A Larger Hope 1
Page 16
The second Origenian doctrine taught by Basil is that all rational creatures had one and the same origin and nature or substance/essence, and became differentiated at a certain point into human souls, demons, and various angelic ranks, according to their different moral choices. This division is on the basis of the principle that “a slightest sin deserved a higher rank.” This doctrine is correctly ascribed to both Origen and his followers, including the Cappadocians.215
Another Origenian doctrine attributed to Basil by Orosius is the creation of the world (without further specification whether the sense-perceptible world or the intelligible world or the intellectual creation, but the reference seems to be to the sense-perceptible world) only after the fall of the souls, for their purification. This is not entirely correct from Origen’s point of view, but is the way Origen’s doctrine was often represented.
But the Origenian doctrine of Basil on which Orosius concentrates most of all is precisely that of universal restoration, because it is also the one that worries him the most:
They taught that the “eternal fire” [ignem aeternum], in which sinners will be punished, is neither true fire nor eternal. For they maintained that the above-mentioned fire is in fact the punishment of one’s own conscience. Indeed, according to its Greek etymology [αἰώνιος / aiōnios], aeternum does not mean “perpetual, eternal, unending, everlasting” [perpetuum]. They [i.e. the Aviti] also adduced a Latin testimony: it is written in Scripture, in aeternum, and after aeternum it is added as an explanation: in saeculum saeculi, “in the aeon of the aeon” [i.e. not “eternally”]. Therefore, all the souls of the sinners, after the purification of their conscience, will return to the unity of the body of Christ.
They wanted also to make the following assertions about the devil, but they did not prevail: given that the devil’s substance, which was created good, cannot perish/be annihilated [perire], at a certain point the devil’s evilness will be entirely consumed, and his substance will be saved.
This point, too, will appear again in Augustine, Against the Priscillianists and the Origenists, 5.5 and 8.10, and will return also in Eriugena (below) concerning all sinners (malitia eorum . . . in aeternum peritura, “their evilness will perish in eternity”). Jerome’s Letter 124 to Avitus is likely to have inspired Orosius’ Origenistic dossier, but interestingly enough there is no trace of Basil whatsoever in Jerome’s letter; therefore, the reference to Basil as a supporter of universal restoration and salvation must have come to Orosius through another source.
Basil’s teachings concerning universal restoration, as reported by Orosius in the above block quotation, are the following four:
1) The fire of hell is not true fire, i.e., not a sense-perceptible or material fire, but rather the punishment of one’s own conscience. This is indeed a doctrine that Origen and his followers, down to John the Scot Eriugena, did express; being a fire that “cannot be extinguished,” it cannot be the material fire we experience in this world, which can be quenched by means of water and such like.
2) The fire of hell is not eternal, because it is called in Greek, in the New Testament, αἰώνιον/aiōnion (and not ἀίδιον/aidion), and αἰώνιος/aiōnios does not mean “eternal” outside of technical Platonic vocabulary (see Appendix). For αἰώνιος/aiōnios in Scripture means “remote,” “ancient,” “mundane,” “long-lasting,” and “otherworldly,” or “pertaining to the future aeon.” (In the Bible, αἰώνιος/aiōnios conveys the meaning of eternity only when it refers to God, and this because of God and not due to its intrinsic semantic value.) That πῦρ αἰώνιον/pur aiōnion means “fire in the next world” or “long-lasting fire,” not “eternal fire,” was indeed clear to Origen and to most Greek patristic authors, including Basil himself.
A special investigation into Basil’s terminology of eternity exactly confirms this awareness of his. As I mentioned above very briefly, Basil uses ἀΐδιος/aïdios, meaning “absolutely eternal,” in reference to the absolute eternity of God, of the Son, who is eternally generated (especially in his polemic against the “neo-Arian” Eunomius), of the Spirit, of divine attributes, or in reference to eternal and intelligible realities, and to the future life, which is described in this case as eternal proper. The same is the case with “eternal victory” (ἀΐδιος νίκη/aïdios nikē). In the case of angels, the state that existed before the creation of this world, and is apt to the powers that are beyond the world, not only is beyond time in the present world (ὑπέρχρονος/hyperchronos), but it even lasts through the aeons (αἰωνία/aiōnia), and is absolutely eternal (ἀΐδιος/aïdios), that is, beyond all aeons. Here Basil clearly distinguishes the meanings of ἀΐδιος/aïdios and αἰώνιος/aiōnios, reserving the sense of absolute eternity for the former. He observes that “some people attach to the aeons [αἰῶνες/aiōnes], too, the name of ‘eternal’ [τοῦ ἀϊδίου/tou aidiou],” but he keeps the two distinct, thus showing that he was well aware of the semantic difference between αἰώνιος/aiōnios and ἀΐδιος/aïdios, and knew that only the latter means “eternal.”
Basil uses αἰώνιος/aiōnios in scriptural citations, for instance in the sense, frequent in the Septuagint, of “remote, ancient” (so, for example, he glosses the biblical ὄρια αἰώνια/oria aiōnia, “ancient boundaries,” with ὄρια πατέρων/oria paterōn, “the boundaries of the ancestors,” and definitely not “eternal boundaries”), or also in the sense, “enduring through generations,” in the contrasting couple πρόσκαιρα/proskaira and αἰώνια/aiōnia, “ephemeral” and “long lasting.” But he does not use αἰώνιος/aiōnios in the sense of “eternal,” apart from scriptural quotations concerning God. Most often, Basil uses the Gospel phrase ζωὴ αἰώνιος/zōē aiōnios, “life in the world to come.” He paraphrases Jesus’ words that one who hates one’s own life/soul in this world will preserve it for life in the other world (εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον/eis zōēn aiōnion). Drawing on John, Basil describes ζωὴ αἰώνιος/zōē aiōnios as life tout court, in that it is the true life, and is Christ.
Opposed to this and similar positive ideas—such as αἰώνιος/aiōnios glory, etc., which are also widely attested in Basil—is, among Basil’s expressions, αἰσχύνη αἰώνιος/aischunē aiōnios, “shame in the other world,” this too a quotation from the Bible, and αἰώνιος καταφθορά/aiōnios kataphthora, “ruin/perdition in the next world,” and, above all, πῦρ αἰώνιον/pyr aiōnion, “otherworldly fire,” another biblical expression, e.g., in Prol. 7 PG 31.673. Here Basil cites Jesus’ words about people who have not done works of mercy and are sent to fire in the other world. In Prol. 8 PG 31.685, Basil paraphrases Scripture when he says that the just will go to life αἰώνιος/aiōnios and the kingdom of heavens, while sinners will be sent to punishment/correction αἰώνιος/aiōnios, where, as Scripture has it, the worm does not die and the fire cannot be put out as they do and can in this world. The same opposition, life αἰώνιος/aiōnios vs. punishment/correction αἰώνιος/aiōnios, is found again in Prol. 31.892, in which punishment in the other world is exemplified by the αἰώνιον/aiōnion darkness, “otherworldly darkness.”
A parallel negative phrase in Basil’s work is “αἰώνιος/aiōnios death,” i.e., death in the world to come. In Homilies on Psalms 61.4 this expression does not indicate an eternal damnation, but death in the sense of separation from God in the next world for those who have chosen delights in this world, instead of electing virtue and the suffering that virtue always brings about in this world: “to choose a temporary pleasure and because of it to receive death in the other world/long-lasting death [θάνατος αἰώνιος/thanatos aiōnios], or to choose suffering in the exercise of virtue and use it to receive delight in the other world/enduring delight.” Indeed, Basil’s thought here is perfectly parallel to that of his brother Gregory of Nyssa in his reflection
s on the Parable of Dives and Lazarus in The Soul and the Resurrection: Lazarus chose the true good, and therefore suffering, in this world, and has rest and comfort in “Abraham’s bosom” in the other world, while Dives chose delight and vice in this world (apparent goods), and thus suffering in the next. But this does not mean in the least that for Gregory the otherworldly suffering of the wicked will be eternal (indeed, Gregory thought that even the devil will be healed and saved). Neither does it need to mean so for Basil.
That αἰώνιος/aiōnios in all of these cases refers to the world to come, in accord with the biblical use, is clear from Consolation to a Sick Person, PG 31.1720, where it is stated that a rich man, if rich in virtue, will be rich also in the next world, but if deprived of virtue, he will be “poor in the world to come,” αἰώνιος/aiōnios. The same is also clear from Basil’s glossing αἰωνία ζημία/aiōnia zēmia (“loss in the world to come”), as opposed to αἰωνία ἐλπίς/aiōnia elpis (“hope for the world to come,” and not “eternal hope”) with τὴν ἐπερχομένην ζημίαν/tēn eperchomenēn zēmian (“the penalty to come”), thus equating αἰώνιος/aiōnios punishment with punishment “to come.” Therefore, penalty αἰωνία/aiōnia means punishment “in the future world,” and not “eternal” punishment.
Again, Basil contrasts the present moment (πρόσκαιρον/proskairon) with the future time (αἰών/aiōn), and the use of ὕστερον/hysteron, “later,” confirms that αἰώνιος/aiōnios means “pertaining to the future aeon,” the “later world,” and not “eternal,” Thus, the worm αἰώνιος/aiōnios is that which is in the future aeon. Basil has martyr Gordius say: Should I reject Christ, “so that I may gain the reward of a few days? But I shall pay the penalty for this for the entire aeon to come” (αἰῶνα ὅλον ζημιωθήσομαι/aiōna holon zēmiōthēsomai). The martyr adds: “It is obvious madness to die with art, and with evil and treachery to prepare for oneself punishment/correction in the world to come (αἰωνίαν κόλασιν/aiōnian kolasin).” The “entire aeon to come” refers to the next aeon, which will last until the end of the aeon itself, or of all aeons.
It is remarkable that Basil uses ἀΐδιος/aïdios, “eternal,” only in phrases that denote the future life and beatitude, and never in phrases that signify damnation. Like Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and other patristic thinkers, and like the Bible itself, he never speaks of ἀΐδιον /aidion fire or ἀΐδιος/aïdios punishment. This choice, at least linguistically, rules out an otherworldly fire or punishment conceived as absolutely eternal, all the more so in that Basil clearly endows αἰώνιος/aiōnios with the sense of “pertaining to the world to come.” This strict linguistic consistency is well understandable in an author who was very familiar with Origen’s writings, as well as with the Greek Bible.
3) Basil’s third doctrine related to universal restoration, according to Orosius as reported in the block quotation above, is that all the souls of sinners, after due purification, will be restored to the unity of Christ. This is exactly the doctrine of universal restoration and unification (ἕνωσις/henōsis) that Origen taught, followed in this closely by Gregory of Nyssa. Now it is most interesting that, according to Orosius, this doctrine was also shared by Basil. While this may seem to be a gross mistake at first sight, the preceding notes on Basil’s terminology of eternity and the analysis that I have conducted, especially with regard to his Commentary on Isaiah, reveal that Orosius’ claim is certainly plausible.
4) Basil’s fourth doctrine related to apokatastasis, according to Orosius, is that the devil, being a creature of God, is good in his substance, and his substance cannot be destroyed; therefore, after a full purification, with the total destruction of his evilness, he too will be saved in his substance. This is exactly Origen’s argument in Princ. 3.6.5, followed by Gregory Nyssen and later on by John Eriugena. Basil too, even though with many doubts, left the door open to this possibility.
Gregory Nyssen
A Case for Gregory’s Universalism
Basil’s brother Gregory, bishop of Nyssa (c.335–c.395), absorbed the Origenian form of Christianity—including the doctrine of universal restoration—from his older sister and venerated professor St. Macrina the Younger († 379), a Christian philosopher216 and ascetic. In his dialogue On the Soul and the Resurrection, Macrina is presented as arguing for universal resurrection and salvation. But the doctrine of universal salvation can be found in practically all of Gregory’s works, from all periods of his life.
Besides the dialogue On the Soul, the work of Gregory in which the doctrine of universal salvation is treated most extensively is a short commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:28,217 where Gregory overtly states even the salvation of the devil.218 Gregory here describes universal salvation as the highest fulfillment of hope.219 In this work, as in many others, he was closely inspired by Origen.220 The very passage he is commenting on (1 Cor 15:28) was Origen’s favorite in support of universal salvation. Like Origen, Gregory interprets the final submission of all to Christ announced in this biblical verse as the salvation of all. Christ’s submission to God is understood by Gregory, just as by Origen,221 as the submission, and consequent salvation, of all rational creatures, who are “the body of Christ.”
From the metaphysical point of view, Gregory’s argument is based on the final annihilation of evil.222 But this is enabled by Christ, in whom humanity is made connatural with the Good (i.e., God), and all evil disappears from humanity. The Good, in the end, will reach even “the extreme limit of evil,” and “nothing will remain opposed to the Good.” All will be united to God. All humanity, all rational creatures, and the whole of creation will become “one body.”223 That salvation will be universal is clearly affirmed by Gregory: “No being will remain outside the number of the saved” (In Illud 21 Downing); “no creature of God will fall out of the Kingdom of God” (In Illud 14 D.). This will be a consequence of the purification of all beings from evil and their restoration to a state free from evil: “Every being that had its origin from God will return such as it was from the beginning, when it had not yet received evil” (In Illud 14 D.). Like Origen, from 1 Corinthians 15:28 Gregory deduces that if God must eventually be “all in all” then evil will no longer exist in any being, because God, the Good, could never be found in evil. Gregory is directly drawing on Origen, Princ. 3:6:2–3.
The dialogue On the Soul and the Resurrection between Gregory and Macrina is a Christian version of Plato’s Phaedo. Here, Macrina plays the role of Socrates, leading the discussion, and argues for the resurrection of all the dead in such a form as to include the restoration and salvation of all, because the resurrection is not only of the body but also of the soul, which is freed from sin through purification. Macrina envisages “the universal harmony of all rational nature that one day will obtain in the Good. . . . When finally, after long cycles of aeons, evilness has disappeared, only the Good will remain, and even those creatures [i.e., demons] will concordantly and unanimously admit the sovereignty of Christ.” (De an. col. 72B).224 Even demons will submit to Christ and be saved!
Macrina, like Origen, insists that otherworldly sufferings are healing, and not retributive (e.g., cols. 88A–89B). Souls who have not yet liberated themselves from sins and passions on earth must do so in the other world. The primary cause of this purification is God, who attracts the soul to himself, not to punish it, but to have it back; if a soul is covered with evil, that attraction will cause suffering as a side effect (cols. 97B–100C):
It is not the case that God’s judgment has as its main purpose that of bringing about punishment to those who have sinned. On the contrary, as the argument has demonstrated, the divinity on its part does exclusively what is good, separating it from evil, and attracting [the soul] to itself, with a view to its participation in beatitude, but the violent separation of what was united and attached to the soul [i.e., evil] is painful for the soul that is attracte
d and pulled [by the divinity to itself]. . . . It seems to me that the soul too must suffer whenever the divine power, out of love for human beings, extracts for itself what belongs to it from the ruins of irrationality and materiality. For it is neither out of hatred nor for punishment of an evil life, in my view, that those who have sinned are inflicted suffering by the One who claims for itself and drags to itself all that which has come to being thanks to it and for it, but the Godhead, for its part, as its principal and better purpose attracts the soul to itself, i.e., the Source of every beatitude; however, as a side effect, there occurs necessarily the aforementioned suffering for the one who is pulled [out of evil] in that way.
The amount of sin that is found in each one determines the duration of the purifying suffering; the flame of the “otherworldly fire” (αἰώνιον/aiōnion fire) will be applied for a shorter or longer time, depending on the amount of sin that must be purified.225 The aim of the purification is the complete annihilation of evil (De an. 100–105A). The Gospels emphasize the necessity of purification, which must be commensurate with the amount of evil/impurity accumulated by each one (Matt 18:23–25; Luke 7:41); and the idea of measure excludes that of an eternal duration:
Evil must necessarily be eliminated, absolutely and in every respect, once and for all, from all that is, and, since in fact it is not . . . , neither will it have to exist, at all. For, as evil does not exist in its nature outside will, once each will has come to be in God, evil will be reduced to complete disappearance, because no receptacle will be left for it. . . . God’s right judgment is applied to all, and extends the time of the restitution of the debt according to its amount; . . . the complete eradication of debts does not take place through any monetary payment, but the debtor is handed to the torturers, until he has paid his whole debt. . . . [T]hrough the necessary suffering, he will eliminate the debt accumulated by means of participation in miserable things, which he had taken upon himself during his earthly life. . . . [A]fter taking off all that which is alien to himself, i.e., sin, and getting rid of the shame deriving from debts, he can achieve a condition of freedom and confidence. Now, freedom is assimilation to what has no master and is endowed with absolute power, and at the beginning it was given us by God, but then it was covered and hidden by the shame of debts. Thus, as a consequence, everything that is free will adapt to what is similar to it; but virtue admits of no masters: therefore, everything that is free will turn out to be in virtue, since what is free has no master. Now, God’s nature is the source of all virtue; so, in it there will be those who have attained freedom from evil, that, as the Apostle says, “God may be all in all.” (De an. 101–4)