In many ways,then,the traditional “spiritual combat” of the martyr had come to be externalized.Violent acts could be undertaken to avenge a perceived insult to God or to the church, the deeds of God’s servants enacting the anger of God. Christian zealots employed and understood violence within a broad paradigm of “doing God’s will.”
Aphrahat, an ascetic writer of early fourth-century Mesopotamia, argued that any action pleasing to God could be understood as prayer: “A person should do the will of God, and that constitutes prayer... give rest to the weary, visit the sick, make provision for the poor: this is indeed prayer.” An equation between prayer and good deeds is not particularly unusual in Christian thought, but the scriptural example Aphrahat chose to make his point is worth mention. He referred his audience to Numbers.When Moses was leading the Israelite community through the wilderness of Sinai, one of the Israelites had defied God’s law by committing adultery with a pagan woman:
Phinehas, son of Eleazar the priest, saw them. He picked up a spear, went into their tent, and killed both of them.The Lord spoke to Moses and said, “Phinehas son of Eleazar has turned away my wrath from Israel; for he was zealous for my zeal, so that I will not consume the people of Israel in my anger. He and his descendents shall enjoy the priesthood for all time, because he showed his zeal for God.” Aphrahat commented: “Because he killed them for the sake of his God, it was reckoned as prayer for him.
Optatus,writing against the Donatists in North Africa,used the example of Phinehas to justify the bloody repression of the Circumcellions by the imperial commissioner Macarius in 347. For those who might be troubled by Phinehas’ apparent violation of the commandment “thou shalt not kill,” Optatus had this answer:
Some evils happen for the worse, and some happen for the better. A robber [latro] does an evil for the worse, a judge does an evil for the better, when he avenges the sin of the robber. For this is the voice of God, “Thou shalt not kill,” and this is the same God’s voice, “If a man is found sleeping with a woman who has a husband, you shall kill both.” One God and two contending voices.When Phinehas, son of a priest, found an adulterer with an adulteress, he raised his hand with his weapon, and stood uncertain between the two voices of God. If he struck, he would sin; if he did not strike, he would fail in duty. He chose the better sin, to strike the blow.
It was demonstrated in the strongest possible terms that Phinehas had made the correct choice:God spoke,a miracle that lent legitimacy to Phine-has’ act of violence, sanctifying the deed. It was, in the words of Optatus, a homicide pleasing to God. Phinehas was commonly referred to by other patristic sources as a worthy model of “zeal for God” or as an illustration of justifiable homicide. Bishop Porphyry of Gaza, famous for his role in the destruction of the temple of Zeus Marnas in 402, was hailed by his congregation as a “second Phinehas” against the idolaters. The normal restraints of law and morality did not apply, Jerome argued, in punishing an offense against God: “There is no cruelty in regard for God’s honor.” Quoting Psalm 138, Jerome argued for “hating with a perfect hatred” those who “hate God.” While advocates of “corrective” or “disciplinary” violence, as we have seen, might try to justify themselves with the Gospel’s commands to love one’s neighbors and one’s enemies, extremists who emphasized anger against God’s enemies found much inspiration in the Old Testament.
An even more promising scriptural model could be found in the prophet Elijah,who like Phinehas carried out God’s will when he ordered the massacre of four hundred and fifty “false prophets” of Ba’al. Elijah challenged them to call down fire from heaven and consume their sacrificial offering, to prove which god was mightier.When he could and they couldnot,he convinced the Israelites to destroy them.Elijah had always been recognized by Christians as a prototype for John the Baptist and for Jesus; in the fourth century,holy men and their hagiographers began to take him as a primary model of ascetic virtue. Elijah’s wild and ragged appearance, and his long sojourns in the wilderness, were particularly inspirational to the hermit-monks of the Egyptian desert and the Syrian mountains. The youthful Shenoute, in a vision, received the mantle of Elijah, signifying his future as a great leader of monks. When the Syrian archimandrite Barsauma was finally called home by God, after a long career battling enemies of the faith, a disciple claimed to see a column of fire carrying him to heaven, like Elijah.
It should come as no surprise,then,that Elijah also represented for Christian holy men a model for holy violence, justified by zeal for God. Optatus compared the massacre of rebellious Circumcellions to the slaughter of the priests of Ba’al—in each case, an example of God’s just vengeance. The Alexandrian patriarch Dioscorus said to the monk Macarius,“Elijah is coming out to meet you,because you have been zealous for God as he was,when you brought down Kothos the idol.” Although the bulk of the Panegyric is dedicated to Macarius’ battles against the Chalcedonians, in this passage Dioscorus is made to single out an attack on paganism as the crowning achievement of the holy man’s career.
