The doctrine of the lesser magistrate
- Thread starter Pergamum
- Start date
- Status
Moved to theology.
A.Joseph
Puritan Board Senior
I feel like it’s derived from Luther’s time. Not sure how it could be applied to NJ, USA and the like, where I dwell... So I feel like some aspects of it, although a pretty ideal concept overall, become N/A
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
What's the context? The place where I've heard about it has been in the question of who may lawfully lead a rebellion or overthrow if the powers that be become wicked and tyrannical.
Were I to venture a guess with the little reading I've done, by Romans 13, I would say that a lesser magistrate is no less appointed by God to be a terror to evil and minister for good than the greater magistrate. So, you might go from there and say that a lesser magistrate, regardless what he is ordered by the higher authority, obeys Christ only if he opposes the higher authority. That can be noncompliance, resistance, and in some cases even leading a rebellion, depending on circumstances. If the lesser magistrate does not oppose this higher evil, he is no longer acting as a minister for good as Christ had appointed him to be, and betrays the magisterial trust himself.
Last edited:
U
Username3000
Guest
Please forgive my ignorance, but I just don’t see it. Seems like a big stretch.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
You're actually marching into my current territory of study, as I'm trying to figure out a number of things myself.
I would think that "power of the sword" is a cue. Capital punishment is more rare in our day, but still might this refer to those who have the right and authority to force actions, seize property, imprison? That is, enforce righteousness in a nation? If they are to be a terror to do evil, they need the right of sword, or enforcement of some kind; if a minister for good, they need to have state resources at their disposal to do it. So perhaps what kind of authority and resources they are given is a cue.
It's hard to apply that to a DMV worker who does little more than register vehicles, oversee vehicle sales, and collect taxes and approve a driver's license. And it's hard to argue that he's responsible for the moral order and well-being of a region. DMV guy seems to be an extension of another's right to enforce justice and equity amongst vehicle drivers, and not a minister of equity himself.
Judges? Real possibly. They have power to fine, to imprison, to sentence to death, and a righteous judgment of people begins with them.
The mayor? Perhaps his reach is not as great as the governor or president, yet still he bears some power of the sword.
Governor? If the judges and the mayor, then yes the governor.
Like I said, I'm studying these things out seriously for the first time. I think inherent is also the question of who is under obligation to do what good, and to what extent. This is probably as far as I can safely go.
Yes, The lesser magistrate is Prime Minister of Australia. The greater magistrate is Prime Minister of New Zealand
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
Yes, The lesser magistrate is Prime Minister of Australia. The greater magistrate is Prime Minister of New Zealand
I think if you take all the habitable portions of Australia you come up to the equivalent mass of New Zealand, so you may be right.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Read Lex, Rex. Rutherford works through the problems.
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/working-outline-of-lex-rex/
C4: Nature and Destruction
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/working-outline-of-lex-rex/
C4: Nature and Destruction
- Law is rooted in nature and nature can’t be destroyed. Therefore, a king doesn’t have the power to destruction (66).
- What if a people are conquered?
- This is why there really can’t be a “blank check to Nero” type interpretation, otherwise it gets really silly.
- This means “might makes right.”
- So, the new conqueror is automatically “the powers that be”?
- Does that mean the old–indeed, legitimate–ruler is now illegitimate?
- At what point does he become illegitimate–when the new conqueror conquers 50.01% of the land?
- Presumably, given the analysis in 2.1.1-2.1.4, a people would be sinning in resisting. Yet, let’s say they “reconquered” the conquerors. Does that automatically make them “in the right?”
- This is why there really can’t be a “blank check to Nero” type interpretation, otherwise it gets really silly.
- The Holy Spirit invests the people (Deut. 17.15-16) with kingmaking power.
- But that’s the Old Testament!
- Fair enough–it is also Western (and Russian) legal tradition.
- Can the people cede all of their liberty to the king?
- No, for the people do not have absolute power over themselves.
- You cannot cede what you do not have (81).
- They give the king political power to their own safety, but reserve natural power to themselves. Here Rutherford buttresses his argument with natural law reasoning and the 6th Commandment.
- Inferior magistrates are also “powers from God” (else, if Paul were just talking about the king, why didn’t he simply say “power”?).
- They also bear God’s sword (90).
- Scripture notes the people make the king, never the king the people (113).
- The people united to make David king at Hebron.
- The king is above the people by eminence of derived authority as watchman, but he is inferior to them in fountain-power, as the effect to the cause (115). This is Rutherford’s key, and in my opinion, strongest, argument in the book.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
@BayouHuguenot I plan on reading that book at some point.
So, looking at what he says on the sixth commandment... might it be argued that even if the people do not have the right to incite a rebellion, yet they are certainly required to resist oppression for the good of their own lives? @Pergamum looking at what you wrote elsewhere, I'm wondering if maybe this is where you are ultimately driving at? That is, what may we as Christians lawfully do in our own defense as private citizens, even if there is not a right of overthrow given to the people, because a right to defend our lives and property is covered by the Ten Commandments and by natural law?
So, looking at what he says on the sixth commandment... might it be argued that even if the people do not have the right to incite a rebellion, yet they are certainly required to resist oppression for the good of their own lives? @Pergamum looking at what you wrote elsewhere, I'm wondering if maybe this is where you are ultimately driving at? That is, what may we as Christians lawfully do in our own defense as private citizens, even if there is not a right of overthrow given to the people, because a right to defend our lives and property is covered by the Ten Commandments and by natural law?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Just War criteria still apply in rebellion. If more harm will result from the counter-revolution, then don't do it. Plain and simple.
U
Username3000
Guest
Jacob,
If something of a civil war broke out in the United States due to, say, an attempt by the government to take all firearms - and other things along these lines - do you believe you could lawfully join in the rebellion?
If something of a civil war broke out in the United States due to, say, an attempt by the government to take all firearms - and other things along these lines - do you believe you could lawfully join in the rebellion?
A.Joseph
Puritan Board Senior
Again, think Luther & Calvin, when some form of Christianity reigned in various regions and territories.
Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, who protected Martin Luther, was a "lesser magistrate" under Emperor Charles V.
The doctrine of the lesser magistrateis a concept in Protestant thought. A lesser magistrate is a ruler such as a prince who is under a greater ruler such as an emperor. The doctrine of the lesser magistrate is a legal system explaining the exact circumstances that a lesser magistrate has the right and responsibility to resist the greater ruler.
The doctrine of the lesser magistrate is dependent on the private citizen argument from prior to the Reformation, which stated that any evil an office holder does is committed as a private citizen rather than by the office.[1]
....
The doctrine of the lesser magistrate was first popularized in a simpler form by John Calvin, who wrote that whereas private Christians must submit to the ruling authorities, there are "popular magistrates" who have "been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings". When these magistrates "connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people" they "fraudulently betray the liberty of the people" when God has appointed them guardians of that liberty.[3]
A more elaborate doctrine of the lesser magistrate was first employed in the Lutheran Magdeburg Confession of 1550, which argued that the "subordinate powers" in a state, faced with the situation where the "supreme power" is working to destroy true religion, may go further than non-cooperation with the supreme power and assist the faithful to resist.[4] This work drew heavily on Luther, including his Beerwolf concept as one of multiple conditions an evil ruler would need to fulfill before opposition to his rule could be justified. In other words, even though an evil ruler is acting as a private citizen, he still may not be resisted unless all of the other conditions are fulfilled. One of them was that the evil ruler must show himself to be a true Beerwolf and servant of the devil.[1]
Variations on this doctrine of the lesser magistrate were commonly taught by orthodox Calvinists such as Theodore Beza. [1] The doctrine of the lesser magistrate became important for the justification of the Dutch Revolt. According to Johannes Althusius in 1603 work, Politica, resistance to a supreme magistrate by lesser magistrates is justified in the case of tyranny. Althusius argued that the provincial authorities of the United Provinces were in this situation.[5]
Gary M. Simpson suggests that after the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in 1572 there was a "populist expansion" of the doctrine in which "the ruled would no longer be merely the subject of the ruler; they would become citizens."[6]
The private citizen argument and the doctrine of the lesser magistrates were both used in the United States Declaration of Independence to justify resistance by lesser leaders who in all other cases would be bound to submit to the top executive. Like Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, George III sent an army to terrorize his own subjects, fulfilling the Beerwolf clause.[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_magistrate
Frederick III, Elector of Saxony, who protected Martin Luther, was a "lesser magistrate" under Emperor Charles V.
The doctrine of the lesser magistrateis a concept in Protestant thought. A lesser magistrate is a ruler such as a prince who is under a greater ruler such as an emperor. The doctrine of the lesser magistrate is a legal system explaining the exact circumstances that a lesser magistrate has the right and responsibility to resist the greater ruler.
The doctrine of the lesser magistrate is dependent on the private citizen argument from prior to the Reformation, which stated that any evil an office holder does is committed as a private citizen rather than by the office.[1]
....
The doctrine of the lesser magistrate was first popularized in a simpler form by John Calvin, who wrote that whereas private Christians must submit to the ruling authorities, there are "popular magistrates" who have "been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings". When these magistrates "connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people" they "fraudulently betray the liberty of the people" when God has appointed them guardians of that liberty.[3]
A more elaborate doctrine of the lesser magistrate was first employed in the Lutheran Magdeburg Confession of 1550, which argued that the "subordinate powers" in a state, faced with the situation where the "supreme power" is working to destroy true religion, may go further than non-cooperation with the supreme power and assist the faithful to resist.[4] This work drew heavily on Luther, including his Beerwolf concept as one of multiple conditions an evil ruler would need to fulfill before opposition to his rule could be justified. In other words, even though an evil ruler is acting as a private citizen, he still may not be resisted unless all of the other conditions are fulfilled. One of them was that the evil ruler must show himself to be a true Beerwolf and servant of the devil.[1]
Variations on this doctrine of the lesser magistrate were commonly taught by orthodox Calvinists such as Theodore Beza. [1] The doctrine of the lesser magistrate became important for the justification of the Dutch Revolt. According to Johannes Althusius in 1603 work, Politica, resistance to a supreme magistrate by lesser magistrates is justified in the case of tyranny. Althusius argued that the provincial authorities of the United Provinces were in this situation.[5]
Gary M. Simpson suggests that after the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in 1572 there was a "populist expansion" of the doctrine in which "the ruled would no longer be merely the subject of the ruler; they would become citizens."[6]
The private citizen argument and the doctrine of the lesser magistrates were both used in the United States Declaration of Independence to justify resistance by lesser leaders who in all other cases would be bound to submit to the top executive. Like Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, George III sent an army to terrorize his own subjects, fulfilling the Beerwolf clause.[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_magistrate
Last edited:
This seems to presuppose a King and a monarchy.
Also, how would that work in places like Medieval Spain that was conquered by the Muslims? Guerrilla warfare and Christian knights helped reclaim the land over several centuries. Would this doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate say that their struggle was unjust because a new established power was in place?
Yes, New Zealand is a small Island nation but we have 5 times the population of Australia per square kilometer.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No. Rutherford specifically addressed that. A lesser magistrate can be anything as humble as the local sheriff (granted, such a guy probably won't march on the capital).
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Francis Turretin on the sixth commandment and the right to resist unjust aggression. (Perhaps tangential to this thread, but worth reading all the same.)
puritanpilgrim
Puritan Board Junior
We taught on the doctrine three years ago:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1011152241123
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1016152122283
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1011152241123
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1016152122283
It could be a judge (as the left has been doing a lot to oppose Trump), governor, mayor, even sheriff. I've heard of a few conservative sheriffs who have refused to enforce gun control laws, etc. As far it being a "stretch," I wouldn't say so in a system as complex as the U.S. -- especially if the 10th Amendment is followed like the Founders intended. It may also include things like nullification (Tom Woods has written about this). I'm not the expert on any of this, though--either the theological basis or how it plays out legally.
- Status
Similar threads
