What Really Happened at Nicaea?
Posted by Clark Bates June 10,2016
It's
not uncommon for various Christian lecturers and apologists to be
faced with the accusation that the canon of Scripture was not derived
until the Council of Nicaea. It is believed by many, largely
influenced by popular films, that at this council Jesus was given
divine status over human status and what we now call the New
Testament was derived by purposefully removing any texts that
revealed Jesus to be merely mortal. Dan Brown's elderly character
Lee Teabing from the best-selling Da
Vinci Code famously
states, “Jesus' establishment as the 'Son of God' was officially
proposed and voted on at the Council of Nicaea. . . . A relatively
close vote at that (233).” While it must be remembered that this
is a work of fiction, written for popular appeal, the persistence of
this accusation, in light of our series on canonical authorship,
deserves a response.
Before
examining the historical account of what happened at Nicaea, a few
practical considerations should be observed regarding this claim.
First, if these allegations were true, it would require a nearly
impossible feat of subterfuge. Given that the writings of the
Christian Church had existed, been copied, and widely distributed for
more than 2 centuries up to this point, to remove any texts that
might have proven the mortality of Jesus over His divinity would
necessitate the confiscation and destruction of every document, and
copy, spread across the entire empire. This would have to be done
completely and successfully, for if even one document remained, it
could be re-circulated and re-copied. Second, to prove the claim
that the canon of the New Testament derived from this council, it
would need to be demonstrated that multiple “Christian” texts that spoke of Jesus only as human were in circulation prior to this period that held the same level of
authority and recognition as those that exist today. Given the
extremely high level of implausibility for the first consideration, and
the lack of extant evidence for the second, any careful observer
should take pause when this accusation is presented.
Getting
back to the actual council, however, let's examine what history tells
us regarding the Council of Nicaea:
This
council occurred in AD
325 in the province of Bithynia, now known as Isnik, Turkey. It
holds a substantial place in Christian history for three reasons:
- It was the first “ecumenical” (universal) council in the history of Christendom.
- It served as a symbol of imperial involvement in church affairs (given that it was convened and presided over by the emperor Constantine).
- It marked a crucial development in doctrinal history, by adopting a creed, backed up by anathemas, something heretofore nonexistent.1
To
the dismay of many popular conspiracy advocates, the Council of
Nicaea was not convened to discuss the canon of Scripture. At no
time during the three month adjournment did the bishops address the
validity of any biblical text. The main purpose of the council was
to attempt to heal the schism being created by a bishop named Arius.2
To
better understand what this schism regarded, it is helpful to regress
to the time of the church leader, Origen. Greek philosophy had
taught that God was impassible (unchanging), and this premise
controlled intellectual theology. In an effort to ratify this
philosophical tradition with biblical christology, Origen spoke of
the incarnate Logos (Son of God) as that of the same Logos of the one
true God. It was Origen that popularized the term “begetting” in
relating the Son to the Father. Even assuring that the Son was of
the same nature as the Father, Origen still posited a subordination
of the Son to the Father. Arius, diverging from the teaching of his
mentor Alexander, disputed that the Son could not be the same essence
of the Father and share eternity without challenging the
impassibility of God.
The
teaching of what came to be known as Arianism revolved around the
central tenet that the divine being is unique, incommunicable,
indivisible, and transcendent.3
Because of this, the Son could not be of the Father's being or
essence but could only exist by the Father's will. As Arius famously
stated, “There was a time when [the Son] was not.” Arianism also
taught that the Son was a created being, less than divine, but more
of an archangel. This doctrinal stance may sound familiar to some as
it has been adopted by pseudo-Christian groups like the Jehovah's
Witnesses and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
(Mormons). This teaching began to grow in favor, largely due to
Arius' eloquence and skill with a pen, and became the reason for the
convening of Nicaea in 325.
So
was the council, as Dan Brown said, the moment when Jesus was made
divine by a narrow vote? Not quite. While the dispute with Arius
did revolve around the divinity of Christ, the debate was not
regarding His deity versus His humanity, but rather His divinity
versus His angelic nature. Had Arius won the day, it would not have
meant that Jesus was believed to be human, only that He was not
viewed as equal with the Father. Was there a truly equal
disagreement in Christendom relating to the divinity of Christ? Not
according to the leading voices of the Christian Church leading up to
the council:
Igantius (AD 105) - “God himself was manifested in human form.”4
Clement
(AD
150) - “It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as
God.”5
Justin
Martyr (AD
160) - “The Father of the universe has a Son. And He is . . . .
even God.”6
Irenaeus
(AD
180) - “He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this.”7
Tertullian
(AD
200) - “. . . Christ our God.”8
Origen
(AD
225) - "No one should be offended that the Savior is also
God...”9
Novation
(AD
235) - "...He is not only man, but God also..."
Cyprian
(AD
250) - "Jesus Christ, our Lord and God."10
Methodius
(AD
290) - "...He truly was and is...with God, and being God..."11
Lactantius
(AD
304) - "We believe Him to be God."12
Arnobius
(AD
305) - "Christ performed all those miracles...the...duty of
Divinity."13
Was
the divinity of Jesus Christ determined by a narrow vote? No. A
unique feature of the Council of Nicaea was the near unanimity of the
vote to condemn Arius of heresy and to excommunicate him from the
church. All but two bishops voted against Arius and to uphold the
Orthodox teaching of the divinity of Christ, maintained for the first
three hundred years of the Church's existence. Lastly, was the canon
determined at Nicaea? As was mentioned above, no. In fact, as the
series on New Testament authorship has shown, the existing New
Testament was in circulation by name as early as 200 years prior
to the convening of the council. Much to the chagrin of novel
writers and those prone to conspiracies, history undermines the
popular view. For Christians, the Council of Nicaea can be viewed in
various ways, but ultimately it produced a historic creed that became
the basis for those used in churches around the world for thousands
of years:
We
believe in God the Father almighty
maker
of all things, visible and invisible.
And
in one Lord Jesus Christ,
The
only-begotten of the Father,
that
is, begotten of the substance of the Father,
God
from God, light from light, true God
from
true God,
begotten,
not made,
of
the same substance as the Father,
through
whom all things were made, in
heaven
and earth,
who
for us humans and our salvation came
down,
took flesh, and was made human,
suffered
and rose again on the third day,
ascended
into heaven,
and
will come to judge the living and the dead.
And
in the Holy Spirit.
1Everett
Ferguson, Church History I: From Christ to Pre-Reformation,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 196-7.
2Walter
Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology,
“Council of Nicaea” by C. Blaising, 2nd
ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 839.
3Elwell,
Theology, 839.
4Ignatius,
The Epistle of Ignatius,
“Three Celebrated Mysteries” from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.ii.xix.html?highlight=god,himself,was,manifested,in,human,form#highlight
5Clement
of Alexandria, The Second Epistle of Clement,
Chapter I, from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xii.vi.i.html?highlight=clement,it,is,fitting,that,you,should,think,of,jesus,christ,as,god#highlight
6Philip
Schaf, The History of the Christian Church II, “The
Divinity of Christ,” from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xiv.ix.html?highlight=justin,martyr,the,father,of,universe,has,a,son#highlight
7Alexander
Roberts and W.H. Rambaut, The Writings of Irenaeus
(Edinburgh, 1868-9) from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.xi.i.ii.html
8Tertullian,
Elucidations, from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xxxiii.html?highlight=tertullian,christ,our,god#highlight
9http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.vi.xii.ii.xvii.html?highlight=origen,the,son#highlight
10Cyprian,
Epistle III, from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.iii.html
11Methodius,
From the Discourse on the Resurrection,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xi.v.i.html
12Lactantius,
The Divine Institutes, from
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.html
13Arnobius,
The Seven Books of Arnobius Against the Heathern,
from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xii.iii.i.i.html
No comments:
Post a Comment