How Constantine Hijacked the Council of Nicaea

The historical reality of the man who changed the trajectory of the early church

Photo by Ian Noble on Unsplash

In a recent article on the council of Nicaea, I clarified that the Biblical canon was not established there and that many of the things that are assumed about the council are inaccurate. Understanding that is the first layer required to truly grasp what happened in 325 AD.

I also spoke about the role of Constantine as being exaggerated and spoke about some of the theological controversies/doctrines that drove a lot of the conversation (such as Arianism, a notable influence on the discussion).

This article was introductory in nature and although I attempted to make it exhaustive, I couldn’t cover everything that the council spoke about and its impact today. As a result, I thought it might be nice to circle back to a fascinating character from that council, the emperor Constantine.

The stories about the emperor Constantine becoming a Christian are fascinating and it is very difficult to figure out exactly how he converted to Christianity. Here’s a careful sketch of what we can say.

Constantine was known for having a number of visions/dreams that introduced the idea of divine favor for his reign, especially in regard to military strategy. It is also well known that his mother was a Christian.

It is also reported that, in spite of presiding over Nicaea and taking an active role in matters of the development of the church (and reigning as a Christian emperor), he did not get baptized until the end of his life.

Another thing that is reported is that Constantine became a Christian because he had a vision in which he saw a cross accompanied by the words “In Hoc Signo Vinces” (“In this sign, conquer”) before a battle. For Constantine, his success in the subsequent battle was allegedly evidence that God had spoken to him.

While we are not going to get into everything that Constantine did or didn’t do in general (or during his life) in this article. Instead, we are going to talk about the emperor’s actual role at the council and the significance of his presence.

But first, let’s talk about the ways in which the church has thought about Constantine historically.

Photo by S O C I A L . C U T on Unsplash

The Narrative Following the Fourth Century

Eusebius, who was at the council of Nicaea himself, was one who was totally supportive of the emperor and wrote a biography of Constantine. The biography lauded and praised Constantine and is widely regarded by historians as a work of propaganda.

This propaganda is understandable given the reality that the church was able to operate during the fourth century in a way that it never had before. It is understandable that Eusebius would paint this as divine providence.

Eusebius’s “Life of Constantine” puts all the fascinating events that I described above together, from his reign to his military campaigns to his religious policies and his visions in one nice, neat picture.

It also makes the historical idea of what happened quite a bit harder to access, as propaganda tends to do. Eusebius was much too close to Constantine, both personally and in his ideology, to provide an assessment that was appropriate for a biographer.

Eusebius speaks openly about his theological view on the relationship between ecclesial authorities and the Christian emperor, trying to pave a way for the future of thought within the Roman empire.

This narrative had some staying power within Christianity for a number of centuries after the council, in spite of the idea that debates about doctrine and the relationship of Jesus and the father continued to rage.

The narrative also survived the idea that Constantine reversed the exile of Arius, who had been declared a heretic and sent away as well as the idea that Constantine had gone after many of the key figures of the council of Nicaea subsequently.

But time heals all wounds and later centuries would suggest that Constantine should be revered as a saint and a model emperor/leader for the growth of Christianity throughout the world in the future.

He was given the title ἰσαπόστολος (isapostolos), which means equal to the apostles, in order to talk about his extremely important role in making sure that Christianity would spread and have the influence it did.

This was generally the attitude that later centuries had about Constantine and his importance. However, Constantine’s legacy took a major hit during the Protestant Reformation, which saw the emergence of another narrative.

Photo by British Library on Unsplash

The Protestant Reformation Narrative

The Protestant Reformation was the point at which tradition began to turn on Constantine. Their narrative began to paint him out to be the person who robbed the church of its pure desires and put it under the umbrella of the Roman Empire.

The reason behind this shift is something that represents a difference in the way they viewed things in the Reformation vs. how they were viewed earlier, especially regarding the role of church and state.

From a modern perspective, we tend to think that the church and state should be separate based on our ideals of societies that we have experienced. But we have to be careful not to read that back into the text.

The ancient state was expected to ensure that divine favor would ensure the success of a particular civilization in almost all facets of life, from war to agriculture to the entire economic life.

The Roman emperor therefore was not just a secular leader, but also a religious official that even was thought to be closer to divine than human on the continuum of divinity that pervaded the ancient world.

The idea of the Protestant Reformers that Constantine somehow corrupted the institution of the church is a bit of an oversimplification.

This oversimplification comes from seeing the origins of the church as entirely emerging from ascetic and monastic traditions that rejected the idea of material wealth/gain.

It is understandable that aligning with Constantine and/or the Roman empire was the wrong move; some contemporary Christians still think it is the wrong move because empire and religion don’t mix.

This is mostly because the history of the relationship between the church and state, especially in the West, has not been a pretty one.

But before I dive more into Constantine’s role, it should be noted that empire and religion had no choice but to mix back then, especially after the emperor left behind his traditions and converted to Christianity.

Photo by Peter Burdon on Unsplash

The Emperor in the Room

Eusebius’s “Life of Constantine” paints the picture that the emperor was waited upon hand over foot and he humbly waited before taking his seat and gave gentle words of encouragement to those who attended.

This is hardly the behavior of a Roman emperor. It is more likely to Constantine was in the room to ensure that everyone was on the same page and that everyone understood that the decisions made here were final as long as they were lawfully carried out (although he would change his mind and argue they weren’t later, but consistency wasn’t a strength of his).

Constantine, as it turned out, did not (as Eusebius had reported) speak the more common and widespread Greek in which the conference took place, but instead spoke Latin in order to emphasize order and imperial power.

His presence was unmistakable. The scholar H.A. Drake in his article “The Emperor in the Room” quotes the bishop Eustathius of Antioch, who wrote that “some people” were using “reconciliation” to let the followers of Arius off the hook.

The bishop’s complaint makes an awful lot of sense because it is not as though business as usual was going to be able to be conducted with the emperor there. Constantine’s presence made it difficult for Eustathius, who wanted revenge on Arius and his followers, to make much progress over and against the emperor.

The emperor managed to frustrate just about every theological conversation that occurred there, including the famous one about ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) or whether Jesus and God were of the same being, essence and/or substance.

Although Eusebius reports that the emperor himself invented the term ὁμοούσιος (homoousios), it is fair to say that most modern scholars doubt that is the case. But it is possible that Constantine participated in a conversation about the term.

According to Drake, Constantine’s emphasis was clear, as was his communication to the bishops. He was straightforward about the fact that an understanding of the faith was important, but that the terminology was less important than arriving at a conclusion that emphasized peace and unity.

Photo by Marija Zaric on Unsplash

The Emperor Finds His Groove

H.A. Drake also spoke about one particular comment that the emperor made about being a bishop that is instructive about how he saw himself and his role in the council, as well as how he pushed his agenda.

According to Eusebius, Constantine said that “you are bishops within the church, but I am a bishop to those outside”. Whether or not that actually left his lips, it was instructive for how Eusebius paints his character.

Drake speaks about the charm which Constantine used at the council of Nicaea. I think that charm allowed Constantine to subtly act as a disruptor during this conference in his hopes to stop dealing with these squabbles between churches.

Drake also emphasizes that the above quote about bishops should raise eyebrows, even though Eusebius and others appear to have taken it at face value. Was Constantine really saying that the bishops were like him?

One can see how the theory of charm operated here. The bishops were no doubt overjoyed to think that the emperor respected them in such a way, thinking that he would surely support them in the future.

However, H.A. Drake presents this as Constantine learning to effectively play empire. By expanding his role outside of the Roman senate, he could play a larger role in ecclesial discussions, providing him another source of power and influence.

The bishops would be likely to help Constantine and the emperor needed them to help run his Holy (Christian) Roman Empire. Therefore, pretending to be a bishop was an extremely shrewd move.

It also harkens back to the story that I told above about Constantine having seen the sign of the cross in his vision and experiencing military success. It ties together the loose ends from Eusebius’s Life of Constantine and its propaganda about divine providence.

This time, the emperor was making the theological claim. He was subtly implying that God had called him to be the bishop to the people on the outside of the church, so that he could be portrayed not only as their boss, but as God’s chosen leader, just as Eusebius had argued.

Conclusion

What was the role of Constantine at the council of Nicaea? It is hard to pick one answer, but I posit that disruptor, charmer, political maneuverer or imperial referee would all qualify as decent answers.

Regardless of which role you choose, it is worth noting that the person who benefitted most from Constantine’s approach here was Arius, the very person whose followers the council wanted to punish and exile alongside their leader.

Eusebius of Nicomedia (a different Eusebius than above) was another winner because he was the one who thought that there was no more reason for Arius or Theognis (his co-worker) to remain in exile.

Eusebius of Nicomedia had such a remarkable influence on Constantine that he actually was the one who ultimately baptized the emperor on his deathbed in 337.

But these victories did overshadow the fact that many who came to Nicaea were hoping for the punishment of Arius and his followers, or at least an acknowledgement that what they were teaching was dangerous.

What they got was a blanket of charm, maneuvering and disruption that saw the controversial Arius restored, right before many of those who had called for his punishment were punished by Constantine himself.

Most importantly, Constantine paved the way for undermining the results of the council of Nicaea by allowing Arius to be restored without a single comment on the concept of ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) that they had debated about in the conference.

Given these realities, it is easy to see how people today got the idea that Constantine interfered a great amount in these councils and the development of early Christianity. But the specifics are still important to point out in such discussions, even if Constantine himself might disagree!