The doctrine of humanity is one of the topics, if not the most, widely discussed in the theological, secular academic circles and layman cliques. Although the questions on the origin of humanity are not new to this generation -inherited from an age-old story and tradition- it does not imply that the relevance of such a topic fades away. On the contrary, theologians will always have to engage in its historical significance along with the current relevance of the question. In other words, the ongoing conversation on the doctrine of humanity will indubitably need to be addressed by reliable scholars in the field, as far as society is concerned, namely, as long as people live.
Bishop Basil of the fourth century addressed the questions raised by the human condition. His thoughts have been passed down to us through discourses and treatises condensed in the book “On The Human Condition, ” translated by Nona Verna Harrison. The first two discourses related to the human condition also included other treatises, such as the homily against anger, the Long Rules, or The Great Asceticon.
It is worth mentioning that St Basil, born in 329 and coming from a Christian family in the Middle East, is among the three Cappadocian fathers, along with his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa and his friend Gregory of Niazanzus. Basil’s contributions to theology on social justice with a focus on the Christian lifestyle are indications that led him to write later about the human condition in the context of the fourth century, which is also due to two mechanisms.
First, considering that the church had just begun to come to a standstill from political persecution (13). Second, Basil’s writings in this volume are more focused on the literal meaning of the biblical text, where, according to Harrison, Basil sought to identify the moral precepts of the biblical texts to make out of them his way of living, and by that, confront his contemporary opponents of the Christian faith.
Argument of “On the Human Condition” book
Basil asserts that human beings are created with reason and free will. Therefore, Genesis 1:26 verse, “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” explains in one end that the mind -reason- is created in God’s image and not the body. It is also by the mind that one can practice dominion over the earth by the ruling principle, which is the superiority of reason. On the other end, created in the “likeness of God” means that men have free choice and, through their decisions, preferences, and options, men can produce the possible course of action, which is, in that case, to become like God. By creation, men have the image of God; by free will, men have the likeness (p. 43).
Being educated in Athens and trained in the Greek disciplines of rhetoric and logic, it is no surprise that Basil reiterates Plato’s tripartite theory of the soul, in which the reason (rational) is the ruling faculty of the other (nonrational) faculties. Accordingly, Basil writes, “The things of the flesh are second, the priorities of the soul are first” (36). Here, he discusses the irrational passions, named beasts such as anger, that must be overruled. Thus, his view of dominion is not simply reserved for the outside world with the animals, birds, and fishes in the ocean. It also directs one to look within themselves to become a ruler of these ungoverned beasts, among which we find anger. “You have indeed created a ruler; ruler of passions, ruler of beasts, ruler of creeping things…(47).
Thus, central to Basil’s view on dominion is ruling over the passions. In his view, which is also consistent with Christ’s (Luke 4:23), ruling over one’s own passions is more important than ruling over the earth, so true that “nobody is condemned for not catching a lion, but who will not govern anger is ridiculous to everyone” (48).
Having established that man is created in the image and likeness of God and that human beings rule the earth not through the physical strength of the body but through the superiority of reason, Basil’s next urgent emphasis is to “Be attentive to ourselves.”
In this homily, he brings forth two kinds of attentiveness. One is that we do with our physical world through the eyes when we want to understand the physical reality -similar to what non-rational animals use to defend themselves against potential harm- and the other is possible through the inner self. This inner faculty of the soul is “the noetic faculty that is applied to the contemplation of incorporated things” (95).
In Basil’s mind, when one pays attention to his inner self, he can learn about God. This is to say, “Be attentive to yourselves, neither remaining in mortal things as if they were eternal nor despising eternal things as if they were passing” (96). Additionally, crucial to “be attentive to ourselves” is to know which part of the soul ought to rule the other parts. Basil demonstrated anew that the passionate part of the soul must be subjected to the control of the rational part. It is only under these conditions that one can reflect on the likeness of God.
Reasons Why the Argument of Basil Was so Important in Its Historical Context
Basil (330 AD) arrived during an extreme theological tension in the church. About a decade before his birth, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (c. 244-337) had opposed another priest named Arius (c. 250-336) concerning his view (Arius) of the eternal status of the Word of God. According to Arius, the Son had a beginning because he was begotten.
Against Arius’ view, Basil favored the Nicene theology of the divinity that affirmed Christ to share one essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. They are consubstantial in the Trinity. In other words, because the Godhead is one and not three different gods, the speech “Let us create men in our own image and likeness” implies that in “acknowledging that “You may glorify the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Spirit.” As evidenced through the text, the Scriptures did not say, “The gods made human beings, but God made” (33).
Another historical misconception that Basil had to address was that some suggested that the creation passage, “Let us make man in our image and likeness,” was only ascribed to men. To which Basil clarifies by citing the passage of Genesis: “Male and female He (God) created them (1:27). Accordingly, apostle Paul clarifies that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (emphasis added, Gal. 3:28).
Therefore, the question of women’s proper place in the creation is unreliable. Moreover, Basil reinstated the Gen 1 perspective regarding the equality of both genders. “Nature is alike of equal honor; the virtues are equal, the struggle equal, the judgment alike… Since indeed that which is according to God’s image is of equal honor, let the virtue be of equal honor, the showing forth of good works” (45).
Reasons Why Basil’s Argument Continues to Be Important Today
One does not have to look too far to find that the relevance of the doctrine of the human condition is of capital importance in the context of today’s churches and current culture. However, knowing that human beings are Imago Dei is not without implications. As being made in God’s image, we are also called to become good representatives of His image.
Adding to the narratives that aim to redefine Human beings from a narrow perspective of the current culture, Basil’s view of the human condition is unmistakable. What is God’s image? What is God’s character? By knowing God’s character, can we find our identity in Him? These are among some pressing questions that the churches are called to dig into to position themselves against the culture’s current view on these matters, even if there is a need to.
Sex and Gender
And apparently, the Christian view of Imago Dei finds itself in direct contradiction with popular belief. The first claims that God created men and women. From that perspective, the gender of a person is also known as long as their sex is identified at birth. However, until recently, the tenants of the so-called “gender identity” have made the distinction between sex and gender. According to the definition that aims to cancel out the universal view of men and women, sex only refers to the physiological reproductive organs of the person, whereas gender is still unknown. How could gender be unknown when knowing the sex of the baby? According to their view, gender is a socially constructed term that defines men and women through the social norms in vigor.
However, someone can ask essential questions to the advocates of “socially constructed gender.” Questions like, “Is it the case that sex does not affect behavior?” To maintain their position, they will likely answer, ‘no.’ Nevertheless, humans have bodies with endocrine systems. The endocrine hormones control mood, growth, metabolism, and reproduction. The endocrine system even regulates how much hormone is released. Therefore, we can argue that because humans have bodies, and these bodies have endocrine systems, their sex necessarily affects their behavior. In other words, you cannot completely separate sex and gender. In other words, if human beings are born male or female and biological sex affects behavior, then sex and gender cannot be separated.
Last thoughts
Basil’s view on the Imago Dei can clear the fog of social tensions we have witnessed from the different waves of feminism. Basil’s doctrine helps by reminding us of the craftsmanship humans inherit from their Creator. Moreover, that can help us reflect on His clear intention in making men and women according to His image and likeness.
Again, it becomes critically important to remind ourselves of the beautiful knowledge of ourselves and to also reflect on the “understanding by what wisdom our body is structured” (32). Nevertheless, the puzzling question remains, “Do we have some prototype to look up to manifest God’s image?” Yes, Christ is the image par excellence (18).
Accordingly, to manifest the image of God in today’s world, the church needs humility, human identity, and rationality. By humility, Basil points us to consider that despite the dignity that we possess as Imago Dei, we are to remind ourselves that “we are firmly grounded in the dust” (19); by human identity, he looks for the Imago Dei along with his rationality; and by rationality, Basil maintains that the superiority of reason as a condition to being created in the image, and free choice with the likeness of God. “By using our freedom to cooperate with the Holy Spirit, God has honored humans by enabling them to become fashioners of the divine likeness of themselves” (19).
