Constantine's Conversion - Was it Real?

There have been many key events that have taken place in Christianity that have shaped the church and world history. One such moment is Constantine’s conversion in the 4th Century AD. This short essay will examine how sincere and how significant Constantine’s conversion was, based on the evidence of the events around it and after.

Who was Constantine anyway?

This man, who became known to history as Constantine the Great, was born somewhere between 270-285 AD and died 337 AD. Constantine’s conversion brought great change for the Christian religion and for the Roman Empire which he co-ruled from 306 to 324 AD and then ruled outright until his death. To gain a full appreciation of just how significant this event was, it is beneficial to look at the preceding years.

The lead up to his 'conversion'

Diocletian, 40 years before, was the last emperor to rule all the empire. Seeing the Roman Empire in decline, Diocletian sort to bring back Rome to its glory days. He split his power by dividing the empire into two regions; East and West. Each region had a senior Emperor called an Augusti and a junior Emperor called a Caesar.

Extreme and brutal persecution of the church

Diocletian is best known in Christian history for his extreme and brutal persecution of the church. He saw Christianity as a problem that needed to be eliminated. This little offshoot of Judaism had now grown across the empire. In his book, Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Eusebius talks at length and in detail of the stories of those who suffered and died as Martyrs. In all, this intense period of persecution lasted close to 10 years. Only on his death bed in 311 AD, did Galerius, Diocletian’s successor, finally end the persecution, acknowledging that it had not worked to wipe out Christianity. It was in this time that the stage was set for Constantine, himself now Caesar of the West, to rise to power. When Galerius died, the son of another Caesar, Maxentius, claimed the senior Augustus role for himself. Constantine marched back to Rome to challenge Maxentius.

The most common 'conversion' story

There are differing versions about what happened next, but the following seems to be the most common version of the story. On the night before battle, Constantine had a dream and a vision of a cross in the sky with the words, “In this sign conquer”. Constantine had a military standard made for the battle, displaying the first two Greek letters of Christ; Chi-Rho. The next day, the two opposing forces lined up outside Rome at the Milvian Bridge on the Tiber River. Constantine was soon winning the battle and Maxentius began the retreat back over the river into Rome to regroup. In the chaos, however, Maxentius drowned in the river and his army defeated. Constantine claimed that his victory was by the power of Christ.

Constantine march triumphantly into Rome as its new victorious Augustus of the West. He then did something that would have shocked the pagan population. He did not offer a sacrifice to Jupiter in the temple. Instead he sponsored the building of the Church of Rome. He had this church built away from the usual temple area probably to avoid any more controversy.

Religious freedom for all

Constantine, Augustus of the West and Licinius, Augustus of the East came together in 313 AD. It was to celebrate Licinius’ marriage to Constantine’s half-sister and to create a letter we now know as the Edict of Milan. The edict did a couple things. It gave religious freedom for people to worship according to their conviction. It restored property to Christians who had lost it. Churches, as corporate bodies, could now own property as well. Eusebius recorded the Edict in Ecclesiastical History which wrote “…grant likewise to the Christians, and to all, the free choice to follow that mode of worship which they may wish.” The effects of the Edict of Milan were felt more in the Eastern half of the empire where the persecution was longer and more intense.

Trouble in the West

Licinius, a pagan, supported toleration of Christianity at first, or at least went along with it. Bishop Eusebius described him as an imitator of good who eventually threw that off to reveal his true colours. Licinius had turned on Christians, purging his courts and the army of any believers. Constantine confronted and defeated Licinius in 324 AD and became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

Council of Nicaea

Constantine was troubled when he heard about division caused by Arius and his claim that Jesus Christ was not God, but a created being. He pleaded with the church leaders to sort this out as soon as possible. He called the Council of Nicaea where the Bishops came together to settle the issue and bring unity to the church. Constantine’s desire was to “…leave no room for schism or division.”

It is important to note that Constantine did not take part in the vote and decision making of Nicaea. He gave an opening speech which was not recorded, but after that effectively took a back seat until towards the end of the council, where it appears, he forced the members to make a decisive decision.

A new capital: Constantinople

Constantine sort a new capital for his new Christian Empire and established Constantinople, modern day Istanbul. It has been suggested he did this to get away from the embedded pagan culture of Rome and make a Christian capital for the empire.

A new age of salvation?

Bishop Eusebius saw Constantine’s conversion and appointment as Emperor clearly as God’s handywork claiming that he represented the ideal Christian Ruler in which a new age of salvation was being ushered in. This is certainly understandable when a person contrasts how the Roman Empire was before Constantine and how it was after. It is clear that Constantine put is focus on raising Christianity from a minority persecuted sect to the premier religion of the empire. The question is what was his motive? Was it a result of a real conversion or political. As Shelley puts it, “He made purity of Christian doctrine a central concern of the empire.” Others are not convinced. Olsen writes Constantine “…lived as a pagan and died as an Arian”. Some see his ‘conversion’ as a purely political stunt. They suggest he was obsessed and more concerned with unifying the church than with truth of doctrine. For example, after Nicaea, trouble erupted, and he later became convinced that they got it wrong about Christ and he wished to rewrite it.

Looking back

All this being said, most Christian writers of history are not so hard on him and do not question Constantine’s conversion, however, there remains much conjecture over the when, why and how. They recognise that he, like every new Christian must go through a process of sanctification and gradual change. Others recognise that as Emperor, he did not have the luxury of decisions without empire wide ramifications. Therefore, this needs to be made accounted for.

Christian Empire

For good or for bad, Constantine’s conversion marks the beginning of a new era. The Christian church was now the leading moral voice for society and in many ways was inseparable from the state. When the fourth century began, Christianity was a persecuted minority, but by the end of the century it was the established religion of the empire. It was now a Christian Empire. Church leaders were no longer autonomous like before, as Constantine now ruled his Bishops with authority. Church attendance was flooded with half converted pagans who wish to find favour with their new Christian Emperor and the church was now used as a tool of political gain.

It could be said that these new negative traits of the church never stopped, but rather grew in intensity, ultimately influencing even current times. Certainly, they contributed in the formation and growth the hermit-monks and the monastic orders.

Conclusion

This essay has put forward that, regarding the sincerity of Constantine’s conversion, there is no simple answer. Christian’s have looked back on this event with mixed feelings. Some have rejoiced, others have frowned, other still are not sure how to feel. The significance of the event is undisputed. Regardless of his personal salvation 'status', God clearly used him in a key moment in the history of the church. Constantine’s conversion and rise to power marks a complete change in the position and posture of the church. It marks the beginning of a new age of the Christian Empire.

Bibliography

• Elliott T. G. Constantine’s Conversion: Do We Really Need It? Phoenix, Vol. 41, No. 4 (Winter, 1987), pp420-438
• Eusebius of Caesarea. The ecclesiastical history of Eusebius Pamphilus. Translated by C. F. Crusé. London Henrey G. Bohn, 1851
• Gomez, Jose G. The Conversion of Constantine. California State University, Dominguez Hills, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing 2004
• Jones, C. P. Between Pagan and Christian. Harvard University Press, 2014
• Olsen, R. E. The Story of Christian Theology. Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England, 1999
• Shelley, B. L. Church History in Plain Language 2nd Edition. Word Publishing. Dallas Texas, 1995
• Smither, E. L. Rethinking Constantine History, Theology, and Legacy. Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon, 2014
• Wilken, R L. The First Thousand Years. New Haven : Yale University Press. 2012