2025 stands as the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, but it doesn’t stand as the 1700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed that serves as one of our church’s creeds and has been recited over the years in Christian worship services. While that creed is referred to as the “Nicene Creed,” it actually comes from a council that met at Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul) in 381. Referring to this later creed as the “Nicene Creed” does not reflect any sort of deception or misunderstanding by church leaders. Rather, it is because this creed stood as a reaffirmation of what was stated at Nicaea and thus is a continuation and expansion of that earlier creed. Since the Council of Nicaea really stands as the origins of this creed, the technical title for this creed is “Nicene-Constantinople Creed,” but that is a mouthful so it is typically shortened to the “Nicene Creed.” Having looked at the creed of 325 in the last few posts, I wanted to conclude the series on the Nicene Creed by discussing the differences between the original Nicene Creed of 325 and its revision in 381in terms of what they are, what caused them, and what we should learn about our faith in light of them.
What Is Different Between These Versions
The primary differences between these statements are some expansions found in the later creed. The largest additions concern the person and work of the Holy Spirit, as the creed from Constantinople makes it clear that the Spirit is equal to the Father and Son in stating that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.” (I explored this section in a post a few years back if you want more information on it). After the discussion of the Holy Spirit, the version from Constantinople also notably adds references to belief in the church (“one holy catholic and apostolic Church”), baptism (“one baptism”), forgiveness (“the forgiveness of sins”), the resurrection (“the resurrection of the dead”), and eternal life (“the life of the world to come”).
There are also additional elements in the description of the God Father. The 325 creed simply says that God made “all things visible and invisible” while the 381 version further states that God made “heaven and earth.” This may be less of an addition and more of a revision, though, as the 325 included a reference to the creation of heaven and earth in its discussion of Jesus while that reference is not found in the 381 version, indicating it may have been moved to earlier in the document.
As I highlighted in a previous post about Jesus’s activity in the creed, the 381 edition includes a number of details about Jesus that were not explicitly mentioned in the creed of 325: his conception by Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, the role of Pointus Pilate in his execution, his burial, and his sitting at the right hand of God the Father after his ascension. In addition, there are also some words added in sections that were present in the previous version, such as the fact that Jesus came down “from heaven” and that his coming will be “in glory.” Other additions about Jesus include “For our sake he was crucified,” that his death and resurrection was “in accordance with the Scriptures,” and that “his kingdom will have no end.”
The description of the person of Jesus uses all the same key terms (e.g., “Lord,” “Only Begotten,”“begotten, not made” “consubstantial”) but uses those terms in a more concise statement. The only significant shift there is the additional phrase “before the ages,” that clarifies Jesus does not have an origin in time. This idea was affirmed in the 325 version but in the concluding section.
That concluding section is where the differences between the two versions is, an omission rather than an addition. Instead of the conclusion that denies the validity of certain beliefs and declaring them outside of the faith,which appears in the 325 version, the updated version simply ends with “Amen.” This phrase was often used in the midst of church gatherings in which people expressed their agreement with what was being said. The presence of this phrase may indicate that the 381 version was not just more likely to be used in the midst of worship services but was expected to be used in this way.
There is one other potential subtle difference that is easy to overlook but worth highlighting. This is the shift from the first person singular at Nicea (“We believe”) to the first person plural (“I believe”) that appears in the Latin version of the Constantinople creed. However, there also seem to be versions of the 381 creed that say, “We believe,” so I don’t want to make note too much of this difference, though it could point to a different function and purpose that this creed has.
What Caused This Update and Revision
We do not have time or space to discuss each and every one of them (nor have I fully researched the reason for all of them), but I want to explain the overarching reasons for them and also some particular examples. The reason for this later council is that the decision reached and the creed produced at the Council of Nicaea did not eradicate the false teaching concerning Jesus, as it persisted and found prominent proponents such as Constantine’s son. Therefore, there was a need to reaffirm what had already been affirmed. Some of the additional elements about Jesus, such as his kingdom having no end, offering further support for Jesus’s equality with God; Jesus would continue to reign as God. The fact that Jesus came “from heaven” also further affirms his divine nature.
In addition, there were new ideas and debates that arose following the Council of Nicaea. One was concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit, which explains why the 381 version expands that section. Other discussions concerned the nature of Jesus, if he just had a human body and not a human mind (with the divine mind taking over the human body). I’m not sure if clarifying the nature of the Incarnation stands behind some of the additional comments concerning Jesus’s activity to highlight his full humanity in contrast to those views. Similar to what happened at Nicaea, these comments were not “new beliefs” but making clear what the church had believed already in light of Scripture.
The additional elements in the creed, especially those that parallel the Apostles’ Creed, may also point to an additional purpose to the creed composed in 381. While 325 offers clarification of what the church believed in the midst of debates about Jesus’s divinity, the 381 version is more comprehensive (and potentially more personal), which makes it more conducive both to recitation in a worship service and also in instructing new Christians in terms of key aspects of the faith. Thus, some of the changes may have come in light of new uses for this creed.
What We Should Learn From This Process
I believe that recognizing the changes and some reasons for these changes is more than just a nice historical fact to know. I think this can help teach us some important lessons and principles about our faith. Our beliefs do not change throughout time, as we seek to maintain what has been affirmed and articulated from the earliest days of the church. While our faith doesn’t change, new circumstances in this world mean that we have to reaffirm it and rearticulate it in the midst of these discussions. In addition, new situations might lead to us offering refined statements that both make clear what we believe in various contexts. Jesus’s work is once for all, but our explanations of it might not be once for all. Therefore, the Nicene Creed is an invitation for us to make sure our beliefs stay rooted in the historical beliefs of the church but also to find ways that bring clarity to these beliefs in our contemporary settings.
Questions about the Bible or theology? Email them to Pastor Brian at Theology@WeAreFaith.org. You can also request to receive weekly emails with our blog posts by filling out the information on the right side.
