Three Marks of a Martyr

Back in college a few years ago, I wrote my History Senior Thesis paper on the distinctions between martyrdom and suicide in the pre-Augustinian Church. In that paper I discussed a semi-related view towards martyrdom that I had not found clearly stipulated in any source I had come in contact with so far. This view was that the early Church implicitly believed that true martyrs were marked by three characteristics: they believed in orthodox teachings, were hunted down (arrested, taken captive, pursued) for those beliefs, and were killed. A few days ago I finished reading an article, published only months after I began writing my paper, wherein a similar idea was presented. William Weinrich wrote about "a few simple observations."

Martyrdom entails death; only that one who dies for the faith is called a "martyr" . . . the death imposed on the martyr is the result of a judgment to death.. . . the judgment to death imposed on the martyr is due to the refusal of the martyr to confess and to sacrifice to false gods. Confession of faith, rejection of idolatry, and judgment to death--these are the irreducible components of every martyrdom.¹

These points are integral to understanding how the early Church viewed martyrs, and distinguished true martyrs from those who simply died. False martyrs were not respected at all.

As is touched on in the article, a perfect example of this idea is found in the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The writer first discussed the story of Quintus, a man who convinced several others to turn themselves into the authorities so they could achieve martyrdom. After some threatening and entreaties, the authorities were able to convince Quintus and his band to abjure and offer sacrifice to the Roman gods. In contrast, Polycarp ran (as is the directive of Christ²), was arrested, and was unshakable in his faith and confession. He the authorities were unable to break and force to offer a sacrifice.

Quintus would have been a false Christian martyr in the eyes of the early Church: "we do not commend those who give themselves up [to suffering], seeing the Gospel does not teach so to do."³ Not only did he and his group fail when they were tested, they volunteered their lives wanting to achieve martyrdom and receive the martyr's glory. Polycarp, in stark contrast, was pursued, arrested while fleeing, and held strongly to the faith he loved for so long. For that he met the martyr's fate. Polycarp's example shows all three above mentioned points. Quintus's fails in all respects.

We need to also understand Polycarp's example as it pertains to how we need to act if ever faced with true persecution. We must never just volunteer ourselves for death. Martyrdom is truly a calling of God, and only He can grant you the endurance and strength to be firm when the time comes. Flee from your persecutors, but never cease to confess the true faith. And never compromise the truth, especially for the sake of your own life. That last point I hope everyone can take to heart, even if you are never persecuted.

---

¹ William C. Weinrich, "Death and Martyrdom: An Important Aspect of Early Christian Eschatology," Concordia Theological Quarterly, October 2002, 327-8.

² Mt. x.21-23: "Brother will hand over brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by everyone because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Whenever they persecute you in one place, flee to another."

³ Martyrdom of Polycarp, iv.

Importance of Mark xiii.13

In Mark xiii.13 is a powerful statement by Christ, which is not just for those people at that time. His words are as true today as they were all those centuries ago. εσεσθε μισουμενοι υπο παντων δια το ονομα μου. His followers will be hated (μισουμενοι, misoumenoi) by all because of His name.

One of the earliest historians, Herodotus, gives us a glimpse into the meaning of this word, μισεω, from which we get μισουμενοι. In his Histories he recorded an instance in Menelaus' stint in Egypt.

Yet, although getting this, Menelaus was guilty of injustice towards the Egyptians. For adverse weather detained him when he tried to sail away; after this continued for some time, he carried out something impious, taking two native children and sacrificing them. When it became known that he had done this, he fled with his ships straight to Libya, hated (μισηθεις) and hunted. Herod., Hist., 2.119.2-3

What is most interesting about this early example is the reason for the hatred. The hatred of the object, in this case Menelaus, was based on a judgement that he was a criminal, guilty in the eyes of the people. Bring that into the first century AD, and look at the hatred of Jesus. Do we not see the same situation from the perspective of those who hated Him? Their hatred was based on their judgement that He was a criminal, guilty. And as Jesus said, they hated Him first:

If the world hates (μισειν) you, be aware that it hated (μισει) me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you do not belong to the world, but I chose you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you. Remember what I told you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they obeyed my word, they will obey yours too. But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. But they no longer have any excuse for their sin. The one who hates me hates my Father too. If I had not performed among them the miraculous deeds that no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen the deeds and have hated both me and my Father. Now this happened to fulfill the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without reason.’ When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father – the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father – he will testify about me, and you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning. Jo. xv.18-27

Christians are criminals in the eyes of the world, no different than that of Menelaus except for one fact: we are hated because of the name of our Master. We will suffer because we embrace His name. Our identity in this world is in and with Christ, the hated One; naturally, we too will be hated. As Christ said, we "will be hated by all." Our calling into a life of suffering for His name begins with Christ's warning. If you want safety and security in this world, enough wealth to keep you happy, everyone as your best friend, and everyone to openly and readily listen to you, than do not choose the way of Christ.

That is why Mark xiii.13 is so powerful. The message is so clear in so few words. We will be hated by all because of Christ's name. What will you do with that? Will you endure to the end? Or will you give up on Him and go the way of the world? If you take the latter, at least the world will not hate you. And that's what you want, right? The world's love, the world's embrace. Go ahead, just please do not mix the two. The world's love and the world's embrace have nothing to do with the way of the hated Christ.

Martyrdom of Polycarp, i.2a

περιεμενεν γαρ ινα παραδοθη, ως και ο κυριος, ινα μιμηται και ημεις αυτου γενωμεθα

English
And just like our Lord, Polycarp waited patiently to be handed over, as an example so that we too might become imitators of Christ

While translating the first portion of i.2, I ran into a little grammatical snag. The author used a little word, ινα, in a way I was not comfortable with. In the first Greek clause, περιεμενεν γαρ ινα παραδοθη, it took me a few days to work through what the author of the letter was trying to say. I was fighting through two possibilities: either "to be handed over" or "in order to be handed over."

When I first came to this clause in the Greek, my mind immediately translated it "in order to be handed over." ινα carries the meaning of intent, doing something so that or in order that something else may occur. Probably 99% of the time, the word introduces a subjunctive clause; meaning, this situation might happen, not something that will definitely happen.

So I stopped cold and reverted back to my "I can't read Greek!" cave where I tend to hide at the first sign of trouble. But my trouble was not, as I thought, with the Greek itself. My problem was with what I just read: Polycarp waited in order to be handed over. This consummate Christian, the disciple of so many years, student of John, friend of Ignatius, leader of the flock, feeder of the hungry, bullet proof and inventor of the internet, had done the detestable act of setting up his own capture so he could be martyred.

Say it ain't so! Say it ain't so!

Suffice it to say I did not stop there. I usually crawl out of my cave after a little bit and attack. First, there had to be something wrong with the translation. The rest of the letter gives ample evidence against Polycarp doing such a thing; a mere few paragraphs latter and we get to the whole Quintus fiasco. But what was the problem? I had a look at how the Holmes/Lightfoot translation read, and also how the ANF rendered this. Both had "to be" without the "in order." I was stuck. Second, I went back to my Lexicons, syntax books, and grammars. My perplexity was only compounded by the fact that there are very, very little resources out there on the grammar and Greek syntax of the Early Church Fathers. There is plenty for the New Testament, but language always changes and there are subtleties you might not catch if all you are reading is work for the NT. The BDAG would be great . . . if I had one. Yes, I am a student of the Early Church Fathers and I could never afford a copy of the most vital work a student of the Early Church Fathers could ever imagine. So sorry.

Moving on. I finally tracked down my problem (problemo en Spanish). My understanding of ινα was limited. ("Wha!!!???!!!" I know; I was shocked, too. Because we all know that is rare. Right.) While I was trapped in the tar pits of intent I missed the inclusion of "the result." ινα was introducing "being handed over" as an end result. Polycarp waited patiently with the result being he was handed over. You have to step back and look at this from a historical perspective. The author was writing after the martyrdom, recalling the whole tale. The beginning is an introduction, and in there he was giving us the picture of this patient leader who knew his time had come and wanted to give his fellow disciples an example of Christ.

Dilemma solved. Always good to learn something. It would be a lot easier if these ancient authors would stick to convention and the rules of grammar, but, where would be the fun in that?

Martyrdom of Polycarp, i.1

The last sentence of section I.1 reads

σχεδον γαρ παντα τα προαγοντα εγενετο ινα ημιν ο κυριος ανωθεν επιδειξη το κατα το ευαγγελιον μαρτυριον.

In English
Everything that has happened before now has come about so the Lord of Heaven might show us an example of martyrdom in line with the gospel of Christ.

Now, when this all gets put together I will clean up the English a little more, but this gives you a very good idea of how the text reads and the message the author(s) is trying to get across. Some of you who have some experience with Greek might notice a thing like my translation here having "Christ" though χριστος is not in the text. Because of the various ways people can take ευαγγελιον, usually translated "Gospel," I wanted to be clear on what was intended. The "gospel" here is not the New Testament, the Synoptic Gospels plus John, or the Bible. The ευαγγελιον here is more the complete good news of Jesus Christ (his life, death, resurrection, teaching, actions, etc.; everything) and how that plays into the life, and more important for this text, death of a believer.

Would we not all want to see an example of a martyrdom in line with the gospel of Christ? What can we learn from this text? What can we learn from Polycarp?

 

Martyrdom of Polycarp, Introduction

Η εκκλησια του θεου η παροικουσα Σμυρναν τη εκκλησια του θεου τη παροικουση εν Φιλομηλιω και πασαις ταις κατα παντα τοπον της αγιας και καθολικης εκκλησιας παροικιαις΄ ελεος και ειρηνη και αγαπη θεου πατρος και του κυριου ημων Ιησου Χριστου πληθυνθειη.

Εγραψαμεν υμιν, αδελφοι, τα κατα τους μαρτυρησαντας και τον μακαριον Πολυκαρπον, οστις ωσπερ επισφραγισας δια της μαρτυριας αυτου κατεπαυσε τον διωγμον.

In English
From the church of God in Smyrna to the church of God in Philomelium, and to the holy and universal Church in every community: May the mercy, peace and love of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ abound in you.

Brothers and sisters: we wrote you this letter to encourage you with the stories of those who were martyred; especially Polycarp, a man blessed by God, who put a stop to the persecution by his martyrdom. His death was like a seal of confirmation on the persecution itself.

Those are the opening sentences to one of the most fascinating and important letters of the Early Church, integral to the study of the historic period, as well as persecution and martyrdom in general. This of course is the Martyrdom of Polycarp, written by fellow believers very close to the Bishop of Smyrna, to tell of his great witness in the middle of the second century AD. This is an amazing work that has significant ramifications for disciples of Christ today.

I wanted to undertake the creation of a fresh English reading. This work has been greatly underappreciated for it's value to the Church and I wish to bring it back into the playing field. The exposure for the majority if people is limited to a couple of quotes. Likely those two are about Quintus and the famous "For 86 years I have been his servant" statement. This letter is rich with so much more.

I pray that you are as blessed by this text as I have been. Many people are so ensnared by this idea of "Sola Scriptura" where only the 66 books in what's called the "Bible" have the "Word of God" and "Why read anything else that's not Scripture?" Christians through the centuries have written letters and works to help, encourage, reprove, rebuke, and teach fellow believers as well as non-believers. What makes them any less inspired by God?

As I work through this text, I am asking myself, "Ok. Why is this not considered Scripture?" Let's see how this goes.

Forced Conversions and Lapsed Christians

The two FOX News journalists kidnapped in Gaza on 14 August were released and spoke with their media brethren about their ordeal. During the interview they revealed the strong arm tactics their captors used to grant their release. From the FOX News article,

Both of the men were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, Centanni said.

"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

The men were under great duress and decided to give their captors what they wanted in order to walk away with their lives. I have no clue what their religious persuasion or confession is. They could be Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist; unknown to me. But their actions are a wonderful example of what has played out in Christian history for as long as the Church has been stepping out into the hostile world.

In the early centuries of the Church, the body of Christ was badly beaten and bruised in persecution. We usually think of the ten major persecutions highlighted in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, from Nero through Diocletian; but their were far more than that, and actually began with Saul of Tarsus. Throughout Christian Persecution History are stories of Christians faced with the choice of denying Christ and praying, giving tribute, or offering a sacrifice, to some false gods or the genius of the emperor. The persecutors and executioners would press for them to convert or face death. Probably 99% of the time, a recantation or conversion garnered them freedom.

Then you have quite the dilemma that I have to work through almost on a daily basis in my studies on Christian martyrdom and persecution. What do you do with the lapsi? See, historically there are three categories a persecuted Christian fell under: martyr, confessor, or lapsed. The martyr was obviously the one who died for their confession of Christ. The confessor was someone who would not recant or offer a sacrifice but not be killed for it. They would usually be given a physical warning (e.g. eye taken out, hand cut off, beaten, etc) to also show everyone what happens to traitors and atheists (typical charges against Christians back then). But, still, they lived. The lapsed were people who (a) did something to give the impression they recanted, or (b) actually recanted or offered a sacrifice (many times, you did not have to deny Christ, only offer a sacrifice to a god or pray to the genius of the emperor; Christ could just be another one of the gods).

Before Arianism and Nicea, how you handled the lapsed coming back to the Church caused greater turmoil than any other issue in Christianity. Did you accept them back with open arms? Did you keep them out of fellowship because they denied and were ashamed of Christ? Did you give them some sort of probation? This was an intense dilemma that has to be dealt with even today. People vary on their attitude towards lapsed believers.

People also vary on on their attitude towards garnering freedom by any means in order to live on and preach the gospel of Christ versus denying Christ knowing death was an inevitable consequence. Some whole heartedly believe in doing everything you can to live. Living on and preaching the gospel or living the gospel is the most important thing to do. Saying words like "I deny Christ as God" or " Jesus is not God or my Savior" or "Yes I will embrace Allah and his prophet Muhammed" is nothing but words. As long as it is only a ruse then you are alright. Others will call such an act disgraceful and shameful towards Christ. How strong is your faith? Do you really believe Christ is God and able to take care of you? Is your life more important than the name of Christ?

Consider this situation which undoubtedly happened more than you might initially think. Johnny was captured for being a Christian. When pressed and threatened, he lied about denying Christ and was set free. He went back to his hometown, and the next Sunday joined up with his fellow believers at Henry's house. He goes on about how he got out of being punished by telling a little lie. He didn't mean it when he denied the name and work of Christ. Now he is ready to do some underground mission work. You and everyone else is ready to accept him with open arms, except for someone you notice on the other side of the room: Helen. She is sitting there staring. Then you remember. She and her husband, Charles, were captured for being Christians. They were pressed and tortured and threatened. Charles did not recant or deny Christ, and he was killed. The authorities then turned to Helen, and though she would not recant either (ready and willing to die for her Savior), she was given her freedom. They slashed her eye as a sign to everyone of her being a criminal, and make her think a little more about this "Christ" life. There they both are: one happy to be alive, the other wondering why she still was. And you have a decision to make. That decision could be personal, but remember you are part of a community, a family. I am not trying to pull on heart strings to make you side a certain way, but to grasp the conundrum the Church has been in for centuries.

I wish I could go into this historic dilemma more, but it would take a work the size of a thesis to get into all sides and the implications. I tried to give you a quick summary (I hope it was not too confusing) and present something thought provoking. What would you do if you as a Christian were in the place of those journalists? Also, what would you do if someone from your local body was one of those journalists and came back to your church? Would they be lovingly accepted back with open arms, or would their be discipline of some kind? Or, would they be kept out of fellowship?