In the ancient world, the Romans were very unusual in the way they conquered and subjugated nations. Each great world empire that preceded the Romans would typically impose its own language, religion, and entire political system on a nation it conquered. Rome was different. When the Romans conquered a nation, they were careful to preserve its culture: its traditions, language, trades, businesses and religions. They even left the conquered nation's political system in tact, to a degree. An example of this is the relationship Rome maintained with Judea.Perhaps the Romans were the first "multiculturalists," because they felt that diversity of culture helped to strengthen the Empire, not weaken it. Yet the Romans were not naive! They recognized that allowing such diversity created the potential for unrest and rebellion--so, their solution was Roman law. If there is one word that best characterizes the Romans, it is law. The Romans ruled the lands they occupied with zero-tolerance for any who would break the law.
While the Romans tolerated all kinds of religions, one thing they would not tolerate is an unlicensed, unauthorized operation of anything--including a religion. Private meetings of any kind had to be authorized by the state. (The Romans recognized that plots to overthrow Roman rule and plans for rebellions and assassinations could come from private meetings.) All private associations, including religious organizations, were required to receive licet from Caesar. Licet is Latin for, "It is permitted." The present participle of licet is the word from which we get our English word, "license."
Here was the catch: Licet could only be received when Caesar was acknowledged as sovereign. The sovereignty of the emperors, beginning with Augustus Caesar, was profound. According to John Weaver:
Augustus Caesar proclaimed himself to be the sovereign God in 17 B.C. A strange star shone in the heavens, and he inaugurated a twelve day advent celebration and declared himself savior. Because of his successes militarily and economically, he was worshipped as the divine savior king, born in the historical hour ordained by the stars. Hence, he inaugurated the cosmic hour of salvation. It was proclaimed throughout the Roman Empire. "Salvation is to be found in none other name given to men in which they can be saved."[1]
I must tell you that in my opinion, the media's portrayal of our recent Presidential inauguration bore some striking resemblance to the above. In any case, God's answer to the proclamation of Augustus came through the Apostle Peter, who spoke of the name of Jesus Christ:
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
The sovereignty of Caesar was not merely legal sovereignty: Caesar was the supreme deity! In fact, in later years (A.D. 302), Emperor Diocletian imposed an offering whereby Christians who refused to bend the knee to Caesar and offer a pinch of incense were persecuted.
During the times in which the New Testament was written, incorporation was mandatory for religious cults. The Romans had inherited the practice of incorporation from the Greeks, and our modern corporations are the legal descendant of the Roman corporation. In the Roman Empire, incorporation was a public acknowledgement of the Roman government's prerogative to authorize or prohibit the association of persons who incorporated. Once the charter was granted, that charter publicly declared the corporation's subservience to the authority of the State. Had the local assemblies of the early church incorporated and been approved by the State, they would probably not have been persecuted by Rome. Believers in Christ suffered martyrdom rather than ask for authorization from Caesar. Why? They recognized that to seek approval from the State to worship Christ would have been a public acknowledgement of Caesar's dominion over Christ!
Was the refusal of these believers to apply for government approval civil disobedience? Not by dictionary definition of the term. Here are definitions of "civil disobedience" from two dictionaries:
...the refusal to obey certain governmental laws or demands in order to influence legislation or policy, characterized by nonviolent methods as nonpayment of taxes and boycotting.[2]
...the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest.[3]
I have always taught, and I continue to teach, that Christian activism and civil disobedience are wrong. Christian activism seeks to force spiritual issues upon unbelievers. Civil disobedience is wrong because we are clearly instructed to obey civil authority (Romans 13:1-7). However, the refusal of the early Christians to obey the requirement to apply for licet was not political protest and it was not disobedience to influence legislation or policy. These believers were put into a position where to obey the civil authorities would be to disobey God--and in that position, the only honorable thing to do is to obey God. Two apostles of Jesus Christ put it like this when the Sanhedrin had commanded them to stop preaching Christ:
But Peter and John answered and said to them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:19-20)
The equivalent of seeking to receive licet in the Roman Empire is the modern church in America incorporating and applying to the IRS for status as a 501(c)3 organization. It is estimated that about 90% of the churches in the United States have bought into this.[4] The irony is that when a church applies for 501(c)3 status, it is usually applying to receive benefits that churches already have, according to the current IRS code. I will expound on this in my next post.
Footnotes:
1. John Weaver, The Sovereignty of God and Civil Government, quoted by Peter Kershaw, In Caesar's Grip (Branson: Heal Our Land Ministries, 2000), p. 30.
2. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (New York: Random House, 1997), p. 240.
3. The Oxford American College Dictionary (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2002), p. 254.
4. Peter Kershaw, In Caesar's Grip (Branson: Heal Our Land Ministries, 2000), p. 70.
Scripture quotations taken from the NASB. http://www.lockman.org/
