Discussion 3: St. Augustine

Posted by:

|

On:

|

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION SERIES: PART 3

[Click here for the companion YouTube video]

St. Augustine (354–430) was bishop of Hippo from 396 to 430. He was one of the Latin Fathers of the Church and is considered the most significant Christian thinker after St. Paul. His most influential works have been City of God and Confessions. It is hard to overstate the influence of Augustine in nearly all aspects of theology, but some notable contributions include original sin, the unity of soul and body, the visible and invisible church, salvation through grace, predestination of the elect, just war theory, and an allegorical interpretation of many OT and NT passages.

In discussion topic #1, we looked at possible spiritual meanings of scriptural passages in addition to the literal meaning. One of these possible spiritual meanings is allegorical. Augustine is famous for his “double love” hermeneutic, which states that all Scripture must be interpreted using the principle of the double love of God and neighbor. If a literal interpretation does not affirm godly love and condemn ungodly love, it cannot be interpreted literally and must be interpreted figuratively, typically using allegory. This is often the case with OT passages, where spiritual meaning has been concealed as with a veil. The incarnation of Christ has lifted this veil so that the allegorical meanings of the OT are now apparent.

The following are two excerpts from the writings of St. Augustine. The first is on the double love hermeneutic. The second is on the allegorical interpretation of Scripture.

AUGUSTINE ON THE DOUBLE LOVE HERMENEUTIC

Reading: Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. [On Christian Doctrine, Ch. 36, ¶40]

AUGUSTINE ON THE LITERAL AND ALLEGORICAL SENSES OF SCRIPTURE

Reading: This is the form of words used by the Apostle: “The Law was our paedagogus to Christ” (Galatians 3: 24). God thus gave humanity a pedagogue whom they might fear, and later gave them a master whom they might love. But in these precepts and commands of the Law which Christians may not now lawfully obey, such as the Sabbath, circumcision, sacrifices, and the like, there are contained such mysteries that every religious person may understand there is nothing more dangerous than to take whatever is there literally, and nothing more wholesome than to let the truth be revealed by the Spirit. For this reason: “The letter kills but the Spirit brings life” (2 Corinthians 3: 6). And again: “The same veil remains in the reading of the Old Testament and there is no revelation, for in Christ the veil is removed” (2 Corinthians 3: 14). It is not the Old Testament that is abolished in Christ but the concealing veil, so that it may be understood through Christ. That which without Christ is obscure and hidden is, as it were, opened up. […] [Paul] does not say: “The Law or the Old Testament is abolished.” It is not the case, therefore, that by the grace of the Lord that which was covered has been abolished as useless; rather, the covering which concealed useful truth has been removed. This is what happens to those who earnestly and piously, not proudly and wickedly, seek the sense of the Scriptures. To them is carefully demonstrated the order of events, the reasons for deeds and words, and the agreement of the Old Testament with the New, so that not a single point remains where there is not complete harmony. The secret truths are conveyed in figures that are to be brought to light by interpretation. [De Utilitate Credendi, III]

4 responses to “Discussion 3: St. Augustine”

  1. Kraig Stanforth Avatar
    Kraig Stanforth

    Augustine struggled with the consequences of the guilt of sin especially as it effected babies who died in birth. To Augustine to rid the baby of original sin – baptism was administered. In ancient Christianity- baptism was often administered to sick and dying infants. 1100 years later Martin Luther, an Augustinian Monk, would justify infant baptism even though Luther taught justification by faith alone / Luther came up with Peda Fida – baby faith – God infuses faith into the infant. I believe Augustine misses the mark by the emphasis on original sin (guilt of Adam) and over looks the effect of the work of Christ on the human race that is wiped clean by original grace. If one man sin (Adam) passed on guilt to the entire race how much more did one man (Christ) pour out grace – the guilt of Adam is wiped clean – so that each person is only responsible for their own sin.

    1. Richard Avatar
      Richard

      Thanks for the thoughts on Augustine and original sin, Kraig. It is interesting that basically all major theological systems hold to original sin inherited from Adam. The issue with this, as Augustine struggled with, is infant salvation. This is a thread about biblical interpretation, and so I will end it here. But I would love your thoughts on the Infant Salvation post.

      https://rebtheology.com/infant-salvation/

      1. Kraig Stanforth Avatar
        Kraig Stanforth

        Sorry about not keeping on topic here – I can’t resist a pot shot at old St Augustine – some views that I agree with but others that I believe had deep consequences in western history. The double hermaneutic application that was common of early Christian fathers and has its problems with allowing the plain meaning of the text to be allorgorized to death. A good rule of hermanuetics should be that the text can not mean anything different today than what it meant to the original audience. IE text can not mean something different in 2025 AD than it did in 95 AD. An example of this is The book of Revelation which has gone thru many versions of interpretation thru history which is based on political ,cultural and economic events happening at the time.

        1. Richard Avatar
          Richard

          Do you think that OT stories can be understood differently in light of the NT? If so, wouldn’t they mean something different now than what they meant to the original audience? I know that you cite 95 AD and 2025 AD, but what about 95 BC versus 2025 AD?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *