In her book on Constantine’s marriage legislation, Judith Evans Grubbs suggests that Constantine was not trying to “Christianize” law but to give “to the Christian ecclesiastical establishment powers and privileges with which it was able to take over new functions and amass more wealth and influence . . . . Constantine seems to have felt that certain functions could and should be undertaken by the Church - for instance, succor of the poor and weak, for which he provided funds and support to local churches . . . . Granting judicial authority to bishops was actually simpler and more efficient (though not without its own problems) than trying to make secular judges employ ‘Christian’ teachings in their decisions. By encouraging the co-operation of the church hierarchy, promoting the participation of Christians in the imperial government, and stimulating the conversion to Christianity of those classes used in governing the Empire, Constantine could ensure that Christianity would affect imperial policy without having to promulgate ‘Christian’ legislation.”

Grubbs also surmises that “in situations involving crimes such as adultery or abduction, individual church leaders not only advocated different solutions, but also refrained from alerting the imperial authorities to the presence of offenders in their congregation, since the law called for the capital penalty.” Thus the church became a sanctuary and rehab center for some who would have been condemned to death by the law.