Skip to main content

Roman Emperor Constantine I called the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., which would ultimately become a key moment in Christian history. However, what actually happened at the Council remains a topic of debate. Many scholars claim that the Council began the process of establishing the canon of scripture. Mainline Christians say the Council was predicated on affirming Christ’s divinity without touching the canon.

The Council of Nicaea did not merely discuss Christ’s divinity or the establishment of the canon. Instead, it was primarily a political tool for Constantine to homogenize the Roman Empire through a unified religious structure, combining both Judaism and Christianity.

The Council of Nicaea’s discussion of Christ’s divinity inherently required addressing a more fundamental question of divine identity. When examining the nature of Christ’s divinity, the Council had to conclude something more critical: divine in relation to whom? Even the first sentence of the Nicene Creed affirms this. It begins by defining God the Father – “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” [1] – then addressing Christ’s relationship to God the Father: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.” [1] This is because it is logically necessary to establish who God the Father is before defining Christ’s relationship to Him.

The Council’s focus on the Arian controversy makes this point apparent. The debate wasn’t about whether Christ was divine in some abstract way but specifically about His relationship to God the Father. Arius’ position that “There was a time when the Son was not” [2] raises the question: who is the God that Christ is the son of? This question cannot be resolved without explicitly defining who God the Father is. 

Using the term ‘homoousios’[1, 3] (of the same substance) to describe Christ’s relationship to God the Father makes a clear understanding of God the Father’s nature necessary. By defining God the Father as Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible and then declaring Christ ‘homoousios’ with God the Father, the Council effectively established a direct link between Christ and Yahweh. This theological move was not merely incidental to discussions of Christ’s divinity; it was essential to them. You cannot meaningfully discuss whether someone is ‘of the same substance’ as another without clearly defining who that other is.

This theological definition had huge implications. By explicitly identifying God the Father as Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible and declaring Christ to be of one substance with this God, the Council created a theology in which questioning the connection between Christ and Yahweh became impossible within mainline Christianity. The discussion of Christ’s divinity and the identification of God the Father with Yahweh were inextricably linked, making it logically impossible to affirm one while rejecting the other within the Nicene framework.

The Council’s declaration that the Father of Jesus was indeed Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible had several key effects [4, 5, 6]:

Theological Consolidation:

  • Established a single orthodox view of God’s nature.
  • Connected Christian theology firmly to Judaism.
  • Created a framework where questioning the Hebrew Bible meant questioning Christ’s divinity.

Institutional Authority:

  • Gave the Church authority to define orthodox doctrine.
  • Created mechanisms for identifying and excluding ‘heretical’ views.
  • Established patterns for future ecumenical councils.

Political Unity:

  • Provided theological backing for imperial unity.
  • Created a standard religious narrative across diverse regions.
  • Marginalized alternative interpretations that might divide the Roman Empire.

Doctrinal Impact:

  • Made the Hebrew Bible essential to Christian theology.
  • Created a framework where Jesus’s divinity was understood through the Hebrew Bible.
  • Effectively sidelined interpretations that saw Jesus as revealing a different God.

This decision fundamentally shaped Christian orthodoxy, not by directly establishing the canon, but by definitively connecting Jesus to the Hebrew Bible. This connection would become central to mainline Christian theology. Marcionite Christians know that Yahweh and the Lord Jesus Christ are incompatible, yet mainline Christians will look past this glaring antithesis with excuses and ignorance.

[1] First Council of Nicaea (325 CE). “The Nicene Creed.” In Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1 (1990).

[2] Athanasius. “Orations Against the Arians,” Book I, Chapter IX (c. 340 CE).

[3] Eusebius of Caesarea. “Letter to his Diocese.” In Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, Book I, Chapter 8 (c. 325 CE).

[4] Tertullian. “Against Marcion,” Book I (c. 208 CE).

[5] Justin Martyr. “First Apology,” Chapters 26-58 (c. 155 CE).

[6] Eusebius of Caesarea. “Life of Constantine,” Book III, Chapters 4-24 (c. 339 CE).

Deacon Descensus Sedes

Jesus is Lord.