Constantine the Creed Maker
Posted: Sunday, December 21, 2008
by Tex Norman
Flavius Valerius Constantinus was born in Naissus in Moesia around 272 A.D. His father was Constantius (properly Aurelius Valerius Constantius) and his mother was a barmaid from Bithynia named Helena .
Now Diocletian was Emperor of the Roman Empire , but he split the Empire into two administrative groups in 286 A.D. and into four sections in 293 A.D. Diocletian was at the helm during the last great Roman persecution of the Christians. When the Empire was divided into four administrative groups Constantius rose to power as a member of the tetrarchy. One condition of becoming a Caesar was that Diocletian required him to put away Helena, his legal concubine, and to marry instead, Maximian's stepdaughter Theodora.
Constantius send for his son while he was in Boulogne and the warrior son went to his father and participated in a British campaign. The Gallic army was deeply loyal to Constantius and, when he died at York in 306, the troops acclaimed Constantine not merely as Caesar, but as Augustus meaning emperor. Knowing that accepting the title of Augustus would be seen as too ambitious he accepted the lesser title of Caesar. Galerius was too far away to intervene and reluctantly recognized his as a Caesar. Constantine was well aware that Galerius would not sit still if he accepted the superior title of Augustus.
What followed was a series of complicated civil wars. The leaders of the various sections of the Empire were waging war on one another, seeking alliances, being murdered, executed, committing suicide, and some actually managed to die of old age. The conversion of Constantine is the subject of legend and speculation. It is said that before a battle Constantine knelt facing the sun, to pray to Sol, the sun god. Apparently, Constantine had some sort of vision, or a bout of dizziness, or perhaps it was merely a dream, but whatever it was the story goes that Constantine saw black rays leap diagonally out of the sun and heard in his head a name: Christos. His mother Helena was a Christian and it is probably that he had heard his mother babbling on about Christos, but it was in this very moment, kneeling in prayer to the sun-god, that a voice from another world seemed to be saying, "In this sign, you will conquer."
Constantine may have been grasping at straws, but he gave orders to his officers to substitute Christ's symbol for the Eagle Imperial. Turning to Christ must have made some since to the young warrior. Remember that Constantine had witnessed at least two different periods of Christian persecution and he may have been impressed that even the full force of the Roman empire was unable to crush the life of this new religion. In fact, the more these Christians were persecuted the more their numbers increase. The ability of this religious group to survive and even thrive under the massive opposition of the Roman empire had to impress this future leader. We do not know exactly why he converted, but we know that by 313 A.D. Constantine was personally committed to Christianity.
It was in 313 that Constantine and Licinius met at Milan to co-ordinate their rule. Among the matters negotiated in that session was, something called the Edict of Milan, which proclaimed religious toleration and effectively ended the great Roman persecutions of Christianity.
The death of Maximinus created an opportunity for power to be consolidated making Constantine and Licinius the unchallenged rulers of the Empire. To tie the political knot tighter Licinius married Constantine 's sister. An uneasy peace followed, but neither Augustus gave up the dream of a unified Roman Emperor with one ultimate Augustus in control of it all.
In 314, the enmity between Constantine and Licinius were to the point of yet another civil war. Constantine invaded Pannonia , defeated Licinius, and exacted the surrender of all of Roman Europe except Thrace . When barbarians invaded Thrace , and Licinius failed to move against them, Constantine ceased the opportunity to rescue this Licinius province. After the barbarians were driven back, Licinius still refused to abdicate to Constantine , and war between the two rivals continued. In 323, Constantine finally defeated Licinius and was finally able to claim the prize of being the sole emperor of Rome . THE SINCERITY OF CONSTANTINE 'S CONVERSION
Our experience with politicians and Christianity may taint our view of Constantine 's conversion. We are use to seeking politicians who court the religious right. The votes and dollars of various groups such as the Christian Coalition cause us to be suspicious of the religious convictions of our elected leaders. It is easy for us to have doubts about the religious convictions of Constantine .
We must not dismiss Constantine as simply some kind of political opportunist.
1. At the time Constantine converted, even the most incredulous pagan believer treated all gods with respect. The Roman political scene was fraught with political maneuvers. Early church leaders did not use their religion in order to hedge their bets and give all gods the benefit of respectful doubt.
2. Constantine chose a poor time to seek the support of Christians. When he put the Chi-Rho on his shields, he was preparing to do battle for the city of Rome , which was the center of pagan traditions. Constantine 's main supporters were members of the old aristocracy and they considered themselves oppressed by Maxentius. Christians were stronger in the East, but their numbers were weak in the West.
3. The value Christians could offer Constantine was of doubtful value. Christians tended to have an aversion to military service, and they tended to belong to the lower classes. This means that there was little Constantine needed that could come from Christians.
In the end, I am forced to conclude that Constantine was a sincere believer in the power of Christ. I do not think he had much depth of understanding of Christian theology. I am certain he had no understanding of the power of Christ as those Christians who were martyred for their faith had experienced it. I do think Constantine truly believed in the God of Christianity.
Constantine converted not to win the favor and support of Christians, but to win the favor and support of the Christian's God. To Constantine , the Christian God was very powerful, and the king would support God as long as God was showing him His favor.
This did not prevent the emperor from serving other gods. Emperor Constantine never relinquished his title Pontifex Maximus, head of the pagan state cult. He did not abolish the Vestal Virgins, or the Alter of Victory in the Senate House. Turning from the sun god to Christ may not have seemed too dramatic a change. It was claimed among Christians that a passage in Malachi was actually a Messianic prophecy. Moreover, that passage says: ". . .for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings." Malachi 4:2
There is evidence that throughout his life Constantine seemed to think the Unconquered Sun and the Christian God were compatible, perhaps being two views of the same divine being.
On some occasions, Constantine would consult the oracle of Apollo, and partake in all sorts of pagan ceremonies without seeming to think he was betraying or abandoning the God who had given him victory and power.
Constantine was a shrewd political leader. He could favor Christians, build basilicas, but attempting to suppress pagan worship would have created political problems for him.
Constantine did not permit himself to be baptism until he was on his deathbed. Some have suggested that delaying his baptism was proof that he was not a devote Christian. While delaying baptism may seem odd to us, it does not necessarily imply a lack of conviction on the part of the first Christian emperor. Holding off on baptism was actually evidence that he took his conversion very seriously. If you had a job that required you do perform questionable duties, it was deemed wise to delay baptism until those sinful responsibilities concluded. The rationale was that after you were baptism you had to stop sinning. There were scriptural reasons to believe this.
"But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Matt 26:24
"Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin." Luke 17:1-2
Many Christians believed that if you sinned after baptism that these post-baptismal sins were unforgivable and ensured your eternal damnation certain. In fact, the fires of hell burn hotter for the sins of baptized Christians. Therefore, if Constantine delayed his baptism, it may indicate just how seriously he took his own baptism.
Constantine desired to visit the Holy Land and even expressed a wish to be baptized in the River Jordan, but as he prepared to make that journey word came that there was troubled in the Church. Christian unity was essential to Constantine 's long-range goals and a threat to that unity was too important to be ignored. Constantine got wind of this flap in the church upon returning to Nicomedia after overthrowing Licinius.
The Emperor abandoned his planned pilgrimage to the Holy Lands and instead took to actions. First, he sent his ecclesiastical adviser, Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, to assess how serious was the threat to Church unity. At the same time the Emperor, also call a vast council of bishops at Ancyra after Easter 325 A.D. When word came back from Hosius, it was apparent that the Church was on the brink of fragmenting. Constantine felt it was necessary to transfer the council from Ancyra to Nicaea so that he could control the proceedings personally.
The dispute sparking this council actually grew out of a local disagreement between Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and one of his priests named Arius. Arius was teaching that Christ was not one with the Creator. This sounds a little like Gnosticism, doesn't it?
The Emperor sent a letter to Bishop Alexander and Arius, which is preserved within the writings of Eusebius. In the letter, Constantine urges Alexander and Arius to reconcile their differences peaceably, or at least to keep their dispute from becoming the subject of public debate. It is clear from the letter that Constantine did not understand the essence of their disagreement, nor did he understand the impact this dispute would have upon Christianity. The emperor wrote:
"There was no need to make these questions public . since they are problems that idleness alone raises, and whose only use is to sharpen men's wits . . . these are silly actions worthy of inexperienced children, and not of priests or reasonable men."
The letter had no effect upon the disputing parties. Arius said that Jesus was the Logos, the first and highest of all created beings, but Jesus was less than God was. Bishop Alexander disagreed and attempted to correct Arius, but Arius would not back down. Arius said that scripture calls Jesus the only begotten of the Father. If the Son was begotten of the Father, then Jesus could not be co-eternal with the Father. Anything begotten has a beginning and God is eternal (without a beginning). Arius went on to say that if Christ was created then he must have been created out of nothing, in the same way that God created everything else in the universe. To call Jesus co-eternal would mean that Jesus was made out of the same stuff that the Father was made out of, and Arius did not accept that notion. When we understand the fundamentals of Arianism it may explain why the creed contains the phrase stating that Jesus was begotten, not made.
Arius continued to reason that since the Holy Spirit was begotten by the Logos, that the Holy Spirit was even less God than the Son was.
Arius sought and apparently found sympathy at Caesarea . Arius claimed that Eusebius of Caesarea was actually among his chief supporters. Arius was stretching things. Eusebius did not wholeheartedly support either Arius or Alexander. Eusebius was a great scholar, but not much of a theologian. He was seeking a middle course in order to reconcile the Arian and orthodox parties. Unfortunately, Eusebius' efforts at remaining neutral were not rewarded. When the Bishop decided to discipline Arius, he included Eusbius on his list of clergy in need of punishment. Bishop Alexander was shocked by these Arian views and was alarmed at how rapidly it was spreading even among the clergy. He felt that he needed to pick a few ringleaders and make an example out of them.
Oddly enough, Bishop Alexander's own view tended to be similar to Sabellianism (a heresy that taught that God was manifested in progressive modes).
To take these false teachers to task Bishop Alexander called a council of all the bishops of Egypt and provisionally defrocked Arius, Eusebius, and a couple of other clergy tainted by this Arian cancer. A final decision on the excommunication of Arius, Eusebius, and the others would be decided at the Ecumenical Council called by Emperor Constantine.
I do not know why this defrocking was only provisional, but I have an educated guess. Eusebius was made Bishop of Caesarea in 313. Therefore, when Bishop Alexander defrocked Eusebius you have one Bishop excommunicating another Bishop and equals cannot do such things.
In preparation for this final showdown, Bishop Alexander sent an account of the proceedings to his fellow bishops all across the Empire. Alexander expected his actions to be admired and supported by the other Bishops of the Church, but instead, his communication triggered a response that was exactly opposite to the one he was expecting. Many bishops objected to Alexander's treatment of Arius. There were especially shocked and outraged by his treatment of Eusebius. To Alexander's surprise many of his peers expressed sympathy and support for the teachings of Arius. The clergy and laity were so vocally divided on the issues, that Church historian and Bishop Eusebius wrote that Christians were the subject of "profane merriment among the pagans, even in their theatres."
CONSTANTINE AND THE NICENE CREED
The Council met in the hall of an imperial palace. Present were not less than 318 bishops and practically every bishops brought along a vast number of priests and deacons. Most of the bishops were from the Eastern provinces. Many in the Western dioceses ignored the controversy all together. Pope Sylvester I was conveniently ill and seemed satisfied to be represented by some designated priests. There is some dispute over who opened the session. Ossius of Cordova was a sort of president for the proceedings. There is some evidence that there were a number of preliminary meetings. What is known is that when Constantine made his appearance, the Council opened solemnly on June 19 th , or 20th. The final session was on August 25th. Therefore, the entire session was just over two months long.
Constantine personally addressed the bishops, and urged them to restore unity to the Church. According to the writings of Eusebius, the Emperor listened patiently to the debates, moderated the violence of the contending parties, and at times even joined in the debate. Ossius of Cordova may have been the president of the proceedings, but Constantine was clearly in charge.
They asked Eusebius to explain himself. The motivation for requesting Eusebius to defend himself was basis, in part, on the baptismal creed of the Church of Caesarea . Eusebius was exonerated with the explicit approval of the Emperor. There is a real question about what Eusebius real believed regarding Arianism, but there is little doubt that the Emperor had protected him, and Eusebius was gratefully. Eusebius responded by giving his support to the Nicene Creed that eventually came out of this first Ecumenical Council.
Bishop Alexander brought with him his Archdeacon Athanasius, who was both eloquent and irascible. It is clear that Athanasius was the hired gun at these proceeding. Athanasius made it clear that if Christ and the Holy Spirit were not of one substance with the Father that polytheism would triumph. No one present at these proceedings could explain how there could be one God with three distinct personalities, but Athanasius persuasively argued that the body must bow to the mystery of the Trinity.
Some have joked that the Council of Nicaea was a battle over one iota. An iota was the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet. There is some truth to the joke. You see a large part of the debate was over which of two words would be included in their creedal statement and the only difference between these two words was in the spelling. One of words was homoiousios (meaning, of the same substance) and the other word (advocated by Arius) was homoousios (meaning, of a similar substance). The only difference in the two words is that in one word there was an iota between the o 's and the other word there was no iota separating the two o's.
The squabble at this council was not a trivial dispute over semantics. To say that Christ is made out of the same substance as the Father is dramatically different from saying that Christ is made out of a substance that was similar but inferior to the substance of the Father . Remember that when this quarrel was taking place much of the Roman Empire believed in polytheism (many gods). If you say that there is a head god (the Father) and lesser gods (like the Son and the Holy Spirit) then you are moving Christianity away from monotheism (one god) and toward polytheism (multiple gods).
The Nicene Creed is saying that there is only One God, not three gods loosely bound together by some kind of divine rubber bands. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not just members of the same exclusive club; they are three different facets of one God.
The problems with this concept of the Trinity are easy to see. After all, Jesus often said things that indicate the Father is different from and superior to himself. For example, Jesus said,
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Mark 10:18
Jesus refers to the Father as being greater than himself. ". . . I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." John 14:28
If Jesus is the same as God then when he prayed was he just talking to himself? If Jesus is the same as God, then when Jesus died on the cross did that mean that God died? Did God divide himself into three parts and allow each part of Himself to function independently of His other parts? Trying to understand the Trinity is like trying to hold a fist full of sand. No matter how hard you try to hold on to it, it sifts through your fingers.
On the first ballot, all but seventeen of the bishops signed a statement expressing support for Athanasius' view. By the end of the Council, only two bishops refused to sign their support of the new creed. The two dissenting bishops and Arius were anathematized by the Council and exiled by the Emperor. With such a hammer like that over their heads, it is easy to see how the Emperor Constantine got 316 out of the 318 votes for this early draft that came to be known as the Nicene Creed.
There was other business conducted at this First Council of Nicaea. There was cannon law that spoke to the celibacy of the clergy. There were cannons that spoke to the process for electing Bishops. There were cannons that discussed castration, requirements for catechumens (candidates for baptism), and language intended to make the modes and methods of worship throughout the Church more uniform.
I suggest to you that it would be extremely difficult for any mainline denomination to gain a super majority for any Faith Statement. The reason Constantine got the verdict he wanted on creed is that he could punish dissenting voters with eternal damnation and exile them from their homeland.
This super majority vote on the Nicene Creed did not mean that everyone there understood the contents of the creed the same way. I am relatively certain that most of us do not understand or care about the subtleties of the arguments over the nature of Christ, and the Trinity.
Arianism was eventually crushed by the doctrine of the Trinitarian, but victory over Arianism took some time.
The Trinitarian doctrine goes on to say, there is only one God, but that this one God expresses himself in Three Persons. We gain a little more understanding of what this means when we realize that the Latin word for Person was persona, which meant mask. Our long experience with bank robbers and trick or treating children force us to think of a mask as being something that hides identity. However, the persona (or mask) referred to here was the kind of mask worn by actor in ancient Greek plays. In ancient Greek drama, the masks were used not to hide identity, but to reveal character. The mask clued the audience in on what the character was like. The motives and values of the character are revealed by the kind of masks worn by the actors.
Now we can properly apply the concept of persona (or mask) to God. When the Bishops at Nicaea spoke of the three persons of the Trinity, they were trying to say that God reveals Himself by sometimes putting on the revealing mask of the Father, at other times by the illuminating mask of the Son, and sometimes by the edifying mask of the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed intended us to understand that God was not three different persons, no, there is only one God, but He reveals Himself to us via three distinctly different ways.
A few hundred years later Saint Augustine explains the Trinity. Augustine said that the Trinity by saying it is like the memory, the intelligence, and the will of a human being. Memory is not the same thing as intelligence. Intelligence is different from our will. Nevertheless, while memory, intelligence, and will are distinctly different, most of us would agree that they are all products of our one mind.
There is a fine Christian woman in my parish I sometimes call Saint Gerry. Gerry West, explained the Trinity to her own children in a way that was both profound and clear. Gerry told her children that she was a wife, a daughter, and a mother, but she was always only one person. In a similar way, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but He was always only one God.
I like Gerry's definition of the Trinity better than the one offered by Saint Augustine . Augustine had a great analogy, but Saint Gerry's analogy includes something missing from Augustine's. Gerry's analogy includes the concept of relationship.
Gerry was and can only be one person, but she is different as a mother, daughter, and wife because each relationship called upon her to respond in ways appropriate to each relationship.
An analogy is nothing more than a way of comparing something simple and uncomplicated with something difficult and complex. By understanding the simple example, we gain insight into the more difficult. The goal of these analogies of the Trinity is to show that when God relates to us as Father He relates to us in ways appropriate to that kind of relationship. When God relates to us as the Son, He responds to us in ways that are more intimate and personal, more human. When God relates to us as the Holy Spirit He is perhaps more mysterious, more mystical, and yet in some ways He is more intimate still.
Both analogies, the one by Saint Augustine and the other by Saint Gerry, give us some insight into the nature of the Trinity, but they are only analogies. Analogies may be helpful, but they always fall short of a complete comprehensible explanation.
THE LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE
The problem I have with theology is that it does not exist apart from language. Language is essential to understanding and communication, but when I try to understand and communicate in areas that are not concrete, I find the effort unsatisfying. Theology is man's effort to understand, and to explain the non-physical -- the metaphysical.
When I try to communicate my love to my wife or my son, I am forced to use language. Even at my most poetic, the words I use do not fully communicate the depth and intensity that I feel for my wife and son.
In our effort to understanding the mysteries of God, we are forced to reach for poetry and metaphor. Poetry and metaphor may be the key to unlocking these mysteries, but they are poor keys. Sometimes they hardly fit in the lock at all. At other times, it is loose in the lock. You have jiggle the keys to open the mysteries rarely does it open things up for you completely. What we try to do with metaphorical language is carry meaning from one realm of experience into another. In the came of theology we are trying to move meaning from the heavenly realm, from the presence of Almighty God, into our realm of experience.
We call God "He", but we do not for a second think of God as a physical being with masculine gender. The word "He" is a metaphor, and more than a few of us have argued that using a gender specific term for God can actually be a disservice to our efforts to know God. Anyone who thinks about it, even briefly, knows that God is beyond gender, beyond anything we can think of or imagine. Nevertheless, the only way we can speak of an aspect of the divine experience is by using the human experience. The mysteries of God are never completely unlocked by metaphor. Just when I think, I can see ultimate reality I am left staring at smoky quark trails. What I was trying to see is gone leaving me only hints of its true nature.
It is important in any discussion of God's business that we remember that language, even at its most poetic, is still astoundingly inadequate. The real danger to us comes when we think that our metaphors are adequate. When we believe, that our language has succeeded in moving meaning from the realm of God and to the human realm, we are really in danger. What helps me may not help you. The metaphors that bring me insight may not have the same impact on you. When I believe that, my ways of knowing God must be your ways I have over-stepped my bounds. The Apostle Paul knew that our efforts to understand God were pitiful efforts.
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. . . . Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 st Cor. 13:9-10, 12
Poetry and metaphor are delicate things. You cannot always hope for our poetry and metaphor to carry enough insight for all of us. Often it is lucky to bring insight to one person at a time. This is why John's Gospel is different from Mark's. Each believer struggles with language in our effort to transport meaning from the mind of God and deposit in our hearts and minds.
THE FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA CLOSES
This first council at Nicaea did not settle the matter for all times. The main cause of disagreement had to do with the nature of Jesus. The Nicene Creed insisted that God has fully come into human history in person of Jesus. Notice the language of the creed: True God from true God ; Begotten, not made; Of one essence with the Father. This last phrase, of one essence with the Father, won the day at Nicaea , but it continued to be the subject of considerable controversy. For the next fifty years, the Church debated this one phrase "Of one essence with the Father." In council after council, various alternatives were tried in an attempt to come up with something more acceptable to everyone.
"Exact image of the Godhead" (Second Creed of Antioch, 341)
"Like the Father who begot Him according to the Scriptures" (Creed of Sirmium)
"Like the Father in all things" (Creed of Sirmium)
"Of like essence with the Father" ( Ancyra , 358)
"Unlike the Father" (Second Creed of Sirmium, 357)
In the end, the Christian community affirmed the declaration of Nicaea , of one essence with the Father. If Jesus was only like God then there was the possibility that someone even more like God might come along later. By saying that Jesus is of one essence with the Father the Church is saying that God himself is incarnate in Jesus, therefore Jesus is the final Word. There is nothing further to be said.
However, with humans there is always the need for more to be said. Two hundred and fifty years later a church council at Toledo added a phrase to the Nicene Creed stating that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son. Before the council at Toledo , the phrase had stated only that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father. The Greek theologians protested this addition to the Nicene Creed opting in stead for a phrase stating that the Holy Ghost proceeded not from but through the Son.
.
.
This Article has been viewed 631 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)Constantine's mother was a witch and Constantine did more to damage the Church then almost any other man.Rabbi StanleyYou gave me ONE star? Is the writing really that poorly done, or do you disagree with me so drastically that I was lucky to get one star regardless of my abilities?
Perhaps I failed to make myself clear, because it seems like you think I admire Constantine. What I was trying to do was give a historical account of what happened to create a creed. I am NOT an admirer of Constantine, but the guy did what he did, and the results are what they are. Constantine was not a Christian, he was a convert to superstition, yet he had a powerful influence on some of the most basic doctrines of the Christian faith. The two natures of Christ, that Jesus was both all human and all God was a conclusion basically imposed on the Church by Constantine. Constantine made the Roman Empire officially Christian but delayed his own baptism because he wanted to be able to sin with abandon, and then convert at the last moment. I believe Constantine to be an enemy of what Christianity might have been like had he stuck to being a ruthless dictator instead of being a religious ruthless dictator.
I like your second post better.Rabbi Stanley
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.