The identity of Jesus of Nazareth is central to the beliefs of Christianity. Christianity does not call a person to join a philosophy, or a set of practices. Sure, there are philosophical ideas and practices that are consistent with Christianity. However, the central part of the Christian faith is a call to be in a relationship with Christ Jesus. Christian apologist Michael Ramsden once remarked, “Without Christ the Christian is left with the letters I A N and Ian cannot help you.” While this is simplistic, saying it does convey the importance of Jesus to the Christian religion. This is exactly the question that many bishops were called to answer in the city of Nicaea in A.D. 325.
Some skeptics claim that no one claimed that Jesus was not seen as divine until the council of Nicaea. In 2003 this view was popularized in Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code and in the movie that followed. In this novel Brown uses a fictional story to make factual claims about the origin of Christianity and the person of Jesus. While investigating a murder, several of Brown’s characters make some disturbing discoveries. One character states, “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet…A great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”{1} Another character says that “Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death.”{2} While most of Brown’s claims have been disregarded, the claim that the divinity of Jesus was something invented is still floating around. So it is still important to understand what happened at the Council of Nicaea.
One interpretation of the Council of Nicaea is that it was a “local dispute…eventually judged by the ecumenical councils.”{3} The result is that the issue of this local dispute was influenced by cultural issues that was then imposed on all Christians by an ecumenical council. An examination of the facts reveals that this interpretation is the result of imposing philosophical presuppositions onto the historical narrative instead of looking at the facts.
Before the battle of Milvian Bridge in 312, Constantine was praying when he saw a cross in the heavens with the inscription, “CONQUER BY THIS.” Constantine had that sign painted on the shields of all his soldiers before the battle. Constantine won the battle and became co-emperor of the Roman Empire with Licinius. From that point Constantine worked to promote the Christian religion in the Roman Empire.
In 318 Arius, a presbyter (priest or elder) in Alexandria, began to teach that Christ was a divine being that was created by the Father. Christ then created the world. This view made Christ “a kind of divine hero: greater than an ordinary human being, but of a lower rank than the eternal God.”{4} The Bishop of Alexandria disagreed with this view. The conflict led to a council meeting in Alexandria where Arius was excommunicated. Arius, who had the support of Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicomedia, spread his teachings through the empire. Several more meetings were held, but the controversy continued.
Constantine believed that it was his duty to promote unity in the Christian religion for the sake of the empire. Constantine wrote “My design then was, first, to bring diverse judgments found by all nations respecting the Deity to a condition, as it were, of settled uniformity …and, second, to restore a healthy tone to the system of the world, then suffering under the power of grievous disease.”{5} Constantine called the council of Nicaea to “adjudicate the meaning of Jesus’ divinity”{6}so that there could be cultural unity in the empire. The controversy may have started as a local dispute between a bishop and a presbyter, but it spread through the empire and caused enough division to get the attention of the empire. This was not just a local dispute any more, and involved more than just cultural influence. Theological questions that defined the very nature of Christianity were at the heart of the controversy.
Arius’ argument had a logical component, and a component based on Scripture. The logical argument, or “logic of monotheism,”{7} focused on the Father’s unity. Arius reasoned that if God was perfect, transcendent, and changeless, and the sustainer of all things, then everything and everyone is separate from God. If everyone is separate from God, then Jesus is separate from God. Jesus has a special role in creation and redemption but cannot be God because there is only one God. This means that Jesus is a created being. Because Jesus was created, he is subject to change. Therefore, Jesus was not God.
To popularize his argument, Arius wrote easily memorized, catchy songs set to familiar tunes, which allowed his teachings to spread across the empire. One song had the lyrics:
And by adoption had God made the Son
Into an advancement of himself.
Yet the Son’s substance is
Removed from the substance of the Father:
The Son is not equal to the Father,
Nor does he share the same substance.{8}
Arius also used Scripture as part of his argument. Arius identified wisdom with Christ. He cited Proverbs 8:22 which says, “The LORD possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.” Jesus states that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Luke states that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). This indicates that Jesus changed, something God cannot do. Paul writes that Jesus is “the firstborn among many brothers” (Romans 8:29). Paul also states that Jesus “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn among all creation” (Colossians 1:15). Arius argued that these verses meant that Jesus was the first created being. John writes, “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Paul writes to Timothy about God, “who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Timothy 6:16). Arius taught that these
verses taught that God was totally set apart from creation, which includes the Son.
Arius’ opponents thought that he was “reading meaning into innocent passages.”{9} To show this, these bishops looked to the Scripture to find their own proof texts. Paul writes of Jesus “though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6). This verse identifies the Son with the Father. John opens his Gospel with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Jesus was not only with God, he was God. The author of Hebrews writes that Jesus “is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by his word and his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3). Jesus is identified as the exact imprint of the Father and the sustainer of the universe. Paul calls Jesus the “Lord of Glory” (1 Corinthians 2:8). The author of Hebrews states that “Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). Jesus does not change and neither does the Father.
The opponents of Arius countered his argument that Proverbs 8 showed that wisdom was created by pointing to verse 30, “Then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily in his delight, rejoicing before him always.” They argued that this verse showed that wisdom was always with God.
The orthodox bishops also responded with an argument called the “logic of salvation.”{10} The argument is that if Christ is not truly God, then Jesus cannot save mankind from sin. If Jesus is less than God, and is subject to sin, then his sacrifice is insufficient to redeem mankind of their sin. Paul taught this when he wrote, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Christ cannot make us the righteousness of God if he is not of the same substance as the Father.
In his novel Brown portrays the outcome of the Council of Nicaea as coming down to a close vote. The vote was 300 to 2. In any election this would have been called a landslide. The council instated what later became the Nicene Creed. Its statement is as follows:
We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.
Constantine did not decide that Jesus should be made a God, nor did he participate in the vote. The deity of Jesus was not what was at issue at this council either. The issue before the council was the nature of Jesus’ relation to the Father.
The Council of Nicaea may have decided against Arius’ view, but the controversy was not over yet. The Arians were exiled after the council. Eusebius of Caesarea was recalled after writing a theology that made Constantine the “earthly image of the Logos.”{11} Arius was recalled from exile after giving a statement of faith that Constantine did not understand, but died unexpectedly the day before taking communion with the faithful.
Athanasius took the office of bishop of Alexandria after Alexander, the previous bishop, died. Athanasius was Alexander’s advisor at the time of the council in 325. Athanasius did not welcome the Arians back into the Church, putting him in conflict with Constantine. The Arians tried to dispose of Athanasius at Tyre in 335. Athanasius was accused of abusing clergy that disagreed with him and of cutting off food to Constantinople by instigating a dock strike. Constantine banished Athanasius to Trier in Gaul.
When Constantine died, Athanasius and Marcellus, who taught that the Father and the Son were of a similar substance, were allowed to return from exile. The Eastern Empire was ruled by Constantius, and the West by Constans. The Nicene Creed was still the official doctrine, but the Arians outnumbered the orthodox Christians. To advance their cause the Arians convinced Constantius to banish Athanasius and Marcellus again. In 340 Bishop Julius recalled Athanasius and Marcellus. Marcellus’ teachings were declared orthodox. However, in 341 there was a council at Antioch that rejected the teachings of Arius and Marcellus. Athanasius was not allowed a hearing at the council. The creed that was affirmed by this council excluded Arianism and condemned Marcellus. Constans and Constantius decided to call a council in Sardica. This council ended in schism between the eastern and western parts of the Empire. Athanasius abandoned Marcellus and was allowed to return to Alexandria.
In 350 Constantius gained control over the western Empire. He allowed the Arians power in the Church. Bishops were forced to turn on Athanasius. In 356 Athanasius was banished again. A creed was published in 357 that banished the philosophical language that was used in Nicaea. Basil, Marcellian’s successor, taught that the Son was of the same substance as the Father; this development was encouraging to Athanasius.
When Emperor Justine ascended to power, he permitted all exiles to return. A council was held in 362 in Alexandria where the Nicene Creed was affirmed. Another council was held in 381 in Constantinople where a modified version of the Nicaea Creed was affirmed and all bishops were assured that the three persons of the Trinity were not three Gods. Three persons formed the one Triune God. It took 66 years of conflict after the Council of Nicaea for the Church to reach a conclusion about the issue.
There were four main affirmations that resulted from the Council of Nicaea. First, Christ was “very God of very God.”{12} Jesus is God in the same sense that the Father is God. Second, Christ is “of one substance with the Father.”{13} On this point the distinction was one Greek letter. Arianism taught that Jesus was of a similar substance (homoiousios) with the Father. Athanasius and the orthodox Christians believed that Jesus was of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father. It can be said that the whole dispute was over one letter. Third, Jesus was “begotten, not made.”{14} Fourth, Jesus “became human for us men, and for our salvation.”{15} Without the work of Jesus there is no salvation of mankind.
Athanasius spent most of his life defending the truth of Christian doctrine. He was exiled five times. He placed himself on the line to fight the good fight. Athanasius deserves to be remembered as one of the greatest theologians and defenders of the truth. Even when his name is forgotten, the fruit of his work will remain.
There are many misconceptions about the Council of Nicaea in the larger culture. Constantine did not decide to declare Jesus divine. He called a council to attempt to resolve a dispute among Christians. From Constantine’s point of view, the stability of the Empire stood on the stability of the Christian religion. The Christians did not decide to declare that Jesus was divine at this council. This was a belief that was already held by the majority of Christians. The primary question that was being discussed transcended cultural boundaries. If Christ is fully God, then this transcends all cultural boundaries. If Christ is fully God, then all of mankind will be united once again to worship their king.
Notes
1. Quoted by Hank Hanegraaff and Paul L. Maier, The Da Vinci Code: Fact of Fiction? (Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishing 2004), 15.
2. Ibid. 32.
3. Virginia Burrus and Rebecca Lyman, “Shifting the Focus of History,” in A People’s History of Christianity Vol. 2: Late Ancient Christianity, Ed. Virginia Burrus, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 18.
4. Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008), 100.
5. Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2000), 51.
6. Ibid. 48.
7. Ibid. 54.
8. Ibid. 53.
9. Ibid. 54.
10. Ibid. 55.
11. Tim Dowley, Ed. Introduction to the History of Christianity, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002), 169.
12. Noll, 57.
13. Ibid. 58.
14. Ibid. 58.
15. Ibid. 58.
©2025 Probe Ministries