Augustine ’sEarly Thoughtonthe Redemptive FunctionofDivine Judgement
BARTVANEGMOND
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©BartvanEgmond2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2018
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018958828
ISBN978–0–19–883492–2 Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgements
Thisworkbeganasadissertation,whichIstartedwritingin2012and defendedinthelatespringof2015.ManyGod-givenpeoplehavehelpedme ontheroadto finishingthedissertation,andtransformingitintothisbook. Firstofall,IwouldliketothankthesupervisorsfromKampenTheological University,withwhomIstartedmydoctoralproject,Prof.BarendKamphuis andProf.ErikdeBoer.Theyguidedmeduringtheinitialstagesofmy research,andallowedmetomovetoLeuventobenefitfromtheAugustine specialistsandthelibraryoftheCatholicUniversity.Iamgratefulthatthey keptbelievinginmyprojectandcontinuedtoencouragemeto ‘seekand knock’,inorderto finally findadoortoenter.Thisdoorwasopened whenIwenttoLeuveninthesummerof2012toworkwithProf.Mathijs Lamberigts.Theconversationswithhimhelpedmegainafreshapproachto mysubject,andto finetunemyresearchquestion.Healsomadeitpossiblethat mydoctoralresearchwasacceptedbythefacultyasajoinedprojectbetween theTUKampenandtheKULeuven.Lastbutnotleast,Iwanttothankmy Leuvenco-supervisor,DrAnthonyDupont,forhishelpduringtheprocessof movingtoLeuven,forhiseverpresentreadinesstoreadwhatIsenttohim,for hisemphasisonmethodologicalclarity,andforhisencouragementto ‘ persevereuntiltheend’ .
Besidesmysupervisors,manyotherpeoplehaveaccompaniedmeonthe roadofacademicresearch.Manyofthemwereco-travellers,thedoctoral studentsandpostdoctoralresearcherswithwhomIworkedinKampenand Leuven.IespeciallymentionJamesEglinton,WolterHuttinga,BartDubbink, MarinusdeJong,andJasperBosmanfromKampen,andRichBishop,Dries Bosschaert,DavidvanDusen,andMatthewKnottsfromLeuven.Furthermore,IbenefitedfromtheadviceofthemembersoftheKampenresearch group BiblicalExegesisandSystematicTheology,theLeuvenresearchunit HistoryofChurchandTheology,theprofessorsandstudentsImetatthe regularmeetingsoftheNetherlandsSchoolofTheologyandReligiousStudies (NOSTER),andthemembersoftheDutchCentreforPatristicResearch (CPO) IthankCarrieSchumacherandJoshuaBrucefortheirhelpinediting themanuscriptofthedissertation.
MuchofmytimeinLeuvenIspentattheHistoricalAugustinianInstitute inHeverlee.IthankthefathersandIngridDevroedewhoalwayskindly openedthedoorforme.Furthermore,IwanttoexpressmythankstoAnneke Govaerts,thebibliographeroftheinstitute,forherdailyhospitality.Itiswith joythatIrememberthemanytalkswehadduringcoffeebreaks,thesubjects
varyingfromfamilylifetothedifferencesbetweentheFlemishandtheDutch. IalsothankGeertvanReyn,thelibrarian,forhishelpin findingbooks,andfor thepleasantconversationswehadaboutAugustine.Mythoughtsalsogoto brotherJules,withwhomIdailyshookhands,andwhopassedawayjustafew daysaftermyreturntotheNetherlands.
Theuniversitywasnottheonly ‘SitzimLeben’ ofmyresearchproject,and definitelynotthemostimportantone.WhileinLeuven,weenjoyedthe hospitalityoftheChristiancommunityICEL;theyquicklymadeusfeelat home.IthankmybestfriendsfromKampen,RikMeijer,PaulvanderVelde, LucasvanderVeen,andZweitsevanHijum,fortheirongoingsupport,their humour,andforsharingwithmethestrugglesandjoysoftheirownvocations.Furthermore,Ihavereceivedalotofsupport,bothmateriallyand spiritually,frommyparentsandmyparents-in-lawwhorejoicedandsuffered withmeandwereprobablyasgladasIwasthatmydoctoralstudieshad reachedtheirend.
Ialsothankthosewhohelpedmetransformingmydissertationintoabook. Firstofall,IthankProf.Dr.CarolHarrison,whoencouragedmetosubmitthe dissertationtoOUP.Furthermore,Ithanktheanonymousexternalreviewer forhisorherhelptoimprovethetextofmydissertation,andKarenRaithand othersatOUP,fortheirguidanceintheprocesstowardspublication.
Finally,IcannotimaginethepastyearswithoutmywifeYvonneandour threechildrenJochem,Elma,andDavid.IthankGodforhavingblessedme withthem.Ihopeandpraythatwemaykeeplearningtobegratefulin prosperityandpatientinadversityandtocelebratethejoyofourfaiththat thenightisfarspentandthedayisdawning(Rom. 13:12; Conf. 13,13,14).
CapelleaandenIJssel, 6August2018
3.God
4.ReappropriatingPaulandExercisingDiscipline:Augustine
5. Confessions:God’sLawsuitwithAugustinebetweenthe
Introduction
GOD ’ SJUDGEMENTANDHISMERCY:WHYSTUDY AUGUSTINEONTHISTOPICTODAY?
‘Godlovesyouasyouare’.Expressionssuchasthesehavebecomecommon amongWesternChristians,atleastintheevangelicalbranchofChristianityto whichthewriterofthisbookbelongs.HymnsandPsalmsthatsingabout God’swrathoverhumansinandrejoiceindivineforgivenessandmercyare supplantedbysongsthatcentreonman’smysticalunionwithGodwhois anoverflowingfountainofloveandembrace.Inclusionanddiversityare favouredovermoralanddoctrinalstrictness.ThesedevelopmentsinWestern ChristianityindicatethatChristians finditincreasinglydifficulttounderstand howthejusticeandholinessofGodrelatetohisloveandmercy.
Howisthistobeexplained?CharlesTaylorhasarguedthatsincethe Reformation,Europeanculturehasmovedawayfromwhathecallsthe ‘juridical-penalframework’ tounderstandGod’srelationshiptotheworld. TheAugustinian-Anselmiantraditionregardedhumanityascreatedgood,but asatpresentsufferingunderthepenalconsequencesofsin(bothoriginaland actual).HumanitywasguiltyandGodprovedtobearighteousjudgeby punishingsinbothintimeandineternity.Atthesametime,thisGodwas believedtobemerciful.HehadshownhisloveinhistorybysendinghisSon intotheworldtopaythepenaltyofsinandindoingsosavehispeoplefrom eternaldamnation.Inthisframework,thefearofGod,thepainofsufferingas chastisementofsin,butalsothejoyinforgivenessandGod-givensatisfaction forhumandebt,pavingthewaytoanewlifehereandhereafter,werepartand parcelofhowtheChristianperceivedhisrelationtoGod.¹
TheriseofdeismandhumanismalteredthisunderstandingofGod’ s relationshiptohiscreation.Thesephilosophiesunderstoodthepresentworld asaharmoniousorder,whichcontainsalltheresourcesneededtoattain human flourishing.Moreover,theydidnotregardhumanityasradicallyfallen;
¹CharlesTaylor, ASecularAge (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,2007),78.
2 AugustineontheRedemptiveFunctionofDivineJudgement
itratherstoodinneedofimprovement.Throughthegiftofthelightofreason, Godhadindeedendowedhumanitywiththetooltoimproveitself.Inthis picture,Godisperceivednotprimarilyashumanity’sjudge,butratherasits educatororhelper.ItisnotwithoutreasonthattheEnlightenmentthinkers fiercelyattackedthedoctrinesoforiginalsin,penalatonement,andpredestination.²Thesedoctrinesdidnot fitinthenewworldviewinwhichGodandman wereperceivedasco-workerstowardsabetterfutureformankind,ratherthan asjudge/saviourandcondemnedsinners,respectively.
Inpostmoderntimes,aftertheeclipseofthegrandnarrativesandthe enlightenedoptimismabouthistory,thisperceptionoftherelationshipbetween Godandmanhasnotessentiallychanged.IthasratherreceivedaGnostic twist.³Postmodernismnolongerperceiveshumansasrationalagents,capable ofmovingthemselvesandtheworldtowardsabetterfuture,butitseesthem asbattlegroundsofinnumerablesocialforces.⁴ Atthesametime,thereisa widespread,romanticbeliefinthegoodnessofourspontaneousaspirations. EvildoesnotarisefromourrebellionagainstGod,butisalienationfromapure self,primarilycausedbyexternalinfluences.Themissionofthelatemodern personistodiscoverhisorherinnercoreandexpressitinanauthenticwayof life.Inthisframework,God’ssalvificactiontowardshumansisperceivedin therapeuticterms:heremindsusofourtrueidentity,andhelpsustorecoverit.⁵
ThesemodernandlatemodernviewsoftherelationshipbetweenGodand mankindhavesupplantedthejuridical-penalframeworkoftheAugustinianAnselmiantradition,whichhasdominatedtheWestforsuchalongtime.God isratherperceivedasopposingtheevilthatwesuffer,orassufferingwithus, thanassomehowactingthroughitasourjudge.Ifhumansareessentially good,andGodintendshuman flourishing,whywouldheallowustosuffer,or evendemandthedeathofhisSonforhumanredemption?⁶ ThisviewofGod alsoexplainsthemoderndifficultywithGod’sexerciseofrevengeintheOld Testament.HowcanaGodoflove,whoexistsforourwellbeing,commandthe deathofessentiallygoodpeople?
ThisculturallyconditionedchangeintheunderstandingoftheChristianfaith instigatedmyinterestinAugustineofHippo’s(354–430)understandingofthe relationshipbetweenGod’sgraceandhisjustice.HowdoesAugustineconceive oftheplaceandfunctionofdivinejusticewithintheprocesofsalvation?Ihave chosenAugustine,asheshapedthe ‘juridical-penal-framework’ thatdefined WesternChristianityforsuchalongtime.Rereadinghistheologyonthisissue
²Taylor, ASecularAge,262.
³OnthereturnofGnosticisminpostmodernity,seeLucaDiBlasi, DerGeistinderRevolte. DerGnostizismusundseineWiederkehrinderPostmoderne (Munich:W.Fink,2002).
⁴ Forthepostmodernturntothe ‘victimizationoftheagent’,seeAdonisVidu, Atonement, LawandJustice:TheCrossinHistoricalandCulturalContexts (GrandRapids,Mich.:Baker Academic,2014),183.
⁵ Taylor, ASecularAge,618. ⁶ Taylor, ASecularAge,651ff.
couldbeofhelptopresent-dayChristians,whoarewillingtolookintothemirror oftheirowntraditionandevaluatethewaytheyunderstandtheirfaith.
WhatmakesitevenmoreinterestingtostudyAugustineonthissubjectis thatthemovementsofthoughtwithwhichAugustineconversedshowstriking similaritieswithmodernandpostmodernideasthatcirculateinourworld. Notwithstandingthedifferences,theoptimismoftheEnlightenmentabout humannatureanditscapacitytobeeducatedresemblesclassicalpedagogical ideasabouthumanreasonanditscapacitytoemancipatemanfromirrational behaviour.AlsotheGnosticismofAugustine’stimeseemstoreturnsomehow inlatemodernity.TheGnostic(Manichaean)argumentthathumanshavea divinecore,fromwhichtheyarealienatedbyanevilnature,resembleslate modernviewsofthehumanpersonasessentiallygood,butsufferingunder self-alienationcausedbyexternalsocialforces.AndtheGnosticviewofGod ashimselfsufferingunderevil,andredeemingmanthroughgnosis,resembles thepostmodernpreferenceofanon-violentGod,whoisnotsovereignover evil,butsufferswithus,andhelpsustorecoverourtrueinneridentity.
Thisbookislimitedinitsscope.ItoffersahistoricalreadingofAugustine, ratherthanacontemporaryapplicationofhistheology.Moreover,itdoesnot coverallofAugustine’sworks,butdescribesthedevelopmentofhisthought ontherelationshipbetweenGod’sgraceandhisjusticeduringthe firstten yearsofhiscareerasaphilosopherandtheologian.Thisdoesnotmean, however,thatthebookisonlyofinteresttothosewhoreadAugustinefrom anhistoricalperspective.Asindicatedabove,thehistoricalcontextinwhich AugustinedevelopedhisChristiantheologyofgraceandjudgementresembles ourmodernandpostmodernsituationinmanyrespects.Thismakesthestudy alsorelevanttoareadershipthatseeksfortheologicalinspirationtodealwith contemporaryquestions.
CONTEXTUALIZINGTHERESEARCHQUESTION
BeforewestartouractualjourneythroughAugustine’sworks,itishelpfulto contextualizetheresearchquestion.Whichtheologicalandphilosophical traditionsinfluencedAugustineanddefinedthecontextinwhichhisthought onthesalvificmeaningofdivinejudgementdeveloped?Inthefollowing sectionsIwill firstsketchtheanti-GnostictheologicaltraditionthatAugustine receivedasayoungChristianandwhichshapedtheframeworkofhisthinking ondivinejusticeandmercy.Secondly,Iwilldescribetherelevantaspectsof theclassicalpedagogicaltraditionwithwhichAugustinewasacquainted,both throughhisowneducation,andthroughhisstudyofCiceroandother philosophicalsources.Thelastsectionprovidesadiscussionofhowthis studycontributestoexistingresearchinthe fieldofAugustinianstudies.
ThegreatobstaclethatheldAugustinebackfromreturningtothereligionof hisyouthwasaGnosticformofChristianity:Manichaeism.AfterCicerohad enkindledinhimadesirefortheimmortalityofwisdom,hehadturnedtothe Manichees.BoththeircriticismoforthodoxChristianity,theirexplanationof evil,andtheirpromiseofofferingapurelyrationalreligionhadattracted Augustine.
HedescribeshisreturntoCatholicChristianityasastruggletoovercome Manichaeismandto findacrediblealternativethatwouldsatisfyhisdesire forwisdom.TheproblemthattormentedAugustinethemostwastheorigin ofevil.IntheMilanesecircle,representedbyAmbrose,Simplicianus,and MalliusTheodorus,hediscoveredaconceptofevilthatenabledhimtorecover thereligionofhisyouthinanewway.⁷ BuildinguponaPlatonistontology, theytaughthimthatevilistobeunderstoodasthesoul’svoluntaryaversion fromthehighestgoodtowardslowerthings(peccatum),andasthepenalty thatfollowsuponthischoice(poenapeccati).Thisexplanationenabled Augustinetounderstandhissoul’sentanglementincarnalhabitasGod’spenalty forhisownsins,ratherthanastheassaultofanothernatureonthedivine elementwithinhim.HefurthercametoknowChristastheWisdomofGod,who hadassumedahumanbodytoliberatethesoulandpermitittoachieveits spiritualdestiny.⁸
InMilanAugustineadoptedaformofChristianitythatwasbothantidualistandphilosophical.Itisverylikelythathebecameacquaintedwith theAlexandrianapologetictradition,representedbyClementandOrigen.⁹
⁷ ForpassagesinwhichAmbroseattacksGnosticideasaboutevilasanature,anddescribesit assinanditspunishment,see hex. 1,31;4,13;4,17; parad. 6,31.
⁸ conf. 7–8.
⁹ R.Holte, Béatitudeetsagesse.SaintAugustinetleproblèmedela findel’hommedansla philosophieancienne (Paris:ÉtudesAugustiniennes,1962),187ff.Holtearguesfortheinfluence ofatheologicaltraditionofanAlexandriantype(‘detypealexandrin’),expressedinAugustine’ s idealoftheChristian sapiens,propagatedbytheAlexandriansClementandOrigen,butabsentin AmbroseandtheLatinFathers.Holtedoesnotexpresshimself,however,onliteraryinfluences. GyörgyHeidl, TheInfluenceofOrigenontheYoungAugustine:AChapteroftheHistoryof Origenism (Piscataway,NJ:GorgiasPress,2009)hasattemptedtodigdeeperintoOrigen’spossible influencesonAugustineandarrivesatthedaringthesisthatthe ‘libriquidampleni...bonasres Arabicas’ thatAugustinementionsin ContraAcademicos 2,5werenotthebooksofthePlatonists, butrathertranslationsofOrigen.HealsotracesOrigen’sinfluenceinAugustine’searly DeGenesi ContraManichaeos. IliariRamelli, ‘OrigeninAugustine:AParadoxicalReception’ , Numen 60 (2013),280–307hasbuiltuponHeidl’sworktoarguethatAugustineinhisearlyyearstaughtthe doctrineof apokatastasis (seefootnote30).ForamorereservedevaluationofOrigen’sinfluenceon Augustine,seeBertholdAltaner, ‘AugustinusundOrigenes’,inidem, KleinepatristischeSchriften (Berlin:Akademie-Verlag,1967),224–52.HoweveroneevaluatesOrigen’sdirectinfluenceon Augustine,itseemstomethatthereisenoughevidencefromhisearlywritingsthatAugustinewas attractedbythecombinationofanti-dualismandphilosophical(especiallyPlatonic)aspiration thatcharacterizedOrigen’saccountofChristianity.Thesesimilaritieshavealsobeennotedby
Theiranti-Gnostictheology,whichtheypresentedasaformofChristian pedagogyofthehumansoul,bearsmuchresemblancetoAugustine’searly theologicalpreoccupations.
InthewakeofpredecessorssuchasJustinMartyrandIrenaeusofLyon, ClementandOrigenfoughtagainstaGnosticunderstandingofreality,which attributedthecreationofthematerialworldtoalowerdeity(thedemiurge) thatwasopposedtothehighestgod,orhadoriginatedfromafallinthe constellationofdivinebeings.Gnosticismconceivedofthetruegodaspurely transcendental,absolutelysurpassingthesphereof heimarmenè,thesublunar realitywheredarkpowersruleoverourbodies.Thehighestgoddoesnot interveneinthisworldbyforce,asthedemiurgedoes,butbyrevealingsecret knowledge(gnosis)toremindfallensoulsoftheirdivineidentities.According toitsopponents,Gnosticismconnectedthisviewoftheworldtoasoteriologicaldeterminism.TheGnosticsbelievedtheyweresavedbynature,because oftheidentityoftheirsoulswiththehighestgod.¹⁰ Aslongastheywereinthis world,theyonlyhadtoresistthepowerofevilthatintendedtoharmthem throughthebody.Godwasontheirside,buttheyhadtosuffertheonslaughts ofthedemiurguntilits finaldefeat.¹¹Thisdualismalsoaffectedtheirviewof therelationshipbetweentheOldandtheNewTestaments.TheGnosticsasit were ‘reversed’ salvationhistoryasitispresentedintheHebrewScriptures. TheCreatorandLordofIsrael,whomtheOldTestamentpresentsastheone andonlyruleroftheworld,theypresentedastheevilpersecutoroftheGnostics, thealliesofthetruetranscendentalgod.ThisOldTestamentdissembler continuouslytriedtodestroytheGnosticsbypersecutingandpunishing them.¹²Adam’sexclusionfromparadise,the flood,andthedestructionof SodomandGomorrah allsuchjudgementswereseenasevilattemptsofthe demiurgtoexercisehisdominionoverthosewhobelongedtothetruegod.Jesus inauguratedsomethingentirelynew.Hewasregardedasoneofthemediators throughwhomthetranscendentgodrevealed gnosis tofallensouls,toremind themoftheirhomelandabovetheheavens,andbydoingsotoliberatethem fromthepowerofdarkness.
GiventhisperceivedunitybetweenthedivineandthesouloftheGnostic,it isnotsurprisingthatGnosticChristianswereregardedasrelativizingexternal
C.P.Bammel, ‘Augustine,OrigenandtheExegesisofSt.Paul’ , Augustinianum 32/2(1992), 341–68(347–51).
¹⁰ WinrichLöhr, ‘GnosticDeterminismReconsidered’ , VigiliaeChristianae 46(1991), 381–90;LuiseSchottroff, ‘Animaenaturalitersalvandae,zumProblemderhimmlischen HerkunftdesGnostikers’,in ChristentumundGnosis,editedbyWaltherEltester(Berlin: VerlagAlfredTöpelmann,1969),65–98.Schottroffarguesthatthisheresiologicalcategory oftendoesnot fittheGnostictextsthemselves.
¹¹JasonDavidBeDuhn, ‘Augustine,Manichaeism,andtheLogicofPersecution’ , Archivfür Religionsgeschichte 7(2005),153–66(160–6).
¹²Rudolph, DieGnosis,146–8;Schottroff, ‘Animaenaturalitersalvandae’,70.
authority.Thisisidentifiable,forexample,inClement’ s Paedagosos, wherethe authordepictshisGnosticopponentsaspeoplewhoregardthemselvesas alreadyperfectaftertheirenlightenmentandthereforeasnolongerinneed ofteachingbyotherswhomtheyregardedaslowerthanthemselves.¹³Inthe eyesoftheiropponents,therefore,Gnosticanthropologywasdangerously liabletoformsofanti-nomianism,¹⁴ achargethatAugustinewillrepeatagainst theManichees.
ClementandOrigenusedtheirpedagogicalinterpretationofChristianityto battletheGnosticworldview.TheyemphasizedthattheCreatorofthisworld andtheFatherofJesusChristareoneandthesameGod.Theyfurtherstrongly defendedthedoctrineofprovidence.TheybelievedthatGodtheCreatorcares forthisworldandgovernsitinarighteousway,rewardingeveryoneaccording tothemeritsofhisfreewill.Notnature,butrathermerit,iswhatcountsfor salvation.Itisfromthiscontextthattheirdiscourseondivinepunishmentis tobeunderstood.AgainsttheGnosticoppositionbetweenthegood,transcendentgodandthesevereorjustgod,theyarguedthattheoneGod expresseshisgoodnessexactlybyshowinghisjusticeinpunishingsin.¹⁵ In doingso,Godactsasapedagoguewhointendstoeducatehispupilstobecome wiseadults.Inhis Paedagogos,ClementstatesthatGodasagoodeducator adaptshimselftothecapabilitiesofhisstudents.Hepreferstoteachbywords, butforthosewhoarenoteagertolearn,heusesthemethodofdisciplinary punishment.Inthisregard,theincarnateWorddoesnotdifferfromtheGod oftheOldTestament.BothintheOldTestamentandintheNew,theWord teachesthroughwords,appealingtohumanreasonandhisfreewill,but threatenstheunwillingwiththerodofcorrection,becausehewantstosave themfromultimatedamnation.¹⁶
Bythuspresentingsalvationhistoryasapedagogicalprocess,theapologists connectedbiblicallanguageaboutGod’sdisciplineofhispeople(LXX: paideia)totheGreekeducationaltradition.Thisconnectionisalsoevident fromClement’suseofmedicalimagerytocharacterizeGod’sdisciplinary treatmentofhispeople.¹⁷ Asweshallsee,thecomparisonbetweenmedicine andeducationwaswidespreadamongphilosophicalschoolsinAntiquity.
¹³ClementofAlexandria, Paedagogos,1,52.
¹⁴ AlbrechtDihle, ‘Gerechtigkeit’ , ReallexikonfürantikesChristentum 10,245–360(318–19).
¹
⁵ ClementofAlexandria, Paedagogos,1,53–74.
¹⁶ ClementofAlexandria, Paedagogos,1,60–1: ‘Scriptureseemstobesuggestingthatthose whomtheWorddoesnothealthroughpersuasionHewillhealwiththreats;andthosewhom threatsdonothealtherodwill;andthosewhomtheroddoesnotheal, firewillconsume’ (translation:FC,55);JudithL.Kovacs, ‘DivinePedagogyandtheGnosticTeacherAccordingto ClementofAlexandria’ , JournalofEarlyChristianStudies 9/1(2001),3–25(7,16).
¹⁷ ClementofAlexandria, Paidagogos,1,81whereClementsaysthatthephysicianadaptshis treatmenttotheillnessofthepatient,sometimesadministeringmild,sometimesstringent medicines.
Thus,Clement’spresentationofChristianityasthefulfilmentofGreek paideia¹⁸ notonlyservedapologeticpurposestowardshispagancontemporaries,butalso functionedasameanstocounterGnosticism.
Clement’ssuccessorOrigenfurtherdevelopedthispedagogicalunderstandingofChristianity.AgainsttheGnosticquestionofwhythesituationsofsouls inthisworldaresodifferent iftheyarecreatedbyagoodandjustGod OrigenarguedthatGodcreatedallsoulsequal,asdisembodiedentities,but sentthemintobodiesasapunishmentfortheirvoluntaryaversiontoGod. Thedistinctsituationsinwhichtheycurrently findthemselvesshouldbe explainedbythedifferencesoftheirmerits.Thisdoesnotmeanthatmaterial creationassuchisevil.Itisratherasecondaryorder,springingfromGod’ s goodness,bywhichGodintendstorestraintheeffectsofsin,andleadfallen soulsbacktohimself.¹⁹ Hegavethemabodilyexistencethatsuitedthe measureoftheirsin,inordertoeducateeachsoulthroughthesuffering allottedtoit.Eachsoulreceivestheeducationthatitneeds.Someneedtobe constrainedlikechildrenandslaves,becausetheylackanunderstandingof theirneedofsalvation;otherscanbetaughtbywordsandreason.Butthe doctorofallsoulsmakessurethatallreceivethetreatmentthattheyneed,so thatGodwilleventuallybecomeallinall.²⁰ Inthiseducationalprocess,the incarnateLogosistheteacherparexcellence.²¹
InhisaccountofdivinepedagogyOrigenreservedasignificantplacefor humanfreewill.Onlybecausesoulsretainfreewill(prohairesis)²²andcontinuetoparticipateinthedivineLogos,cantheycooperatewithGod’ s teaching,andeventuallyberestoredtotheiroriginalcondition.²³AsGod doesnotcoerceanyone,butmakesuseofthefreewillofhisrationalcreatures, theprocessofpurificationmighttakeseveral aions (thusOrigenadaptsthe Platonicideaof metempsychosis),butitwilleventuallyresultinthe apokatastasispantoon,therestorationofallrationalcreaturestotheiroriginalsituation ofcontemplation.²⁴ ItshouldbenotedatthispointthatOrigenisvery
¹⁸ WernerJaeger, EarlyChristianityandGreekPaideia (Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard UniversityPress,1961),24–5;Kovacs, ‘DivinePedagogy’,1.
¹⁹ Origen, Deprincipiis,2,9,5–8(ANF4,291–2).²⁰ Origen, Deprincipiis,3,5,8.
²¹HalKoch, PronoiaundPaideusis.StudiënüberOrigenesundseinVerhältnisszum Platonismus (ArbeitenzurKirchengeschichte22;BerlinandLeipzig:WalterdeGruyter Verlag,1932),61–5.ChristbringstocompletionbothGod’seducationintheOldTestament andinthetraditionofGreekphilosophy.
²²OnOrigen’santi-Gnosticinteresttopreservethefreedomofthewill,seeMichaelFrede, AFreeWill:OriginsoftheNotioninAncientThought (Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress, 2011),102–24.
²³Koch, PronoiaundPaideusis,24–7.
²⁴ Koch, PronoiaundPaideusis,26;Ramelli, ‘ChristianSoteriologyandChristianPlatonism: Origen,GregoryofNyssa,andtheBiblicalandPhilosophicalBasisoftheDoctrineof Apokatastasis’ , VigiliaeChristianae 61(2007),313–56(esp.314–22).Ramellipointsoutthat Origen’sPlatonicpresuppositionthatGodisthegoodwhonecessarilycommunicatesitself,and hisviewofevilasprivation,underpinsOrigen’stheoryofuniversalrestoration.MarkS.M.Scott
reluctanttoteachthedoctrineof apokatastasis toeveryone,becauseitmight provokemorallaxity.Itshouldnotbetaughttothosetowhomthethreat ofeternalpunishmentisstilluseful,justaschildrenprofitfromthethreatof punishment,eveniftheparenteventuallyrefrainsfromexecutingit.²⁵ Origen seestheChurchasapedagogicalinstitutethataccommodatestoeachindividualsoul,teachingsome,threateningothersasstill-irrationalchildren,and applyingremedialpunishmentsfortheirsins.²⁶
WhatisimportantforthepresentinvestigationisthatClementandOrigen attemptedtoreconcileGod’sgoodnessandhisjusticeoveragainsttheGnosticsbyinterpretingdivinepunishmentintimeexclusivelyfromapedagogical perspective.Intheirsystem,Godisjustintreatingusaccordingtothemerits ofourfreewill,andgoodinthathispunishmentsforsinarenevermerely retributive,butratherconstructive.Bypunishingus,Godappealstoourmind andwillsothatwemightturnbacktohim.ForOrigenthisconnectionof divinegoodnessandjusticeevenleadstotheideaoftherestorationofall things.Eventually,thereisnoretributivejusticefromGod’sside,butrather onlyremedialjustice,evenforthedevilandhisangels.
EkkehardMühlenberghasarguedthatOrigen’saccountofevilresemblesthe understandingofevilinNeoplatonism,inthathedoesnotregarditasradically opposedtothegood,asananti-power,butratherasanalienationfromthe good,whichisalwaysencompassedbytheself-communicationofthegood.²⁷
Thisidea findsexpressioninOrigen’sdoctrineofcreation.Whenthesoulturns awayfromGod,bodilycreationisthemeansthroughwhichGodarrestssouls intheirfallanddrawsthembacktohimself,denyingeviltheopportunityto takeradicalpossessionofman.God’sjusticeandhismercythusalwayswork together.Inthisregard,Origen’saccountofevildiffersfromthatofAthanasius, Mühlenbergargues.Athanasiusregardedthe firstsinofhumanityasunleashingadynamicpowerthattakespossessionofhumansandmakesthem radicallyopposedtoGod.Theexperienceofsufferinganddeath,whichresults fromsin,doesnotfostertheirreturn,butrathermakesthemseekcomfortand hopeinself-inventedidols.Onlythedivinechoicetocancelthepowerofevil throughthedeathoftheWorditselfcouldliberatehumanityfromevil’ spower. Inthisvision,divinejusticeandmercyaremuchmoredifferentiated.²⁸ God’ s punishmentofsindoesnotnecessarilyhaveapedagogicalfunction.
(‘GuardingtheMysteriesofSalvation:ThePastoralPedagogyofOrigen’sUniversalism’ , Journal ofEarlyChristianStudies 18/3(2010),347–70)hasargued,however,thatthisdoctrinehasan experimentalcharacterandiscounterbalancedbymanytextsinwhichOrigenarguesforthe existenceofeternalpunishment.
²⁵ Scott, ‘GuardingtheMysteriesofSalvation’,365.
²⁶ Koch, PronoiaundPaideusis,82.
²⁷ EkkehardMühlenberg, ‘DasVerständnissdesBöseninneuplatonischerundfrühchristlicher Sicht’ , KerygmaundDogma 15/1(1969),226–38.
²⁸ E.Mühlenberg, ‘VeritéetbontédeDieu:uneinterprétationdu DeIncarnatione,chapitre4, enperspectivehistorique’,in GottinderGeschichte.AusgewählteAufsätzezurKirchengeschichte,
AlthoughitremainsamatterofdiscussionwhetherAugustineadopted Origen’smetaphysicalframework(thefallofthesoulandthe apokatastasis pantoon),²⁹ hisearlywritingstestifythathedidshareClementandOrigen’ s pedagogicalunderstandingofsalvationhistoryandthefunctionofdivine judgementwithinit.Thisraisesthe firstquestionofourinvestigation:how doesAugustinerelatetothispedagogicalunderstandingofpunishmentinhis earlywritingsandhowdoeshisthoughtdevelopupuntilthe Confessions? IwillarguethatAugustineinitiallyadoptedapedagogicalapproach,inwhich God’spunishmentofsinisbynatureinstructive(presupposingthefreedomof thewill),butgraduallycomestodisconnectthiscombinationofpunishment andmercy.Onlyforthepredestined,whohavebeenliberatedfromthelawof deathinthebodyofChrist,doesGod’sjudgmenthavepedagogicaleffects.In thisregard,AugustinedepartedfromtheOrigenisttraditionbyupholdingits theodicywithoutupholdingitsbeliefinhumanfreewill.³⁰
PhilosophicalPsychagogy
Asobservedintheprevioussection,ChristianapologistspresentedChristianity incloseconnectiontotheHellenisticcultureofeducation.Augustinesharedin thisculture.Hereceivedaclassicalliteraryeducation,andafterhisreadingof Cicero,heacquaintedhimselfwithimportantphilosophicalschools.Inorder tounderstandAugustine’sviewofhowGod’sjudgementrelatestohismercy,it ishelpfultobrieflysketchsomepedagogicalideaswithwhichAugustinemust havebeenacquainted.
BeforeIaddressthetraditionofphilosophicalpsychagogythatAugustine inheritedviaCiceroandothersources,Iwillmakeafewremarksabouttheuse of(corporeal)punishmentwithinthecontextofeducation.Intheeducation ofchildrencorporealpunishmentwasnotuncommon.³¹Augustinehimself
editedbyE.Mühlenberg(Berlin:WalterDeGruyter,2008),215–28(223–4).Cf.Athanasius, Contragentes,1–10; DeIncarnatione,20.
²⁹ RobertO’ConnellhasarguedthattheearlyAugustinedidteachthefallofthesoultheoryto explainthepresentexistenceofhumanityinthebody.OthersscholarssuchasGoulvenMadec, FrederickvanFleteren,andGerardO’Dalyhavecontradictedhim.Thediscussioncontinuesup tothepresentdayandiswellsummarizedbyRonnyRombs, SaintAugustineandtheFallofthe Soul:BeyondO’ConnellandhisCritics (Washington,DC:UniversityofAmericaPress,2006). Recently,IliariRamelli(‘OrigeninAugustine:AParadoxicalReception’ , Numen 60(2013), 280–307)hasarguedthatAugustinetaughtthedoctrineof apokatastasispantoon inhisearly years,probablywithoutknowingthatitderivedfromOrigen.Shebasesherargumentmainlyon mor. 2,7,9,CSEL90,95: ‘Deibonitas omniadeficientiasicordinat,utibisintubicongruentissimepossintesse,donecordinatismotibusadidrecurrantundedefecerunt ’ ³⁰ Bammell, ‘Augustine,OrigenandtheExegesisofSt.Paul’,350–1.
³¹H.-I.Marrou, Histoiredel’éducationdansl’Antiquité (NouvelleÉdition;Paris:Éditions duSeuil,1947),397–9;ChristianLaes, ChildrenintheRomanEmpire:OutsidersWithin (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011),143.
experiencedthiscustomatschool.³²Thesameappliedtothecustomofbeating childrenathome.Philosophically,the useofthewhipagainstchildrenwas justifiedonthebasisoftheassumptionthattheylackedreason.Greekand Romanwritersregularlycomparechildrentoanimalsandpostulatethatbecause theyareincapableofcontrollingtheirpassions,theycannotbeexpectedtoacton thebasisofreason.Therefore,theyhavetobedomesticatedbyfearofpunishment.
Intheory,childrendidnotdifferfromslaves.Bothwereheldincheck throughfearofpunishment.³³However,inpractice,childrenhadadifferent statusfromslaves;theyweretheirparent’ sown fleshandblood,andrepresentedthefamily’shopeforthefuture.Furthermore,corporealpunishment wasgenerallyregardedasviolatingsomeone’sdignity.³⁴ To flogorwhip someonewastodegradehimtothestatusofaslaveoralow-classperson. Therefore,inthecaseoffreebornchildren,whippingrepresentedaparadoxto thearistocraticmind.³⁵ AnaristocraticRomanfatherregardedhissonas someonewhoshouldbeeducatedtobecomeanhonourablecitizen.Assuch, hedesiredtoavoidmakinghimintoafearfulandsubservientpersonby treatinghimasaslave.Sothegoalofchastisementwastoadvance filial loyalty,ratherthanmerelytoinstilfearandconfirmhierarchy.³⁶
Mereretributivepunishmentscharacterizedtherelationshipbetweenslaves andtheirownersandbetweenrulersandtheirsubjects.Slavesweresimply punishedinordertoaffirmandpreservethehierarchicalrelationship.Inlegal cases,punishmentwasappliedforthesakeofrestoringjustice.Ifapersondid notpossessRomancitizenship,amagistratecouldeven floghimwithouta legalcase,³⁷ justforthesakeofpreservingorder.³⁸ Outsideoftheclassroom andthefamily,corporealpunishmentthusonlyhadaretributive,repressive function(coercitio).
Augustinealsobecameacquaintedwiththetraditionofphilosophical psychagogy,thecureofthesoulbytrainingthemindinrationalthinking. CiceromediatedtohimaPlatonic-Socraticunderstandingofphilosophyasa wayofhealingthesoulfromitsirrationalpassions.³⁹ Platotaughtthatthe
³² conf. 1,13–14.³³Laes, ChildrenintheRomanEmpire,143–4.
³
⁴ Th.deBruyn, ‘FloggingaSon:TheEmergenceofthe pater flagellans inLatinChristian Discourse’ , JournalofEarlyChristianStudies 7/2(1999),249–90(259).
³⁵ Laes, ChildrenintheRomanEmpire,144.
³⁶ RichardSaller, ‘CorporealPunishment,AuthorityandObedienceintheRoman Household’,in Marriage,Divorce,andChildreninAncientRome,editedbyBerylRawson (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1991),143–65(161).
³
⁷ Romancitizenshadtherightof prouocatio,theappealtothecourtinordertoreceiveafair hearing.SeeSaller, ‘CorporealPunishment’,155–6.
³
⁸ Floggingwasfearedbyeveryone,becauseithadasymbolicconnectiontoslavery,theloss ofRoman dignitas.
³
⁹ PaulKolbet, AugustineandtheCureofSouls:RevisingaClassicalIdeal (NotreDame,Ind.: UniversityofNotreDamePress,2009),69.ForCicero’sunderstandingofphilosophyas medicinaanimi,see Tusc.Disp. 3,3;3,10–11.
humansoulcurrentlysuffersunderthepassions,causedbywrongjudgements thatithadcontractedthroughcustomandupbringing.Therefore,thesoulhad tobeconvertedfromtheworldofcommonopinion(doxa)totheworldofthe ideas,whereplaintruth(alètheia)wastobefound.⁴⁰ Byrememberingits knowledgeoftheideas(anamnesis),thesoulcouldhealitselffromirrationalityandactaccordingtothetruth.Platocomparedphilosophytomedicine andthephilosophicalteachertoadoctor,whoneededtoknowthestateofhis patient’ssoulinordertoapplytherighttreatment.⁴¹Overagainstthesophists, hestatedthatrhetoricshouldservethismedicalpurpose.Wordsshouldnotbe usedtowinthecrowdsforoneself,buttoliberatethecrowdsfromtheirerrors. Thiscouldimplypainfulsurgery,asthephilosophicalrhetordeprivedhis patientsoftheirmostcherishedopinionsaboutthegood.Nonetheless,this severedisciplineservedtheirultimateinterest:thereturnofthesoulfromthe externalworld,toitself,inordertodelightinthetruthalone.
Inhisreflectionsonthestateandoncitizenship,Platoalsoreservedaplace for(corporeal)punishmentintheprocessofphilosophicaleducation.Starting fromtheSocraticprinciplethatallsinresultsfromignorance,hewonderson whatbasispunishmentcouldbejustified.Aretributiveunderstandingof punishmentistoberejected,asthispresupposesthatthesinisdonevoluntarily,andthisisexactlywhatPlatodenies.Therefore,forPlato,punishment canonlybejustifiedasacureofthediseaseofignorance.Ifsomeonedoes somethingwrong,therationalmindistoberegardedassufferingatrophy throughtheswellingofthelowerpartsofthesoul.Punishmentisachirurgical measuretoreleasethemindfromthesuppressingpowerofthepassions.At thesametime,thispunishmenthasadeterrentcharacterforthebodypolitic atlarge.⁴²InPlato,asinotherphilosophers,educationandrestraintarenotin oppositiontoeachother.Theformerratherservesthelatter.
Plato’stherapeuticunderstandingofphilosophyasmedicineofthemind hadbecomemainstreamamongphilosophicalschoolsintheHellenistic
⁴⁰ Kolbet, AugustineandtheCureofSouls,23.
⁴¹WernerJaeger, Paideia.DieFormungdesGriechischenMenschen,vol.3(Berlin:Walterde Gruyter&Co.,1959³),292.
⁴²Onthistwofoldfunctionofpunishment,see Gorgias 525B.Cf.E.Barker, ThePolitical ThoughtofPlatoandAristotle (NewYork:Dover,1959),204.Plato’sprojectwastoascribetothe stateitselfaneducatingfunction.Heobservedthatlawgiversusuallyactedasslavedoctorswho merelyprescribedamedicineforaparticularillness(i.e.punishment)withoutexaminingthe actualhealthsituationofthepatient.Platoproposedthatlawgiversneededtobetruedoctors whoexaminedthehealthsituationofthepatient,notonlytocure,butalsotopreventfurther illness.Inotherwords,lawgiversneededtobeeducators.Forthisreason,hethoughtthatthe idealstatehadtobegovernedbyphilosophers.Punishmentandrestraintneededtohavea pedagogical,ratherthanamereretributivepurpose(Jaeger, Paideia,vol.3,291–3).Simultaneously,hedeniedthatvirtuecouldbeattainedbymere ‘characterformation’,becauseit dependedonadirectvisionofthegood.Nonetheless,goodexampleandrestraintofthelower soulcouldhaveanancillaryfunctioningainingthisvisionofthegood.Cf.R.F.Stalley, ‘PunishmentintheProtagoras’ , Phronèsis 40/1(1995),1–19(17–19).
12 AugustineontheRedemptiveFunctionofDivineJudgement
world,eveniftheirrespectiveviewsofhappinessdiffered.⁴³Seneca,for example,depictedhimselfinhisletterstoLuciliusasamedicaldoctortrying tohealhispupil’ssoulfromirrationalpassions,implantedinhimbyhis pupil’supbringing.⁴⁴ BydisciplininghismindinStoicdoctrine,thestudent canhealhissoulandacquireastableplaceintheworld.⁴⁵ Ciceroappliedthis understandingofphilosophytothebondoffriendshipingeneral.Inclassical thoughtfriendshipwasbasedonmutualrespectforeachother’scharacterand wasaimedatperfectingthischaracterinvirtue.Therefore, ‘friendsfrequently mustbenotonlyadvised(monendi),butalsorebuked(obiurgandisunt),and bothadviceandrebukeshouldbekindlyreceivedwhengiveninaspiritof goodwill’ . ⁴⁶ Becausetheloveoftruthbindsfriendstogether,agoodfrienddoes notremainsilenttohiscompanionifthelatterviolatesthetruth.Therefore, Cicerosays,sometimesbitter-tonguedenemiescanbebetterthansweetsmilingfriends⁴⁷—ajudgementthatAugustinehimselfrepeatsin Confessions 9,18.⁴⁸ Withregardtoauthoritiesapplyingpunishment,Ciceroemphasizes thatanofficebearershouldexterminateanyfeelingofvengeanceinhismind, andbemotivatedbythecorrectionoftheotherperson,andthegoodofthe community.⁴⁹
Painfulpedagogywasnotmerelyperceivedassomethingthattookplace betweenhumans.AmongbothStoicandNeoplatonistphilosophersitwas commontoperceivetheentireuniverseaspedagogicalinnature.They believedthattheworldwasgovernedbyprovidence,aspiritualpowerthat imposedorderonmatter,eitherunderstoodasthedivinespiritthatpervades thematerialworld(Stoics),orasalowerhypostasis flowingfromtheone (Plotinus).Manisacompositeofreasonandmatter,andmustmirrorthe orderingpowerofprovidencebyrulingoverthepassionsofthebody.Inorder todoso,thewisemanmustresisttheinclinationtobecomedependent uponthethingsthatchange,butrathermovealongwithnature(Stoics), and,inthecaseofPlotinianNeoplatonism,attempttoachievecontactwith theundescendedpartofthesoulinthecontemplationoftheOne.⁵⁰ Whenever thesoulsuffersfrompassions,thisistheresultofirrationalattachmentstothe externalworld.Bygivinghimselfovertotheinterestsofthebody,thesoulerrs
⁴³Kolbet, AugustineandtheCureofSouls,41.
⁴⁴ Kolbet, AugustineandtheCureofSouls,46–50.
⁴⁵ Kolbet, AugustineandtheCureofSouls,56.
⁴⁶ Cicero, LaeliusDeamicita,24,88: ‘ ... etmonendiamicisaepesuntetobiurgandi,ethaec accipiendaamice,cumbenevole fiunt’ (Loeb,197).
⁴⁷ Cicero, LaeliusDeamicita,24,90,199.
⁴⁸ conf. 9,17: ‘Evenasfriendsbytheir flatterypervert,sodoenemiesbytheirtauntsoften correctus’ (NPNF1,136).
⁴⁹ Deofficiis,1,33;88–9(Loeb,35–7;89–91).
⁵⁰ J.Rief, DerOrdobegriffdesjungenAugustinus (Paderborn:FerdinandSchöningh,1962), 56–73.
andexperiencesuniversaljustice(dikè)inthesufferingsthatresultfromit.⁵¹ Simultaneously,however,thissufferingadmonishesthesoultoreturntoitself andhealitselffromitslapseintoirrationalbehaviour.Furthermore,itmakes thesoulvigilantnottolapseagainintothesamemistakes,anditexercisesthe soulinvirtue.Inresponsetothequestionwhythegoodsooftensuffer,Seneca responds: ‘Thosewhomthedeitysupportsandloves,hehardens,heexamines, heproves.’⁵²Providencechastises(uerberare),afflicts(lacerare),andprobes (probare)inordertotrainthepowerofthevirtuousman.⁵³Thesameideais expressedbyPlotinuswhenhespeaksabouttheuseofevilin Enn. 3,2,5.⁵⁴ The soulcomestosufferwhenittransgressestheorderofitsnature,whenit inclinestowardsthatwhatisworsethanitself.Thisisitsrighteouspunishment (dikè),imposedonitbyuniversallaw.Goodsoulsprofitfromthisexperience, ‘foritmakesmenawakeandwakesuptheintelligenceandunderstandingof thosewhoareopposedtothewaysofwickedness,andmakesuslearnwhata goodvirtueisbycomparisonwiththeevilsofwhichthewickedhavea share.’⁵⁵ Theideaofachastisingprovidence,whichwemightassociatewith Christianity,wasthusnotatalluncommonamongclassicalphilosophers.⁵⁶
Augustinereceivedtheaforementionedclassicalpedagogicalideasthrough hiseducation,butheprocessedthemasaChristianthinker.Startingoutasa Christianphilosopher,histhoughtisincreasinglyinfluencedbytheBible andtheChristiantradition.Thisstudyseekstoanswertequestionofhow Augustinerelatestotheaforementionedphilosophicalideasinhetdevelopmentofhisthoughtonthesalvificmeaningofdivinejudgement.
LawandPunishmentinAugustine’sThoughtonSalvation
Lawandgrace
WhatdoesthisstudycontributetoexistingdiscussionsinAugustineresearch?
SinceAugustine’sowntimeinterpretersofhisworkhavedisagreedonthe questionwhetherAugustinetaughtaconsistentdoctrineofgracethroughout thecourseofhiscareer.Augustinemadeapleaforhisownconsistencyinthe Retractationes,butnotallhavefoundhisapologyconvincing,fromthe
⁵¹NorbertScholl, Providentia.UntersuchungenzurVorhersehunglehrebeiPlotinundAugustin (InauguralDissertation,Albert-Ludwigs-UniversitätFreiburg,1960),71,100.
⁵²Seneca, Deprouidentia,4,7: ‘Hositaquedeusquosprobat,quosamatinduratrecognoscit exercet’ (translation:Loeb,28–9).
⁵³Seneca, Deprouidentia,4,12(Loeb,30–1).
⁵⁵ Plotinus, Ennead,3,2,5(translation:Loeb,61).
⁵⁴ NorbertScholl, Providentia,100–1.
⁵⁶ ForAugustine’suseofStoicandNeoplatoniccommonplacesinhisdoctrineofprovidence, seeHenryChadwick, ‘ProvidenceandtheProblemofEvilinAugustine’,in CongressoInternazionalesuS.AgostinonelXVIcentenariodellaconversione,Roma,15–20settembre1986,vol.1 (Roma:InstitutumPatristicumAugustinianum,1987),153–62.
14 AugustineontheRedemptiveFunctionofDivineJudgement
Pelagiansofhisowndaystopresent-dayAugustinescholars.⁵⁷ Inthesecond halfofthetwentiethcentury,PeterBrown’sreconstructionofAugustine’ s earlydevelopmentbecameinfluentialinAugustinianscholarship.⁵⁸ Heargued thatAugustinestartedoutasaChristianPlatonist,espousinganidealof Christianperfection,baseduponasynergismbetweengraceandthepower offreewill,butgraduallydiscovered,boththroughhispolemicswiththe Manichees(whoespousedarathernegativeviewofthehumanconditionand supportedtheirviewsbyappealingtothewritingsofPaul)andhiscongregationalexperiencesasayoungpresbyter,thatthebrightfuturehehadenvisionedforhimselfremainedunattainableonthisearth.Humanitylaydownas awoundedmanatthesideoftheroadtoeternity,andwascompletely dependentuponGod’selectingmercytoreachthefatherland.Brownregarded Augustine’srereadingofPaulinthe390sandhiscongregationalexperiences ashavingcausedarupturebothinhisanthropologyandinhisunderstanding ofgrace.Brown’sreconstructionofthedevelopmentofAugustine’sdoctrine ofsinandgracewasadoptedbyotherscholars,suchasPaulaFrederiksenin herdissertationonAugustine’searlyreceptionofPaulandKurtFlaschinhis editionofandcommentaryon AdSimplicianum. ⁵⁹
JamesWetzelalsobelongstothistraditionofscholarship.Inhisbook AugustineandtheLimitsofVirtue hearguesthatAugustine’searlyviewof thehumanwillanditscapacitiesisStoic.WetzelcontendsthatAugustine, beforehebecameapriest, firmlybelievedinthehumanpowerofselfdetermination.Nothingissomuchinthepowerofmanasthewillitself. AccordingtoWetzel,Augustine’songoingpolemicswiththeManicheesinthe 390sledtotheinsightthatthephilosophers’ viewofman’ssubjectivityelevates manabovetime,anddoesn’tdojusticetothetemporalnatureofhuman willing.Hegraduallydiscoveredthatmanalwaysbearsthewrongperception ofthegoodinhismemory(consuetudo),anddoesnothavean ‘eternalcore’ by whichheisabletoemancipatehimselffromhisownpast.Onlythroughan
⁵⁷ Fordifferentpositions,seeAnthonyDupont, ‘ContinuityorDiscontinuityinAugustine?Is ThereanEarlyAugustineandWhatisHisViewofGrace?’ , ArsDisputandi 8(2008),67–79 (esp.67–9).
⁵⁸ PeterBrown, AugustineofHippo:ABiography (NewEditionwithAnEpilogue;Berkeleyand LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2000),139–50.ThisisnottosaythatbeforeBrownthis topichadnotbeendiscussedbyAugustinescholars.Ilimitmyselfheretoabriefsketchof developmentsinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturyandthe firstdecadesofthetwenty-first century.ForolderworksonAugustine’sdoctrineofgrace,seeforexampleK.Janssen, Die EntstehungderGnadenlehreAugustins (Rostock:Hinstorff,1936);A.Niebergall, Augustins AnschuungvonderGnade.IhreEntstehungundEntwicklungvordemPelgianischenStreit (bis zumAbschlussderConfessiones)(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1951).
⁵⁹ K.Flasch, LogikdesSchreckens.DediversisquaestionibusadSimplicianum1,2 [Lateinisch–Deutsch](ExcerptaClassica8;Mainz:Dieterich,1990);PaulaFrederiksen, Augustine’sEarly InterpretationofPaul (UnpublishedDoctoralThesisPrincetonUniversity,1979).
ongoingrecollectionofthegood(whichfromGod’sperspectiveisgrace),will he finallyreachintegrityagaininGod’seternity.⁶⁰
Therewerealsoothervoices,however,whoarguedformorecontinuityin Augustine’sthought.Forexample,in1996Pierre-MarieHombertpublisheda studyinwhichhearguedthatAugustine’stheology,fromitsbeginningsuntil itsend,canbecharacterizedastoglorifyGodinhisgrace,andexcluding allboastinginhumanmerit.Thisfeature,Hombertargued,ispresentin Augustine’swritingsfromtheverybeginning,and findsitsmatureexpression inAugustine’sreadingofPaulinthe390s,especiallyin AdSimplicianum. ⁶¹In astudypublishedaroundthesametime,VolkerHenningDrecollarguedthat Augustine’sunderstandingofgraceisderivedfromhisviewofGodasall defining,andunchangeableCreator.⁶²Thisideacanbetracedbackeventothe CassiciacumDialogues,andisfullydevelopedbyAugustinein Deuera religione (390),longbeforehebeginstocommentonRomansandGalatians. ItwasCarolHarrisonwhoexplicitlytookBrown’sthesisasher ‘target’ inher 2006book RethinkingAugustine’sEarlyTheology. Shecanbeseenasthemost outspokenproponentofthecontinuity-thesis.WithDrecollshethinksthat thedistinctionbetweenGodasCreatorandmanascreatureformsthebasisof Augustine’stheologyofsinandgrace.HumanityfallsawayfromGod,almost bynature,asitwascreated exnihilo.GodtheCreatoristheonlyonewhocan saveusfromourfallintonothingness,asheistheonlyonewhocreatesoutof nothing.AccordingtoHarrison,Augustinefoundtheseideasaffirmedby Paulwhenhestartedtoreadtheapostleinthe390s.Pauldidnotchangehis viewsonsinandgrace,butratheraffirmedthem,althoughAugustinestruggledforawhilewiththeproblemoffreewill,andforamomentsolvedthis problembydefendingtheideathatGod’spredestinationisbaseduponhis foreknowledgeoffaith.⁶³RecentbooksbyLenkaKarfikovaandJarzinho LopezPereirahavereturnedtoamore ‘Brownian’ approachtotheearly Augustine’sdoctrineofgrace.⁶⁴
Thisstudyintendstocontributetothisdiscussionbyaskingthequestion howGod’slawandhispunishmentfeatureinAugustine’sunderstandingof
⁶⁰ JamesWetzel, AugustineandtheLimitsofVirtue (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1992).
⁶¹Pierre-MarieHombert, GloriaGratiae:seglorifierenDieu,principeet findelathéologie augustiniennedelagrȃce (Collectiondesétudesaugustiniennes;SérieAntiquité148;Paris: ÉtudesAugustiniennes,1996).
⁶²VolkerHenningDrecoll, DieEntstehungderGnadenlehreAugustins (Beiträgezur historischenTheologie109;Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1999),355.
⁶³CarolHarrison, RethinkingAugustine’sEarlyTheology:AnArgumentforContinuity (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2006),74–114(‘creationfromnothing’).
⁶⁴ LenkaKarfikova, GraceandtheWillaccordingtoAugustine (SupplementstoVigiliae Christianae;LeidenandBoston:Brill,2012),9–82;JairzinhoLopesPereira, AugustineofHippo andMartinLutheronOriginalSinandJustificationoftheSinner (Refo500AcademicStudies, vol.15;Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,2013),81–121.
16 AugustineontheRedemptiveFunctionofDivineJudgement
theoperationofgrace.Thusfar,thisquestionhasreceivedlittleattentionin theabove-mentioneddiscussions.Mycontentioninthisstudyisthattheshift inAugustine’sthinkingisnotabsolute,butgradual.Althoughhebelievesfrom thebeginninginhumanfallennessandtheneedforthere-creationoftheentire humanperson,hegraduallymovesfromamorephilosophical-pedagogical approachtosalvation(inheritedfromtheGreekapologetictradition)toan approachinwhichfaithinChristandhisatoningdeathonthecrossbecome morecentraltohisthinking.
Augustine’sviewoftemporalpunishment asameanstoconversion
AnotherdiscussionrelatedtothepreviousoneconcernstheoriginofAugustine’ s justificationofstate-sponsoredcoercionoftheDonatists.IntheDonatist controversyAugustinepresentedatheologicaljustificationofthepenalties thatwereissuedbytheEdictofUnityof405againstthosewhoremainedin theDonatistparty.AgainsttheDonatistobjectionthatadherencetoareligionis baseduponthefreechoiceofthewill,AugustinearguedthatGodcoulduse violenceandthethreatofpunishmenttorestrainthepowerofhabitandeffect reflectionandeventuallyconversion.Althoughhehadfearedthattheuseof forcewouldyieldfaintconversions,whenhehadseenitseffectsonthe DonatistsinHippo,hebecameconvincedthatGodhadindeedusedthis meanstoinspiregenuineconversions(cf. ep. 93).
InthediscussionontheevolutionofAugustine’sthoughtonthismatter, scholarssuchasPeterBrown,SandraLee-Dixon,andKurtFlaschhaveargued thatAugustine firstrejectedcoercion,becausehestillhadhighexpectations ofhumanrationalityandfreewill.Inthecourseofhisdevelopmentasa Christiantheologian,however,hebecamemoreandmoreconvincedofthe powerofhabit(uisconsuetudinis)overthehumanmind.Alongwiththis development,heincreasinglyperceivedconversionasaprocess(ratherthan asmatterofimmediateself-determination)inwhichexternalinconveniences haveapreparatoryfunction.AsPeterBrownhasit: ‘Inhisthought,the final, spontaneousactofthewillcouldbeprecededbyalongprocess of eruditio and admonitio inwhichelementsoffear,ofconstraint,ofexternalinconveniencearenever,atanytime,excluded.’⁶⁵ Augustinedidnotperceivetheuse ofexternalforceandthefearitinducedasopposedtorationalteachingand freechoice,butratherasenablingthemindtobecometeachable(docilis),and reflectuponitshabitsinthelightofthetruth.
Atthesametime,Augustinestressed,particularlyafterhehadwritten Ad Simplicianum,thatonlyGoddecidedinwhomtheseexternalmeansledto
⁶⁵ Brown, ‘St.Augustine’sAttitude’,270.
conversion,andwhoweremerelyhardenedintheirunbelief.Brownargues thatthisdoctrineofpredestinationprovidedAugustinewithanewargument tojustifytheuseofexternalforceagainsttheDonatists.Whereashehad formerlyfearedthattheuseofexternalforcewouldfosterhalf-hearted conversions,thedoctrineofpredestinationwouldhaverelievedAugustine’ s conscience.Hecouldleavethe ficti toGod.⁶⁶ Likewise,SandraLee-Dixonhas defendedthisviewoftheearlyAugustine.FollowingBrown,shearguesthat theearlyAugustinestillbelievedthat(thethreatof)temporalpunishmentwas notconducivetoconversion,becauseitwoulddrawpeopleonlytooutward obedience,whereasinwardlytheywouldcontinuetoclingtotheirinferior loves.Therefore,onlyteachingofthegoodcouldbeaneffectivemeansto conversion(withreferenceto ep. 22and35).⁶⁷ WhenAugustinestarted writingthe Confessions,however,hewouldhavecometostresstheideathat habitcanbesostronginhumanbeingsthattheyarenoteven ‘teachable’.They findthemselves antelegem,andthequestionishowcantheybeinfluencedin suchawaythattheyarebrought sublege?Dixon’sansweristhatAugustine cametoregard(thethreatof)sufferingasaneffectivemeanstothisend.⁶⁸ Onlywhensiniscurbedthroughexternalthreatscanonefacilitatethe possibilityofreflectionandanopennesstoteaching.
Brownandothershaveobserved,however,thattheideaofexternalforceas somehowconducivetohumansalvationispresentinAugustinebeforethe 390s.Brownwrites: ‘Fromhisearliestworks,morallyneutralimpingements, suchasthefearofdeathortheinconveniencesofthelifeofthesenses,are acceptedaspartofthe “pulchritudojustitiae” ofauniverseinwhichthisforce ofhabitmaybebrokeninmen.’⁶⁹ ThishasalsobeenobservedbyCarol
⁶⁶ AsimilarbutlessnuancedcasehasbeenmadebyKurtFlasch.Hearguesthatthedoctrine ofpredestination caused AugustinetojustifycoercioninthenameofGod.Hisargumentrunsas follows.PredestinationmeantforAugustinethatGoddisregardedhumanfreewillintheprocess ofsalvation.ThisjustifiedhishumanservantsfollowingGodbyviolatingthefreedomoftheir fellowmen.AsGodhadordainedtheuseoffeartosavethepredestined,hishumanservants wereallowedtofosterthisprocessbycoercion.Thus,theimageofGodasarbitrary, ‘coercive’ rulerwastransferredtohumans.ThiswouldexplainthehistoryofintoleranceinWestern Europe.Acharacteristicquote: ‘JemehrAugustindienatürlicheSittlichkeitunddenrömischen Staatentwertete,jearmseligerihmderfreieWillederUnbegnadetenerschien,umsomehr verlegteerjedenwertvollenInhalt,allewirklicheErfüllungindieGnade.IhrzuHilfezu kommen,undseiesmitrabiattenMassnahmen,warallemallegitimiert.’ (Flasch, Logikdes Schreckens,119).Forhisargument,seepp.114–20.
⁶⁷ S.Lee-Dixon, TheManyLayersofMeaninginMoralArguments:ASelfPsychologicalCase StudyofAugustine’sArgumentsforCoercion,vols1–2(UnpublishedDoctoralDissertation, UniversityofChicago,1993),401,withreferenceto mor. 1,64,CSEL90,68: ‘Meritoapudte [=ecclesiacatholica]uisumest,quamsitsublegeoperatiouana,cumlibidoanimumuastatet cohibeturpoenaemetu,nonamoreuirtutisobruitur.’
⁶⁸ Lee-Dixon, TheManyLayers,402–3.
⁶⁹ Brown, ‘St.Augustine’sAttitude’,271.BrownalsopointstoAugustine’suseoftheword disciplina. AugustineusedthiswordtorefertoGod’schastisementofIsrael,andalsouseditto characterizeGod’spedagogicalintentionswiththeimperiallawsissuedagainsttheDonatists.
