 |
Constantine Depicting Sol Invictus or Apollo
Inscription: SOLI INVICTO COMITI
|
When
we look specifically at Constantine, we see things that appear the antithesis
of Christian behavior. At times Constantine seems a walking contradiction. The
first is the story of the “sign of the cross” mentioned by early Christian
author Lactantius. This cross used by Constantine and his troops appears to
have been a hybrid adaption of an existing Roman cavalry standard that was more
associated to Zeus, not Jesus or the God of the Bible. It is also mentioned
that the vision he saw was not the Cross but that of the Sun god Sol. Therefore his supposed miraculous
conversion to Christianity and generosity towards Christians did not prevent
him from supporting other aspects of pagan religions. Constantine also retained
his title Pontifex Maximus which was
pagan. He did virtually nothing to stop the imperial cult. We saw the execution
of men that made power grabs or claims to his throne which is clearly not a
fruit of the Spirit. Coins minted during the early portions of his reign kept
images of the Sol Invitcus or
unconquered sun along with images/symbols of other pagan beliefs (Cairns 120,
Davidson-Birth of the Church 345,
Davidson-Public Faith 19).
If there
is truth to be believed when it comes to Constantine’s conversion it must be
tempered with the thought that the Sun god was his personal protective pagan
deity and this may have influenced his thought processes. It is not a far
stretch to connect Malachi 4:2’s “the sun of righteousness” and the pagan Sun
god in a new converts mind (ESV Minister's Bible 735). In defense of
Constantine, it should be noted that the idea of “a sign spreading out in the
heavens” also has Christian origins too, it is found in the Didache more commonly known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Nicholson
313). Even more fascinating is we see that these ideas contained in the Didache find corroboration in documents
like the Apocalypse of Elijah and the Apocalypse of Elijah. This thereby
possibly requires that we observe Constantine’s vision and subsequent behavior
though an apocalyptic lens because it would entail ideas of an ushering in of
the Kingdom in an eschatological manner as is the case in Christian
eschatological thought (Nicholson 313). Did Constantine view the need of this
victory at the Milvian Bridge in an eschatological manner? As a believer, did
he believe that he was helping usher in the Kingdom of God? In light of this,
more questions arise: Did God orchestrate this in a divine manner to perpetuate
the actual expanding of the Kingdom through true Christendom? Is this the
manipulative work of a leader that wished to capitalize on apocalyptic fervor or
God actually sovereignly intervening - or is it both/neither? Having had some
exposure to the Christian faith previous to the Milvian Bridge it is quite
possible Constantine saw this episode in an apocalyptic light.
One
last issue that should be mentioned is that Constantine didn’t receive a
Baptism until his dying days. This though is not surprising or that far out of
step with practices of the time which was to postpone baptism until one was
sure another was in the faith with was evidenced in the catechumen. Since
Christian dogma does not seem to have solidified on this matter by the time of
his death it is not surprising to see Constantine portrayed as a catechumen in
Eusebius’ narrative of him (Davidson, Public
Faith 42). Constantine after his late baptism refused to wear the imperial
purple and for the remainder of his life dressed in his white baptismal robes
(Shelly 95).
Due
to some of these extenuating factors it is easy to see why some believe
Constantine’s conversion was dubious at best or a product of political expediency
(Cairns 119). Although these shortcomings show Constantine in a poor light, it
is clear Constantine was not a political novice or incompetent ruler. He seemed
intelligent and has past history to draw off of to help gauge his decisions. He
would’ve been able to see the foolishness of enforcing unpopular and impactful
mandates. History had shown that unreasonable or impetuous Roman emperors
usually ended up dead or assassinated. Constantine having a track record of
prudent decision making appears to have eased the Christian faith into the
empire through a series of carefully arranged declarations. He didn’t so much command as much as he convinced people through subtle
involvement that incorporated Christianity and the secular via councils, creeds
and canon. Is this not the call of a true Christian leader? Teaching patiently
with a gentleness of spirit? Constantine may have been hostile with usurpers
but within the context of the Church he was gentle if not benevolent. This
demanded of him a consistency of character though time towards the Church. This
perhaps is another evidence of a lasting change favorable to Christian
conversion. In light of this profound impact, by the time of Theodosius I in
380 (50 years after Constantine’s death) we see Christianity instituted as the
state religion (Cairns 120; Shelly 96).
The
truth is, it’s impossible for a man to judge another man’s heart. We can only
rely on their actions and words to gauge whether or not a person truly has the
Spirit of Christ in them as this is the only gauge for us to match people up
against Scripture. Herein lie the premise for my conclusion.
In
the end, Constantine’s inner faith, just like everyone else’s remains
unknowable except to God. It is clear that regardless of his motives, Christianity
benefited thereafter enormously. Although it is not fully evident what happened
at the Milvian Bridge on the Tiber River, what is clear is that something took
place that literally changed the course of history. A leader clearly
outnumbered succeeds in defeating a superior foe and Christianity benefited
because of it.
At
least momentarily there was a conviction great enough for Constantine to
believe that he could defy odds and gain a victory through or because of
something directly related to Christ or Christianity. It is a remarkable fact
that the underling impetus for a massive swing of history stemmed from
cuneiform or Christian-like origins, regardless of whether Constantine
premeditated it or not (Nicholson 323). This brought at least some glory to God
through the mostly unmolested spread of the Christian faith directly afterwards
(at least for a while). To me this is a striking parallel to the story of
Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel. Whether by volitional action of the participant or
involuntary action we see history move forward to the ends that God determines.
I believe this is one of the keys to seeing the truth of Constantine’s
conversion. I suppose what we see in Constantine is probably a true Christian
man with a great deal of power and wealth…and also a large amount of human
foibles and entrenched sin like Solomon. I believe Constantine may very well
have accepted the Lord but did not allow the Holy Spirit to transform his walk
the way it could have. To me the question isn’t so much: Did he convert? The
question I believe is more properly framed: How much or to what degree? The
scope of this paper can only superficially skim the surface of many of the
complex issues presented to us about the conversion of Constantine. We see that
he did certain things that could potentially be construed as fruits of the
Spirit and signs of an inward conversion. There are also things that show a
lack of faith and do not reflect the Spirit of Christ very well, if at all.
This I believe is the dividing line between whether a genuine conversion did or
did not take place. Having said this it leaves us as humans to decide from what
we can observe empirically whether or not Constantine had a true conversion or
pretended to have one for political ends.
Having
researched and observed the evidences available, I need to conclude
Constantine’s conversion was legitimate. It is likely that Constantine had the
power of a Sovereign God in his life directing his paths and assisting him but
like Biblical kings we see evidences of his sinful nature coming out and
causing him to stumble at different point in his life. This is the inevitable
nature of man that does not walk closely with God after conversion.
Sanctification is a joint process between God and man. If man drifts away from
God, this sanctification process can stall or even regress. I believe this is
some of what we see with Constantine’s poor or glaring unchristian behavior(s).
Regardless of motive, it is clear Constantine helped move the Christian faith
into prominence in the following centuries. The linchpin of all these events is
Constantine’s conversion. Whether this took place at the Milvian Bridge or
before it is irrelevant. It is God working through people that is the issue
here. We know as Christians that a sovereign God will make all things the way
He wants them anyway. In the long-view, Constantine’s conversion and subsequent
edicts and mandates affected history so profoundly that we still feel their
effects today. Some effects were negative but many were quite positive. It is
my hope that Constantine did convert and find glorification in Christ. This is
the same wish I have for all humanity. To me every soul matters, even those of
antiquity as they all bring glory to the timeless Sovereign God that I believe
in now. Besides, I look forward to the chance to speak with him (among many
others) when I reach glory myself.
Bibliography
Cairns, Earle
Edwin. Christianity Through the
Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan Pub., 1996. 150-155. Print.
Davidson, Ivor
J. A Public Faith: From Constantine to
the Medieval World, A.D. 312-600. Ed. John D. Woodbridge & David F.
Wright. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005. Print.
Davidson, Ivor
J. The Birth of The Church: From Jesus to
Constantine A.D. 30-312. Ed. John D. Woodbridge & David F. Wright.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2005. Print.
Hurlbut, Jesse
Lyman. The Story of the Christian Church.
Latest rev. ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 1970. Print.
Leithart, Peter
J.. Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of
Christendom. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2010. Print.
Nicholson,
Oliver. "Constantine's Vision of the Cross." Vigiliae Christianae
54.3 (2000): 309-323. JSTOR. Web. 9 June 2012.
Malachi. ESV Minister's Bible. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2009. Print.
Shelley, Bruce
L.. Church History in Plain Language.
Updated 3rd ed. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2008. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment