Category Archives: History

Some reflections on the Middle Ages

17 Saturday Dec 2016

Posted by in History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The term “Middle Ages” refers to the long period of world history (1,000 years) which intervened between antiquity and modernity. Just as the middle life of a man is the period of life between youth and old age, and bridges the gap between the two, so also the Middle Ages of the world bridges the great chasm which separates the ancient world from the modern world. In middle life some things are lost, but others are gained, and there is an overall process of maturation; and so it was in the Middle Ages of the world. Studying the Middle Ages makes the connection between antiquity and modernity seem less remote. The Middle Ages are sometimes called the “Medieval Period,” since “Medieval” means “Middle Ages” in Latin (medius + aevum).

The Middle Ages was created by the fall of classical civilization to the barbarians. While the decline of the Roman Empire was slow and gradual, a specific date and event has recently been put forth as the dividing point between Antiquity and the Middle Ages: a massive eruption of the Krakatoa volcano in AD 535. This eruption created a worldwide ash cloud that obscured sunlight for nearly a decade, causing famines and enormous social and political upheaval. David Keys, the archaeology correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, argues in his book Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of the Modern World that the 535 eruption of Krakatoa caused the collapse of ancient cultures and empires and led to the emergence of a new world order. PBS also ran a two-part television special which summarized his research (part 1; part 2). I find Keys’ theory convincing, and I recommend his work.

The terminal point of the Middle Ages was the Protestant Reformation, which began on October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church. The Protestant Reformation broke the control which the Roman Catholic Church held over the peoples and governments of Europe, and in doing so it shattered the order of the medieval world. While the Reformation seems in some ways like a recent event, next year marks its 500th anniversary.

The church was the dominant feature of life in medieval Europe. Our reference to “the church” must be tempered by two observations in order to clear away common misconceptions. First, religion in medieval Europe, while dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, was far from monolithic. At the beginning of the Middle Ages much of Europe was still pagan, and the last pagan holdouts in the north were not finally converted until a century or two before the Protestant Reformation. There were also Muslims in Europe for most of the Middle Ages—first in the Iberian Peninsula, then in the Balkans after the fall of Constantinople (1453). There were, as well, sects of Christianity which were independent of the Roman See. These included the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Lollards, the semi-autonomus Waldensians, and the heretical Albigensians. There were also independent Christian individuals and churches whose names we do not know. Throughout the Middle Ages and the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church suppressed information on anti-papal groups. It is only in recent times that we have begun to study them, using the available sources. These studies have lifted a corner on our ignorance concerning the Middle Ages, and have revealed that the church of the Middle Ages was not a monolithic entity. We have also discovered some interesting theology of these anti-papal groups; for example, it seems that some held to a pretribulational rapture which they distinguished from the second coming. An archaeology professor I had in college claimed there is evidence that there were hundreds of house churches in Italy during the height of papal power, around AD 1000. Yet we know nothing about the doctrine of these small churches, and none of their leaders’ writings have been preserved. Virtually all that has been preserved from the Middle Ages are the writings of philosophical, mystical monks.

Second, the defining aspects of the Romanism of the Council of Trent developed by a very gradual, step-by-step process over the course of the Middle Ages. The Roman form of Christianity at the start of the Middle Ages, though it had many problems which gradually metastasized, was far different than the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the Middle Ages. At the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Roman church recognized the legitimacy of churches that were not under its direct authority, such as Celtic Christianity and the Eastern Orthodox churches. It was not until 1054 that the Roman See finally split with the Eastern church, leading to the claim that there is no salvation apart from membership in the Roman church. Celibacy was not a requirement for clergy until well into the Middle Ages. Worship of Mary developed gradually during the Middle Ages, as did the veneration of saints, the practice of penance, the issuing of indulgences, and the concepts of a priesthood and the pope as vicar of Christ. Incidentally, the Great Schism between Western and Eastern Christianity in 1054 caused the Eastern and Western churches to develop along quite separate spiritual and intellectual paths, with the eventual result being a great Reformation in the West and total deadness in the East.

That the Roman form of Christianity had deep problems throughout the Middle Ages, there is no doubt. These problems were always present, though they grew progressively worse and eventually forced the Protestant Reformation. These problems kept most men from being saved while fooling them into thinking that they were in fact saved. The medieval church is represented in Revelation 2–3 by the church of Sardis, which was the second-worst church of the seven. It was a cold church. The very worst church, however, is the lukewarm Laodicean church, which represents the church of the present age. In fact, because the church is composed of men and governed by men (who should be governed by Christ), it is almost always far from ideal, and it almost always has much corruption and many problems. One ought not to dismiss the Middle Ages completely because of the corruption in the church. The church, in spite of its problems, was the single most positive force in society and the world throughout the Middle Ages, and it included many good things as well as bad things—though, on the whole, it well merits the sharp condemnation issued by Jesus in Revelation 3:1-6.

In some ways the Medieval Period was the polar opposite of the postmodern age. It was an age of authority, of structure and order. The Medieval Period was also an age of faith. Unlike the picture that is sometimes presented of ignoramuses who never heard anything contrary to the doctrine of the church, medieval man did in fact have many challenges to his faith—from pagan barbarians, from Muslims, from heterodox sects, and from calamities of all sorts which produced great physical suffering in the lives of faithful Christians. Medieval man persisted in faith, and, with rare exceptions, did not doubt. When his faith was assaulted, he pushed back strongly, and usually converted many of the doubters.

The Medieval Period was a spiritual age. Yes, the theology of the church had deep problems, and the majority of professing Christians, from popes to peasants, were not genuinely born again. But in an age when life was exceedingly crude, brutish, short, and meager, it was spiritual riches and spiritual health that were coveted, not material riches or material health. Kings bestowed lavish gifts on the church, and nobles threw their gold rings and precious jewels into the foundation mortar of new cathedrals. There were thousands of monasteries in which huge numbers of young men and young women renounced the things of this world and committed their lives to the full-time service of God, taking vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Others joined mendicant (beggar) orders, living without home, possessions, or wife in order to be completely free to serve God within the world (rather than withdrawing from the world to serve God, as the monks). Pious men from all classes of society undertook arduous pilgrimages throughout the European continent to seek some spiritual benefit. Missionaries fearlessly brought the message of the Christian gospel to barbarian tribes on the fringes of civilization, while zealous kings launched invasions of pagan areas to force their conversion. Others, stirred by the church’s call to arms, led armies to faraway Palestine in order to free the Holy Land from the rule of the infidels. When most of the Crusaders returned home, gallant orders of knights stayed behind in the stifling Mideastern heat, and built castles to protect the Holy Land from reoccupation. The church was the most prominent and most noble building in any medieval town, and it was the center of village life. No expense was spared on the construction of churches, and some took well over a hundred years of faithful labor to complete. Many people attended church services every day of the year, and monks attended nine services within each twenty-four hour period. The calendar revolved around the festivals and seasons of the church year. Before the humanism of the Renaissance turned man’s focus back to himself and his world, God was the focus of all education, and most learned men spent their academic lives studying, writing, and hand-copying Christian texts. Indeed, education was almost exclusively the domain of churchmen; neither peasants nor nobles saw the need to become literate. Manuscripts of the Bible, lectionaries, the Book of Hours, and other liturgical texts were painstakingly and beautifully illuminated by hand. Artisans and stonemasons spent untold hours producing intricate works of art to beautify churches. Unlike today’s monumental constructions, none of the great churches of the Middle Ages, nor any part of any church, bore the names of the kings and nobles who contributed the funds to build them. Their reward was in heaven; the church was to bring glory to God. There was no concept of separation between church and state, nor of toleration of heresy or of paganism. In short, most people in the Middle Ages sincerely loved the church, loved religion, and loved God, though all too often it was a zeal without knowledge (cf. Rom 10:2).

The application of the term “Dark Ages” to the Middle Ages is only partly correct, and mainly only for the early Middle Ages after the crumbling of classical civilization and the decentralization of political power. Some (post)modern historical writings misconstrue the term “Dark Ages” to mean that the church made all of Europe backward and ignorant because of its Christian beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were, indeed, periods of intellectual and cultural decline during the Middle Ages, but these were due to the collapse of governments and empires, resulting in a feudal society with a large class of poor and ignorant peasants. Invasions by barbarian pagans and Muslims also diluted Europe’s culture and learning, and forced masses of people into a hand-to-mouth existence. During these periods of darkness it was the church, particularly monks, which preserved culture and learning, and which kept European society from collapsing. Modern man owes a great deal to medieval monks, who worked diligently and faithfully to serve God and the world in the midst of troubled and uncertain times. Monks not only preserved and attempted to disseminate learning, they also continually reformed themselves and the church, they taught good agricultural practices to the peasants, and they helped to convert and civilize the barbarians. Far from propagating ignorance, the biblical teachings of Christianity actually gave the people of the Middle Ages a far more penetrating view of reality than their Muslim and pagan contemporaries—or than the confused and shifting understanding of the world put forth by modern secular scholarship. The decline of Greco-Roman culture was in many ways no loss at all, since Greco-Roman philosophy and religion was unbiblical and largely untrue. The real decline of Western culture came through the revival of Greek philosophy and art which began in earnest during the Renaissance and continued through the Enlightenment, finally coming to full fruition in theological liberalism and atheistic naturalism. As for scientific knowledge, the state of scientific knowledge fluctuated with rise and decline of nations and empires, since there was often no means to save the knowledge of the previous generation if it was not passed down directly. Scientific knowledge contracted in some areas while greatly expanding in others during the Middle Ages (especially construction techniques), being once again preserved and advanced mainly by monks—but in the end this was of little consequence to people who viewed life’s basic needs as spiritual. One could live with just as much fulfillment and spiritual depth in primitive conditions as in a scientifically advanced society.

Justo Gonzalez makes the following observation:

It will be clear that any evaluation of the Middle Ages, even at their highest point, will reflect the theological presuppositions on which such an evaluation is made. If one believes that the purpose of history is to evolve to the point where humanity comes of age and is emancipated from all that has traditionally bound it, one will value the Renaissance and the subsequent centuries as the time of emancipation from the religious and political authorities of the Middle Ages. If, on the other hand, one sees the human purpose as basically spiritual and believes that such purpose can only be accomplished within the structure and under the authority of a Christian order, one will value the Middle Ages as the time when religious authority was accepted most widely, when people were most concerned for their eternal destinations, and when doubts regarding crucial religious questions were less prevalent.

(Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, rev. ed., vol. 2, pp. 336-37)

Gonzalez’s observation must be tempered by the reminder that the sort of spirituality that was prominent in the Middle Ages resulted in most professing Christians going to hell. Nevertheless, Jesus and the apostles made no attempt to improve society, or to invent labor-saving devices or items of comfort. There are, of course, some such items whose proper use would result in the advancement of Christianity, such as the printing press, but these can also be turned to evil ends. For the man who values the things of Christ above the things of this life, he is able to feel fulfilled without inventions, the accumulation of wealth, or the creation of great human works. He is content to study, meditate, pray, suffer, witness, and die—all in the hope of a better resurrection. The Middle Ages, for all its problems and contradictions, ought to motivate us today to a life which values the spiritual and aims to serve God above all else.

Advertisements

Christmas in the metanarrative of history

20 Sunday Dec 2015

Posted by in Christmas, History

≈ Leave a comment

For this post, I would like to share a book excerpt from the great nineteenth century New Testament scholar B. F. Westcott which provides a “big picture” perspective on Christmas. Why is Christmas such a big deal? Christmas is a remembrance and celebration of the central event in the history of the universe. Westcott rightly calls the incarnation of Jesus Christ the central point of all history. All of human history (after the fall of man) that came before Christ’s birth was preparing the world for His coming, while all of history after Christ’s death and resurrection develops as a result from it, ultimately to be consummated when Christ returns to establish His kingdom. Here are Westcott’s words, from An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels (London: MacMillan, 1888), 46-48:

The Bible is the oldest and truest vindication of the dignity of History. When the [Jews] numbered the ancient records of their state among the works of the Prophets, they acknowledged that insight and foresight are only varieties of the same faculty, differing in their objects and not in their essence. The present, if we could read it rightly, contains the past and future, though that which is real and abiding is enveloped in a mass of confused details, so that it is visible only to the eye of the true seer. This follows indeed from the nature of the case; for truth in itself is absolutely one. But though it is one in itself it can only be manifested partially; and human history in the highest sense is the record of its successive manifestations in the life of men and man. . . .

Any real appreciation of Christianity in its worldwide relations must rest upon some such view of History as this. Christianity cannot be separated from the past any more than from the future. If we may venture so to speak, it was not an accident or an after-thought, but foreknown before the foundation of the world. The Incarnation as it is seen now is the central point of all History. And more than this, if we regard the great issues of life, all past history as far as it has any permanent significance appears to be the preparation of the world for that great mystery, and all subsequent history the gradual appropriation of its results. Isolated efforts were made in ancient times to anticipate the truth for which men were waiting; and opposing powers sought to check its influence when it was set forth in the life of Christ; but premature development and open antagonism served in the end only to display the supremacy and consolidate the power of Revelation. The Gospel was no sudden or solitary message. . . . Christianity is in one sense as ancient as the Creation, resting on a foundation wide as the world and old as time. Step by step the groundwork of the Church was laid in the silent depths, and at last, when all was now ready, it rose above the earth, that all men might consciously combine to rear the spiritual temple of the living GOD.

What is true of the subject of the Gospel is true in a less complete degree of the record. The writings of the New Testament are not a separate and exceptional development, but the ripe fruit of minds which had been matured through long ages of various fortunes and manifold influences. The very language in which they are written is in some sense an epitome of ancient history. For it was the will of Providence that the people whom He destined to become the special depository of His revelations should not only develope [sic] their individual character but also by contact with Egypt, Persia, Greece, and Rome, assimilate the foreign elements necessary to the perfection of their work. The history of the Jews thus becomes as it were the key to the history of the world; and, by regarding the various stages through which it passed, it is possible to distinguish the various constituents which combined to form the character of the Apostles and to prepare men for their teaching.

Westcott is essentially arguing that the Bible presents the metanarrative of history, with the incarnation (Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection) as its center point. Westcott, in this book on the New Testament, focuses on the role of historical events to prepare the world for the establishment of Christ’s church. The church is, however, only one more step toward the ultimate goal of history, which is the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. Also, Westcott is right to observe that a record of past events cannot rightly be separated from the outcomes they produce. The full significance of past events can only be known by showing their relation to the present and the future (though he misses the reason why the Jews called the OT historical books the “former prophets”—it was because they were written by prophets, not because they contain a significant amount of predictive prophecy). Returning, then, to the Christmas event: the coming of God the Son into the world as a Man, as God-in-the-flesh, was the key event which brought salvation to the whole human race, defeated Satan, and defeated death itself. All things having been thus accomplished, the world now awaits the return of Jesus to claim at the appointed time the kingdom promised by the Father. The birth of Christ in Bethlehem two thousand years ago therefore brings hope to the whole world and to each individual in it today, not just for one’s personal salvation, but also for the redemption of all creation (Rom 8:19-23). We ought indeed to celebrate the birth of the Son of God during the Christmas season, for—among other reasons—it is the center point of all history.

What does it mean to have a biblical view of history? (Part two)

14 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in History

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

In my last post, I introduced the subject of seeing history through biblical eyes, and gave three explanations of what this means. In today’s post, I will continue (and finish) with points four through seven of what it means to have a biblical view of history.

Point #4: History is the record of reality. It encompasses past, present, and future, and both that which is known empirically and that which is known by revelation. Limiting history to the past alone is insufficient, for what happened in the past created a series of outcomes that resulted in what now is, and again in what will be. The full significance of past events can only be known by showing their relation to the present and the future. Further, this is not just a historian’s subjective interpretation of what happened, but is something that is contained within the events themselves, as it were. It is insufficient to study the present without showing how it is a development from the past, or the (prophetic/predicted) future without showing its development from the present and the past.

Limiting history to that which is known empirically alone is also insufficient, for observations in the visible, physical realm point to the activities of beings in the unseen supernatural realm. The attempt to explain human history in terms of natural cause and effect alone always gives a very implausible and incomplete account of events. To fail to see the activity of God and Satan in the world is to fail to understand history.

The Bible presents the metanarrative of history. There are some who argue that the Bible is more a book of theology than a book of history. If the secular definition of the discipline of history is accepted, this is certainly true. However, if the Bible is allowed to challenge the very possibility of a history that is created on the basis of methodological naturalism, then the secular concept of history falls apart. In addition, this is only a modern definition of history; Christian historians before the twentieth century, and especially before the Enlightenment, did not see any place whatever for a history divorced from theology. And secular history does have theology running through it just the same: the attempt to explain all things without God is a theological endeavor, and incorporates the theological assumptions inherent in a secular worldview.

On the secular worldview, all that can ever be known about history is the available evidence, and thus it may be tempting to define history subjectively as the surviving evidence known to, and interpreted by, the historian. However, on the biblical worldview, all of reality is known by God and there is a full record of all that has happened in books in heaven. Thus, the things that are now hidden will be revealed in a future day (Eccl 12:14; Matt 10:26; Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; 12:2-3; Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12).

Point #5: The epistemic basis of history is faith in biblical revelation, not empiricism or rationalism. Secular scholarship begins with the presupposition that the Bible cannot be trusted, but scholarly study of extrabiblical archeological data, inscriptions, and literature can be trusted. Thus, critical scholars start with extrabiblical material, interpret it “on its own terms,” and then interpret the Bible in light of it. However, the claim that extrabiblical data can be interpreted on its own, apart from the Bible and theological presuppositions, is false. If the Bible is taken away, it must be replaced with a different presuppositional framework. Almost invariably, this framework is atheism or deism, the view that God does not intervene in the world. This presupposition then determines the conclusion of the research, for all other possibilities are ruled out from the start. The Bible will be viewed as a human product that is largely inaccurate due to its claims of divine activity in the world. But this approach begs numerous questions: how can presupposing the Bible’s untrustworthiness be justified? Why should extrabiblical material be presupposed to be more reliable than the Bible? And why should secular presuppositions be accepted? Christian scholars, especially, ought to have faith that the Bible is the Word of God, and therefore ought to begin their historical analysis with the Bible and interpret the extrabiblical data in light of the Bible.

The Bible does not need to be verified by archeological or astronomical evidence. We know that the Bible is true because it is the Word of God, and as such is self-authenticating. The Bible does not become any more certain when archeological evidence is discovered that fits with what the Bible says.

Point #6: The Bible presents an anthrocentric view of history. According to the Bible, man was created at roughly the same time as the earth and the universe (cf. Mark 13:19), and thus is not possible to speak of a history of the earth or a history of the universe apart from the history of man. Man was created last in the creation week, since everything else in the universe was created for man—the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the animals, the plants, the seas, the dry land, and even the angels (cf. Heb 1:14). Man is both the pinnacle and the focus of creation. Man, in turn, was created for his Creator. The history of the universe is geocentric, and not just geocentric, but anthrocentric–and, in the ultimate sense, theocentric.

Point #7: The Bible elevates the history of Israel and of the Jewish people to a far higher plane of importance than that of any other people or nation in the history of the world. Many political and social events that might seem very significant in some ways, as well as the whole history of many civilizations that did not have direct contact with Israel, are considered relatively insignificant insofar as the overall plan and progress of history is concerned. The history of the Jewish people is the key to the history of the world, at least since the time of Abraham, because God is unfolding His plan of redemption through His covenants with Israel. The various stages through which the history of the Jews has passed are coterminous with the central events in the development of God’s plan of redemption, which are the events of real significance in the history of the entire human race. Redemptive history is the true history of the world, the true framework for understanding world events and the direction of world history. Almost immediately after man was created, he fell into sin; the rest of the Bible tells how and why God is going to come to the rescue of the human race, so that all of history prior to the Incarnation was “the preparation of the world for that great mystery, and all subsequent history the gradual appropriation of its results” (Brooke Foss Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels [London: MacMillan, 1888], 47.). It is not true that the histories of all peoples, civilizations, and religions are equally important and ought to be given equal time. The history of God’s people (Israel, and in a different sense all believers) is what is really important for the overall course of world history.

What does it mean to have a biblical view of history? (Part one)

08 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Those of us who live in Christian circles hear the word “worldview” frequently. Our worldview is the filter we use to interpret the world around us. To put it another way, our worldview is the lens through which we see reality. Having a biblical worldview is especially important when studying history, including not just past events but also current and future events. Seeing history through biblical eyes means seeing the spiritual significance of events around us, and not just the physical. The physical events around us are connected to the spiritual realm, and in fact the spiritual drives the physical. Most people only see the physical and do not see the real issues, which are the spiritual issues. They interpret events in terms of physical cause and effect, and miss the real reason why things are happening, and the direction in which they are going. Most people in the world do not recognize God’s sovereignty in directing history according to His plan, and they do not understand how present events fit into that plan.

What, specifically, does a biblical view of history consist of? First, the Bible presents a teleological (goal-oriented) view of history. There is purpose and direction in history, not just undirected occurrence or a meaningless cycle of events. History began in purpose, and it is heading toward ultimate goals and ends. The Bible teaches that the objective of history is the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth, an event which is initiated by the return of Jesus Christ to the earth. When this final purpose, and all it entails, is entirely fulfilled, history itself will end, so to speak, as an unchanging and eternal state of affairs is established. God created purposefully, unfolds history purposefully, and ends history purposefully. This is a very, very different worldview than all other views of history.

Second, history consists not just of undirected human action, but also supernatural intervention. History does not happen by accident, but according to God’s plan and purpose. Yet within that plan and purpose are men making free choices according to their own plans and purposes and Satan acting in opposition to God according to his own plans and purposes. It is always a challenge for the Christian historian to know how much of history to attribute to divine (or Satanic) action, and how much to attribute to human action. Most events involve a combination of both.

Third, history can only be understood properly when it is cast in terms of the conflict between the serpent and his seed and the woman and her seed as described in Genesis 3:15. Satan acts in history as the enemy of the human race and of its Redeemer, yet his opposition is used by God to bring about his own destruction in accordance with God’s purposes, for the death blow to the serpent is the direct result of his own attack on the woman’s seed. Ultimately, all of history after the fall must be viewed in terms of a spiritual conflict between God, as man’s friend, and Satan, as man’s foe, that is centered on the fate of the human race. Therefore two questions should be asked of every era of history: how is God working, and how is Satan working? Further, Genesis 3:15 can be viewed as the organizing principle of history, for all of the pivotal events in history are also the pivotal events in this conflict—the fall, the incarnation, the cross, the second advent, and the final judgment. To these could be added the call of Abraham and the covenants made with Abraham and the Jewish people. In short, it is impossible to understand history correctly without interpreting it in terms of the conflict described in Genesis 3:15.

To be continued . . .

The most significant military battles in history

06 Thursday Nov 2014

Posted by in Bible prophecy, History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

One characteristic of some newer books on military history is that they tend to just present a narrative of what happened without a reflective analysis which shows the significance of what happened. This was a complaint I had with an otherwise excellent book that I purchased, The Encyclopedia of Warfare (Metro Books, 2013). More than 5,000 battles from the history of world civilizations are listed chronologically and described, but the reader struggles to develop a sense of which battles were the most significant ones for the course of world history. So let me try here to identify history’s most significant battles (not wars). From my biblical Christian worldview, the most significant battles will be ones that had the greatest effect on the place of true religion in the world.

There are many battles recorded in the Old Testament, and each was significant in its own way. Probably the most significant ones were Joshua’s conquest of Jericho in 1405 B.C. (Josh 2–6), followed by his defeat of a coalition of southern Canaanite kings (Josh 10) and his defeat of a coalition of northern Canaanite kings (Josh 11). It was Joshua’s providential victories in these battles that gave the Israelites possession of the land of Canaan, to which the nation of Israel has been tied ever since.

Many historians consider Marathon (490 B.C.) and Salamis (480 B.C.) to be the two most important battles in world history. In these battles, the Persian king Darius Hystaspes (in 490) and his son Xerxes (in 480) were soundly defeated by the Greeks. The presence of an unconquerable and vengeful foe on the western border of the Persian Empire made eventual conquest of Persia by the Greeks inevitable, which in turn resulted in the spread of Greek language and culture throughout the center of world civilization. It was largely the two battles of Marathon and Salamis that determined the future of Western civilization, and that indeed created the concept of a common civilization. These battles therefore largely shaped the biblical world of the New Testament and the early church—though, in truth, Marathon and Salamis were only the outworking of the predetermined plan of God, and were not determinative in themselves (see Dan 8:3-8, 20-22; 11:2-4).

There is another battle which had nearly as great an impact on the course of world history as Marathon and Salamis, but which is much less famous because the victors did not celebrate the battle in literature, theater, or art. As Caesar Augustus expanded and consolidated the Roman Empire, he recognized the threat posed to Rome by the Germanic tribes, and he sought to conquer and annex Germania (Germany) for this reason. His invasion failed disastrously: three Roman legions, along with their auxiliary forces, were annihilated by a makeshift army of Germanic tribal warriors at the Battle of Teutoberg Forest in A.D. 9. Stung by this rout, the Romans contented themselves with establishing a strong defensive perimeter along the Rhine and Danube rivers. However Augustus’ failure to subdue Germania, like the failure of Darius and Xerxes to subdue Greece, portended a further disaster for some future day. It was the invasions of such Germanic tribes as the Visigoths, the Angles, the Jutes, the Saxons, the Franks, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths which gradually weakened the Roman Empire and directly caused its fall. Germanic culture melded with Roman culture to form the culture of medieval Europe, and the influences of “barbarian” Germanic culture are still strongly felt in the Western world today.

Also deserving of mention is Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in A.D. 312, fought under the sign of the cross. This battle, which gave Constantine control over the western Roman Empire, had a profound effect on the history of Western civilization as a whole, and on the history of the Christian church in particular. Constantine’s Edict of Milan (313) freed the church from official persecution, and the later adoption of Christianity as the state religion led to the development of a distinctly Christian civilization. Constantine is also significant for moving the center of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople, and for convening the Council of Nicaea in 325.

The rapid conquest of the Middle East by Islamic armies created a grave crisis for the church in the early Middle Ages. In what has often been called one of the most significant battles in all of history, Charles Martel (“the Hammer”) and his Frankish army decisively defeated an invading Muslim army at Tours (Poitiers) in 732, driving the Islamic forces back from the heartland of Europe. Although the Muslims retreated south of the Pyrenees Mountains, they were not finally driven out of the Iberian Peninsula until 1492, the year Columbus discovered America. Martel’s force was the last Christian line of defense in Europe against Muslim expansion, and there can be no doubt that the hand of God was with him to preserve Europe as a bastion of Christendom in the Middle Ages.

The American Revolutionary War was one of the most important wars in the history of the world, for it created what has become the most powerful and prosperous country that the world has ever seen. More than any other entity, the United States has essentially shaped the world of the end times. The battle that led Great Britain to concede defeat was the Battle of Yorktown, where Lord Cornwallis surrendered a British force of 8,000 to General Washington on October 19, 1781. However, Yorktown would not have been possible without earlier American victories—especially at Saratoga, where the surrender of 5,000 British soldiers on October 17, 1777 convinced France to enter the war on the side of the fledgling United States.

Surely World War I and its sequel, World War II, were two of the most significant wars in the history of the world. They vastly reshaped world civilization, altered the balance of power in the world, reshaped world economic structures, gave rise to totally new types of weapons, and led to the establishment of the modern state of Israel. The key battle of World War I was the First Battle of the Marne, fought on September 5-10, 1914. This battle turned back the German advance on Paris and created a stalemate on the Western Front that was to last until 1918. The most significant battle of World War II was the Battle of Britain, which was fought in the skies above England in August–September 1940. The Royal Air Force won this battle by the narrowest of margins, thereby frustrating Adolf Hitler’s ambitions to invade the British Isles and forcing him to turn his attention to targets reachable by land.

The greatest and most decisive battle in world history is still to be fought—the so-called Battle of Armageddon. This battle will occur at the end of the seven-year tribulation period, i.e., seven years after Christian believers are removed from the earth at the rapture and a treaty between Israel and the antichrist takes effect (these two events evidently occur simultaneously). The first 3½ years of the tribulation period will witness some incredibly devastating wars and battles, the likes of which will make the carnage of World War II pale by comparison. But at the midpoint of the seven years the antichrist seizes economic and religious power over the world, and he conquers much of the world to control it politically, which results in relative political stability for a few years. However, at the end of the tribulation period, the Bible describes how armies from the north and from the east will march on Israel, which is where the antichrist has moved the center of his operations (Dan 11:44-45; Rev 16:12-16). These armies evidently come to Israel with the intention of fighting the antichrist for political power; however, as the signs of Jesus’ second coming begin to appear, they decide to instead turn their firepower against the armies of heaven (Ps 2:2-3; Rev 16:14). But when Jesus actually appears they realize that they are infinitely overpowered (Rev 6:12-17), and they are killed simply by Jesus speaking the word: “Drop dead!” (Zech 12–14; Rev 14:17-20; 19:11-20). The angels proceed to gather all remaining unbelievers out of the world to be judged (Matt 13:41-42), and Jesus establishes direct political control over a new earth, which only believers may enter (Isa 65:17-25). Armageddon is the most decisive battle in the history of the world, since it will result in the complete and permanent changeover of power in the world from human government to direct divine rule (Dan 2:44-45). There will be one final battle 1,000 years later (Rev 20:7-10), but this is essentially a failed rebellion, with all the casualties on the side of the losers.

The Bible also describes a war being waged in the heavenly realms which has a much more profound effect on world events than most people realize (see Dan 10; Eph 6:10-20). This war, and the most significant battles in this war, will be the subject of a future post on this blog.