Ancient Rome: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

As astutely observed by British historian Lord Acton, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Nowhere is this adage more evident than in the historical information available to us concerning ancient Rome, as attested to in the melodramatic images portrayed in the television series of the same name. Although the theatrical presentation was superb, with impressive attention to detail evident in the costumes, sets, and actors interpretation of material, the miniseries aptly details the violence inherent in Roman culture. From the “bread and circus” wholesale slaughter of innocent men and animals that qualified as entertainment for the debased appetites of the Roman citizens, to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, to the subsequent murder and debauchery practiced within confines of the politically sanctioned Roman Catholic church, no other ancient civilization to date has been more rife with controversy.

Amongst the ruins of the Coliseum, the blood of countless victims now long since dissipated nevertheless cries out for justice and recognition. That murder was heralded as sport, in direct contrast to the sporting events of the Grecian culture that encouraged the demonstration of skill and mastery in exchange for olive leaves, is a cause for shock in and of itself, and will forever encapsulate the activities of ancient Rome in my mind as unnecessarily violent and visceral. Although the “newsreel” component of utilizing the activities of the Coliseum to relay current events to the masses creates an interesting parallel to our modern day focus on items considered newsworthy, the fact that this activity was yet another precursor to murder detracts from its innovative feel. While imagining the Coliseum being built in such a manner so as to accommodate enough water to allow for naval battles to be fought there engenders a grudging respect for the genius of their architectural ingenuity, the specter of death remains formidable enough that I consider myself fortunate not to have been a citizen of ancient Rome myself.

Of particular interest from a theological perspective is the life, teachings, and events surrounding the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Although relatively well versed in Biblical teaching garnered in my youth, Paul of Tarsus and his road to Damascus conversion pales in comparison to the revelation of thought I experienced in a recent humanities class while discussing both his motivation and the political meandering required to bring these teachings to the masses in an effort to convert them. It was amazing for me to learn that Jesus of Nazareth, considered from a Roman perspective to be a rural teacher in an occupied territory, strategically avoided entering the larger Greco Roman areas of his time. I was not aware that Jesus had taught within specific geographic confines for political reasons, his gospel being limited to the Jews available to receive him in predictable venues free of potential subterfuge.

Remaining within the confines of smaller fishing villages such as Capernaum and Galilee, the teachings of Jesus would have been allocated and restricted to those of a cult had it not been for the wider dissemination of his views by Paul of Tarsus. Jesus in fact does appear to have avoided entering highly populated Greco Roman cities, as evidenced by his failure to visit Sepphoris, a mere seven miles from Nazareth. As proximity does not necessarily imply access, Jesus remained within the confines of his class with intent. In spite of this caution however, Jesus was eventually crucified as sanctioned by Pontius Pilate, who appears in all four canonical gospels. In a metaphorical display enacted to promote his innocence, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus blood as described in Matthew 27:24, and therefore presumably absolves himself of responsibility. The response of the Jewish spectators who cry out in Matthew 27:25 “let his blood on us and on our children” creates a definitive historical statement that subsequently promoted centuries of anti-Semitism, the ultimate responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus being displaced from its wrongful ownership amongst the Romans onto the Jews. It is therefore ironic that the Nicene Creed acknowledges the guilt that Pontius Pilate so vehemently denied, when Constantine the Great and his bishops incorporated the categorical statement “he suffered and was crucified under Pontius Pilate” into their pronouncement of faith. After the death of Jesus, Paul of Tarsus was determined to bring the teachings of Jesus to the larger cities, an action without which modern day Christianity would for all intents and purposes not exist.

Paul was enabled to transverse this larger geographic area as a result of the civilization that Rome exemplified. The ability to walk upon paved roads in relative safety as a result of Roman law, Paul was a Greek Jew and Roman citizen more apt to be recognized and accepted in the venues Jesus eschewed. As the author of what scholars deem the seven authentic letters, namely I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Philemon, Romans, and Galatians, Paul of Tarsus is directly responsible for introducing the precepts of Christianity to the masses.

The Book of Galatians is considered to be Paul’s first epistle was written between 48 and 52 AD. One school of thought places the date of Paul's writing this letter before the Jerusalem Council, which addressed the issue of whether the law of Moses, particularly circumcision, remained binding on New Testament Christians. The argument favoring this time of writing is that the letter to the Galatians does not mention the Jerusalem Council. Had the council met prior to the date of Paul's writing his letter, it would have been logical for Paul to have mentioned the decisions of the apostolic council in Jerusalem, since Paul's letter dealt with the same issue addressed and resolved by the Jerusalem Council. Since Paul made no reference to the decisions of the council that addressed the issue, it is asserted that Paul must have written his letter to the Galatians before the Jerusalem Council, which would place the year of writing around 48 to 49 AD.

Another school of thought places the date of Paul's letter after the Jerusalem Council, and to support this timeframe, it is asserted that after the council met Paul began his second missionary journey. He then revisited the churches of Galatia and, according to Acts 16:4, then delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in the Jerusalem Council. Paul then proceeded to Greece, where he spent more than a year and half teaching in Corinth. While in Corinth, false teachers created confusion amongst the churches in Galatia by asserting that the Gentile Christians must be circumcised according to the law of Moses to be saved. This false teaching of the Judaizers threatened the true gospel of salvation by God's grace alone through faith in Jesus. This false teaching also endangered the faith and salvation of the Christians in Galatia, and was in direct conflict with the decision made on behalf of the Jerusalem Council, which stated that circumcision was unnecessary to be saved. Paul consequently wrote a letter to the Galatians in an effort to clarify and uphold the true gospel which states that we are justified by grace through faith without the works of the law to prevent the Christians in Galatia from losing their faith and salvation.

Paul’s mission was to spread the gospel of Jesus quickly to ensure conversion of as many people as possible due to his apocalyptic world view, wherein the world was expected to come to an end within a short period of time. By traveling to large cities, Paul increased the effectiveness of his teaching exponentially, and thereby secured a tremendous number of converts. Accepting the death and resurrection of Jesus as the gospel truth, Christians were now exempt from observing the minutiae of the 613 laws of the Torah, or mitzvot, and were instead assured of justification before God simply by merit of their faith in Jesus Christ.

In what was aptly described a “bizarre trajectory” of events, the Roman Emperor Constantine legitimized Christianity in 313 AD as a result of a personal epiphany that resulted in his conversion. The Christians, once compelled to practice their faith in a clandestine fashion to avoid not only censor but death, were now catapulted from their underground status as a church to that of the mainstream political elite. Church’s, or basilica’s, were built to accommodate the newly converted Christians following Constantine’s lead, and ironically the very society that killed Jesus less than 300 years prior now revered him as Lord and Savior. With the formalization of the aforementioned Nicene Creed that acknowledged the responsibility of Rome in murdering the representative of their faith, the circle was now complete.

Just as the hubris of ancient Greece was considerable, so to is the hubris of the Roman’s in establishing what they believe to be the One True Church following the conversion of Constantine. Amongst these doctrinal beliefs is the infallibility of the Pope, wherein statements made in ex cathedra, or “from the chair,” are apparently divine revelations uttered by the Pope while under the influence of the Holy Spirit. This teaching presumes that the Pope is a chosen vessel for the Holy Spirit and divine revelation, and that he is therefore incapable of error. While these ex cathedra pronouncements have been rare, even amongst the pomp and circumstance for which Catholicism is noted, I would personally contest this theological perspective by referring to Matthew 23:9. “And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one father, and he is in heaven.”

In looking down upon ancient Rome, I’m fairly certain that God was saddened by much of occurred there.