Stylos is the blog of Jeff Riddle, a Reformed Baptist Pastor in North Garden, Virginia. The title "Stylos" is the Greek word for pillar. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul urges his readers to consider "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth."
Image (left side): Decorative urn with title for the book of Acts in Codex Alexandrinus.
This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes
and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History: Book 8, chapter 16-17 & Appendix to book 8.
Notes and Commentary:
Chapter 16 describes
how the great Diocletian persecution began to lessen by the eighth year and
came to an end in the tenth year.
This change did not come about due
to “human agency” or “pity” or from the “humanity of the rulers.” Instead it
came about by divine providence.
One sign of this was that Galerius,
the cruel emperor and “chief author” of the persecution, was stricken by an
illness which began an an ulcer and wasted his inward parts, bringing forth
worms and a terrible stench. The suffering described here is reminiscent of
Herod’s illness in Acts 12:23.
Chapter 17 describes
how Galerius became conscience-stricken for his cruel deeds and decided to
command the persecution against Christians to cease. It includes a copy of this
decree, translated from Latin to Greek allowing, “that the Christians may exist
again and build the houses in which they assemble, always provided they do
nothing contrary to order.”
In the Appendix found in the AER
manuscript tradition, more information is added as to the fate of the four men
who served as the Tetrarchy and under whom the persecution had begun.
It is noted that Galerius, who held
last place among the four tetrarchs, died from his illness and that he had been
the chief villain in the persecutions.
Diocletian had held the chief honor
in the tetrarchy [thus we call it the Diocletian persecution] but retired from
public life and eventually fell under painful bodily infirmity.
The one who held second place was
Maximian whose life ended by strangling.
The tetrarch in third place had
been Constantius [father of Constantine] and he is praised as the only who
lived a noble life and who did not persecute Christians or tear down their
churches.
One begins to see this as a bit of
Constantinian propaganda.
Conclusion:
These chapter describes the
welcomed end of the Diocletian persecution and stresses the divine providential
care for the church in ending the suffering.
I have posted my book review of Grantley McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma Trinitarian Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
It was published in Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2 (July 2020): 238-241.
In an effort at damage control and
spinning the narrative JW quickly responded with a blog post later the same day
under the title, This
Really Isn’t Hard. Here is his post, paragraph by paragraph, with my
responses (his article is in black italic below and my responses in blue):
On July
28th I commented on the Dividing Line about an invitation to do a debate with
Dr. Jeffrey Riddle on textual critical issues, specifically, a comparison of
his position (TR Onlyism) and the Critical Text position (mine). I attempted to
plainly and clearly lay out the main issue. Dr. Riddle has responded with an
article accusing me of “refusing” to debate him. As anyone who
listened to my comments knows, I did no such thing.
Response: If JW did not refuse the
invitation to debate Mark 16:9-20 then why are we having this conversation?
Clearly, he has refused the invitation. JW also does not provide any answer as
to why he broke off the three-way conversation with me and Samuel Nesan of
Explain Apologetics about a possible online debate. He also does not explain
why he did not respond to my offer to do two debates: the first on Mark 16:9-20
and the second on a TR position supported by the minority (e.g., Acts 8:37).
Why does JW refused to debate Mark
16:9-20?
This is not
a difficult issue. Dr. Riddle represents a small minority position without
representation in the wider field of scholarship. You can see this plainly in
the dialogue that took place early this year between Peter Gurry, James Snapp
Jr., and Jeffrey Riddle. The two portions can be found here and here. I commented on
the dialogue on this
edition of the Dividing Line.
Response:
I agree that it is not a difficult issue. Why does JW refuse to debate Mark
16:9-20? If he will not debate me on this topic, what about James Snapp?
Notice how JW tries to minimize me
as his opponent, since I represent “a small minority position without representation
in the wider field of scholarship.” So, is he refusing to debate Mark 16:9-20,
because I do not have the proper academic credentials to meet his standards?
I have noted many times that the
Confessional Text position is a minority position, even among those who are
confessionally Reformed. Does this mean this topic should not be discussed? Isn’t
the Reformed Baptist position generally a minority position overall among those
who are confessionally Reformed? Does this mean that a Reformed Presbyterian should
refuse to debate baptism with a Reformed Baptist, because confessionally
Reformed Baptists are only a “small minority” in the wider Reformed world?
On the other hand, is the TR position
really a minority position when we consider the fact that a great number of
Christians all over the world, from many different denominations (from Pentecostals
to Eastern Orthodox) continue to read and use translations (in various
languages) based on the traditional text? In the English-speaking world, for
example, the KJV and NKJV continue to be consistent best-sellers. Recent
surveys by Lifeway suggest that many still prefer to read the KJV.
Does JW only engage in debates
with those who are deeply involved in mainstream academic scholarship? A survey
of his past debates does not indicate that this is the case. Is JW being inconsistent,
attempting to justify and excuse his refusal to debate this topic?
JW notes the dialogue I had with
James Snapp and Peter Gurry. Should Peter Gurry not have engaged in a conversation
with me and Pastor Snapp, because we did not hold the proper credentials? Should
Bart Ehrman have refused to make his one and only joint appearance with JW 11
years ago, since JW does not have proper academic credentials and has never
published any academic works in the field of text criticism? The readers can make
their own judgments regarding JW’s objections.
Why does JW refuse to debate Mark
16:9-20?
Now, there are a shelf full of
books on such topics as the longer ending of Mark, the Pericope Adulterae, etc. In
fact, there is a fine 4-position book on
the topic that was published just over a decade ago (I would primarily agree
with Daniel Wallace’s chapter). There is profit from discussing this text
amongst those whose positions are dependent upon textual critical analysis,
manuscripts, etc.
Response:
So, is JW saying that the discussion of textual variants such as Mark 16:9-20
and John 7:53—8:11 has been so thoroughly and definitively discussed in
academia that there is not need for any further discussion of these matters? Really?
Is this the way academic research and discourse works? Hardly! These issues are
still hotly debated and discussed by scholars and laymen alike.
JW notes
the book on four perspectives on the ending of Mark. Yes, I know the book well.
I wrote an extended scholarly review of the book that was published in the
journal American Theological Inquiry (even though I hold a minority position
in text criticism and am not apparently engaged in “real” academic research). I’d
love to hear JW explain why he rejects Dr. Maurice Robinson’s winsome arguments
in that book in favor of the originality and authenticity of the traditional ending
of Mark. Surely, that brief book is not the end of the discussion. Why does JW
refused to debate Mark 16:9-20?
But
this is the real issue: Dr. Riddle’s acceptance of the longer ending of Mark is
not due to how many manuscripts contain it, how early they are, or of what
character they are. His reason for accepting the Pericope Adulterae likewise
has nothing to do with manuscripts, the history of the text, etc. And he is
open about this. It is actually part of his critique of the majority position
(which would include the Majority Text position and the Byzantine Priority
position—in fact, all textual critical positions). His critique reflects the
reality that he is not presenting a textual critical position, he is presenting
a theological position that overrides all textual critical considerations. This
came out in the dialogue linked above, and it is found in every single
presentation from Text and Canon Conference done in 2019 featuring himself and
Robert Truelove (available on Sermon Audio).
Response: If the Confessional Text
position is so obviously incoherent then JW should have no problem dismantling
it. He says, I am “not presenting a textual critical position.” I would modify
that statement by adding two key adjectives to correct it: I am “not presenting
a modernreconstructionist textual critical position.” This is a point
what JW, unlike others, continues not to grasp.
He also persists in somehow
dismissing our position as merely a “theological position.” Again, this seems
odd in the extreme. Is JW saying that his position is not a “theological position”?
Isn’t his modern reconstructionist position based on a nineteenth century
re-imagining of the doctrine of preservation? Or does he reject the Westminster
doctrine of providential preservation altogether as does Dan Wallace?
Isn’t JW supposed to be a
presuppositional “apologist”? What is wrong with having theological
presuppositions?
Thanks for recommending the Text
and Canon conference lectures. You *forgot* to include the link, so I’ll add it
here (my lecture one, lecture two, lecture three, and lecture four). Yes, I hope people will listen. If these lectures were so inconsistent
and illogical JW should have no problem dismantling them.
Why does JW refuse to debate Mark
16:9-20?
Therefore,
to actually debate Riddle’s position requires Riddle to defend readings that
are unique to his position, not those that he shares with others. Why? Because his position specifically eschews
consistency of textual critical methodology. Since he
begins with a theological conclusion (the Textus Receptus is the Providentially Preserved Text,
PPT), its readings cannot be questioned. Therefore, he can use arguments for
the longer ending of Mark (found in the TR) that are different from, and
contradictory to, the arguments for the Pericope Adulterae, and this is not a problem for
him. The manuscripts and history do not matter, so there really is no
meaningful basis for a comparison of textual critical conclusions, since his position is not, actually, derived
from textual criticism.
Response: How does JW know that my
arguments in favor of the traditional text of Mark 16:9-20 will be “different
from, and contradictory to” the arguments for the PA? Is he a clairvoyant? In
fact, I think my argument for both texts would be very consistent.
He ends by saying he cannot debate
Mark 16:9-20 with a TR advocate because our position is not “derived from
textual criticism.” Again, two key adjectives need to be added to correct this:
The TR position is not “derived from modern reconstructionist textual
criticism.”
JW forgets a very important part of
this proposed debate. The discussion is not merely about my side defending the
TR reading, it is also about JW defending the modern critical text reading.
Why does JW refuse to debate Mark
16:9-20?
So
this is really easy: the only way to engage with Dr. Riddle’s theological
position is to look at those readings that are unique to the TR. By so doing
you have a fair, clear comparison of two positions. If he uses different
arguments to defend different readings in the same text, his position is shown
to be incoherent unless he makes it clear from the start that
the arguments are not actually relevant, that the TR is the PPT, and the
listener should simply accept this without argumentation. But the point should
be clear to anyone: if Riddle’s position is true, then what text we are looking
at should not matter, as his reason for accepting the reading of any particular
passage has nothing to do with its transmission history, it has to do with an
action of God at a certain point in history that established the text for all
generations thereafter. That reality will not be seen when he hides amongst the
Byzantine or Majority Text folks. It will be seen when he defends the unique
readings of the TR, such as Ephesians 3:9, 1 John 5:7, or Revelation 16:5. Given
his teaching and preaching, these texts are just as genuine, just as revealed,
just as providentially preserved, as the longer ending of Mark, so why not
address them? Only by doing so will he be defending the unique claims of his
own position.
Response: So, the only way to
engage with a TR advocate is to discuss readings that are “unique to the TR”?
But the TR does not consist only of a readings that are supported by minority
traditions. In fact, most of the TR agrees with the Majority Text. I would
submit that one could not in fact have a meaningful discussion of the TR
without considering texts like Mark 16:9-20.
JW assumes a TR advocate will use “different
arguments” to defend different text. But doesn’t the modern critical text position
use a variety of arguments in its reconstructed critical text? For example, it rejects
the Majority Text in omitting Mark 16:9-20, but follows the Majority Text in omitting
Acts 8:37. Is that inconsistent? JW also seems wrongly to assume that the
modern critical text has produced a uniform method that has resulted in a
uniformly agreed upon modern critical text. But that simply is not the case.
He also continues to ignore the
fact that the purpose of a debate on Mark 16:9-20 would not only be to for the
TR advocate to defend the traditional reading but for JW to defend his
modern reconstructed reading (whatever it is). If JW does not believe that
Mark 16:9-20 is an appropriate text to examine in discussions related to the
TR, let me ask again as to why he included a discussion of this text in the
appendix to his 2009 revision of the King James Only Controversy?
Why does JW continue to refuse to
debate Mark 16:9-20?
I have made it plain for years: I
find the infiltration of TR Onlyism into the Reformed camp an apologetic
disaster, hence I would be willing to step away from other writing projects and
duties to engage Dr. Riddle on this specific topic. I would not be interested
in other debates that have already been done (note the book linked above). This
debate, with the actual heart of Riddle’s position, has not been done. It is
not I who is refusing the debate. I stand ready to do so, based upon what I
think is a clear and compelling case.
Response: So defense of the TR is
an “apologetic disaster”? It seems to me that this is hardly the case. See Pooyan
Mehrshahi’s recent discussion of why the TR is preferred for apologetics,
especially with Muslims. See also WM 167.
Quite the contrary, it seems that
the Protestant and evangelical embrace of the modern critical text has been an
apologetic disaster. The Muslim apologists have not posted videos from the Text
and Canon Conference to their youtube sites, but Muslim by Choice has an
entire playlist devoted just to James White’s teaching on text. MBC does
not, by the way, take these out of context but offers extended clips without
comment. It is clear whose material he finds most useful for his cause. Let the
reader/listener consider this.
JW says, “It is not I who is
refusing to debate?” This is clearly not the case.
In this discussion, there is only one
person who has offered to do two debates: one on Mark 16:9-20 and a second on a
TR text based on a minority tradition (like Acts 8:37).
And there is only one person who
has refused to debate, and it is JW.
I have posted WM 171. Listen above or view this video.
Here are some notes:
First, some background on recent discussions
concerning an online debate with JW:
Back on Saturday July 18, 2020 I got a text from Samuel Nesan
of Explain Apologetics asking me if I would like to be a participant in a 2 on
2 debate regarding the text of Scripture in which I would represent the TR
position.
I texted back that I’d be happy to discuss this as a
possibility and we ended up talking on the phone on Monday July 20. In that
conversation, Samuel asked me what topics I would be interested in discussing.
I suggested that rather than a general discussion on the modern critical text
versus the traditional text, that we choose a particular passage to discuss.
The passage I suggested was the traditional ending of Mark: Mark 16:9-20, since
it is accepted as genuine and inspired by those who embrace the TR but
generally classified as secondary and even spurious by those whom embrace the modern
critical text. Also in that conversation, Samuel said he was planning to
contact JW about taking part, as well as Stephen Boyce. I suggested Pastor Dane
Jöhannsson as partner in the debate.
The next afternoon, Tuesday, July 21, I got a text back from
Samuel saying he had talked to JW who had indicated his preference for a 1 on 1
debate, rather than a 2 on 2 debate. He also reported that rather than the
traditional ending of Mark, JW wanted to debate either the CJ or Ephesians 3:9.
Later that day I sent the following email to Samuel:
Hi Samuel,
I am open to doing the debate
one on one with JW.
I also think it would be best to
focus on one singular text.
For this type of discussion, I
think it would make more sense to focus on a passage that is more typical of
the differences between the texts (modern critical and TR) and that deals with
a more substantial number of verses. Since the ending of the Mark is one of the
two most significantly contested texts in the NT (along with the PA, John
7:53--8:11), I suggest we make it the focus.
I also think it would make sense
to have a very clear thesis statement, which one person would affirm and the
other deny.
Would White be willing to defend
the following thesis: "RESOLVED: Mark 16:9-20 is uninspired and spurious
and should not be considered part of the Word of God."?
I have heard White say that he
would be willing to address any disputed text in the TR, so I assume he would
be more than willing to address the traditional ending of Mark as one of the
two most significant textual variants in the NT….
If White declines the
opportunity for a one of one debate with me on the ending of Mark, Dane is
still willing to join with me for a two on two debate with Stephen Boyce and
another participant.
Blessings, Jeff
On Thursday, July 23, Samuel called me again to say that JW had
stated his refusal to debate the ending of Mark. I then told Samuel that if JW
did not want to defend the modern text of Mark 16:9-20, I would also be willing
to debate the PA or Luke 23:34, but that I would not prefer a discussion of 1
John 5:7 for fear that Muslim apologists, like Muslim by Choice, would
immediately post excerpts of JW’s presentation to further their attacks on the
integrity of that text and the doctrine of the Trinity, as they have done in
the past with previous JW presentations.
On Monday, July 27 I received a text from Samuel that read as
follows:
JW …. said that your position is a theological position and
not based on the manuscript evidence. He feels you should be able to debate any
variant as it would challenge your position.”
Samuel added, “I just don’t see the debate with JW working
out.” He therefore suggested that we move on from discussions with JW and
go back to original idea of the 2 on 2 format and try to make arrangements with
Stephen Boyce to debate either the ending of Mark or the PA.
I texted back to Samuel on Tuesday morning, July 28:
Samuel, interesting response from JW. So my
position is based on theology but his isn't? Sounds like he is unwilling to
defend the modern text reading of either of the two major textual variants (the
ending of Mark or the PA) against an able TR defender, supposedly because our
view is not based on "evidence." Odd. About two years ago we were
both approached by a church to have a debate on text. As in this case, I
accepted, and he declined. His excuse then was that the venue location was too
obscure (he would have to take a "puddle jumper", as he put it, to
get there) and there was not adequate interest in the topic. This, despite the
fact, that the location was a major metro area (Roanoke) in Virginia and there
is obviously interest. A few weeks later he tried to invite himself to a TR
conference being held in Atlanta claiming we would not debate him. Very odd.
I
also told Samuel that I would still be willing to do a 2 on 2 debate (as he had
originally suggested) with Stephen Boyce, since JW was unwilling to debate me.
A
few hours later (12:31 pm) the same day, I sent this text to Samuel:
A
thought came to me today before closing the door on JW. What about two separate
debates? The first on Mark 16:9-20. The second on a text in the TR not
supported by the majority. Acts 8:37 perhaps. I might even entertain Rev 16:5.
Samuel
relayed my message to JW and responded later in the day with this note:
I
informed James and he just replied that he would be addressing this on the
Dividing Line today…. We will keep you posted on his actual response whether he
would accept or not….
My
first thought on receiving this news: Why is JW sharing this on the DL when we
are in the midst of a three-way conversation about trying to get this event set
up? Is he trying to find some reason to justify not having to define or defend
his position on the ending of Mark? Or, Is he trying to provide some cover for
his unwillingness to participate in this debate?
Late
Tuesday evening, I then received a text from Samuel:
Dr.
White sent this via email:
"Well, I'd like to invite him to listen to
my comments and explain why he would want to address texts that do not define
his position rather than the ones that do? If we did the longer ending of
Mark, for example, the fact that it appears in the majority of texts is not
relevant to TR Onlyism because that position rejects the majority reading in
Ephesians 3:9, etc. Only my position really has anything to say to the issue,
because the actual textual data is just not relevant. So why not use the
texts that actually highlight the real issue?"
Second, some responses/observations on JW's refusal to debate Mark 16:9-20:
First, I find it strange that JW broke off the conversation with me and Samuel and decided to take his case to his DL audience.
Second, I find it interesting that JW placed all the focus on Mark 16:9-20 and did not mention that I also offered to debate the PA and Luke 23:34. He also never mentioned that I also offered to do two debates: the first on Mark 16:9-20 and the second on a TR text with only minority support (like Acts 8:37).
Third, I found his reasoning against debating Mark 16:9-20 unconvincing. It is one of the two most significant variants in the NT!
Fourth, JW continues to show that he does not really understand the TR (Confessional Text position).
Fifth, Mark 16:9-20 is clearly an appropriate text for debate.
Sixth, the ending of Mark is one of the few texts upon which JW has produced some written analysis. See Part II of his revised the King James Only Controversy (2009): 316-320.
Seventh, it is clear that JW would prefer to debate passages from the TR with minority support, since he perceives this would give him an advantage.
Third, conclusion:
As things now stand, I continue to offer to JW
the opportunity to debate Mark 16:9-20 as one of the two most significant
variants in the entire NT. It provides a clear difference between the modern
and the traditional text.
Would White be willing to defend
the following thesis: "RESOLVED: Mark 16:9-20 is uninspired and spurious
and should not be considered part of the Word of God."?
If JW is not willing to debate a TR advocate,
like me, on this text, perhaps he would be willing to debate a Majority Text
advocate (like James Snapp). I will suggest to Samuel Nesan that he reach out
to James Snapp regarding this.
Since JW is not willing to debate me on this
topic, I will also suggest to Samuel Nesan that he invite Stephen Boyce to take
up this discussion with me.
For the sun is no
sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower
thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall
the rich man fade away in his ways (James 1:11).
James works upon the
consciences of the rich by reminding all men of the brevity of this life. See
v. 10b: “because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away” (cf. Isaiah
40:80).
He continues in v. 11
to describe how the rising sun with its burning heat soon withers the grass and
its flower fades “and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth.” Go to any
nursing home, yeah, to any cemetery, and you see the condition of the youth of
yesterday. All the beauty queens, all the athletes, all the intellectuals, all
the successful businessmen, statemen, and captains of industry have gone the
way of all flesh. James speaks directly to the rich: “so shall the rich man
fade away in his ways.”
Those words remind me
of General MacArthur’s famous speech in which he said, Old soldiers never die.
They just fade away.” But MacArthur was wrong. They do die, and then they fade
away from memory. And what is more, even their death is not the end. As Paul
said in Hebrews 9:27: “and it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this
the judgment.”
All the richest men of
past generations have already discovered this, whether Nelson Rockefeller,
Howard Hughes, or Steve Jobs. And all the wealthy of the present generation,
whether Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos, will find it out soon enough.
Christ ended his parable
of the barn builder in Luke 12:20 with the rich man hearing the Lord say to
him, “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee.”
The apostle Paul wrote
to Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:7: “For we brought
nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.”
The truth also is that
you do not need to be a fabulously wealthy to be the rich man who is addressed
here. You simply have to be a man who rests in himself and his own ability and
who falsely thinks that everything is going to keep going just as it is now
forever and ever. It will not.
James challenges us to
ask ourselves: Where do I find my greatest contentment and consolation in life?
In Christ or in the things of this world?
Image: Bust of Maxentius (AD 276-312; Roman emperor 306-312). Pushkin Museum, Moscow.
This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes
and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s Book 8, chapter 14-15.
Notes and Commentary:
These chapters describe political
turmoil that arose during the decade long Diocletian persecution, which
included the rise of two tyrants: Maxentius in the West (Rome) and Maximin in
the East. This volatility would lead ultimately to the rise of Constantine as
emperor.
Chapter 14 describes
the rise of Maxentius, son of the deposed Maximin, as the tyrant of Rome. Not
only did he persecute Christians, but he lived a life of gross moral
debauchery, which included forced adultery and rape. He put many Romans,
including senators, to death. Worst of all he engaged in witchcraft and magical
practices, including ripping up pregnant women to explore the entrails of their
fetuses. He is described by Eusebius as a Caligula-like figure.
Meanwhile, another tyrant arose in
the East named Maximin (aka Maximinus Daia). He also practiced magic and was
filled with superstitions. He energetically persecuted Christianity and attempted
to restore paganism, including ordering pagan temples to be built in every
city. He engaged in drunken excesses, riotous living, and the sexual assault
against women.
The only ones who opposed him were
the Christians, who suffered greatly under his persecution. Eusebius notes how
a Christian lady [Dorothea, according to Rufinus] of Alexandria rebuffed
Maximin in order to maintain her modesty.
He then notes how a woman of Rome
[Sophronia, according to Rufinus] was likewise attacked by Maxentius but took
her own life by the sword.
Chapter 15 notes that
during the remainder of the ten years of persecution there was no respite from
the plotting and warring of the two tyrants. Even travelers on the sea were not
safe, as they might be accused of siding with the enemy and made subject to
torture, including death by crucifixion or fire.
Conclusion:
These chapters again describe the
disorder within the empire and the rivalry among the tryants Maxentius and
Maximin, which would eventually lead to the rise of Constantine, who would end
persecution and bring peace to the church.
I recently heard an anti-Protestant pundit claim that Protestantism
commits the error of Nestorianism in Christology. I thought of this as I
happened to be reading a few sections of Calvin’s Institutes yesterday and ran
across these statements:
“Away with the error of Nestorius, who in wanting to pull
apart rather than distinguish the nature of Christ devised a double Christ….
Let us beware also, of Eutyches’ madness; lest, while meaning to show the unity
of the person, we destroy either nature” (Institutes, 2.14.4).
“I have testified that we do not agree at all with Nestorius,
who imagined a double Christ” (Institutes, 2.14.7).
You can listen above to an audio version of my book review of Jeffery Smith, The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Plain Truth About Life After Death (Evangelical Press, 2020).
You can also read a pdf of my written review which appeared in Puritan Reformed Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2 (July 2020): 244-245.
I got a package of books in the mail a couple of weeks ago from Pastor Poh Boon Sing of Damansara Reformed Baptist Church in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia.
Pastor Poh has been been redeeming the time during the quarantine by reformatting some of his old books (I had read his book on The Christian in the Chinese Culture a few years ago and found it to be an excellent resource) and producing some new works from his teaching ministry on various topics.
Image: Martyrdom of Anthimus of Nicomedia and others, Miniature from the Menologion of Basil II, c. AD 1,000.
This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes
and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History: Book 8, chapter 13.
Notes and Commentary:
This chapter begins by listing the
various rulers of the churches who became martyrs during the Diocletian persecution.
First in the list is Anthimus, bishop
of Nicomedia, who was beheaded.
Others include the presbyter Lucian
of Antioch;
Tyrannion, bishop of Tyre;
Zenobius, presbyter of Sidon;
Silvanus, bishop of Emesa;
Silvanus, bishop of Gaza, beheaded
at the copper mines at Phaeno, one of 39 martyrs there;
Peleus and Nilus, bishops of Egypt;
Pamphylius, presbyter of Caesarea,
whom Eusebius describes as “the most marvelous man of our day”;
Peter, bishop of Alexandria;
Phileas, Hesychius, Pachymius, and
Theodore, bishops of Egypt.
To these could be added “countless
other famous persons as well.” Eusebius promises to write more in another work.
The chapter then turns to discuss
the Roman government. This is typical of Eusebius, to parallel descriptions of
church and imperial leaders.
He notes that before the time of
persecution, the Christians had enjoyed peace and prosperity.
Reference is made to the so-called
Tetrarchy, set up by Diocletian, in which power was shared between Diocletian
and Maximin, as emperors, and Galerius and Constantius Chlorus, as Caesars.
It was under the Tetrarchy that the
persecution had begun in 303, and which would last a decade till 313.
Eusebius notes that Diocletian fell
under a “fateful disease” and became “deranged”, and this resulted in him
resuming life as a private citizen in 306.
According to Eusebius, of the
Tetrarchs, only Constantius (father of Constantine) lived “in a manner worthy
of his high office” and did not persecute the Christians or tear down their
churches, but even protected them.
His son Constantine was made emperor
(one of the Tetrarch) after his death “by God Himself, the King Supreme.”
The chapter closes with reference
to the later struggle for power between Constantine, Licinius, and Maximin,
which resulted in the deposition and death of Maximin and the removal of his
public monuments and memorials.
Conclusion:
In this chapter Eusebius honors the
church leaders who died as martyrs during the Diocletian persecution (303-313).
He also describes the rise of Constantine to imperial power, providing a
perhaps overly positive portrayal of Constantine’s father Constantius, and
noting the rise of Constantine as divinely orchestrated.
A
double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8).
In
James 1:6-8 the Apostle describes the type of person who does not ask for
wisdom from God as “wavering” (v. 6a). He then adds: “For he is like a wave of
the sea driven with the wind and tossed” (v. 6b).
The
sea is an image of inconsistency. If you go to the ocean you will see the waves
crashing on the shore, but they do not do so uniformly. They are shaped by the
circumstances. The waves of the sea are an image of instability, of that which
is ever erratic and chaotic. James here says that the wavering and inconsistent
man is like this.
Paul
uses the same analogy in Ephesians 4:14 when he urges believers not to be like
children “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by
the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to
deceive.”
We might say that a consistent and fruitful
Christian life requires, to use a phrase borrowed from a philosopher, “a long
obedience in the same direction.”
What would happen if we tried to plant a tree,
but every week we dug it up and transplanted it to a new location? Would it
ever put down deep roots and grow downward and upward to a magnificent height?
James says that the unstable and wavering man
shall not receive anything from the Lord (v. 7). He will depart from the Lord’s
presence with empty hands.
The Apostle then adds a final observation: “A
double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” The word for “double minded” in
Greek is di-psychos, literally double-spirited, or even double-souled. Bunyan
has a character like this in Pilgrim’s Progress named “Mr.
Facing-both-ways.”
There is a warning for us here. Do not be like
this man.
What is the opposite of such a person? It would
be a single-minded man, a consistent man, aman who fixes his affections on Christ, who forms a core convictional
and doctrinal framework based on Scripture, and who holds fast to those
commitments, without wavering, not blown about here and there by every passing
fancy.
Let us be consistent, single-minded men and women,
rather than double-minded.
This is an occasional series of readings from and brief notes
and commentary upon Eusebius of Caesarea’s The
Ecclesiastical History: Book 8, chapter 11-12.
Notes and Commentary:
These chapters continue to report
on the godly martyrs who laid down their lives during the Diocletian
persecution.
Chapter 11 begins by
describing an unnamed small town in Phyrgia, where, Eusebius, says all the
inhabitants were Christians, including the city officials. The Roman soldiers set
fire to the town and burned the inhabitants alive, including young children and
women.
It next notes the martyrdom of a
certain Audactus, “a man of illustrious Italian birth,” who at the time he was
put to death was serving as a magistrate and minister of finance in some
unnamed locality.
Chapter 12 traces the
gruesome sufferings of other Christians throughout the Roman world.
In Arabia they were slain with the
axe.
In Cappadocia, their legs were
broken.
In Mesopotamia, they were hung over
smoking fires.
In Alexandria, they were mutilated.
In Antioch, they were roasted on the
gridiron.
Eusebius notes that some in Antioch
took their own lives by jumping off lofty houses before they could be seized.
As another example of this he describes
a noble woman of Antioch and her two unmarried daughters who were captured in a
foreign country and were being transported back to Antioch. At risk of being
violated by the soldiers, in the midst of their journey, they threw themselves
into a river and drowned thus becoming “their own executioners.”
He also notes another pair of maidens
at Antioch who were also thrown into the sea.
In Pontus, Christians suffered
various cruel tortures, like having reeds driven under their finger nails, having
melted lead poured on their backs, and having their private parts abused. Eusebius
says it was as if the tormenters tried to outdo one another in the novelty of their
tortures.
Worn out with their bloodlust
against the Christians, Eusebius says they rulers determined to promote more
supposedly “humane” punishments, liking gouging out the right eye and crippling
the left foot of believers before sending them slave labor in the copper mines.
These martyrs, he concludes, were “conspicuous
throughout all the world.” To name each one would be impossible.
Conclusion:
This chapters note the universality
and brutality of the Diocletian persecution. It took place across the Roman
world and included a variety of unspeakable tortures. Eusebius even praises those
who took their own lives in these situations, without seeming to pass judgement
on the suicide as sinful. Many of those not to put to death were maimed and
enslaved. He stresses that the sufferings of the Diocletian persecution were
not only universal but incalculable.
