Basil of Caesarea

His Life and Impact

Marvin Jones

• Publisher: Christian Focus Publication
• Year: 2020
• eBook ISBN: 9781781913710

1
basils's: an overview

Basil the confident man of God

The year was a.d. 372 and the political climate of the region of Cappadocia was such that a confrontation was imminent. Valens had struck terror in the hearts of Nicene Orthodox pastors. He persecuted them, banished them, and even martyred some of them. In 372, his target was Caesarea. Only one person stood in his way, a man of remarkable integrity, profound ministry accomplishments, and a man who, by his strong confidence in God, could defy the Emperor – Basil of Caesarea.

The Prefect, Modestus, charged by the Emperor Valens, demanded that Basil should communicate and work with Arian bishops. The modern person may find it difficult to understand the dynamics of the problem. However, the issue of Arianism (to be discussed later) was at the forefront of a political and ecclesiastical agenda. Basil, summoned to appear before Modestus, answered for his actions of resisting the Emperor. The Prefect asked Basil to explain how he could ‘dare, as no other dares, to resist and oppose so great a potentate?’¹ Basil inquired about the accusation, to which Modestus replied that he had ‘refused to respect the religion of your sovereign, when all others have yielded and submitted themselves.’² In a play on words that seemed to be designed to demonstrate the difference between God and an emperor, Basil stated, ‘Because this is not the will of my real Sovereign nor can I, who am the creature of God, and bidden myself to be God, submit to worship any creature.’³

As the conversation continued, Modestus grew impatient and angry with Basil. In harsh words, Modestus screamed, ‘What? Have you no fear of my authority?’ ‘Fear of what? (Basil’s reply)’⁴ There is no doubt that Modestus was trying to intimidate a bishop who simply could not be intimidated. The Prefect continued his rants, ‘Of what? Of any one of the resources of my power’ (Modestus’ answer to Basil’s question).⁵ Here is where Basil inquires of the power of the Prefect. What power and what resources does the Prefect Modestus have that can persuade Basil to cooperate with the Emperor’s demands? Modestus answered with a scare tactic, ‘Confiscation, banishment, torture, death.’⁶

Basil realized that his calling was of God so that his perspective on ministry, life, and certainly his position before a hostile government, was directed by the providence of the Lord. He replied to Modestus, ‘Have you no other threat? For none of these can reach me.’ To which the astonished Modestus replied, ‘How indeed is that?’ Basil’s answer reveals not only the trust he has in God but the depth of commitment to his calling to serve God. He stated:

Because a man who has nothing, is beyond the reach of confiscation; unless you demand my tattered rags, and the few books, which are my only possessions. Banishment is impossible for me, who am confined by no limit of place, counting my own neither the land where I now dwell, nor all of that into which I may be hurled; or, rather, counting it all God’s whose guest and dependent I am. As for tortures, what hold can they have upon one whose body has ceased to be? Unless you mean the first stroke, for this alone is in your power. Death is my benefactor, for it will send me the sooner to God, for Whom I live, and exist, and have all but died, and to Whom I have long been hastening.⁷

Modestus did not know what or how to reply. All he could say was simply that no man had ever spoken to him in such a way. Basil’s reply has become a classic statement in the annals of Christianity. Basil replied, ‘Perhaps you have never met with a Bishop, or in his defense of such interest he would have used precisely the same language.’⁸ One cannot help but wonder if Basil was describing that a true bishop would make a stand with such confidence as opposed to the Arian bishops who capitulated to the imperial decrees and demands of a godless emperor.

Such was the political climate of the latter fourth century. What had transpired in the Empire is that God prepared a man to confront the political and ecclesiastical culture of the era—an era which started at a bridge!

Fourth-century Rome

Constantine, the Roman Emperor, heavily influenced the political environment during the first third of the fourth century. He played a vital role in legitimatizing the Christian faith.⁹ In the infamous battle of the Milvian Bridge, which took place in October of 312, he solidified his reign. An imperial power struggle had developed in the Empire between Constantine and Maxentius. Constantine had decided to attack Maxentius at Rome. He advanced toward the city unaware that his enemy was superior militarily and that they had occupied the Milvian Bridge. In desperation, Constantine turned to the Christian God for help. Bruce Shelley wrote, ‘In a dream, he saw a cross in the sky and the words, “In this sign conquer.” When on 28 October 312 he achieved his brilliant victory over the troops of Maxentius, Constantine looked upon his success as proof of the power of Christ and the superiority of the Christian religion.’¹⁰

Constantine: Known as Constantine the Great, he conquered his rival Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge to become co-ruler of the Roman Empire in A.D. 312. In a personal dream, his victory was secure only if he fought under the sign of the cross. He attributed his victory to the Christian God; subsequently, in 313, along with co-ruler Licinius, he issued the Edict of Milan allowing the toleration of Christianity. This action gave the Christian church much freedom, but it also forged the union between church and state. The end result was that Constantine was known to settle ecclesiastical matters as ruler of the Roman Empire. His most famous intervention is known as the Council of Nicea, called in 325. This council dealt with the problem of Arius and Arianism.

As a result of the battle of the Milvian Bridge, the famous ‘Edict of Milan’ was mandated into law. This edict gave religious toleration, even freedom, to all religions of that day. At the time, the Roman Empire had only two rulers: (1) Constantine (favoring the Christians while tolerating the pagans) who ruled in the west and (2) Licinius (favoring the pagans and tolerating the Christians) who ruled in the east.

Constantine’s leadership proved beneficial for the advancement of the church as Christians enjoyed more freedom than at any point in history. Constantine exempted the clergy from military duty, abolished laws that were offensive to Christians, emancipated Christian slaves, and enjoined Sunday as a day of worship.

The Roman Empire politically was secure under the leadership of Constantine. Both east and west enjoyed the tranquility of a peaceful life as Constantine ruled a unified Roman Empire. The unity of the Empire was predicated on two fronts: (1) political and military solidarity was achieved as there was no inward or outward threat to the Empire and (2) Christianity now was accepted openly without the fear of government or private persecution. Thus, in the mind of Constantine, the religion of the people could maintain the moral climate of good citizenship. Seemingly, peace and comfort was in place for Constantine, the Roman Empire, and the Christian Church.

Fourth-century ecclesiological conflict

Harold O. J. Brown wrote, ‘No sooner had Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, gained complete control of the Empire than he found the church – which he had hoped would help him reunite his vast domain – riven by bitter conflict.’¹¹ The church was nearing an entrance into a period of intense theological debate. Prior to the fourth century, most of the challenges to the church were external, coming from individuals or groups outside of Christianity. The theological debate of the early fourth century was internal and found its appeal and support from the clergy within Christianity.

Arianism

The debate during this period centred upon the views of Arius. Due to the fact that Arius was the presbyter of the Baucalis Church in Alexandria, William Rusch noted, ‘The outset of the controversy, probably in about the year 319, was caused by Arius’ preaching.’¹² The content of his sermons became the foundation for the heresy known as Arianism.¹³

Arius: Arius was a student at the well known Antiochian School as a pupil of Lucian. Following his tenure at Antioch, he became bishop of Baucalis at Alexandria, Egypt, and began to teach his deviant Christology. Arius concluded that there ‘was a time when the Son was not,’ which means that Arius denied the eternal existence of the second person of the Trinity. He denied the Son existed eternally with the Father. He taught that the Father created the Son, in time, and that the Son had a different nature than the Father. Thus, Arius taught that the Son was a creature who was created at the highest order of the Father but nonetheless a creature. This protected the monarchy of the Father at the expense of the eternality of the Son. This teaching soon became known as Arianism.

Arius adhered to a deviant position concerning the nature of Jesus Christ within the Godhead. Louis Berkhof described Arius’ views of Christ when he wrote, ‘His dominant idea was the monotheistic principle of the Monarchians, that there is only one unbegotten God, one unoriginated Being, without any beginning existence.’¹⁴ Arius attempted to preserve the monotheism of God without considering the possibility of the Son being the same substance as God.

The Arian Doctrine

Some may find it difficult to argue that Arius was insincere in his task to preserve the monotheism of God the Father while trying to examine the relationship of the Logos-Christ to the Father. The only conclusion for Arius was to emphasize the difference between the essence of the Father and of the Son. Arius forced this difference to its most logical conclusion: the Son was a created being. In a letter to Alexander, Arius wrote the following:

God being the cause of all is without beginning, most alone; but the Son, begotten by the Father, created and founded before the ages, was not before He was begotten. Rather, the Son begotten timelessly, alone was caused to subsist by the Father. For He is not everlasting or co-everlasting or unbegotten with the Father. Nor does He have being with the Father, as certain individuals mention things relatively and bring into the discussion two unbegotten causes.¹⁵

The Arian doctrine can be summarized in four main points. First, the Son is a creature. Second, the Son had a beginning. Third, the Son does not have direct knowledge of God the Father. Fourth, the Son is liable to sin. Arius succeeded in preserving the monotheism of God the Father. However, he forfeited the deity of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. Instead, Arius introduced a half-god, half-man, so that, through Arius’ preaching, the Christian church was worshiping a demigod.

The well-known dictum that describes the Arian position regarding the Son is, ‘There was a time when he was not.’¹⁶ The occasion for the infamous phrase was a public worship service at which the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, was preaching on the subject of the Trinity. Arius may have assumed that Alexander was introducing the heretical doctrine of Sabellianism.¹⁷ In contradiction to the Trinitarian message of Alexander, Arius uttered the famous phrase noted above. Arius even created jingles using the content of his theology so that the common person could sing them while he worked.

The actions of Arius infuriated the Bishop. Alexander, a brilliant orator, tried to overcome Arius through discussion and debate. The common ground for these men was the belief that the Logos existed prior to the incarnation. The real issue of the controversy was the relationship between the Father and Son. Arius viewed Jesus simply as a human being devoid of divine status, though coming to possess the Logos as a human. However, the Logos was not co-eternal with the Father but a creation of the Father. Thus, the Logos is separate from the Father’s nature and he was given to the person of Jesus Christ.

Alexander accused Arius of worshiping something other than God. Appealing to both Scripture and tradition, Alexander argued that since the inception of Christianity, the church worshiped Jesus as God. If Jesus were less than God, Christians would be guilty of worshiping a created being. The debate was futile. As Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander had the responsibility of protecting not only the people of his own parish, but other parishes as well. In an effort to stop the spread of these aberrant teachings throughout the churches, Alexander announced a ban on Arius and his teachings.

The problem with Alexander’s approach is that he underestimated the influence of Arius, who was older and, therefore, better connected politically throughout the region. Arius acquired support from Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia. Eusebius, in turn, wrote a letter of support for Arius stating, ‘We have never heard that there are two unbegotten beings, nor that one has been divided into two … yet we affirm that the unbegotten is one, and one also that which exists in truth by Him, yet was not made out of His substance.’¹⁸ This letter prompted Alexander to send letters to all the bishops of the eastern portion of Constantine’s Empire. Later, he excommunicated Arius at a synod in 321.

Constantine convenes the Council of Nicea

Emperor Constantine knew that the dispute could cause a deep rift within the Empire.¹⁹ He could not achieve private reconciliation; therefore, according to Williston Walker, he ‘decided to call a universal council of the church to settle the dispute. The synodal letter from Antioch makes mention of the synod to be held in Ancyra. But the site was transferred to Nicea before the beginning of the council.’²⁰

Council of Nicea, A.D. 325: This is the first ecumenical council of the Christian church outside of the New Testament. The Emperor, Constantine, called the council to deal with the problem of Arianism in the church. The vast majority of bishops and presbyters were neutral on the issue. The Arians represented a small minority, along with Athanasius and Alexander who also represented an equally small party. The Arians, thinking victory was secure, presented their views in radical form, thus alienating the vast uncommitted majority. The Arians stated that Christ did not exist eternally with the Father and was subsequently created by the Father’s will. Most of the majority did not have theological acumen, but knew that the details presented by the Arians were not biblical. They supported the position of Athanasius and Alexander, and adopted the Nicene Creed, which contained four anathemas: ‘But those who say: “There was a time when he was not”; and “He was not before he was made”; and “He was made out of nothing,” or “He is of another substance” or “essence,” or “The Son of God is created,” or “changeable”, or “alterabl...

Table of contents

• Testimonials
• Title
• Indicia
• Contents
• Dedication
• Series preface by Michael A. G. Haykin
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword by Paige Patterson
• 1. Basil’s life: An overview
• 2. Conversion and theology
• 3. Solace in the desert
• 4. Development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
• 5. Basil’s contribution to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
• 6. Basil’s Hexaemeron
• 7. Basil speaks today
• Bibliography
• Christian Focus