On Matthew 6:5 through 6:6

Hello, all!  Welcome to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.  I apologize for my extended absence.  My beloved fiance and I have been spending all of our free time moving into a townhouse that we recently purchased together.  On top of that, we have both been sick.  (Excuses, excuses, I know.) 

To those who don't know, this is an exhaustive study of the Gospel and of the Morality of Jesus Christ.  If this is your first time here, you may want to consider starting over from the beginning of this study by clicking this link.

For those of you who are already caught up, today will mark the end of one of our most significant departures to date from the life and times of Jesus Christ.  We've been studying the epic turning point in history that was the accession of Emperor Constantine, the first "Christian" Roman Emperor.  For the history of the world, and of Christianity in particular, it is difficult to identify many moments in the past that were more consequential.  Follow me, then, as we take a look at our next two Gospel verses and then wrap up our study-within-a-study about the Emperor Constantine.  Happy reading!

------------------------------

Matthew 6:5 through 6:6

5 “When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 

6 But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

------------------------------

Today's verses follow right along with the theme and tone of the last four verses.  In Matthew 6:1-4, Jesus told his followers that to exhibit one's charity and almsgiving to the world in order to be exalted by one's peers negates the positive nature of said charity and almsgiving, and leaves one lacking any meaningful reward for said works.  The glory of good works, he indicated, is a zero-sum thing.  If you pine for and accept worldly glory for your good works, you will receive no Godly metaphysical glory for them.  If you shirk worldly glory for your good works, you will receive Godly metaphysical glory for them.  Today, Christ extends this logic to prayers made in public for the purpose of impressing one's peers and exhibiting to them one's piety.  The concept transfers exactly from almsgiving to prayer: if one seeks and accepts the glory of one's peers for his or her prayers, one sacrifices the metaphysical reward for prayer that could have otherwise been achieved by praying more humbly.

Once more, because of the relative intensity of our "Constantine" project, we are going to forgo our regularly scheduled Greek lesson here and just hit a few bullet points regarding these easy-to-understand verses.  First off, we should note that ancient Jewish tradition included both communal and solitary prayer, so the idea of praying in private wasn't a new concept at the turn of the First Century.  Furthermore, Jesus isn't indicating that anyone who prays in public or in a synagogue is necessarily praying in vain.  A careful reading shows us that the qualifier "so that others may see them" is actually the key here.  Jesus is speaking about a specific group of elitist Jews who clearly only prayed (or gave alms) in order to increase their social standing among their peers.  

Jesus recommends that, in order to be sure that one isn't offering their prayer in vain, one should pray in the seclusion of their "inner room," or bedroom, alone.  He tells his followers that prayers offered in secret will surely be rewarded by God.

It can be said that all of the last six verses point toward the maleficent effect of human ego on human action.  If we pan out a little bit, we can understand these verses to be a stern warning against ego itself; against self itself.  That said, these verses also point to the moral ambiguity of human action.  With both almsgiving and prayer, the actions themselves are not inherently either "good" or "bad."  Instead, it is the spirit behind the action that makes it "good" or "bad."  The spirit behind an action is either egotistical and self-serving, or humble and God-serving, and it is that spirit that defines the morality of an action.  Jesus is simply warning his followers that the ego is highly corrosive.

I would like to note that verse 6:5 today contains Jesus' second use of the word "hypocrites," which we very recently saw for the first time in Matthew 6:2.  Please be aware that, of the people that catch flack from Jesus during his Galilean Ministry, people he sees as "hypocrites" get it the very worst.  We will notice that he has much harsher words and much more frequent rebukes for hypocrites within his own faith (Judaism) than he does for any non-Jews.  In following with the example of Jesus, this study itself aims to take the same course - that is to say that this study is meant, more than anything, to be a fiery rebuke against the pervasive hypocrisy within modern Christianity.  This should already be clear to those who have been with us from the beginning.

Here's today's big-picture takeaway: it doesn't matter what other humans think, and being praised by other humans is an empty luxury.  What matters, in human action, is doing right for the sake of God, or, for our agnostic friends, for the sake of rightness itself.  Those "Christians" among us that are constantly making a display of their supposed righteousness are, in fact, not right at all, and if Jesus were alive today, he wouldn't mind telling them that, right to their face.  The Prince of Peace did not avoid intellectual confrontation of hypocrisy and evil, and acting "right" in order to increase one's social standing is both hypocritical and evil.  So don't be a hypocrite!

Now, back to Fourth Century Rome.

------------------------------

The Emperor Constantine: Champion of Christendom?

Part IV: The First Christian Emperor?

In the Fourth Century AD, Rome was the western world, and the western world was Rome.  From the banks of the Nile to the waters of the Jordan, from the Danube river to the Rhine, up to the English Channel and all the way back down to the Tiber, the influence of Greco-Roman culture was universally felt, and the power of the Empire was universally acknowledged, even by those peoples who had yet to pass under her yoke.  As the saying goes, all roads, indeed, led to Rome.

It is undeniable, then, that the adoption of "Christianity"* as the religion of the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century is what allowed this fledgling faith to become the largest religious system the world has ever known.  The "Christianization" of the the Empire marked the eventual end of pagan belief, and the eventual spread of "Christianity" to every corner of the globe.  Without Constantine's "conversion," there would have been no Roman Catholic Church, and without the Roman Catholic Church, it is difficult to say what form, if any, Christianity would have survived in.  The "Christianization" of the Roman Empire is such a monumental turning point that it is almost impossible to imagine the rest of history without it.  (I'm not saying that without it, we'd still be cutting birds open to divine the future from the condition of their livers, or sacrificing goats to a large pantheon of deities at the behest of ancient mystery cults, but I'm not not saying that, either.)

Last time, in Part III of this study, we followed the arc of the Emperor Constantine's life all the way up to the Milvian Bridge, on the north side of the City of Rome, where we witnessed his decisive, if not miraculous, defeat of the competing Emperor Maxentius.  The Battle of the Milvian Bridge, as we learned, was perhaps the most pivotal moment in all of history, marking the beginning of all of this "Christianization" we've been discussing.  Today, we will look at the actions Constantine took after his victory which ensured that, in modern times, nearly a third of the world's population call themselves "Christian."  This will involve, first, a brief discussion of the remaining civil wars that he fought in order to secure his place as sole ruler of the Empire.  Next, we'll look at his "Edict of Milan," which re-legalized Christianity within the Empire, and extended certain privileges to Christians.  We will discuss the all-important "Council of Nicaea," called by Constantine, which was responsible for homogenizing to a degree what was, up until that point, a diverse array of Christian beliefs, and, finally, we will consider the personal beliefs of Constantine himself, and question whether or not the first Christian Emperor was indeed Christian at all.  This will conclude (for now) our study of the Emperor Constantine and his exploits, and set us up for a subsequent study of the birth of the Roman Catholic Church.  

Let's get started, shall we?

1. Civil War Wrap-Up

To begin, we need to take stock of the men who were calling themselves Emperor on October 29, 312 AD, the day after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.  Constantine was busy parading the decapitated head of Maxentius around the streets of Rome, so we can remove Maxentius from that list and call Constantine the only remaining claimant to the throne in the west.  In the east, as you'll recall, the puppetmaster Emperor Galerius had died in 311, and had left two Emperors in his stead: Maximinus Daia and Licinius.  Our list of Emperors has thus been winnowed, and the belligerents of the remaining civil war have thus been set.

I will spare you the fine details and tell you that Maximinus Daia attacked Licinius' men first.  After experiencing some victories early in 313, Maximinus' army was trounced by Licinius' on April 30, 313, when they were attacked while besieging Heraclea, in modern-day Turkey.  Maximinus escaped and rallied his men for further defense, but the writing was on the wall.  Licinius chased Maximinus to Tarsus where his army kept on with the fight until, in August, Maximinus succumbed to some sort of illness and died.**  (One more Emperor down.)

As we will see momentarily, Constantine and Licinius remained on good working terms for some time.  They were friendly enough to jointly issue the Edict of Milan, a decree which reiterated and emphasized the illegality of persecuting Christians within the Empire.  The relationship quickly deteriorated, however, and the two Emperors began warring against one another in either 314 or 316 AD.  After a short series of indecisive battles, the two came to a kind of truce in 317.  The peace would not last, however.  Around 320, Licinius began persecuting Christians anew, which counted as a substantial afront to Constantine.  The difference of opinion over the status of Christian citizens led to the civil war of 324, which played out as a kind of epic conflict between Christianity and Paganism.  Constantine and his "Christian" forces prevailed, Licinius was eventually executed, and, by 325 AD, Constantine was truly the sole ruler of the Roman Empire, and the most powerful man in the world.

2. The Edict of Milan

Recall that, in the late Third Century, the Emperors Diocletian and Galerius instituted some of the most profound persecutions of the Christian population within the Roman Empire to date.  They purged all government offices of Christians, and kicked all Christians out of the army.  In certain places, Christians were tried and executed for denying the ancient Roman religion and for not offering sacrifice to the ancient Roman pantheon.  Christian property was seized, and Christian scriptures were burned.  Taken together, this period of time is known as the Great Persecution.

The Great Persecution proved to have the effect opposite to the one Diocletian and Galerius had hoped for.  The public persecution and martyrdom of Christians, in many places, actually caused the general populace to sympathize with the Christians.  In fact, awe at the conviction and fortitude of Christian martyrs in the face of torture and execution at that time caused many pagans to wonder at the greatness of the Christian faith.  Never could they have imagined a pagan being willing to die rather than renounce one of their many Gods.  This awe and wonder caused many Roman citizens to convert to Christianity.  Thus, in 311 AD, Galerius officially ended the failed persecution by issuing his famed Edict of Toleration, which did little more than make Christianity legal again across the Empire.  There may have been more behind Galerius' Edict of Toleration than simple admission of policy failure, however.  Remember that this Edict occurred briefly before Galerius' death, and that Galerius asked the Christians of the Empire to pray to their God for his health at the end of his life, indicating, perhaps, a true change of heart (or, at least, mind) on his part regarding the Christians.

Once Constantine had secure control over the western half of the Empire, supposedly thanks to the direct intervention of the Christian God, he decided almost immediately to take the Edict of Toleration a step further.  To do so, he met with the eastern Emperor Licinius in early 313 in what is the modern city of Milan, from whence they issued what is known as the Edict of Milan.  The Edict of Milan reiterated and made permanent the legalization of Christianity instituted by Galerius' Edict of Toleration, and then expanded beyond the old Edict in a couple of ways.  The Edict of Milan assured that a Christian's basic rights as a Roman citizen could not be abridged in any way on account of their faith, and included assurances that Christians had the right to convene and organize churches together at will.  Just as important, the Edict of Milan demanded that any property that had been seized from Christians during the Great Persecution be returned to them immediately.  So it was, then, that Christians went from being personae non gratae to being a favored group, uniquely protected by specific Imperial decree, in just a couple of years.  The Edict of Milan was a windfall for Christians, to say the least, and set the stage for the ensuing "Christianization" of the Empire.

Constantine and Licinius signed and issued the Edict of Milan jointly.  The exact wording of the Edict, sadly, is lost to the dustbin of history, but its effects have been consequential to everything that has occurred in western history since its declaration.  It sent a signal to the entire Empire that there was a new age on the horizon, and that the Emperors did not intend to stop the coming of said new age.

One should note that, although the Edict of Milan was written for the benefit of Christians, and contained language specific to Christians, the Edict did, in fact, promote toleration of all religions, making the practice of any faith legal under Roman law.  Contrary to frequent misunderstanding, the Edict of Milan did not make Christianity the official religion of the Empire.

3. The First Council of Nicaea

A little more than a decade after issuing the Edict of Milan, and almost immediately after his eventual military victory over Licinius, Constantine convened what is known as the First Council of Nicaea, in the town of Nicaea in what is modern-day Turkey, in 325 AD.  The Council of Nicaea was to be the first in a series of "ecumenical councils" constituted by the bishops of all the major Christian communities within the Empire.  Like subsequent ecumenical councils, the First Council of Nicaea was convened to homogenize Christian thought and consolidate Christian authority.  At that time, Christian theology and philosophy remained extremely diffuse and varied, and the Emperor had taken note of these variations and the frequent squabbling and infighting they caused.  If he was going to hitch his horse to Christianity, he needed the Christian community to oblige him by at least agreeing upon some basic religious tenets amongst themselves. If Constantine's conversion was genuine, than one can even imagine him convening the First Council of Nicaea in order to find out for himself personally: "what is this new religion, and how exactly do I follow it?"

As we've said, Christianity at the turn of the Fourth Century was a markedly varied set of religious beliefs.  From one Christian community to the next, one would find different sets of scriptures, different liturgical methodologies, and even different opinions about the nature of Christ himself.  There were groups that believed, for example, that Jesus was on equal footing with "God the Father," and other groups who believed that Jesus was divine but subordinate to "God the Father."  There were groups that believed that Jesus was not divine at all, but totally human.  There were groups that believed that Jesus was entirely divine, and not human at all.  There were still other groups that believed that Jesus was both God and human.  Disparities in theology abounded.  At the First Council of Nicaea, Constantine encouraged Christian leaders to work through some of these disagreements in order to create a more singular version of Christianity.  A candid look at history shows that a singular version of Christianity had never existed before.  

While the council didn't, and couldn't, address every existing point of contention, it did decide on one of the biggest disputes of the time, known as the "Arian Controversy."  Arianists were a group of Christians who believed, as we mentioned above, that there was a difference of "Godliness" between Jesus and God the Father.  The Council of Nicaea decided that the orthodox view for all Christians would be that Jesus and God the Father were "coequal" as a Supreme Divinity, neither being subordinate to the other in potency or import.  By this decision, all Arianists were declared "heretical," and the history of Christian theology was permanently changed.  The Council of Nicaea, a group of mere men living over three hundred years after Jesus, had taken it upon themselves to define the nature of Christ.  A profound precedent.

Aside from settling the Arian Controversy, the Council's lasting legacy includes a list of twenty canon laws for the nascent Universal Church, which included a prohibition against the self-castration of clergy, a prohibition against usury among the clergy, a prohibition against clergy cohabitating with younger women, and laws generally forgiving those who had strayed from the church during the later persecutions of Licinius.  The Council also definitively changed the way Christians calculated the date of Easter Sunday, decoupling said calculation from the Jewish calendar.  Perhaps the most important legacy of the Council, however, was the conception of the "Nicene Creed," a creed designed to firmly define the basic tenets of the Christian faith and to exclude from the ranks of orthodox Christians anyone who did not profess it.  The Nicene Creed will be familiar, in part or in whole, to most modern "Christians."  The original version of the Nicene Creed read something like this:

We believe in one God,

the Father almighty,

maker of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the Son of God,

begotten from the Father, only-begotten,

that is, from the substance of the Father,

God from God,

light from light,

true God from true God,

begotten not made,

of one substance with the Father,

through Whom all things came into being,

things in heaven and things on earth,

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down,

and became incarnate,

and became man,

and suffered,

and rose again on the third day,

and ascended to the heavens,

and will come to judge the living and dead,

And in the Holy Spirit.

But as for those who say, There was when He was not,

and, Before being born He was not,

and that He came into existence out of nothing,

or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance,

or created,

or is subject to alteration or change

- these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.

It is interesting that this, the first "orthodox" Christian creed, doesn't mention any of the things that Jesus asked his followers to do during his Galilean Ministry.  Already by the year 325, it seems, Christianity had generally lost track of the moral prescriptions of Jesus Christ, and was more interested in the deification and worship of The Man, as if he were akin to Jupiter Best and Greatest.  To paraphrase a modern Bible scholar: in just three centuries, Christianity had transformed from the religion of Jesus into the religion about Jesus.  All of this begs the question: if Jesus knew it was so important that his followers profess the correct belief about the nature of his divinity, why wouldn't he have revealed the tenets of the Nicene Creed to those listening to him at the Mount of Beatitudes?  Why would Jesus waste so much breath on "blessed are the meek," and "love your enemies," when what was really important was the profession that Jesus was "God from God, light from light, true God from true God?"

When comparing the words of the historical Christ as they occur in the Gospel to the theology of the Nicene Creed, we are struck by a profound contrast which leads us to a certain unavoidable conclusion.  The First Council of Nicaea, called together and presided over by the Emperor Constantine, was a huge departure from the Holy Philosophy of True Christianity.  The Council represented the first step in what would be the rapid transformation of Christianity into the blood-stained state-religion that became organized Orthodox Christianity.  While many Christians today remember the Council of Nicaea as a monumental victory for Christianity, a careful reading of the Gospel and of history shows that it was actually a death knell for the religion of Jesus Christ.

4. Constantine: The First Christian Emperor?

As we've said all along, history remembers Constantine as the first Christian Emperor, and, perhaps, as the savior of Christianity from permanent obscurity and minority.  Indeed, Constantine did champion Christian causes throughout his reign.  There is no denying that he issued the Edict of Milan and convened the Council of Nicaea.  There is no denying that he commissioned the construction of countless Christian churches across the Empire.  There is no question that he claimed to have had a divine revelation of the Christian God on the night of October 27, 312 AD.  There is no question that Constantine's accession to the throne marked a turning point for all of "Christendom."  But other questions yet remain.

Many scholars have cast different degrees of doubt on the genuineness of Constantine's conversion.  Some historians doubt, for example, that a true convert would have waited until he was at death's door to be baptized as a Christian, as Constantine did in 337 AD.  Some doubt that a truly converted Christian would have allowed a Triumphal Arch in his name to be erected displaying the symbology of the ancient pagan religion, including scenes celebrating pagan sacrifices, as Constantine also did.  Some doubt that a true convert would continue to mint coinage displaying the image of the Roman Sun God, Sol Invictus, up to fourteen years after their conversion, as Constantine did.  The truth about Constantine's personal beliefs will likely never be known.  Still, a more objective truth remains: Constantine's reign marked the beginning of the official Christianization of the Roman Empire, which marked the beginning of the Christianization of the entire western world.  Genuine in his belief or not, Constantine was probably as consequential to Christian history as such figures as St. Peter or Paul of Tarsus.

For our part in the doubt, we can say this: Jesus never once told his followers to "be ready for a powerful warlord that I will personally ordain as ruler of the world three-hundred years from now."  Jesus never said "watch out for further revelations, which I will be revealing through other humans throughout history."  Jesus definitely never said "go and institute a Universal Church as a grand cult dedicated to my worship, and marry it to the most expansive, powerful, and militaristic State apparatus to have ever existed."  To the contrary, Jesus said things like "when someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well."  He said things like "you cannot serve God and Mammon." He said things like "do to others as your would have them do to you." 

Since Constantine was the kind to have his enemies' heads severed from their bodies and displayed to the public, and the kind to consolidate riches and power, and the kind to have even his own son and wife mercilessly executed (as he did in 326 AD), any true Christian must wonder how the philosophy of Jesus Christ can be reconciled with his actions after his supposed "conversion."  If a questioning Christian finds this reconciliation difficult or impossible, than he or she owes it to him or herself to look at the fusion of Christianity and the Roman State brought on by Constantine and wonder: was this really what Jesus Christ was asking of his followers during his Galilean Ministry?  Are power, wealth, and military conquest tenets of the true Christian morality?  If not, than what is to be made of the rest of Christian history beyond the life of Constantine?

Was Constantine the first Christian Roman Emperor?  Or could it be that he was just the first in an unending line of blood-soaked psychopaths leveraging the name of Jesus Christ against his enemies for personal gain?

Could it be that all of western history after the "conversion" of Emperor Constantine has been predicated on deceit?

Like everything else, I believe that a hard look at history tells the story  I, for one, find it unlikely that Jesus was anywhere near the Milvian Bridge on that fateful day in Anno Domini Three-Hundred and Twelve.

But what do you think?

-------------------------

That concludes our study-within-a-study.  I hope you have enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it.

Almost nothing makes me happier than learning about those dang Romans, so you can be sure that we will revisit them many times over the coming years.

Join us next time for more Gospel and more history!  Thank you for reading!

Love.

-------------------------
* Remember that I use quotation marks around words like "Christianity" and "Christian" to call to attention the fact that most things that history calls "Christian" are not, indeed, Christian at all.  In places, I may forgo the quotes for readability.  Just know that, when I use the descriptor "Christian," unless I am talking about Jesus' exact moral teachings, his very first followers, or Leo Tolstoy, I usually actually mean " a group, person or thing that is commonly, but incorrectly, described as Christian."

** Some have proposed that he died of complications from Graves' Disease.
-------------------------

To read what came prior to this, click here.

On Matthew 6:3 through 6:4

Howdy!  Welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ, the most complete Gospel study you will ever read.  We've been at this for quite some time now, but I recommend that new readers start over from the beginning by following this link.

Last time, after discussing our Gospel reading, we completed Part II of our latest "study-within-a-study" regarding the accession of the Emperor Constantine, the first "Christian" Roman Emperor.  Today, we will have an abbreviated discussion of our next Gospel reading before we jump into Part III of our study-within-a-study, wherein we will witness one of the most pivotal moments in all of history: the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.  Gird up your loins, soldier.  There will be blood.

Enjoy!

------------------------------

Matthew 6:3 through 6:4

3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, 

4 so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

------------------------------

An Abbreviated Discussion

Today's verses piggyback directly off of the previous two verses from our last installment.  Remember that Jesus was just explaining to his followers, still in the midst of his "Sermon on the Mount," that to give alms or to follow the law simply so that other people will praise one for giving alms or for following the law does not constitute "righteous" action.  Jesus assured his followers that people who participate in this kind of vain virtue-signalling would reap no spiritual reward for their "good deeds."

Today, Jesus expounds on his point.  In a bit of hyperbole, he tells his followers that almsgiving done with the right hand should be so secret that not even the left hand would know it had happened.  We know that hands are not, in fact, conscious of anything, so this verse is, on its face, not meant to be taken literally.  Here, Jesus means simply to emphasize the point he made in the previous two verses; he intends for his followers to keep their good deeds a secret between themselves and God.  He wants his followers to keep their good deeds so secret that they won't even mentally acknowledge the goodness of their own charity.  Taken together, Matthew verses 6:1-4 emphatically call to attention the self-serving hypocrisy of those who do good in order to be praised by humanity.  These verses suggest a worldview in which one's relationship with the Eternal is one's own business, and in which the opinions or thoughts of other humans mean nothing of consequence to a true follower of Christ.

As we mentioned last time, there are countless examples in modern America of philanthropic action taken seemingly for the singular purpose of augmenting the public image of the philanthropist.  Politicians, Hollywood celebrities, business people and even average Americans consistently make a show of all the "good deeds" they've done for the world through their charity and piety.  Both sides of the political spectrum in America engage in this near constant virtue-signalling in order to make it known to all how "good" they are, and how bad everyone else is by comparison.  As we can see here, the American way, as usual, is not the Christian way.  Jesus speaks about a deeper and higher morality in today's verses, and says unequivocally: "those who pine for the approval of other humans by trying to make themselves appear pious or morally upright will miss out on the spiritual gifts they might have received by ignoring the opinions of others and doing right merely for the sake of doing right."

As is so often the case with Jesus' words, there is next to no ambiguity here.  Jesus says what he means, and means what he says.  That being the case, we'll retire these verses here and move on to Fourth Century Rome.

------------------------------

The Emperor Constantine: Champion of Christendom?

Part III: The Second Tetrarchy and the Battle of the Milvian Bridge

It could be said that all things Roman in the world had their beginnings on the banks of the Tiber River.  Indeed, the ancient mythological tale of the founding of Rome by the wolf-suckled twin brothers Romulus and Remus begins right on the shore of the Tiber.  There, as the story goes, the twin baby boys were abandoned to die according to the will of a certain King Amulius.  In this foundational yarn, it was the Tiber itself, in its deified form "Tiberinus," who saved the boys from dying on the edge of the river.  Tiberinus gave the baby boys over to the protection of a she-wolf named Lupa, who nursed them as her own.  When the boys grew up, they co-founded the city of Rome on the very same river.*  The Tiber marks the spot where Romulus and Remus were abandoned and saved, and where the Eternal City will forever sit.  The physical and psychological well being of Rome in ancient times was always closely dependent on the tremendous natural resource that is the Tiber, and it is no surprise that Romans came to understand the river as divine.

In today's study, history will bring us right to the banks of the Tiber in Fourth Century Rome, a little more than a millenium after Romulus and Remus were said to have founded the city.  We will be heading to a specific spot on the Tiber, about four miles north of the Palatine Hill, where a particular bridge spans 460 feet of the river.  The bridge in question, of course, is the famed Milvian Bridge, first built by consul Gaius Claudius Nero in 206 BC.  It was on this bridge, and on the land immediately to the north of it, that perhaps the most important battle of western history, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, occurred.  The story is fascinating, and will serve as the apex of our study-within-a-study about the first "Christian" Roman Emperor, Constantine.

Today we have three goals.  The first is to understand how the Second Tetrarchy devolved into civil war, positioning Constantine as a leading contender for the rank of sole ruler of the Empire.  The second is to become familiar with the legendary tales about the events of the evening of October 27, 312 AD, the day before the battle.  The third is to walk through the events of October 28, 312 AD, when the forces of Constantine won a decisive victory against those of one Emperor Maxentius in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.  We have a lot of ground to cover, so let's start by seeing what came of the Second Tetrarchy.

1. The Second Tetrarchy (for what it was worth)

Last time, as you'll recall, we wrapped up with the mastermind behind the First Tetrarchy, Emperor Diocletian, tending his cabbage farm in Dalmatia and enjoying his retirement.  What was next for the Tetrarchy?  Well, when Diocletian and his co-Augustus Maximian retired, their respective Caesars, or "junior-Emperors," Galerius and Constantius, immediately assumed the roles of co-Augusti, or "senior-Emperors."  The two vacant junior-Emperor positions were then filled by a certain Maximinus Daia and a certain Valerius Severus, according to the decree of Emperor Galerius.  Maximinus would serve under Galerius in the east, while Severus served under Constantius in the west.  This new quartet of Emperors is known as the "Second Tetrarchy."

We mentioned briefly last time that many Romans were surprised by Galerius' picks for Caesars.  Some of their contemporaries saw Constantius' son, Constantine, as a more natural choice for Caesar in the west, and a man named Maxentius (Maximian's son and Galerius' son-in-law) as a better choice for Caesar of the east.  Many Romans perceived problems on the horizon when they learned about Galerius' selections.  It is little surprise that Galerius' choice of Caesars did, in fact, become a stumbling block for the longevity of the Tetrarchy.  

After Constantine was passed over for the position of Caesar, he travelled to the northern coast of Gaul in order to join his father's impending military campaign in Britain.  The father and son led troops into Britain, all the way to the northernmost parts of the island, where they defeated a people known as the Picts in late 305 AD.  After a winter hiatus from campaigning in early 306, Constantius had planned to continue his conquests.  His plans and his reign as Augustus were cut short, however, when he died of natural causes in July of 306 in the British town of York.

Immediately prior to his death, Constantius recommended to his troops that they unilaterally elevate his son, Constantine, to the office of Augustus in his place.  When the army did exactly as Constantius had suggested, hailing Constantine as Augustus, it was no small slight to Emperor Severus, who had had every reason to think that he was "next in line" for the senior-Emperor position.  This situation highlighted perhaps the biggest weakness of the Tetrarchy: the Emperors had failed to agree upon definitive rules of succession.  There was no "Tetrarchical Constitution" to guide the transfer of power in the event of the death of an Emperor, so the death of an Emperor was likely to result in a run for the throne by multiple contenders.

Upon being hailed Augustus, Constantine sent a message to Galerius in the east explaining that he had been spontaneously promoted by his troops.  He told Galerius that it hadn't been his will to take the position of Augustus, but rather that it had been thrust upon him.  Along with this message, Constantine sent a portrait of himself dressed in the robes of an Augustus.  Galerius was instantly furious, and was only barely prevented from burning the portrait to ashes on the spot.  As anyone might have expected, Galerius had wanted to maintain control of the line of succession, and couldn't bear the idea of Severus being passed over for the senior-Emperor position.  Some pragmatic members of Galerius' court were able to calm him down, and recommended a compromise; they recommended that he acknowledge Constantine as Emperor, but only as Caesar rather than as Augustus.  The title of Augustus could then still go to Galerius' favorite, Severus.  By this compromise, Galerius could avoid immediate war with Constantine, and still empower his man Severus.  Galerius consented and sent a proposal of the compromise to Constantine, who consented in turn.

Word travelled fast, and when Maximian's son Maxentius, stationed in Rome, heard that Constantine had taken the purple, he decided to have a go at at the regal robes himself.  The Praetorian Guard, or the elite Roman army stationed in Rome, hailed Maxentius "Emperor" on October 28, 306.  Maxentius didn't bother to give himself the title "Augustus" or "Caesar," believing that Galerius would eventually acknowledge the son of a former Emperor and legitimately grant him his due title, as he had with Constantine.  Galerius, however, would do no such thing.  As the most powerful Emperor of the now five Emperors, Galerius feared that legitimizing Maxentius' rule would encourage even more usurpers to leverage pockets of military power against him.  Seeing that the Tetrarchy was about to fall apart, and his considerable influence with it, Galerius ordered Augustus Severus to march into Rome and displace the upstart Prince-Emperor Maxentius.

Before Severus arrived at Rome, Maxentius brought his father Maximian out of retirement, making him "Emperor for a Second Time."  (Note that this brings the current Emperor-count to six.)  This proved to be a brilliant move, as many of the troops under Severus' command had once been under the command of Maximian.  When Severus approached Rome, droves of his legionaries defected to the side of their former beloved leader, and Maxentius was thus able to win the day.  Severus was stripped of his royal robes and eventually imprisoned by the forces of the potent father-and-son duo.  Galerius, in the east, was (again) infuriated, so much so that he decided to march to Italy in the summer of 307 AD and deal with Maxentius and Maximian himself.

Unfortunately for Galerius, Maxentius was easily able to use the prestige of his father's name and the promise of large sums of money to turn many of Galerius' troops against him.  As Galerius' approached Rome, it became quickly apparent that he would not be able to dislodge Maxentius.  He wisely retreated, plundering and sacking various Italian towns and cities on his way.  The rule of Maxentius and Maximian over Italy and Africa were solidified by Galerius' retreat.

During the hullabaloo of 307, Maxentius and Maximian reached out to Constantine, still in Gaul, for peaceful terms.  Constantine married Maximian's daughter, Fausta, and Maximian promoted Constantine from "Caesar" to "Augustus."  Wary of Galerius' still considerable power in the East, Constantine didn't directly assist the father-and-son duo in their repulsion of Galerius from Italy, but his marriage and promotion did signify a kind of treaty with Maxentius and Maximian.

Then, in an unexpected and perhaps bizarre move, in the spring of 308, Maximian attempted to usurp total power over Italy and Africa from his flesh-and-blood, Maxentius.  He believed that the troops serving under them would be more loyal to him alone, but was shocked when his assumption proved to be incorrect.  As a result, Maximian was stripped of his title and forced to flee Italy to join Constantine in Gual.  Constantine made Maximian Emperor again upon his arrival in Gaul.

Later that same year, a conference of Emperors known as the Conference of Carnuntum was held in Carnuntum, in modern-day Austria.  This conference, chaired by the retired Emperor Diocletian, officially refused to accept Maxentius' rule.  A new Emperor, Gaius Valerius Licinianus Licinius, or simply Licinius, was appointed and charged with the tall task of displacing Maxentius.  Civil wars and wars against outsiders continued thus until, in 310, the power-hungry Maximian rebelled against Constantine, attempting to take command of Constantine's domain.  Constantine broke off from a campaign against the Franks and chased Maximian to southern Gaul where he defeated him and asked him to kill himself.  In July of 310, the three-time Emperor Maximian obliged Constantine by hanging himself.

By 310, Galerius had fallen ill and was no longer in shape to play any part in the game of Imperial politics.  One of his final acts as Emperor was to legalize Christianity anew in his "Edict of Toleration."  (Recall that Christianity had been illegal, especially in the eastern half of the Empire, since around the turn of the century.)  As Galerius became sicker, he seems to have had a change of heart about the ever-multiplying Christian population.  Six days before his death, Galerius publicly asked that Christians pray for him and the relief of his illness.  Obviously, this was to no avail, as he died in the spring of 311 AD.  Galerius' death marked the total unravelling of what was left of the Second Tetrarchy.

Upon Galerius' death, the Emperor Maximinus Daia, who had been playing Caesar in the east to Galerius' Augustus, went to war with the newcomer Licinius.  While Maximinus and Licinius battled in the east, Maxentius became openly hostile to Constantine in the west, vowing revenge for his father's death.  Constantine forged an alliance with Licinius to pre-empt Maxentius' doing so, which enraged Maximinus, who, in turn, forged an alliance with Maxentius and offered him military assistance.  For a time, any sense of normalcy across the Empire was shattered, and Roman citizens everywhere anticipated the outbreak of terrible hostilities at every moment.  311 and 312 marked a period of almost unprecedented military buildup.  The Church Father Eusebius, in his "History of the Church," recorded it thus:

"... besides these things shields and breastplates were preparing, and darts and spears and other warlike accoutrements were making ready, and galleys and naval armor were collecting in every place. And no one expected anything else than to be attacked by enemies any day."

So it came to be that Constantine consulted pagan seers and augurs about what he should do next.  The omens came back loud and clear that Constantine should refrain from taking pre-emptive action against Maxentius.  Constantine, like several other notable Roman military commanders before him, flat-out ignored the auspices and began to march his troops toward Rome.  As he worked his way down through northern Italy in the summer of 312, Constantine was rewarded for ignoring the omens at every turn.  His troops found victory against those of Maxentius in Susa, Turin, and Verona in turn.  Everywhere he went, Constantine found an Italian population sympathetic to his cause.  Maxentius had fallen out of favor in Italy.  The next critical cities to fall to Constantine during his steady march were Aquileia, Modena, and Ravenna.  He was empowered every step of the way, seers and augurs be damned.  Rome was now squarely in Constantine's sights.

As Constantine approached, Maxentius prepared to dig-in, just as he had when Severus and Galerius had attempted to dislodge him successively.  He stockpiled grain, abandoned the countryside surrounding Rome, and concentrated his troops inside the Aurelian Walls of the city.  He went as far as to order all the bridges across the Tiber to be cut-off, to prevent, or at least slow, Constantine's forces entering the city proper.

In the fall of 312, Constantine's troops set up camp approximately seven miles north of the Milvian Bridge and prepared for a siege.  On October 27, 312, Maxentius went out to attend the chariot races.  At the races, the crowd openly taunted him, shouting that Constantine was an "invincible enemy."  Apprehensive and uncertain how to proceed, Maxentius consulted the oracular "Sibylline Books" - a kind of divination text akin to the I Ching - and was told that "on October 28, an enemy of the Romans will perish."  Maxentius took this to mean that Constantine would perish, and was thereby emboldened to make a move against Constantine in the open, rather than await the oncoming siege as planned.  Further encouraging Maxentius was the fact that October 28 was the anniversary of his having been crowned Emperor.  The internal pressure of the citizens of Rome, the reading from the Sibylline Books, and the omen of his anniversary all led Maxentius to change his tactical plan from "siege defense" to "open war."  Since he had already had the Milvian Bridge cut off, he ordered his men to build a pontoon bridge across the Tiber next to the out-of-service bridge so that he could move his troops to the field just north of that spot and bait Constantine into open battle.

2. A Vision from God?

The battle-lines were drawn, and Constantine prepared his forces to move against Maxentius.  Some of you know what's coming, but here's where it gets crazy.

To the understanding of history, on the morning of October 27, 312 AD, Constantine woke up as he had on every other morning of his life - that is to say that he woke up as a pagan.  The record shows that Constantine was still in the habit of performing pagan sacrifices and consulting pagan mystics in order to divine the future, right up until his supposed "conversion."  It is important to note that there is no evidence that Constantine had ever thought of himself as a Christian up until this point.  It is of the utmost interest, then, when Eusebius writes that Constantine, on October 27, did a kind of about-face by abandoning himself to prayer directed at the Christian God.

Eusebius claims that Constantine spontaneously converted to Christianity while reflecting on his father's many military victories.  (Eusebius is unique among historians in claiming that Constantine's father, Constantius, had been a secret Christian.)  Eusebius' account is too important to gloss over or paraphrase.  He writes, in his "Life of Constantine:"

"Being convinced, however, that he needed some more powerful aid than his military forces could afford him, on account of the wicked and magical enchantments which were so diligently practiced by the tyrant, he (Constantine) sought Divine assistance, deeming the possession of arms and a numerous soldiery of secondary importance, but believing the co-operating power of Deity invincible and not to be shaken. He considered, therefore, on what God he might rely for protection and assistance. While engaged in this enquiry, the thought occurred to him, that, of the many emperors who had preceded him, those who had rested their hopes in a multitude of gods, and served them with sacrifices and offerings, had in the first place been deceived by flattering predictions, and oracles which promised them all prosperity, and at last had met with an unhappy end, while not one of their gods had stood by to warn them of the impending wrath of heaven...  

... Reflecting on this, and well weighing the fact that they who had trusted in many gods had also fallen by manifold forms of death, without leaving behind them either family or offspring, stock, name, or memorial among men: while the God of his father had given to him, on the other hand, manifestations of his power and very many tokens: and considering farther that those who had already taken arms against the tyrant, and had marched to the battle-field under the protection of a multitude of gods, had met with a dishonorable end (for one of them had shamefully retreated from the contest without a blow, and the other, being slain in the midst of his own troops, became, as it were, the mere sport of death); reviewing, I say, all these considerations, he judged it to be folly indeed to join in the idle worship of those who were no gods, and, after such convincing evidence, to err from the truth; and therefore felt it incumbent on him to honor his father's God alone."

Eusebius goes on to describe what is known to historians as "The Vision of Constantine":

Accordingly he called on him with earnest prayer and supplications that he would reveal to him who he was, and stretch forth his right hand to help him in his present difficulties. And while he was thus praying with fervent entreaty, a most marvelous sign appeared to him from heaven, the account of which it might have been hard to believe had it been related by any other person. But since the victorious emperor himself long afterwards declared it to the writer of this history, when he was honored with his acquaintance and society, and confirmed his statement by an oath, who could hesitate to accredit the relation, especially since the testimony of after-time has established its truth? He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.

"Conquer by this."  According to Eusebius, Constantine claimed to have been given an order by the Christian God to wage war against Maxentius under the sign of the Christian "Chi-Rho." The Chi-Rho was an ancient graphic symbol of Christ, still used by some today, which was formed by superimposing the first two letters of the Greek word "Christos."  For those who aren't familiar, the Chi-Rho looks like this:

On the evening of the 27th, Eusebius says that the message was made even clearer when Christ himself appeared in a dream to Constantine and told him to make a physical likeness of the sign he had seen in the sky as a "safeguard in all engagements with his enemies."

The contemporary historian Lactantius has his own similar version of events, as follows, from his "On the Death of the Persecutors:"

Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of CHRIST.

According to Eusebius, on the morning of October 28, Constantine quickly had a standard, or a set of standards, made in the sign of the Chi-Rho.  According to Lactantius, Constantine ordered the Chi-Rho painted on the shields of his army.  Either way, history tends to agree that Constantine marched into battle on October 28, 312 AD under some version of this "cipher of Christ," making him the first military commander ever to do so.

Tradition recounts the ensuing battle as perhaps the biggest vindication of the power and might of the Christian God in all of history.

Let us not slow down here...

3. The Battle of the Milvian Bridge

Finally, we arrive at the critical moment of our study.  On October 28, 312 AD, the forces of Emperor Constantine moved against the forces of Emperor Maxentius on the ground immediately north of the Tiber River near the Milvian Bridge.  Maxentius' army fought under the protection of the old pantheon of Roman gods, while Constantine's forces fought under the sign, if not the protection, of Jesus Christ.

While tradition remembers the outcome of the battle as being the result of divine intervention on the part of the Christian God, the truth of the matter is that Maxentius had placed himself in a nearly indefensible position on the north side of his pontoon bridge.  His troops started out the battle with their backs practically at the banks of the Tiber, leaving them no room to re-group if formations were broken and they were forced to temporarily cede ground.  Thus, when Constantine's cavalry faced off against that of Maxentius, Constantine's riders were easily able to prevail, as their enemy immediately ran out of adequate maneuvering space.  As any military strategist will tell you, a cavalry with no room to ride is worth less to a commander than an infantry in the same position.

Having dispatched with Maxentius' horsemen, driving them either into the river, off of their horses, or back across the pontoon bridge, Constantine then pushed his infantry forward into Maxentius' men, who quickly found themselves pressed so tightly between a sea of swords and the Tiber that they began to panic.  All hell broke loose for Maxentius, as formations broke down and each soldier desperately fought for his own life.  As bodies began to pile up, Maxentius, realizing his folly, ordered a retreat across the pontoon bridge toward Rome.  On the south side of the great river, he intended to make a second stand on more defensible ground.  Maxentius was thwarted by his own weak strategizing; the retreat became a slaughter, as the pontoons were simply not big enough to sustain all of the troops now frantically trying to cross them.  Portions of the bridge failed.  Maxentius' men clamored over one another on the makeshift bridge or dove headlong into the water to avoid the swords and missiles of Constantine's relentlessly pressing legions.  Many drowned in the river, and many more lay dead or dying on the northern riverbank.  All of this occurred mere miles from the spot where Romulus and Remus were said to have been abandoned to die in their infancy.

If Lactantius was right, there is no doubt that the last thing many of these men saw before being hacked down was the Christian symbol of the Chi-Rho painted upon their killer's shield.  So it was that, on October 28, 312 AD, the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, was turned into a god of war, not unlike the pagan gods Mars or Ares.  The Tiber, ever willing, drank in the blood.

Maxentius himself drowned during the retreat, either having purposely dove into the river to swim across, or having been thrown into the river by his horse.  One wonders if he had time to reconsider the Sibylline oracle before he gave up the ghost.  "On October 28, an enemy of the Romans will perish." 

Constantine's victory was decisive, and the battle wound down completely by the evening of the 28th.  Constantine had Maxentius' bloating body recovered from the Tiber and decapitated.  He then paraded the head around Rome in the following days as a symbol of his power.  The head was subsequently sent to Carthage, the seat of Roman power in Africa, as a clear message that Constantine was now the highest authority in the western half of the Empire. 

(Here, one is compelled to wonder about the "Christian" nature of decapitations and head-parades.  When was it, in the Gospel, that Jesus said "sever the head of your enemy from their body, affix it to a pike, and march it around town before men, women, and children?")

As you now know, the reign of Constantine would be the deciding factor in the eventual "Christianization" of Europe and the Empire, and, as history records, the Battle of the Milvian Bridge was the deciding factor leading to the reign of Constantine.  I've said it before, and I will say it again: October 28, 312 AD was among the most pivotal moments in the history of mankind.  The "Christians" you know today might not be "Christians" at all if Constantine's men had never marched on Rome.

Next time, we will wrap up this study-within-a-study by considering the policies and reforms of Constantine, which led to the deformation of Christ's religion and to the formation of what is today errantly called "Christianity."  Tradition and history see Constantine as the "Champion of Christendom."  We will make the undeniable argument that Constantine's rule was, in fact, the death knell for the faith and philosophy Jesus had prescribed to his followers some three-hundred years prior.  Join us, won't you?

--------------

Wowee.  I'm all sweaty from that.  I hope you've been enjoying this deep dive.  I want to thank you for reading this writing, and for sharing it with your "Christian" friends.  I hope to see you next time.

Love.

-------------------------
* Later, Romulus killed his brother for teasing him about the slow-going construction of a wall around the Palatine Hill.  It's kind of a funny story...

-------------------------

To read what came prior to this, click here.

On Matthew 6:1 through 6:2

Hello, all, and welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ.  To the uninitiated: this is an ongoing and eventually exhaustive study of the canonical Gospels of Jesus Christ.  If you'd like to start over from the beginning, you can follow this link.

Last we met, we ended Matthew Chapter 5 and began a study-within-a-study regarding the Roman Emperor Constantine and his conversion to "Christianity."*  Today we will begin Matthew Chapter 6 and continue with the second part of our study-within-a-study.  As per usual, we have no time to prattle on.  Let's get started with our reading.

------------------------------

Matthew 6:1 through 6:2

1“[But] take care not to perform righteous deeds in order that people may see them; otherwise, you will have no recompense from your heavenly Father. 

2 When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward.

------------------------------

Koine Vocabulary

As has become out custom, let's start off by looking at some of the Greek terms behind today's reading.  Today, we'll look at five new vocabulary words or phrases, as well as two words we've already seen before.

The first bit of language we'll look at today is "to perform," which is translated and conjugated from the ancient "poieó."  "Poieó" has a whole slew of alternative translations, including "to make," "to create," "to consider," "to do," "to act," or "to practice."  This word is possibly derived from an even more ancient Proto-Indo-European word meaning "pile, stow, or gather."

The second phrase of interest here is "righteous deeds," which we get from the Greek "dikaiosynēn." We've been over this word briefly before, but, to reiterate, "dikaiosynēn" can alternatively be translated as "justice" or "fulfillment of the law." Given those alternative translations, we may well understand that, in these verses, Jesus was specifically referring to adherence to the Mosaic Law, not just "righteous deeds, generally."  Since he spent much of Chapter 5 re-writing or negating portions of the Mosaic Law, we can also infer that Jesus is now referring specifically to his own new version of said law. We should note that some manuscripts have "dikaiosynēn" replaced with another word, "eleemosunēn," which is more particularly in reference to almsgiving.

The next phrasing we should look at is "in order that people may see them."  The original Greek reads closer to "in front of men in order to be seen by them."  The key words here, "to be seen," come from the Greek "theaomai," which, after some conjugation, can alternatively be translated as "to be noticed," "to be viewed," "to be contemplated," "to be reviewed," or "to be observed."

We learned the word "misthos" last time, but, to review, we get "recompense" from "misthos," which basically means "reward" or "pay."**

Moving into Matthew 6:2, we will take note that the first phrase, "when you give alms," comes from "oun hotan poiēs," which doesn't specifically denote "giving alms" but, in fact, means "when you do it," or perhaps "when you perform them."  It seems to be translated here as "when you give alms" because of the assumption that Jesus was talking about alms in Matthew 6:1.

We get "do not sound a trumpet" from the Koine "salpisēs," which is a verb rooted in the noun "sálpinx" meaning, simply, "war-trumpet."

The last word we need to check out is "hypocrites," which, as you may know, is one of Jesus' favorite words in the Gospel According to Matthew.  (He says it thirteen times!)  We arrive at "hypocrites" from the familiar "hupokrités," which can alternatively be translated as "pretender" or "stage actor."  It is interesting to remember here that Greeks did not revere actors the way some do in modern society.  Stage actors were, in fact, looked down on in Greek society as inherently dishonest and untrustworthy, so it makes sense that "hypocrite" could have come out of a word that also meant "actor."

One final thing to note here about the original Greek is that "reward" in Matt 6:2 comes from the same word as "recompense" in 6:1, that being "misthos."

What Jesus Meant, and Other Notes

Apart from the apparent translational ambiguity of the terms "righteous deeds" and "when you give alms," the meaning of these verses is hard to miss: Jesus is telling his followers that to do right simply so that one may be recognized as doing right is not, in fact, doing right at all.  He implies that right action should be done in pursuit of a greater reward than human recognition, and that one misses out on that reward when one makes a show of their right action.  

It is difficult to read these passages without thinking of any number of modern wealthy "philanthropists" who give away fractions of their fortunes to charitable causes while, at the same time, advertising their donation to the whole world.  Their efforts are not truly aimed at improving the world or helping the needy, but are transparently designed to augment their own public standing.  It is a matter of personal branding or, often, of politics, to them.  According to Jesus, people like this are hypocrites, and their "righteous deeds" are worthless.  Incidentally, I would tend to agree. 

These verses honestly can't bear much more interpretation than that.

One last thing we will mention before returning to Third Century Rome: today's verses are not paralleled anywhere else in the canonical Gospels.  Recall that we have been looking for verses that fulfill the "criterion of multiple attestation" in order to ascertain what Jesus is most likely to have actually said during his Galilean Ministry.  Being that today's verses are not "multiply attested" in the canonical Gospels, it becomes marginally less likely that he actually spoke them.

In the next sixteen verses, we will see Jesus make points about prayer and fasting that are similar to his point here about almsgiving.  It is consequential, then, that the Gospel of Thomas contains a concise teaching of Jesus about "prayer, fasting, and almsgiving" as well.  Since Thomas has a similar - albeit not identical - teaching, we can still say that today's verses are "multiply attested" to some degree, although not canonically, and not as often as others.

The relevant text in Thomas is as follows, from verse 14:

Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will give rise to sin for yourselves; and if you pray, you will be condemned; and if you give alms, you will do harm to your spirits. When you go into any land and walk about in the districts, if they receive you, eat what they will set before you, and heal the sick among them.

And that's it for our regularly scheduled gospel program.  Now, back to Rome.

The Emperor Constantine: Champion of Christendom?

Part II: The Rise and Retirement of Diocletian

Recall that, in Part I of this study, we took a broad look at some of the catastrophes that were besetting the Roman Empire in the Third Century AD.  Plagues, civil wars, wars with barbarians, and unprecedented economic woes created what we described as a "perfect storm" of instability for the Empire.  The office of Emperor was changing hands so rapidly that Roman citizens hardly knew, from day to day, who to call "Augustus."  Historians agree that, in the late Third Century, the Roman Empire was teetering on the edge of absolute collapse.

How did the Empire avoid absolute collapse at that time?  It did so by the efforts of one man: a certain Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus Augustus, or, as we call him today, Emperor Diocletian.  Just as historians agree that the Empire was on the verge of collapse in the late Third Century, so too do they generally agree that the reform efforts of Emperor Diocletian extended the life of the Empire by another century and a half.

Let's take a wide aperture look at Diocletian's reign as Emperor.  Remember that Diocletian represents a critical stepping-stone on the path to the reign of Emperor Constantine, and that we are interested in Constantine's reign because it sets off the official "Christianization" of the western world.  That being the case, we are most interested here in the late Third Century governmental reforms of Diocletian which led to the accession of Constantine in the early Fourth Century.  Today, we'll work to understand the following: Diocletian's accession, Diocletian's policy reforms, including his persecution of contemporary Christians and the formation of the Tetrarchy and, last but not least, Diocletian's perhaps early retirement to, of all things, prideful cabbage farming.

1. The Accession of Diocletian

Before we can get to Diocletian, we need to kill off the three men that preceded him.  We'll get the blood flowing immediately here; in 283 AD, one of the seemingly endless stream of Emperors of the Third Century, Emperor Carus, died by lightning-strike.  (One down.  That was easy.)  Emperor Carus had been Emperor for a contentious ten or eleven months, and, in his place, he left behind two sons, Carinus and Numerian, who would rule briefly as co-Emperors.  Carinus, who had been involved in frontier defense in Gaul, made his way straight to Rome upon his father's death.  Numerian was in the east at the time, fighting the Sasanian Empire, and only slowly began to make his way back toward Rome.  Numerian was reported to have come down with some kind of illness, an "inflammation of the eyes," during his trip back to Rome.  Before he and his entourage got back to Italy, Numerian died.  Some say his death was an assassination, while some assume that his mystery illness overcame him.  (That's two down.)

In the wake of Numerian's death, his generals and tribunes spontaneously hailed a man with the Greek name Diocles as their new Emperor, near a town called Nicomedia, now in modern Turkey.  (It is important to remember that Imperial power was entirely derived from the military during this era, such that the military had become the de facto Emperor-makers.)  At that time, Diocles had been serving as the leader of the "protectores domestici," an elite cavalry force that travelled with the Emperor.  He accepted the purple robes from the soldiers, signifying his accession to the throne, and took on the more Latin name "Diocletian."

One of Diocletian's first moves as Emperor was to appoint himself and a man named Bassus as consuls.***  This appointment was a clear statement of rejection to Diocletian's co-Emperor Carinus, and showed that Diocletian didn't intend to serve as a "second-in-command" to anyone.  It was immediately apparent that a civil war would ensue.  Carinus' forces departed eastward from Italy, meeting Diocletian's westward moving forces in Moesia - in present-day Serbia - for an ultimate battle.  During the course of said battle, Carinus' forces rebelled against him and killed him, subsequently hailing Diocletian as sole Emperor.  (That's three dead Emperors, as promised.) 

Then in complete command of the eastern and western halves of the Empire, Diocletian headed for Italy.

2.  Policies, Persecutions, and Wars Under Diocletian

The problems of the Third Century were no doubt clear to Diocletian, and he appears to have wasted no time in addressing them.  He immediately rallied the legions against the barbarian threats at the frontiers.  Upon defeating Carinus, while en route to Italy, Diocletian waged war on the Germanic tribes known as the Quadi and the Marcomanni.  After having spent a short amount of time in Italy, Diocletian headed back east to wage further war against the Sarmatians in the Balkans.  Repelling the barbarians at every frontier became a policy keystone for Diocletian, and the increased border security was a boon for the Empire, which, as we have discussed, had languished under constant barbarian incursions over the previous century.

On his way out of Italy, Diocletian took the first step toward creating the Tetrarchy (the "Rule by Four Emperors") by elevating an associate of his known as Maximian to the office of "Caesar," or, effectively, "second-in-command."  Diocletian could see that the Empire was in tumult everywhere, from Egypt to the Near-East to the Danube Frontier and everywhere else.  Because of the sprawling size of the Empire, it would be impossible for one man to effectively rule it in its entirety.  It would be far easier for two capable men to split the responsibilities of Emperor in half and rule together.  The concept of co-ruling Emperors was not new to the Romans; many Emperors prior to Diocletian had seen the need to share or delegate some of their power in order to adequately perform their duties.

Diocletian had a keen sense for the religious sentimentality of the Roman people, and shrewdly elevated himself and Maximian to the status of Emperors "ordained by the gods."  In some writings from the period, the two men are, in fact, hailed as gods themselves.  While the other Emperors of the Third Century had been made powerful by their legions, Diocletian and Maximian billed themselves as having been made powerful by none other than the Roman pantheon.  By making themselves nearly divine in the eyes of the Romans, the two Emperors reduced the risk of their being supplanted by actions of the army.

Diocletian headed east to wage various wars, leaving Maximian in charge of the western half of the Empire.  When a successful Roman military commander on the Saxon Shore named Carausius began calling himself the Third Emperor, Diocletian sought to consolidate Imperial power by elevating Maximian to the office of "Augustus," which made Maximian Diocletian's equal, as opposed to his "second-in-command."  History is somewhat vague about how Diocletian decided on Maximian's promotion.  Some think that Maximian, in fact, unilaterally promoted himself, and that Diocletian grudgingly accepted the situation in order to avoid civil war.  Others feel that Maximian was promoted in order to pre-empt his striking a deal with the rebellious Carausius against Diocletian.  Either way, on April 1, 286 AD, Maximian became co-Augustus.

Maximian faltered in his campaign against Carausius, and, eventually, Diocletian transferred command of that particular war to one Flavius Constantius, a man with significant military experience.  Constantius was successful against Carausius, who died in late 292 or early 293.  Soon after, Maximian elevated Constantius to the office of "Caesar," or "second-in-command to an Augustus."  Around the same time, Diocletian promoted a man named Galerius to the same position under himself.  The promotion of Galerius marked the official formation of what is known as the Tetrarchy, or the "Rule of Four Emperors," with Diocletian and Maximian playing the roles of "senior Emperors" and Constantius and Galerius playing the parts of "junior Emperors."

The formation of the Tetrarchy marks the end of The Crisis of the Third Century.  With four capable and cooperating Emperors presiding, Rome was suddenly able to wage simultaneous wars on nearly all of its borders, repelling more decisively than ever the barbarian armies that had been encroaching on it.  The Tetrarchy lifted Rome out of her economic tailspin by re-securing valuable trade-routes and by centralizing government power. 

One significant facet of this centralization of power was the famous Edict on Maximum Prices.  The Edict was meant to be an exhaustive list of goods sold and traded throughout the Empire, along with a maximum price for which said goods could be sold.  Setting a cap on prices was meant to reign in the runaway inflation that had occurred during The Crisis.  The Edict was only marginally successful, if at all, but stands out as a prime example of the kinds of lofty attempts at intensive bureaucratic reform the Tetrarchy was willing to undertake.  Diocletian's Tetrarchy also did much to reform the tax system of the Empire, and instituted a world-class postal system by which the government could communicate at unprecedented speed.  Though only a percentage of the reforms of the time can be considered successful, they were enough to have Romans everywhere remarking regularly that they lived in "a world restored."

In addition to military campaigns and government and economic reforms, The Tetrarchy is famous for its persecution of contemporary Christianity.  Around 300 AD, according to some estimates, approximately ten-percent of the Empire had converted to Christianity, which was enjoying success particularly in urban settings.  In 299, in Antioch, Diocletian and Galerius took part in a ritual sacrificial divination ceremony.  During the ceremony, the haruspices told the two Emperors that they could not divine the future because there were "Christians in the Imperial household."  Spooked, Diocletian and Galerius immediately ordered all members of the Imperial household to perform pagan sacrifices to purify the upper echelons of government.  They also demanded that all members of the military throughout the Empire be required to perform similar sacrifices.  Since Christians were averse to performing pagan rituals, this was an easy way to find and purge them from positions of responsibility.

Galerius is said to have seen political expediency in persecution of Christians, since the Christians represented a liberalizing force for change in an Empire whose subjects were often very conservative.  By Galerius' urging, and that of the Oracle of Apollo, Diocletian became convinced that a universal persecution of Christianity was necessary.  In 303 AD, Diocletian issued the Edict Against the Christians, and slaughter ensued.  Churches across the eastern half of the Empire were razed.  Clergy were tortured and executed publicly.  Holy texts were burned by the thousands.  Universal sacrifices were demanded so that Christians could be rooted out and selected for abuse.  This period of unfathomable bloodshed was known as The Great Persecution.  It marked the strongest anti-Christian movement of any government to date, and lasted until 311 when the Edict Against the Christians was rescinded by Galerius.

History shows that The Great Persecution was ultimately unsuccessful.  Roman citizens failed to get behind the persecution the way Galerius thought they would, and the martyrdom of so many Christians seemed only to embolden the larger Christian population, whose ranks continued to swell.  Because of The Great Persecution, Diocletian's name is synonymous with "evil" to Christians, even today.  Let's remember, however, that to historians, Diocletian's name is still synonymous with "Empire-saving reform."

3.  Cabbage Farm!

After forming the Tetrarchy, reversing The Crisis of the Third Century, initiating The Great Persecution, and engaging in intermittent war with barbarian tribes, Diocletian became ill in 304 AD.  For months, he was forced to stay inside his palace in Nicomedia.  His absence in public caused speculation that he had died.  He reappeared in public in March of 305 looking thin and sickly.  A decision among the Emperors was reached at that time that the Augusti should step down, ceding their power to their Caesars.  Thus, in May of 305, Maximian and Diocletian stepped down, becoming the first Roman Emperors in history to leave office voluntarily.  Galerius and Constantius were elevated as the new Augusti, with Valerius Severus and Maximinus Daia eventually being appointed as replacement Caesars, forming the "Second Tetrarchy."  All of this was engineered by a perhaps power-hungry Galerius, who stunned everyone by not appointing Constantius' son Constantine and his own son-in-law Maxentius as Caesars.

After his teary-eyed retirement, Diocletian moved back to his homeland of Dalmatia.  History recalls him spending his later years tending to a garden where he grew cabbages of which he was quite proud.  When people begged Diocletian to return to the throne in the middle of his retirement, he is said to have replied "if you could show the cabbage that I planted with my own hands to your emperor, he definitely wouldn't dare suggest that I replace the peace and happiness of this place with the storms of a never-satisfied greed." 

World class cabbages, indeed.  It sounds as though The Great Persecutor was allowed an enviable retirement.

Conclusions

When the Second Tetrarchy assumed power, civil war followed almost immediately.  We're going to save the details of that civil war, including those of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, for next time.  For now, consider what we've learned thus far: the Roman Empire nearly collapsed during what is known as The Crisis of the Third Century under the weight of economic calamity, constant attacks by foreign peoples, frequent plagues, and vicious civil wars.  The Emperor Diocletian came to power in the late Third Century and created the Tetrarchy, a governing system also known as the "Rule of Four."  Through the Tetrarchy, Diocletian administered sweeping economic, bureaucratic, and military reforms that are credited to this day as having saved the Roman Empire from what would have otherwise been imminent collapse.  Eventually, Diocletian waned in his personal strength, and was forced into retirement, leading to the formation of the Second Tetrarchy.

As we mentioned, the Second Tetrarchy will unravel almost immediately into civil war between competing claimants to what were now numerous thrones.  At the end of that civil war, only one claimant will remain: the first "Christian" Emperor, Constantine.  I hope you will join us next time when we will investigate Constantine's perhaps half-hearted conversion to the Christian faith and his military triumph over all competitors.  These are literally among the very most important events in all of world history.  It's going to be great!

-------------

And that will do it for today.  Thank you so much for reading and sharing this writing.  I can't wait to see you next time.  Happy studies!

Love

-------------------------
* I say "Christianity" in quotes here because it is clear from Constantine's actions as Emperor that he was not a true Christian, but rather one of the first in an ever multiplying line of false "Christians."  We will talk more about that later.

** "Recompense" seems like a fun word.  See if you can toss that into your regular vocabulary this week.  "Boss, I need a raise.  The recompense you've afforded me is not paying the bills."  I don't think I've ever heard someone use that word in the wild.

*** Remember that the consuls were like presidents or prime ministers.  There were almost always two of them, and they usually only ruled for one year.  Roman year dating was based on the consuls of a given year; one would say "I was born in the year of Brutus and Vulso," rather than "I was born in 178 BC."
-------------------------

To read what came prior to this, click here.

On Matthew 5:46 through 5:48

Hello all, and welcome back to The Moral Vision of Jesus Christ, the most detailed and lengthy study of the moral code of Jesus that will ever be written.  If this is your first time here, feel free to start from the beginning by following this link.

Today, we will be finishing up our study of Chapter Five of the Gospel According to Matthew.  The Six Antitheses are now behind us as we prepare to move into Chapter Six, which continues Jesus' all-important Sermon on the Mount.  We will proceed today with an abbreviated version of our regular study plan, followed by something a little different.

Because of the density of Christ's moral teaching in our readings of late, we've had little opportunity to broaden our aperture to the wider historical Christian context.  Since today's reading is fairly unambiguous, and only stands to reinforce the teaching from Matthew 5:43-45, we will use this as a break in the action to learn a little about the Emperor Constantine, who we discussed briefly last we met.  Consider this an indulgence on my part; as much as I love studying the Gospel in its most narrow context, I would be lying if I said I didn't love studying the broader subject of ancient history at least ninety percent as much.  The Roman Emperors, in all their forms, both evil and admirable, hold a very special place in my heart.

Without any ado, then, let's get started.

------------------------------

Matthew 5:46 through 5:48

46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? 

47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? 

48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

------------------------------

The Usual Koine Greek Section

Let's dive straight into the Greek.

First, please note that we already know the Greek word for "love," that is, "agapaó."  We're also already familiar with the Greek term for "brother," which is "alephos."  "Heavenly" we get from the term "ouranos," which we have also previously discussed.  As we move forward, we will frequently repeat translations of terms we have already studied in order to increase our capacity to recall those terms.

The new terms this week are "recompense," "tax collectors," "greet," pagans," "perfect," and "father."

We arrive at the word "recompense" from the ancient Greek "misthos," which can be alternatively translated as "wages," "pay," "hire," "punishment," or "reward."  In the first sentence of verse 46, then, Jesus is asking "what great reward do you reap by loving those who love you?"

The next phrase, "tax collectors," comes from the Greek "telónés," meaning a "farmer or collector of tolls, customs, or taxes of the state."  As we will come to find out, tax collectors were held in very low esteem in ancient times, especially by First Century Jews in Palestine.  The translation here is quite precise.

The word "greet" comes out of the Greek term "aspazomai" which means not only to "greet," but also "to salute," "to welcome kindly," "to kiss, embrace, or caress," or "to be glad that."  The English word "greet" may not do proper justice to the term "aspazomai," here, and it is helpful to see that this word denotes affection and kindness.

"Pagan" is translated from the word "ethnikos," meaning, simply, "national."  This word is sometimes translated as "gentile," and, in the New Testament, generally refers to anyone who doesn't believe in the Jewish God.  More broadly, it would seem that "ethnikos" might be referring to any foreigner from outside of the Near East, especially any foreigner clinging to the customs and habits of the Greeks.  It is critical to note that the English word "pagan" has roots in the Latin "paganus," which means "rural" or "rustic."

"Perfect" is the English counterpart of "teleios" which can alternatively represent a laundry list of English terms.  Some of the alternatives include "complete," "entire," "without blemish," "omnipotent," "infinite," or "absolute."  A Godly word, indeed.

Finally, "father" is translated from the Greek "patér."  The spectrum of possible translation here is narrow; "patér" usually just means "father."  It is important to note, though, that the Ancient Greeks frequently referred to Zeus, their highest deity, as "patér," or "Zeus Patér," so the word had a divine connotation prior its use in Christian theology.

What Did Jesus Mean?

To understand today's three verses, remember what we read last time we met.  To paraphrase, last time, Jesus told his followers that they are not to harbor hatred in their hearts - not even for their enemies.  He proposed an alternative: "love your enemies."  

Today, Jesus expounds his commandment to love one's enemies.  He says "what good is it to love only those who love you, or to treat with kindness only those who you consider to be your brother?  Even the least moral among us, the tax collectors and the Gentiles, do these things.  We must strive to a higher morality than this."

These words are again, like so many of the words in the Sermon on the Mount, unambiguous.  They can only be taken one way.  Jesus, here, is merely reinforcing what he said in the previous verses.  His followers are to aspire to a higher morality by loving all other humans - even those that act as their enemies.  He offers no exceptions.  

Jesus doesn't say "love your enemies, unless you feel they are threatening your property or life."

Jesus doesn't say "love your enemies, unless they are of a different religion than you."

Jesus doesn't say "love your enemies, unless they are champions of a pro-choice, LGBT agenda."

Jesus doesn't say "love your enemies, unless they fly planes into your buildings."

Jesus says, without exception, "love your enemies."  And then he doubles-down on it.

This commandment is one of the most important and potent commandments of the Christian moral code.  It informs almost every aspect of our social lives, and carries the promise of immediate and long-lasting relief from the ills and pains of society.  We will revisit this commandment again and again.  I cannot stress enough its primacy in Christ's teaching.

--------

Now for a departure from the immediate context of our readings, into the Third Century AD.  Buckle up.

The Emperor Constantine: Champion of Christendom?

Part I: The Crisis of the Third Century

The defining moment of the life of Emperor Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus, known briefly as Constantine, occurred during the night of October 27, 312 AD.  On that evening, Constantine was preparing the Roman troops in his command to march against the Roman troops under the command of Emperor Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius, or, henceforth, Maxentius.  As Constantine's men sharpened their blades and polished their armor that evening, he is said to have had a miraculous celestial vision telling him to conquer by the sign of the Christian cross.  On the following morning, Constantine is said by some sources to have instructed his soldiers to paint the Christian cross on their shields, per his vision.  That day, with his men's shields decorated with large crosses, Constantine led his forces to an epic victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, a battle that would leave Constantine sole ruler of the Western Roman Empire and the most powerful man on the planet.  It was on that day that the official Christianization of the Roman Empire began, changing the course of history forever.

We will talk more about the events of the night of October 27, 312 AD, and of the battle that followed, in Part III of this study.  Here in Part I, we are going back in time to discuss the "Crisis of the Third Century" that led up to the reign of one Emperor Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus, or Diocletian as we know him today.  In Part II, we will discuss some of the actions this Diocletian took while in power to end the Crisis of the Third Century, including the formation of a new form of government called a "tetrarchy."  We will discuss how Diocletian's novel form of government ultimately failed and led to civil war between the competing Emperors Constantine and Maxentius, culminating in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.  After discussing that battle in detail in Part III, we will spend Part IV looking at the reign and reforms of Emperor Constantine, and the lasting effect that they had on the whole of history.

The Crisis of the Third Century can be described most succinctly as the near total collapse of the Roman Empire which occurred in the middle of the Third Century AD.  The period was struck through with severe economic depression marked by runaway inflation, civil wars leading to constant changes in leadership at the highest levels of government, invasions of barbarian peoples, and outbreaks of various deadly infectious diseases.  Today, let us start our study by briefly discussing each of these main contributors to the Crisis.

Mutually Compounding Factors of the Crisis of the Third Century

1. Economic Woes Caused by Hyperinflation and Disruption of Trade Routes 

Due to a number of factors, some of which will be shortly made clear, Roman Emperors were increasingly dependent on their armies as the primary source of their power in the early Third Century.  This increased dependence was adequate leverage for the Legionaries to extract substantial pay-raises and bonuses from their leaders.  Unfortunately for the Emperors at that time, the Empire was struggling financially, and couldn't exactly afford the increased expenditure on the Legions.  In order to make good on the increased payments, the Empire began debasing its currency - that is to say that the Empire began manufacturing coinage that had increasingly less precious metal in it than its titular value suggested.  People in the Empire were savvy to this debasement, and prices for everyday goods skyrocketed as Roman currency was understood to be worth less and less throughout the Third Century.  The value of Roman currency was further eroded by the tendency of the population to hoard the older, more pure coinage, and to generally only spend the newer debased coinage.

As we will see, the Third Century was marred by civil unrest.  That unrest, in addition to the devaluation of Roman currency, led to a near halt of trade across the Empire's vast internal trade network.  Without a dependable coinage, it had become difficult to reliably turn a profit on long distance trading, and, because the Legions at this time were often busy fighting one another or tamping down internal rebellions, many of the most important trade routes were no longer secured by an effective military force.  The physical movement of goods across the Empire became much more difficult and less profitable at this time.

Many of the citizens of the Empire were reduced to barter economy for want of a reasonable currency, and subsistence farming became commonplace among people who had previously been able to make fortunes on long distance trading.  The quality of life for vast swathes of the Empire dipped significantly because of these economic factors, and made the possibility of civil unrest that much more likely.

2.  Civil Wars

During the Third Century, power changed hands from Emperor to Emperor rapidly.  There were no accepted rules of Imperial succession, so the throne went to whoever could wield enough military power to take it.  The Senate was marginalized, and could do little to arrest the political chaos.  The best example of these rapid changes in leadership is the year 238 AD, the infamous "Year of the Six Emperors," during which six separate men were successively recognized as sole ruler of the Empire.

Since power was up for grabs to the strongest of the military strong men, civil war among various Roman military commanders became rampant.  In a fifty year period, there were at least twenty-six different claimants to the throne.  The citizens of the Empire became used to Roman warlords fighting Roman warlords.  They became used to hailing the victorious of these warlords as their new Emperor.  Instability at the highest echelons trickled down into the whole Empire; all things in business and government were subject to change on a constant basis, and the certainty of the Pax Romana was a distant memory.  As we mentioned above, the constant civil war was a contributing factor to the impetus to increase the salary and bonus structure of the armies, which sped up the economic deterioration of the Empire.  The distraction of civil war from defensive affairs also contributed to said deterioration.

3.  Encroachment of Barbarian Tribes 

Because the armies of the Empire were busying themselves with the work of fighting one another in the name of this warlord or that, they had less and less time to patrol the frontiers of the Empire than they had in the past.  The frontiers were about as long as they had ever been in the Third Century, and border security was a monumental task critical to the stability of life in much of the Empire.  In the Third Century, Rome failed miserably at this task.

One of the two areas most at risk of incursion was the border formed by the Rhine and the Danube rivers.  Due to the negligence of the Roman contenders for power, various tribes of foreigners were allowed to make constant gains in this region throughout the century.  Goths, Vandals, Carpians, and Alamanni had victories crossing this frontier and sacking Roman cities that had once enjoyed peace of mind through the security of the Legions.  The eastern frontier of the Empire at this time also faced an increasing existential threat in the form of the Sasanian Persian Empire, which was annexing strategically important cities there.  The disruption of civil affairs in these areas increased the Empire's reliance on military might for control, and added to the breakdown of trading routes, both of which compounded the economic collapse and increased the likelihood of further internal strife and rebellion.

You can see how a "perfect storm" of mutually compounding factors is taking shape here...

4.  Disease 

Two significant plagues played major roles in the cause and continuation of the Crisis of the Third Century.  The first is known as the Antonine Plague, which occurred at the tail end of the Second Century.  The second was the Cyprian Plague, which occurred between 249 and 262 AD.

The Antonine Plague is suspected by modern scholars to have been either smallpox or measles, and appears to have been brought into the Roman Empire from the Near East by Legionaries returning home from war.  The Antonine Plague did much to set the stage for the Crisis of the Third Century by putting significant stresses on the Roman military apparatus and economy, making in-fighting and instability more likely.  The plague was responsible for upwards of five million deaths.  Cassius Dio describes the plague briefly in his History of Rome as follows:

Moreover, a pestilence occurred, the greatest of any of which I have knowledge; for two thousand persons often died in Rome in a single day. 

The later Cyprian Plague is suspected to have been smallpox or pandemic influenza, and was recorded in detail by the early Church Father Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage.  The Cyprian plague is named as such because of Cyprian's dutiful record of it.  Cyprian described the symptoms of the plague thus, in his De Mortalitate:

...now the bowels, relaxed into a constant flux, discharge the bodily strength; that a fire originated in the marrow ferments into wounds of the fauces; that the intestines are shaken with a continual vomiting; that the eyes are on fire with the injected blood; that in some cases the feet or some parts of the limbs are taken off by the contagion of diseased putrefaction; that from the weakness arising by the maiming and loss of the body, either the gait is enfeebled, or the hearing is obstructed, or the sight darkened...

Brutal stuff.  Whereas the Antonine Plague was said to be killing two-thousand per day in Rome, the Cyprian Plague was said to claim, at its apex, five-thousand per day in the Eternal City.  Millions died, and the Roman Empire was nearly brought crumbling down as the plague further aggravated every other factor of decline apparent during the Crisis of the Third Century.

The.  Perfect.  Storm.

Conclusions

The century leading up to the rule of the first "Christian" Emperor, Constantine, was indeed fraught with turmoil and upheaval.  A series of missteps and tragedies paved the way to the miserable Crisis of the Third Century, and it is not possible to point to any one component of the chaos as the ultimate culprit.  Plague, internal unrest, external threats, and economic catastrophe all worked in tandem to create perhaps the darkest period of time in Roman history.  

The pertinence of all of this to our study will be shortly self-explanatory, but we will lay it out here to be thorough.  Without a Crisis of the Third Century, there would have been no Emperor Diocletian.  Without an Emperor Diocletian, there would have been no Tetrarchy.  Without a Tetrarchy, there could have been no Emperor Constantine, and, without an Emperor Constantine, there is no telling whether or not there would have ever been a "Christian" Roman Empire.  

Next time, we will learn why Diocletian is generally credited as having ended the Crisis of the Third Century and as having saved the Roman Empire from imminent collapse, extending her longevity for another century and a half.  We will also learn why some Christians still shudder with fear and disgust today when they hear the name "Diocletian."

------------

Ok, that does it for today.  Thank you so much for reading and sharing this writing.  Your time and attention mean the world to me.  Do join us next time for Part II of our study-within-a-study, plus more Gospel reading.

Love.

-------------------------

To read what came prior to this, click here.