Quinquennium Neronis | Violence and the Trinity

Quinquennium Neronis

Money, Love, Desire - Violence and the Trinity

Written by Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, 27 January 2009 04:54

The infamous Nero actually had a good run initially. He took power in 54 A.D. and until 59 (the same year he had his mother killed), Rome enjoyed a mini-golden age, the best since the time of Augustus. That period of time was one remarkable enough to be named the quinquennium Neronis. But between 59 and the year of his death in the late sixties, Nero spun out of control, becoming one of the great megalomanaical pieces of work in history.

The reason this is important is because Paul probably wrote Romans in 57 A.D., which means (follow me closely here) that he wrote Romans 13 in 57 A.D. This was right in the middle of that initial period of Nero's reign when Seneca the philosopher still had his foot on the brake. After Seneca (and another advisor named Burrus, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard) were gone, Nero went around the bend completely.

Now the first Roman persecution of the Church began in 64 A.D., when Nero tried to shift blame for the fire of Rome from himself to the Christians. So this means that at the time the letter of Romans was written, Paul's statements about the role of the magistrate as God's deacon of justice were not risible at all. Of course Paul writes elsewhere in a way that indicate he was not going to be surprised at all when Nero took his dark turn, not to mention Nero being the one who would take Paul's life. We too often forget that when Paul was writing about the magistrate being the deacon of justice, he was writing about the same man who was going to murder him.

If the magistrate is appointed by God to reward the righteous and punish the wrongdoer, then this means the instructions Paul gives in Romans 13 must be specific, occasional, and provisional. He doesn't say "submit to the magistrate, no matter what." That would conflict with what Scripture teaches us elsewhere. He says to submit to the magistrate because of the good they do, that good including punishment of the bad guys. But what happens when everything flips around, and the magistrate (seven years later) starts punishing the good guys? Now what? If the master is away, and he tells all the servants to obey the steward, who was left in charge to guard the silver, what should they all do when it becomes apparent to them all that the steward is stealing all the silver? God's law is constant, but circumstances aren't.

This means that the specific instructions in this passage are not a fixed star by which we are to navigate throughout all human history, and were never intended to be. They are provisional and conditioned. But the conditions can change in different ways, requiring change from us in one of two directions. (Of course when we change in either of these directions, we must do so on the basis of scriptural guidance elsewhere.) One change is when the need for state violence starts to evaporate because the leaven of the gospel has spread throughout all society. The Bible promises us that this will happen in multiple places, and since the advent of Christ it has been happening. There will come a time when we will study war no more. God did not give the sword to the magistrate in perpetuity, no matter what.

The other change is less glorious, and is more likely to happen in the earlier eras of church history, before the kings have brought their honor and glory into the New Jerusalem. This is the scenario when the magistrate uses the sword to punish the righteous instead of the wicked, and it gets to such an egregious level that disobedience and even active resistance become necessary. The case for civil disobedience and civil resistance (including armed resistance) is a peculiar subset of this entire discussion of violence, and requires separate treatment. Suffice it to say that revolution against the established authorities is never permissible for Christians (a constant from Romans 13) -- which means either that what Ehud did was not okay at all, or it was something other than revolution.

The constant from Romans 13 is that God establishes civil authority. The particulars in our obedience vary according to circumstance. At the very least it should be clear that Paul's comments there are specific, occasional, and provisional, not abstract and general.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 04:54

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

jared leonard

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:16 am

So if what Ehud did is not to be considered Revolution and/or completely wrong, what are we to make of it? And are you, in a roundabout sort of way, implying that the Revolutionary War is a misnomer? Or was it wrong?

Bro. Steve

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:30 am

Doug, this is uncharacteristically tentative for your writing. Here's hoping you'll go ahead and spell out whatever's on your mind.

Chris

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 6:39 am

I am probably in a very small minority who actually think the Revolutionary War (or Presbyterian Revolt as I have heard Pastor Wilson say) was not biblical.

Let me go out on a limb, and propose the following theory of what would have happened if we had employed a different strategy in gaining our freedom:

Let’s say, in respectful obedience, we patiently petitioned the King for freedom, which may have taken even 70 years.

In that time, slavery would have been abolished in the British Empire (and therefore the colonies), through the patient petitions of William Wilberforce.

Could it be possible that a patient petition for independence, instead of a Declaration of Independence, would have resulted in our still coming together as a nation (although 100 years later), avoided the civil war, which would lead to less discrimination and enmity in the South, eliminating the need for the civil rights movement, which then would not have been co-opted by the more liberal political thinkers, even led to an African American president earlier, but more of a Clarence Thomas than a Barak Obama, and ultimately kept us from being in the mess we find ourselves today.

Just a thought.

dlcarrl

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:17 pm

I'll second Steve. I'd very much like this elaborated, particularly the intersection of "armed resistance" and "revolution against the established authorities is never permissible for Christians". Is this just to say that we can fight but always do so as to just barely lose?

lewsta

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:13 pm

Chris, read your history, and NOT from the revisionist sources. Petitions for relief and redress had been directed to the King, who, by way of his charter with the original colonies, was bound to certain behaviours. Parliament overstepped the bounds of their authority repeatedly and egregiously, and the king did nought to check them. It got so bad Parliament ordered the port and city of Boston evacuated, the inhabitants thereof exlied, all commerce ceased in that city, and extreme violence perpetrated upon the citizens by the British military. On at least two occasions they fired, largely unprovoked, upon the colonists, killing several. In essence, the colonies had been invaded by hostile forces bent upon murder and destruction. And this at the command of Parliament, completely outside the bounds of theur authority and contrary to the contracts signed by the British Crown. The war is more properly referred to as the War of Independence. The colonists simply desired to live according to the terms of their business agreements, entered into with the British Crown.

lewsta

Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:19 pm

Had the King deigned to restrict the tyrannical breach of contract and usurpation of power counter to law, that war never had been fought. It was the King, and Parliament, who were in breach of covenant, and refused nearly endless pleas to adhere to that compact. Of course, another scenario, equally plausible to the one we've witnessed in the time since, would have been for the American States, having got their independence from the Crown, to have heeded the right teaching from their pulpits in regards slavery, repented, and gradually, gently, humanely, justly, ended the practice, enculturating the now-freed slaves into the life of the colonies. As it is, the forced and instant abolition is what was at the root of many problems in the south, the north, the civil rights issues, racism, the whole of it. Again, read your history. I believe it was the War of Northern Aggression that was the unjust, unbiblical war, and contrary to the Constitution into the bargain. The War of Independence was brought on himself by the King's foolishness and greed. HE was the unjust ruler, sent unjust force to subjugate in unlawful manner, and the victims simply used just force to throw off that unclean yoke.

Chris

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:17 am

Lewsta,

Thank you for your response. I agree with your inference by the War of Northern Aggression. If a Declaration of Independence from Britain was biblical, then a declaration of independence from the Union would also be biblical. My point is that neither was the best biblical course of action. So the rebellious father had a rebellious son, and many good men died.

I am not getting my history from revisionist historians. I have heard Pastor Wilson’s defense of the War for Independence before, as well as similar arguments from several speakers in Vision Forum’s conferences. But so far, I still have questions about yours and their premise, and seem to only find counter-examples in scripture:

Jacob’s contract for Rachel was violated, but he patiently submitted, and God blessed him with Rachel, and great possessions from Laban.

Joseph was unjustly imprisoned. Would it have been wiser for him to plan escape, or did he receive greater blessing for his patience?

The Hebrews waited 400 years for deliverance. Any revolt against Pharaoh before that time would not have resulted in God’s full blessing. Moses did not lead an armed revolt, but a patient petition. God delivered them, and blessed them with Egypt’s gold.

David’s own King was out to kill him (an unjust ruler with unjust force), but he patiently submitted, and displayed such respect for Saul as to regret cutting the King’s robe. David was blessed with Saul’s kingdom, and even the friendship of Saul’s own son.

Chris

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 1:19 am

Daniel, et al, even though they were a conquered people, submitted to Nebu., Cyrus, Darius, respectfully requested separate rations, respectfully served tyrannical kings, and rose to great positions in the kingdom. Their only rebellion was not against any breach of contract, but only when laws conflicted with their own explicit obedience to God. They were surely blessed for the 70 years of patience, and God brought Israel back into the land.

Jesus paid taxes even when he didn’t have to. The apostles stayed in prison even when escape was divinely given. Paul in chains doesn’t even hint at an armed revolt against persecution.

From these examples, what I don’t understand about the contract theory is this: Are absolute tyrants (who never made a contract in the first place) to be obeyed, but kings who show a small amount of benevolence to be rebelled against when they try to return to being a tyrant? Or is was the King/Colony relationship just a business agreement, therefore Romans13 doesn’t apply?

I suppose my ultimate question is this. With all of these biblical examples against rebellion (and only a few, such as Ehud, for rebellion), would it have been foolish for our Founding Fathers to follow Moses’ example of “fighting” for independence? Would we have a nation blessed even more? Would a people who waited patiently for God’s deliverance have written an explicitly Christian Constitution? Would we be the kind of nation Postmillennialism envisions?

I apologize for the long post. Thank you for your Patience.

Michael Duchemin

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 2:57 am

Chris

I believe that most of the colonists were of the same mind as you until the Quartering Act was passed by Parliament. Once a body that has no legistlative authority over you passes a law implicitly subjecting the wives and daughters of every household in the colonies to be raped by soldiers, and this is upheld by the crown, the line has been crossed. Submission to such a law is not possible for a Christian head of household. Parliament never had legitimate legislative authority over the colonies, and the king's enforcement of such laws was a break of covenant. The colonists wanted to secede peacefully; it was England that wanted a war. You also are playing Monday Morning Quarterback in the worst way. You don't know what would have happened if the colonies had not declared independence. 100 years of husbands and fathers standing idly by and allowing their wives and daughters to be raped might not have turned out to be the postmilliennial paradise you think it would.

Respectabiggle

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 4:51 am

""revolution against the established authorities is never permissible for Christians"

I think the point is that when the king is no longer acting as Romans 13 prescribes, he is no longer an established authority.

John Simmons

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:10 am

Right. And an appeal is then made to the lesser magistrate.

The Scylding

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:46 am

"Once a body that has no legistlative authority over you passes a law implicitly subjecting the wives and daughters of every household in the colonies to be raped by soldiers, and this is upheld by the crown, the line has been crossed."

Actually, I have not found adequate proof of this - the Second quartering act of 1765, first section, does NOT provide for the billeting of soldiers in private homes other than abandoned ones. A full copy of the text is available at http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/quartering.htm .

Interestingly enough, during the ensuing war the Continental army was billeted in private homes in the State of New York.

Chris

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:29 am

There is a difference in resisting an soldier in an evil act, and rebelling completely against a king. However, I don’t want an appeal to history, I want an appeal to scripture. If the colonist who was against forcefully declaring independence would have been (unrighteously) not protecting his family, were the Hebrew slaves unrighteous for not fighting a War for Independence for 400 years, even while their sons were being killed? Did the colonist suffer more that the Hebrews? I want someone to tell me that the Hebrews were cowards and God only sent Moses because they weren't willing to fight for themselves. Or else show me how the colonists were in a different category than the Hebrews in Egypt, David on the run, and Paul in chains.

--Also, I am not so much "MondayNightQuarterbacking", as trying find guidelines for righteous action in the future. I am by no means a pacifist, and believe that we should all be well armed. The question is how to use extreme violence in a Godly and righteous way.

--Has our government’s contract with its people been broken? Will Christian Education be outlawed as the Government "Rapes and Pillages" our children’s minds? Within the next 100 years, will their need to be a second War for Independence fought by Christians? Are you preparing yourself, children, and grandchildren to fight? Have you sold your Tunic to buy a Sword while it is still legal?

--Again, Thank you for your responses.

Respectabiggle

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:11 am

Though I firmly believe that both American Revolutions were justified, here's one nagging question I have:

Nero's post 59 government clearly violated Romans 13 (much more than that of George III), and to my thinking, rebellion would have clearly been justified. Why, then, did first-century Christians, willingly choose martyrdom over rebellion?

Did they somehow know that their witness in the Coliseum would be more powerful than any rebellion? They were much closer to hearing Paul's words than we are - did they get something we're missing?

Bob Donaldson

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 9:41 am

Chris

To paraphrase the pastor from other threads, it does not follow that a Declaration of Independence is equally Biblical in all instances. The question "independence from what?" has to be asked.

And while I agree completely with the analysis above concerning the actions of the Radical Republicans in the aftermath of the War between the States, I am less confident that secession was the correct Biblical response to Lincoln's provocations. It is not clear to me that we have any chance of creating a "more perfect union" if such union is perpetually under evaluation by the member states.

Of course, our current "union" is so far from perfect and the member states so insignificant in the shadow of the Federal Tyranny, that the whole discussion of what went on two centuries ago seems a but quaint.

lewsta

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:35 pm

The text of the Quartering Act is one thing, the reality that colonists had their homes forcefully invaded by British soldiers, and that said soldiers behaved in most unseemly manners (raping, pillaging, taking stock for their own, etc) is rather another.ad King George not dispatched the military to invade the colonies and subjugate them by tyrannical force, including murder, I would have to come down on the side opposite the colonists. In the same way, when the armies of the north invaded the Commonwealth of Virginia, what were Virginians to do but defend their homeland? Please bear in mind that the history recounted in the bible is just that... a history. Failing some text detailing the right/wrongness of a given set of events, it is not appropriate to use "examples" from that history as mandates for forming our own. To be sure, underlying principles can be derived. To condemn the colonists for refusing to submit to the atrocities of British tyranny on the basis of David's refusal to lift his hand against God's annointed is facetious. Other examples to the contrary abound.

lewsta

Wednesday, January 28, 2009 6:58 pm

Besides, how can you say with certainty that God did not raise up the colonists as the first to stand against such tyrannical behaviour of the Brits... she had, as a nation, quite the unseemly track record in many parts of the world.. India, South Africa, Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, Burma, several other nations in Africa, Bahamas and other Caribbean islands, Ireland. Recall the phrase "the sun never sets on the British Empire"? Everywhere they went, they brutally subjugated the natives and, of present, whatever other European nation had been there previous to their arrival. The pommies seemed to think they were God's gift to rule the planet. The War of Independence was the first of many heavy blows to their tyrannical rule. It was, in fine, the beginning of their end as a world dominator. It is interesting to note, as well, that England refused to submit to the invasion of Europe, withstanding the Nazi press to occupy England along with the remainder of the Continent. By your standards, she oughtn't have done. Yet no one blames her for standing, nor for turning round and driving back the Third Reich from the balance of Europe. Recall, as well, she couldn't have done without the support of her former colony, America.

Chris

Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:14 am

Lewsta, regarding your statement: “By your standards, she oughtn't have done (withstand the Nazi).”

Did I say we should have obeyed Spain, France, and Italy all at once. Please, no straw men.

To clarify, fighting against a soldier intent on harming your family is easy to decide. God commanded you to protect them. Do so. Then using that as justification to rebel completely against authority, No.

Also, I know “with certainty” that God DID “raise up the colonists” to “stand against … the Brits”, because this is, of course, what happened. God has raised up many to punish evil: Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. but an action used by God is not the same as a righteous action. (Just so you don’t over react, I’m not saying the colonists were evil. I’m saying these righteous people missed out on greater blessings from God)

I have a question for you. When you say “what were Virginians to do but defend their homeland?”, how do we as subjects to distinguish between an invasion by our own authority, and our authority punishing our own evil?

Consider if the “Quartering Act”, had been the “Carry a British Soldier’s Gear for a Mile Act” instead. Jesus said make it two. There is no question that the Romans were a hostile force in Israel. So what if the British were hostile as well. I think Jesus would have instructed to give the soldiers a nice meal and hospitality, as well as quarters.

Chris

Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:29 am

This will probably be my last post on the subject. It’s been enjoyable, but I’m looking for help comparing/contrasting the War for Independence with biblical commands, examples, parables, to understand the principles used by the colonist, but keep getting told that it’s not that simple.

Mr Donaldson, I like your question, so I’ll run with it:

Q:Independence from what?

A:From an unjust/illegitimate/tyrant king.

Then the question has to be asked:

Q:“Unjust/illegitimate/tyrant” by whose judgment?

A:By the judgment of his subjects.

THAT seems to be a dangerous road. Has any people ever rebelled against a king they felt was just? Has anyone rebelled against a rule they felt was proper?

The subjects whose evil God has established the Authority to punish, are the same ones who can declare the authority unjust? Does the disobedient child thank his father for the spanking while it still stings?

Now, fathers have given unjust spankings, but children should still obey, except when obedience would be disobedience to God. Even then, they do not declare independence from the father, they submit to punishment. (Will I again be admonished for pointing to examples of Daniel, et al. in submitting to lion’s dens and fiery furnaces?)

My point is, we should use a more concrete standard of obeying the authority God established, except only when Gods commands require specific and limited disobedience. Let God remove the authority he established, as he has faithfully done throughout history.

Thank you all, and I look forward to any further responses.

Michael Duchemin

Thursday, January 29, 2009 2:04 am

You're still begging the question, Chris. You assert that the Americans rebelled to prove that they rebelled. There is a difference between a rebellion and what the colonies did. There is a difference between the American quest for independence and the French Revolution. I'm not going to deny that there were colonists, perhaps even members of the Continental Congress who were rebellious, but corporately it was not a rebellion.

You answer the question about by whose judgment incorrectly. The standard of judgment was the charters (covenants) that established the settlements. These charters were made with the Crown and not with Parliament. The King had the authority to veto laws, but did not have the authority to legislate or force the legislations of an alien body (Parliament) upon the colonists. They were implicitly arguing from a basis of Higher Law, and though I wish they were overtly theonomic in their declaration, it's a big difference from declaring independence based on one's own autonomous whim.

The Declaration of Independence was a lawsuit brought against the Crown. The repeated claim that the Americans violently rebelled is simply not true. They were already under attack from the British and they secceded and defended themselves."

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll