The cross of Jesus and military superiority are inextricably linked in the story of Constantine. In 312 C.E. he faced his enemy and co-emperor Maxentius near the Milvian Bridge, which crossed the River Tiber. Before entering into battle Constantine saw a vision of the cross with the words ‘By this sign conquer’. Though still a pagan at the time he took it as a sign that he should fight under the Christian God’s protection and when he won the battle the story of his vision – however much of it is true – became part of the myth and legend that surrounds him.

Atonement and appeasment

Though the above account is an important feature of Constantine’s conversion story, it is Eusebius’s view of the atonement that is key to understanding another facet of the shift that happened under the Emperor. According to Eusebius all of humanity’s problems could be explained by the demonic powers that lay behind polytheism and political pluralism. Such pluralism was an affront to the sovereignty of the supreme God who had to be appeased. This happened in the crucifixion of Jesus. The cross, therefore, becomes the means by which sovereignty is not only appeased but also maintained. It is the power that overthrows demon worship and destroys the power of the evil spirits that lay behind polytheism.

Church militant

As can be seen above Eusebius believed that the power to destroy spiritual enemies is God’s alone but the church is then invested with that power as she is tasked to carry out God’s work on earth. Through her worship – especially in communion – the church is able to exercise this power and rid territories of evil spirits. This then allows the imperial military power to clear the land of the plural political power that was the result of the demonic influence. Thus the empire and the emperor are given the task of exercising political power on behalf of God and the church. Imperial power is now seen as a necessary part of God’s work in bringing eschatological peace and harmony to the world with the ‘sign of the cross’ an essential element.

Wearing Jesus glasses

In his assessment of Eusebius’s work Roger Mitchell concludes that God is viewed as a supreme ruler with the emphasis on Old Testament theocratic leadership that is ‘unqualified by an incarnational theology’. A key weakness here, Mitchell suggests, is that instead of reading the OT through Jesus we are encouraged to read Jesus through the OT. By so doing Jesus is given a secondary position under the sovereign, supreme God who then in turn empowers the emperor. ‘Christ was now configured as the universal cosmic emperor and the earthly emperor was his servant and vicar.’

The antidote to this, of course, is to understand Jesus from a Gospels perspective – the self-giving servant who gave himself over to death. Once we understand this ‘kenotic’ Christ we can then read the OT through our Jesus glasses and begin to correctly critique both empire and church hierarchy. If Eusebius of Caesarea gave us a problem, it is Jesus of Nazareth who provides us with the answer.

This post forms a series on Roger Mitchell’s book Church, Gospel & Empire. See previous post here.

Share