Attorney General Edmund Randolph pleading his case for him. Georgia said that Georgia was not going to appear before the Sovereign Court or before the Supreme Court because a sovereign state could not be sued without its consent. So here you have a South Carolinian and the Supreme Court trying to sue the state of Georgia. The Supreme Court demands that Georgia appear. Georgia says, "No, we're not going to appear. We're the master. You're the servant.

  #39 | 31:35 to 33:22 | cleaned

• You don't tell us what to do. We're not coming." The Supreme Court said, "Fine, stay there. We will enter our verdict without you. We don't need you up here." The state of Georgia responded with great determination and basically said, "Fine, make all the verdicts that you desire. But you better know this, the very first agent that you send into the sovereign state of Georgia to enforce your edict will be hanged immediately without the benefit of clergy." Wow. Because of *Chisholm v. Georgia*, the 11th Amendment was ratified in 1795, and all pending court actions from Chisholm were dismissed, and that meant the federal jurisdiction no longer had any power over cases like this. So here, the state of Georgia is saying, "No, we're not going to put up with this."

  #40 | 33:23 to 34:24 | cleaned

• And they certainly did not. Since the lesser magistrate or the lower-ranking civil governmental official are God's ministers as well, they have, therefore, a duty and responsibility to protect those under them from evil policies, statutes, and laws and decrees promulgated by higher authorities. So, let me go over this again. I want you to think. The doctrine of interposition holds that even if the highest ranking authority in this country issued a ruling or issued a law that is unconstitutional or immoral or unjust, therefore the lowest ranking, even the lowest, has the duty and an obligation to step in between and interpose himself and his office and say basically,

  #41 | 34:25 to 35:26 | cleaned

• "No, excuse my English, you ain't going to do this to my people in this county, in my state." That is it. And if he fails to do that, then he then is complicit in the crime and in the wickedness. You see, the lower magistrate cannot escape the judgment of God either, because it is his duty, it is his obligation, it is his responsibility to protect the people.

  #42 | 35:27 to 35:56 | cleaned

• The framers of the Constitution of the United States understood the doctrine of interposition. In fact, that's exactly what they did in reference to George III, King of England and Parliament, in declaring and winning their independence from the king and from England. They also presuppose this doctrine in the very first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. They also then presuppose it when they left the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constitution of the United States. In fact, James Madison, who was Secretary of the Constitutional Convention, argued in *Federalist Papers* No. 43 that the principles of the Law of Compacts and the principles of the very laws of nature and of nature's God are included in the Doctrine of Interposition.

  #43 | 35:57 to 36:48 | cleaned

• Now, I want to give you something that may surprise you. If you have never read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, I would encourage you to do so. In fact, Thomas Jefferson had a hand in this, and this is in reference to the Alien and Sedition Acts. But I want you to listen to what Jefferson and a number of other men said, and we're talking about the 1700s now, late 1700s. We're not talking about the 1900s or the 2000s. But here is the first Kentucky Resolution, Virginia Resolution basically, resolved that the several states composing the United States of America, listen, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. That said it right there, we are not going to follow and have unlimited submission to the general government. But, that by a compact under the style and title of a constitution for the United States, and of the amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self-government, and that whensoever the

  #44 | 36:48 to 38:12 | cleaned

• general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force, that to this compact each state is seated as a state, and as an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself the other party. Now listen, that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion and not the Constitution the measure of its powers. But as in all other cases of compact among powers, having no common judge, each party or each state has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

  #45 | 38:12 to 39:04 | cleaned

• Now, did you hear what they just said? They just said the states are not in agreement that we owe unlimited submission to the federal government. Then they went on to say the federal government is not the determiner of the extent of its power. If you give me power and then you allow me to determine the extent of my power, I've got all power. You see, that's exactly what has been happening in this country. We've allowed the federal government to determine the extent of its power instead of the Constitution. I'm just going to get to the third part of this resolve. Listen to this. I'm going to skip. They quote the Constitution.

  #46 | 39:05 to 39:55 | cleaned

• "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch that whatever violated either one throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, that libels, falsehoods, and defamation equally with heresy and false religion are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals, that therefore the act of Congress of the United States passed on the 14th day of July 1798 entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States" which does abridge the freedom of the press is not law but is altogether void and of no force. And so they said, "Look, we're not going to do this, and you're not going to do this to us."

  #47 | 39:56 to 40:47 | cleaned

• You see, the basic philosophy behind the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions is simply this, that the American government is a government of specifically enumerated powers. And that when the federal government attempts to exercise any power above and beyond that which is specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then it is acting illegally. It is acting immorally. It is acting unjustly. It is acting unconstitutionally. So, when the federal government exceeds its power, when it goes contrary to the Constitution, then even the lower magistrates have the responsibility of ensuring that no federal agent is able to carry out his illegal acts in the jurisdiction of that local lower magistrate.

  #48 | 40:48 to 41:43 | cleaned

• They're to step in and say, "No, you're just not going to do this." In other words, a lower government or a county government. Who is the highest authority in the county government? The sheriff. The sheriff has the power to keep out the IRS. He has the power to keep out OSHA. He has the power to keep out FEMA. He has the power to keep out anybody he wants to keep out.

  #49 | 41:44 to 42:08 | cleaned

• And in several states out West, they've already done that. All I'm trying to say is this is what interposition is all about. In 1824, a Maryland commentator described the usage of interposition. Here's what he said: "The right of state legislatures to express their approbation or their approval or their disapproval of the proceedings and policy of the federal government has been claimed, exercised, and conceded from the establishment of the federal government to the present day."

  #50 | 42:10 to 42:42 | cleaned

• In other words, everybody knows it. Everybody knows it. The 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people thereof." So you have to ask yourself, what powers do the federal government actually have? Well, the truth is, every power that the federal government actually possesses is enumerated in the Constitution. Now I'm going to be very generous. Depending on how you read the Constitution, the most they could have would be 25 to 30. Usually most scholars would say 21 specific powers. And most of those are enumerated

  #51 | 42:42 to 43:39 | cleaned

• in Article 1, Section 8. There's a few others scattered throughout. Then, of course, the Constitution gives the federal government the power to form and operate the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. But that's it. Period. That's it. So you have to ask yourself this question: If the federal government was given, let's be gracious and generous, 30 enumerated powers, 30 specific powers, where did they get all the other power? They stole it. They usurped it. They use what is known as implied powers. "Well, we don't have it, but it's implied." Really? Well, not according to the Constitution, because the Constitution says they are enumerated. They are spelled out.

  #52 | 43:41 to 44:34 | cleaned

• It was that ironclad southerner, John C. Calhoun, who taught nullification. Nullification simply meant that the states had the right, the duty, and the responsibility to nullify bad laws as well as unconstitutional laws passed by Washington, D.C. And interposition is to intervene or come between. So politically, interposition occurs when a magistrate ends a rebellion by some of the people or by magistrates. Now listen carefully. Let's suppose there is a riot going on out on the street. Forty people out there rioting.

  #53 | 44:35 to 45:16 | cleaned

• And the sheriff comes up and he disperses the rioters. Everyone understands that. You have no problem with that. Let's suppose that it's not even the sheriff. It could be a police officer or it could be some officer of the court. Could be some bailiff. Everybody understands that. But what we don't remember and what we tend to forget is this: It's usually not the people that are in rebellion. It's the civil rulers themselves who are in rebellion. So a lower magistrate would also have the power not just to quell a riot or rebellion among the people. He would also equally have the power to quell a riot or rebellion among superior magistrates by stepping in and saying, "You are not going to do this. You're just not going to do it."

  #54 | 45:17 to 46:18 | cleaned

• Now interposition has far wider and greater implications. Not only are nullification and protection part and parcel of this teaching, interposition also teaches that when a ruler is tyrannical and wicked and seeking to overthrow the people, then a lesser magistrate may step in and take his place and fulfill his responsibility. By the way, this was exactly the same scenario that happened during the American War of Independence. You know what George III did? George III kept sending royal governors over here.

  #55 | 46:20 to 46:57 | cleaned

• And he sent other officers that represented him to enforce his edicts and his decrees and the decrees of Parliament. These were legally appointed by the king. And you know what the colonists said? "We didn't appoint them. They're not ours. They belong to the king." And so what the colonists did was they appointed their own officers and their own governors, and they followed them in fighting the tyranny of George III and of England in Parliament.

  #56 | 46:59 to 47:35 | cleaned

• So you have to understand that there are indeed a lot of implications in this. I'm going to go further. I want you to consider this not only historically and legally, but thirdly, I want you to consider this theologically. We understand the intervention of magistrates. We especially understand it in light of corruption, perversion, and abusive authority of wicked rulers. And we deem it right and just. Without me taking the time to go over this, if you were to read Jeremiah 26, verses 8 through 19, you will find how lesser magistrates interposed themselves and saved Jeremiah from death. So obviously, we understand that.

  #57 | 47:36 to 48:23 | cleaned

• But let me tell you something that we have forgotten. We have forgotten that pastors are spiritual magistrates. Do you realize a magistrate is a magistrate, whether he's in the civil realm or the spiritual realm? If you want to get a good understanding of this, I would encourage you to study the American War for Independence and see how the pastors preached, prayed, thought, and led in that war. There were preachers who led their entire congregations. There were preachers who were commissioned as officers. The same was true during the War of Northern Aggression. There are many instances in the Bible where a spiritual magistrate stepped in and performed the duty of a civil magistrate when the civil magistrate failed to do his duty. Let me show you. I want you to look in your Bibles to Numbers chapter 25. I wish I had time just to read this entire chapter, but I do not.

  #58 | 48:24 to 49:44 | cleaned

• There's still a lot to cover. But look in Numbers chapter 25, and let's read at least the first seven verses. "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods, and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-peor, and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel. And Moses said to the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one of his men that were joined unto Baal-peor. And behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation."

  #59 | 49:46 to 50:42 | cleaned

• "And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand. And he went in after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel."

  #60 | 50:43 to 51:01 | cleaned

• Now, you should know this story. This is where Israel commits not only fornication and whoredom, but idolatry as well. So God now tells Moses that everyone that has joined himself unto Baal-peor in the worship of this idol is to be put to death. God himself pronounced the death penalty. Notice if you would, verse 4: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel." Now, why did God say this to Moses? You remember Moses is the lawgiver. Moses is known in the Bible as prophet, priest, and king. The Bible says very plainly he was king in Jeshurun.

  #61 | 51:01 to 51:48 | cleaned

• So he's the highest civil magistrate. He's also at this point probably the highest spiritual magistrate because Aaron was basically under him even at the beginning. Probably still so. So God said this is what you're to do. Look what Moses did, verse 5: "And Moses said to the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one of his men that were joined unto Baal-peor." So God tells Moses, "They're all to die." Moses tells the judges, "They're all to die." Where was Moses and the other individuals? Look in verse 6: "And behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." Moses was before the door of the tabernacle, weeping and praying over what was happening. Now, I want you to look at this phrase: "in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel." Now, not all of the children of Israel could get before the door of the tabernacle.

  #62 | 51:49 to 53:05 | cleaned

• There were two million Israelites. Anytime you see this phrase, "the congregation of the children of Israel," it refers to the leaders. The princes of the twelve tribes, the rulers, the priests, they were all there weeping and praying over what was happening.

  #63 | 53:06 to 53:25 | cleaned

• Now let me tell you something, prayer is needed and necessary and it is also commanded. However, there's a time when you have to stop praying and just obey God. Do you understand in this instance, God had sent a plague upon the children of Israel. They were falling like flies. None of the praying and weeping did any good until justice was given out by Phinehas when Zimri, who was a prince, brought Cozbi into the camp in front of all of them, boldly, brazenly, in defiance of God and defiance of Moses and everyone else. Moses and the rest of them were in front of the tabernacle praying and crying and weeping. Phinehas had enough. He jumped up, took a javelin, ran in, killed both of them. Now, let me point something out. Phinehas was not a civil ruler.

  #64 | 53:27 to 54:44 | cleaned

• He was not a high priest. He certainly was in the priestly order since he was the grandson of Aaron. So he would be considered then a lesser magistrate. So when the judges refused to do their duty, and I might add even when Moses was standing around, Phinehas took care of the situation. Phinehas was not a private person. He was a magistrate, although he was a lesser magistrate. A spiritual magistrate is still a magistrate. He may not be a civil magistrate, but he's still a magistrate.

  #65 | 54:46 to 55:19 | cleaned

• Remember, I told you in Judges 18 and verse 7, the word *esser* means someone who restrains or a possessor of restraint, someone that holds back. And then in Ezra 7 and verse 25, the word *shaphat* refers then to someone who knows God's law and applies God's law. Even when you come to the New Testament, the word magistrate is a very significant word. In fact, it occurs over and over in Acts 16. The word magistrate is the Greek word *strategos*. It is where we get our English word strategy. The Greek word *strategia* simply means army. Do you know, listen carefully, that the word *strategos*, if you would look it up in a Greek lexicon, the word *strategos* means this: a general, a military officer, a commandant, a governor, and the chief of the Levites. And when you go back to Numbers 3 in verse 32, you'll find who was appointed as chief over the Levites. I want you to understand something: the Levites were armed. They were given the charge of protecting Aaron and the tabernacle and later on the temple.

  #66 | 55:19 to 56:54 | cleaned

• Interestingly, when you begin reading in the New Testament, you read about the captains of the temple. Well, we know who the Sadducees were and the Pharisees and the Herodians, but who in the world are these captains of the temple? Because it was the captains of the temple that came out and captured Christ. These captains of the temple were none other than armed Levites who had the power of restraint and who carried arms. If you want to really understand this, if you have my book, *The Christian Civil Government*, read that section on the pastor's magistrate and you'll see how these armed Levites are taken from the Old Testament all the way through to the New Testament as well.

  #67 | 56:56 to 57:51 | cleaned

• So it is not difficult to justify Phinehas in what he did because Phinehas was first of all an heir apparent to the high priesthood. He was also a magistrate although he was a spiritual one. Now listen carefully. The actions of Phinehas does not give any private individual the right to simply go out and start killing. No, a private individual does not have that power and that authority. Only those who are magistrates. In the New Testament, it is the civil magistrate that has been given the power of the sword. We just read it in Romans chapter 13: "He beareth not the sword in vain." He said, "If you do evil, be afraid. Why? For he beareth not the sword in vain."

  #68 | 57:52 to 58:46 | cleaned

• However, in this instance, Moses, the highest civil leader, and the rest of the judges were before the door of the tabernacle, weeping and praying. They were doing nothing. And Phinehas, a lesser magistrate, rose up and took care of the problem. I want you to understand that a magistrate is a magistrate. The only difference is in degrees. You may be a superior or a higher or lower or the lowest, but you're still a magistrate.

  #69 | 58:47 to 59:22 | cleaned

• Now, let me just point some things out to you. I want you to think about these with me. There are illustrations in the Bible where spiritual magistrates took over and fulfilled the functions of civil magistrates when civil magistrates refused to do what they were supposed to do. Let me just give you a couple of illustrations. If you will take the time when you get home to read 1 Samuel chapter 15.

  #70 | 59:22 to 1:00:12 | cleaned

• You remember God commanded King Saul to go and slay all of the Amalekites. He said, "Kill them all: man, woman, boy, girl, ox, suckling, ass, everything." And of course the Bible says that Saul and the people spared Agag the king of the Amalekites and the best of the sheep and the best of the oxen, and would not utterly slay them. So God sends Samuel to Saul, and when Saul sees him, as a hypocrite, he says, "Blessed be thou of the Lord, I performed all the commandment of God."

  #71 | 59:56 to 1:00:28 | cleaned

• And about that time, something went "baa." And Samuel said, "If you've obeyed God, what meaneth the bleating of the sheep and the lowing of the cattle in mine ears? If you'd obeyed God, everything would be dead." And of course, Saul then blamed it on the people. But he'd spared Agag. So Samuel said, "Bring me hither Agag." And I cannot read the next verse without smiling because the Bible says that Agag came forth delicately.

  #72 | 1:00:28 to 1:01:04 | cleaned

• I can just see him prancing, you know. He came forth delicately saying, "Surely the bitterness of death is over. No, I'm not going to die." And the Bible says that Samuel, the little preacher, Samuel took a sword and hewed Agag into pieces before the Lord. The word "before" literally means "as unto the Lord." In other words, Samuel did exactly to Agag what God wanted done to him. Did exactly. So here is Samuel doing what Saul should have done, and Saul was standing right there. He'd refused to do his duty and Samuel stepped in and did it. When you get to 1 Kings chapter 18, you know the contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. And of course God had sent the fire from heaven and took and licked up the sacrifice of Elijah, and the fire fell from heaven, licked it up, licked the water up out of the trench, everything. And the people fell on their faces and they said, "The Lord, he is God; the Lord, he is God."

  #73 | 1:01:05 to 1:02:23 | cleaned

• Because there was a contest between Elijah and the prophets of Baal. And here was King Ahab, who was the highest civil ruler in the land. And Elijah said, "Bring me hither the prophets of Baal." And Elijah took a sword and cut off the heads of 400 prophets of Baal. The king was standing right there. He should have done it, but he didn't. Now how could Elijah cut off the heads of all these false prophets?

  #74 | 1:02:24 to 1:03:03 | cleaned

• Because he was a magistrate as well. He was a spiritual magistrate, but he was a magistrate. When you get to 2 Kings chapter 11—and I would really encourage you to read 2 Kings chapter 11—you'll remember the story of Athaliah, who was not a very good grandmother, because she murdered all of her grandchildren except one. And the only reason she didn't murder him was the king's sister, Athaliah's

  #75 | 1:03:04 to 1:03:37 | cleaned

• daughter, took him and hid him in the temple. Joash. When he was seven years of age, Jehoiada the high priest had him crowned king. When Athaliah heard all the noise and the trumpets blasting and blaring, she came to the temple and there's everybody bowing down and saying, "God save the king! God save the king!" And Athaliah cried, "Treason! Treason!" Really? She is the one that committed treason, murdered all of her grandchildren. And Jehoiada said, "Have her without the temple and slay her and all who follow her." Now that was the high priest. What was he doing?

  #76 | 1:03:37 to 1:04:27 | cleaned

• He was interposing himself between the people and a wicked, vile ruler. And he had her executed. When you get to the book of Exodus chapter 23 and verse 22—it is in verse 28—there's the Hebrew word *nasi*, and the word *nasi* just simply means one lifted up or elevated or exalted by the local congregation. You'll find the same word applied to princes in Numbers chapter 1, but it's also applied to any ruler of God's people throughout the book of Exodus and Joshua as well. Now since we're in Numbers 25, we know that Phinehas now has taken a javelin and gone in and killed Zimri and Cozbi. So the question has to be asked, how do we know that God approved of this? Well, first if you look in verse 8, Numbers 25 verse 8: "And he went in after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel." Watch: "And those that died in

  #77 | 1:04:27 to 1:05:51 | cleaned

• the plague were 24,000." How do we know that God approved of this? Because God instantly stopped the plague. God instantly stopped the plague. The weeping and praying and humiliation before the door of the tabernacle did nothing to stop the plague until this was taken care of. If magistrates do not punish sin, then God will. But magisterial justice is the best way to prevent the judgment of God. Witness Joshua chapter 7 when they took care of Achan and his sin. But when magistrates fail to punish sin and punish wickedness, it does not mean that the wicked will get away with their sin and wickedness. Please listen to me. God will eventually judge himself. So it doesn't matter how Obama has turned the White House into the gay rainbow. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court has said. God is still on the throne and God is still the chief magistrate. And God will judge when they refuse to do so.

  #78 | 1:05:51 to 1:07:15 | cleaned

• Secondly, I want you to note that God did place an honor upon Phinehas. Although Phinehas did no more than that which was his duty to do as a magistrate, yet he did it with extraordinary zeal against sin and for God's honor and God's glory, and he did it when other judges refused to do so, probably out of respect for Zimri's position because Zimri was a prince, so he could have been either higher than them or equal to them, and they were hesitant to execute a prince. But Phinehas says, "I'm not hesitant," and he took care of it. Did you know in Psalm 106 and verse 31, in reference to Phinehas, the Bible says, "And it was accounted to him for righteousness." In other words, Phinehas did the right and holy thing. He did what God wanted done. Thirdly, Phinehas on this occasion, though a young man, is pronounced his country's patriot and best friend. Look in verse 11. Verse 10: "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he

  #79 | 1:07:16 to 1:08:34 | cleaned

• was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy." Isn't that amazing? God said he's a patriot. He turned my wrath away. 24,000 had already died. How many more would have died if he had not done this? God said he's the patriot. Certainly we should do our part in our prayers and our obedience and our endeavors in bringing the wickedness, the wicked, to an end.

  #80 | 1:08:34 to 1:09:14 | cleaned

• Fourthly, the priesthood is entailed upon him by covenant and upon his family. It was designed to him before, but now it is confirmed to him, which added much comfort and honor to it. Look in verses 12 and 13: "Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him"—this is God speaking—"Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace, and he shall have it and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God and made atonement for the children of Israel." So this priesthood then was given to him and it's called an everlasting priesthood because it should continue throughout the period of the Old Testament and should have its perfection and perpetuity and unchangeableness in the priesthood of Christ who is consecrated forevermore. So the doctrine of interposition is a very important doctrine, but it's a neglected doctrine.

  #81 | 1:09:14 to 1:10:10 | cleaned

• You have to understand, if we do not address this doctrine, what is going to happen in this country—and I'm afraid it's already happening—is that we're going to be descending into absolute chaos, confusion, and anarchy. Because most people follow what happened in Judges chapter 17 and Judges 21, when the scripture says, "There was no king in Israel in those days; everyone did that which was right in their own eyes." So here's what this means. This means with all the wickedness that we see going on in our country and all the unconstitutionality and all the bad and immoral and unjust laws, we should find a lesser magistrate who is willing to stand and willing to fight and get behind him and support him. You say, "Well, I can't find one." Well, bless God, we can elect one or we can appoint one, because it's someone that has an office and with power. Does interposition have a theological basis? What's the answer? Absolutely. Yes. Let me show you one other passage.

  #82 | 1:10:11 to 1:11:28 | cleaned

• I want you to turn to Romans chapter 3. Look in Romans chapter 3 and let's begin reading there with verse 24. Romans 3 and verse 24. Watch this. Romans 3 verse 24. Here it is. The Bible says, "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Now watch verse 25: "Whom God hath set forth"—or put forward—"to be a propitiation, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Now the Bible says in verse 24 that God had set forth His Son to be a propitiation, to be one that appeases and placates the holiness and the wrath of God. Now watch carefully.

  #83 | 1:11:28 to 1:12:29 | cleaned

• Here we are as sinners. We may be elect sinners, but we are still sinners. And God is righteously angry with the wicked every day. And God's wrath is righteously directed against us. And what Jesus Christ does is He comes and interposes Himself and stands between His people and the wrath of God. And the wrath of God falls upon Jesus Christ instead of us. If you do not like the doctrine of interposition, you don't like salvation. Because the only salvation there is, is by the doctrine of interposition. Jesus Christ is the greatest example of interposition that has ever been. I want you to see something else. Look in your Bibles to Psalm 2. Psalm 2. Because Jesus Christ does not just intervene for us soteriologically, that is in salvation.

  #84 | 1:12:29 to 1:13:30 | cleaned

• He also intervenes for us politically. And what do I mean by that? Well, if I had time to go over Psalm 2, but look at it. He's talking about the wicked rebellion of the kings in verses 1 through 5. But watch verse 6. God says, "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." Now go back to verse 8. He said, "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." What is God going to do

  #85 | 1:13:31 to 1:14:34 | cleaned

• with the wicked rulers? "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." Jesus Christ has not only intervened and interposed Himself for our salvation soteriologically, He interposes and saves us even politically. And do you understand the wicked do not have and do not own their own realms? I don't care what Obama says. I don't care what the Congress says. I don't care what kings and princes say. Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and God of Gods, and those that will not submit to Him will be broken with a rod of iron. Wow. Let me tell you. It's kind of like He said to the Israelites, He brought them out—that is out of Egypt—that He might bring them in—that is into Canaan. God did not bring the children of Israel out to drop them in the desert and let them die. Our Lord did not save us and bring us out of our sins to leave us to be enslaved to a bunch of tyrants who hate God and hate Christ.

  #86 | 1:14:34 to 1:15:52 | cleaned

• No. He's going to totally, absolutely deliver us. Do you remember our Lord said in John 17 verse 24, "Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I am." Yes, He brought us out that He might bring us in. Now let me make just a couple of illustrations or a couple of applications. I want you to see how important this is. I told you earlier that interposition can be done even by the people through remonstrance. And you know, you look around at the wicked. What are they doing?

  #87 | 1:15:52 to 1:16:28 | cleaned

• They're flooding the streets right now and demanding their rights. What about we, the people who want righteousness and holiness and justice? Do we not have the right to do that? Why have we not done that? And why are we not doing that? A good illustration is the people do have the power in them to right wrongs. If you were to read in 1 Samuel chapter 14, there was a battle going on and King Saul made a very unwise decree.

  #88 | 1:16:28 to 1:17:10 | cleaned

• He said, "Cursed be the man that eateth any food or tasteth any food until I be avenged of mine enemies." Well, Jonathan didn't hear him. Jonathan was his son. And he's chasing the enemies. In fact, he's the one that God used to defeat them. And he was chasing his enemies and he saw a honeycomb on the ground. And he took his rod and he dipped it in that honeycomb and put it in his mouth.

  #89 | 1:17:11 to 1:17:34 | cleaned

• And the Bible said his eyes were enlightened. And somebody says, "Oh, Jonathan, boy, your dad gave a curse on anybody who eats until his enemies are whipped." Jonathan said, "My father's done foolishly." He said, "See how my eyes were enlightened?" Why? He said, "If all the people had eaten," he said, "obviously the slaughter of our enemies would be far greater." So anyhow, when the battle is over, the people then fly upon the spoils of the heathen, and they sin against God by eating sheep and oxen with the blood, which was totally forbidden. So anyhow, it comes down that Jonathan is supposed to die.

  #90 | 1:17:34 to 1:18:17 | cleaned

• Let me just read it. 1 Samuel 14, verses 43 through 45: "Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand, and, lo, I must die. And Saul answered, God do so and more also: for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid!

  #91 | 1:18:17 to 1:18:47 | cleaned

• As the Lord liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground; for he hath wrought with God this day. So the people rescued Jonathan, that he died not." So Saul was going to kill him. And the people said, "No, you're not. You're not going to kill him." In fact, some of you probably saw it recently. There was a cop who was going to arrest a little 14-year-old girl who was standing on the street corner along with some others who had done nothing. And the people surrounded the little girl and said, "You're not going to do this. You leave her alone." And the cops left. They had to leave. They were outnumbered. That's interposition. That is interposition. A good illustration of interposition is what you and I would call jury nullification.

  #92 | 1:18:47 to 1:19:38 | cleaned

• Do you realize as a juror you have the absolute right to try not only the facts but the law itself? So if Steve has violated a law, and here I am in his trial as a juror. I'm listening to the facts. But then I also look at the law. If the law is immoral, if it's unjust, if it's wicked, if it's unconstitutional, guess what? It doesn't matter about the facts. He's not guilty because the law is null and void.

  #93 | 1:19:40 to 1:20:12 | cleaned

• We have to understand the doctrine of interposition. We have to understand that we have a responsibility to intervene and interpose ourselves. By the way, you say, "I don't like this doctrine of interposition." Well, let me ask you a question. Suppose you're standing on the street corner somewhere and here come three thugs to beat you up. One of them takes his fist and hits you upside the head and knocks you down and the other two begin to stomp and mash you into the pavement. And along come Brother Francis and myself. Now, my question is this: Do you want us to interpose ourselves and save you? Or do you want us just to keep walking down the street? In other words, you tend to like interposition. It's a biblical doctrine. It's a historical doctrine. It's a legal doctrine.

  #94 | 1:20:14 to 1:21:12 | cleaned

• And we need to resurrect it and use it. Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, we bow to you this day. We thank you for your love, for your grace, for your mercy, your goodness. Lord, teach us. Build us up, we pray, in the most holy faith. And may thy will be done in our lives. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.

  #95 | 1:21:12 to 1:21:31 | cleaned

• so so

  #96 | 1:21:53 to 1:21:53 | cleaned

deepseek | deepseek-v4-pro | clean_readable_transcript | 2026-06-06T04:54:08Z