Chapter 15: Causes of Roman Persecution

The Roman Empire, famed for its political ingenuity and civic order, could not comprehend a kingdom not of this world. Its persecution of Christianity sprang not from blind cruelty, but from a complex tangle of policy, piety, suspicion, and superstition. The Roman state, with its pantheon of gods and its cult of Caesar, found the Church an intolerable anomaly — a body simultaneously apolitical and yet unyieldingly universal, peaceful yet spiritually subversive. This chapter surveys the causes — imperial, popular, and economic — that combined to provoke the Empire’s prolonged assault on the infant Church.

The Roman State and Christianity

At first glance, Rome appeared unusually tolerant for an ancient power. Conquered peoples were generally permitted to maintain their religious customs, provided they did not disrupt imperial unity or offend Roman dignity. Jews, since the days of Julius Caesar, enjoyed legal protections and were even allowed to worship freely in the capital itself.

Christianity initially benefited from this tolerance, being perceived as a Jewish sect. Paul, using his Roman citizenship, traveled widely under imperial protection. The proconsul of Corinth refused to intervene in Christian matters, seeing them as internal disputes among Jews. For decades, even prominent Roman authors — Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius — dismissed the Christian movement as a minor superstition, unworthy of serious attention.

But the rapid growth of the Church forced a reevaluation. Once recognized as a new religion — and worse, a religion claiming universal truth and authority — Christianity was labeled religio illicita, an unlawful and treasonous cult. Rome’s judgment was summarized in the chilling charge: “Non licet esse vos” — “You have no right to exist” (Tertullian, Apologeticus 4).

Roman Religion as a Political Instrument

To understand the severity of the Roman response, one must grasp the fusion of religion and state. The Roman Empire was not secular. Its gods were guardians of civic order, its priests servants of the public treasury, its temples signs of imperial favor. The emperor himself, as pontifex maximus, was not only the head of the state but also an object of divine honor.

The success of Rome’s armies was attributed to its piety. Statues of Jupiter Capitolinus led the legions. The Vestals, the Augurs, and the whole apparatus of state religion undergirded the sense that Rome’s authority was divinely sanctioned. As Cicero taught, no foreign deity could be worshipped unless sanctioned by public law.

Maecenas, adviser to Augustus, urged the emperor: “Honor the gods according to ancestral custom, and compel others to do the same. Punish those who introduce foreign religions.”

Thus, when Christians refused to sacrifice to the emperor, rejected the Roman gods, and proclaimed Jesus as the only Lord, they undermined not merely Roman religion but the imperial fabric itself. Christianity’s exclusivity — its refusal to bow — was political heresy.

Obstacles to Tolerating Christianity

Despite Roman claims to broad-mindedness, tolerance had its limits. Christianity could not be absorbed into the imperial cult as other foreign religions had been. It was not a tribal tradition nor a local superstition; it was a global faith, uncompromising in its claims.

Unlike Judaism, it made Gentile converts in vast numbers. Unlike paganism, it rejected syncretism. Christians would not burn incense to Caesar, would not swear by Jupiter, would not celebrate public festivals that involved idolatry. Their allegiance was spiritual and eternal — an affront to the temporal authority of Rome.

Tertullian wryly noted the inconsistency: all false gods were tolerated, but the one true God was outlawed. To Rome, Jesus was not merely crucified under Tiberius; He had founded a rival kingdom — spiritual, yes, but dangerously universal.

The reign of Constantine would later prove this point: tolerating Christianity spelled the end of the Roman state religion.

Social Suspicion and Popular Hatred

Roman officials were not the only persecutors. The common people, steeped in polytheistic superstition, feared the Christians. Their refusal to honor the gods, their secret gatherings, and their strange rites bred suspicion. Rumors circulated of cannibalism, incest, and dark orgies at Christian “love-feasts.” These slanders, though baseless, stuck.

Calamities such as droughts, floods, and plagues were blamed on the “atheists” — those who denied the gods. In North Africa, the cry arose: “If the rain does not fall, blame the Christians!” The mob needed scapegoats, and the Christians were conveniently available.

Economic Motives for Persecution

Not least among the causes of persecution was economic interest. Pagan religion supported a vast network of temples, idols, sacrifices, festivals, and associated trades. Priests, sculptors, silversmiths, fortune-tellers, and entertainers all derived income from the worship of the gods.

As Christianity spread, idolatry declined — and with it, the profits of these industries. Like Demetrius the silversmith in Ephesus, many incited the populace against the Christians for threatening their livelihood. Financial gain and religious zeal merged into a combustible force of opposition.

The Verdict of History

In retrospect, Rome’s opposition to Christianity was both rational and doomed. It understood — rightly — that the gospel was more than a private belief; it was the seed of a spiritual empire destined to outlive all Caesars. What it failed to see was that no sword could silence truth, no edict restrain the Holy Spirit.

The causes of Roman persecution were manifold — political, religious, economic, social — but all sprang from one root: Christianity’s irreconcilable difference. It would not conform, and it could not be ignored.

And so, Rome did what all empires do when threatened: it struck. But it struck in vain. For in persecuting the Christians, it sowed the seeds of its own spiritual defeat. The cross, once a symbol of state power, became the sign of a new dominion — not of coercion, but of conscience; not of death, but of resurrection.

This entry was posted in 2. Ante-Nicene (101-325 AD). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.