The Sabbath was part of the Arian Controversy.

INTRODUCTION

The Arian Controversy

The Arian Controversy, over the nature of Christ, was the most severe internal struggle the Church had so far experienced. It eventually resulted in the acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity. The purpose of this article is to show that the dispute about which day to observe, Saturday or Sunday, was part of the Arian Controversy. This article begins by showing that both controversies lasted many centuries after Christ:

Arius was a Conservative.

It is often said that the Arian Controversy began around the year 318 as a dispute between Arius, an elder in the church in Alexandria, and his bishop, Alexander. It is then claimed that Arius, by developing a new heresy, caused the Controversy and founded Arianism. That is not true. Scholars now recognize that Arius was a conservative. He attempted to defend what he regarded as the traditional Alexandrian theology:

“Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian” (Williams, p. 175).

Arius did not develop a new theology:

“Arius was part of a wider theological trajectory” (Ayres, p. 2).

The Controversy Continued.

That means that deep theological tensions, over the nature of Christ, existed already before Arius and Alexander clashed. The dispute between them merely continued the controversy of the preceding centuries:

“The conflict in the fourth century was one between two theological traditions, both of which were well established by the beginning of the century” (Lienhard).

In other words, Arius did not cause the Controversy. Rather, the Arian Controversy began well before the 4th century. The reason it spread so quickly to other parts of the Empire was precisely that the opposing sides were already well established.

Second Century

The controversy over the nature of Christ already began in the 2nd century. While Christianity was previously Jewish-dominated, in the 2nd century, it became Gentile dominated. Many things changed. The Controversy began as a dispute between the Monarchians and Logos-theologians. While the Monarchians held that the Father and Son are actually one and the same Person, Logos-theology taught that the Father and Son are two distinct divine Persons, with the Son subordinate to the Father.

Third Century

The Controversy continued in the 3rd century between people like Sabellius, Origen, and Tertullian, each proposing different views of who Jesus Christ is. Of particular interest, around the year 260, there was a dispute between Rome and Alexandria over the term homoousios:

“In a dispute between Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, c. 260, the term (homoousios) appears to have been something that Dionysius of Alexandria had denied but was then persuaded by his namesake of Rome to accept” (Ayres, pp. 93-4).

Fourth Century

The 3rd-century disputes continued in the 4th century between Arius and his bishop, and later in that century, between the Nicenes and Arians. While the Eastern Greek was largely Arian, the Western Church, dominated by the church in Rome, was largely Nicene. At the end of the 4th century, in 380, Emperor Theodosius outlawed Arianism. He made a law requiring all Romans to confess Nicene theology.

Fifth Century

In the 5th century, Germanic nations, which had previously converted from paganism to Arian Christianity, conquered and ruled over the Western Roman Empire. Although they were Arian, they allowed the Romans in the West the freedom to practice their Nicene theology. In the Eastern Roman Empire, the Empire enforced Theodosius’s Nicene law.

Sixth Century

During the 6th century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian defeated and subjected the Arian kingdoms. Arianism was only finally eliminated in the subsequent two centuries, during which the defeated Arian kingdoms converted to Roman theology.

The Sabbath Controversy

The Sabbath dispute also lasted many centuries.

First Century

Christianity originated in the Greek Eastern Empire. After Jesus’s death, for several years, the Church consisted only of Jews. It functioned as a sect of Judaism. Initially, it was confined to Jerusalem. All Christians were Jews and continued to live like Jews. For example, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit fell only on Jews. They observed the Law of Moses fully, “zealous for the Law” (Acts 21:20), including the Sabbath.

Fifth Century

Writing in the fifth century, the church historian Socrates stated that all Christians in the Eastern Church, both Nicenes and Arians, still observed the Saturday-Sabbath. He wrote:

“Although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this” (De Kock, p. 167).

In this quote, the term ‘sabbath’ refers to the Saturday-Sabbath. The ancient fathers and historians always called Sunday, ‘the Lord’s day,’ never ‘Sabbath.’ This article also uses the term ‘Sabbath’ only for the Saturday-Sabbath.

Since Christianity originated in the East, and since, according to Socrates, in the 5th century, the Eastern Church still observed the Sabbath, it is beyond doubt that the first-century Jewish-dominated church observed the Sabbath.

Conclusion

The Sabbath Controversy, over which day is to be observed, Saturday or Sunday, like the Arian Controversy, lasted many centuries.

Purpose

As stated, the purpose of this article is to show that the Arian and Sabbath Controversies were, in fact, a single Controversy. Specifically, this article shows that the opposing sides in the two controversies were the same. Generally, while the Arians observed the Sabbath, the Nicenes observed the Lord’s day.

This article argues that the Church, in the first century, was Arian and observed the Sabbath. Both Nicene theology and Sunday observance originated in the second century, specifically in the church in Rome. From Rome, both doctrines spread to other churches in the West. The Eastern Church remained Arian and observed the Sabbath. It was only in the 4th century, when the Roman Empire outlawed both these doctrines, that the Eastern Church began to switch to Nicene theology and Sunday observance.

Books Quoted

The books quoted in this article include those by R.P.C. Hanson, Lewis Ayres, and Edwin de Kock. Hanson and Ayres are Catholics and world experts in the history of the Arian Controversy. De Kock is a Seventh-day Adventist historian and an expert in the history of the Sabbath Controversy.

Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987)

Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004)

De Kock, Edwin, The Truth About 666 and the Story of the Great Apostasy (Revised edition, 2012) (download)

The Traditional Account

In 1980, Hanson wrote:

“The study of the Arian problem over the last hundred years has been like a long-distance gun trying to hit a target. The first sighting shots are very wide of the mark, but gradually the shells fall nearer and nearer. The diatribes of Gwatkin and of Harnack can today be completely ignored” (Hanson, p. 95-96).

The books by Gwatkin and Harnack, which Hanson advises us to ignore, were published around the year 1900. They deal specifically with the Arian Controversy. But, in the quote above, Hanson says they are very wide of the mark. Hanson wrote this in 1980. The revision of the history of the Controversy continued after Hanson. For example, in 2004, Ayres wrote:

“A vast amount of scholarship over the past thirty years has offered revisionist accounts of themes and figures from the fourth century” (Ayres, p. 2).

Therefore, the account of the Arian Controversy, as it was explained before the 20th century, was seriously flawed. Hanson described the traditional account of the Controversy as a complete travesty.

The reason is that, over the centuries, the Church copied only the writings of authors who were regarded as orthodox. The main Nicene writer of the 4th century was Athanasius. Consequently, the traditional account of the Controversy was largely based on his writings. In other words, the traditional account reflects only one side of the story:

“Some of these problems and inconsistencies can be explained by the fact that older research depended heavily on Athanasius as its source. The 19th century lionized Athanasius” (Lienhard, p. 416).

Through discoveries of ancient documents and intensive research over the past hundred years, scholars have discovered that Athanasius gave a false account:

“If Athanasius’ account does shape our understanding, we risk misconceiving the nature of the fourth-century crisis” (Williams, p. 234).

Athanasius used “unscrupulous tactics in polemic and struggle” (Williams, p. 239).

Good examples of distortions, originating from Athanasius’s pen, are the claims that Arius formulated a new heresy and that the Easterners followed Arius.

This article quotes mainly from writings published over the past 50 years. These writings reflect the revised account of the Controversy. Therefore, some readers may be surprised by the conclusions.

SIDES IN THE CONTROVERSY

A main purpose of this article is to show that the sides in the Arian and Sabbath Controversies were the same. For that purpose, we will now define the ‘sides’ in the Arian Controversy. It is discussed in detail in another article. The following is only a brief overview:

Subordination

Firstly, Arianism is often described as the view that the Son is subordinate to the Father. That is misleading. In reality, during the first four centuries, even until the end of the 4th-century Controversy, all theologians, both Arians and Nicenes, described the Son as subordinate to the Father:

“Subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy” (Hanson, p. xix).

The Nicenes also described the Son as subordinate. In the Trinity doctrine, the Father and Son are equals. However, Original Nicene theology, as held, for example, by Athanasius, was not equivalent to the Trinity doctrine. In original Nicene theology, the Son is an internal aspect of the Father:

“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology” (Hanson, p. 426).

Therefore, in this theology, the Son is ontologically subordinate to the Father. Even the Cappadocian fathers, in the later part of the century, regarded the Son as subordinate. For example, Lewis Ayres summarizes Cappadocian theology as follows:

“Father and Son are, indeed, the same in essence, but distinct at another level thus preserving a certain order among the persons” (Ayres, p. 195, describing the theology of Basil of Caesarea).

Full equality of the Father and Son probably began with Augustine in the 5th century.

Arius’s theology

Secondly, as already mentioned, it is often assumed that Arius’s theology was at the core of the Controversy. But, as explained, Arius did not develop a new theology. He was not the founder of Arianism and did not cause the Controversy. His peers did not regard him as important.

Arius became perceived as important in later centuries because Athanasius used him as a straw man. Athanasius called his opponents ‘Arians,’ meaning followers of Arius, and attacked them by attacking Arius. However, the so-called Arians did not agree with everything Arius said and most certainly did not follow him. For example, while Arius held that the Son was generated from nothing, the so-called Arians believed that the Son was begotten from the Father’s being. As another article explains, by creating the fiction of a single cohesive movement following Arius, Athanasius invented Arianism.

For these reasons, on page xvii, Hanson describes the expression ‘the Arian Controversy’ as “a serious misnomer.” The term creates the false impression that the anti-Nicenes were a homogeneous group, that they followed Arius, and that Arius caused the disagreement. In reality, there was no such thing in the fourth century as a single, coherent ‘Arian’ party.

Created or Divine?

Thirdly, it is also often claimed that Arianism described the Son as a created being. However, whether the Son was created or divine was not the issue in the Arian Controversy. As Lewis Ayres states, the focus of the debates was not whether the Son is God, divine, or created:

“A second approach that we need to reject treats the fourth-century debates as focusing on the question of whether to place the Son on either side of a clear God/creation boundary” (Ayres, p. 4).

The sharp distinction we make today, between created and divine, did not exist during the Arian Controversy:

On the one hand, all sides regarded the Son as created in some sense, namely, as generated by the Father. Nobody said that the Son exists without a cause.

On the other hand, all sides regarded the Son as divine. In Arianism, as stated, the Son is the Second Being of the Godhead. To some, that may sound like the Trinity doctrine. The difference is that the Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father and Son are a single Being, with a single mind, while Arianism held that the Father and Son are two distinct Beings, with two distinct minds.

The distinction that did exist in the 4th century, with respect to the generation of the Son, was whether He exists by the Father’s will:

In the Nicene view, the Father never decided to bring forth the Son. Rather, in this view, the generation of the Son is an essential aspect of the nature of God.

In contrast, in the ‘Arian’ view, the Son was brought forth by the Father’s will. For this reason, the Nicenes accused the Arians of teaching that the Son was generated like all created beings. That was the issue, not whether or not He was created.

A Distinct Being

The real core issue of the Arian Controversy was whether the Father and Son are two distinct Beings, as the Arians believed, or a single Being, as the Nicenes held:

As stated, in 4th-century Nicene theology, the Son is an internal aspect of the Father. Therefore, the Father and Son are a single Person with a single mind. In the Greek terminology of the 4th century, in Nicene theology, the Father and Son are one single hypostasis.

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’s) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God” (Ayres, p. 48).

Opposing them, in Arianism, following Origen and Logos-theology, which dominated in the preceding century, the Father and Son are two distinct Persons, or two hypostases.

All other differences between the two sides, such as whether the Son is homoousios with the Father, immutable, impassible, immortal, and eternal, can be traced back to this core issue. If the Son is an internal aspect of the Father, He is all of the above. If He is a second Being, distinct from the Father, He is none of the above.

Eusebians, not Arians

As stated, the so-called Arians did not follow Arius. Therefore, we have to say more about who and what they were. Scholars today often refer to them as ‘Eusebians’ because their real leaders were the two Eusebii, Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia.

They were not ancient Jehovah’s Witnesses. While Jehovah’s Witnesses seem to emphasize the Son’s creatureliness, the Eusebians emphasized His divinity. They refused to call Him a creature, rejected Arius’s view that the Son was created out of nothing, and held that the Son was begotten of the Father. According to the ‘Arian’ creeds, the Son had existed before all time, as God of God.

They acknowledged a Trinity of three distinct divine Beings, perhaps with a certain similarity of substance, but with a gradation of the Beings within the Trinity.

Conclusion

Ayres classifies Arius as an Eusebian. All Eusebians believed that the Father and Son are two distinct Beings. Opposing them, the Sabellians and Nicenes believed that the Father and Son are a single Being or Person. For example, Ayres states that Eustathius and Marcellus, the two leading Sabellians, like Alexander and Athanasius, the two leading Nicenes, had a doctrine that insists there is only one hypostasis in God:

“The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis” (Ayres, p. 69).

That was the main dividing line in the Arian Controversy.

Although the term ‘Arian’ is a serious misnomer, this article will continue to refer to the anti-Nicenes as ‘Arians’ because that is the term most people know. Few people are familiar with the term ‘Eusebian.’

ARIANS OBSERVED THE SABBATH.

1st-century Church

Two Beings

The 1st-century Jewish-dominated church, according to the definition above, was Arian because it regarded the Father and pre-incarnate Son as distinct Beings. It might have regarded the Son as divine, but nobody thought of the Father and Son as a single Being with a single mind, as in Nicene theology. The view that they are one Being (Monotheism) first originated in the 2nd-century in the form of Monarchianism.

Sabbath

The 1st-century Jewish-dominated church also observed the Sabbath. As stated, Christianity began as a sect of Judaism, strictly adhering to the Law of Moses, including the Sabbath. Since Christianity began in the East, and since, five centuries later, all Christians in the East still observed the Sabbath, it is beyond doubt that the first-century church observed the Sabbath.

Pre-Nicene Eastern Church

Two Beings

In the 2nd century, most Christians still lived in the Eastern Empire and spoke Greek. In that century, the Church became Gentile dominated. The Gentiles brought various Gentile beliefs with them into the Church. At the time, while the Church was still outlawed and persecuted, Greek philosophy was held in high regard in the Roman intellectual world. Therefore, the Apologists, who defended the Church before the Roman authorities, and who were often tortured and killed, used Greek philosophy to explain who Jesus Christ is. They identified Him as the Logos of Greek philosophy, a second divine Being, distinct from the High God. This is known as Logos-theology.

Monarchianism, the belief that the Son is really the Father, also originated in the 2nd century, but was rejected by most. Logos-theology remained the traditional explanation of who Jesus Christ is well into the 4th-century.

The Arians continued it, in a refined form, but the victory of Nicene theology put an end to it. On page 872, Hanson states that the doctrine of the Trinity, as taught by Athanasius and the Cappadocians, and as finally accepted by the Church, actually abandoned the traditional, centuries-old Logos doctrine, dear to the heart of many orthodox theologians in the past. Show More

Sabbath

With respect to the Sabbath in the pre-Nicene Eastern Church, since the church historian Socrates, in the 5th century, stated that all Eastern Christians still observed the Sabbath, the same was true for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-century Eastern Church.

4th-century Arians

Two Beings

When we come to the so-called Arians of the 4th century, they largely continued the theology of the Greek Eastern Church. They maintained the view that the Father and Son are two distinct Beings. As stated, for polemical purposes, Athanasius called it Arianism and claimed that the Arians followed Arius. However, as also already stated, that was a false accusation. Arius was a conservative. After he was excommunicated, he appealed to and was accepted by the Eastern Church because, like himself, the Eastern Church taught that the Son is a distinct Being.

Sabbath

With respect to the Sabbath, as Socrates confirmed, in the 4th century, the Eastern Church, the home of Arianism, still observed the Sabbath.

Germanic Tribes

Ruled the Western Empire.

So far, we have identified the 1st-century Church, the pre-Nicene Eastern Church, and the 4th-century Arians as Arians and shown that they observed the Sabbath. The Germanic Tribes that ruled the Western Empire in the 5th century also fall in this category

In the 4th century, large numbers of Germanic peoples migrated into the Empire, including Visigoths and Ostrogoths, but also non-Goth tribes, such as Vandals and Burgundians. Many of them were recruited into the Roman Army. However, they were ill-treated by the Romans and rebelled. In 378, they defeated the Roman Army. In the 5th century, they sacked Rome twice, killed the last Roman emperor, and ruled over most of the Western Empire.

They were Arians.

“The national Gothic church that Ulfilas helped to create … was Arian from the start” (De Kock, p. 165).

“Many of the Germanic peoples who came to control the territory of the Roman west were Homoian in theology” (Ayres, p. 267).

Homoianism was the form of Arianism that dominated at the end of the Controversy. It refused to refer to God’s substance and simply said that the Son is like the Father.

The Germanic tribes converted from paganism to Arian Christianity, already before they migrated into the Empire. Apparently, their conversion already began in the 3rd century, after they took some Christians captive. Ulfilas was a famous 4th-century missionary to the Goths, sent by the Arian Church.

Generally, the Germanic tribes allowed the Roman population, residing in their territories, religious freedom. In other words, while the Germanic leaders were Arians, their Roman subjects were Nicenes.

Sabbath

With respect to the Sabbath observance of these Germanic peoples, the quote from Socrates, saying that, in the 5th century, all churches in the world observed the Sabbath, with the exclusion only of Rome and Alexandria, means that the Germanic peoples also observed the Sabbath:

“Germanic Christianity was also distinguished from Catholicism by its Sabbathkeeping” (De Kock, p. 167).

As further proof thereof, Bishop Sidonius Apollinaris, who spent time at the court of the Visigoth king Theodoric II, reigning in the middle of the 5th century, referred to the king’s “sabbatarian sumptuousness.” (De Kock, p. 168-9, quoting J. P. Migne in his Patrologia Latina).

Ecumenical Councils

Incidentally, these Germanic peoples were not invited to the so-called Ecumenical Councils. These councils were called and controlled by the Roman Empire, not by the Church. They made decisions for the Roman nation, not for the Church.

NICENES OBSERVED SUNDAY.

So far, this article has argued as follows:

(1) Both the Arian and Sabbath Controversies lasted many centuries.

(2) The core issue in the Arian Controversy was whether the Father and Son are a single Being, as the Nicenes claimed, or two distinct Beings, as the Arians held.

(3) Using this definition, the 1st-century Church was Arian. It also observed the Sabbath.

(4) Both these doctrines, Arianism and the Sabbath, continued in:
(a) The pre-Nicene Eastern Church,
(b) 4th-century Arianism, and
(c) The Germanic people who ruled the Western Empire in the 5th century.

We will now describe the origin and the development of both Nicene theology and Sunday observance, and show that the Nicenes, generally, observed Sunday.

Nicene theology originated in Rome.

Firstly, both Sunday observance and Nicene theology, which is the belief that the Father and Son are a single Being, began in the 2nd century. Specifically, it began in the church in Rome:

One Being Theology

With respect to the belief that the Father and Son are a single Being, according to scholars, the church in Rome adopted Monarchianism, the belief that the Father and Son are one and the same Person:

“Westerners, especially Romans, are probably rightly said to have held on to the spirit of the Monarchian theology of the late second and early third centuries” (Lienhard).

“The Western bishops … their traditional Monarchianism could square well enough with the little they knew of the Council of Nicaea” (Hanson, p. 272).

Since Monarchianism thrived in the late second and early third centuries, Rome probably adopted this view at that time. This is supported by the views expressed by the bishop of Rome, writing in the middle of the 3rd century. In a dispute with Alexandria over the term homoousios, Rome championed one hypostasis in God, meaning that the Father and Son are one Person:

“Dionysius of Rome … found homoousios acceptable but could not tolerate a division of the Godhead into three hypostases” (Hanson, p. 192, quoting Loofs).

Socrates – Sunday

With respect to Sunday observance, as quoted above, Socrates, writing in the 5th century, stated that Rome and Alexandria, on account of some ancient tradition, had ceased observing the Sabbath. In other words, this practice, of not observing the Sabbath, began long before the 5th century, probably during the first three centuries.

Tertullian – Sunday

This is confirmed by Tertullian. In 1862, Migne wrote that the Westerners sanctified the Lord’s Day. To prove his point, he quoted the Westerner Tertullian, saying that they observe the Lord’s day, as some others observe the Sabbath. Migne wrote:

“Tertullian in his apology: ‘We are only next to those who see in the Sabbath a day only for rest and relaxation.’ That is, we observe the Lord’s day, as they do the Sabbath.”

Since Tertullian wrote in the early 3rd century, this statement implies that Rome switched to Sunday observance already in the 2nd century.

Sabbath Outlawed

In the 2nd century, the Romans crushed the Jewish Bar Kokhba Revolt using scorched-earth tactics, leading to the near-total destruction of Jerusalem in 135 AD. Jews were forbidden to enter Jerusalem. Circumcision, Torah study, and Sabbath observance were banned. In that context, there would have been immense pressure on Christians, particularly the Christians in the capital, Rome, to show that they were not Jews. Therefore, it is likely that Rome switched to Sunday observance after the Empire had outlawed Sabbath observance in the 2nd century.

Rome observed Sunday.

The quote from Socrates, above, does not mention Sunday. It only says that Rome and Alexandria ceased to observe the Sabbath. However, elsewhere, as quoted below, Socrates wrote that Easterners observed both Saturdays and Sundays. By implication, Rome and Alexandria observed Sundays.

That is supported by the Sunday laws issued by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius in the 4th century, as discussed below. Their purpose was to implement Rome’s religious policy in the entire Empire. Since they made rest on Sundays compulsory, it is implied that it was the practice in the church in Rome.

Conclusion

Both Sunday observance and the view that the Father and Son are a single Being became generally accepted, for the first time, in the church in Rome in the 2nd century. The remainder of the Church, following like the 1st-century Church, continued the Sabbath and taught that the Father and Son are distinct Beings.

Alexandria followed Rome.

From Rome, these practices spread to other churches that were under Rome’s influence. The 4th-century Controversy began in Alexandria as a dispute between Arius and his bishop. This section argues that Alexandria received its theology from Rome:

Rome’s Influence

During the first three centuries, while Christianity was still illegal and persecuted, and while most Christians were still in the East, speaking Greek, the influence of the church in Rome in the Latin West remained limited. The Eastern Church did not have to submit to Rome. On the other hand, in the West, the church in Rome, being the capital of the Empire, had significant influence.

Dispute between Rome and Alexandria

As one example of Rome’s influence, in the 3rd century, around 260, some Sabellians in Libya used the term homoousios. The bishop of Alexandria wrote a letter to the Sabellians in which he rejected the term. The Sabellians reported this to the church in Rome. This caused a dispute between Rome and Alexandria. As evidence of Rome’s influence, Rome was able to persuade Alexandria to accept the term.

Sixty years later, at the Nicene Council, Alexandria again accepted the term homoousios, if it did not champion it. This confirms that the church in Alexandria followed Rome.

Tertullian followed Rome.

Tertullian is another example of Rome’s influence. According to Britannica, Tertullian, an African, while in Rome, was impressed by the uncompromising belief in one God. In his subsequent writings, Tertullian explained the Son as a portion of the Father’s substance. In other words, Tertullian followed Rome in teaching that the Father and Son are a single Being.

Athanasius appealed to Rome.

A third possible indication of Rome’s influence is that Athanasius, after he was deposed in 335 by the Eastern Church, appealed to the church in Rome. At a council in 341, Rome declared him orthodox and innocent. This is consistent with the view that Rome was the source of his theology. Two years later, at the Council of Serdica, where the Eastern and Western churches were supposed to meet, Athanasius was part of the Western delegation.

Conclusion

In the mid-3rd century, in the dispute between Rome and Alexandria, Alexandria believed that the Father and Son are two distinct Beings. A hundred years later, in the mid-4th century, in the person of bishop Athanasius, Alexandria maintained that the Son is an internal aspect of the Father. Since Rome was able to persuade Alexandria to accept homoousios, it is probable that Alexandria shifted to Monotheism under Rome’s influence.

Sunday Observance

As Socrates stated in the 5th century, both Rome and Alexandria had long ago ceased Sabbath observance. Given the strong influence Rome had on other churches in the West, Alexandria probably received that practice from Rome.

Emperor Constantine

So far, we have discussed the development of Sunday worship and Nicene theology, as defined, during the first three centuries. We now come to Emperor Constantine at the beginning of the 4th century.

He became both a Christian and the emperor of the Western Empire in the early 4th century. After he had taken his seat in Rome and legalized Christianity in 313, he adopted Rome’s theology. In the subsequent years, he attempted to make Rome’s theology mandatory throughout the Empire:

Constantine’s Sunday Law

In 321, Constantine passed the first known Sunday Law. It was not a law for Christians alone. All Western Romans had to rest. Constantine wrote:

“On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits” (De Kock, p. 156-7).

This law did not mention the Sabbath. Constantine did not ban the Sabbath. As discussed, outside Rome and Alexandria, Christians continued to observe the Sabbath. Sunday did not replace the Sabbath; it was an additional requirement.

Why did he issue a Sunday Law?

What problem was he trying to solve? Which people were guilty of not observing Sunday?

At the time, Rome no longer observed the Sabbath. Since Constantine did not outlaw the Sabbath, Constantine’s intention was probably not to implement Rome’s theology, at least not fully.

As quoted above, his law did not refer to Sunday as ‘the Lord’s Day,’ the term used in the Church, but as “the venerable Day of the Sun.” This creates the impression that the day was in honor of the solar deity Mithras, and not intended to be part of Christian religious practice. De Kock supports this interpretation. He says that, in Constantine’s day, both sun worshipers and Christians venerated the first day of the week. De Kock proposes that Constantine issued this law, not for Christian religious purposes, but to strengthen his regime. De Kock wrote:

”What is usually recognized as the first Sunday law, which had been promulgated in A.D. 321 by Constantine I. … That emperor had cleverly sought to strengthen his regime by exploiting the fact that those who worshiped a solar deity named Mithras and Christians shared a number of religious convictions. Amongst other things, both groups venerated the first day of the week” (De Kock, p. 156-7).

Nicene Council

Constantine also attempted, through the Nicene Council, to enforce Rome’s Nicene theology. At first, Constantine was emperor only of the Western Empire. In 324, he also conquered the Eastern Empire, became emperor of the entire Empire, and was determined to subject the Eastern Church to his authority. Therefore, he called the Nicene Council in 325, but invited delegates only from the Eastern Church. Only the chairperson, Ossius, who acted as Constantine’s agent, was from the West, and perhaps five others:

“Around 250–300 attended, drawn almost entirely from the eastern [Greek] half of the empire” (Ayres, p. 19).

Constantine controlled the Council.

By various means, such as his own formidable presence and participation, the appointment of his agent, Ossius, as chairperson, and the knowledge that he would exile all who refused to accept the creed, Constantine ensured that the Council accepted a creed he thought best, which was a creed consistent with Rome’s Monotheism:

“Constantine took part in the Council of Nicaea and ensured that it reached the kind of conclusion which he thought best” (Hanson, p. 850).

Constantine insisted on Homoousios.

A clear example of Constantine’s dominant role in the Nicene Council is the term homoousios. The Creed describes the Son as homoousios with the Father. That term was a startling innovation. It is not found in the Holy Scriptures, was not part of the standard Christian language of the day, was not used in any previous creed, was borrowed from pagan philosophy, and was already condemned in 268 at a Council in Antioch. Not even Alexander favored the term. In his extant writings, he never used the term.

The Council, consisting almost exclusively of delegates from the Eastern Church, where Arianism dominated, opposed the term. Constantine’s dominant role is shown by the fact that he was able to enforce the term:

He “pressed for its inclusion” (Hanson, p. 211).

“The emperor exerted considerable influence. Consequently, the statement was approved” (Erickson).

This term also indicates that Constantine enforced Rome’s theology. As discussed, already in the 3rd century, Rome persuaded Alexandria to accept the term homoousios. Although Rome and the Western Church were not represented at the Council, Constantine effectively represented the church in Rome.

Ecumenical Councils

Constantine’s dominant role at the Nicene Council requires explanation. This was not the only example of emperor interference in church councils. Quite the contrary. In the Christian Roman Empire, the Emperor was the head of the Church and the ultimate judge in doctrinal disputes:

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority” (Hanson, p. 849).

The so-called Ecumenical Councils of the 4th century were not even Church Councils. They were not called or requested by the Church. They were called and controlled by the emperors. The emperors used these councils to force the Church to comply with their wishes. Consequently, these council did not make decisions for the Church, but for the Empire:

“The history of the period shows time and time again that local councils could be overawed or manipulated by the Emperor or his agents. The general council was the very invention and creation of the Emperor. General councils, or councils aspiring to be general, were the children of imperial policy and the Emperor was expected to dominate and control them” (Hanson, p. 855).

Conclusion

Although the Nicene Creed was not a formal law, it was not much different. Constantine’s purpose, in calling the council, was to force the Eastern Church to adopt Rome’s theology.

Therefore, Constantine had a key role in both the Arian and Sabbath Controversies. Rome was the first to accept Monotheism and Sunday observance, Alexandria followed Rome in both doctrines, and Constantine enforced both.

4th-Century Western Church

One Being Theology

Constantine’s attempt to enforce unity failed. For the next 50 years, generally known as the Arian Controversy, the Church was divided broadly between the Greek Eastern Church and the Latin Western Church. While Arianism dominated in the East, the West, generally, following Rome, held Nicene theology.

The creeds formulated during this period reveal the Eastern and Western theologies. Most of the creeds of the 4th century, including the Nicene Creed, were corrupted by emperor-interference. The emperors always chose sides between the East and West, and exercised pressure in one or the other direction. However, during the 340s, the Empire was divided between Eastern and Western emperors. Consequently, the emperors allowed the Eastern and Western Churches to express their views freely. The creeds formulated during this decade reveal the true beliefs of the East and West, respectively:

In 341, the Eastern Church formulated the Dedication Creed. It was clearly Arian because it confessed three hypostases in the Godhead, meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons, with three distinct minds.

In response, two years later, the Western Church formulated the Serdica Manifesto. It explicitly claimed that the Father and Son are a single hypostasis, meaning a single Person.

Nicene Theology

The belief that, in the Godhead, only ‘one hypostasis’ exists, as stated by both the Nicene Creed and the Serdica Manifesto, was consistent with original Nicene theology, as taught, for example, by Athanasius. As already mentioned, in original Nicene theology, the Son is an internal aspect of the Father:

“In the Father we have the Son: this is a summary of Athanasius’ theology” (Hanson, p. 426).

If the Son is an internal aspect of the Father, then only one Person exists, and that Person is the Father. Consequently, the Nicenes described the Father and Son as a single hypostasis:

The “clear inference from his (Athanasius’) usage” is that “there is only one hypostasis in God” (Ayres, p. 48).

Original Nicene theology, therefore, was not the same as the later Trinity doctrine, in which the Father, Son, and Spirit are three equal hypostases.

As an aside, in the previous quote, note the phrase “one hypostasis in God.” In contrast, in Arian theology, there are three hypostases in God. The term “God” is equivalent to “Godhead.” Both Nicenes and Arians regarded the Son as part of the Godhead. The difference, to repeat what was already said above, while the Nicenes regarded the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single Being, meaning a single divine mind, the Arians held that they are three distinct Beings, meaning three distinct minds. If we use the term ‘Trinity,’ with a capital T, for the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single Being, as in the Nicene view, we can use the term ‘trinity,’ with a small t, for the Father, Son, and Spirit as three distinct Beings, as in the Arian view. In this sense, the Arians were trinitarians, with a small t.

To return to our topic, the point of this section is that, during the 4th-century Arian Controversy, the Western Church, following Rome, was predominantly Nicene.

Sunday Observance

Furthermore, following Rome and Alexandria, which, already before the 4th century, had switched to Sunday observance, the Western Church continued to observe Sunday. The point is that, during the first four centuries, only Nicenes observed Sundays. It began in Rome, spread to Alexandria, was enforced by Constantine, and was held by the 4th-century Western Church.

Emperor Theodosius

One Being Theology

The major turning point in the Controversy came when Theodosius, who was committed to Rome’s theology, in 379 became emperor in the East.

Theology evolved on both sides of the Controversy. The final form of Arianism was Homoianism. When Theodosius became emperor, Homoianism dominated in the East, while Nicene theology dominated in the West. Show More

Theodosius did what no other emperor had done. In 380, he brought the Arian Controversy to an end through the Edict of Thessalonica. The Edict made Nicene theology the Roman State Religion. In other words, it was not a church creed. It did not specify what the Church must believe. It was a Roman law, specifying what all Romans must believe. All Romans were required to be Christians, specifically, Nicene Christians.

Enforced Rome’s theology.

The Edict enforced Rome’s theology. For example, it explicitly describes the Father, Son, and Spirit as “one God,” consistent with Rome’s Monotheism. As another indication, it explicitly mentions only Rome and Alexandria as norms for acceptable theology, just like Socrates stated that Rome and Alexandria, in ‘ancient’ times, had ceased to observe the Sabbath. This confirms the alliance of those two churches against the rest of the Church

Formed the Roman State Church

The Edict outlawed Arianism, with threats of punishment. In the subsequent years, Theodosius banned “heretics” from having churches in towns or cities. Very soon, he had eliminated Arianism from the church hierarchy. In this way, the Roman State Church was formed. All Romans were required to belong to it.

Theodosius’s persecution was as severe as the persecution of Christians before Christianity was legalized in 313. However, it was now the persecution of Christians by Christians. Nicenes, supported by the power of the State, now persecuted Arians.

Second Ecumenical Council

In the next year, 381, Theodosius called a Council in Constantinople. It is today known as the Second Ecumenical Council. However, since he had already outlawed Arianism, he invited only Nicenes. And since he was emperor only of the Eastern Empire, he invited only Easterners. To ensure that the council accepts his decisions, Theodosius appointed a lay person, one of his civil servants, both as bishop of the Capital, Constantinople, and as chairperson of the Council. As discussed, the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, which is the account of the Origin of the Trinity doctrine, is a complete travesty.

Enforced Sunday Observance

A few years later, in 386, Theodosius issued a stricter version of Constantine’s Sunday law. It required all Romans to rest on Sundays:

“By a law of the year 386, those older changes effected by the emperor Constantine were more rigorously enforced, and, in general, civil transactions of every kind on Sunday were strictly forbidden” (De Kock, p. 156).

However, Theodosius’s Sunday Law differed in one important respect from Constantine’s law. While Constantine referred to Sunday as “the venerable Day of the Sun,” implying that it was in honor of the sun god, Theodosius referred to Sunday as “the Lord’s day,” indicating that it was intended as part of Christian practice:

”On the day of the sun, properly called the Lord’s day by our ancestors, let there be a cessation of lawsuits, business, and indictments; let no one exact a debt due … ” (De Kock, p. 156).

Like Constantine, Theodosius did not mention or prohibit the Sabbath.

An Addendum to the Nicene Law

De Kock proposes that Theodosius issued Sunday legislation because the Visigoths, who migrated into the Empire in large numbers, were Arians and observed the Sabbath. However, as argued above, all Arians observed the Sabbath. Therefore, since Arianism dominated in the Eastern Empire when Theodosius came to power, he issued a Sunday law to force the Arian majority to observe Sunday; it was not specifically for the Visigoths.

In other words, Theodosius’s Sunday law was effectively an addendum to his Nicene law. In 380, by requiring all Romans, by law, to adopt Nicene theology, he made it the Roman State Religion. In 386, he added Sunday observance.

Conclusion

It is important that both Constantine and Theodosius enforced both Sunday observance and Rome’s Monotheism:

Why would they do it? For the emperors, the unity of the Empire and, therefore, religious unity was the primary concern. Truth had a distant second place. This article argues that the emperors implemented the religious policies of the church in Rome. They probably assumed that enforcing Rome’s theology, since it was the origin and capital of the Empire, had the highest probability of ensuring unity.

What were the consequences? That is the more important issue. As discussed below, through the events of the 5th and later centuries, the decisions of the emperors became extrenched in the mainstream church.

LATER HISTORY

The rest of this article discusses the developments after Emperor Theodosius, at the end of the Arian Controversy, had made both Nicene theology and Sunday observance a legal requirement for all Romans.

5th-Century Eastern Empire

In the 5th-century, in the Eastern Empire, the previously mostly Arian population was now subject to Nicene and Sunday laws. Arians were forced underground. They were not allowed to own churches, at least, not in the cities.

Observed both Saturdays and Sundays

Socrates wrote that, in the 5th century, all Christians in the East, both Nicenes and Arians, had church services on both Saturdays and Sundays. He wrote:

“The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As often, therefore, as the festal days occurred—I mean Saturday and Lord’s Day—in each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the churches, they congregated within the city gates” (De Kock, p. 168).

The Arians held their meetings outside the city because Emperor Theodosius, in the 380s, had forbidden Arians from owning churches inside the cities. For example:

“Surviving legislation from later in 383 and 384 appears to show Theodosius coming down hard on dissenting groups.” He tolerated “dissenting groups as long as they built their churches outside the walls of cities” (Ayres, p. 259).

However, apparently, in Socrates’s time, they were allowed to meet on the public squares inside the city.

The important point in this quote, for the purpose of this article, is that Socrates identified the festal days as both Saturday and the Lord’s Day. The quote from Socrates continues as follows:

“The Arians … taunted the ‘Homoousians, often singing such words as these: ‘Where are they that say three things are but one power?’ Their insulted opponents responded vigorously, for ‘the Homousians performed their nocturnal hymns with greater display” (De Kock, p. 168).

Presumably, this means that the Nicenes also observed both days.

Socrates says that the Arians, in their songs, asked, “Where are they that say three things are but one power?” This question reflects the core of the Arian Controversy. As stated, the core issue was whether the Father, Son, and Spirit are one Being or three Beings. The ancients referred to them as ‘Powers.’

For one thing, this quote shows that, although the Empire, in 380, declared Arianism illegal, and although its churches were confiscated and it was forced to build its churches outside the cities, Arianism persisted into the 5th century.

Eastern Nicenes observed the Sabbath.

J.P. Migne confirmed that the Eastern Nicenes sanctified both the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day. He quotes Gregory of Nyssa, the famous Cappadocian father from the late 4th century, who was an Easterner, and Asterius, another Easterner, who died c. 410, recognized as a saint by the Catholic Church. Asterius called Sabbath and Sunday a beautiful pair, and Gregory called these days brothers:

“It is a fact that formerly those who dwelt in the East were accustomed as a church to sanctify the Sabbath as well as the Lord’s Day, and to hold sacred assemblies; wherefore Asterius, bishop of Amasia in Pontus, in a homily on incompatibility called Sabbath and Sunday a beautiful pair, and Gregory of Nyassa in a certain sermon calls these days brothers and therefore censures the luxury and the Sabbatarian pleasures” (J.P. Migne, Patrologia Latina, Vol. LVIII, Paris, 1862, pp. 143–144)” (De Kock, p. 169).

On the other hand, Migne says, The people of the West held only the Lord’s Day. The Westerners maintained that only Jews observed the Sabbath. Migne continues:

“While on the other hand, the people of the West, contending for the Lord’s Day, have neglected the celebration of the Sabbath, as being peculiar to the Jews.”

Therefore, already in the 4th century, Eastern Nicenes observed both days. Why did they observe the Sabbath? It seems to contradict the main thesis of this article, namely, that, generally, Arians observed Saturdays and Nicenes observed Sundays. This is explained as follows:

Originally, the entire Church observed the Sabbath. Sunday observance began in Rome in the 2nd century, spread to other Western churches in the 3rd century, and was made law by both Constantine and Theodosius in the 4th century. Since the Eastern Church was traditionally Arian and had always observed the Sabbath, and since the laws by Constantine and Theodosius did not outlaw the Sabbath, the Eastern Nicenes continued to observe the Sabbath in addition to the legally required Sunday.

Eastern Arians also observed Sundays.

If we shift our attention to the Arians, the main thesis of this article is that the Arians, generally, observed the Sabbath. However, in the 5th century, we have now learned, the Eastern Arians rested on Sundays also. This is explained as follows:

They observed Sunday, not as part of their Christian worship, but simply because it was the law of the land. The law prohibited work on Sundays.

Emperor Justinian

As mentioned above, in the 5th century, Arian Germanic kingdoms ruled the Western Empire. The 6th century was the beginning of the end for both Arianism and Sabbath observance. The reign of the Germanic tribes ended in that century. One of the tribes, the Franks, the Dutch of later centuries, converted to Roman theology and defeated the Visigoths in 507. Later, in the 530s, the Eastern Emperor Justinian defeated other Arian kingdoms. He re-conquered much of the territory previously lost. Over the subsequent two centuries, the Eastern Empire ruled the West through the Roman State Church, supported by the Imperial Army. Consequently, during those two centuries, the defeated Arian kingdoms, one by one, converted to Roman theology. Conversion was always top-down, meaning that the kings decided on the kingdom’s religion.

The Roman (State) Church

In this way, the theology that originated in the church of Rome eventually triumphed, but it triumphed through the military muscle of the Roman Empire. As a brief overview:

Originally, the Church (1) believed that the Father and Son are distinct Beings and (2) observed the Sabbath.

In the 2nd century, after the Church became Gentile dominated, the controversy over the nature of Christ began as a dispute between Logos-theology and Monarchianism. Rome in the West accepted Monarchianism and switched to Sunday observance, but in the East, Logos-theology dominated.

In the 3rd century, the Controversy continued, particularly between Sabellius and Origen:

As illustrated by the dispute between Rome and Alexandria, around the year 260, Rome continued a theology similar to Sabellianism. Rome’s influence enabled Monotheism and Sunday worship to spread to Alexandria and other churches in the West.

Origen was an Alexandrian, but moved to Caesarea in Palestine. Like the Logos-theologians, he described the Son as a second divine Being.

The 4th century began with 10 years of the most severe Christian persecution. It ended when Constantine himself became a Christian. He legalized Christianity in 313. Constantine attempted to enforce Rome’s theology, both Monotheism and Sunday observance, but failed.

The Controversy over the nature of Christ continued for another 50 years. Emperor Theodosius, late in the 4th century, put an end to the Controversy by making both doctrines legal requirements for all Romans.

Theodosius outlawed Arianism and resumed persecution, this time persecution of Arian Christians by Nicene Christians. Through this persecution, Theodosius eliminated Arianism from the church hierarchy. In this way, the Roman State Church was formed.

During the 5th century, Arian Germanic tribes, which conquered and ruled the Western Empire, interrupted the growing dominance of Rome’s theology. However, in the 6th century, the Eastern Emperor Justinian defeated and subjected the Arian kingdoms.

Over the subsequent two centuries, the defeated Arian kingdoms converted to Roman theology. Conversion was always top-down, meaning that the kings decided on the religions of their kingdoms.

In the 8th century, the Eastern Roman Empire was effectively neutralized by Muslim conquests. The Roman State Church, with its hierarchy of bishops and Nicene theology, survived as a distinct organization. It was now supported by the kingdoms that had previously converted to Roman theology. It transformed from the Roman State Church to the Roman Church.

Individuals continued to hold to Arianism and Sabbath observance. However, over the subsequent centuries, the Roman Church, through severe persecution, gradually eliminated both doctrines. The Roman Church was sustained by cruel persecutions. It killed, imprisoned, and tortured millions of God’s people.

One way of explaining this history is to say that the Roman Empire forced the Church to adopt certain views. But that assumes that the Roman State Church was the same as the Church, which is not the case. Firstly, the Roman State Church was a formal organization to which all Romans were required to belong, whether or not they believed. Secondly, the Roman State Church excluded countless numbers of God’s people who were not Romans.

It would be more accurate to explain this history as that the Empire made Rome’s theology the Roman State Religion, and the Roman State Church triumphed and became the Roman Church, which still dominates today. It was initially established by decisions of the Roman emperors. It brought with it both Sunday observance and Monotheism.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The Sides were the Same.

The discussion above has shown that the sides in the Arian and Sabbath Controversies were the same:

On the one hand, the Nicenes, defined as those who held that the Father and Son are one single Being, observed Sunday. Both doctrines:

(a) Originated in Rome, probably in the 2nd century,

(b) Spread to Alexandria and other parts of the Western Empire,

(d) Were held by the Western Church in the 4th century,

(e) Were made law by Emperor Theodosius later that century, and

(f) Continued in the Roman Church after the Roman Empire expired.

On the other hand, the Arians, defined as those who believed that the Father and pre-incarnate Son are two distinct divine Beings, observed the Sabbath. They included the 1st-century Church and the entire church of the later centuries, except to the extent that Nicene theology made inroads.

2. Nicene Theology Evolved.

A second conclusion is that Nicene Theology, which can also be called Monotheism, the view that the Father and Son are a single Being, with a single mind, evolved. Initially, in the 2nd century, the church in Rome adopted Monotheism in the form of Monarchianism. It evolved into Sabellianism in the 3rd century, Original Nicene theology in the 4th, and, eventually, into the Trinity doctrine. No two of these views were exactly the same:

Monarchianism made no distinction between the Father and Son.

Sabellianism identified the Son as the Logos, a temporary and internal Word of the Father.

Nicene theology identified the Son as an internal aspect of the Father. Specifically, that the Son or Logos is the Father’s own and only Wisdom and Power. However, effectively, that means that the Son is the Father, just like your wisdom and power are really you.

The Trinity doctrine describes the Father and Son as equal modes of existing as God, often, but misleadingly, explained as ‘Persons.’

3. The Sabbath was part of the Arian Controversy.

Since the sides in the Arian and Sabbath controversies were the same, these two controversies went through the same phases. However, while abundant writings survived from the Arian Controversy, very little survived from the Sabbath dispute. That implies that the Sabbath dispute was not a controversy in its own right, but merely a facet of the Arian Controversy. Sunday observance was merely one aspect of the theology of the church in Rome, which, over many centuries, became accepted by the Roman emperors and, today, is the theology of almost the entire Christian Church.

4. History written by the Winner

Lastly, the Arian Controversy is a prime example of history written by the winner. Over the centuries, through the selective copying and even purposeful destruction of writings, this history was lost and distorted. The Church’s original theology became ridiculed and derided as Arianism and Jewish. It was only over the last 100 years or so, through the discovery of ancient documents and intense research, that scholars were able to piece together a more balanced view of the Controversy.