The Nature of Roman Rule and Religious Policy

To understand the persecution of Christians in the early centuries of the Common Era, it is necessary to examine both the political structure of the Roman Empire and its foundational legal philosophy. Rome prided itself on its order, law, and tolerance, particularly toward regional religious practices within its vast dominion. Provinces retained local customs and religious rites, provided they did not threaten public order or contradict allegiance to the emperor. In this context, the early Christian movement was not immediately outlawed, but its theological and social distinctiveness soon brought it into conflict with the state.

Roman religion was not merely personal or devotional; it was inherently political. Participation in public religious rites was a demonstration of loyalty to the state. The gods of Rome were believed to uphold the empire, and neglect of their worship invited calamity. Thus, emperor worship—beginning with Augustus (27 B.C.E.–14 C.E.) and expanding in later reigns—was more than honorific. It became a test of allegiance to the Roman order. Though Jews were granted certain exemptions due to the antiquity of their religion, Christians, perceived increasingly as a separate group from Judaism, lacked similar legal protection.

Christian Identity and Imperial Suspicion

Christians refused to sacrifice to the emperor or invoke the name of the gods, not as an act of rebellion, but out of exclusive devotion to Jehovah. This theological exclusivity appeared to Roman authorities as obstinacy, even treason. The apostle Peter exhorted Christians to “honor the emperor” (1 Peter 2:17) and to “submit to every human creation for the sake of the Lord” (1 Peter 2:13), yet Christians were accused of atheism, cannibalism (a misrepresentation of the Lord’s Supper), and secret plotting due to their closed meetings.

As early as the reign of Nero (54–68 C.E.), Christians were made scapegoats for disasters—most infamously the Great Fire of Rome in 64 C.E. Tacitus, a Roman historian, recorded that Nero accused the Christians to deflect blame from himself. The Christians were not charged with a specific crime under statute law but were condemned “not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for the hatred of the human race.” This vagueness reveals a key feature of early persecution: it was often extralegal or justified by customary rather than codified law.

The Nature of Roman Legal Authority: Cognitio Extra Ordinem

Roman governors held imperium, the authority to administer justice in their provinces. Under the legal principle known as cognitio extra ordinem (judgment outside the ordinary process), governors could exercise discretion in trying cases not covered by formal procedure. This included cases where no specific law existed. When Christians were brought before officials, the charge was not typically “Christianity,” but refusal to participate in required rites—especially the imperial cult.

Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan around 112 C.E. describing his handling of accused Christians. He questioned suspects, allowed them to recant, and executed those who refused. He acknowledged that no formal charge existed, and asked the emperor whether mere profession of the name “Christian” warranted punishment. Trajan’s reply confirmed a flexible policy: do not actively seek them out, but punish if formally accused and unrepentant. This exchange illustrates the non-systematic, yet legally tolerated, nature of Christian persecution.

Christians were thus punished not for crimes committed, but for their religious identity—perceived as criminal due to its exclusivity, secrecy, and refusal to conform to imperial expectations. Roman society valued concordia, unity and cohesion through shared rituals. The Christian refusal to participate was understood as divisive and dangerous.

Legal Pretexts and Popular Hostility

Much of the persecution came not from formal imperial edicts, but from local hostility. Accusations often arose from neighbors, tradesmen, or local guilds, particularly when Christian ethics disrupted social norms or economic interests. In Acts 19, Paul’s preaching in Ephesus provoked a riot led by Demetrius the silversmith, who feared the loss of income due to declining idol sales. Though the town clerk calmed the crowd, the event reveals the kind of socio-economic agitation Christians could provoke.

Roman authorities often responded to public unrest pragmatically. If Christian refusal to worship the gods was believed to offend the divine and endanger civic safety, local magistrates might punish Christians to appease the crowd. Trials were public events, and popular opinion frequently influenced outcomes. This creates the paradox of a state claiming legal neutrality while permitting regional violence and executions.

Legal Edicts and Systematized Persecution

Though early persecution was inconsistent, imperial policy became more systematic by the mid-third century. Under Decius (249–251 C.E.), an empire-wide edict required public sacrifice to the gods and receipt of a certificate (libellus) confirming compliance. This was the first universal law targeting Christians, and it created a crisis. Many believers apostatized, offering incense or securing forged documents. Those who refused were imprisoned, tortured, or executed. The persecution under Decius was not based on identity alone but on refusal to perform the mandated sacrifice.

Later, Diocletian (284–305 C.E.) initiated the most severe and organized persecution. His edicts in 303 C.E. ordered the destruction of churches, burning of Scriptures, and arrest of leaders. Refusal to sacrifice resulted in imprisonment or execution. This persecution, unlike earlier episodic violence, was legally codified, empire-wide, and supported by bureaucratic enforcement. It was not until the Edict of Toleration in 311 C.E., and especially the Edict of Milan in 313 C.E. under Constantine and Licinius, that persecution was formally abolished.

The Theological Distinction That Provoked the Law

At the core of Christian suffering under Rome was a theological distinction: Christians could not render religious allegiance to Caesar. Jesus himself had declared, “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God” (Matthew 22:21). This separation of political obedience from religious worship was unprecedented in the Roman world. Most religions were polytheistic and adaptable. The Christians were not. They confessed one Lord (Ephesians 4:5), and that allegiance demanded exclusive loyalty.

This is why persecution, though often local and informal in the first two centuries, had a consistent logic. Christians were charged not because they violated specific moral laws, but because their beliefs undermined the state’s claim to religious authority. The words “Jesus is Lord” were not private theology—they were politically subversive in a world where Caesar demanded divine honor.

Yet the Christian refusal to worship Caesar did not equal rebellion. Paul taught submission to governing authorities (Romans 13:1–7), prayed for rulers (1 Timothy 2:1–2), and encouraged a quiet, honest life. Still, the state demanded more than civil obedience—it demanded religious conformity. The early Christians offered the former, but not the latter, and that is what brought them into legal conflict with the empire.

Legal Legacy and Biblical Faithfulness

The early persecutions reveal that true obedience to God often places believers at odds with political systems. The apostles declared, “We must obey God as ruler rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This principle shaped Christian behavior under Rome and continues to guide believers today. Christians must honor laws, pay taxes, and promote peace—but when the law contradicts God’s commands, obedience to Jehovah must prevail.

The early church suffered not because it was immoral or unlawful, but because it was loyal to the one true God. The Roman state could tolerate almost anything—except exclusive truth. Yet it was this very exclusivity, this unyielding allegiance to Jesus as King, that became the foundation of the church’s witness and endurance.

As modern governments increasingly claim authority over moral and spiritual domains, believers must remember that while we render Caesar what is due, we give God our whole allegiance. The trials of the early church were not accidents of history but demonstrations of the cost—and the power—of faithful obedience.

From Nero to Domitian: The Rise of Informal Yet Deadly Hostility

Introduction: Persecution Before Imperial Codification

The earliest Roman responses to Christianity were not based on written law but were reactions to public agitation, accusations, and cultural suspicion. Christianity had no legal status (religio licita), and as it became distinguished from Judaism—which did enjoy a measure of legal tolerance—it increasingly drew the scrutiny of magistrates and emperors. The following emperors exemplify the emergence of persecution as a state-sanctioned but legally flexible enterprise.

---

Nero (54–68 C.E.): The First State-Sponsored Bloodshed

The first imperial persecution of Christians occurred under Emperor Nero, following the Great Fire of Rome in 64 C.E. Historical sources, notably Tacitus, report that Nero blamed the Christians to deflect suspicion from himself. The emperor subjected Christians to public torture and execution—burned alive as torches, torn by dogs, or crucified—not for legal offenses, but as scapegoats for a disaster.

Legal Structure:
There was no imperial edict outlawing Christianity. Christians were executed on charges not clearly defined, condemned as haters of humanity and for their supposed “superstition.” This persecution was highly localized—centered in Rome—and did not establish a legal precedent across the empire.

Significance:
This marked the beginning of the state’s readiness to use Christians as a political outlet. Christianity, once obscure, now stood in Rome’s spotlight, not as a criminal system by statute, but as a cultural and political irritant.

---

Vespasian (69–79 C.E.) and Titus (79–81 C.E.): Administrative Reorganization, Not Active Suppression

There is no historical evidence of widespread persecution under Vespasian or his son Titus. Their primary concern was consolidating power after the chaos of the Year of Four Emperors (69 C.E.) and overseeing the aftermath of the Jewish War, including the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

Legal Policy:
Although Christianity was increasingly seen as separate from Judaism during this period, no specific imperial laws targeted Christians. However, Jewish Christians may have suffered indirectly due to the imposition of the fiscus Judaicus, the tax levied on Jews after 70 C.E. to fund Jupiter’s temple in Rome. As Christianity distanced itself from Judaism, believers began to lose the protection formerly associated with Jewish legal toleration.

Significance:
No formal persecution, but the legal isolation of Christians from Judaism began to materialize, especially in Roman administrative records and taxation.

---

Domitian (81–96 C.E.): Persecution by Suspicion and Imperial Ego

Domitian’s reign is often associated with paranoia and autocracy. Though widespread, organized persecution cannot be fully confirmed, several early sources suggest that Christians—especially wealthy ones—were accused under laws punishing atheism (refusal to worship Roman gods) and conspiracy.

Legal Trends:
Domitian reportedly executed or exiled various individuals on charges of “Jewish practices” or failure to worship the emperor. While some of this likely targeted actual Jews, Christians were not clearly distinguished and may have suffered under these accusations. The apostle John was traditionally said to have been exiled to Patmos under Domitian (Revelation 1:9), and the Roman historian Suetonius records that Domitian executed those of “bad character” accused of superstition.

Notable Case:
The Flavian Domitilla, a relative of the emperor, is said to have been exiled for her Christian faith, though the full accuracy of this tradition is debated. If true, it illustrates that Christianity was being practiced even among the Roman elite and that it carried severe risk.

Legal Mechanism:
There was no imperial decree outlawing Christianity. Persecution occurred under the broader category of impiety or political conspiracy, judged case by case.

Significance:
The fear of Christianity as a socially disruptive and politically dangerous group began to take deeper root. While there was still no codified illegality for being a Christian, refusal to honor the gods or the emperor could now lead to execution under the charge of irreverence, particularly in politically unstable contexts.

---

Nerva (96–98 C.E.): A Short-Lived Reprieve

Emperor Nerva, known for his moderation, reversed several of Domitian’s more extreme policies. He appears to have ceased or at least greatly reduced the arbitrary executions of “atheists” and “superstitious persons.” There are no records of state-sponsored persecution under his reign.

Legal Impact:
Nerva ruled only briefly, but his reign marked a temporary cooling of hostilities. Christians, however, remained vulnerable due to their undefined legal status. No clarification was issued regarding the lawfulness of their faith.

---

From Tacit Tolerance to Active Surveillance

The first century C.E. illustrates how persecution of Christians began without formal legislation. Instead, informal suspicion, imperial politics, and social hostility created the conditions under which believers could be arrested, tried, and executed. The Roman state never officially outlawed Christianity in these years, but governors and emperors had sufficient discretion under Roman legal structures (cognitio extra ordinem) to prosecute Christians on the grounds of impiety, atheism, and disloyalty.

Thus, the early church operated in a legal vacuum: not declared illegal, yet never declared protected. This left believers at the mercy of emperors’ moods, local governors’ preferences, and popular antagonism.

From Trajan to Marcus Aurelius: Legal Precedent, Philosophical Hostility, and the Normalization of Persecution

Introduction: Defining the Legal Identity of Christianity

In the second century C.E., Christianity became an increasingly visible force across the Roman Empire. As the movement grew—spreading from Judea to Asia Minor, North Africa, and even Rome—the state could no longer ignore its presence. Although Christianity remained technically outside the bounds of a defined religio licita, the empire began to formalize its legal treatment of Christians through imperial correspondence, primarily based on accusations, interrogations, and the discretionary power of governors. The emperors of this period would not yet outlaw Christianity by statute, but they would define the legal basis on which Christians could be punished: the profession of the name itself.

---

Trajan (98–117 C.E.): The First Imperial Policy

Under Emperor Trajan, Christianity was still viewed as a superstition, not a religion in good standing. Around 112 C.E., Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia-Pontus in Asia Minor, wrote to Trajan requesting guidance on handling Christians. Pliny explained that many had been brought before him, accused of being Christians, and that he had interrogated them, offered them chances to recant, and executed those who refused.

Pliny’s concern was procedural: Was the mere confession of being a Christian a punishable offense? Should age or repentance factor into sentencing? He admitted that he found no criminal activity—only stubborn refusal to renounce Christ and perform Roman rites.

Trajan’s Response:
Trajan’s rescript confirmed and formalized an enduring policy:

• Christians should not be sought out proactively.

• If accused and convicted, they must be punished.

• If they recant and worship the gods, they are to be released.

• Anonymous accusations were not to be accepted.

This became the de facto legal precedent for the next century. Christianity was not proscribed in law, but adherence to it was criminalized once exposed. Faithfulness to Christ became the offense—not sedition, not violence, but simple identity and refusal to worship Roman deities or the emperor.

Significance:
This marked the beginning of an imperial policy of passive hostility: Christians were not hunted, but if identified, they could be legally executed. The profession of the name “Christian” became sufficient for capital punishment.

---

Hadrian (117–138 C.E.): Moderation and Investigation

Hadrian’s reign is often seen as less hostile than his predecessor’s. In response to legal abuses and mob-driven accusations, Hadrian issued a rescript to Minucius Fundanus, the proconsul of Asia, around 124–125 C.E., in which he instructed that:

• Charges against Christians must be based on specific illegal acts.

• Accusations must follow legal procedure, not mob violence.

• Frivolous or malicious accusers could themselves be punished.

Implication:
Hadrian’s letter did not legalize Christianity, but it introduced a measure of procedural fairness. Christians could not be condemned merely to satisfy popular hostility or unverified rumors. Still, those who confessed openly were not exempt from punishment.

Cautionary Note:
Hadrian’s toleration was administrative, not theological. The empire still saw Christianity as a dangerous deviation from Roman religious norms. The best that could be hoped for under Hadrian was a fair trial, not immunity.

---

Antoninus Pius (138–161 C.E.): Persecution by Local Agitation

Under Antoninus Pius, imperial policy remained consistent with Hadrian’s, but local hostility began to intensify. While the emperor himself did not launch imperial campaigns against Christians, provincial outbreaks of persecution were common—especially in regions like Asia Minor, where pagan cults retained strong local support.

In his Apology, Justin Martyr (writing during this reign) addressed Antoninus Pius, defending Christians against charges of atheism and lawlessness, arguing that they were persecuted solely for their name. His very need to appeal to the emperor reveals the unstable status Christians continued to occupy.

Notable Case:

• Around 155 C.E., Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of the apostle John, was executed during a wave of local persecution. His trial followed the standard formula: denial, demand for sacrifice, refusal, and execution—without any formal legal condemnation beyond the profession of Christian identity.

Legal Mechanism:
Christian trials under Antoninus followed the Trajanic formula: confession equaled guilt. But local governors often acted under mob pressure. Popular agitation remained a powerful informal force behind many executions.

---

Marcus Aurelius (161–180 C.E.): Philosophy Meets Political Persecution

Though remembered as a Stoic philosopher-emperor, Marcus Aurelius oversaw a reign during which persecution of Christians increased significantly, particularly in Gaul and Asia Minor. Though there is no imperial edict against Christians from his hand, several factors converged to worsen their condition.

1. Natural Disasters and Superstition:
   Famines, plagues, and military defeats during Marcus’s reign fueled superstition and suspicion. Christians were accused of provoking the gods’ wrath due to their refusal to worship in traditional ways.

2. Philosophical Disdain:
   Stoics valued rationality, civic virtue, and alignment with nature. To many Stoic thinkers, Christianity seemed irrational, anti-social, and morally disruptive. Christian humility, forgiveness of enemies, and refusal to engage in pagan rituals appeared absurd or dangerous.

3. Mob Violence and Local Trials:
   The Lyon Persecutions (177 C.E.) stand out as the most notable under Marcus Aurelius. Christians were tortured, thrown to wild beasts, and executed under local authority, with tacit imperial approval. Victims included Blandina, a slave girl who endured horrific torture yet refused to deny Christ.

Legal Basis:
As with Trajan’s policy, the mere confession of the name “Christian” constituted a capital offense. Sacrificing to the emperor or Roman gods could spare one’s life. Refusal meant death.

Significance:
Though Marcus Aurelius did not personally write laws against Christians, his reign marked an ideological hardening. Christians were increasingly seen not merely as misguided but as dangerous subversives, destabilizing the empire by rejecting its gods, customs, and political order.

---

Summary of the Legal Evolution (98–180 C.E.)

---

The Name on Trial

Throughout this period, Christians were not condemned for crimes committed, but for who they were. They refused to sacrifice, refused to lie, refused to worship Caesar or pagan deities. The legal logic was chillingly simple: confess the name, die. Renounce the name, live.

This era crystallized the legal and spiritual cost of faithfulness. It reinforced the principle declared in Acts 4:12—“There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” That name—Jesus Christ—was enough to justify death in the eyes of Roman law.

And yet, the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church. The refusal to compromise, the resolve to suffer rather than sin, and the courage to confess Christ under legal threat revealed to the empire—and to history—the unwavering loyalty of those who obeyed God rather than men.

From Septimius Severus to Diocletian: The Codification and Climax of Imperial Persecution

Introduction: The Turning Point from Tolerated Hostility to Systematic Suppression

By the close of the second century C.E., Christianity had spread throughout the Roman Empire—among slaves and free, men and women, rich and poor. Its continued growth and resilience under persecution only deepened imperial suspicion. The informal hostility and locally administered penalties of the first two centuries gave way to official policies of extermination under specific emperors. By the early fourth century, Christianity faced its most comprehensive legal attack under Diocletian’s edicts, marking the height of imperial opposition.

---

Septimius Severus (193–211 C.E.): Legal Restriction on Conversion

Septimius Severus inherited an empire still under the legal framework of Trajan and Hadrian: Christians were punishable if accused and convicted, but no empire-wide ban had yet been codified. What changed under Severus was not the punishment of Christians per se, but a broader imperial edict against religious conversions.

Reported Law:
Around 202 C.E., Severus reportedly issued a decree forbidding conversion to Judaism or Christianity. Though no full text of the edict survives, Church historians such as Eusebius and Tertullian reference this measure. It appears that the emperor sought to curb the expansion of non-Roman religions that were perceived as divisive or unpatriotic.

Effect:
While existing Christians were still handled under earlier protocols, new converts and those who evangelized them were now explicitly breaking imperial law. This marked a turning point: Christianity was not only disapproved but now illegal to spread.

Notable Martyrs:

• Perpetua and Felicitas, two young Christian women in Carthage, were executed in 203 C.E. Their imprisonment, trial, and martyrdom are documented in one of the most vivid early Christian texts. Their case reflects the application of Severus’s policy, especially targeting converts and catechumens.

Significance:
The state now viewed Christian expansion as a threat, and it was no longer the Christian identity alone but the Christian mission—conversion, discipleship, and baptism—that was legally forbidden.

---

Decius (249–251 C.E.): Universal Loyalty Test and the First Empire-Wide Edict

Under Emperor Decius, persecution reached a new level of legal clarity and imperial coordination. In 250 C.E., Decius issued an empire-wide decree requiring every inhabitant of the empire to offer sacrifice to the Roman gods in honor of Rome’s restoration and the gods’ favor.

The Edict’s Requirements:

• All citizens were to offer incense and food sacrifices to the imperial gods.

• Individuals had to obtain a certificate (libellus) proving they had complied.

• Failure to perform the ritual was viewed as treason and punishable by death.

Impact on Christians:
This was the first time Christianity itself was directly outlawed by universal statute. While earlier emperors punished Christians for defying expectations, Decius legally mandated apostasy. Christians who refused to sacrifice were arrested, tortured, and, if unrepentant, executed. Many recanted under duress, while others, known as “confessors”, held firm and suffered punishment.

Consequences:

• The church was torn between those who had remained faithful and those who had lapsed (lapsi).

• This led to internal conflict over how to reintegrate those who repented after denial of Christ.

• The martyrdom of bishops, elders, and prominent teachers disrupted local congregations.

Significance:
Under Decius, Christian refusal to participate in Roman worship was no longer a tolerated anomaly—it was officially criminal. This marked the beginning of imperial intent to eliminate the church through legal coercion, rather than contain it.

---

Valerian (253–260 C.E.): Targeted Elimination of Church Leadership

Valerian’s persecution, beginning around 257 C.E., was more systematic than that of Decius. Rather than compel universal sacrifice, Valerian targeted Christian leadership and worship structures in two major decrees:

First Edict (257 C.E.):

• Prohibited Christian assemblies.

• Ordered bishops, elders, and deacons to perform sacrifices or face exile.

Second Edict (258 C.E.):

• Imposed death on Christian clergy who refused to comply.

• Confiscated property from Christian nobles and banned meetings entirely.

• Mandated the execution of anyone who continued to hold office in the church.

Notable Martyrs:

• Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was executed in 258 C.E.

• Sixtus II, bishop of Rome, and many of his deacons were also killed.

Legal Evolution:
Valerian’s strategy was clear: destroy the leadership to collapse the structure. This was a legally articulated attempt not merely to intimidate Christians, but to dismantle the church by cutting off its shepherds and silencing its worship.

---

Gallienus (260–268 C.E.): Edict of Toleration

After his father Valerian was captured in battle by the Persians, Gallienus issued a reversal of policy, effectively ending persecution and granting peace to the churches. He issued an edict that:

• Returned confiscated Christian property.

• Allowed freedom of assembly and worship.

• Prohibited further prosecutions based on Christian identity.

Impact:
This edict provided a brief period of legal recognition and calm. Though not granting Christianity the status of a legal religion, it ended state-sponsored persecution for several decades.

---

Diocletian (284–305 C.E.): The Great Persecution

The final and most severe stage of Roman persecution began under Diocletian and is known historically as “The Great Persecution.” After decades of relative peace, Diocletian—urged by his co-emperor Galerius—issued a series of edicts beginning in 303 C.E. These were designed to eradicate Christianity entirely.

First Edict (303 C.E.):

• Ordered destruction of church buildings and Scriptures.

• Prohibited Christian assemblies.

• Stripped Christians of legal rights and privileges.

Second and Third Edicts (303 C.E.):

• Imprisoned Christian clergy.

• Demanded sacrifice under threat of torture and execution.

Fourth Edict (304 C.E.):

• Extended the sacrifice mandate to all Christians, not just leaders.

Severity:

• Christians were tortured, mutilated, and burned.

• Thousands were executed across the empire.

• Scriptures were burned en masse.

• Christians in the military were purged.

Duration and Decline:
The persecution lasted nearly ten years, but varied by region. In the Western Empire, Constantius Chlorus (father of Constantine) enforced it lightly. In the East, Galerius pursued it aggressively.

End of the Persecution:
In 311 C.E., Galerius, dying of illness, issued the Edict of Toleration, ending the persecution and requesting Christians to pray for the empire. Two years later, Constantine and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan (313 C.E.), which granted complete religious freedom throughout the empire.

---

Summary: From Suppression to Survival

---

Conclusion: Tested by Fire, Preserved by Providence

From 193 to 313 C.E., the legal treatment of Christians shifted from indirect suppression to explicit, codified persecution aimed at extinction. And yet, despite torture, loss, and martyrdom, the church did not vanish. It grew deeper, more disciplined, and more unified. The legal machinery of the empire tried to crush it. But the spiritual body of Christ, built on the foundation of truth and loyalty to God, endured.

The words of Jesus proved faithful:
“You will be hated by all people on account of my name, but the one who has endured to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22).

From Constantine to Theodosius: Legal Favor, Establishment, and the Rise of a State Church

Introduction: From Persecuted Minority to Protected Faith

After nearly three centuries of recurring persecution, the fourth century C.E. introduced a dramatic shift in the church’s legal standing. What began with gradual toleration became, by century’s end, a state-backed establishment. Under Constantine and his successors, Christianity moved from being condemned as an illicit superstition to becoming the favored—and eventually the only—religiously lawful system in the empire. This legal reversal brought blessings and burdens, reshaping the nature of the church’s public presence, legal obligations, and spiritual identity.

---

Constantine I (306–337 C.E.): The First Imperial Protector

Constantine’s rise to power marked the beginning of official imperial favor toward Christianity. Though raised in a pagan context, his mother Helena was a professing Christian, and Constantine is known to have invoked the God of the Christians for aid before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge (312 C.E.). His victory led to a radical shift in imperial policy.

The Edict of Milan (313 C.E.):
Issued jointly by Constantine and Licinius, the Edict of Milan declared:

• Full religious freedom for all citizens.

• Restoration of confiscated Christian property, including churches and cemeteries.

• The right of Christians to freely assemble and worship.

This was not the establishment of Christianity as the state religion—it was the legal equalization of Christianity with all other cults. It reversed Diocletian’s anti-Christian edicts and made persecution illegal.

Constantine’s Additional Policies:

• Funded the construction of churches.

• Exempted Christian clergy from certain taxes and civic duties.

• Convened the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.), the first empire-wide ecclesiastical gathering, to resolve doctrinal conflict (primarily Arianism).

• Gave bishops judicial privileges, allowing certain civil cases to be settled in church courts.

Significance:
Under Constantine, Christianity was no longer marginal—it was respected, funded, and consulted at the highest levels. Yet this newfound favor also brought the church into close cooperation with imperial power, introducing a dynamic that would later compromise ecclesiastical independence.

---

Constantius II (337–361 C.E.): From Favor to Enforcement

While Constantine showed favor to Christians, he maintained toleration toward non-Christian religions. His son Constantius II, however, began pressuring pagan worship and expanding Christian influence in civil affairs.

Key Developments:

• Closed some pagan temples.

• Favored Nicene and anti-Arian bishops depending on political alliances.

• Passed laws against divination and sacrifice—steps toward the criminalization of traditional Roman religion.

Legal Consequence:
While Christianity was not yet the state religion, it was now increasingly protected by law and its rivals slowly discouraged. The church was now entangled in imperial policy and theological factionalism. Bishops could gain or lose position through imperial favor.

---

Julian the Apostate (361–363 C.E.): A Short Pagan Reprisal

Julian, a nephew of Constantine, renounced Christianity and sought to revive paganism while undermining the church without overt persecution.

Policies:

• Removed state funding from churches.

• Restored pagan temples and rituals.

• Barred Christians from teaching classical literature, aiming to reduce their influence.

Julian’s death in battle halted this counter-reform. His reign, though brief, demonstrated that Christianity’s status was not yet irreversible and that imperial favoritism could shift with the throne.

---

Theodosius I (379–395 C.E.): Christianity Becomes the State Religion

The reign of Theodosius I marked the legal establishment of Christianity as the sole authorized religion of the empire. This move completed the transition from persecution to privilege—but at the cost of religious liberty.

Key Edicts and Laws:

• The Edict of Thessalonica (380 C.E.):
  Declared that all Roman citizens must hold the faith “as delivered by the Apostle Peter to the Romans,” namely Nicene Christianity.

  “We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians.”

• Banned public pagan sacrifices and closed temples.

• Declared heretical sects—such as Arians, Donatists, and others—illegal.

• Forbade Christian assemblies outside the state-recognized church, even those holding to early doctrines if not in step with the Nicene consensus.

Significance:
For the first time, Christianity was not only protected—it was mandated. All Roman citizens were expected to align with state-defined orthodoxy, and all other forms of worship—pagan, Jewish, or heretical Christian—were increasingly marginalized or outlawed.

---

Legal Summary: From Minority Sect to Mandated Faith

---

Conclusion: Freedom Gained—Freedom Compromised

The legalization and eventual state endorsement of Christianity fulfilled what seemed impossible during the centuries of persecution. No longer a hunted sect, the church became the legal, cultural, and political cornerstone of the Roman world. Temples to idols were replaced by church buildings. Martyrs were honored, not executed. Christian values shaped imperial policy, law, and civil society.

But with that favor came danger. The alliance between church and state blurred the lines between spiritual and political authority. Doctrinal decisions became subject to imperial approval. Dissent, even on legitimate theological grounds, was now a legal offense. The same system that once outlawed the gospel was now enforcing it—and eventually punishing deviation from it.

The pattern had reversed, but the power structure remained. As history would later reveal, the church’s greatest test was not always persecution from without—but corruption, compromise, and coercion from within.

The faithful must remember: the gospel’s power does not rest in civil endorsement, legal recognition, or political privilege. It rests in truth. And whether outlawed or mandated, the mission remains the same: to preach the Word faithfully, to suffer if necessary, and to obey God as ruler rather than men (Acts 5:29).

You May Also Benefit From

Ecbatana: Biblical Geography, History, and Archaeology of a Median and Persian Capital

About the Author