As always, Karl Marx interpreted most issues of his time using concept of social struggle. There was always an ongoing battle between workers and their capitalist oppressors. Society was fundamentally corrupt so long as a minority (the middle-class capitalists) had an economic advantage, a sense of superiority, over masses (the workers). Marx dreamed of a classless society where everyone was treated equally, fairly, and would be completely satisfied both in their work and in their relationships with each other.1 But economic reality of society in his day caused alienation between workers and their true selves.

Alienation occurred because capitalist economics took production of labor, very product supposedly reflecting worker’s true self-expression, and transformed it into a material object that is bought, sold, and owned by others. This economy gave worker’s product to rich middle-class who was able to buy it and thus ruled and oppressed working masses. 2 Physical, social, economic, and spiritual oppression was result of this alienation, and religion was way out, an escape:

Religion is sigh of oppressed creature, heart of a heartless world, and soul of soulless conditions. It is opium of people.3

The drug opium lessened pain and created fantasies. Marx compared religion to opium because he saw religion playing same role in life of poor. Through religion, pain workers suffered in a cruel and exploitative world was eased by fantasy of a supernatural world void of all sorrow and oppression. It is pure escapism.4 This escapism shifted gaze upward to an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-enduring God who occupies a perfect Heaven.

For Marx, essence of religion, and for purposes of this paper, Christianity, is its voice of suffering, its crying out against realities of capitalist exploitation and degradation.5 The cross is ultimate symbol of pain and suffering. Marx’s working class would identify with this symbol and cling to it with hope of a better life, a better world, to come. Jesus’ suffering and death on cross, and his eventual resurrection, would be proof to workers that if they just endure this worldly suffering and oppression with patience and long-suffering, they will too be rewarded eternal life in Heaven when they die. The poor would also identify to humiliation Jesus suffered at hands of Romans even before he died. They would say, “Hey, humiliation that happened to Christ is happening to us. He did nothing to stop it. He endured all pain and suffering with strength, courage, and patience. If we do same in our situation, if we imitate our Lord, we will be rewarded in Heaven. Everything here on earth passes away; it doesn’t matter.” And, they are even forced to recognize and acknowledge fact that they are dominated, ruled, and possessed as a privilege from Heaven.6

Marx would say this hope in cross and in Heavenly salvation are all negative concepts that paralyze and imprison. For him, desire for Heaven made poor content with their situation on earth. It promoted oppression by presenting a belief system (Christianity) that made poverty and misery acceptable and allowed ordinary people resignation to their lot in life. By keeping their eyes on symbolic suffering of cross and staying content with thought of next life, what energies will poor ever put into changing their circumstances?7

Not only does belief in cross have negative connotations, it has evil consequences as well:

The social principles of Christianity declare all vile acts of oppressors against oppressed to be either just punishment for original sin and other sins, or suffering that Lord in His infinite wisdom has destined for those redeemed.8

It is most extreme version of ideology, of a belief system whose motive is simply to provide reasons, excuses even, for keeping things in society just way oppressors like them. For non-oppressed, for those lucky enough to control means of production, this belief system was used to remind poor that all social arrangements should stay just way they are.9 In this sense, religion was ultimate form of control. Again, poor would look to cross for answers: they would look to forgiveness: Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. [Luke 23:34]

Blessed are poor in spirit, for theirs in kingdom of Heaven. [Matthew 5:3]

Blessed are meek, for they will inherit earth. [Matthew 5:5]

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 5:10]

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy’. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in Heaven. [Matthew 5:43-44]10

By adopting this mentality, oppressed would constantly forgive their oppressors, thus giving their oppressors even more reason to persecute them. The middle class would be surrounded by lower class, factory-oriented doormats who, in theory, would permit middle class to walk all over them.

The attitude these Roman citizens held toward Christians in second century A.D. was one of pure hatred. The governor at time publicly announced that they were to be deliberately hunted out and brought before tribunal and city authorities (141). Christians were led into forum where entire city could watch proceedings. The martyrs were then treated with savagery and cruelty and endured every kind of torture city authorities and populace heaped upon them: noisy abuse, blows, dragging along ground, stoning, and imprisonment (139). The whole fury of crowd, governor and soldiers was unleashed at mere mention of phrase ‘I am a Christian’. But why? What I find interesting about popular attitudes that made arrests and executions possible is that in report in Eusebius’ History, Christian community appears harmless. A few of martyrs gave testimony to this:

As such [Vettius Epagathus] found judgment so unreasonably given against us more than he could bear: boiling with indignation, he applied for permission to speak in defense of 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 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 – accusations that were stated with intent to expose something much deeper. According to author of this report, soldiers were known to accuse Christians of “Thyestean banquets” and “Oedipean incest” (141). As horrible as charges may have been, writer claims these accusations were false. We don’t know whether Christian community in second century was in fact guilty of these charges; all we have is author’s account. I believe 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 eventual punishments and deaths: crime 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, Christians deeply offended religious beliefs of Roman population, and so were deemed scapegoats. Many attempts were made to make martyrs swear allegiance to “heathen idols”, but Christians could not be swayed. This infuriated Romans, who would inflict insurmountable cruelty up their captives, almost always to death, with hopes of “avenging their gods” (143, 146-47). This statement alone indicates that Romans were highly offended at Christians’ claim to a higher God, a god who is different than that of Romans. By inflicting pain and suffering on Christians, Romans thought their gods would have their revenge for being rejected. It seems only crime committed by Christians was declaration of their faith:

When they confessed Christ, they were locked up in gaol to await governor’s arrival…[who] treated them with all cruelty he reserves for Christians. (140)

When Vettius Epagathus defended his faith, crowd round tribunal howled him down…and he, too, was admitted to ranks of martyrs. (140)

Pothinus…was conveyed to tribunal by soldiers, accompanied by civil authorities and 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 trial of Attalus, Roman authorities went a step even further. It wasn’t enough just to torment him. They led him around amphitheatre with a placard, on which was written in Latin: “This is Attalus Christian” (145). Not only was this man mocked like Christ, but placard he bore was similar to Christ’s, which read “The King of Jews”. Christ was crucified for political reasons – “King of Jews” implied that Jesus, Christ, was claiming superiority over Caesar, which was considered a political crime in Roman provinces. One could say that Attalus and his fellow Christians were being martyred for same reason – 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 Roman gods. Throughout his report author, someone clearly Christian as his use of “us”, “our”, and “we” made apparent, referenced Roman gods as “heathen idols” (146), which would imply that these gods were wrong gods to worship and Christian God, “the Way”, had supremacy over them. Since Romans were so intent on avenging their rejected gods, it is clear that martyrs’ attitude offended Roman populace. Another attitude I found interesting was distinction being made between Roman Christians and non-Roman Christians. None of martyrs were treated well, that much is obvious. But what is also obvious from text is preferential treatment given to Roman Christians by Caesar: