My friend, Mark Shane, alerted me to this passage in Augustine's *Of the Trinity* Book XIII which I had not seen before (or if I had, it had not registered). He also provided a number of patristic citations that run the reconciliation in the other direction, but those seem to refer to it in passing; this treats the matter in depth:
CHAP. 11.--A DIFFICULTY, HOW WE ARE JUSTITIFIED IN THE BLOOD OF THE SON OF GOD.
15. But what is meant by "justified in His blood?" What power is there in this blood, I beseech you, that they who believe should be justified in it? And what is meant by "being reconciled by the death of His Son?" Was it indeed so, that when God the Father was wroth with us, He saw the death of His Son for us, and was appeased towards us? Was then His Son already so far appeased towards us, that He even deigned to die for us; while the Father was still so far wroth, that except His Son died for us, He would not be appeased? And what, then, is that which the same teacher of the Gentiles himself says in another place: "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; how has He not with Him also freely given us all things?" Pray, unless the Father had been already appeased, would He have delivered up His own Son, not sparing Him for us? Does not this opinion seem to be as it were contrary to that? In the one, the Son dies for us, and the Father is reconciled to us by His death; in the other, as though the Father first loved us, He Himself on our account does not spare the Son, He Himself for us delivers Him up to death. But I see that the Father loved us also before, not only before the Son died for us, but before He created the world; the apostle himself being witness, who says, "According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." Nor was the Son delivered up for us as it were unwillingly, the Father Himself not sparing Him; for it is said also concerning Him, "Who loved me, and delivered up Himself for me." Therefore together both the Father and the Son, and the Spirit of both, work all things equally and harmoniously; yet we are justified in the blood of Christ, and we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son.
13 comments:
Who says differently?
You might wish to compare St. Augustine's words here to the words of the Blessed John Gerhard:
Let us admire the marvelous wisdom of our God, who could devise a
scheme for our redemption, which neither the angels nor men could
have devised. Infinite good was offended; an infinite satisfaction
was required. Man had offended God, from man the satisfaction for
sin must be required. But finite man could not possibly render an
infinite satisfaction, nor could divine justice be satisfied but on
the payment of an infinite ransom. For this reason God became man
that, for man who had sinned, He might render a perfect satisfaction
for sin, and as God who was infinite He might pay an infinite price
for our redemption. Well may we wonder at this stupendous
reconciliation of divine justice and mercy, which no one, before God
was manifest in the flesh, could have devised, nor after He was
manifest, could fully comprehend. (Sacred Meditation XIV: On the
Incarnation)
Ok, I have compare them. Both of them say that although God was our enemy due to sin, He also loved us, and therefore became flesh and died in order to reconcile us to Himself. The two are in agreement.
Who isn't?
Eric,
I think you and I are not reading the Augustine passage in the same way, perhaps; especially this point:
"Pray, unless the Father had been already appeased, would He have delivered up His own Son, not sparing Him for us?"
You seem to be reading that as a rhetorical question, as if Augustine means to say the Father _had_ been appeased. It's not, and he doesn't. He is not solving the problem yet, but setting it up. He says, if I may paraphrase, "There are some verses that say the death of the Son reconciled the Father to us (i.e. appeased Him), but if He was our enemy (thus needing to be appeased), why would He have freely given His Son for me, as other verses attest?" His explanation runs to the end of chapter 16, but we can tell from the amount you have quoted here (as well as from the fact that he has drawn both apparently contradictory statements from Scripture, which cannot contradict itself) that he intends to explain how BOTH can be true: how the Son could appease the Father on our behalf even though the whole Trinity loved us "equally and harmoniously" already, as if already appeased.
His answer is well-summarized by this quotation from section 21 in chapter 16:
"Therefore 'we shall be saved from wrath through Him;' from the wrath certainly of God, which is nothing else but just retribution. For the wrath of God is not, as is that of man, a perturbation of the mind; but it is the wrath of Him to whom Holy Scripture says in another place, 'But Thou, O Lord, mastering Thy power, judgest with calmness.' If, therefore, the just retribution of God has received such a name, what can be the right understanding also of the reconciliation of God, unless that then such wrath comes to an end? Neither were we enemies to God, except as sins are enemies to righteousness; which being forgiven, such enmities come to an end, and they whom He Himself justifies are reconciled to the Just One. And yet certainly He loved them even while still enemies, since 'He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all,' when we were still enemies."
So Augustine is not saying the Father had already been appeased, but rather is explaining how it can be that God can love us BEFORE being appeased to us, and thus be moved to effect that appeasement Himself. It is because His wrath is not a "perturbation of the mind," such as would conflict with love, but is rather the "just retribution" deserved by our sins.
Gerhard's language in the quotation you have produced is more Anselmian than Augustinian, but I do not see how it contradicts Augustine. Although he speaks of God being "offended," which might suggest to you a personal grudge on God's part, he shows that this is not what he means when he identifies the solution as the satisfaction, not of God's wounded dignity, but of divine justice.
Eric,
I don't think that is what he is doing at all. The further paragraphs clearly see him speak of us being freed from the power of the devil, the enemy, not as appeasing the Father. He specifically rejects the language of appeasing the Father, it seems to me. Did I miss that in there somewhere? Of course he speaks of Christ delivering us from wrath - glory to Jesus Christ for that! -but does He speak of Christ enduring wrath? The devil takes him unjustly and this is the devil's undoing. This seems to be the thrust of his argument, no?
Oh, and Eric, I was also specifically thinking of this passage which is a bit further on, fwiw:
Neither were we enemies to God, except as sins are enemies to righteousness; which being forgiven, such enmities come to an end, and they whom He Himself justifies are reconciled to the Just One. And yet certainly He loved them even while still enemies, since "He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all," when we were still enemies. And therefore the apostle has rightly added.: "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son," by which that remission of sins was made, "much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved in His life." Saved in life, who were reconciled by death. For who can doubt that He will give His life for His friends, for whom, when enemies, He gave His death? "
Pr. Weedon,
Yes, Augustine explains how the devil's unjust killing of Christ breaks the power of sin and death. That does not interfere in the least with the reading I have proposed. The whole scenario he describes works only because it is _just_ (i.e. in accord with divine justice) that the devil should hold the power of death over sinners (see section 16). In fact, the devil's breach of justice could ruin his power over men only if he held that power in the first place by right of the very justice he violated when he killed Christ.
In other words, God saved us from the devil because He loved us; but that we should be in the devil's custody in the first place accorded with divine justice. If the wrath of God is His just retribution, as Augustine says here, and His retribution is to abandon man to the tyranny the devil, as Augustine also says here, then the wrath of God is our fallen state of being alienated from God and hence the lawful prey of Satan (A=B, B=C, A=C).
This leads us to several conclusions:
1) Yes, Christ did endure God's wrath, because the wrath of God is not an emotion, but rather abandonment to the power of the devil, whose power is death. Christ was thus abandoned ("My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"), and thus died.
2) Since appeasement is the removal of wrath, and God's wrath is His judgment, and the death of Christ effects the removal of this judgment, it therefore appeases God. Augustine has thus explained the Scripture he set out to explain: "...being reconciled by the death of His Son."
The interpretation Augustine is opposing is the misconception that anthropomorphizes God's wrath so as to assume that it cannot coexist with His love, and then tries to solve the conundrum by dividing the wrath and love of God between the Father and the Son. When God's wrath is understood simply as judgment dispassionately administered by the One Who is Justice, it becomes clear that "appeasing God" does not mean changing His disposition, but rather satisfying His justice--somnething that Father and Son together (with the Holy Spirit) carry out for us.
Eric,
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about what St. Augustine meant! : )
Could you explain how you derive your interpretation?
...or even exactly how your interpretation differs from mine?
Eric,
Not during Holy Week (and with at least one funeral staring me in the face!). Maybe we can pick up the conversation after Easter.
Pax!
Understood. Must be a very busy week for you.
Post a Comment