May 2025 marks the 1700-year anniversary of the famous and important Council of Nicea I (there were two councils at Nicea). This short essay is a brief summary of the essentials of that conference, finishing with some important implications of the council.
The usual source for information about early Christian history is the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea (see below). However, he finished writing his famous Church History in 324, the year before the Council of Nicea. That does not mean, however, that we lack good information. It just means we must search harder! Philip Schaff provides many early sources in his account about the Council. We suggest the reader consult Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Vol. III, page 622 for his list of ancient sources.
After years of severe persecution of Christians by imperial Rome, Christian leaders from around the Empire were finally able to travel safely and freely, especially to discuss their ecclesiatical affairs. Accordingly, a series of councils began to be held to do church business and to attempt to hammer out theological and institutional problems.
One such conference was held at modern day Iznik, near the Marmara Sea coast of modern Turkey, southwest of Istanbul and northwest of Ankara. (The Marmara Sea is that body of water between the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea.) It was easily accessible by sea and land from all parts of the empire. “It is now a miserable Turkish village…where nothing but…the solitary church of St. Mary remains to the memory of the event which has given the place a name in the history of the world.”1 This conference is called The Council of Nicea (I). The conference convened on 20 May 325 and the participants dispersed by the 25th of July. The meetings were held, “it appears, part of the time in a church or some public building, part of the time in the emperor’s house.”2
“The Council of Nicea was the largest assembly of bishops hitherto, and though the great majority of the members were from the Greek East, the presence of Roman legates and the prominent role played by the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch made it possible for the council to be given the title ‘ecumenical’.”3 However, as we see in the records, it is interesting that the Bishop of Rome, did not play a leading role and is hardly even mentioned. In fact, the bishop of Rome did not even attend! He was represented by others, including the bishop Hosius of Cordova (Spain) and two presbyters representing Bishop Sylvester of Rome.4
“The early historians of the church differ considerably regarding the number of bishops assembled on this occasion.” Estimates were: Eusebius of Caesarea: 250 +, Athanasius: 318, Eustathius of Antioch: ±270, Sozomen, ±320.5 Furthermore “Each bishop was to bring with him two presbyters and three servants.”6 Moreover, “the emperor summoned the bishops of the empire by a letter of invitation, putting at their service the public conveyances, and liberally defraying from the public treasury the expenses of their residence in Nicaea and of their return.”7
Four names stand out from the Council, and we need to examine who they were.
Arius (256–336) “was one of the most prestigious and popular presbyters” in the Christian community of Alexandria, Egypt.8 He was “an ascetic scholar and popular teacher.”9 He clashed over several issues with the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. The most serious clash was over the issue of the nature of Yeshua. Essentially, Arius asserted that Yeshua, the Word, was “not coeternal with the Father.” According to Gonzalas, Arius’ motto was “there was when He was not.” “Although this may seem a very fine point, what was ultimately at stake was the divinity of the Word.”10 Arius claimed that the Word was not God, but the “first of all creatures.” Alexander argued that the Word was divine and therefore could not be created.
Athanasius (ca. 296–273) was from wealthy parents, who provided for his theological education at a school also in Alexandria. Though “he was Egyptian by birth, he was Greek by education.”11 When he participated in the Council of Nicea, he was slightly over 30 years old. He contended that Messiah “existed from all eternity with the Father, and was of the same essence as the father, though He was a distinct personality.”12 In Alexandria he was ordained a deacon. Although he took no official part in Nicea, “but as secretary to Alexander, his notes, circulars, and encyclicals written on behalf of the bishop had an important effect on the outcome13 of the conference. He was a theological influence at Nicea, especially afterwards.
A few people named Eusebius contributed to Nicea. This one is Eusebius of Caesarea, he was the famous Christian historian, though his history finished a year before the Council of Nicea. “Eusebius of Caesarea was in all probability, the most learned Christian of his time.”14 He is a survivor of very severe persecution, which saw many of his colleagues, including his mentor perish at the hands of the Romans.
“Since Eusebius was admired by many of his colleagues, the emperor [Constantine] cultivated his support.” Yet, “Eusebius was neither a close friend nor a courtier of Constantine.”15 Although Eusebius was the greatest early Christian historian, he did not write about the Council of Nicea. We know about the Council from other sources.
Much can be said about Constantine. He is considered to be “the first Christian Emperor of Rome.”16 When Emperor Diocletian and his subordinate Maximian abdicated, political chaos followed. Eventually the power struggle for Emperor came to a head with Constantine.
Popular among the troops, Constantine gathered his armies in Gaul and marched against Maxentius, who ruled in Rome. Maxentius, in accordance to his advisors, left Rome to give battle to Constantine when Constantine approached.
According to two Christians who knew Constantine, on the eve of the battle at Milvian Bridge over the Tiber River near Rome, Constantine received a vision/dream to place a Christian symbol on the shields of his soldiers. When the vision appeared in the sky it came with the words, “in this you shall conquer.” The symbol Constantine put on his shields was what is called a labarum: a symbol consisting of the Greek letters chi Χ and rho Ρ, an abbreviation for the Greek word “Christ.” Constantine won sole emperorship over Maxentius when he defeated him and credits the victory to his belief in Yeshua and the use of the labarum.
In 313, Constantine and another, Licinius, received full control of Rome and met at Milan where they passed several decrees, essentially putting an end to persecution against the Christians. Among these decrees were: 1) full legal toleration for Christians, 2) restitution of confiscated Christian properties, and others.
As sole emperor after conquering Licinius in 324, Constantine then took on the Arian conflict. Hence, to help solve this growing conflict, Constantine called the Council of Nicea.
“In Nicea, at the time of the council, Eusebius saw the emperor seeking the unity and well-being of the church.”17 Indeed, Cairns adds, “Constantine’s attempts to unify the empire in order to save classical civilization meant that the church had to have a unified body of dogma if it was to be the cement to hold the body politic together. One empire must have one dogma.”18
After his opening address to the Council, Constantine “gave way to the (ecclesiastical) presidents of the council and the business began. The emperor, however, constantly, took an active part, and exercised a considerable influence.”19
Before we move on to discuss the Council itself. We need to tackle one additional aspect of Constantine. It has a bearing on the results of the Council. Was Constantine a true believer in Yeshua or not? “The genuineness of Constantine’s adoption of Christianity has always been hotly debated…”20 We cannot answer that question, but we can present the main arguments for both sides of the issue.
Those who argue in favor of Constantine assert a few facts in his favor. First, what about the vision he received at the Battle of Milvian Bridge? If he was not a believer, why did he receive such a revelation? Moreover, before the battle “Constantine successfully invoked the aid of the God of the Christians. He won. Had put a Greek monogram [the labarum]…on his standards, and it had been a talisman of victory.”21
In addition, though he was not yet baptized at the time of the Council of Nicea, “his support for the Christian cause was not in doubt.”22 He certainly wanted the church to be both united and free of heresy. In 326 he led a campaign against pagan temples and even a military crusade against corrupt pagans. The fact that he was not baptized until later in life was not unusual for that time. “Before about 400 it was common for baptism to be deferred until near the end of life because of the formidable nature of the penances and discipline required after confession of post-baptismal sin.”23 Constantine was finally baptized on his deathbed in 337.
Finally, both before and after at the Council of Nicea, Constantine received some support from Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius sat at Constantine’s side during much of the conference. At times he gave Constantine a somewhat flattering eulogy. Many disparage Eusebius for that, and therefore, find it difficult to accept many of his other assessments of Chirstian historical events and people. People think Eusebius compromised and was simply flattering Constantine. Historian Philip Schaff notes, “Of the Eastern bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea, and of the Western, Hosius, or Osius, of Cordova, had the greatest influence with the emperor. These two probably sat by his side and presided in the deliberations alternately with the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch.”24 These and other indicators, are some of the best arguments for Constantine being a true believer in the Christian God.
As far as Eusebius’ favorable remarks about Constantine, however, one must consider the time in which Eusebius lived. He saw his teacher and many others imprisoned and put to death under the persecution of Diocletian and Maximinus Daia from 303–311. In that light, he saw Constantine as God’s chosen instrument to end the persecutions. “From the viewpoint of Eusebius and his surviving companions, what was taking place was a direct intervention by God, something similar to the events of the Exodus… and began looking upon Constantine and Licinius as the instruments of divine design.” When Licinius began persecution again, Eusebius believed he went insane and “only Constantine and he alone, remained as God’s chosen instrument.”25
Many scholars argue that Constantine was certainly not a true believer in Yeshua. They say that his involvement in the theological issues was mainly because he strove for the unity of the empire. “Even though the number of Christians could not have been much above one-tenth of the population of the empire at this time [largely reduced by the severe persecutions less than a decade before], they exercised an influence in the state far in excess of their numbers.”26 That is why Constantine was concerned about the unity of the empire.
Evidence that weighs heavily against Constantine being a true believer is how he acted, especially when the Council of Nicea was over. Beginning in 326, he had some very close relatives put to death — an action very uncharacteristic of one who is a believer. Thus, only one year after convening the Council of Nicea, Constantine
We agree with the assessment of Constantine by Earl E. Cairns when he writes, “it is likely that Constantine\s favoritism to the church was a matter of expediency. The church might serve as a new center of unity and save classical culture and the empire. The fact that he delayed baptism until shortly before his death and kept the position of Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the pagan state religion, seems to support this view.”27
The Arians or Eusebians numbered perhaps twenty bishops, under the lead of the influential bishop Eusebius of Nicemedia (afterwards of Constantinople), who was allied with the imperial family, and of the presbyter Arius, who attended at the command of the emperor, and was often called upon to set forth his views.27 Yet conspicuously absent were any bishops that were Jewish. At least, we see no evidence of such. This will have some ramifications for one of the important decisions of the Council.
The Council of Nicea was called by the Emperor Constantine. Under Constantine’s direction, “the Council put Arianism at the head of its agenda”28 because it was “threatening the unity of the Christian Church.29 “A second, in their minds, a lesser problem was the date to celebrating the Resurrection Day (“Easter”). Other minor issues were also discussed. Let us first recount the debate about Arianism.
The Arian controversy had been brewing for a while. It concerns the deity of Yeshua. It came to a head in Alexandria, Egypt. “In 318 or 319, Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria preached to his presbyters on ‘The Great Mystery of the Trinity in Unity’.”30 One of the presbyters, Arius, in an effort “to avoid a polytheistic conception of God…took a position that did injustice to the true unity of [Messiah]. He said there was a time when he was not.”31 Cairns hit the nail on the head when he remarks, “The issue was soteriological in nature. Could [Messiah] save man if He was a demigod, less then true God?”32 The controversy went far beyond just the believers in Alexandria. It had the potential to tear the unity of Christianity apart. Constantine understood that. Hence, that is why he called an empire-wide council to try to solve the problem.
At the Council of Nicea, “The orthodox party, which held firmly to the deity of Christ, was at first in the minority, but in talent and influence the more weighty. At the head of it stood the bishop (or “pope”) Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Marcellus of Ancyra, Rosins of Cordova (the court bishop), and above all the Alexandrian archdeacon, Athanasius, who, though small and young, and, according to later practice not admissible to a voice or a seat in a council, evinced more zeal and insight than all, and gave promise already of being the future head of the orthodox party.”33
The majority, whose spokesman was the renowned historian Eusebius of Caesarea, took middle ground between the right and the left, but bore nearer the right, and finally went over to that side.
Cairns relates that three views were put forth by the Council. First was that of Arius, backed by a few others, such as Eusebius of Nicomedia, who insisted that Messiah had not existed from eternity but had a beginning by a creative act of God. “To Arius he was divine but not deity.”34 The second view was championed by its young spokesman, Athanasius, who became the chief spokesman of what became the orthodox view. “He held that [Messiah] was coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with the Father, and for these views he suffered exile five times.”35
The third view was asserted by the historian Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. His view was the most popular one. He proposed that the truth lies in a combination of the best ideas of both Athanasius and Arius. “At the Council of Nicea…Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian, suggested the adoption of the creed of his own church.”36 Cairns notes that at first over two hundred of those present followed his views. Schaff then writes,
Then the church historian Eusebius, in the name of the middle party, proposed an ancient Palestinian Confession, which was very similar to the Nicene, and acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general biblical terms, but avoided the term in question, ὁμοούσιος consubstantialis, of the same essence. The emperor had already seen and approved this confession, and even the Arian minority were ready to accept it.37
However, the others wished to have a view that would in no way find any acceptance by the Arians; they “wished a creed which no Arian could honestly subscribe, and especially insisted on inserting the expression homo-ousios, which the Arians hated and declared to be unscriptural…Hence, the emperor saw clearly that the Eusebian formula would not pass; and, as he had at heart, for the sake of peace, the most nearly unanimous decision which was possible, he gave his voice for the disputed word.”38 We state it in another way: Constantine “ordered them to define the essence of Christianity not because he was interested in theology, but because he needed ecclesiastical unity.”39
“Eusebius’ work was orthodox, but it did not deal explicitly with the Arian position. It was taken as a base and put forward by the council in its revised form.”40 In the end, the delegates from Cordova brought forth a prepared confession and read it to the Council, who deliberated it. “Almost all the bishops subscribed the creed.” The creed they adopted “added a condemnation of the Arian heresy, which dropped out of the formula afterwards received.”41
We list below the original Nicene Creed and then the modified one later, which is not the main one accepted by many Christians.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
This creed above went through some revisions at subsequent councils over the course of over one hundred years, perhaps more. Its history becomes very complicated. We present below the first known revision, referred to as the “Creed of Constantinople of 381.”43
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence, Who because of us men, and because of our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. And rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge living and dead, of Whose kingdom there will be no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified, Who spoke by the prophets.
And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
We must note that the Nicaean Creed formulated at Nicea is not the same one used by the church today, although it is similar. The Creed of 325 “stops with the phrase ‘and in the Holy Spirit’ and is followed by a section condemning Arius’ view.”44 The present Nicene Creed was approved at Chalcedon in 451. Moreover, many were not happy by the outcome of the first Nicene Council and the wording chosen for the Creed in the end. “…The years between 325 and 381 were marked by bitterness and contention.45
One of the problems in coming to a happy conclusion was because of Eusebius. We have seen that Eusebius of Caesarea was a major influence in the council. Yet, his stand on Arianism was rather confusing. Gonzalez says,
Eusebius’ role in the controversy was not beyond reproach…It was rather that Eusebius never fully understood what was at stake. For him, the peace and unity of the church were of prime importance. Therefore, at first, he seemed to be inclined toward Arianism, at the Council of Nicea he took an opposite stance, only to waver once the council had disbanded. Since he was a famous bishop and scholar, many looked to him for direction, and his confusion…did little to bring the controversy to a happy conclusion.46
We must bring our discussion of the Arian issue to an end and move on to the next pressing subject of the Council of Nicea. We can say that at the Council of Nicea, “the Church for the first time formally defined the divinity of Christ, in the phrase (as rendered in the commonly used English translation of the Nicene Creed), ‘God of God, Light of light, Very God of Very God, being of one substance with the Father.’47 Hence, at the Council of Nicea, “the Church for the first time formally defined the divinity of Christ, in the phrase (as rendered in the commonly used English translation of the Nicene Creed), ‘God of God, Light of light, Very God of Very God, being of one substance with the Father.’
Although other minor problems were addressed at Nicea, we shall focus on the problem concerning the date for the celebration for the resurrection of Yeshua. (As I write in this essay, I will use the terms used in the sources that I quote to avoid confusion.) Cairns notes, “The Easter controversy arose about the middle of the second century over the question of what the proper date was to celebrate Easter.”48 Simply stated, those in the eastern part of the church said that Easter should be celebrated on the 14th of Nisan, the same date of Pesach, no matter on what day of the week it fell. However, those in the western part of the church countered by saying that Easter should be celebrated on the Sunday following the 14th of Nisan. In fact, the question of Easter, “was one of the principal reasons for convoking the Council of Nicea, being the most important subject to be considered after the Arian controversy.”49
In terms of Christian history, the ones in the eastern part of the church became known as “Quartodecimani” (the “fourteeners”50). “The controversy was concerned with the question of whether the Jewish Pascal Day or the Christian Sabbath should determine the time for the celebration…”51
Again, it was Athanasius who was a key spokesman for the deciding viewpoint at Nicea. The unexpected decision was that “Easter Day was fixed on the Sunday immediately following the new moon, which was nearest after the vernal equinox, because it was certain that our Savior rose from the dead on the Sunday which next succeeded the Passover of the Jews.”52 As a result, “Bishop Victor of Rome denounced the Quartodecimans as heretics.”53
“It was not until the time of Constantine that a formal decision was taken, and even in later centuries councils had frequently to prohibit Gentile Christians from celebrating Easter on the same day as the Jews celebrated the Passover.”54 This was “the earliest known example of the Roman bishop exercising jurisdiction…It seems intolerable to the then bishop of Rome, Victor, that the churches of Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different date, and to the distress of many threatened excommunication on those who did not accept the Roman date.”55 The eastern churches, consequently did not submit! It should be noted, as did Parks, “in other matters also it is evident that many, apart from Christians from Jewish birth, were powerfully influenced by the teaching and practice of the Synagogue.”56
We have done the best we could to summarize the nature of and decisions of the first Council of Nicea in 325. What can we say about it?
This writer holds to a view of the nature of Messiah very closely related to that of Athanasius. However, it is not the focus of this essay to enter into the Nicean debate. What stands out for this writer is how the Nicean doctrine was formulated and its consequences among believers.
The Arian debate at Nicea was not formulated using quotations from Scripture, although the adherents cerainly hoped they were faithful to the Scriptures. Rather, the conclusion of the Arian debate was decided over a Greek term, not found in Scripture: homousios (ομοουσιος) (“of the same essence).” Schaff notes that Eusebius “proposed an ancient Palestinian57 Confession which was very similar to the Nicene, and acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general biblical terms, but avoided the term in question: homoousios (ομοουσιος)…The emperor had already seen and approved this confession, and even the Arian minority were ready to accept it.”58 According to Dennis E. Groh, “what was surprising [about the decision of the Council of Nicea] was that all but two bishops signed a creed that contained an unscriptural term for the first time in Christian history — homoousios, of the same substance. [Messiah] was to be of the same substance with the Father” (italics original in the quote).59
Why could the Nicene Creed not use this? The divinity of Messiah is without a doubt one of the most difficult doctrines to understand and to accept. It can be expressed adequately simply by quoting the relevant biblical passages, both from the Tanakh (especially Isaiah) and the Apostolic Scriptures. Moreover, upon examination. We can read from the Book of Acts that the divinity of Messiah was never once raised as a doctrine necessary for evangelism. Instead, the delegates from Nicea chose to use technical, extra-biblical terminology to force people to express the divinity in order to say their viewpoint in a certain theological manner. The result of this was confusion and further disarray, not to mention the fleshly behavior between those believers who held different ways of expressing the divinity of Messiah. “Constantine’s unity was both illusory and dangerous, as the next 50 years of Church history show.”60
Again, this writer believers in the divinity of Yeshua, but we have witnessed what happens to others who do not express it the way “the establishment” insists they express it. The same fleshly behavior was exhibited after the Council of Nicea. We should learn from the mistakes made from the Council of Nicea.
A second take-away from studying this council is the issue of Church and State. The Roman Emperor “Constantine…arrogated to himself the right to arbitrate the dispute in the church, even though he was only the temporal ruler of the empire.”61 “The perennial problem of relationship between church and state emerged clearly here, but the bishops were too busy dealing with theological heresy to think of that particular problem.”62 This would set a disastrous precedent for the next millennia. Eventually Christianity would become the official religion of the Roman Empire (that was practically so under Constantine, but not officially). When that happened there was little tolerance, justice, or kindness for those who did not claim to be Christians. Moreover, eventually the Church would decide the policies toward those with whom it disagrees (including other Christians) and the state would enforce that policy. Once again, the results have been disastrous.
Without question during the first 300 years of Christian history, the church of Rome became increasingly dominant over other churches. This is not the time nor the place to argue about the primacy of the Church in Rome. However, Gonzales while writing of events in the second century, comments, “Rome, for instance, can point to an uninterrupted line of bishops joining the present time — the late second century — to the apostles Peter and Paul. And the same is true of the church in Antioch as well as of several churches.”63
At the Council of Nicea, we noticed that many churches with many bishops and elders participated. However, as noted earlier, the bishop of Rome did not appear to stand out, according to the records of the council, nor is there ample evidence to say that he even attended! While he must have stated his opinion through his representatives, nevertheless, he did not force it upon the conference. It was the Roman emperor, Constantine, that became a significant spokesperson, not the bishop of Rome.
By the middle of the 2nd century biblical exegetes began to use allegory when they wanted to interpret a passage of the Bible. They did not invent allegory; the Greeks had been using it for centuries. However, they began to employ it as a viable means to understand the Bible.
Allegory can be defined as, “The use of language to convey a deeper and different meaning from that which appears on the surface.”64 Philo, of the 1st century, is the “Jewish allegorist par excellence.”65 The use of allegory in the Jewish world helped in the development of midrash as a legitimate method of biblical understanding.
Let us use some caution here. We cannot completely dismiss allegorism when studying the Bible. McDonald makes an important point when he says, “In biblical usage a difference must be drawn between allegory as a medium of revelation and allegory as a method of interpretation” (Italics mine)66. God sometimes uses allegory in the Scripture. However, there is a huge difference when He uses it and when mere humans employ it as an interpretive tool. Indeed, an increasing number of Christian interpreters began to use it beginning in the late 1st century and especially into the 2nd century, and beyond. To be sure not everyone adopted this method. For instance, Theodore of Mopsuestia (c.350-428) wrote five books Against the Allegorists.
The reason we are mentioning the subject of allegory is that, more or less, allegorism became the fuel that supplied the heat for antisemitic biblical interpretation. For example, how else could a scholar like the apologist Justin (Martyr), when he was speaking to the Jewish man named Trypho, come up with the idea that “For we, too, would observe the fleshly circumcision, and the Sabbaths, and in short, all the feasts, if we did not know for what reason they were enjoined you — namely, on account of your transgressions and the hardness of your hearts.” Furthermore, he states to Trypho, “For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign — that you may be separated from other nations and from us, and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer, and that your land may be desolate, your cities burned, and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.”
In other words, by using allegory to understand the Torah, we find that some Christians were asserting that the teachings in the Torah were not given to the people of Israel to help them walk in a manner reflecting the character of the Lord. Rather, they were given to Israel to prove how sinful they were and how they deserved God’s judgement against them for supposedly rejecting Yeshua. This is basically how what is commonly called “replacement theology” (supersessionalism) took root. It was aided by the use of allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Hence, it was relatively a way for the delegates to the Council of Nicea to dismiss the biblical injunction to celebrate Pesach and to date the resurrection of Yeshua on a time that was irrelevant to the Pesach of the Jewish people and to God Himself.
Nearly all of the early Christian councils that were held in the first 4 centuries, all dealt with the immediate danger of heresies, mainly the Arian heresey, and none of them mentioned relations with Jews very much.67 However, by the time of the Council of Nicea, unofficially, Christian relationships with Jewish people had already reached a low point. Beginning with Nicea, things were now becoming more official. As things progressed, those who claimed to be Christians made other pronouncements and enacted other decrees that further drew a wedge between them and their biblically Jewish foundations. For example, “The Council of Antioch (341) prohibited Christians to celebrate the Passover with the Jews, an issue which the General Council of Nicea (325) had formally decided, but which would not be actually closed for many years.”68
Here at the first Council of Nicea, the Christians messed with the date of the resurrection of Yeshua. There never should have been a debate about the matter. Both the eastern and western sectors of The Churches were wrong in establishing the date for celebrating Yeshua’s resurrection. The date was already biblicaly fixed. According to the Torah, Pesach was 14 Nisan, the Festival of Matzah began on 15 Nisan, therefore, Yeshua’s resurrection would have been either 16 or 17 Nisan. The day was not the issue, the date is the important factor according to the Bible. Yeshua’s resurrection is in direct relationship with Pesach, since the “Last Supper” was most likely a Pesach Seder. That Christianity messed with the date of the resurrection is a direct result of their rejection of the authority and practice of Torah in their lives. That eventually led to a complete separation of Christian thinking with the biblical Judaism that first establish believers in Yeshua.
We have stated above that the possibility existed where the participants of the Council of Nicea may have exceeded biblical language in defining their view of the deity of Messiah. James Charlesworth suggests the same. He writes, “We may ask whether, in these Christian debates, too much has been defined. Has the supercatagorical dimension and ineffibilness of God been sacrificed by the need to think in logical and philosophical categories?”69 He asks these things because the language used to describe the deity of Messiah went beyond any possibility for any traditional Jewish thinker to consider those claims.
We are not suggesting that the doctrine needs to be abondoned to make belief in Yeshua more palatible for traditional Jews. What we are saying is the point we have established above, that perhaps just biblical passages should be used in the discussion rather than using “logical and philosophical” terms (to use Charlesworth’s words).
Furthermore, the language used by the Council of Nicea opened a very dangerous door of antisemitism. “This new dogma encouraged escalation of the language concerning the killing of Christ”70 A few decades after Nicea, John Chrysostom will use this language and dub the Jewish actions toward the crucifixion of Yeshua as deicide, “later to be a standard Christian charge against Jews, not formally abandoned even at Vatican II.”71
Thus is our summary of the Council of Nicea in 325. Should we celebrate its 1700-year anniversary? Perhaps not. We should, however, remember it and learn from its decisions and the attitudes of those who made those decisions. Unfortunately, we can add the memory of the Council of Nicea to the long list of mistakes Christianity made concerning Jewish people and pray that we, as those who claim a love for Yeshua, can faithfully outwardly demonstrate that love to His own people.
Bettenson, Henry, ed. Documents of the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. 3rd Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Cruse, C. F., trans. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998.
Douglas, J. D., Gen. Ed. The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Revised Edition). Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979.
Flannery, Edward H. The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism. New York: Paulist Press, 2004.
Gonzalez Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. Revised and updated. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2010.
McManners, John. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Nicholls, William. Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.: 1995.
Parkes, James. The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue: A Study in the Origins of Antisemitism. New York: Macmillan, ND.
Pritz, Ray. “‘…And the Children Struggled:’ The Church and the Jews through History.” Mishkan. Issue 50–51/2007. Pasche Institute of Jewish Studies (A Ministry of Criswell College).
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Reproduction of the 1910 edition.
Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, eds. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, 2nd Edition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.
Shanks, Hershel, ed. Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development. Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1992.
Stevenson, J. ed. Creeds, Councils, and Controversies: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church, AD 3347–461. New Edition. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1989.
Ariel Berkowitz
Writer / Instructor
Ariel received his B.S. from West Chester State University and Philadelphia Biblical University, and his M.Div from the Biblical Theological Seminary. He has attended Rodef Torah School of Jewish Studies and also holds a Certificate from Israel Institute for Biblical Studies in Exploring the Biblical Land of Israel. He has taught both full and part time at Israel College of Bible from 1992-2006. He is an adjunct professor with IBEX (Israel Bible Exchange program) since 1995. Ariel has been teaching at TorahResource since 2012, specializing in Tanach Studies with a special love for History and Biblical Geography. Find more of Ariel’s work on his website, torahresourcesinternational.com
Biblically Based ⋅ Honoring Yeshua ⋅ Upholding Torah
TorahResource exists to provide biblically based materials that help believers understand, grow, and live out a covenant relationship with God.
TorahResource
6824 19th St W. PMB 117
University Place, WA. 98466
(800) 508-3566
General Inquiry:
info@torahresource.com
All donations are tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.
©2025 TorahResource, All Rights Reserved