The First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea
A Skeptical Inquisition of Motive
“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember what I told you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me." —John 15:18-21
Startlingly absent from modern historical discourse is a critical look at the political actualities of the imposition of fundamental Christian doctrines, and the actors that made them law. I call these doctrines Christian with a bitterness on my tongue, as their implementation and subsequent enforcements bear no resemblance whatsoever to this namesake. So, we will start with a brief backstory…
The Great Persecution
After killing Jesus, albeit in league with Jewish religious leaders, the Romans set about slaughtering at least 8 out of 12 of Jesus’ closest disciples. But they didn’t stop there. For almost the next 250 years straight, Christians all over the vast Roman Empire were subjected to fluctuating intensities of legal persecution, social ostracism, economic discrimination, forced apostasy, destruction of religious texts and places of worship, and of course brutal violence, torture, and execution. While the details are too long for this post (but read them here), perhaps the worst of the worst is known as The Great Persecution, under Diocletian and Galerius (303-311 AD).
During this time of legally mandated, empire-wide Christian persecution, our brothers and sisters were branded as a threat to the unity and stability of the Empire. By a series of edicts, each intensifying in severity, they were subjected to unrelenting systemic persecution. First came the destruction of religious texts and places of worship. Christians were then removed from positions of authority and power. Next, the clergy were executed, property confiscated, and Christians were imprisoned and forced into labor in mines and public works. What followed next was brutal execution of believers. Often this was a public spectacle. Our innocent brothers and sisters were flayed, dismembered, seared, pulled apart, fed to wild animals, crucified, and burned alive (to read some early Christian writings on this topic, check out the Letter from Vienna and Lyons). In despicable, disheartening acts of absolute Satanic depravity, children were tortured and killed in front of their parents to pressure the adults into renouncing their faith.
By the strength of God and the powerful faith of these true believers, the Roman Empire was unable to quash Christianity. After over a quarter-millennium of brutality, culminating in empire-wide, unspeakable systemic evils, Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration in 311 AD, effectively ending the persecution in the East. Then he died. In the Western Roman Empire, the persecution had effectively ended earlier, around 306 AD. This was due to Constantius Chlorus, who was known for his relatively tolerant attitude towards Christians, and had enforced Diocletian's edicts less rigorously.
When Constantius Chlorus died in 306 AD, Chlorus’ son Constantine stepped in as Augustus of the Western Roman Empire. Through marriage of his sister he then aligned himself to the Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire, Licinius. Upon their alliance the two issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. This absolute about-face now allowed tattered and torn Christians across the Roman Empire to worship freely.
Sadly, this supposed respite did not last. Eventually Lucinius became tired of the growth and spread of Christianity throughout the Eastern and Western Roman Empires, and began promoting paganism and even persecuting Christians. In 324 AD Constantine defeated Licinius and became sole emperor of the entire Roman Empire.
A Wicked Ascension
Taken at face value, Constantine’s story props him up as a hero for Christianity. This cannot be further from the truth, and he could be no further from an exemplar of Christlike behavior. Constantine’s ascent to sole emperorship of Rome was wrought with strategic alliances, calculated betrayals, and a series of convenient disappearances and deaths.
This story is long, and convoluted. So, for brevity’s sake I’ll skip much editorializing and try to get straight to the point, because it’s important to know the character of the man we have been taught to call Christianity’s hero. I’ll admit, we don’t have much evidence other than circumstantial to support my notion of his less-than-holy behavior, but we have some. And, when dealing with such ancient history, circumstantial evidence is often more than enough. Hindsight is 20/20, and we have that.
Before we get to it, just a few technical things: at this time the Roman Empire was split in half; there was the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. Each had an Augustus (think "president"), and a Caesar (think "vice president"). And the East and West were under the Tetrarchy system, which was basically designed to keep both Roman empires synchronized politically— kind of like a mirror copy cat game. It was also designed to avoid hereditary succession.
Okay, so Constantine was born to Helena, concubine to Constantius Chlorus, Caesar of the West. Both Constantine and Helena were considered of lowly birth. Around the age of 20 Constantine was sent to the Eastern Roman Empire to serve in the courts of Diocletian and Galerius (yes, the same who enacted The Great Persecution against Christians) as a political hostage. Apparently this sort of thing was common back then for royal families as some type of insurance. Some reports claim his mother, Helena, was there with him. These formative years not only provided him with valuable military and administrative training, but also allowed him to observe the workings of the Tetrarchy system firsthand.
Constantine was about 33 when he was finally released to go be with his father on a military campaign in Britain against the Picts, where he likely served as a military officer under his father’s command. Contemporary sources suggest Constantine gained valuable military and administrative experience during this time, though the exact nature of his duties and training under his father, Chlorus, aren't extensively documented. This was the last leg of an over ten year series of battles in Britain that was, for the most part, led by Chlorus. It was a success, but after this 12-18 month campaign Chlorus died suddenly in 306 AD. There is no recorded information about his death or any health problems. This is remarkably uncommon given the circumstances. He was 56, Senior Augustus, and apparently healthy enough to be leading successful military campaigns for years on end.
However, during this campaign Diocletian, Augustus of the East, was sick. Since 304 he was known publicly to be on his way out. He stepped down in 305 and Maximian, the West’s Augustus, was forced to follow suit, per the Tetrarchy. This made Galerius and Chlorus the Augusti. But when Chlorus died his armies backed Constantine and claimed him the Augustus of the West, even though he legally shouldn’t have been. So he was basically demoted to Caesar of the West by Galerius.
What ensued after was an absolute clusterfudge of civil wars, vying for power by Galerius, Licinius, Constantine, and three different Maxi-somethings… It settled with Constantine forming an alliance by marrying an Augustus’ daughter, Fausta, in 307 (his first wife and mother of his son Crispus disappeared from history in 305, perhaps died in childbirth, perhaps not). And then in 311 Constantine’s sister (Constantia…) married Licinius, forming another alliance.
Well, so much for alliances because two of the Maxes, one Fausta’s brother, the other her father, were subsequently killed by Constantine, though not quite directly. The brother supposedly drowned retreating from battle with Constantine, at which point Constantine’s military forces retrieved Maxentius’ body, decapitated it, and paraded his head through Rome on a spike at Constantine’s behest (Christlike behavior at its finest /s). The father, Maximian, was supposedly forced to commit suicide by hanging, or perhaps he was simply strangled. And that brings us back where the last subheading left off: Constantine fought and defeated Licinius. And though Licinius was promised clemency, he was executed.
Shortly thereafter Constantine, as Sole Emperor, named none other than his mother, Helena, as Augusta, giving her full access to the imperial treasury. This begs the question: who all was playing this game of thrones? And although the trail of blood doesn’t end here, we are now 8-9 months before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea, so let’s take a look.
The Council of Nicaea
Suffice it to say, the relentless Roman persecution of early Christian communities had a significant impact on the preservation and transmission of their theological beliefs and practices. However, in 325 AD Constantine— surely out of the goodness of his converted heart, and not as an attempt to establish religious unity in the empire for political stability, as was Roman custom— convened the First Council of Nicaea. It was here that the many sects of Christianity (read more coming soon!) could finally settle their differences and come to a consensus on the truth of their beliefs. Or not.
At the time of the Council, the major Christian groups within the Empire were many: The Donatists, the Melitians, the Novatianists, the Marcionites, Monatists, Manicheans, Adoptionists, Ebionites, Sabellianists, and of course, the Arians. The major point of contention among these sects was the nature of Christ: was he human? was he God? was he divine? was he a spirit? It’s notable within this context to express the lack of any historical evidence at all that these sects were engaged in disagreement about a concept of the Trinity, or the miraculous birth prior to the First Council of Nicaea. It’s also worth mentioning that most of them were not present or represented at the Council.
Unfortunately, only the Arians— who believed that Jesus was created by God and thus subordinate to God the Father, not co-eternal or consubstantial— were invited to the party. Upon combing through the murky history of pre-Nicene Christian beliefs, it becomes apparent that there is no concrete historical evidence to support the notion that any of the majority of these sects believed Jesus to be God, or part of a triune Godhead. Frankly, triune deification is a hallmark of ancient polytheism (read more coming soon!). The Adoptionists believed that Jesus was born human and was later "adopted" as God's Son when he was baptized. The Ebionites shared a similar belief, considering Jesus a fully human messiah, as evidenced by their mutilated Gospel of the Ebionites (check out what’s left of it). Perhaps the condition of this text also serves as an indicator of the treatment of this sect, that history asserts "gradually disappeared." The Ebionites, being both Jewish and holding a non-divine view of Jesus, would indeed have been doubly at risk from the prevailing Roman power structure, especially after Christianity became the official religion of the empire.
Arianism, on the other hand, was quite popular and influential at the time of the Council. Apparently too influential. Their belief that Jesus was a human, simply a man elevated to divine-like status through his perfect obedience to God, carried profound implications for Roman power structures. If Jesus could be elevated through obedience, this suggests that other humans might also be able to achieve a higher spiritual status. Spiritual power and authority would thereby come from righteousness and obedience to God, not from institutional position. We can see clear Biblical evidence of this concept in a host of verses. Here are a few:
Matthew 17:20: "He replied, 'Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.'"
John 14:12: "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."
Luke 10:19: "I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you."
Acts 1:8: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
1 John 4:4: "You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world."
Mark 16:17-18: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
Arius refused to sign the Nicene Creed, and by early 326 AD had been exiled to Illyricum. There were two notable others, Eusebius and Theognis, who held the view that Jesus is subordinate to God the Father. Initially, they signed the creed under pressure but later retracted their support. For this, they were promptly exiled as well, possibly to Gaul.
However, employing his characteristic political pragmatism, Constantine recalled Theognis and Eusebius in 328 AD. Theognis lobbied for Arius's rehabilitation, despite Arius's refusal to fully embrace the Nicene Creed. Arius had submitted a cleverly worded statement of faith, superficially aligning with orthodoxy while omitting key elements like "homoousios," and maintaining his core beliefs. Constantine accepted this ambiguous compromise, and in 336 AD, he ordered Arius's return to Constantinople. However, Arius died suddenly on the eve of his reinstatement, thus conveniently resolving Constantine's political dilemma. This timely demise allowed the emperor to avoid the backlash of readmitting a perceived heretic while simultaneously appeasing Arian sympathizers in his court, effectively neutralizing a volatile situation that had threatened the empire's stability for over a decade without forcing him to waver against his chosen theological stance. Perhaps this situation acted as a warning to potential dissenters as well.
The accounts of Arius's death, particularly those by later church historians like Socrates Scholasticus, Rufinus, and Sozomen, describe a sudden and gruesome end, with Arius allegedly suffering a violent gastric episode. While these accounts don't explicitly mention poisoning, the described symptoms— sudden onset of stomach pain, violent purging, and possible hemorrhaging— align with effects of certain well-known poisons in the Roman world. It should be noted, however, that many historians claim such accounts mirror a pattern in Roman historical writing where convenient deaths of political or religious opponents were often portrayed as divine judgment, potentially obscuring foul play. But from the Republican era through the Empire, poisoning was a prevalent method of assassination in Roman politics. Notable examples include the supposed poisoning of Emperor Claudius and various members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Thusly prevalent were food tasters in imperial courts, and laws specifically addressing venefici (poisoners) underscore the real and perceived threat of poisoning as a political tool.
While we can't conclusively prove Arius was poisoned, the circumstances of his death, viewed amidst the context of Roman political practices, and the diplomatic shrewdness of Constantine, leave ample room for suspicion. I would contend that we not forget Constantine’s first wife’s disappearance from history, his father’s sudden death, his marriage of convenience to Fausta, his betrayal of Maximian and Maxentius, his marrying-out of his sister, and his betrayal of Licinius.
Oh and in 326 AD he cooked his wife Fausta alive in a bath and poisoned his son Crispus. Suffice it to say he was not a pillar of virtue. Nor is his fruit a reflection of Christ.
A New Christianity
The Council of Nicaea codified a handful of beliefs, but four are relevant to the discussion at hand. So to avoid muddying the water I will focus on those.
Homo-who-sios?
As I stated before, while there was sufficient debate about the nature of Jesus within Christianity at this time, there is no evidence to support the notion that anyone believed Jesus to be the one true God Himself. Early Christian writings do show various interpretations:
Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century AD, First Apology and Dialogue with Trypho) described Jesus as a "second God." It was his writing that brought forth the notion of "logos" as Jesus himself. Many scholars attribute this to earlier writings by Philo of Alexandria, who wrote extensively on logos, or to the book of John itself. However, Philo made no comparison of the logos to Jesus, he simply discussed it as a defining principle (which is the proper understanding of the Greek word, per Thayer’s Greek Lexicon and others). Therefore, it was an entirely anachronistic to interpret the passages in John as referring to Jesus as logos, as the school of thought this interpretation was based on emerged a near century after the Gospel of John was written. The fact is that there is no inherent intent to personify the word "logos" in any of the original Greek (read more about it here!)
Origen (184-253 AD, "De Principiis"/On First Principles, Book I) taught that the Son was "eternally generated" by the Father, but crucially saw the Son as subordinate to the Father. He described the Son much like Justin Martyr, and believed the Son's divinity was derived from/dependent on the Father’s. He cleverly described this using the analogy of light from the sun - the Son proceeds from the Father like light from the sun, but is less than its source. His views were later condemned as heretical, though they remained influential.
Tertullian (155-220 AD, "Adversus Praxean"/Against Praxeas, Chapter 2-4) coined the term "trinity," and developed much of the Latin theological vocabulary. He described Father, Son, and Spirit as "one substance in three persons," but still maintained a form of hierarchical relationship, the Son being subordinate to God the Father. He described their relationship like a root, tree, and fruit being of one nature, but distinct. While his terminology was influential, this actual theology would have clearly been problematic under later Nicene standards
The term "homoousios" was equally controversial. It was previously associated with Sabellianism— the belief that Father, Son, and Spirit were just different modes/aspects of one God— out of polytheistic Rome. The term had been condemned at the Synod of Antioch (268 AD) and was considered problematic because it suggested material division of the divine substance. Some saw it as implying a third substance that both Father and Son shared. It was also viewed as controversial because it wasn't found in scripture. In fact, many bishops at Nicaea were initially reluctant to use it because of these associations, but good ol’ Constantine himself pushed for its inclusion in the creed. What a guy…
Pre-Nicene Christianity shows what scholars call an "evolutionary monotheism," where Christian thinkers were gradually working out how to reconcile monotheism with the divine status of Jesus. While some proto-Nicene ideas can be found in earlier writings, the specific doctrine of consubstantiality as defined at Nicaea was not at all clearly articulated or widely held before the Council.
The truth of the matter is that codifying Jesus as fully God, equal to the Father, was a radical notion that represented a significant theological shift from earlier, more diverse interpretations. To understand this notion correctly we need to understand it from the perspective of a Jew— which all of Jesus' disciples, apostles, and the Man Himself were.
The Tanakh— the Hebrew Bible that Christianity commandeered and rebranded as the Old Testament— states in Isaiah 43:10-11, "You are My witnesses,' declares YHWH, 'and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am YHWH, and apart from Me there is no savior."
Constantine-mandering
The Council also made decisions regarding the special status of certain "episcopal sees." An episcopal see is basically the official "seat" or headquarters of a bishop's authority. It's the central city and territory from which a bishop exercises their ecclesiastical authority.
Alexandria, the stronghold of anti-Arian theology under Bishop Alexander and later Athanasius, was confirmed as having authority over Egypt, Libya (where Arius was from) and Pentapolis. And although Antioch accepted the creed, they had reservations about some of the terminology. For their cooperation they were given authority over their surrounding provinces. The council's administrative decisions effectively gave institutional power to anti-Arian centers over regions with significant Arian populations. It was a power consolidation move that gave orthodox bishops authority over "heterodox" believers. This institutional structure helped enforce the new theological orthodoxy. The geographical divisions of authority weren't random— they placed Arian-leaning regions under the control of strong anti-Arian sees. Essentially this is 4th century gerrymandering.
Here we see another clear example of Constantine’s conniving political maneuvering. This created what would later develop into the pentarchy— the five most important sees (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), though this full system wasn't in place yet.
Passover Pudding or Pagan Pudding?
Many modern historians will myopically claim that the story of Easter’s placement on the modern (ROMAN!) calendar is more complex than simply adopting pagan dates. They’ll say that while the solar calendar aspect does reflect Greco-Roman influence, the Council actually tried to maintain some connection to Passover by keeping the lunar aspect. So with limp intellectual dishonesty they will purport the goal was more about standardization than paganization.
The result, however, was further separation from Jewish practice. The chosen date aligned with existing pagan spring fertility festivals (Eostre/Ostara and Floralia), particularly those celebrating rebirth and renewal. And they hardly respected the actual practice.
The Jewish calendar determines Passover (14th of Nisan) based on direct lunar observation and intercalation (adding months when needed to keep festivals in their seasons). Instead, the Nicene formula:
used the Julian (Roman/solar) calendar to fix the equinox to March 21,
calculated the first full moon after that date (this is the part they say respected the existing tradition),
then took the following Sunday.
By my estimation, the proof is in the pudding. This shift away from Jewish dating follows a broader pattern of the political takeover and mechanizing of Christianity increasingly separating it from its Jewish roots, rather than arising from authentic early Christian desires to break this connection. Notably, solar focus is another hallmark of ancient polytheism; the Jewish lunar calendar being its direct antithesis.
This is classic Roman syncretism (think Borg from Star Trek). It was, essentially, the Roman Empire crafting a state religion by breaking its Jewish connections, incorporating familiar Greco-Roman concepts, creating centralized control structures, and suppressing disagreeing interpretations and practices. This directly after 250 years of brutal persecution that came to a bloody head under Diocletian and Galerius. The council was fundamentally about power and control, not organic theological development.
I would further contend that the scholarly notion of a Christian "mainstream" developing organically during this era is absurd on its face. Thanks to the Roman Empire, for 250 years there was never a point in time where a persecuted early Christian could not have been alive through the last persecution. The targeted mayhem was nearly constant. Amidst the burning of texts, property seizure, mass murder, and the prevalence of multiple Christian sects with varying beliefs, the idea that a widely accepted core dogma was simultaneously being established blows past intellectual dishonesty into downright idiocy.
Say Uncle
The "lapsi" was a general term that applied to those who renounced their faith under persecution. It arose from earlier Church debates, particularly following the Decian persecution (250 AD). They could be readmitted to communion after periods of penance, with different durations based on the severity of their denial. This applied to both Arian and orthodox Christians who had renounced Christianity under Roman persecution.
However, the "forgiveness" provisions were effectively a one-way street toward Nicene orthodoxy. The reconciliation process required acceptance of the Church’s teachings, particularly the doctrine of Christ's full divinity as defined in the Nicene Creed. In this way the reconciliation procedure became a forcing mechanism— you either accepted Nicene orthodoxy or you remained excluded from the Church. And remained persecuted.
The Post-Nicene Persecution
After Arius' death the systemic torment and persecution enacted upon Christians ensued. This time, however, it was relegated solely to the followers of Arian beliefs and the like— those who refused to adopt the Nicene Creed. Anyone who would not pledge allegiance to the newly codified doctrines asserting a human to be God was subject to the same severe punishments that had not yet faded from memory.
Many modern historians will flaccidly assert that this persecution was limited in its scope compared to the abuses under Diocletian and Galerius. This is misleading. Worn and terrified from centuries of unyielding brutality, most followers of Christ simply chose to recite the Nicene Creed and spare their lives and the lives of their loved ones. But for followers of Arius, the abasement all Christians endured during The Great Persecution would carry on full sail. This was not limited, but focused.
The forgiveness provisions of the Nicene Creed were nothing more than a system of both spiritual and physical coercion. If you didn't accept Nicene orthodoxy you faced:
Exile
Loss of property
Physical persecution
Death (particularly for hiding/spreading Arian texts)
Social ostracism
Economic exclusion
It was, once again, a state-enforced persecution mechanism. Though this time, rather than forcing outright polytheism and paganism, it said:
"Accept this specific doctrine about Jesus being fully God, or:
You can't participate in society
You might be exiled
You could face execution
Your writings will be burned
Your property could be seized
You'll be labeled a "heretic"
After Nicaea, mob violence against Arians was not just permitted but actively encouraged, and religious violence was legitimized. People could attack, injure, and kill Arians with impunity. Churches were seized, homes invaded, property destroyed. This wasn't just random violence. It was systematic mob action sanctioned by both church and state as part of enforcing Nicene orthodoxy.
The "reconciliation" system worked alongside this violence. Once labeled a heretic:
You could face mob violence if you didn't accept Nicene doctrine
The only way to escape the violence was to go through the reconciliation process
To complete reconciliation you had to accept the Nicene position
If you didn't, you remained a legitimate target
The historical reality is clear: The Council of Nicaea established both the doctrinal position (Jesus as fully God) and the enforcement mechanisms (reconciliation procedures backed by imperial persecution) that were immediately used to suppress alternative beliefs through brutal— and often lethal— force.
In the midst of all this relentless violence and subterfuge, I can’t help but recall the simple genius of Jesus when he stated in Matthew 7:16-18, "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit."
So, if we see that the fruits of this tree have poisoned the spirits of men to murder, steal, and torment innocent people, how can we then eat from the same tree? This is not the fruit that was offered to us by our Savior. This is not Christ’s Christianity.
It’s Constantine’s.
Thanks for reading, and may God bless and protect you.
John 16:1-4:
"All this I have told you so that you will not fall away. They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. They will do such things because they have not known the Father or me. I have told you this, so that when their time comes you will remember that I warned you about them. I did not tell you this from the beginning because I was with you."Matthew 10:16-17:
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues."Matthew 24:9-14:
"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come."1 Peter 4:12-13:
"Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice inasmuch as you participate in the sufferings of Christ."2 Timothy 3:12:
"In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."Matthew 10:22:
"You will be hated by everyone because of me."