The Road to Nicaea

What were the key events leading up to the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD?

Photo by Ries Bosch on Unsplash

Remember, next year is the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed, so to get you ready for the epic party of theological celebrations, let’s do some background!

The Nicene Creed is one of the most ancient and universal statements of the Christian faith that is widely used in liturgical worship across the world today. It is called Nicene Creed because it was originally composed and promulgated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD in modern-day Iznik in Turkey, then was later reaffirmed and expanded at the first council of Constantinople in 381 AD to become the Niceno-Constantinpolitan Creed.

The Nicene Creed was an attempt to define the meaning of Jesus’s divinity, to reach a consensus as to the precise manner in which Jesus was divine? Was Jesus divine in the sense that he was a human being who had been adopted as God’s Son or deified upon death? Was he an angel who became human and then reached uber-angel status? Or was he divine the same way as God the Father?

In many ways, the Nicene Creed was the attempt to answer those questions in response to the controversial teachings of a Libyan presbyter named Arius, in light of disagreements among clergy in Egypt and in the eastern churches, and at the behest of the emperor Constantine who had only recently solidified his control of the eastern and western theatres of the empire. So the Nicene Creed emerged out of a mixture of theological tussles, church politics, and imperial concerns about the unity of the Christian churches.

Now, I don’t want to flog a dead horse, or resurrect a dead heretic, as I’ve already made a video about Arius and the Arian controversy, which provides an aerial overview of the many of the events leading up to and following Nicaea.

So, to briefly recap that, Arius argued that Jesus was divine in the sense of being a supreme angelic creature, a creation of the Father, who preceded creation, but was not co-eternal or co-equal with God the Father. Arius was expelled from the Diocese of Alexandria by bishop Alexander, but he found refuge and support from bishops in Palestine and Asia Minor who supported his case and argued for his readmittance to the church of Alexandria. Then at the Council of Nicaea which Emperor Constantine sponsored, Arius’ views were condemned and he was exiled. There were subsequent attempts to restore Arius to the church, with bishops and imperial officials politicking behind the scenes, but Arius died before he could be restored to fellowship in Alexandria. There’s more to it than that, but that’s the basic picture.

What I want to explain here is take a more granular look at the course of events following on from Arius’ expulsion from Alexandria around 318 AD up to the eve of the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Some other day, I’ll talk about the Council of Nicaea itself, what went down, who said what, how it panned out, but for now it is all about the road to Nicaea, 318-325.

It is quite the story of theology, politics, intrigue, emperors, and feuding bishops!

---

To read further, consider joining the “Aviary” by taking out a paid subscription, only $7 per month or $75 per year, supports me in my ministry and scholarship, and gets you 4-5 posts per week on biblical studies, Christianity and gender relationships, cultural commentary, book reviews, previews of my forthcoming books. Also, access to exclusive content in the Paideia Academy, which includes my video lectures on several topics.

In 318, Arius and his entourage were condemned by a council in Alexandria presided over by bishop Alexander. Arius and his crew were expelled and found refuge in Nicomedia with Eusebius of Nicomedia who convened his own council and exonerated Arius and demanded that bishop Alexander restore him. In response, Bishop Alexander writes to many bishops, telling them not to accept Arius nor to heed the intercession made by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Soon after, Arius takes his traveling road show to Palestine, where Eusebius of Caesarea convened a council who also acquitted Arius and urged a reconciliation between Arius and bishop Alexander.

Part of the reason for the inability to reach a reconciliation is because it was during his exile that Arius wrote his famous Thalia, a poem celebrating the Son and majored on how the Son was holy and heavenly, but very inferior to God the Father. So that hardened the categories and the actual points of contention. So when Arius and his crew did turn up again to Alexandria again probably sometime in 320-21, it was a commotion, not communion, and Arius again was shown the door.

As we get deeper into the early 320s, things are beginning to heat up between Constantine (the western emperor) and Licinius (the eastern emperor). Licinius knew that Constantine had a pro-Christian policy and he began taking pot shots at Christians including forbidding any meeting of bishops, because all they do is quarrel and fight and denounce each other over Arius any ways.

Eventually though, in 323-24, Constantine and Licinius came to war with each other and Constantine won battles at Adrianople and Chrysopolis so that Licinius was defeated, captured, and after a while executed.

Constantine knew about the debates and divisions in the eastern churches. He had had to deal with similar divisions in the western churches about the Donatist controversy and now, as the supreme ruler of the east and west, he didn’t want to have his attention and energy drained by squabbling bishops debating the minutia of theology.

So Constantine sent a letter to Bishop Alexander and Arius, telling them to stop their trivial quarrel over matters of, I quote, “futile irrelevance” and be reconciled. But it didn’t work, so Bishop Ossius of Cordova, Constantine’s religious advisor and emissary, convened a council in Antioch in early 325, mainly with sympathizers of bishop Alexander, which set forth a letter with a creedal statement that was highly anti-Arian. It is very interesting to read, very long, so I’ll read it to you with some pictures in the back.

[The Church’s faith is] To believe in one God, Father, almighty, incomprehensible, unchangeable and unalterable, administrator and governor of all, just, good, maker of heaven and earth, and all that is in them, the Lord of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, begotten not from nothing, but from the Father; not made, but a genuine offspring. He was begotten inexpressibly and unspeakably, because only the Father who begot and the Son who was begotten know it, “for no one knows the Father except the Son, or the Son except the Father” [Matt 11:27]. He always exists and never before did he not exist, for we have been taught from the holy Scriptures that he alone is God’s image. He is not unbegotten, for he is clearly begotten of the Father. This status has not been placed upon him; in fact, it would be godless blasphemy to say so. But the scriptures say that he is the real and truly begotten Son, so we believe him to be unchangeable and unalterable. He has not been begotten or come into being merely by the Father’s will, nor has this status been placed upon him, which would make him appear to be from nothing. But he was begotten as was fitting for him, not at all according to the impermissible idea that he resembles, is of similar nature to, or is associated with any of the things that came into existence through him. But, because this transcends all thought, conception, and expression, we simply confess that he has been begotten from the unbegotten Father, God the Word, true Light, righteousness, Jesus Christ, Lord of all and Savior. He is the image not of the will or of anything else except the actual being [hypostasis] of the Father. This one, the Son, God the Word, was also born in the flesh from Mary the Mother of God and was made flesh. After suffering and dying, he rose from the dead and was taken into heaven, and he sits at the right hand of the Majesty of the Most High. He is coming to judge the living and the dead. Just as the holy writings teach us to believe in our Savior, so also they teach us to believe in one Spirit, one catholic church, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment which will pay back to each man according to what he has done in the flesh, whether good or evil. We anathematize those who say or think or proclaim that the Son of God is a creation; has come into being, or was made, or was not truly begotten; or that there was a time when he did not exist (for we believe that he was and that he is Light); still also those who think he is unchangeable only by his free will [i.e., not according to his essence], as with those who think he did not exist before he was begotten and that he is not unchanging by his nature as the Father is. He has been proclaimed as the Father’s image in every respect, especially in this respect, that he does not change. This faith was put forth, and indeed the entire holy synod consented and confessed that this is the apostolic teaching which alone is able to save. All the fellow-ministers have the same understanding about these issues. Only Theodotus of the Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in Neronia, and Eusebius from the church in Caesarea of Palestine have appeared together and brought forward ideas contrary to those expressed here, as if they have forgotten the holy Scriptures and the apostolic teachings (though indeed they have attempted to shiftily escape notice and hide their deceptions with false, though persuasive-sounding arguments). In fact, from what they were asked and what they asked in turn, they clearly were proven to agree completely with Arius’ party, and to hold opinions contrary to what was established by our synod. For this reason, that their hearts are so hardened, and that they have no regard for the holy synod which rejected and disapproved of their ideas in these matters, we all fellow-ministers in the synod have ruled not to practice fellowship with these men, not to consider them worthy of fellowship, since their faith is something other than that of the catholic church. 

The content here is very similar to a letter by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria to Bishop Alexander of Byzantium, so this synodal letter is anti-Arian and pro-bishop Alexander.

But there’s a few things to note:

• There is no mention of the word homoousios, same-substance, that will become important later, indeed the word which people fight over.

• There are explicit anti-Arian denials such as the Son is a creature who was generated in time.

• The letter says that the Father alone is “unbegotten,” and the Father has a hypostasis from which the son derives, but it’s not clear what that means and whether the Son has his own hypostasis, or gets it from the Father. That confusion of language about person and essence will remain unclear and confusing even when we get to the Council of Nicaea.

But that did not settle the debate or heal the divisions. Arius was still around the the Eusebii thought they could win Constantine and the council over.

So the emperor Constantine, trying to consolidate the eastern half of the empire, called for a council of bishops initially to meet in central Asia Minor in Ancyra, but the location was soon changed to Nicaea on the northern coast so Constantine could flit and move between Byzantium and Nicaea as he needed to.

And what happened at the Council of Nicaea in 325, well, that’s for next time …