From Territorial Power to Spiritual Rule: Christianity’s Political Dimension

The origins of Judaism can be traced back to Ancient Egypt, when Amenhotep IV imposed his monotheistic religious reform and became Akhenaten IV (1352–1335 bc).² The new cult did not survive its creator, but a century later, it very likely inspired the Jews’ famed leader, Moses, who in his younger years had been an Egyptian prince.³ However, Judaism was not only a religion, as it featured a political and a legal dimension as well, which is why the famed Torah contains legal aspects in addition to religious ones. Concretely, its first five books (the Pentateuch), the most important for the Jews, contain rules aimed at allowing early Hebrew society to become the Kingdom of Israel after its flight from Egypt.⁴ The best-known law, of course, is that of the Ten Commandments, said to have been bestowed by Yahweh upon Moses on Mount Sinai (Exodus 20:3–17; Deuteronomy 5:7–21), but this is not the only one appearing in the Biblical text. Scholars (Wright 2009, 91–120), detect Babylonian influence on the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 20:22–25, 33), a code of laws and customs, featuring religious norms (condemning false gods and regulating celebrations and clerical statutes), social norms (regulations of slavery) and penal ones (the death penalty for cases of murder, punishments for beatings or injuries, robbery and rape; indemnification for damages, etc.)⁵

Despite the fact that modern research has concluded that the oldest portion of the Bible, the Pentateuch, was composed by different authors from different periods (Van Seters 2003, 3), the important point for us is that the laws included in the sacred book came to form the basis of Jewish civilization, allowing the Jews to survive as a people for 18 centuries, without a homeland, dispersed throughout the world. In spite of the “Diaspora” the Jewish people were able to maintain their religion and their laws, even without a fixed territory. The Jews constitute a unique illustration in history of how religion can serve as the instrument through which a society is structured and the source of its law.

Jesus Christ was a Jew belonging to 1 of the 12 tribes of Israel, although he did not form part of the intellectual elite, neither a Pharisee nor a specialist in the Torah. Nor did he live in the capital of Jerusalem, but in Galilee, i.e., a provincial area.⁶ Nevertheless, possibly after a period spent in the desert surrounding the Dead Sea, in one of the monastic communities—it is speculated that he might have spent time with the Essenes (Broshi 2004)—which studied the Jewish religious tradition,⁷ Jesus decided to spread his version of Judaism. To do so he did not address the learned class of the Pharisees, or the reactionary Sadducees, nor, of course, the chief priests of the Temple of Jerusalem, founded by Solomon, guarantors of the strictest orthodoxy. Rather, he addressed the common people, conveying his teachings using parables which could be understood by all.⁸

The teachings of Jesus Christ, whose essence is captured in the Sermon on the Mount, with its well-known Beatitudes (Matthew 5–7) touched many sympathetic followers, among them a group of fishermen from Lake Tiberius. These men formed the core “apostles”—from the Greek apostolos meaning “sent one”—or “disciples”. Jesus Christ was accepted by them as the Messiah—Christ (anointed one) in Greek—and the new David the Jews had awaited after the decline of the Kingdom of Israel. Thus arose “Christianity” as an interpretation of Judaism spreading the teachings of Christ.⁹

Jesus Christ’s success, however, worried the Jewish establishment. Thus, after his triumphant entry into Jerusalem (which Christians celebrate on Palm Sunday) the chief priests resolved to accuse him of blasphemy. After the Last Supper, they had him arrested in the olive grove at the Garden of Gethsemane, where he was brought before the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court). There he was sentenced to death by Hanas and Caiaphas, but the Jewish religious authorities did not have the power to enforce the sentence, and the death penalty had to be carried out by the civil authorities. As at that time Palestine was already occupied by the Romans, Jesus was taken to the nearby praetorian, where Pontius Pilate, then the Governor of Judea, found Jesus innocent. Ceding to the insistence of the Jewish people, however, he “washed his hands” of the affair and allowed them to execute him on a cross.¹⁰

The death of Jesus Christ would have marked the end of Christianity had it not been for Paul of Tarsus (St. Paul). The disciples, uneducated people without social influence and frightened by the stance of the Jews towards them, fell silent after Christ’s death, not daring to spread his teachings. In fact, the Scriptures state that, on the night of his trial, Peter denied being a follower of Jesus three times.

Ironically, it was an enemy of the Christians who would assure the new religion’s triumph: Saul of Tarsus, a Pharisee, who in his youth had been one of the most zealous persecutors of the new “sect”.¹¹ However, Saul suddenly converted to Christianity (The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 9)¹² and, to the dismay of his former allies, decided to spread the teachings of Christ among non-Jews (“Gentiles”.)¹³ This was crucial because, as, Ehrman (2008, 103) has observed, of the 60 million people living in the Roman Empire of his time, only around 7 % were Jews. To this end Paul organized and paid visits to various communities of Christians, and later sent them letters: the famous Epistles of St. Paul.¹⁴ Coming from a lettered person and a former Pharisee,¹⁵ Paul’s writings had an enormous impact. Thanks to the “apostle of the Gentiles” Christianity spread rapidly among non-Jews, the vast majority of the Empire’s inhabitants.¹⁶ Had it not been for Paul, Christianity would not have become one of history’s major religions.¹⁷

It is worthy of note that Paul, despite being of Jewish origin and educated as a Pharisee, was quite exceptional in the fact that he was legally a Roman citizen. It was this that bolstered his influence amongst the Gentiles. In fact, when he was arrested as a subversive by the Roman authorities, he appealed to Rome, as was his right, and was, therefore, not crucified like St. Peter, but beheaded by order of Nero in 67 ad.¹⁸

The Romans were not very religious, worshipping their ancestors and little else. This situation did not fail to provoke a great spiritual vacuum, already lamented by Cicero (106–43 bc). Many Romans, however, did yearn to infuse their lives with meaning, spurring a large number of them to join certain Near Eastern mystery cults (such as that of Mithras).¹⁹ As Schott (2008, 25) points out, the fact that the Roman Empire facilitated commerce and contact between disparate peoples created a receptive spiritual framework, as philosophers were seeking to bridge cultural gulfs and cultivate an intellectual ecumenism. This receptivity made them amenable to the teachings of Christ, leading to mass conversions.²⁰

The new religion, however, posed a political problem, as it elevated God over the civil power of the emperors,²¹ making it a threat to the cohesion of a state which had deified its “monarchs”, the figure of the emperor providing a religious focus shared by the entire Empire (Rives 2007, 156). As Brent (1999, 126) notes, the key to the problem was that Christian Gentiles were Roman citizens. The Jews, on the other hand, were not, exempt from Greco-Roman religious customs and able to avoid the requirement, whether purely social or legal, to take part in the Imperial Cult.

Beginning with Nero (37–68 ad) the persecutions would begin, yielding the first martyrs.²² These suppressive efforts would end up backfiring on the emperors, as the example set by the tortured Christians infused the new religion with an aura and a prestige which quickly multiplied its numbers (Fredriksen 2010). In the end the emperors had to give in.

“If you cannot beat them, join them”. This well-known saying sums up the attitude adopted by the Roman emperors who, beginning with Constantine, relied upon Christianity to strengthen their political positions. The imperial decrees issued in 311 and 313, officially recognizing and tolerating Christianity, merely recognized what was already a fact: the significant expansion of the Christian churches and the considerable social power which the bishops had come to possess.²³ This development was evident in the 313 Edict of Milan itself, through which Constantine and Licinius accepted Christianity, thereby, among other things, ordering the restitution of goods which had been confiscated from the Christians.²⁴ When we consider as well the progressive weakening of imperial power, undermined by civil strife, it is not difficult to understand that the emperors were tempted to ally with the Christians to shore up their power. The first to clearly embrace this policy was Constantine (306–307), advised by one of the most important Christian figures of the era: Hosius, Bishop of Cordoba, in the province of Hispania. It should be pointed out that Constantine was successful at unifying the Empire in large measure thanks to the support of the Christian bishops, establishing an alliance between the secular and the religious authorities that would last for a long time.²⁵

The ascent of Christianity was consolidated by Constantine’s successors Constant (337–350), and Constantius II (337–361). In addition to prohibiting pagan sacrifices, they decreed the closure of the temples and banned outdoor demonstrations of non-Christian worship, sanctioning the violation of these rules with harsh penalties (Noethlichs 2006). These excesses certainly explain the reaction of the Emperor Julian (361–363), who the Christians accused of trying to restore ancient pagan practices, dubbing him the “Apostate”—from the Greek apostasis (abandonment). In reality, Julian had only acted to restore the freedom of worship which had been proclaimed in 313, and to allow pagans religious freedom by returning their temples to them.²⁶ However, Julian’s early death made the Roman Empire’s process of Christianization unstoppable.²⁷

After a period of relative reconciliation under Valentinian I and Valens (364–375), Gratian and Valentinian II again stepped up the pressure against paganism in a process that culminated with Theodosius I (379–395), issuing the Edict of Thessalonica (380), decreeing the official status of the Catholic faith:

We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority, which, in accordance with the will of Heaven, we shall decide to inflict.²⁸

It was Justinian (527–565), who was responsible for doing away with the last vestiges of paganism. To this end, he had the philosophical school of Athens closed; imposed Christian education upon all families, excluding pagans and heretics from all schools; made baptism mandatory, with anyone not baptized rendered unable to own property; and sanctioned heresy with the death penalty. As Sotomayor stated, in less than a century the panorama had completely changed. During the first centuries being a Christian had been a risk. By the late fourth century the risk consisted of continuing to be a pagan, or at least insisting on exhibiting it. Throughout this period it is not surprising that the number of those officially having converted to Christianity grew at a rapid rate, though profound convictions or faith were not necessarily the main motivations for requesting baptism (Cf. Sotomayor y Muro 1979, I, 178). It is interesting that from a legal point of view, in the Code of Justinian (534 ad), Catholic principles were already associated with the idea of the “common good” (Ando 2006, 130).²⁹

Following the Edict of Milan, the various Christian churches were not only recognized but received favorable treatment by the Roman authorities, particularly after 324, when Constantine remained as the sole Roman emperor. The imperial administration then not only restored to them all the property seized during the persecutions, but also subsidized the clergy and promoted the construction of new basilicas³⁰ in which Christians could gather. All this made possible the consolidation of the ecclesiastical apparatus which had been developing from the beginning.

Originally, the main interest of the Church during the difficult second and third centuries was to organize its functioning and teachings. The first bishops and presbyters had to preserve the teaching of Christ against deviations, adapt it to the Gentile mind using the best in pagan thought, and face persecution and martyrdom. When conditions started to become more favorable in the course of the fourth century, the main concern of Church leaders was to build a closely-knit organization, which was as uncompromising towards heresy and schism as it was towards the demands of the state (Richardson 1996, 26).

Following the Council of Elvira (early fourth century) records indicate that councils were held with increasing frequency. In these early councils, the bishops not only resolved organizational issues, but began to define the dogmatic features which would eventually come to define official Christian doctrine in an effort to reinforce the unity of the Church. The churches continued to retain their autonomy, but above them the idea of a universal Church was crystallizing, whose members embraced a single body of beliefs (Hanson 1989).

The universality of the Church required, however, choosing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures which, once adopted by all the bishops, were to be maintained as the only valid ones for all churches. Fundamental to the orthodox consensus (Pelikan 1975, 333), was the affirmation of the authority of a tradition believed “everywhere, always, by all” (Ubique, Semper, Ab Omnibus).³¹ This approach entailed condemning views which deviated or diverged from those approved by the councils. Thus emerged the concept of heresy—from the Greek hairesis (choice)—to designate all those doctrines rejected by the gatherings of bishops. In this way, a whole series of beliefs were dismissed and condemned, among them those of the Arians, the Pelagians, the Pneumatomachi, the Monothelites, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, the Donatists and the Priscillianists. Thus was constituted a body of interpretations of the Scriptures established as “orthodox”—from the Greek words orthos (straight) and doxa (opinion).³²

All this work involving the unification of dogma was also possible because during the fourth century, there appeared a number of remarkable Christian authors and thinkers producing writings of great importance (Young 1989). This second generation of Christian intellectuals came to be called the “Fathers of the Church”, to differentiate them from the previous “Apologists”.³³ While the latter arose primarily in the West, the Fathers of the Church were more numerous in the Eastern area of the Empire (Greek Patrology), though there were also important Fathers in the Western sphere, as well (Latin Patrology.)³⁴

The orthodox interpretation of Scripture led to a progressive universalization of Christianity. Thus, did the Christian churches come to conform a single, coherent and uniform entity: the Catholic Church (from the Greek katholikós, meaning “universal” or “general”; the preposition katha meaning “on” or “downwards”, while the adjective holós means “whole” or “complete”.)³⁵

The recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the Empire would give rise to the problem of relations between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, as the emperors were loath to tolerate the existence of an independent power over a strictly spiritual domain.³⁶ This was called “Caesaropapism”, a term coined by Max Weber who considered a Caesaropapist the “secular ruler that exercises supreme authority in ecclesiastic matters by virtue of his autonomous legitimacy” (Weber 2007, 1158–1204). It may be said that following the Edict of Milan (313), the emperors acted to intervene in the ecclesiastical sphere, even in regards to strictly doctrinal matters, to strengthen their political positions, as they wanted the complete subordination of priests to secular power (Swedberg and Agevall 2005, 22). In this sense, it was a system whereby an absolute monarch had supreme control over the Church within his dominions, and exercised it even in matters (e.g. doctrine), normally reserved for the ecclesiastical authority (Livingstone 2000, 218).

Worthy of note in this regard is the imperial attitude in the case of the Arian controversy: despite the formal condemnation of Arianism at Nicea in 325, the emperors came to favor the Arians, who they considered much more pliant to the pressures of civil authority. It is significant in this regard that at the Synod of Antioch, Constantine himself chose to condemn the “rebel bishops” (Catholics), who remained faithful to the Nicene doctrine, supporting the Arians instead.³⁷ His successor, Constantius II (337–361), went even further, persecuting the Catholics and even attacking Pope Julius I (337–352).

The imperial attitude triggered, of course, protests by leading Church figures of the day, including an almost centenarian Hosius of Cordoba (257–359). However, the clashes between civil and ecclesiastical power had only just begun. Imperial interventionism would recur with Theodosius I, whom St. Ambrose of Milan (340–397) criticized several times for his conduct in this regard.³⁸ The result was that Christianity was a religion at first prohibited by the state, then tolerated by it, and ultimately, endorsed and favored by it (Gaudemet 1973), a transformation that would have major consequences in the history of Western public law.

In the times of the 12 apostles, there existed no other credential qualifying one to spread the teachings of Christ than knowing them. When there were relatively few Christians pastoral activity was a joint effort led by those who best knew Christ’s teachings: the “bishops” or “episcopal” authorities—from the Greek episképtomai (to inspect).³⁹

Bishops were the undisputed leaders of every Christian community. Their mission was to ensure the preservation of the faith, discipline, and the proper execution of liturgical functions, to serve as guarantors of ecclesiastical unity, and to represent their churches in their relationships with fellow congregations.⁴⁰ Along with bishops appeared “deacons” (from the Greek diakonos, meaning “servant”), the former’s trusted associates, initially responsible for the administration of the Church’s temporal assets. As consultants and advisors to the deacons came the “presbyters”—from presbyteros (the oldest).⁴¹

The growth of the Christian communities, a consequence of the religion’s astonishing spread over the course of the second and third centuries, soon made it necessary for the bishops and their assistants to devote all their time to pastoral work. In this way, the ordo clericalis began to establish itself, from which the laity would ultimately be excluded.

The first organized groups of Christian churches appeared just a few years after Christ’s death. The assembly of Christians was originally a community of pilgrims and strangers⁴²; hence the word “parish” (from paroikois: foreigner) to designate the private homes in which the first pastoral meetings were held. In Rome, the meeting places of the faithful were originally presided over by bishops, deacons or presbyters. They were, thus, the first pastors in the Church’s history.

Over time, the parishes were grouped together, for administrative purposes, into “ecclesiastical provinces”, usually coinciding with the imperial divisions of the same name. In this way, a hierarchically organized territorial structure gradually developed. The first gatherings of Christians presided over by bishops, were initially held in secret (in the catacombs). After Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire, the bishops exercised their functions with authority over larger territories which would, eventually, be referred to as “dioceses”—from the Greek words dioikeo (administrate) and oikos (home). Traditionally, the diocese was a Roman administrative district, which serves to show how bishops could combine their ecclesiastical role with a secular magistracy. Once a bishop was ordained, he could, nevertheless, aspire to a civic office (Rapp 2005, 205). In fact, it seemed a regular practice in these paleo-Christian times for active ministers of the Church to sometimes attempt to join the secular administration. Dioceses were consolidated before in the Near East (Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Antioch), where the increased penetration of Eastern religions favored Christianity’s rapid spread. In fact, Asia Minor provided the most fertile soil for Christian evangelism, as this region was dotted with Jewish communities, which had already accommodated themselves to Hellenistic thought and life (Hinson 1996, 60).

The development of the aforementioned territorial structure soon called for a power structure as well. All the bishops of a province recognized a “metropolitan”—from the Greek meter (mother) and the polis (city). Above the metropolitans, in turn, were the patriarchs, the bishops of especially important cities. The most important decisions, however, were made collectively in assemblies, composed of bishops from different provinces.⁴³

The bishops of a province which recognized the authority of a metropolitan began meeting in synods—from the Greek synodos (meeting)—to solve the problems of their respective communities. At a higher level were the assemblies of all the bishops of several provinces or councils—from the Latin concilium (meeting, council). Collective decision-making in the Church on matters of teaching and practice surely commenced in apostolic times, but there is no evidence of consultation and common action among the Christian communities themselves until late in the second century (Hess 2002, 5). And it would not be until the beginning of the fourth century that we have the first written evidence of decisions made by a council: the first of these was held in Hispania, in Iliberis, near modern-day Granada, attended by 19 bishops from all over Spain, who approved 81 rules (Dale 2012). These collegial agreements amongst the bishops became binding on the Christian communities of the different ecclesiastical provinces. Conciliar rules were called ecclesiastical canons, which is why Church law came to be known as “canon law”.

The official recognition of Christianity led to the practice of holding regular councils of this type. It is highly significant that a year after Constantine became the sole ruler of the Empire, in 325, the first of the “ecumenical”—from the Greek oikúmene (world)—councils was held in Nicaea to condemn Arianism. Nicaea marked the first of a series of ecumenical councils which laid down the doctrine of the Church, among which were those at Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).⁴⁴

In the West, the bishops of the first churches to emerge in the various provinces of the Empire, while maintaining a manifest autonomy, granted almost from the outset a certain degree of moral supremacy to the bishop of Rome,⁴⁵ who they began to call the “Pope”—from the Greek pappas (father). It is worthwhile to note that the title was formerly given, especially from the third to the fifth century, to any bishop and sometimes to simple priests as an ecclesiastical title expressing affectionate respect. It is still used in the East in reference to the Orthodox patriarch of Alexandria, and to Orthodox priests. Only during the ninth century, was its use restricted to the bishop of Rome, a constraint officially imposed in 1073, by Pope Gregory VII.⁴⁶

The popes exercised their moral authority through letters called “decretals”, in which they settled questions raised by other bishops. These documents will end up soon having legal value, giving the popes the same legislative power that Roman emperors enjoyed during the Dominate.