The Trinity, Book 2, Chapter 3

In this chapter, Augustine is concerned with the problem of what aspects of the Trinity manifests itself in the Old Testament.

Augustine again emphasizes the issue of time as an aspect of the Holy Spirit's manifestation. In other words, it is only with the appearance of the Spirit in time that it manifests itself visibly--time and the senses are visually linked. The Holy Spirit is different than Jesus' manifestations as a "servant" form since the Holy Spirit manifests itself then "ceases" to be (106).

So, having again reinforced the idea of time and the human senses, Augustine moves on to a discussion of who appeared in the Old Testament? Before that, however, Augustine takes on those who think of Jesus as they would the human soul. Their confusion has to do with likening the invisibility of the soul within that of the divine invisibility. However, the difference lies in changeability, for God created the soul, and thus, it is a "spiritual substance" subject to change (107).

Thus, Augustine gives those people no truck. He writes that they do not understand that the "substance...remains not only invisible but also unchangeable, and therefore abides in true and genuine immortality" (108). Having established this, Augustine is ready to pursue exactly who or what manifested in the Old Testament.

The Trinity, Book 2, Chapter 2

In this chapter, Augustine meditates on what it means that the Son was "sent" by the Father. He defines this as "going forth from the Father and coming into this world" (101). To understand the concept of "sent" Augustine comments that it is the part about being made of woman that sent refers to.

Augustine further explains that God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit were already here. The "sent" refers to the idea of being inserted into time, in this case through the birthing process. So, Jesus entering into the world as flesh through Mary renders language, the Word, into a fleshly component.

To further elucidate the language concept, Augustine points out that symbolic acts are given significance through the act itself to things that already existed. This is an exegetical move. He writes that Isaac "became Christ" (105) when he carried the wood for his sacrifice. Isaac would have already existed; its his symbolic actions that give it significance.

Can we, then, extrapolate from the event of Jesus' birth through Mary that although she already existed, it is her symbolic action of giving birth that give her significance? Is this symbolism reductive?

The Trinity, Book 2: Prologue and Chapter One

Augustine begins Book 2 with a discussion in the prologue of how the Bible creates a problem for readers as it takes many forms. Poems, gospels, parables, the Bible forces the reader to make choices that Augustine implies are difficult especially as it comes to interpretation. Augustine writes that he going to put forth his reading but "would rather receive any sort of censure than mistaken or flattering praise" (97)--as if to invite to crowd-sourcing exegetical practice.

Book 2: Chapter One

Augustine is again concerned with thinking about the univocity of the Trinity. The problem can be expressed as how to understand the Son being derived from God and still be equal with God. Augustine unpacks this problem using John 5:19--"Whatever the Father does, the same the son also does likewise." By using "the same" and "likewise" John is indicating that they are "equal and indivisible" but also that "the son cannot do anything of himself except what he sees the Father doing" (99).

The problem in other terms is the differences between "from" and "equal." The problem is that "derived from" is thought of as being "unequal" but really it only describes a sequence of order in time. The Son is derived from the Father in time but not necessarily in magnitude.

Augustine, then, reinforces, the univocity of the Trinity by parsing out the cause of inequality as derived from thinking that something that may come afterward is "inferior." Rather, progression does not equate with equality, and the Trinity is equal even if it occurs in time differently (although, as emphasized before, the Word was always there and the Word is Jesus). By progression, Augustine, I assume, is meaning Jesus as manifested in flesh which doesn't violate the problem of equality, but does indeed put Jesus in time.

The Trinity, Book One, Chapter Four

Augustine concludes Book I with further discussion on the resonances of Christ and God. He sets forth this exegetical formula: we need to "distinguish the two resonances" [...] one turned to the form of God in which he is and is equal to the Father, the other turned to the form of a servant in which he too is and is less than the Father" (82). So Augustine is considering again the problem of forms: the form is God vs. the form of the servant.

One important aspect of faith is unpacked with the passage "He who believes in me does not believe in me" (Jn 12:44). This apparent contradiction seems initially shocking. By this, Augustine explains that faith is not what one sees--he further points out and interprets--he "who believes does not believe in what he sees" or he who believes is not limited to only seeing. Thus, a truly faithful person sees Jesus, but also sees beyond Jesus to God. If we believe in God, who we do not see, Jesus invites us to believe in him in the same way. Jesus is inviting the faithful to believe in the beyond of the flesh in order to believe in the univocity of the Trinity. As long as one is hung-up on (so to speak) Jesus as flesh then faith is limited to the sensory, and, thus, is not really faith in the Augustinian sense.

Augustine concludes this book with an invitation to try out different interpretations of understanding the connection between Jesus and God as long as they do not contradict "sound doctrine." By this, Augustine hopes to side-step the "trap" of the heretics--who are "dogmatists" (according to the notes).

The Trinity, Book One, Chapter Three

This chapter revolves around the problem of how to understand Jesus' comment, "the father is greater than I" (Jn 14:28) in light of the unity of the Trinity.

Augustine first critiques those who do not consider the whole scripture focusing on only one part or taking a piece out of context. Augustine attempts to resist this kind of Biblical "cherry-picking" himself by practicing an exegesis in this chapter that invokes the letters of Paul (Corinthians, Timothy), the Gospels (Matthew, John), as well as OT texts (Exodus, Psalms, Isaiah).

He further untangles this passage by invoking a distinction between "nature" and "condition": "the Son of God is God the Father's equal by nature, by condition his inferior" (74). So, the consequence of this is that God and Jesus (and the Holy Spirit, though not addressed here) share a unified nature, again repeating the discussion of Book 2. However, by taking on flesh, Jesus' condition has been rendered inferior--so by "condition," Augustine is invoking accidental or secondary qualia rather than inner essence. In this way, the accidental or secondary qualities differentiate the three, but do not make one lesser, except in those very qualities, which, in Augustine's logic, are incidental, not essential.

This involve a discussion of faith; Faith cannot rely on the senses. Thus, the servant quality of the Trinity--in the form of Christ--leaves the earth. Because of the emphasis on seeing Jesus (and, thus, seeing is believing) then the emphasis is on the accidental quality and not the shared essence of Christ and God.

Augustine concludes this chapter with a discussion of love. Again, he wants to emphasize the univocity of love, and, thus, when it is said God loves you, the underlying meaning is that all three "aspects" share in that love. This love is about our future being, not how we are now--and here is where faith reenters the conversation. For Augustine our faith is something aimed at the future, it cannot be seen since the future is unknowable within the constraints of our own comprehension of time. Thus, God's love for us is a promise to be fulfilled in the future. We believe before we see and in the act of faith, God loves. God does not love us for what we are now (fleshly beings, perhaps?). Augustine wants to emphasize our future capability, rather than the present being.

The Trinity: Book I, Chapter 2

In this chapter, Augustine wants to emphasize further the unity of the Trinity. Augustine raises the problem of how each aspect of the Trinity is one, and, yet, each aspect can act in different ways while retaining its unity.

Augustine begins with a discussion of what the Trinity is not. For example, it is not all of them who are born of the Virgin Mary, but Jesus alone. It is not all of them that descends upon Jesus as a dove, this is the Holy Spirit alone. Nor is it all three who declares "you are my son" at Jesus' baptism, but God alone. So Augustine is emphasizing the Trinity's ability to act, but without all three acting and, yet, they retain their unity. This is, of course, the mystery of the Trinity as well as one of the problem for believers and non-believers.

Augustine emphasizes that even the beginning of Biblical history confirms the Trinity by emphasizing that when John writes that "the word was with God and the word was God"--the "Word of God," Augustine writes, is indicative of the Son.

Throughout this chapter, Augustine is re-emphasizing the unity of the Trinity by showing how the disparate actions are still connected--or, more succinctly, never separate; for example, in an anti-Semitic move, Augustine writes that the Jews crucified the flesh of Jesus--they did not see the divinity. To see the divine requires something superhuman, thus Jesus was connected with the Holy Spirit and God, and these elements were not crucified.

He leaves this chapter with a meditation on the body as a member of Christ, which also houses the spirit, but the body, as well, is from God. Thus, the body shall be used to reveal the story of God (from Corinthians).

The Trinity: Chapter One

With this blog post, I begin with Augustine's larger works. I'm hoping to work through The Trinity as well as sprinkle in some of Jean-Luc Marion's work on Augustine. Then, I would like to go back to The Confessions and read that in tandem with Brown's biography of Augustine.

Augustine begins De Trinitate with a letter to Aurelius of Carthage which situates this work as a work of Augustine's youth but only published in his old age. Augustine indicates that this work was pirated with many parts missing. He is handing over an "authoritative" text.

The first chapter is concerned with his audience. Augustine frames this concern as focused on those who attribute worldly features to God. He insists God is not like these worldly attributes and they are misunderstanding the concept of God's essence by understanding God only through the material world. Some of these people are too attached to reason. This book is addressed, then, to three groups of people prone to error: those who conceive of God in bodily terms, those who do so in terms of created spirit such as soul" and those who think of him as neither but still have false ideas (65). So, in order to understand the nature of God, we have to step away from ideas of God as something understood with in the logic of matter AND the soul.

Augustine admits there is a problem of understanding God's essence: "without any change in itself makes things change and without any passage of time in itself creates things that exist in time" (66)--Augustine's goal is to explain how these apparent paradoxes make sense.

The point of De Trinitate then, is to account for God as a trinity and to understand how God, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one and the same substance or essence" (67).

The Teacher: Division 2 (b) (the End)

Augustine begins with a discussion of how without knowledge of the thing, signs cannot teach us anything about the thing itself.

Augustine further argues that nothing is learned by words. For Augustine learning occurs in this sequence: "we learn the meaning of word--that is the signification hidden in the sound--once the thing signified is itself known, rather than our perceiving of it by means of such signification" (137). We learn meaning, then, once the thing is seen--it is only then that the word makes sense.

Thus, for Augustine, words only have power in their ability to get us to look for things.

For Augustine, as well, what he understands, he believes, but not everything he believes does he understand. Believing and understanding, then, are two very different things.

In the end, Augustine warns his son about the power of words and not to give them too much power. Words are merely a "prompt" to learn and nothing more (146).

The Teacher: Discussion of Division (b)

In his section Augustine and Adeodatus discuss those things that can be "exhibited through themselves" (131) without signs, meaning things such as actions.

Augustine asks if there are things that can not be exhibited without a sign. Through a circuitous route, Augustine concludes that there are plenty of things that can be shown without signs. He uses the example of a bird-catcher--when a man comes upon a bird-catcher he desires to understand what the man is doing. Without telling him, the bird-catcher uses his tools to catch a bird thus explaining, without the use of words. The men then figures out who the bird-catcher is and what he is doing.

In this way, Augustine can move to a theological argument concluding this brief discussion: doesn't God show the sun and light without presumably telling us about them?

This jump may be a way to suggest a discussion is about to ensue on how God may reveal himself without signs?

The Teacher, The Discussion of Division (a)

In this initial discussion of divisions, Augustine and Adeodatus argue over how to define those signs that signify things--which they call "signifiables."

The greater point that Augustine imparts is that the thing and the usage of the word is more important than the word itself. In other words the knowledge of the thing is more important than the sign connected to it.

In Augustine's words "the use of words should itself already be preferred to words; words exist so that we may use them. Furthermore, we use them in order to teach. Hence teaching is better than speaking to the same extent that the speaking is better than the words. The teaching is, therefore, that much better than words" (129). As a side note, Augustine seems to be championing an anti-materialist approach to language. I'm intrigued by this, since, much later, Bede (a fan of Augustine, thoug not above criticizing him subtly) in his On Things connects the creation of words to very material circumstances and events.

One who is a slave to the word, in this case, is led astray. The use of words is what must be focused on. This is a point Augustine is going to develop further in De Trinitate, in that he is going to critique a belief in Jesus only, the flesh of Jesus more specifically, as not real faith. Thus, Jesus-as-thing is not where faith lies. One must look beyond the material in order to experience the univocity of the Trinity, which cannot be materially contained (a point I will discuss in future blog posts about De Trinitate).  Augustine wants to unhook the connection between sign and thing and to think about each separately, as well as how each may influence the other or how we may get caught up in understanding the sign only. Knowledge of the signified is preferable to the signs, though not to "knowledge of signs"--this is how Augustine leaves this section: the lesson here is to reinforce the knowledge of things and signs and not necessarily the signs-for-themselves. This dovetails with the beginning of this section in which Augustine asks Adeodatus if he is a "man"--when Adeodatus says "yes," Augustine jumps all over this and corrects him in thinking about how "man" is just a word. Thus knowing about signs would have allowed him to answer more succinctly. Augustine can be accused of trapping Adeodatus in a semantic trap, but his point will be greater in future discussions of distinctions.

The Teacher, Part 2: Beginning Discussion of the Division of Signs

This discussion ends with Augustine wondering where they are going with this discussion in the first place and wanting to assure Adeodatus that the exercise of the mind--even if it is in "play" is a sign of good.

Although this is a transhistorical comment, I could not help but think about how this discussion is a comment that resonates with our own age and the larger discussion about the purpose and decline of the humanities (and the university itself). What will become of university life as the push in higher education becomes more about careerism and training for work and less about a larger sense of the life of the mind--admittedly I am making a class-based comment for who can afford to pursue the life of the mind, as it is so called, except the affluent. But, I'm not sure that just because the practice of the life of the mind has trickled down from the privileged class that something at the heart of it should necessarily be abandoned. There is value to the the critical question, the investigative gaze, the refusal to bend to work (or capitalist) time by losing oneself in the book. To create, to make, to innovate--these are qualities of a life of the mind. I'm not sure how simple job training may allow one to do these things.

 As we become more conversant only in small bites, i.e. twitter-speak or texting, the critical question becomes can we have longer and larger conversations that the life of the mind wants to ensure. I am certainly not a Luddite, I love texting, social media, etc., but I am also aware that the conversations I've had over a pot of coffee in an afternoon are much more enriching than a conversation that occurs and is often misunderstood over a text. Over the course of reading Augustine's dialogue, it is pointed to note that these conversations occur over days. They pickup where they leave off and, although Augustine is representing these dialogues to prove his own point, what he is unable to obscure is the good, the companionship, the bonding that occurs over the course of the conversation.

As Augustine phrases it, "to exercise the mind's strength and sharpness, with which we're able to not only withstand but also to love the heat of life of the region where the happy life is" (122).

As to this discussion regarding signs, the dialogue in this section boils down signification and how it comes in three forms. There are signs that cannot be signified by the signs they signify (conjunctions); there are those that do signify what they sign. They further divide this kind of signification into general and specific signification. This category distinction has to do with how the word "word" follows under the general definition of "sign" but means specifically linguistic signs and not, say, pictograms. Sign means "more" than "word" in terms of its ability to signify.

They will, of course, parse this further in the next section.

The Teacher, Part Two: The Nature of Signs

The discussion continues with an agreement: words are signs.

Adeodatus and Augustine unpack the meaning of the sentence: "if nothing from so great a city it pleases the gods be left...". The conversation becomes stuck on the word "nothing." How can a word signify "no" thing if, by the very definition, it has to signify something?

What strikes me here is that they are practicing a very slow, very intense close reading, but predicating that each word must signify an object. This is going to be important for Augustine later in the debate so that he prove that words are misleading (and by extension words are necessary for faith). Augustine runs into problems with the word "nothing." To get out of this sticky wicket they include "states of mind" as also being signified in words.

As they unpack the sentence, they also come up with these rules of signification and what we don't necessarily need to signify:

a) things we are not doing when we are asked about them and can do them on the spot (without signs--and this aspect is going to come back in future discussions).
b) the very signs we happen to be doing (for example, walking).

This then turns to a discussion about the division of signs themselves which I will deal with in the next blog.

The Teacher, Part One: The Purpose of Language

This debate is between Augustine and his 16-year-old son, Adeodatus. The edited edition I am using divides the dialogue into specific themes and topics. I'll follow that pattern in the blog posts.

Part One: The Purpose of Language

The debate opens with a discussion of the purpose of speaking. Adeodatus posits that to speak is to teach or learn. Augustine does not agree. For him, teaching is the purpose of speaking. Adeodatus argues that one is not necessarily teaching when one is singing. So, Augustine puts an amend on it--how about the purpose of language is to teach AND to remind ourselves (spoiler: this is going to be his conclusion, as well).

Augustine side-steps Adeodatus' challenge by suggesting that singing and speaking are two different things and that singing sometimes does not involve words (for example, bird singing). Thus, speaking words is for teaching and reminding. Adeodatus agrees. What Augustine seems to be missing here is how birds may actually be using singing. Singing is not merely aesthetic, which Augustine seems to be implying. But, he leaves behind the problem of singing to pursue speech itself.

Prayer, though, is not speaking. It happens in the mind because God does not need teaching (and Augustine will posit later on that God is the only true teacher, we're, at best, mimes). Prayer happens in the "inner man"--in the "bedchamber of the heart" and the "temple of the mind" so there is no need for speaking in prayer. Thus, when Jesus taught the disciples, he was teaching then the words to pray with. Thus when we pray, we are not teaching but "reminding" ourselves of Jesus--thus "the words are signs come to mind." Augustine concludes then that prayer is a kind of internal speaking, not external, used to remind ourselves, not teach God.

In this initial section, I can sense Augustine's need to think about the purpose of words. In later sections, he will expound on thinking about signification of words and their use and how this effects speech, knowledge, and learning.

Peter Brown: The Body and Society, Chapter 19. "Augustine: Sexuality and Society"

A bit of a hiatus, but hoping to continue with this blog a little more semi-regularly. Today's post will deal with some work on Augustine to live-up to my initial concept for this blog, which was to compile commentary on all aspects of Augustine, even commentary on commentary.

Brown ends his magisterial study of sexuality in early Christianity with a chapter on Augustine's work. Brown argues that sexuality and virginity were variously regarded by early Church Fathers who were affected by their audience, social class, as well as how solid a foothold Christianity had on a local level. For Brown, Augustine is the end of an era. Augustine is a figure who must struggle with an active sexuality. Marriage was not an option for hum, so his early life is marked by life with a concubine with whom he fathered a child. Once Augustine renounces sexuality, as Brown phrases it, he is "free to serve God" (388).

Brown points out that male friendship was where "deeper" satisfactions were found. Calling him a "young professor on the make" Augustine was faithful to his concubine, but his marginal social class in Carthage left hm little options in terms of relationships. The relationship with his concubine was "frankly sexual" (390) and the fact that they had only one child in thirteen years indicates to Brown that they must have practiced birth control.

Augustine's sexual experience influences his theological thinking in a very explicit way (perhaps, more so considering Brown's discussion of the other Church Fathers). Brown interprets Augustine's use of sexual love to show how much we have fallen. Sexual love is a shadow or "leaden shadow" (394) of sex in Paradise. Augustine doesn't get too hung up on virginity and sexuality like figures such as Jerome, for Augustine death in the form of martyrdom is a greater thing than conquering sexuality through virginity.

What is perhaps the most interesting element of Augustine's theology in Brown's work, and one I relish to read more about throughout this project, is Augustine's reading of Adam and Eve. Rather than situate Adam and Eve in a time of distant past, even in a mode that is so different than our own, Augustine insists that sex, marriage, even society, are "not alien to the original definition of humanity" (399). Rather, God had created Adam and Even for "the joys of society" (400). Augustine's exegesis reflects Adam and Eve as familiar with the form of society. Thus, Adam and Eve were already fully sexual beings.

Sexual drive post-Fall, however, indicates how the soul is out of whack with the body. The sexual will shows us how "disruptive" the Fall is to our world. As Brown writes, "Augustine never found a way, any more than any of his contemporaries, of articulating the possibility that sexual pleasure might in itself, enrich the relationship between husband and wife" (402).

Marriage, for Augustine, was a sign that men and women could live in concord. But, death is unnatural--death reveals how the soul wants to be with the body. Another sign that the body and soul are aligned as they were in Prelapsarian Eden. Augustine's ideal was the body, the soul and society living harmoniously and not twisted by the fallen will (407).

I'm looking forward to further insights from Brown in his biography of Augustine. It is on the stack.