By Evan LeBlanc
Few events in Christian history have generated more myths than the Council of Nicaea.
Thanks in no small part to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, the council has become the go-to explanation for everything from the formation of the Bible to the invention of orthodox Christianity. Mention Nicaea online, and it won’t be long before someone claims that Emperor Constantine gathered a group of bishops together and decided what Christians would believe for the next seventeen centuries.
In my recent article, They Call Him “The Canon Maker”: Why Eusebius Is the Real Starting Point for the Bible, I argued that neither Dan Brown nor the Council of Nicaea are good places to begin when discussing the origins of the biblical canon.
That naturally raises a follow-up question: If the Council of Nicaea didn’t decide which books belonged in the Bible, what exactly was it about?
The council was certainly real. It met between May and July of 325 AD, drew hundreds of bishops from across the Roman Empire, and included the presence of Emperor Constantine himself, who appears to have presided over at least some of the proceedings.
Important debates took place there. Just not the ones most people imagine.
As it turns out, the questions that dominated the Council of Nicaea were quite different from the stories that have grown up around it.
The Canon Misunderstanding
The misunderstanding that the books of the canon were decided at Nicaea come from a few historical concepts besides the idea of Constantine being at the council and other things that I mentioned in the above article.
The first one is a comment by the church father Jerome. Jerome says that he did not want to include the book of Judith in his Bible translation, but he notes that someone based an argument on it at Nicaea.
This appears to have been misunderstood in Christian tradition as early as the ninth century as implying that they were arguing over the legitimacy of the book of Judith at that council, but that is not what it says.
Furthermore, the important power players in the discussion of the canon such as Eusebius and Athanasius were also there at Nicaea. When people hear this, they often assume that the canon was being discussed.
I think, as I said in my last article on the canon, that this is an understandable mistake. Whether we like it or not, it is hard to get rid of this misunderstanding. Nonetheless, I am committed to making sure that I provide some information about the council of Nicaea.
Before we get into the reason that scholars think that Constantine called the council of Nicaea. I want to be clear here that it is likely the majority of scholars who work on this issue, so that you know the extent to which scholars debate this.
Having noted that I am advocating for a minority position, I don’t think that Constantine called the council of Nicaea. Following the argument of Timothy Barnes, I think that there is enough evidence from the early Syriac texts that the council of Nicaea was not called by Constantine
It was moved from its original location in Ankara because Constantine did not like the bishop there. Constantine’s role was therefore mostly related to the location of the council as opposed to the entire reason for convening it.
Why was the council called?
In my opinion, the council was called in part to deal with a movement known as Arianism. Some scholars think that Arianism was a problem in Alexandria or Antioch, but scholars are split and I think that it was a problem in the entire Eastern church, where it was spreading quickly.
Arians believed that Jesus was God, but he was not God in the same way that God the father was. Arius, the main teacher of this doctrine, argued that Jesus was not co-eternal with the father and he was a created being.
Eusebius, who is also at the council, doesn’t think that Christ is eternal or exactly the same as God the father either. But he heavily disagreed with Arius saying that Jesus was secondary to God because that was unthinkable.
The political realities that went into this discussion had a lot to do with the group dynamics of some of these Christian leaders, who tended to side with their friends and people they liked (as in the above example of Constantine moving the council).
It also had to do with the idea that the last generation of Christians had not seen any meetings of bishops because of heavy persecution, therefore meaning that this represented unchartered territory for them.
Hundreds of bishops came together, and they had the feeling that they represented the larger church in that room. They no longer had to communicate by sending letters and they had a chance to actually try to get on the same page.Constantine was certainly in control of and presiding over the council. He wanted to see the bishops get on the same page and figure out what they thought the relationship between Jesus and God was.
Aside from Arianism, there were other reasons why the council was called, such as:
The Date of Easter
The date of Easter was a big question in this council because it was no longer customary to just celebrate Good Friday on the 14th of Nisan to coincide with the Jewish calendar date in place for the Passover.
The church in Rome then responded to this by arguing that the next Sunday after the 14th of Nisan should be celebrated as Easter. This led to the quartodeciman controversy (from the Latin quartodecimanus, meaning fourteenth), which saw one group argue that the 14th of Nisan should be “Good Friday” no matter what day of the week it was.
Constantine responded by decreeing that Good Friday should never fall on the fourteenth of Nisan, which led to the marginalization and persecution of the quartodecimans in the years that followed.
How this was all figured out and whether one calculates from Easter or Good Friday really depends on where you are from. Rome had one way of doing things and setting a date and those in Asia Minor had another.
Constantine really wanted to simplify things and set a standard date for Easter every year. This is one that quite obviously did not work out the way that he may have hoped, as we are still celebrating a different date every year.
The Homoousion (ὁμοούσιον) Controversy
Scholars of this period are (unsuprisingly if you have read to this point) divided on how important the theological question of ὁμοούσιον, which is broadly a question of whether or not God the father and Jesus were of the same essence.
It may surprise some that this is the case because it was traditionally taught that this question was the entire key to understanding what this debate that they were having at this council were actually about.
This discussion (like all of the discussions at Nicaea, including the famous creed) all deal with what the best philosophical framework for explaining important Bible verses would be in order to get on the same page.
Athanasius’s basic argument is that Jesus needs to be eternal and not created because a created being cannot save you. If Jesus is eternal, then he says that it is likely that he is of the same essence as God.
Eusebius disagrees with this because he thinks that you cannot call yourself a true monotheist if you think that Jesus is eternal and of one essence with God the father, as you would then be saying that there are two beings considered God.
There were many there who thought of Jesus as subordinate and argued that God the father had adopted him, in the same way that a wealthy person may have adopted someone to improve their lot in the ancient world.
However, they would lose out to those who thought that Jesus and God were ὁμοούσιον (“of the same substance/essence”). Even in that category, though, were those who thought that God the father himself became flesh and came to earth and so Jesus and God were actually one being.Others thought that they were still two separate beings and they were just one in will and purpose, eternally united and of the same essence and/or substance. These debates continued throughout the century and in coming centuries.
The Creed We Have Today is Not the Original
The creed produced at Nicaea was actually in response to a creed that Eusebius had produced in order to prove that he was not a heretic. This was not well-received, and it was scrapped in the subsequent conversation.
The idea of a creed, however, came from a response to what Eusebius had produced and was built on the idea that they needed to produce something that went beyond the idea of the rule of faith.
As a result, they ended up with a creed that used technical philosophical language in order to explain the relationship between Jesus and God the father in the best way that they could given the tools that they had at their disposal.
At the time, this was not a very popular move because it was thought that the technical language had replaced the language of the scriptures.
I should clarify at this point that the creed that we have nowadays and its namesake are not what modern Christians say in mass, for example. That creed is actually from the council of Constantinople in 381.
After Nicaea, the creed that they had come up with had a lot of language that specifically responded to the Arian controversy by making sure that you couldn’t argue that Jesus was of a different essence or substance than God the father was.
You also could not say that there was any time that Jesus did not exist, or that he came into existence at a certain point or that he was a created being. They effectively wrote the Arian controversy out of favor.
Constantine’s Great Reversal
The creed at Nicaea was actually enforced for only a few years before Constantine called Arius out of exile and changed his mind on how everything had gone down during the council over which he had presided.
This led to over half a century of fighting about who Jesus is before they create another creed at the council of Constantinople, which is basically the same as the one that some modern Christians say in church.
Constantine then decided to punish and exile the main actors in the council of Nicaea, taking them out of the way and ensuring that Arius won the day and was able to get his moment in the sun.
The idea, therefore, that this established some sort of orthodoxy going forward that Constantine enforced throughout the empire is not accurate. These debates continued as the things decided at Nicaea were retracted over the next 30–40 years.
In the end, though, the real mover and shaker was Athanasius, who eventually got the creed at Nicaea approved enough throughout the empire that they were able to establish the relationship between Jesus and God well enough to influence the later creed at Constantinople.
This really was the first time that the empire (and even some beyond it) were able to look at things and say that they were the church. The council of Nicaea’s ideas were enduring not because everyone came together right away, but because they were eventually (retroactively in the 380s) received well.
The reception of these ideas at the councils of Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon made the legacy of Nicaea all that much more important. This wasn’t just one council that led to the permanent idea of who was orthodox and who was a heretic.These conversations continued for years, decades and centuries. Many debate them today, wondering if their categories of describing the relationship of Jesus and God are still helpful. That, however, is the topic of another article entirely.
Is that summary different than what you have heard about the council? Let me know in the comments.
Comments:
Greg Foster
I think your perspective on the purpose and details of the council is likely to be correct. Ultimately the councils agreed on the foundation for the entire Christian religion.
Your detailed overview clearly shows me the how original theology of Christian beliefs and doctrine came into being and helps to galvanize how it became divorced from the reality of the authentic Yeshua and his radical spiritual & political teachings as a rabbi of his day.
Evan LeBlanc – Author
They kind of “agreed”, but it is also worth noting that they fought and exiled each other and try to ruin each other’s lives for centuries. It was a messy process for sure.
Robert
The Nicaean Creed was not fully ratified till Chalcedon. The debate lasted 125 years with Constantine I only being involved for ten years before his death, yet he is credited by many as orchestrating the outcome. Between 337-363 there were five Arian Christian or Pagan emperors (Western Empire) before Christian Jovian came to power. Over 125 years there were four church councils and eighteen emperors (5 Arian/pagan). As you suggest, Nicaea was just the starting point in a very confused part of history.
Thanks to WikiPedia-
Emperors (west): Constantine I 306CE; Constantine II 337CE; Constans I 339CE; Magnentius 350CE; Constantius II 353CE; Julian 361CE; Jovian 363CE; 11 more Christian emperors till 450CE.
Councils: Nicaea I 325CE; Constantinople I 381CE (after return to Christianity as official religion); Ephesus 431CE; Chalcedon 451CE.
Evan LeBlanc – Author
Yes, that was a confusing time for sure. It makes sense that Constantine would be credited, as Eusebius celebrated him as a divine emperor.
Robert
I suppose modern day evangelical nationalists would give that title to the Trump. Of course he is only a president and not an emperor.
Joe Jackson
Either way, the canon seems to be man made, right?
Jeremy Burnett Rae
Bravo! Thank God, and thank you, for this rare, intelligent explanation!
Bob Carr
Thank you for a balanced and moderate account of an important event.
Darryl Willis
Thank you! It has always bothered me how people rarely check sources. The Dan Brownification of history is still a total pain…
Scotty Warfel
The explanation I’ve always read/heard was Constantine wanted a united empire in every respect, so he called together the bishops to hash out their differences. It’s easier to rule when everyone is on the same page.
Something that stands out, to me, is a comment made by David Bentley Hart, that Arian’s position was actually the more theologically conservative view at that time. Arian’s is certainly a more understandable view, if you ask me. 😉
Evan LeBlanc – Author
It’s also hard to have everyone on the same page when you haven’t made up your own mind. Arius’s position being more theologically conservative is an interesting way of looking at it. I guess that was borne out by those who thought that there was not enough Scriptural language in the creed.
Steven Kerchhoff
The First Sunday Law (321 AD). The Decree:
On March 7, 321 AD, Emperor Constantine issued a civil edict making the “venerable day of the sun” (Sunday) a mandatory day of rest.
The Council of Nicaea (325 AD): The only ruling the Council of Nicaea made regarding Sunday was its decision on Easter. The bishops determined that Easter must be celebrated universally on a Sunday, specifically, the first Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox, rather than on the exact date of the Jewish Passover.
In summary, the 321 AD decree was a civil edict that instituted Sunday as a legal day of rest. The 325 AD Council of Nicaea used that existing Sunday framework to formalize the date of Easter. Neither event changed the biblical seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday, but they established Sunday as the dominant day of Christian worship and civil rest in the Roman Empire.
See “The Antichrist Beast of Revelation 13” and “The Mark of The Beast” on my Medium profile. medium.com/@stevenkerchhoff
