Stoic Martyrs

Source: John Sellars, Stoicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006) 108-109.

“If I am doing my best to be a rational being who is free and independent of others, then I will sometimes have to make choices that may appear not to further my own self-preservation. For instance, if a tyrant threatens to kill me if I do not do certain things that I find objectionable or think to be wrong, then–if I am to preserve myself as a rational being–I should stand up to the tyrant even if this may mean the loss of my life (see e.g. Epictetus, Diss. 1.2). But why? How could getting myself killed possibly contribute to my self-preservation? Well, it may not contribute to my self-preservation in so far as I am merely a living animal, but giving in to the tyrant will equally destroy me as an independent rational being. I may remain biologically alive if I give in to the tyrant, but I will have lost something far more important, having reduced myself to a slave. Thus the Stoic doctrine of self-preservation will, in cases of rational beings–that is, philosophers working towards the ideal of the sage–sometimes lead to choices that may actually threaten an individual’s physical existence. But then as Socrates famously put it, it is not merely living, but living well that matters (Plato, Crito 48b).”

When I read the books of Maccabees, a question that entered my mind every now and then was, “Why does any of this matter?” What do I mean by that? Well, basically, the books are about the Jews being willing to fight and die for their religion. They fought to preserve the Sabbath and circumcision. When Antiochus threatened them with death if they refused to eat pork, many of them held fast to God’s food laws. I guess my question was, “Why? What’s the big deal?” What’s it matter if a Jew leaves his foreskin on rather than taking it off? Or if a he works on a Saturday rather than resting on it? Or if he has a taste of nice, juicy pig-meat?

I wonder how Catholics would answer my question. They see I-II Maccabees as canonical, yet they believe that Jesus abolished the Sabbath, circumcision, and biblical food laws. Were Jews dying for things that Jesus would soon abolish, anyway? What was the point of that?

I’ve wondered at times if I would be willing to die for the Christian faith. To be honest, Christianity often looks to me like one religion among others. Why should I die for this particular belief system? Does it really matter?

I guess this quote on Stoicism made certain things clear to me. One should be willing to die for something because otherwise he’s a slave. He’s a slave to someone who tries to force others to see things his way, while eliminating belief systems that contain a lot of good.

I’m approaching this from a perspective of modern-day tolerance, and the ancients may not have done that. Jews and Christians believed that their deaths demonstrated their commitment to the sovereignty of God, not some petty dictator. And I’m not sure why the Stoics died. Maybe they wanted to show that nothing shook them, not even death.

Still More on Maccabees and Theodicy

I finished III Maccabees last night. III Maccabees is not actually about the Maccabees, for it relates to the persecution of the Jews under King Ptolemy Philopator of Egypt (221-203 B.C.E.). Ptolemy defeats the Seleucid Antiochus III at the Battle of Rafia, and the Jews of Jerusalem are eager to congratulate the victor. Ptolemy then goes to the holy city in order to offer a sacrifice, and he is so enamored by the temple that he wants to go inside. The Jews tell him he can’t do that, since only the high priest can enter the holy of holies–and once a year, at that. But Ptolemy doesn’t listen, and he tries to go into the innermost sanctuary. God then knocks him down. That makes Ptolemy mad, and the Egyptian king tries to wipe out the Jews of Alexandria (in Egypt) and other places.

In III Maccabees, there are Jews who want to take up arms against Ptolemy, but the elders dissuade them from doing so (III Maccabees 1:23). The Jews of III Maccabees solve their problems through prayer, as they trust God to work in unexpected ways. And the Jews in that book really don’t do much else but pray. God is the one who fights their battles for them. God strikes down Ptolemy when he tried to enter the temple (III Maccabees 2:21-24). When Ptolemy’s intoxicated elephants are about to stomp the Jews to death, God sends two angels to frighten them, leading them to stomp Ptolemy’s men instead (III Maccabees 6:18-21). And God is the one who changes Ptolemy’s heart and makes it favorable towards the Jews (III Maccabees 6:22ff).

In I-II Maccabees, by contrast, God does not fight Israel’s battles as it passively looks to him. Rather, the Israelites have to fight for the survival of their nation and customs, and they trust in God to assist them in battle (I Maccabees 3-4). And they try to conduct themselves in a godly manner in their fight against Antiochus, for they rest and purify themselves on the Sabbath rather than pursuing their enemies (II Maccabees 8:26-28; 12:38). But they are not passive, for God helps them through their action, not apart from it.

But they realize early on that they may have to break the Sabbath to preserve their nation and their laws. In I Maccabees 2, we read that Antiochus’ army attacked a group of observant Jews on the Sabbath, and the Jews refused to fight back. As a result, the Jews got killed. The priest Mattathias then declared that Jews are allowed to fight on the Sabbath.

But why didn’t God protect those Jews who chose to honor his Sabbath day rather than fight? And God could have done so. Sure, he could’ve used some of the techniques we see in III Maccabees, but let’s look at Scriptures whose canonicity Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and the Greek Orthodox can agree on. God could have put the Seleucid army in a frenzy so that they killed each other off (Judges 7:22; II Chronicles 20). He could have dropped heavenly stones on the Seleucids (Joshua 10:11). He could have sent an angel to kill them off before they arrived at the Jews’ location (II Kings 19:36). He could have blinded them (II Kings 6:16-18). He could’ve arranged for Antiochus to meet a hot Jewish babe who would make him favorable to the Jewish people (Esther). God had done these things before, so they were not logically impossible for him. Why didn’t he help out those who were simply honoring his Sabbath?

I don’t know why God acts one way in one situation, and another way in another. In the case of the Maccabees, perhaps he wanted the Jews to take an active stand for his laws, or to value life above the rigid observance of the Sabbath. The latter idea set the stage for Jesus’ Sabbath ministry (Mark 2; Luke 6:7-10; 14:5), in which Jesus declared that the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. But there may have been other times when the Jews were not militarily strong enough to take on their opponents, and so God intervened in a miraculous sense.

But then another question confronts us: Why didn’t God intervene during the Holocaust? I guess he did, in the sense that he used the allies to defeat Hitler, but that was after millions of Jews had died.