the seductive influence of marcus aurelius - john … · the seductive influence of marcus aurelius...

The Seductive Influence of Marcus Aurelius

“Spirituality for atheists, happiness without God, joy without heaven and morality without religion.”1

Text for Inspiration Ministries’ Chapel Service, April 14, 2010

By John E. Roos

Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications & Research

Inspiration Ministries

What is the ideal form of government? Writing in The Republic, about 360 B.C., the great Greek

philosopher Plato argued that the best government would be led by a “philosopher-king.” He wrote,

“There will be no end to the troubles of states, or indeed . . . of humanity itself, till philosophers are

kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and

political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands.” Plato concluded that “there is no other

road to happiness, either for society or the individual.”

Although this lofty thesis has been widely known, it almost never has been applied in practice.

Many leaders have had been thoughtful and known for unusual wisdom, with philosophical ideas about

life and government. However, there have been comparatively few true philosopher-kings.

One of the rare exceptions was Marcus Aurelius. What distinguished Marcus was that he was a

real philosopher. Born in Rome to a prominent family on April 26, 121 AD, he was marked out as a

future emperor when still in his teens. Given the best education, he became an avid disciple of Stoic

philosophy. This was “the most important” of the philosophical schools developed by the Greeks. “The

movement takes its name from the stoa (‘porch’ or ‘portico’) in downtown Athens where its founder,

Zeno (332/3-262 B.C.) taught and lectured.”

Stoics had “the unwavering conviction that the world is organized in a rational and cogent way .

. . More specifically, it is controlled and directed by an all-pervading force that the Stoics designated by

the term logos . . . In individuals it is the faculty of reason. On a cosmic level it is the rational principle

that governs the organization of the universe.”2 This philosophy framed his life and taught him “to

submit his body to his mind, his passions to his reason; to consider virtue as the only good, vice as the

only evil, all things external as things indifferent.”3

When his father died on March 7, 161, Marcus became emperor. For uncertain reasons, he

insisted that his younger, adoptive brother, Lucius Verus, be made co-emperor. They became co-rulers

at a time when “the empire was at its height. It was prosperous and stable.” Yet their reign was

“particularly hard,” as Rome faced constant warfare and other troubles.

Fighting in distant lands, Roman soldiers contracted various diseases, and brought them “back

to their home bases.” The result were a serious epidemic. And, “for the next three decades much of the

empire was ravaged by periodic outbreaks of this disease, and in 189 it was said that 2,000 were dying in

Rome every day.”4

As part of his responsibility as co-emperor, Verus assumed primary responsibility for leading

Rome’s military. But, when he died in 169, Marcus became sole emperor and assumed direct leadership

of armies. In fact, he spent much of the rest of his reign with his troops on the northern frontiers.

From the perspective of history, we can see Marcus’s weaknesses. In many ways he was an

ineffective leader. It has been said that he was “largely a failure in politics and government,

overwhelmed by circumstances mostly beyond the scope of any human being.”5

1 Marcus Aurelius: A Life, Frank McLynn, Da Capo Press, New York, 2009, pp. xvii.

2 Introduction to Meditations, Marcus Aurelius, Introduction by Gregory Hays, The Modern Library, New York, 2003, pp. xix-xxii.

3 The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon, Ed. Hans-Friedrich Mueller, The Modern Library, New York, 2003, p.

53. 4 How Rome Fell, Adrian Goldsworthy, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2009, pp. 49-51.

5Marcus Aurelius: A Life, p. 494.


He faced constant conflicts with Roman senators and others among the ruling families of Rome.

Many took advantage of Marcus for their personal profit. He often was manipulated by his wife,

Faustina. In particular, Marcus seemed blind to the fact that she had many lovers. He even promoted

several of them “to posts of honor and profit.”6

He also can be seen an ineffective father. In 177, Marcus proclaimed his then 16-year-old son,

Commodus, as his joint emperor. This was to be a disastrous decision. And, when Marcus in 180,

Commodus was left in charge. And he went on to become one of Rome’s worst emperors.

“Drunk with power and completely unfit to rule, the new emperor convinced himself that he was a reincarnation of Hercules,

took the title Pacator Orbis (pacifier of the world). And renamed Rome and the months of the year in his honor. The Roman

people endured their megalomaniacal ruler for twelve long years as his reign descended into depravity, before a senator finally

took matters into his own hands and had the emperor strangled in his bath.”7

In spite of these failings and weaknesses, Marcus gained a reputation as one of Rome’s best

emperors. Many looked back on his reign with fondness. In his classic book about the Roman Empire,

Edward Gibbon concluded, “If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world, during

which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation,

name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.” This was the era

that ended with Marcus’s rule. Within a century of his death, his image was preserved “among those of

their household gods.”8

However, over the centuries, his reputation grew largely as the author of Meditations. There are

many mysteries about the history of this book. We really don’t know how it survived, or how it became

known. But, never designed for publication, these “meditations” probably were written during the last

decade of his life, while he was away from Rome, with his troops on the field of battle. This was a “dark

and stressful period for him” as he dealt with a series of difficult challenges.9

Yet “life in an army tent, well away from a capital city filled with chattering senators and noisy

Roman masses, was actually Aurelius’s preferred place of residence. In his years on the German front,

Marcus Aurelius was able to indulge some of his time in philosophy . . . They are the musings of a man

trapped by his own duty, carrying the weight of an empire that he was happiest when farthest from.”10

In his introduction to his translation of Meditations, Gregory Hays comments that these were

writings that primarily raise “metaphysical and ethical” questions: “Why are we here? How should we

live our lives? How can we ensure that we do what is right? How can we protect ourselves against the

stresses and pressures of daily life? How should we deal with pain and misfortune? How can we live with

the knowledge that someday we will no longer exist?”

Hays notes that Meditations is not a diary and has no sense of being written for an audience.

Rather, he suggests that this is filled with “’spiritual exercises’ composed to provide a momentary stay

against the stress and confusion of everyday life: a self-help book in the most literal sense . . . The

individual entries were composed not as a record of Marcus’s thoughts or to enlighten others, but for

his own use, as a means of practicing and reinforcing his own philosophical convictions.”11

His reputation, and the reputation of this book, particularly grew after Christianity became the

6 The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, p. 58.

7Lost to the West, Lars Brownworth, Crown Publishers, New York, 2009, p. 9.

8 The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, pp. 53-58.

9 Introduction to Meditations, p. xviii.

10The History of the Ancient World, Susan Wise Bauer, W. W. Norton, New York, 2007. p. 754.

11 Meditations, Marcus Aurelius, A New Translation, pp. xxvi-xxxvii.


official religion of Rome. He was seen by many as a “premature Christian.”

12 Echoing the views held by

many, nineteenth century British philosopher and economist, John Stuart Mill, suggested that Marcus

“must have been in some sense an unconscious Christian, since his writings differ scarcely at all from the

teachings of Jesus Christ – to the point where the Meditations and the Sermon on the Mount could be

regarded as companion teachings.”13

After the development of the printing press, Meditations became a best-seller, and incredibly

influential. For example, “Captain John Smith . . . carried with him on his adventures in Virginia just two

books: the works of Machiavelli and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.”14

Marcus began to be seen in a new light during the Age of Enlightenment, when “deism, atheism

and pantheism [became] much more popular and acceptable.” Stoicism and Marcus’s philosophy no

longer were seen as linked to Christianity, but “gradually became a philosophy of scepticism and

unbelief.” In this process, Marcus heavily influenced many leading thinkers including Descartes, Spinoza,

Leibniz, and Adam Smith. He was admired by many (like Cecil Rhodes) who sought to expand their

national empires.15

His influence remains strong today. His Meditations still sells tens of thousands of copies each

year. It is part of the curriculum of countless high school and college courses. He is quoted on calendars

and inspirational books. Meditations is read by politicians and business leaders. (Bill Clinton claimed to

have read Meditations during his presidency.) He was featured prominently in the film “Gladiator.”

In many ways, Marcus seems too good to be true. Philosophical. Discerning. Above politics.

Filled with insights. In fact, he seems to have been a nice man. But, to really understand Marcus, we

must realize that, regardless of what we think of his writings, he was an enemy of Christianity.

In his biography of Marcus, Frank McLynn suggests that “fundamentally Marcus was at heart a

deeply conservative man who loathed change.”16

And, to him and many in Rome, Christianity

represented an attack on Roman religions and traditions.

As such, he felt that Christians were to blame for many of Rome’s problems. Christians had

provoked the gods with their “atheism” (because they didn’t believe in Rome’s gods) and “then

compounded this by refusing to sacrifice to them, and finally by exulting in Roman miseries caused by

the gods’ anger.” As a zealous Stoic, Marcus responded negative to Christian attacks on stoicism.

Previous emperors had been relatively tolerant toward Christians. But “Marcus in effect

rescinded the directives of Trajan and Hadrian by allowing hearsay evidence from slaves and other

malcontents.” Christianity was seen as “a perversion of normality, a social cancer.

“Marcus loved bees and often likened society to a beehive . . . In terms of that analogy,

Christians were predator wasps, vermin at any rate . . . Most of all, Marcus may have feared that

Christians were winning the ideological battle against their pagan rivals.”

Several major massacres of Christians took place during his reign. There is no clear evidence that

he ordered these attacks. But he certainly knew about them. And there can be no doubt that those who

carried out these massacres operated within parameters he created. McLynn suggests four specific

actions that demonstrate his aversion to Christianity:

“In the first place, it is clear that sometime during the years 161-9 he issued a decree making worship of the Olympian gods

inescapable . . . Another interesting piece of evidence is the law ordaining banishment to an island for anyone who tried to fill

12

Marcus Aurelius: A Life, p. 496. 13

Marcus Aurelius: A Life, p. 510. 14

Marcus Aurelius: A Life, p. xii. 15

Marcus Aurelius: A Life, pp. 508-514. 16

Marcus Aurelius: A Life, p. 106.


the minds of simple people with terror of the gods . . . The third piece of legislation is in some ways the most interesting. A

senatus consultum . . . allowed provinces of the empire to obtain gladiators at lower than market prices by purchasing

condemned criminals . . . The final piece of evidence . . . comes from his own Meditations, where he contrasts the heroic

doctrine of suicide by the Stoics with Christian martyrdom . . . It seems likely that Marcus issued his provincial governors,

proconsuls and procurators with orders that stopped short of general persecution of the Christians, but insisted that they visit

the full vigor of the law on a treasonable sect. For this reason the old proscription on hunting them down was waived, as were

the old prerogatives allowed to Christians who were also Roman citizens.”17

It was this persecution of Christians, and his opposition to Christianity, that made Marcus a hero

to men like the atheistic philosopher Frederick Nietzsche as well as Charles Darwin (and the

development of the concept of evolution). Darwin “cited Marcus in his The Descent of Man to explain

the origin of the moral sense and the influence of habitual thoughts, endorsing the emperor’s view that

whatever makes any bad action familiar also makes its performance much easier.”18

The “Folly” of the Gospel

Marcus presents interesting challenges for Christians. On one hand, his writings are insightful. At

the same time, he hated and persecuted Christians. Moreover, he symbolizes an attitude that continues

to gain prominence. As Frank McLynn describes, Marcus “holds out the prospect of spirituality for

atheists, happiness without God, joy without heaven and morality without religion.” This is an

important distinction and a key insight into his reputation and influence.

It is this anti-Christian/non-Christian world view upon which Marcus’ reputation continues to

increase with the declining commitment to Christianity. This decline “has led to a massive upsurge of

interest in New Age ideas and the thought and philosophy of the Orient, with which Marcus’s

Meditations have an obvious affinity.”19

In short, Marcus presents the kind of worldview many prefer to Biblical Christianity, and what

many would like Christianity to be like. It is a worldview that eliminates the elements of Christianity that

many find offensive: The cross. The resurrection. Miracles. Heaven and hell. Biblical principles. Filled

with pithy aphorisms. Thoughtful insights. Cogent observations. Moral platitudes. With a general

recognition and acknowledgement of the “gods.”

Those who desire this kind “spirituality” and “morality” join a long list of people who, even from

the time of Jesus, have been bothered by His teachings. Many people were interested in His message . . .

until they heard more of what He taught and required. At one point, in particular, John commented that

“many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him” (John 6.66). Why? They were willing

to accept part of His teaching, but not everything.

Paul dealt with these kinds of issues in his first letter to the Corinthians, when he wrote, “For

the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power

of God. For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I

will thwart’” (1 Corinthians 1.18-19 ESV).

He opened this letter by addressing divisions within that church. It seems clear that some were

tempted to emphasize concepts that made more sense to the world in general. They wanted to make

the Gospel message more acceptable and tolerable. To make it more comfortable to accept and believe.

While these concepts may seem logical, in fact they were distracting and even deflective. And

17



Marcus Aurelius: A Life, pp. xv-xvii.


they even destroyed the essence of the Gospel. Why? Because those who do these kinds of things place

themselves above God. They give themselves the right to pick and choose what they believe to be true.

To believe parts of the Gospel. The parts that they agree with and find acceptable.

But Paul wanted the Corinthians (and us) to understand that the Gospel requires a complete

commitment. And that, at its essence, the Gospel always will seem “folly” to the world.

He knew that many would try to develop their own brand of Christianity. They may call

themselves “Christians” but do not follow Jesus command, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must

deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me” (Mark 8.34). They would have “turned back and no

longer walked with Him.” They want to keep one foot in the world and hold back from making a

complete commitment. In the process, they miss the heart of the Gospel, and, in fact, believe a

counterfeit Gospel.

As Jesus, and Paul, taught, to be true disciples, we need to focus on the cross. The challenge is

that the cross makes no sense to people who are “perishing.” To them, it is “folly.” The Greek word here

is moria. Strong says that it comes from the word moros, which means “dull or stupid (as if shut up), i.e.

heedless, (moral) blockhead, (apparently) absurd.” Thus, moria means “silliness, i.e. absurdity.” The

Complete Word Study Dictionary says that this means “folly, foolishness, absurdity.”

Those who are “perishing” reject the cross and all that it represents. Instead, they emphasize

their kind of “discernment.” The Greek word here is sunesis. Strong says that this means “a mental

putting together, i.e., intelligence or (concretely) the intellect.” Thayer says that this is “wisdom, broad

and full of intelligence; used of the knowledge of very diverse matters.”

These people call themselves “discerning,” a related concept. The word here is sunetos. Strong

says that this means “mentally put (or putting) together, i.e. sagacious.” The Complete Word Study

Dictionary says that this means “comprehension, perception, understanding. The word denotes the

ability to understand concepts and see relationships between them.”

In other words, they want to focus on what made sense to them. Not concepts like the cross

which seem absurd or silly to their way of thinking.

Without a complete commitment, they develop a watered-down Christianity. The kind of

Christianity that has been encouraged and taught by many throughout history.

For example, just consider the widely read Bible commentaries of William Barclay. Barclay

cannot seem to accept the possibility that the Bible really means what it says. that the Bible is filled with

outdated, archaic beliefs, and needs to be re-interpreted in modern terms. For example, here is what he

wrote about Jesus’ deliverance of the demoniac in Luke 8.26-40.

“We will never even begin to understand this story unless we realize that whatever we think about the demons, they were

intensely real to the people of Gerasa and to the man whose mind was deranged. This man was a case of violent insanity . . .

The man, thinking the demons were speaking through him, besought Jesus not to send the demons into the abyss of hell to

which they would be consigned in the final judgment . . . The man – and this is the essence of this part of the story – would

never have believed that he was cured unless he had ocular and visible demonstration. Nothing less than the visible departure

of the demons would have convinced him. Surely what happened was this. The herd of swine was feeding there on the

mountain side. Jesus was exerting His power to cure what was a very stubborn case. Suddenly the man’s wild cries and shouts

and screams disturbed the swine and they went dashing down the steep pace into the sea in blind terror. ‘Look!’ said Jesus,

‘Look! There your demons are gone!’ Jesus had to find a way to get into the mind of this poor man; and in that way He found

it.”

To the same point, Barclay does not believe that it was possible that Jesus really performed a

miracle and fed the 5,000 (Luke 9.10-17). Here is what he really thinks happened:


“The evening came; home was far away; and the people were tired and hungry. Jesus, astonishingly, ordered His disciples to

give the people a meal. There are two ways in which a man can quite honestly look at this miracle. First, he can see it simply as

a miracle in which Jesus created food for this vast multitude. Second, some people think that this is what happened. The people

were hungry – and they were utterly selfish. They all had something with them, but they would not even produce it for

themselves in case they had to share it with others. The Twelve laid before the multitude their little store, and thereupon

others were moved to produce their little store, and in the end there was more than enough for everyone. So it may be

regarded as a miracle which turned selfish, suspicious folk into generous people, a miracle of what happens, when moved by

Christ, people are moved to share.”20

These beliefs reflect a worldview that Christianity needs to be re-cast and reinterpreted in

“modern” terms. That everything in the Bible needed to be seen as a product of its times. That miracles

really were not possible. That spiritual forces (e.g., demons) really weren’t real. As a result, the Gospel is

reduced to psychology, good feelings, and kind deeds. Sharing and helping. A watered down religion

that might even have been acceptable to Marcus Aurelius.

But what this does is sap the life and vitality out of the Bible. It makes Christianity nothing but a

philosophy and makes Jesus more of a psychologist. A philosopher or teacher. Like Marcus.

This attitude matches the biases of many in the First Century Church, as we see in Paul’s

comment of the “folly” of the Gospel. He knew that the essence of the Gospel was in the cross. The

message of the cross can seem foolish indeed, and this is why we can be tempted to ignore it in favor of

words that make sense to our minds. But this is why Paul said we need to focus on the cross, no matter

how it might sound, no matter how others might react:

• For it was on the cross that Jesus died for us, and that our sins might be forgiven.

• For the cross points toward embracing death as the focal point to real life, eternal life.

• For the cross means being willing to surrender our personal will to the will of God.

• For the cross means sacrificing everything in this life in order to please and obey God.

• The cross means being willing to embrace what seems foolish, naive, and absurd to the world.

• The cross opens the door to the power of God, and the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

It can be tempting to follow the wisdom of this world, the wisdom presented by men like

Marcus, with its deluded brand of discernment. But only God offers us the path to real wisdom. Real

power. Real life. It comes through the cross.

If we believe in Biblical Christianity, we must face the fact that many will think of us as being out

of date. Promoting negativity. That what we believe is dangerous, the epitome of what is wrong with

religion. Divisive. Violent. Archaic. Many Christians are seduced by the pseudo-Christianity presented by

men like Marcus, placing a higher priority on worldly wisdom than the “foolishness” of the Gospel. At

the same time, many in the world (following the example of men like Nietzsche and Darwin) seek to

recast Christianity using men like Marcus as models. They scoff at Christianity and reject it as “foolish.”

The irony is that they are right. It is “folly to those who are perishing.”

But some understand the need to be a “fool” and believe all the Gospel. C.S. Lewis was one of

these men. He was scholar and intellectual but still understood the importance of embracing Christianity

as something that is “folly” to the world:

“I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I am ready to accept Jesus as

the great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a

man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the

man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and

20

The Gospel of Luke, William Barclay, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1956, pp. 107-118.


is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as

demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His

being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”21

Christians need to realize that wisdom in the world (for men like Marcus) is human wisdom. In

contrast, the Christian worldview does not start with human observations, feelings, or conclusions.

Rather its foundation is found in God and His Word. It is based on an absolute, uncompromising

commitment to follow Jesus. It means embracing an attitude that seems illogical and foolish to the

world. Since it rejects our roots, our goals, our foundation. In fact, the door to the riches of God’s

wisdom and power comes only after we embrace this foolishness.

So, how do we respond to Marcus, and others like him? Is it possible that observations from

men like him can have true insights? Yes. We need to think of life – and Truth – as like a mosaic. This

mosaic includes many pieces, each of which is true. And each can be observed as applied – whether or

not we are Christians. Whether or not we accept the entire picture.

The problem is that people take pieces by themselves, and, from these individual pieces, they

develop distinctive overall patterns: Philosophies. Beliefs. Theologies. Religions. World Views. Each may

include elements of the Truth . . . but not the whole Truth. With a picture of life that appears deceptively

“complete,” but a picture which is not the whole.

What is our view? Our own? Based on men like Marcus? Or God’s? The only way to begin to see

the whole picture is to believe in God. To deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow Jesus. To go

where He wants us to go. To believe Him, even if we don’t understand. To embrace the “folly.” To

accept and believe God’s logic. To live a life of faith. To reject doubt and skepticism. To accept and

believe His Word. All of it!

21

Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis, MacMillan, New York, 1973, pp. 55-56.

the seductive influence of marcus aurelius - john … · the seductive influence of marcus aurelius...

Documents