Early Christian Persecution Compared with Modern. Jonathan Cahn

This article begins with news that Christian author, Jonathan Cahn will speak at the United Nations about Christian persecution by radical Muslims. The end of the article provides some history on persecution. However, I think some of the history is a bit off. Early on, the Muslims valued the Christians in the Roman Empire because they needed their help in making functional government after their conquests. There were pressures to convert but the most intense persecution from Muslims came much later.

‘Harbinger’ author to speak at United Nations.

Law and Gospel Distinction in Early Church

During the Reformation, Luther and Melanchthon first called the distinction between Law and Gospel by another title: “the Law and the Promises.” Recognizing and distinguishing these two teachings of God is at the essence of reading and applying the Bible in the Reformation but notable examples of the distinction appear in early Christianity, too.

Tertullian writes in Against Marcion:

“‘the New Testament’ will appertain to none other than Him who promised it—if not “its letter, yet its spirit;” and herein will lie its newness. Indeed, He who had engraved its letter in stones is the same as He who had said of its spirit, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” Even if “the letter killeth, yet the Spirit giveth life;” and both belong to Him who says: “I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal.” We have already made good the Creator’s claim to this twofold character of judgment and goodness—“killing in the letter” through the law, and “quickening in the Spirit” through the Gospel. Now these attributes, however different they be, cannot possibly make two gods; for they have already (in the prevenient dispensation of the Old Testament) been found to meet in One.” (ANF 3:452–53)

Tyconius writes in The Book of Rules:

The [Gospel’s] promise is distinct from the Law; and since they are different, they cannot be mixed. (under Rule III)

John Chrysostum writes in a sermon on 2 Corinthians 3:

In the Law, he that hath sin is punished; here, he that hath sins cometh and is baptized and is made righteous, and being made righteous, he liveth, being delivered from the death of sin. The Law, if it lay hold on a murderer, putteth him to death; the Gospel, if it lay hold on a murderer, enlighteneth, and giveth him life. (NPNF1 12:307)

Augustine writes in On the Spirit and the Letter:

His words are, “The righteousness of God is manifested:” [Romans 3:21] . . . This is witnessed by the law and the prophets; in other words, the law and the prophets each afford it testimony. The law, indeed, by issuing its commands and threats, and by justifying no man, sufficiently shows that it is by God’s gift, through the help of the Spirit, that a man is justified; and the prophets, because it was what they predicted that Christ at His coming accomplished. (NPNF1 5:88–89)

gold-2590-1940-wallpaper

Religion Comes Naturally to Us. Lactantius

Religion, worldview, philosophy (or whatever you want to call it) is a fact of being human. As thinking beings, we can’t stop thinking about how we should live and how we relate to one another. Religion flows naturally from who we are. We are not just religious because our parents or guardians have told us to be so. We are instinctively religious and this instinct is reinforced by those around us from cradle to grave but also from within. Consider: an animal might go forth and survive without parents or guardians but a human child cannot. A child is cast from its mother’s womb where its existence depends upon the moral judgments of others.

You are here, reading this page, because someone—at least one person—said “Yes” to your existence and affirmed your life. That “Yes” was affirmed daily in the nurture you received, which kept you going until you could survive on your own. But “Yes” is only half the story. At some point your parents or guardians also said “No” to you. Even if your parents or guardians were mute, they pulled you back from danger and limited what you could do.

As a father I recall changing diapers and guiding little hands away from the mess I was cleaning up. I can recall saying “No” to my child as I did so, and my wife has memories of doing the same thing (she also recalls saying “No” to the children while breast feeding since hard biting and scratching start pretty early). With word and motion we placed limits on our children. We drew boundaries for their sake and for ours as we willed them to live. (Read Genesis 2:15–17; Ezekiel 16:1–7.) Saying “Yes” meant that we would naturally say “No,” lest our children harm themselves or become so offensive that we could not embrace and care for them without harming ourselves. The legal aspect of religion is ever there. Universally, one of the first words children master is “No.” From the beginning of their lives, their thoughts divide into Yes and No, affirmation and denial, boundaries of right and wrong, of good and evil. So religion is among the first things we learn about. But I would also contend that the root of religion is instinctive. As reasoning beings, we make choices and our brains are hardwired to do so.

Lactantius comments on instinct and wisdom in “On the Workmanship of God” (ch 3).

“[Philosophers] complain that man is born in a more feeble and frail condition than that in which the other animals are born: for that these, as soon as they are produced from the womb, immediately raise themselves on their feet, and express their joy by running to and fro, and are at once fit for enduring the air, inasmuch as they have come forth to the light protected by natural coverings; but man, on the contrary, being naked and defenceless, is cast forth, and driven, as it were, from a shipwreck, to the miseries of this life; who is neither able to move himself from the place where he has been born, nor to seek the nourishment of milk, nor to endure the injury of time. Therefore they say that Nature is not the mother of the human race, but a stepmother, who has dealt so liberally with the dumb creation, but has so produced man, that, without resources, and without strength, and destitute of all aid, he can do nothing else than give tokens of the state of his frailty by wailing and lamentations. . . . What more can men do? unless it be this only, that they do not drive away their young when grown up, but retain them bound by perpetual relationship and the bond of affection. . . . I ask, therefore, from those who prefer the condition of the beasts to their own, what they would choose if God should give them the choice: would they prefer the wisdom of man together with his weakness, or the strength of the beasts together with their nature?” (ANF 7:283–84)

Notes: Historians of language/linguistics have noticed that expressions for “mother” and “father” almost universally occur with “m” sounds (e.g., “mamma”) or “b/p/d” sounds (e.g., “papa” or “dada”). This is seen in both ancient literature and in modern languages. This likely demonstrates two important things: (1) human languages are related to one another historically (linguists search for a “proto-language” and find many basic words commonly occurring across the major language families), and (2) children are making these sounds at about the same time their brains are forming words and mastering the basics of language (if you watch babies closely, they naturally make certain sounds at certain ages, gradually expanding their abilities as they learn to control their mouths; I first considered this in 2007 when my youngest was still mastering the “th” sound, which is tougher than “m” or “goo goo,” as we like to describe baby talk). The complexity of human language and communication is one of those important features of being human. Though other creatures communicate and some even have basic elements of what we call “language,” communication is one way that humans really distinguish themselves. This has to do with our highly social nature. We depend on one another from birth and must communicate our thoughts, yes and no being among the earliest and most important distinctions in verbal communication. Just as parenting and language are universal to humanity, religion is right there with us because affirmation and moral distinctions are of the essence of being human.

Early Church

Lactantius (c. 240–c. 320) on Religion

Our English word “religion” is odd and a bit mysterious. It comes from a Latin word that means “to tie, bind, or connect” (Lat ligo, ligare). The “re-” part means “again,” to retie something. But to tie what? The early Christian writer Lactantius suggested this:

We are created on this condition, that we pay just and due obedience to God who created us, that we should know and follow Him alone. We are bound and tied to God by this chain of piety; from which religion itself received its name. . . . We have said that the name of religion is derived from the bond of piety, because God has tied man to Himself, and bound him by piety; for we must serve Him as a master, and be obedient to Him as a father. (The Divine Institutes, ANF 7:131)

Whether this is what the ancient Romans intended when they began to use the word “religion” is hard to say. (E.g., could binding of sacrifices be in view, or some other ritual action? No one knows). In any case, Lactantius gives us an important insight to religion: the bond between the divine and the human, which is for our good. A bond that, when broken, must be renewed.

God cares for us like a father. That is His bond. And with religious hearts we say, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15).

Early Church