Lyons and Vienne were cities situated on the River Rhone
(139) in Gaul, or modern-day France. These cities were part of the
Roman Empire in the second century A.D. Although the text
doesn't
specifically state this, it does give us many clues. The author
points out that the Christians were barred from the baths and forum
(139), both of which were part of the Roman infrastructure, as was
the amphitheatre, where many of the executions took place (144). The
author also makes reference to the gladiatorial contest (145), which
was also a Roman phenomenon. The most telling argument about these
cities being Roman cities, however, is a political one. Attalus, a
Christian later to be executed, was put on trial and led around the
amphitheatre. When the governor heard he was a Roman citizen, he
ordered Attalus to be put back in prison before torturing him first.
Roman Christians were to be beheaded instead of tortured to death
(146). This implies that the authority structure in Lyons and Vienne
was Roman and that Roman Christians, although still executed, were
nonetheless given preferential treatment due to their citizenship.
The political implications of this will be discussed later. Another
clue as to who the persons were that took the lead in the Christian
persecutions lies in the person the governor appealed to: Caesar
himself, the supreme ruler of the Roman Empire. All of these clues
lead to the conclusion that Lyons and Vienne were Roman-occupied
cities, and that their citizens took part in attacking the Christian
communities founded therein.
The attitude these Roman citizens held toward the Christians
in the second century A.D. was one of pure hatred. The governor at
the time publicly announced that they were to be deliberately hunted
out and brought before the tribunal and city authorities (141).
Christians were led into the forum where the entire city could watch
the proceedings. The martyrs were then treated with savagery and
cruelty and endured every kind of torture the city authorities and
populace heaped upon them: noisy abuse, blows, dragging along the
ground, stoning, and imprisonment (139). The whole fury of crowd,
governor and soldiers was unleashed at the mere mention of the
phrase `I am a Christian'. But why? What I find interesting
about
the popular attitudes that made the arrests and executions possible
is that in the report in Eusebius' History, the Christian
community
appears harmless. A few of the martyrs gave testimony to this:
As such [Vettius Epagathus] found the judgment so unreasonably given
against us more than he could bear: boiling with indignation, he
applied for permission to speak in defense of the Christians, and to
prove that there was nothing godless or irreligious in our society.
(140)
I [Sanctus] am a Christian: we do nothing to be ashamed of. (141)
The Christians felt like they had done nothing wrong; according to
the above references this seems to be true, so why such hatred? Of
what offense were they being charged?
There were several of what I call "surface-level"
accusations ū accusations that were stated with the intent to
expose
something much deeper. According to the author of this report, the
soldiers were known to accuse the Christians of "Thyestean
banquets"
and "Oedipean incest" (141). As horrible as the charges may
have
been, the writer claims these accusations were false. We don't
know
whether the Christian community in the second century was in fact
guilty of these charges; all we have is the author's account. I
believe the accusations were indeed false, for not only do they seem
too absurd for people who claimed to be upholding a particular
standard, there was something deeper behind these charges and the
eventual punishments and deaths: the crime the martyrs committed was
that they simply were what they were: Christian. This statement in
and of itself seems simple enough, but by confessing their faith in
Christ, the Christians deeply offended the religious beliefs of the
Roman population, and so were deemed scapegoats. Many attempts were
made to make the martyrs swear allegiance to the "heathen
idols", but
the Christians could not be swayed. This infuriated the Romans, who
would inflict insurmountable cruelty up their captives, almost always
to the death, with the hopes of "avenging their gods" (143,
146-47).
This statement alone indicates that the Romans were highly offended
at the Christians' claim to a higher God, a god who is different
than
that of the Romans. By inflicting pain and suffering on the
Christians, the Romans thought their gods would have their revenge
for being rejected. It seems the only crime committed by the
Christians was the declaration of their faith:
When they confessed Christ, they were locked up in gaol to await the
governor's arrivalą[who] treated them with all the cruelty he
reserves for Christians. (140)
When Vettius Epagathus defended his faith, the crowd round the
tribunal howled him downąand he, too, was admitted to the ranks
of
the martyrs. (140)
Pothinusąwas conveyed to the tribunal by the soldiers,
accompanied by
the civil authorities and the whole populace, who shouted and jeered
at him as though he were Christ himself. (143)
The latter quote brings up another interesting point. The
author attributed Pothinus' trial to that of Christ before His
own
trial. During the trial of Attalus, the Roman authorities went a
step even further. It wasn't enough just to torment him. They
led
him around the amphitheatre with a placard, on which was written in
Latin: "This is Attalus the Christian" (145). Not only was
this man
mocked like Christ, but the placard he bore was similar to
Christ's,
which read "The King of the Jews". Christ was crucified for
political reasons ū "King of the Jews" implied that
Jesus, the
Christ, was claiming superiority over Caesar, which was considered a
political crime in the Roman provinces. One could say that Attalus
and his fellow Christians were being martyred for the same reason
ū
politics. Although they weren't claiming supremacy over Caesar,
they
were implying by their defiant actions (their refusal to give up
Christ as Lord) that their God was superior over the Roman gods.
Throughout his report the author, someone clearly Christian as his
use of "us", "our", and "we" made apparent,
referenced the Roman gods
as "heathen idols" (146), which would imply that these gods
were the
wrong gods to worship and the Christian God, "the Way", had
supremacy
over them. Since the Romans were so intent on avenging their
rejected gods, it is clear that the martyrs' attitude offended
the
Roman populace. Another attitude I found interesting was the
distinction being made between Roman Christians and non-Roman
Christians. None of the martyrs were treated well, that much is
obvious. But what is also obvious from the text is the preferential
treatment given to the Roman Christians by Caesar:
For Caesar had issued a command that they should be tortured to
deathą
so at the inauguration of the local festival, the governor summoned
them to his tribunal, making a theatrical show of the blessed ones
and displaying them to the crowds. After re-examination, all who
seemed to possess Roman citizenship were beheaded and the rest sent
to the beasts. (146)
Clearly the Roman Christians were offered a swift, painless death,
while their non-Roman compatriots were made to withstand a much
slower torture.
At the risk of playing devil's advocate, from the Romans'
perspective the Christians were disobedient and avoided the specific
questions the governor asked them. For example, during his trial,
Sanctus was severely tortured but stood up to the onslaughts. When
asked, he didn't tell the governor his name, race, birthplace,
nationality, or whether "he was a slave or free". Instead,
to every
question he replied that he was a Christian. (142) Pothinus, when
asked who the Christians' god was, replied "If you are a fit
person,
you shall know". (143) And Alexander, when asked what name God
had,
he replied "God hasn't a name like a man". (146) The
governor had
also asked who Alexander was, to which Alexander replied "I am a
Christian". (146) The martyrs perceived these answers as a
testimony
to their faith, but the Romans perceived them as antagonistic; the
governor would lose his temper and patience each time a Christian
declared his or her faith (a rejection of the Roman gods), or
answered his questions in riddles. The Romans were not getting the
results they wanted from the Christians (conformity to the Roman gods
instead of Christ) due to what they considered to be the
Christians'
insubordination and would thus send them "to the ranks of the
martyrs".
If there is one thing the writer of this account wants us to
realize is the apparent superhuman strength the Christians displayed
while enduring the most abominable punishments and tortures inflicted
upon them. They remained unbending and unyielding to the Romans,
firm in their confessions of faith and noble and heroic in their
actions. (139, 141) The strength they found seemed to come from
another world, for the punishments the writer describes is enough to
make even the strongest person quiver with fright:
Again they ran the gauntlet of whipsąthey were mauled by the
beastsą
culminating in the iron chair which roasted their flesh and
suffocated them with the reek. (144)
This strength not only enabled each Christian to individually endure
the impossible, it also strengthened the resistance of the Christians
who were watching, encouraging them on to Christ's glory:
ąthe endurance of the blessed saints, strengthened by the Lord
and
fortified in body and soul, stimulating and encouraging the rest.
(143)
But Blandina was hung on a post and exposed as food for the wild
beasts let loose in the arena. She looked as if she was hanging in
the form of a cross, and through her ardent prayers she stimulated
great enthusiasm in those undergoing their ordeal, who in their agony
saw with their outward eyes in the person of their sister the One who
was crucified for them. (145)
I felt a sense of urgency from this writer; as he was describing each
account, he was quick to point out several times how the martyrs were
hastening to their deaths with a sense of purpose and resolve, filled
with an almost unworldly bliss as their paths wound closer to the one
they called Master:
ąthey made light of their heavy load as they hastened to Christ.
(139)
ąthey made a full confession of their testimony with the greatest
eagerness. (140)
The faithful stepped out with a happy smile, wondrous glory and grace
blended on their faces. (144)
Attalus too was loudly demanded by the mob, as he was a man of note.
He strode in, ready for the fray, for he had trained hard in the
school of Christ. (145)
Attalus' actions, that he "strode in", imply defiance and
the
steadfast faith the martyr had in his God, actions the Romans again
found infuriating. Some of Attalus' fellow Christians reacted in
the
same manner:
Day after day they had been taken into watch the rest being punished,
and attempts were mad to make them swear by the heathen idols. When
they stood firm and treated these efforts with contempt, the mob was
infuriated with them. (147)
The Christian community's members shared a common bond in Christ
that
gave them a sense of brotherhood; they treated each other with love
and support. This bond, along with the belief that they were gaining
Christ's approval for not denying Him in the face of agony,
enabled
the group to stand up to the Roman authorities with courage and
resolve, acknowledging not only the support of one another, but that
of Christ himself:
ąas [Vettius] showed by the fullness of his love when he gladly
laid
down his own life in defense of his brother Christians. (140)
With all the horrible torture and death the Romans inflicted
on the Christian community in Lyons and Vienne, one is led to believe
the author blamed them for the Christians' pain and suffering.
This
is not the case. Evidence of the writer's target is made obvious
in
the first few sentences of the report:
The adversary swooped on us with all his might, giving us now a
foretaste of his advent, which undoubtedly is imminent. (139)
He left no stone unturned in his efforts to train his adherents and
equip them to attack the servants of God. (139)
Hence, it was not necessarily the Romans inflicting the punishments,
but rather an unseen yet potent evil spirit, a being the Christians
would call their adversary, Satan, or the Devil, that was influencing
the Romans' actions. In the text there were many references
regarding how Christians were "handed over to punishment by they
devil", endured the onslaught of the "evil one", ensnared
by "Satan",
and how they "unhesitatingly declared their faith without one
thought
for the devil's promptings. (139,141, 147) These statements
make
clear that although the Romans themselves were doing the
slaughtering, Satan was in fact influencing them to do so.
Vienne and Lyons, Roman-occupied cities in the second century
A.D., hosted some of the most gruesome spectacles in the history of
the Christian church. The small community that confessed Christ as
their Lord was mercilessly mauled and slaughtered because its beliefs
were considered offensive to the Roman gods and its actions
insubordinate to city authorities. The writer of these accounts
considered Satan, the adversary, to be extremely active in these
tortures, influencing the Roman authorities to send the Christians to
their deaths, martyring them in the name of the One they worshiped.
The martyrs endured each punishment with resistance, strength of
conviction, and joy, so much so that the reader is left to marvel at
the faith they had in their Christ, faith that was so profound that
it has lasted for 2,000 years.
REFERENCES
1. Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine.
Translated by G.A. Williamson. Penguin Books, 1965. pp. 139-148
About the Author
Kathy Simcox, Columbus, Ohio, United States
hrdude28@...
Kathy works as an Administrative Assistant in the College of the Arts
at The Ohio State University. She holds a BA in Psychology and is
currently working on a second BA in Religious Studies. In addition to
writing, her passions include hiking, biking, kayaking, photography,
and singing in her church choir. She is also known to read an
occasional book.