Did Constantine Make Jesus Divine?
- Jason Pluebell
- Aug 8
- 13 min read
Updated: Sep 29
According to popular talk, Jesus was not always seen as God incarnate as a man. Rather, the early Christians thought of him as a good teacher and an extraordinary man, but a man, nonetheless. Jesus taught esoteric rituals that grant participants knowledge of the divine, and to look inside ourselves to find the true divine. Then, three centuries later, a Roman Emperor saw an opportunity and banned other gospels about Jesus, making him equal to God... This is what many talking and debate circles today sound like. From full documentaries and shows, to short clips on Instagram and TikTok, this other version of history has caught the attention of the layman masses like a moth drawn to a fire. But is this claim true? Is there any historical evidence that Constantine created Jesus' divinity? All it would take is one person claiming Jesus is God beforehand to falsify these claims, right?
Where'd This View Come From?
Despite the council introducing nothing new into Christian belief, the entire goal was not even around making Jesus divine. The Council of Nicaea was simply clarifying what the Church already held to be true. This pseudo-interpretation of history has its roots in previous works about the Knights Templar and other such historical conspiracies, but it was Dan Brown who started the engine, or rather opened Pandora's box. In his book, The Da Vinci Code, he claims that Constantine created a divine Jesus Christ to gain political power, and plays it off like these are based on historical facts.
One need only look to what a Roman Emperor was capable of to refute this first part of the claim. That being Jesus was created for political gain. Well, it seems like Constantine was kind of a forgetful ruler, considering it would have been a lot easier to just declare himself as god, and declare worship from citizens, as did those preceding him (Like Augustus, Commodus, Nero, and more).
Constantine also removed books from the New Testament that promoted a "divine feminine" and kept those that suited his patriarchal desires. He did this to solidify his rule and to gain the authority to deem whoever he disagreed with a heretic, holding the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 to accomplish this master plan. In Brown's book, the Holy Grail scholar Sir Leigh Teabing says that it was at this council that Jesus’ divinity was decided upon and that up until then, Christians saw Jesus as a good man who taught good things, and nothing more. There, they created the doctrine of Jesus several centuries after His death to secure male dominance and suppress women:
“Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God‘ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea.... By officially endorsing Jesus as the Son of God, Constantine turned Jesus into a deity who existed beyond the scope of the human world, an entity whose power was unchallengeable. (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, 253)”
He also rejected the already existing Gospels and removed them from the biblical canon.
“More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them…. The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great” (Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), Pg 308) "
Constantine, his court, and successors all succeeded in converting the ancient world from matriarchal paganism to patriarchal Christianity via propaganda that vilified the idea of the "divine feminine". As we shall see, these are completely false claims and reveal an ignorance of actual history.
Investigating the Evidence: What Really Happened?
Now that we have a firm idea of what the opposing view is here, we can move on to examining what actually happened at the Council of Nicaea. Are books like The Da Vinci Code making valid claims? Do these different versions of history have any plausibility of actually being correct?
Constantine's Conversion
In AD 312, Constantine had troops assembled at the Milvian Bridge, intending to cross to overthrow the Roman Emperor Maxentius. Doing so would ensure that Constantine would be the successor to his throne, becoming the new emperor. The night before the battle, as Constantine was praying to a pagan god,
"...he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross in the light of the heavens, above the sun and an inscription, Conquer By This attached to it.... Then in his sleep, the Christ of God appeared to him with the sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of this sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies." (Life of Constantine, Bk. 1, 28.1 and 29)
Suffice it to say, the following day, the battle transpired with Constantine fighting under the banner of the Christian Cross. Winning the battle, essentially becoming the Emperor, and later decreed that Christians should no longer be prosecuted under Roman law.
The Council of Nicaea
As a brand new emperor, and with his conversion to Christianity, Constantine observed doctrinal disputes within his new empire. In the fourth century, doctrinal disputes were tearing the empire apart. “It is said that if you bought a loaf of bread in the marketplace of Constantinople, you might be asked whether you believe God the Son was begotten or unbegotten, and if you asked about the quality of the bread, you might be told that the Father is greater and the Son is less.” (Erwin Lutzer, The Da Vinci Deception, Page 4).
One of the leading voices of these disagreements was a teacher named Arius. He taught that Jesus was a created god of sorts, but not fully God. Jesus was more than a man, but not God. To make his case more palpable, Arius formatted his teachings as catchy jingles and songs that attracted people to the music. Constantine then called the first ecumenical Council at Nicaea, intending to unite his empire and Christianity; he even paid the expenses of all who attended. His plan? To decide everything about Christianity himself, of course! I'm kidding, Constantine left it up to the Christians to agree, and not by his command. Constantine did not care about the details, as any agreement would have satisfied him as long as the disputes ended. Nonetheless, the Council was not held so the emperor could decide what Christians believed on his account and volition.
What Happened at the Council?
The Council of Nicaea consisted of more than 300 bishops who came to settle disputes about the doctrine of Christ, where Constantine made an opening speech. He warned all who were present that "Doctrinal disunity is worse than war." In an overwhelming vote, Arius was deemed a heretic, even being offered an opportunity to defend his position. They all reasoned that if Jesus was not fully God, then God cannot be the redeemer of mankind, which contradicts a plain reading of scripture. Quoting passages such as Colossians 1:16,
"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him."
If Jesus was created at the time of his incarnation, not fully divine, then how was everything in the universe created by and through him? Verses such as, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1,2)," and "...of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. (Romans 9:5)". Many other verses were spoken about that affirm Jesus is God, but to say the least, there was little argument about the nature of Jesus being divine. After agreeing on Christ, they moved on to how Jesus related to the Father from the Old Testament. This is where the historian Eusebius presented his view that Jesus had a nature similar to that of the Father. There was also Marcellus, a bishop of Asia Minor, who spoke the views of Athanasius of Alexandria that Christ could only be God in the fullest sense if his nature was the same as the Father's.
Constantine then accepted a suggestion made by another bishop to use the Greek word Homoousion, which means "the same" or "one in the same". Jesus had the same nature as the Father. The delegates agreed, and the Nicene Creed was born.
Here is an excerpt of what the creed states, italics are mine:
"I 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 of the Father before all worlds; 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.
Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (Historic Creeds and Confessions, Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997)."
There is no doubt that they affirmed Jesus was God in the fullest sense. Athanasius realized that “only if Christ is God, without qualification, has God entered Humanity, and only then have fellowship with God, the forgiveness of sins, the truth of God, and immorality been certainly brought to men.” (Seeberg, History of Doctrine, Pg 69).
Wasn't the Vote Close?
Popular gossip, amplified by books and media such as The Da Vinci Code, is that the vote on Christ's deity was a "relatively close vote". This is complete bologna, as the vote was not even close, and to examine the evidence and think so is pure delusion. Five out of the some 318 bishops present protested the creed, and out of them, only two refused to sign it along with Arius. This is far from a close vote. “Constantine did call the Council of Nicea, and one of the issues involved Jesus’ divinity. But this was not a council that met to decide whether or not Jesus was divine.... Quite the contrary: everyone at the Council—in fact, just about every Christian everywhere—already agreed that Jesus was divine, the Son of God. The question being debated was how to understand Jesus’ divinity in light of the circumstance that he was also human. Moreover, how could both Jesus and God be God if there is only one God? Those were the issues addressed at Nicea, not whether Jesus was divine. And there certainly was no vote to determine Jesus’ divinity: this was already a matter of common knowledge among Christians, and had been from the early years of the religion. (Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine, 14-15.)”.
Did Constantine Create Jesus' Divinity?
We are still left with the claim that Constantine created the divinity of Jesus, and that before this, Jesus was regarded as a good teacher and solely a man. To sum it up in a few words, there is not a single shred of evidence that such a thing happened; Constantine had nothing to do with the agreement. The bishops who attended the council all agreed on the dispute, not Constantine. The Council simply ratified what Christians had already believed centuries before this, making it official and documented. There was nothing new created about Jesus at the council, as the doctrine was held from the day Jesus was seen resurrected.
Those Before Nicaea...
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (AD 110)
In AD 110, Ignatius wrote several letters to churches while on his way to martyrdom in Rome, in which his central point is that Jesus is God incarnate. “There is One God who manifests himself through Jesus Christ his son.” (Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 8). He also says Jesus was the Son of Mary and Son of God (Geoffrey Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Wm.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1978), Pg 4, Cited in The Da Vinci Deception, Pg 9). He also called Jesus God Incarnate, and refers to Jesus Christ directly as God.
Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 112 - AD 118)
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, who knew Jesus directly during his ministry. He wrote a letter to the church at Philippi between AD 112 and 118. In it, he assumes that whoever is reading already believes in the divinity of Jesus, his exaltation to heaven, and his glorification. He gave his testimony during his martyrdom in AD 160 (Seeberg, History of Doctrine, Pg 69.)
“Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. (Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, 12:2)”
Justin Martyr (AD 100 - AD 165)
Originally from what is today modern-day Palestine, Justin later converted to Christianity after noting their intense zeal and willingness to die brutally for what they believed; he became a strong defender of the faith. He said Jesus was "the son of the apostle of God the Father and master of all. (Bromiley, Historical Theology, Pg 14)" . He also claimed, “And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128)” along with, “If you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 126)."
"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue." (The First Apology of Justin, Chp V)
"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true 167 God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." (The First Alology of Justin, Chp XIII)
Irenaeus (AD 177)
He studied under John's disciple, Polycarp. He wrote in the AD 170s, speaking of John 1:1 that “all distinctions between the Father and the Son vanish, for the one God made all things through His word. (Bromiley, Historical Theology, Pg 20)." He also wrote, “He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7.)” He was preaching the divinity of Christ almost 200 years before the council.
Tertullian (AD 160 - AD 240)
Tertullian, writing a full century before the council, advocated for a fully divine and fully human Christ.
“For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God. (Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 41.)”
Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170 - AD 235)
Being the disciple of Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the Apostle John, also spoke of Jesus and the Father being of the "Same substance". In "Refutation of all Heresies", he writes, “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.29.)”.
Melito of Sardis (AD 170 - AD 180)
Melito flourished in the mid-AD 170s and was an early Christian bishop and apologist. During a passover sermon, he affirmed that Jesus had a human and divine nature, the later defined hypostatic union.
“He rose from the dead as God, being by nature God and man... This is Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. (On Pascha, 8–10)”
He makes it very clear that Jesus didn't adopt a divine nature at the time of resurrection, “He who fastened the universe has been fastened to a tree; the Sovereign has been insulted; the God has been murdered…. The almighty God has made His dwelling through Christ Jesus. (On Pascha 96)”
Conclusion
So, do we know that Constantine didn't create Jesus' deity? Absolutely. Is there any evidence that any of the popular pseudo-histories are possible? Nope, they're all based on pure speculation, imagination, and fiction. We can confidently say that popular slogans like "Constantine created Christianity for political gain, and religion is only used for power" are bogus. We can respond with what the actual facts reveal. Jesus Christ was not some good teacher; the Apostles taught that Jesus was God from the very start, and it's all there for us to openly read and chew on. The Council just clarified what they believed.
"I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell The third day he rose again from the dead He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead I believe in the Holy Ghost I believe a holy catholic church; the communion of saints The forgiveness of sins The resurrection of the body And the life everlasting. Amen. (The Apostles Creed, Historic Creeds and Confessions, (Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997)"
Comments