How St. Anthony and the Desert Fathers Saved Christianity and Civilization (Matthew 4:1)

In a movement starting in the middle of the third century, the deserts of Egypt, Palestine, Arabia and Persia were increasingly populated by a rare breed of men. They have come to be called the Desert Fathers. By the early fourth century as Christianity would become popular and accustomed to greater ease, these men would serve as a prophetic witness to the church, injecting the leaven of discipleship and biblical truth into a church which found it increasingly easy to compromise. The Desert Fathers were men who were unable to passively drift along by following the tenets and values of larger society. They chose to live separated lives forged by seeking God with a singular focus in a scorching and barren landscape. In the biblical tradition of men like Moses, David, Elijah, John the Baptist and Paul, they left the noise of urban life and sought after God.

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.” 

Matthew 4:1

Though strange to many, their role was indispensable to the continued unfolding of God’s Story of Grace. By their extreme example, they would call the church away from coasting into social complacency to embrace a robust calling to discipleship after Jesus. In so doing, they halted the church from descending into an indistinguishable mass of herd conformity to embrace the mutual and self-giving life of the Trinity.

In this article we will look at the movement of the Desert Fathers, particularly Anthony the Great (251–356), and examine how they were vital to the ongoing growth and development of God’s Story of Grace. They did this through calling the church to personal and doctrinal purity and providing crucial points of guidance to the larger society.

Origins Of the Desert Fathers

The rise of the Desert Fathers began as a spontaneous movement around key locations where Christianity was spreading. No one explanation can spell out this unusual phenomenon except a yearning certain men (in some cases women) had to pursue a higher level of discipleship with Christ. Being stripped of all self-reliance in the hot barrenness of the desert environment, their ears could be sharply tuned to the voice of God. Skip Moen describes the mindset of the Desert Fathers as men who understood, “Heaven on earth is not found in opulent surroundings. It is found in stinky mangers, hostile wastelands, the edges of humanity and the places no one wants to be.

In this yearning, they were motivated to follow certain scriptural precedents.

Precedent # 1: Singleness

Paul spoke of the gift or calling of celibacy to the Corinthians:

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)

Eventually the movement of these hermits would evolve into a monastic movement with communities of monks. The original meaning of the word monk is “single.” These were men of an undivided, single and solitary focus.

Precedent # 2: Poverty

Another important strand in Desert Fathers goes back to the instructions which Jesus gave to the seventy-two missionaries to take no provision for the journey as they went:

Do not take a purse or bag or sandals(Luke 10:4)

Like these early adventurers for Jesus’ kingdom, the Desert Fathers were pioneers, with nothing to go on but the examples of the biblical saints and the call of the mission they were to fulfill. Their call to poverty compelled them to innovate a new life and create a new culture in the desert.

Precedent # 3: Cross Bearing

Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.(Matthew 16:24)

These men lived lives of extreme discipline and self-denial. In some cases, it was too extreme. But these extremes may have been necessary to be a witness against the church’s increasing embrace of the world.

Precedent # 4: Preparation for Martyrdom

The primary Greek word for “witness” (Acts 1:8) in the Bible is μάρτυς (martus) from which we get the word martyr. Overtime as believers increasingly faced death for Christ, this came to be seen as a witness to the gospel. As the threat of martyrdom receded, the extreme life of discipline and renunciation came to be seen as a kind of substitute for martyrdom.

Anthony the Great

The most famous of the Desert Fathers is Anthony the Great.1 Born in 251 in Egypt, Anthony had a radical conversion at age sixteen when he heard a sermon taken from the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:21:

If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.

In 285, as a young man, Anthony withdrew from civilization and ventured into the desert, giving away everything he owned. At first he lived in a desert region about 60 miles west of Alexandria. Later he moved to more distant locations in a search for the solitude he needed to center his attention more intensely on prayer and further disentangle himself from evil. According Athanasius, his biographer, the spiritual trials that Anthony endured over the ensuing decades prepared him for the remarkable movement that drew thousands into the barren wilderness. In Anthony, many found a leader who had faced his own demons and found a vision for a life deeper and richer than anything that even the best of the Roman Empire had to offer.2

Influence

They protected the church’s emerging doctrine of the Trinity.

In 325 the Council of Nicaea affirmed that Jesus Christ is true God of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father. When Emperor Constantine, the sponsor of the Nicaean Council died, the new imperial regimes opposed those adhering this affirmation. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, carried the torch to defend this truth, while it was being severely opposed. With his life under continuous threat and having to hide from his home in Alexandria for seventeen years, Anthony was for him a key source of support, protection and courage. In the sandy outskirts, Athanasius was able to escape while under the protection of Anthony and the other desert hermits. At one point, according to Athanasius, Anthony traveled to Alexandria and “denounced the Arians [those denying the deity of Christ], saying that their heresy was the last of all and a forerunner of Antichrist.” The Christian historian Sozomen (400-450) wrote that, “The monks were prepared to subject their necks to the sword rather than to swerve from the Nicene doctrines.” Had it not been for the protection of these Desert Fathers, the defenders of the Nicene doctrine would have been arrested and eventually killed. This would have spelled a probable end for biblical orthodox truth.3

They protected civilization.

Overtime the Desert Fathers built gathered communities known as monasteries which played a decisive role in the West as oases of civilization in a world descending into barbarism. Eventually, these monks protected civilization by preserving knowledge through copying manuscripts, which saved classical and religious texts from being lost. They preserved and systematically copied two main categories of essential texts: religious works that formed the foundation of Christian faith and a significant body of classical Greco-Roman literature. Most importantly was the preservation of the Bible. The most notable surviving example includes the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus, found at St. Catherine’s Monastery. This is the old known copy of the entire Bible. Monks copied important philosophical works from ancient Greece and Rome, including the writings of Aristotle and Plato. In the Middle Ages, some of these Greco-Roman works were reinterpreted through a Christian lens.

They mediated conflicts in society.

By the third and fourth centuries certain Desert Fathers acquired considerable power precisely because of their position outside society. Their renunciation of sex, marriage, and property lifted them out of kinship and property networks. This, combined with their reputation for total devotion to God, favorably positioned them to be “third party” mediators and arbiters from quarreling villagers to powerful political leaders. Their radical independence enabled them to intervene with great authority even in public affairs.4

Conclusion

The Desert Fathers, though extreme to many, in fact served a vital role for the preservation and advance of God’s Story of Grace. In once sense, their separation was to preserve the reality of what radical discipleship could look like to a church that would move toward greater complacency and comfort. These desert hermits would separate from society becoming an example and inspiration of reformation movements in doctrine and spiritual life for centuries to come. This would allow society to form along the two tracts: increasing scale and growth of social structures of the state (the one) and the radical call of discipleship (the many).5 The Trappist Monk, Thomas Merton, summarizes their importance and spiritual brilliance toward the larger society:

They were men who did not believe in letting themselves be passively guided and ruled by a decadent state, and who believed that there was a way of getting along without slavish dependence on accepted, conventional values. But they did not intend to place themselves above society. They did not reject society with proud contempt, as if they were superior to other men.

As stated earlier, in so doing, they halted the church (and the world) from descending into mass conformity so that humanity, in the development of history, could embrace the mutual and self-giving life of the Trinity.

___________________________________________________________________________

  1. The first Desert Father was Paul of Thebes, also known as St. Paul the First Hermit. He is traditionally regarded as the earliest Christian hermit, living in the Theban desert in Egypt. A biography written by St. Jerome recounts his life of solitude, prayer, and reliance on divine provision. 
  2. In Alexandria, the theologian Origen (who lived in the early third century) had taught new converts about Christianity and amazed them with his renunciations, including sleeping on the floor, going barefoot, extreme fasting, and abstaining completely from wine. Origen did not invent the idea that one must pursue purity of heart in order to understand the deeper spiritual meanings of Scripture. But his teaching ministry at Alexandria in the early third century gave this idea a deep and longstanding influence in the church. It was from the church at Alexandria that Christianity’s first ascetics went out to the Egyptian desert, taking with them the great teacher’s deep insights into the reading of the Bible and the quest for holiness.
  3. The Desert Fathers appeared to be a remnant given by God to preserve Christian truth affirming the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell would not prevail. (Matthew 16:18)
  4. For example, a Desert Father by the name of Apollo more than once resolved conflicts over land boundaries between pagan and Christian visitors. In another instance, he converted a group of pagan priests, discipled them, and turned them over to the local parishes. Another example is John of Lycopolis, counseled Emperor Theodosius, as well as generals, tribunes, and wives of military officers.
  5. The great developments have occurred in history when ideas which were developed or preserved in the margins of society take root in society. Such examples would be representative democracy, the Protestant Reformation, universal education.

The Council Of Nicaea: How the Church Came to Universally Affirm that Jesus Is Truly God (John 1:1)

portrayal of Constantine before the bishops of Nicaea

Constantine (AD 272-337) became the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity. After ascending to his throne in AD 306, he would go on to defeat his greatest rival, Licinus, in AD 324, to make his control over the empire secure. Having reached this perch, he faced an even greater threat to the strength and unity of his empire: a theological division within the rapidly growing Christian movement. This division was regarding whether or not Jesus Christ is truly God, equal in nature to the Father. This issue, if not addressed, would escalate a social rift that could eventually spread across three continents. To stave this off, he summoned a council of all the bishops (leaders over a region of churches) for the first ecumenical (worldwide) council. This became known as the Council of Nicaea. This would establish a powerful move forward within God’s Story of Grace. This council would develop the foundational creedal statement forever shaping the universal church’s belief in the deity of Christ. It would begin the process of formally unifying the beliefs and identity of a movement which had spread to millions in just three centuries. The diversity of the many churches would be brought closer together in the unity and oneness of faith, reflecting the diversity and oneness of the Trinity on earth.

The Council

The controversy that led to Nicaea had two key figureheads: Alexander and Arius,1 both from Alexandria Egypt. Arius taught that Jesus was a created being, less than God. Alexander, in strong opposition, affirmed that Jesus was fully God, equal to the Father. Arius’ view was increasing in popularity, in part because he was able to put his teaching in witty rhymes set to catchy tunes. Even the dockhands on the wharves at Alexandria could hum the ditties while unloading fish. To him, the idea of Jesus being equal in divinity with the Father, threatened the oneness of God. In sharp contrast for Alexander, reducing Christ to a created being called into question the very heart of the Christian faith. If Jesus is not truly God then he alone is not sufficient to save humanity from sin.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” (John 1:14)
“I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)
“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9)
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” (Colossians 2:9)
“Christ, who is God over all.” (Romans 9:5)
“Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13)
Scriptures Alexander Would Have Used

Constantine appealed to them to come to agreement so that it would not cause commotion among the people they led.2 His appeal was ineffective, and the controversy continued. To the emperor’s own mind, whether Jesus Christ was equally divine with the Father was a trivial matter in comparison with the unity of the Empire. Arius and Alexander, on the other hand, understood the consequences of the issue had unparalleled importance. So, without the two parties coming to agreement, Constantine initiated a conference of bishops to decide the issue.

On AD 325, about 3003 bishops set foot upon the town of Nicaea, in modern day Turkey, along with thousands of other deacons and elders.4 In the conference hall where they gathered was a table in which lay an open copy of the Gospels, which was there to express the scripture as their ultimate authority. For three centuries they and their spiritual ancestors experienced periodic persecutions instigated by various emperors. Not that long ago they experienced their most fierce persecution under Diocletian. Now they were actually gathered before the leading ruler of the land as allies with him.5 Constantine entered the hall without his customary train of soldiers showing that he was operating in the spirit of peace. As a mark of his reverence for them, he would not take his seat until the bishops nodded their assent. Like the king in chess, Constantine occupied a prominent position, but he did not actually do very much as the council went underway.6 He spoke only briefly compelling these men of the church to come to some agreement on the questions dividing them. “Division in the church is worse than war,” he declared solemnly. The once-despised religion was on its way to becoming acknowledged and favored by the state. This was all a monumental change for these leaders of the church.

The Controversy

The various sides in the conflict each raised their own points, and from the start there was a tremendous argument. It was possibly Bishop Hosius of Cordova (modern Spain), a theological adviser of the emperor, who suggested that the focus of the debate should be around the Greek word, homoousios. The word, drawn from two Greek words, means “of the same substance.”7 This is very different to the modern idea of a physical “substance” like milk or copper. It means something more like “being” or “nature.” When homoousios is applied to Jesus Christ, it means that his nature (substance) was divine in the same way as God the Father is divine, not inferior or different. Jesus Christ was truly God alongside the Father. As the debate centered around homoousios, the two parties interpreted the word in two different ways as it related to the nature of Jesus Christ. It came down to whether you will put an additional i (Greek letter for i is iota) or not.

  • HOMOOUSIAS=SAME SUBSTANCE
  • HOMOIOUSIAS=SIMILAR SUBSTANCE (the i between the two oo’s-oio-changes the meaning of the word from same to similar)
LeadersViewpoint
Alexanderof the same substance— homoousios
Ariusof a similar substance— homoiousios

As the debate continued, homoousias rather than homoiousias won out.

This is the agreement of faith that the great council came to:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten,
begotten of the Father before all ages.
Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made,8
of one essence [homoousias] with the Father by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven,
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became man.
And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered, and was buried.
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;
and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;
and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead;
whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit.9

This creed was agreed to and signed by the nearly 300 members of council. Only five refused to sign. Two of those five did sign later.

Importance of the Nicaean Council

The Nicene Creed is the basis of all other creeds. It’s difficult to overstate the importance of this moment. It was the first conciliar (worldwide) creed since Christianity began as a movement. It formed the basis of how conciliar counsels would function afterword. These counsels would help to define what is clearly taught in scripture on the most important matters of doctrine and faith.

The Nicene Creed would begin to formulate the standard for the definition of the Trinity. In affirming the divinity of Jesus the foundations for the Trinity were being laid in a clear way. Through the work of Athanasius and Basil (among others), they would provide the definitions and language to give clarity to the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is the most distinctive and important picture of God from the Christian faith. It may be no accident, but providential, that the ideas and concepts around this doctrine were the first to be creedally and universally formed.

The Nicene Creed brought greater order and unity to Christianity. With the Christian faith numbering perhaps as many as 15 million, existing on three continents and innumerable cultures; this was the first authoritative statement which was declared and enforced for the entire church. This further established the development of the church into the unity and diversity of the Trinity. With all of the beautiful and wonderful diversity which was the church before Nicaea, there would now be an increased unity or oneness to hold the diversity together.9

___________________________________________________________________________

  1. Most historians of the Council of Nicaea begin their story with the fiery exchange of words between Arius and Alexander. But the discussion of the nature of Christ has a much longer history in the church. The great third-century theologian Origen, for example, pressed a bishop named Heraclides to define the relationship of Christ to God the Father. After much careful questioning, Heraclides admitted to believing in two Gods but clarified that “the power is one.” Origen reminded Heraclides that some Christians would “take offense at the statement that there are two Gods. We must express the doctrine carefully to show in what sense they are two, and in what sense the two are one God.”
  2. Emperor Constantine’s letter to Alexander and Arius, which was sent through Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova: “Concerning divine providence, let there be among you one faith, one understanding, and one agreement about the Almighty. But as for the things which you discuss in detail with each other during your trivial inquiries, if you do not arrive at one conclusion, they should remain in your own head, kept hidden in the secret recesses of your mind. Indeed, let remarkable shared friendship, true faith, honor towards God, and observance of the law remain unshaken among you. Return to showing friendship and favor to one another. Embrace the whole people once again. When you have cleansed your own souls, acknowledge each other as brothers once again, for friendship is often pleasant after a hateful situation once it has reconciled.
  3. About 1,800 bishops were invited.
  4. To quote Eusebius: “The most distinguished of God’s ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Africa, and Asia assembled here. The one sacred building, as if stretched by God, contained people from [a very long list of nations]. There were more than 300 bishops, while the number of elders, deacons and the like was almost incalculable. Some of these ministers of God were eminent for their wisdom, some for the strict living, and patient endurance of persecution, and others for all three. Some were venerable because of their age, others were conspicuous for their youth and mental vigor, and others were only just appointed. The Emperor provided them all with plenty of food.”
  5. Just before a decisive battle in 312, Constantine became the first emperor to convert to the faith of those who claimed to be Christ followers.
  6. Generations of critics have accused him of manipulating the proceedings, jamming words into the creed, and generally trumping theology with politics, but in fact he mainly sat and listened. An ambitious politician and effective propagandist, Constantine had come to power in the usual swirl of conflict and intrigue.
  7. The term “homoousios” breaks down from the Greek words “homos” meaning same and “ousia” meaning “of one substance” or “of one being.” Brought together as one word, “homoousios” means “of the same substance.” Other Greek words used in the debates at Nicaea—words unclear to speakers of non-Greek languages, such physis (nature), and prosopon (person)—bore meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers.
  8. Most of the pastors, however, recognized that something more specific was needed to exclude the possibility of Arian teaching. For this purpose they produced another creed, probably from Palestine. Into it they inserted an extremely important series of phrases: “True God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father. . . . “
  9. Following the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381, the Creed was further supplemented with the following: And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
  10. It is important to realize that the Nicaean Council sought to make clear what was in the scripture. There is nothing within the statements of the Council contributors or the Council statements which indicates that they saw themselves as doing nothing more than clarifying what is in scripture. They did not see themselves as an authority beside or alongside of scripture, but they saw scripture as their only authority.