Romans as Read in the School and in the Cloister:
The Commentaries of Peter Abelard and William of Saint Thierry
Abbaye
Notre-Dame-du-Lac, Oka, Qc
The commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans by Peter Abelard
and William of Saint Thierry were written between 1133 and 1139 in the region
of Reims, in France. One was written in a school were Abelard taught and the
other in the monastery of Signy where William entered after retiring as Abbot
of Saint Thierry. William's commentary was written before his letter and
treatise against Peter Abelard that led to the latter's condemnation at the
Council of Sens in 1140.[1]
We will use the semiotics of biblical commentaries to analyze the
interpretations of the figure of Paul and Rom 8: 1-30. Each commentary will be
presented according to its analytical, contextual and hermeneutical frame
(Grenholm and Patte 2000, 1-56).
Semiotics
adds a new dimension to the analysis of two important ancient commentaries on
Rom 8. It does this by delving beyond the themes that scholars normally comment
on in relation to Abelard's and William of Saint Thierry's work. Semiotics
uncovers the way the figurative plane of Romans is reinterpreted by these
authors. And, in doing so highlights the separation between theological and
mystical interpretation that took place at this time in history. The presentation of the semiotics of
biblical commentaries gives an abbreviated presentation of some technical
terms. This methodology will be used throughout this paper and will always be
in the background. But, beyond this section, we will try to limit the use of
technical terms in order to facilitate the reader's task.
The analysis of the commentaries is based on a linguistic analysis of
discourse, and more precisely on the semiotics of biblical commentaries as
developed by Louis Panier (1978a; 1978b; 1979a; 1979b; 1980; 1984) and
completed by John Doutre (2002). Semiotic analysis according to the school of
Greimas[2]
distinguishes between two components of discourse: 1) the syntactic component
deals with changes of states and the operations that produce these changes
within discourse; 2) the semantic component takes into account the relations
between the figures and their thematization (a thematic role is a condensation
of a several figurative paths). Our presentation of the syntactic component of
the texts will be limited to the actantial schema that articulates the
different actantial roles of the actorial figures. The semantic component has
three levels of analysis:
1) The
figures (the words in a text as part of a web of relations with the other words
or figures), that are on a same plane of meaning, are grouped as a figurative
path. In Rom 8: 1-17, all the figures can be grouped in two figurative paths:
the figurative path of the flesh and that of the spirit.
2) Each thematic role condenses one or more figurative paths; Rom 8, 2
presents the law of the spirit of life assuming the thematic role of liberator
and I/you assumes the role of the one liberated.
3) The different thematic roles function on two isotopes (planes of
meaning that take into account the whole text). Our analysis of this component
will deal mainly with figures or syntagms (clusters of figures), figurative
paths and thematic roles.
We do not consider a commentary as a mirror that reflects a meaning
given once and for all by the text of origin, a meaning that the commentaries
repeat or reflect in different ways. A commentary transforms the structures
of signification and, by the same token, produces new effects of meaning.
The semiotics of the biblical commentary deal mostly with the way in which a
text operates this transformation. And so, a figure coming from the commented
text passes from one form that articulates signification to another form
articulated in the commentary and producing other effects of meaning. What does
the commentary do with the figures of the commented text? First of all, it can
extract these figures from their context of origin and integrate them in an
expanded figurative path: this will be called an expansion. Or it can
integrate a figure in a new figurative path that is condensed by a new thematic
role: this will be called a recategorization. And so any
recategorization presupposes that the commentary has introduced a new
figurative path and a new thematic role that is not in the original context.
Through the syntactic component, the commentary can add new actorial figures or
the same figures can take on new actantial roles; thus it transforms the
syntactic articulation of the actorial figures.
This linguistic approach makes a distinction between two levels of a
discourse: enunciation and enunciate. On the level of the enunciation, the
enunciator is the instance responsible for producing the discourse (and not the
author) and the enunciatee (and not the reader) is the instance set up by the
text to receive the communication of the text or to read the text. For
practical purposes, we will often talk about the enunciatee/reader.[3]
The type of communication used by the enunciator to transmit an object to the
enunciatee gives us information on the bridge category (Grenholm and Patte
2000, 37-39) chosen by the enunciator. Does the discourse wish to convey an
obligation, a will to do something, a power that enables to act, a knowledge or
a message of praise? These questions allow us to complete the description of
some elements of the contextual frame by asking what kind of reading of
the Bible is best suited for a given type of communication. We will also look
at the characteristics of each commentary. Finally, we will see how each
enunciator of a commentary interprets the name of Paul, who is the enunciator
of Romans.
On the level of the enunciate, semiotic analysis makes a distinction
between three aspects of a figure (Panier 1991, 99-118). Firstly, any figure of
a discourse refers to an extra-textual world that can be an extra-textual or
historical referent. Secondly, a figure also functions within the context of a
series of relations with the other figures of the discourse and is thus
integrated in one or more figurative paths. When one considers the different
materials used in the commentaries (the vocabularies of rhetorical analysis, of
logic, of dialectics; grammatical analysis, style, textual criticism, the way
the sources are used) in order to organize the figurative paths, one can
discover the analytical frame used by the enunciator. And thirdly, the
figure sends us back to other new figures (that come from the quotations,
figures of the anthropology and the theology used in the commentary). These
figures expand or recategorize figures that come from the commented text and
articulate new structures that produce new effects of meaning. This gives us
information on the hermeneutical frame used by the enunciator. An
historico-critical approach would favor the first aspect of a figure while
semiotic analysis analyzes the last two aspects of a figure.
We must first analyze briefly the figures used in Romans in order
to be able to see the transformations operated by the commentaries.[4]
We will present briefly the figures of Paul (Rom 1: 1), the analysis of Rom 8:
3-4 and of Rom 8: 5-14, and the figure of creation in Rom 8: 19-22.
In Rom 1: 1, Paul presents himself as an apostle. The epistle's greeting
describes his competency, the gospel that he preaches, and those to whom he has
been sent to proclaim the obedience of faith. At the beginning, Paul, the
enunciator, initiates the process of speech. We will see that each commentary
views Paul in different ways.
The text of Rom 8: 3-4 includes some elements of a narrative program
that lead to the accomplishment of the righteous requirement of the law
"in us who conduct ourselves not according to the flesh but according to
the spirit" (Rom 8: 4). Verse 3 contrasts the competency of the law and
the competency of God. The law is linked to a /not-being-able-to do anything/
since it is weakened by the flesh. But God possesses a /being-able-to send his
Son/ and a /being-able-to condemn sin in the flesh/. With this competency, God
accomplishes in us the righteous requirement of the law (the Mosaic law and the
law of the spirit of life: Rom 8: 4). According to Thurén (2000, 75), the
"just requirement of the law" is an underlying principle that goes
beyond the law's commands. But this text does not tell us precisely what it is.
The different actorial figures of these verses can be distributed on an
actantial schema:[5]
|
God |
à |
Righteous
requirement of the law |
à |
Us |
|
|
|
¡© |
|
|
|
The sending of
the Son in a form like that of sinful flesh |
à |
God |
©¬ |
|
The sender, God, has sent his own Son but the text does not say
that the righteous requirement of the law was given by Christ. For this reason
we also show God as subject (written in bold in the actantial schema 1).
It is God who puts the receiver, us, in a relationship of conjunction
with the object, the righteous requirement of the law. The helper
is the sending of the Son in a form like that of sinful flesh. There is no opponent
here. Rom 8: 4 simply says that the accomplishment of the righteous requirement
of the law in us goes hand in hand with our conduct according to the spirit.
Concerning the meaning of peri hamartias (Rom 8: 3), we will
first mention three interpretations. Most exegetes interpret this expression as
meaning a sin-offering.[6]
But Fitzmyer and Cranfield reject the sacrificial meaning[7]
and see here an expression of the Son's mission for which he was sent. Finally
Thornton (1971) links the expression not to what comes before it in the text,
but to what follows. He adds that the preposition peri can have a
juridical meaning in the New Testament (Jo 8: 46; 16: 8; Ac 23: 6; 24: 21; 25:
9.20; Jude 15). He translates the text: "God sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh condemned sin in the flesh, on the very ground of its
sinfulness." The expression then means the motive of condemnation.
Our own semiotic analysis has shown that the syntagm peri hamartias
(Rom 8: 3) is integrated in the figurative path of the flesh along with the
other juridical figures of condemnation, justification and law. Two other
semiotic studies[8] do not
mention a sacrificial trait in these verses. Genest (1995) admits that peri
hamartias can be read in two ways. In the Septuagint and in Heb 10: 6.8 and
13: 11, this syntagm refers to a sin-offering. The second possibility comes
from the literal sense. But there is no other figure in the figurative path of
the flesh that can have a sacrificial meaning. Quite the opposite, the other
figures would give it a juridical meaning. "Une condamnation vise le
péché, non une expiation. Le sacrifice ne condamnait pas le péché, mais
l'enlevait"[9] (Genest
1995, 79). In this case, our judgment on whether the commentaries simply expand
the figures of Rom 8: 3-4 or add another figurative path to recategorize these
figures depends on our own analysis of these verses. This will permit us to see
how the different commentaries and their sources can give different
interpretations of the death of Christ.
In Rom 8: 5-14, the concerns of the flesh include all that is said about
those who live by (kata) the flesh and those who are in (en) the
flesh; while the concerns of the spirit include all that is said about those
who live by the spirit and those who are in the spirit.
Rom 8: 19-22 mentions "creation" and verse 23 makes it clear
that creation excludes humanity when it is said: "not only that, but we
ourselves who have the first fruits of the spirit, even we are groaning inside
ourselves." We will consider that reading creatura as human nature
changes the figure of the Greek text and adds a new figurative path in the
commentaries, the path of humanity.
Peter Abelard (1079-1142) traveled a lot during his life and it seems
that his school followed him wherever he went (Châtillon 1984, 188). "His
character, his genius, his sufferings, and the romance of his life make him for
ever an object of human interest" (Luddy 1947, vii). His commentary on Romans
was written between 1133 and 1137 with three or four successive drafts
(Buytaert 1969, xxiv; 37; Peppermüller 2000, 23). Buytaert (1969) published the
first critical edition. Peppermüller (1972b) noted 450 mistakes in the Latin
text and then published his own critical edition with a German translation; and
he added more corrections to the critical text and sometimes changed the
punctuation of the Latin (Peppermüller 2000, 51-57). We will quote Buytaert's
edition because it is easier to refer to, but we have followed the corrections
suggested by Peppermüller.[10]
All the translations are ours since there is no English translation of this
commentary. For this reason we have added long quotations from the exposition.
Abelard usually follows the Vulgate but Peppermüller (1972a, 4-7) has noted
some variations. Yet it is often hard to know if he is quoting from memory or
if he is paraphrasing the text.
The studies on Abelard's thought have different starting points and the
conclusions depend on their particular point of view.[11]
Our presentation is limited to some parts of the Romans commentary. We
will not take into account the Commentarius Cantabrigiensis,[12]
and we will seldom refer to his other works.[13]
Abelard makes use of the
liberal arts in his commentary: grammar, rhetoric and dialectic to which he
adds Aristotelian logic. He interrupts the flow of his commentary with
theological questions. He also glosses the text. Finally, he interprets the
Bible according to the traditional senses of Scripture and quotes the Fathers.
He is the first one in his time to use logic and dialectic and to introduce so
many theological questions in the course of a biblical commentary.
The commentary on Rom 2: 15 notes that there exists two readings of the
Latin text: cogiationes accusantium aut etiam defendentium or cogitationibus
accusantibus (Comm Rom I, ii, 311-314). Here is how he explains the
variations of the text:
But I think that the difference of the text comes mostly from the use of the Greek language, since the Greeks do not have an ablative [and] use the genitive for the ablative. The result is that, according to the different translations of the Greek into Latin, sometimes the genitive is kept as it was in Greek, sometimes following what is required by the meaning, it was changed into [what is] for us an ablative. Then, even if this epistle, which is addressed to the Romans, is known to have been first written in Latin, while it was written at Corinth in Greece, we believe that, afterwards, there can be found several of its translators or commentators who imitated the Greeks, as it was said, when they perhaps did not have at hand the written Latin text and that they had to use Greek copies. Now let us explain both texts (Comm Rom I, ii, 327-340).
Abelard starts by explaining the grammatical differences and then gives
his opinion on the original language of the letter. It astonishes us that a
twelfth-century expositor thought that he was commenting the text in its original
language by using the Vulgate. It also surprises us that, instead of trying to
find the best reading, he comments on both. Obviously his idea of textual
criticism was very different from ours.
Abelard considers all Scripture in the light of ancient rhetoric. He
applies these rules to the study of Romans and to the presentation of
his own opinions. The beginning of the prologue is a presentation of Scripture
in rhetorical perspective: "All divine Scripture intends to teach and to
exhort[14]
while using a rhetorical discourse; it teaches when it introduces us to what we
must do or avoid. It exhorts when it holds back our will by dissuading it from
committing evil or brings it to do good by convincing it through holy
exhortations" (Comm Rom Pr. 5-10).
He also uses the rules of rhetoric to qualify what
Paul does in the epistle's opening (Peppermüller 1972a; 34, note 207). The
commentary on the greeting explains this: "In the way of those who write
epistles, he who exhorts them to true salvation puts in first place a greeting.
As if in a proemium, he first writes this greeting so as ¡¦ to make them
attentive, docile and benevolent" (Comm Rom I, 1, 2-6). Paul then
recommends himself and Christ:
He truly makes them attentive to his person and to the person of Christ who is sending him, [and] also to this reality of the evangelical doctrine which he exhorts them to observe; he truly [makes them attentive] to his person, when he recommends himself as called by God to a separate apostolate and to proclaim the Gospel; but he also recommends the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he calls Son of God and maintains that he is the one who had been promised to the Fathers as redeemer of the human race and who was conceived through the Holy Spirit and who appeared in his glory after his resurrection from the dead (Comm Rom I, 1, 6-15).
Finally he
recommends the gospel and his preaching: "But he does not omit to
recommend the gospel, when he recalls that [Christ] had been promised by the
Holy Scriptures of the prophets of God. And the aptness to learn (docilitas)
is noted in the fact that, through the ministry of the preaching of the gospel
for which he was appointed, he makes [them] see that what he is going to write
is part of the gospel's doctrine" (Comm Rom I, 1, 15-19).
According to the commentary on Rom 8: 9, Paul uses a sublime style to
console the Romans while warning them against putting too much trust in
themselves (Comm Rom III, viii, 101-107). He tells them that the spirit
is in them but uses an "if" that means that he does not want to
encourage them in such a way that they may have put too much trust in
themselves and thus be filled with pride. According to Abelard, Paul is
reminding the Romans that, even if the spirit who dwells in them should be
there permanently, it could also leave and be in them only temporarily (Comm
Rom III, viii, 107-114). And so for Abelard, the "if" in Rom 8: 9
expresses a doubt (Comm Rom viii, 110) and a warning against the danger
of losing the Holy Spirit (Comm Rom III, viii, 114-115).
Abelard uses a simple style in a presentation of his
own thought. In the commentary on Rom 8: 3, we will see that he gives three
interpretations of the death of Christ. The way he goes about it has the effect
of validating his own opinion. The first interpretation is his own and it is
given as a "matter of fact" without any modality of truth (Comm
Rom III, viii, 44-49). The second interpretation is a quotation of Origen
which starts by saying that his thought is "all the more true" (Comm
Rom III, viii, 50-53). The third interpretation is a theologoumenon
that comes from Origen (Froehlich 1990, 256) but the commentary does not
mention that and does not say anything concerning its value and its authority (Comm
Rom III, viii, 53-57). This last interpretation was common during Abelard's
time. The sequence of presentation and the way these interpretations are given
value - the second interpretation as "all the more true" than what
comes before it - show that it is Abelard's thought on the matter. Thus the
effect of what Origen says on truth extends to Abelard's own proposition.
Secondly, Abelard's interpretation can take its place among those of the
Fathers. Thus the presentation of his own interpretation of Christ's death also
has the effect of making the enunciatee/reader trust what he says more easily.
This seems to be a subtle way of validating and authenticating the acceptance
of his own thought.
The use of dialectics first
implies a reformulation of the patristic texts in the form of propositions that
are then compared to each other by applying the rules of Aristotelian logic.
The contradictions are finally eliminated through the subtle use of cleverly
constructed distinctions (Sheldrake 1998, 39). Here is an example from the
prologue:
We ask ourselves the following question: Who, through his preaching, converted the Romans to whom this letter is addressed? The Ecclesiastical History, Jerome[15] and Gregory of Turin tell us that it is the apostle Peter who converted the Romans. But Aymon holds the opposite opinion; he says that, in the beginning, they were not instructed to the faith by Peter or by one of the twelve apostles but by other faithful Jews who came to Rome from Jerusalem (Comm Rom Pr, 115-119).
After quoting
these two opposite opinions, the prologue examines what each author says and
resolves the contradictions through linguistic distinctions.
One must note that the doctors quoted above do not contradict Aymon if we are attentive to the details of what they say. If we review the whole chapter of the Ecclesiastical History, we notice that Peter was the first of the apostles to preach to the Romans, but not the first among the doctors. Even Jerome, when he says that the Romans received or held their faith from the preaching of Peter, does not contradict that, since that could have been done not by Peter himself but by Peter's disciples who came from Jerusalem. Aymon denies that it was done personally by Peter which is why when he mentions Peter, he adds 'himself'. And Aymon does not say that Peter did not give them any instruction but that he was not 'the first one' to instruct them (Comm Rom Pr, 143-155).[16]
Abelard uses Aristotelian
logic to make distinctions and to analyze what the texts means. In the
exposition of the figure "servant" (Rom 1: 1), he proposes a logical
solution based on the difference between simpliciter (when the word is
used alone in a context) and cum determinatione (when the servant is
called "lover of Christ" of "good"):
Since the Lord says to his apostles: 'From now on, I do not call you servants but friends', why then does the Apostle call himself servant? Let us make these distinctions. There are two kinds of servants, that is subordinates; some submit themselves out of fear and it is written about them: 'The servant does not dwell in the house for ever'; and also that: 'When you have done all the things that were ordered, say: we are useless servants'; love makes others obedient; it is said of them: 'Well done good and faithful servant, etc ¡¦' It is easy to answer to the question in itself in the following manner: in one way, the servant is said simply (simpliciter) and, in another way, the servant is said 'lover of Christ' or 'good servant' (Comm Rom I, i, 194-204).
The flow of the commentary is sometimes interrupted by questions of a
theological nature. The text may give an answer to the question or may refer to
a theological treatise for the answer.[17]
In the course of the commentary on Rom 8, three questions are raised: one on
baptism (Comm Rom III, viii, 136-141), one on the Trinity and the
incarnation (Comm Rom III, viii, 176-183) and another on predestination
(Comm Rom III, viii, 486-509).
The text also warns us that the epistle is full of difficulties as the
Fathers themselves have noticed: "We undertake this exposition of the
[epistle] that was sent to the Romans and that, according to the judgment of
the greatest erudites, is complicated by so many difficulties of the literal
sense as well as by the subtlety of its reasoning" (Comm Rom I, i,
190-193).
The gloss was probably introduced in biblical exegesis
by the School of Laon. The commentary is then quick, and only attempts to
expose the coherence of the text by giving short explanations. When using the
gloss, the text uses logical connectors such as id est, hoc est, scilicet,
uidelicet (Peppermüller 1972a, 9-10; 2000, 24-25). The following is an
example of a gloss on Rom 8: 19. According to our experience, reading such a
text requires a lot of attention in order to follow the train of thought:
Indeed the expectation. I have correctly said the future glory that will be revealed in us, that is (scilicet) in the sons of God, because the expectation of all the faithful waits for this revelation, that is (scilicet) [the revelation] of the glory that must be given to the sons of God. And as if he was saying: expecting each one expected, as it is said: 'Leaving, they left', which means (hoc est) they hope with perseverance and with trust, that is (scilicet) they merit through good deeds, the revelation of the sons of God, which means (id est) the recompense, through which it will be revealed, that they are sons of God and predestined to eternal life, which is hidden until now (Comm Rom III, viii, 320-328).
Like the medieval commentators, Abelard uses auctoritates.
He quotes the Fathers: Bede, Florus of Lyons, Rhaban Maur and the commentaries
of Pelagius (under the mane of Jerome), the Ambrosiaster and Aymon of Auxerre
(Peppermüller 2000, 21). To these authorities, he adds philosophers such as the
pseudo-Seneca (Comm Rom I, i, 109-128). As we have mentioned, he gives
his own opinions along with those of the Fathers (Comm Rom III, viii,
verses 3-4) and, using logic, he is critical of his sources.
The twelfth-century expositors generally use three
senses of Scripture when commenting the Old Testament: the literal sense, the
moral sense and the mystical sense (allegorical sense and the end times). The
interpretation of the New Testament follows the literal sense of the text. It
may talk about Christ, about the Christian life or about the end of time. When
the text comments on Rom 8: 3-4, it gives a christological sense. When it comes
to Rom 8: 12-13, the commentary gives the moral sense; and when it treats Rom
8: 17-27, the exposition deals mostly with eternal beatitude, thus giving the
mystical sense of the text. But Abelard often mentions the letter (littera)
simply because, in the New Testament, all the senses are contained in the
letter of the text (Peppermüller 1972, 24). Furthermore, part the
interpretation of Rom 8: 2 gives an allegorical interpretation of a New
Testament text, Ac 2: 2-4.[18]
We will notice that Abelard develops the typology of Benjamin and applies it to
Paul.
As one can notice from the above quotations, the prologue is written in
the third person singular. The "we" or the few appearances of a
"you" are simply a figure of speech in this commentary. The
enunciator does not manifest himself and the text never refers to an
enunciatee. Only an "objective" knowledge is enunciated. The effect
of such a presentation puts more value on the transmitted knowledge and
separates it from the "subjectivity" of the enunciator or of the
enunciatee. This model of communication is still used in scientific texts in
which the objectiveness of the data is in itself a guarantee of the truth of
what is stated.
Abelard starts his commentary by a rhetorical interpretation of Rom 1:
1-15 (Comm Rom I, i, 1-26); here he presents Paul as an apostle and a
teacher (Comm Rom I, i, 18-20).
The commentary then tells us that Paul had two names, and gives
different interpretations for the reason of having two names (Comm Rom I,
i, 28-43). It gives the meaning of each name and the reason for changing one's
name when one is called to become an apostle (Comm Rom I, 1, 44-82). It
mentions the greatness of Paul as a master of theological and moral doctrine
for Christians (Comm Rom I, i, 83-132). Finally, it presents the
typology of Benjamin and applies it to Paul as the anti-type (Comm Rom I,
i, 132-186).
The presentation of Paul's names gives the allegorical meaning of these
names as they are applied to Paul's life and conversion as an apostle.
According to Origen, Paul already had two names before his conversion (Comm
Rom I, i, 28-33). But according to Jerome, Augustine and the others, Paul
would have changed his name himself after his conversion of Paul, the proconsul
of Asia (Ac 13: 9) (Comm Rom I, i, 33-41). Just as Peter changed his
name when he was called to a new life and to preach the gospel, Paul also
changed his name (Comm Rom I, i, 38-41). The commentary proposes two
different interpretations to explain the reason for having two names. In this
commentary, Ac 13: 6-12 is used only to mention the event that caused a change
of name. Furthermore, Abelard does not try to explain or eliminate the
differences between the different opinions of the Fathers.
The commentary then gives several allegorical interpretations for each
name. Noting that King Saul and Saul both came from the tribe of Benjamin, it
adds that King Saul persecuted David and his followers while Saul persecuted
Christ and his members (Comm Rom I, i, 44-48). It refers to Jerome,
saying that Saülus is a diminutive of Saul (Comm Rom I, i, 48-53). This
diminutive means that King Saul is not as great as Saul who became an apostle.
He proves this by using the inversion of the sequence humble/proud: King Saul
was humble and then became proud while Saul was a proud persecutor of the
Church and, thanks to his humility became modest and peaceful. Following
Augustine, Paul means "modest" (Comm Rom I, i, 54-58) because
he did not judge himself as being worthy of becoming an apostle. But, according
to Ambrose, Saul means "troubled" and "trial" while Paul
means "peaceful". Before his conversion, Paul was a source of trial
for the Christians and, after his conversion, he worked hard so as not to scandalize
anyone and depend on others for his own livelihood (Comm Rom I, i,
60-69).
According to Jerome, Paul means "chosen" since he was a vase
of election. The name also means "admirable" because his life and his
doctrine are a source of admiration (Comm Rom I, i, 70-73). Paul was a
virgin and a martyr. And so all the merits of the great apostles Peter and John
are united in Paul. He received the grace of preaching and to accomplish
miracles; he converted nearly the whole world and he corrected the prince of
the apostles in Antioch. All of this means that he is the greatest of the
apostles as it is said: "The last will be first and the first will be
last" (Comm Rom I, i, 73-80).
The commentary then praises Paul's doctrine. In this part of the
commentary Paul is shown to be a master of theological and moral doctrine (Comm
Rom I, i, 83-128). According to Peter and to the Fathers, Paul is the first
or the greatest of the apostles (Comm Rom I, i, 83-90). Ambrose
acknowledges that it is often hard to explain a reading of the Apostle (Comm
Rom I, 91-94). Augustine admits that he stopped his exposition on Romans
because of the amount of work that it demanded (Comm Rom I, i, 94-99).
In many of his letters, Jerome praises Paul's doctrine, his missionary work and
his choice of a life of virginity (Comm Rom I, i, 99-108). And finally,
the pseudo-Seneca, the philosopher and preceptor of Nero, sings the praises of
the greatness and the depth of his doctrine (Comm Rom I, i, 109-128).
The text mentions that the teaching of Paul sounds like a strong trumpet (Comm
Rom I, i, 83-84) and like a peal of thunder (Comm Rom I, i, 99-101).
The commentary concludes this section and introduces the typology of
Benjamin by saying: "If you add the praise of prophetic authority to the
declaration of the philosophers, you will find that the superiority of this
apostle compared to the others reaches a certain praise that comes from the
patriarchs as well as from the prophets" (Comm Rom I, i, 129-132).
The exposition then presents Benjamin as the type and figure of Paul who
is the accomplishment of the figure of Benjamin as predicted by Jacob and David
(Comm Rom I, i, 81-82; 132-135). It starts with the figure of Benjamin
as it quotes Jacob's words (Gen 49: 27) and the song of David (Ps 67: 28) is
used to support the typology: "Thus speaks Jacob: 'Benjamin is a ravenous
wolf; in the morning he devours the prey, in the evening he divides the
plunder' or according to another translation ¡®distributes the spoils in the
evening¡¯. But David seeing in the spirit the princes of the future church and,
as if putting him ahead of the rest, says: ¡®there, the young Benjamin in the
ecstasy of the spirit¡¯ " (Comm Rom I, i, 135-140).
The commentary then develops the typology of Benjamin according to Gen
35: 16-20 and applies it to Paul (Comm Rom I, i, 141-167). Here again,
Benjamin is the last to come but the first in preference. It thus shows that
Paul, the last among the apostles, was the most loved by God (Comm Rom I,
i, 141-144) and that he is superior to the other apostles (Comm Rom I,
i, 144-146).
Finally, the commentary comes back to Gen 49: 27 (Comm Rom I, i,
168-171). Once again, the quotations of Ps 67: 28 and 2 Co 12: 4 are used to
show that Paul is the anti-type of Benjamin and the greatest of the apostles
because of his merits and of his doctrine:
This one (Paul) is the young Benjamin as the last to come among the apostles; he is superior to the rest by his spirit and by his reason, as it is natural from the one 'who was caught up in paradise' and 'heard secret words that a human being is not permitted to tell'. The first of the apostles was also corrected by him after a dangerous falling away (simulatione) and the universal Church was spiritually instructed, so that, among the writings of the saints, his epistles have been favored because of their merit and their usefulness as much as for their subtlety (Comm Rom I, i, 183-190).
Abelard uses different ways of manipulating the quotations of the auctoritates
to transform the description that Paul gives of himself at the beginning of the
epistle.
Abelard does not question the authority of the Fathers and the doctors
but he puts his own interpretation on the same level as theirs. He
discusses their opinions, criticizes them and comments on the differences of
their interpretations while using logic and dialectic. In the commentary on the
name of Paul, he first quotes different opinions of the Fathers and never tries
to solve the contradictions. But when he starts giving his own opinion (the
typology of Benjamin; Comm Rom I, i, 81-82), then all the quotations
agree with what he wants to say. There is also an order in the quotations: the
New Testament, the Holy Doctors, the Philosopher and the Old Testament.
Finally, Abelard introduces what we now call quotation marks. The texts of the
Fathers are introduced, and he gives the references to the works that he
quotes.
The commentary transforms the epistle when it describes Paul as the last
and the greatest of the apostles and the greatest master of theological and
moral doctrine. Abelard will repeat this in the confession of faith sent to
Heloise: "I would not be a philosopher if that meant a denial of Paul, nor
an Aristotle if that involved separation from Christ."[19]
Before starting the analysis of the commentary on Rom 8: 1-30, we must
mention that Abelard had already described his soteriology in the commentary on
Rom 3: 21-26 (Comm Rom II, iii, 50-125). Fudrthermore, the question that
follows immediately after this commentary is a refutation of the dramatic
theory and the satisfaction theory of Christ's sacrifice that were common
opinions during his time (Comm Rom II, iii, 125-175).[20]
The satisfaction theory was based on the equivalence between sin and the animal
victim (hostia) of a sin-offering. Rom 8: 3 was then interpreted as
having a sacrificial meaning. God had condemned sin through the sacrifice of
Christ, offered as a victim, for the sinful flesh, and Christ was the victim of
a sin-offering. The dramatic theory was based on a theologoumenon coming
from Origen: after original sin, Satan had acquired a right over humanity but
he misused it by having Christ, who was innocent of all sins, put to death. And
so Rom 8: 3 meant that God condemned sin through the sin committed by Satan
when he killed Christ, the innocent. Abelard rejected these two theories
because they imposed a necessity on God.
The commentary on Rom 8: 2-4 offers an overview of
Abelard's soteriology without mentioning one of its important features, Christ
as Mediator (Peppermüller 1972, 102). The commentary first defines what is
meant by the law of sin, the spirit of life and the law of the spirit in us
(Rom 8: 2). These definitions will be used especially in the commentary on Rom
8: 1-17. It then explains how we were liberated from sin and from death through
Christ and how Christ has accomplished in us the justification of the law (Rom
8: 4).
The commentary on Rom 8: 1-2 defines terms by giving them equivalents:
And the law. He has said that the grace of God liberates (he who is in Christ) through Christ. He now reveals how it does that: because the law of the spirit of life, that is the law of divine charity and divine love instead of [being a law of] fear as was the old law, in Christ Jesus, that is given and showed to us by him, has liberated me from the law of sin and, because of that, [has liberated me] from death, that is from the commands and the suggestions of carnal concupiscence, so that I may not obey them by giving my consent. The spirit of life, that is the Holy Spirit, is the life of the souls, because it is love. Because of that, the law of this spirit is called 'law of love' begetting sons, not forcing slaves, that is, the gospel that has been totally filled with charity (Comm Rom III, viii, 9-18).
The
commentary clearly defines three syntagms of Rom 8: 2: the law of sin and death
means the commands and suggestions of carnal concupiscence. The spirit of life,
which is the Holy Spirit, is the life of the souls because it is love. The law
of the spirit of life is the law of divine charity and love that begets sons.
But how were we liberated in Christ from the law of sin and death?
According to the commentary on Rom 8: 3-4,
the Father who is the majesty of the divine power, "brought about that Wisdom, which is co-eternal with him, was humiliated and assumed a mortal humanity capable of suffering, so that, as the penalty of sin to which it submitted itself, it seemed to possess also the flesh of sin, that is the flesh that had been conceived in sin. And, for the sake of sin, which means for the sake of the penalty of sin that it endured for us in the flesh, that is in the assumed humanity, and not in the divinity, he condemned sin, that is he removed the penalty of sin for us, through which the just were also held captive beforehand, and opened the heavens" (Comm Rom III, viii, 30-37).
This is a narrative expansion of Rom 8: 3 and the different
actorial figures assume the actantial roles as distributed in the following
actantial schema II —that we can compare with schema I above. God the Father
takes the initiative and is the sender. In the commentary, Christ, the
eternal Wisdom, is the subject because he is the one who does what the
Father sent him for: he is the subject of the verbs "condemn" and
"open the heavens". The Son who assumes humanity is the helper.
|
The Father,
divine majesty |
à |
Condemnation of penalty of sin Opening of heavens Gift of divine charity |
à |
Us |
|
|
|
¡© |
|
|
|
Humanity
assumed by the Son |
à |
Christ |
©¬ |
|
The commentary develops the objects that are transmitted and what
the subject does in order to transmit them. The figures that assumed the role
of object in this actantial schema correspond only to the first of the three
interpretations of the syntagm "condemnation of sin". This is
Abelard's own opinion and it explains the coherence of the commentary on Rom 8:
5-30. For Abelard, sin in Rom 8: 3 means the penalty of sin and that, in this
given context, means only that humanity can suffer, that it is mortal (Comm
Rom III, viii, 31-32) and that the heavens are closed to the just (Comm
Rom III, viii, 36-37). Christ bore the penalty of sin in the flesh, that is
in his humanity and not in his divinity (Comm Rom III, viii, 33-35) and
he also condemned sin and opened the heavens for all the just. Justification
means the charity of God in us, the receivers, who are in Christ.
The commentary gives three
explanations for the condemnation of sin and thus for the meaning of Christ's
death. Two of these are formulated in Abelard's own words and one comes from
Origen. Actantial schema II presents the articulation of the first
interpretation. The second interpretation mentions the satisfaction theory,
while the third simply restates the dramatic theory of redemption.
The first explanation also depends on Abelard's interpretation of
original sin. For him, humanity does not carry the guilt of Adam's sin but only
the penalty (Weingart 1970, 46-47). And so, the death of Christ removes only
the penalty of original sin, as we have seen. But Christ also "condemned
sin in us, which means that he destroyed all guilt (reatum) and all
fault (culpam) through the charity poured in us and coming from the
greatest of benefits" (Comm Rom III, viii, 47-49). This text
mentions our own sins which are not the guilt that comes from original sin.
However Abelard believes that all have sinned and are guilty, and that Christ
also removed that guilt through the charity that was poured in our hearts
(Weingart 1970, 49 notes 3-4).
The second interpretation is a quotation from Origen: "It is all
the more true for the Greeks to say ¡®that he condemned sin for the sake of
sin¡¯, that is, he became a victim for a sin-offering. By this victim (hostia)
of flesh that is called ¡®for the sake of sin¡¯, he condemned, that is, he
removed sin" (Comm Rom III, viii, 50-53). Following the
satisfaction theory, Christ was made a victim for a sin-offering. And his death
thus has a sacrificial meaning (Weingart 1970, 82.88; Froehlich 1990, 256-257).
We have already analyzed what it means to have Origen say in this exact place
that this opinion is "all the more true" than the preceding one.
Furthermore, the quotation does not mention the wrath of God. Abelard quotes
Origen but will not use this interpretation in the following exposition of Rom
8: 5-30.
Then comes a third
explanation: "Because he also accomplished for us the remission of sins in
his blood and he [accomplished] the reconciliation. Or for the sake of the sin
committed against himself by the devil or by the Jews, he condemned sin in us,
as it has been said, by using evil in the best way and by converting it into
good" (Comm Rom III, viii, 53-55). This sentence rephrases the
dramatic theory: here Christ makes something good happen out of evil. The text
says nothing about the value of this interpretation that the commentary on Rom
3: 21-26 has already criticized and rejected. Furthermore, the mention of blood
is not necessarily a sacrificial term.
The accomplishment of the justification of the law in us (following the
Latin text of Rom 8: 4) has already been mentioned as the third object on the
actantial schema under the figure of the gift of the divine charity.
So that the justification of the law. He (Paul) does not say the works of the law do not justify in any way, but what the law prescribes concerning the things relevant to justification, without which we cannot be justified, such as charity for God and neighbor. The law has this imperfection (imperfectam), as we has shown above, but it is accomplished (perficitur) in us through Christ. And that is what he says so that the charity of God and of the neighbor, which is prescribed by the law, is accomplished in us [and] may justify us (Comm Rom III, viii, 38-47).
It was
impossible for the law to remove the sin of the people (Comm Rom III,
viii, 66-67) because it was a carnal people that did not submit itself through
obedience (Comm Rom III, viii, 64-66). What the law prescribed in order
to be justified was the love of God and neighbor (Comm Rom III, viii,
38-41). And it is Christ who has poured that divine love into our hearts and
thus accomplished in us the justification of the law. Furthermore, Christ also
gave us an example that shows us how to live out that charity.
The justification of the law "was accomplished in us through Christ, he who, through his doctrine and his example, and through the greatest demonstration of charity made us spiritual, and not carnal, through our desire. That is, we who do not walk according to the desires of the flesh but are moved by the grace of God, that is the Holy Spirit, and we are moved to go forward from virtue to virtue" (Comm Rom III, viii, 71-77).
The gospel is
filled with charity as is all the preaching of Christ (Comm Rom III,
viii, 17-20). According to an allegorical interpretation of Ac 2, the Holy
Spirit filled the apostles with knowledge "since their tongues were
destined to preach nothing else than the fervour of charity" (Comm Rom
III, viii, 25-26). Thus Christ shows us how to practice the love that he poured
into our hearts through the Holy Spirit.
We will not give a detailed presentation of the commentary on Rom 8:
5-30 but will focus on three important points that seem to summarize nearly all
that is said. According to Abelard, the figures of Rom 8: 5-13 about the flesh
and the spirit and on the figurative path of the family (Rom 8: 14-17) describe
the benefits of redemption. The text also deals with the role of the Holy
Spirit who is responsible for pouring into our hearts the benefits of
redemption (commentary on Rom 8: 2, 15-16, 24-28). Finally, Abelard talks about
faith, hope and charity (commentary on Rom 8: 2. 10. 18-21).
We will begin by summarizing the benefits of Christ's redemption
mentioned in the exposition of Rom 8: 1-4. First, "the greatest benefit
that he showed us compels us to truly love Christ himself as God and as
neighbor" (Comm Rom III, viii, 45-47). Then, the divine charity
destroys in us the guilt of the fault (Comm Rom III, viii, 47-49;
123-125). We are also liberated from fear (Comm Rom III, viii, 265-269)
to live in love (Comm Rom III, viii, 9-18; 225-230); and so we possess
the freedom of the children of God (Comm Rom III, viii, 17-20). Finally,
while our liberation from the law of sin permits us not to persevere in vice (Comm
Rom III, viii, 7-8), we receive the gift of the virtues: "We are led
by the grace of God, that is by the Holy Spirit, and we are led to move ahead
from virtue to virtue" (Comm Rom III, viii, 75-77).
The commentary on Rom 8: 5-9 deals with those who are in the flesh. They
are seduced by the knowledge that comes from daily experience (experimentum)
and that leads to carnal pleasure (Comm Rom III, viii, 81-82). When the
desires attract us to the point of making us act out, they lead to the death of
the soul (Comm Rom III, 86-89). The wisdom of the flesh does not permit
us to obey the divine precepts (Comm Rom III, viii, 33-37). "Being
in the flesh" means "to find one's pleasure in carnal pleasures"
and that offends God because then we cannot serve him in obedience (Comm Rom
III, viii, 88; 200-203). When it is applied to the flesh, phroneô consists
of the taste (sapere) and the knowledge of things that come from daily
experience (experimentum) that attracts (allicere) and moves us
to seek pleasure.
But redemption allows us to live according to the spirit of life, and
the commentary on Rom 8: 5-9 describes the benefits of redemption for those
who, according to the spirit, "are enkindled by the spiritual desires and
feel, through a knowledge acquired by the practice of virtues (experiendo),
the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Comm Rom III, viii, 83- 85; 89-92). Phroneô
now means to taste (sapere) spiritual realities; it is also the prudence
of the spirit. "Life and peace operate something in us through an acquired
knowledge (experientia) of the virtues and of the gifts of God, which
means that they give us the life that enjoys repose from all disturbances"
(Comm Rom III, viii, 90-92). In this context, losing the spirit would
also mean that one is no longer a member related to the head because the Holy
Spirit is the love which unites the members to the head (Comm Rom III,
viii, 114-119).
The commentary on Rom 8: 12-13 details the concrete behavior of
Christians. This is a narrative expansion concerning the obligation of the
Christian. In terms of the medieval senses of Scripture, the commentary
expounds the moral sense of the letter. Even if, "we have no obligations
to the flesh, we are always indebted to the substance of the flesh for clothing
and for food" (Comm Rom III, viii, 191-199). Furthermore, we owe
nothing to anyone that would force us to do something that goes against God's
law (Comm Rom III, viii, 186-187). We do not owe obedience to the mighty
of this world if they order us to do something that God forbids. And this is
also true even if we are related to them by a promise of fidelity or an oath (Comm
Rom III, viii, 188-191). Our soul must also be filled with good
dispositions because of God (Comm Rom III, viii, 186 -188). It is not
enough to master the soul by not doing anything evil (Comm Rom III,
217-219) but the true life of the soul consists in eradicating even evil
thoughts (Comm Rom III, viii, 206-219).
In the commentary on Rom 8: 14-17, Abelard first defines what being a
son means and then shows the difference between our own sonship and that of the
only Son of God. Those who are led by the spirit of God are attracted to him
and are subjected to him through their love as his sons (Comm Rom III,
viii, 225-230). The spirit of slavery was a gift of servile fear that prevented
human beings from doing evil because of the threat of corporal punishment by
the law. But it did not hinder bad will (Comm Rom III, viii, 265-269).
Even if we are not sons by nature as the only begotten Son, "the spirit of
adoption is a gift of charity through which we were adopted by God as
sons" (Comm Rom III, viii, 237-238). We cry "Abba,
Father". Abba is in Hebrew and Syriac and father in Greek and Latin. This
means that we are a universal people called both from the Jews and from the
Gentiles. Both names have only one meaning for the two are united in faith (Comm
Rom III, viii, 250-265). We have been adopted so that we may receive our
inheritance. We are heirs of the Father and of the Son and we will become like
the Son when we possess eternal beatitude, which is our inheritance (Comm
Rom III, viii, 279-285). Nevertheless, to acquire this inheritance, we must
accept to suffer with Christ by waging a battle against the attack of vices (Comm
Rom III, viii, 285-288).
These texts show that the logic of love is the key concept which creates
a link between most of the figures of Rom 8: 5-17 in the commentary. According
to this interpretation, the benefits of redemption enable us to live not
according to the flesh by committing evil and practicing vice but according to
the spirit, which means according to the love of God in us that leads us from
virtue to virtue. This divine love takes away fear and makes us free sons of
God. Submitted to him because of love, we are also heirs of the Father and the
Son and we are ready to suffer with Christ for the love of God.
In the commentary on Rom 8: 5-30, the syntagms "spirit of
life", "spirit of Christ" and the figure of the spirit often
mean the Holy Spirit. For Abelard, the Holy Spirit pours into us the benefits
of redemption as this text shows: "But if we possess the spirit of God,
which means if Christ through his spirit, that is through the grace of his
gifts, truly the remission of sins and the gift (collatio) of virtues,
are in us ¡¦" (Comm Rom III, viii, 123-126).
The Holy Spirit is love (Comm Rom III, viii, 15-26; 231-242;
270-278) and the link that unites the members with the head (Comm Rom III,
viii, 114-119). In Rom 8: 2, he is a spirit of life that liberates us. He is
the life of souls, because he is love (Comm Rom III, viii, 15-16). In
Rom 8: 16, he is also a spirit of adoption who begets sons: "He names
'spirit of adoption' a gift of charity through which we lave been adopted by
God as sons" (Comm Rom III, viii, 237-238). He testifies that we
are sons and our reason can recognize him: "This spirit of adoption, that
we have named and that we possess, allows our spirit, that is our reason, to
know that we are sons of God, which means that we are submitted to him by [our]
love. In fact, there is nothing that one knows better than his own conscience
and if one must say that one is a slave or a son" (Comm Rom III,
viii, 270-275).
The commentary on Rom 8: 24-28 shows how the Holy Spirit helps us. First,
he helps our weakness by suggesting to us the prayers that are necessary,
because we pray in the midst of sorrow and doubt and we do not know what we
must ask for. The spirit makes us intercede and desire everything according to
God's will. Secondly, the Holy Spirit helps the saints change their trials and
all the evil that befalls them into something useful and good (Comm Rom III,
viii, 438-443).
And so the commentary on Rom 8: 1-30 gives an exposition of the
activities of the Holy Spirit on our behalf. We must add that Abelard talks
more about the Holy Spirit in his works on the Trinity (Weingart 1970,
151-165).
The commentary on Rom 8: 1-30 does not mention faith very often but
deals at greater length with charity and hope. Yet the commentary on Rom 8: 30
integrates the theological virtues in the sequence of verbs describing God's
activity:
The chosen ones were predestined, which means that they were prepared for eternal life, having been illuminated by faith, which they first received as the foundation of all good things. For they were called, and after being attracted by hope, as they were already [attracted] to do good through the mercy of God and the power of the sacraments, because of eternal retribution; then they were justified by the affection of sincere charity, as they have become attached to God not as much for his gifts as for himself; finally they were glorified, elevated to the heavenly city (Comm Rom III, viii, 477-485).
This text
shows how the human being, through faith, hope and charity, works in synergy
with God.
Charity is mentioned everywhere in the commentary on this chapter of Romans.
It is the link between the sending of Christ, the motive and the example given
by Christ, redemption and its benefits which are communicated by the Holy
Spirit who is the love of God. What is poured into our hearts, is the divine
love itself so that it may become active in us (Comm Rom III, viii,
9-15). It is the affectus of charity that is important in the eyes of
God, even if some cannot manifest its effect in their lives:
And if we are attentive, none of the fleeting realities is worthy of the remuneration of the eternal good. Only charity, which never disappears, obtains eternal life. And all those who are equal in love, share the remuneration with God, even if one is hindered by some cause and is thus deprived of the effect (effectus) of charity. The same goes for merit. Blessed Augustine affirms that John, who did not suffer, possesses a crown of martyrdom equal to the one which Peter, who suffered, possesses, because God cares less for effect (effectus) than for affection (affectus) (Comm Rom III, viii, 311-319).
Hope is the assurance that strengthens us through patience and assures
our perseverance. It is also linked to eternal beatitude. This beatitude does
not come from the merits of our life but from divine grace; finally, it is also
defined as the opposite of the sufferings endured during this life. According
to the commentary on Rom 8: 24-25, Paul speaks accurately about hope when he
makes a distinction between hope and visible realities (Comm Rom III,
viii, 401-408). He wants to strengthen the assurance that we will all be saved
so that our hope may not fail because of the frustrations of the present life (Comm
Rom III, viii, 396-401). We are saved through hope, which helps us to
exercise patience in the midst of the trials of the present life without
becoming discouraged.
Then the commentary turns to the mystical sense of Scripture when its
talks about future realities. "Expectation" (Rom 8: 19) means
"hoping with trust and perseverance" while, through our good deeds,
we merit the remuneration "when it will be revealed that [we] are sons of
God and predestined to eternal life, which is hidden until now" (Comm
Rom III, viii, 326-328). And so creatura does not mean
"creation" as it does in the epistle but means "the human
creature". Abelard calls "creatures" all those who "strive
to maintain incorrupted in themselves the creature of God and to reform the
image of God in which they were created, by resisting, as much as they can, the
sins that have tarnished or destroyed it" (Comm Rom III, viii,
328-332).
The commentary on Rom 8: 20-21 completes this first approach when it
describes the future glory by opposing it to the description of other figures
of the epistle. Firstly, the frustration (uanitas) means that life is a
fleeting reality and full of trials that the creature does not want (Comm Rom
III, viii, 335-337). Secondly, the sorrows of the one who submitted the
creature by humiliating it are added to that (Comm Rom III, 339-340).
Thirdly, the "bondage to decay" means the yoke of a flesh that is
liable of suffering and corruptible (Comm Rom III, viii, 342-344).
In opposition to the frustrations and sorrows of the present life, the
future glory is interpreted as the future revelation of what is still hidden
and the elevation of the creature in the life to come (Comm Rom III,
viii, 335-340). In opposition to the yoke of the flesh, future glory means the
liberation from the oppression that is the consequence of the penalty of sin,
the possibility of suffering and corruptibility, and liberation from all that
contradicts our will (Comm Rom III, viii, 345-346). This third
interpretation can be understood as a suppression of all that can impede
beatitude, defined here as the happiness of being with Christ. And so, in the
commentary on Rom 8: 20-21, the future life is interpreted in opposition to the
different meanings given to the frustrations and sorrows of this life and to
the punishment of original sin.
Furthermore, following the commentary on Rom 8: 11, our body will be
liberated from mortality in the resurrection "where divine grace will glorify
not only the soul but also the body" (Comm Rom III, viii, 161-162).
And "the members will share in the same glory of the resurrection as the
head" (Comm Rom III, viii, 170-171).
Abelard's commentary is concerned with explaining the Christian faith.
He is looking for an "adequate intellectual appropriation of the Church's
essential dogmas" (Weingart
1970, 3). The text never mentions the receiving instance of the
exposition and never addresses itself to God. The exposition is written in the
third person singular. This type of communication focuses on the object of
knowledge that is transmitted. From the point of view of communication to the
enunciatee/reader, it is an informative commentary in which the knowledge
transmitted holds the predominant role.
Reading the Bible acquires a special meaning. Scripture becomes a book
that provides elements that will be used to build a theological system. The
numerous questions in the course of the commentary often refer to theological
treatises. But, for Abelard, theology is never separated from exegesis as it
will later be. In spite of the condemnations against what can be criticized in
his thought, Abelard will exercise a deep influence on a generation of
theologians (Châtillon 1984, 190).
Abelard's exposition also has the characteristics of a commentary that
comes from a school of theology (Dahan 1999, 92-108). He gives a theological
commentary on Romans and the prologue uses the frame given by Jerome (or
Pelagius!). Abelard adds new methodologies to biblical interpretation. He makes
a frequent use of the gloss. He uses his sources critically; he presents his
own interpretations in parallel with those of the Fathers and not as a
continuous transmission of the same content. He can justly be considered as the
first systematic and critical theologian. He is the precursor of systematic
theologians who will base their theological synthesis not on the exegesis of
biblical texts but on a structure and a form of thought that derives from
philosophy.
Abelard is a scholar and a master in theology. He belongs to a new
social category that was beginning to appear at the beginning of the twelfth
century, the magistri: "[cette catégorie] apparaissait en effet,
hors les cadres de la vieille féodalité, ecclésiastique ou laïque, ¡¦ sans lien
avec les monastères jusqu'alors promoteurs de la culture et de
l'éducation" (Chenu 1966, 324). We can now see that the commentary on a
figure on the level of the enunciation of the epistle, "Paul", was
interpreted by the enunciator of the commentary as a reflection of its own way
of life for it considers Paul as a master of theology. Paul is the last and the
greatest of the apostles. It is hard not to see a parallel with the Fathers and
the masters of theology. The masters come after the Fathers but their thought
can be greater than theirs.
The twelfth century is a period of rediscovery of the Fathers but this
does not mean that the authors were simply copying them as was done during the
ninth and the tenth centuries (see for instance the florilegium of Florus of
Lyons). Abelard wants to open up new ways of thinking and exposing his faith as
we have seen in his considerations on original sin, Christology and
soteriology. His concept of original sin breaks the ties with Augustine and
William will criticize him for that. But his method is the starting point of
what will be known as scholastic theology.
Abelard also accepts the authority of the Fathers but his relationship
with them is different. He quotes their works and the quotation marks (made by
introducing the text and by giving the name of the author and of the work
quoted) indicate that these works are references. He gives different points of
view and uses logic and dialectic to discuss the different and often
contradictory propositions extracted from the works of the Fathers. With the
use of logic, he will himself resolve these contradictions; thus he is the one
who decides how to understand what they say and how he receives their teaching.
Abelard plays the role of a master in theology who has the competency to
interpret different texts and to use them critically. We must also add that
sometimes he lacks critical sense on the authenticity of certain works: for
instance, he mistakes the commentary on Romans of Pelagius for a work of
Jerome (Froehlich 1990, 260).
The commentary on Rom 8: 1-30 transforms the figurative paths of the
epistle mainly through the expansions of these figurative paths. The
figures used for these expansions integrate the figures of Romans with
the figures of Abelard's theological and anthropological frames. And more
precisely, in the exposition of Rom 8: 1-30, the hermeneutical frame is made up
of anthropological vocabulary and mostly of the theological interpretations of
redemption and its benefits, Christology, original sin and baptism.
Abelard's interpretation of Rom 8: 3-4 is an expansion of the text of Romans
while the quotation of Origen's interpretation is a recategorization,
because it adds a sacrificial figurative path that is not in Romans (according
to our own analysis). Abelard transforms the epistle and creates a syntactic
expansion when he puts Christ in the actantial role of subject but he does not
use sacrificial terms to interpret Christ's death.[21]
We have shown that the
commentary on Rom 8 treats mainly of redemption and its benefits which operate
through the logic of love. The human being also has to work in synergy with God
through faith, hope and charity. One cannot deny that Abelard's soteriology
insists on the individual and internalizes salvation. He holds that it is not
necessary that the interior affectus be exteriorized with an effectus
(Comm Rom III, viii, 291-296; 311-319). But one should not oppose
individual and collective salvation in the theology of Abelard since the love
of God is also poured into the hearts of all the members and it unites them
with the head (Comm Rom III, viii, 114-119). Furthermore, Abelard
mentions the universality of salvation when he comments on "Abba, Father"
(Comm Rom III, viii, 242-265); he also says that the resurrection makes
all the members participate in the glory of the resurrection of the head (Comm
Rom III, viii, 169-175). These are the reasons why we think that Abelard
gives an anthropological interpretation of Christ's death in the exposition of
Rom 8.
The commentary on Rom 8: 1-4 also highlights several aspects (and
problems) of Abelard's Christology. Christ is the wisdom of God and the
fullness of divinity is present in the incarnate Christ (Weingart 1970, 100).
Placing a premium on divine immutability, Abelard understands the acts of the
Incarnate wisdom as something which takes place "in accordance to God's
will in such a way that nothing new takes place in himself" (Weingart 1970,
102 note 2). To explain the incarnation, he uses the homo assumptus. And
Christ's physical body acquires its substance from the virgin's body (Weingart
1970, 106 note 3). Nevertheless, Christ's suffering is concentrated in the
human nature (Weingart 1970, 107) "since the immutable person of the Logos
incarnate cannot suffer" (Weingart 1970, 107-108).
Yet there are other elements in this exposition that bear the marks of
his theology of original sin and baptism. All the Fathers admitted that Adam's
sin had consequences for his progeny, but the meaning of peccatum originale
was problematical for some twelfth-century theologians. Abelard distinguishes
three uses of the word peccatum in Scripture. Sin can mean our perverted
will by which we stand guilty before God, the punishment that is incurred
because of sin, or the victim of sin, such as Christ (Weingart 1970, 47 notes
1-2). For Abelard, the penalty of original sin is not imparted guilt but
"the debt of damnation which man owes because he is liable to eternal
punishment imposed by God for the transgression of the first parents"
(Weingart 1970, 48-49). But the commentary on Rom 8: 1-4 clearly mentions the
guilt of sin in the first interpretation of the meaning of Christ's death (Comm
Rom III, viii, 123-125). This can be explained by the fact that Abelard
holds that actual sin is universal and that all are inexcusable (Weingart 1970,
49 notes 1-2).
The exposition on Rom 8: 10 (Comm Rom III, viii, 123-157) shows
that baptism only operates the forgiveness of the punishment of original and
individual faults. But that raises a question: if baptism removes the source of
sin, which is the transmission of its punishment, why do human beings still
die? He will answer that we still die because God does not want us to become
too attached to this material world but still wishes to make us desire eternal
beatitude.[22]
The commentary on Rom 8: 1-30 truthfully mirrors Abelard's hermeneutical
and theological frame. As a theologian, he tried to reformulate the Church's
doctrine in a new language and to rethink many aspects of faith. Although what
he says on original sin and some concepts of his Christology were problematical
(to say the least), he remains a theologian who searched for new ways of
reformulating and rethinking many aspects of the Christian faith and we can see
that his theological concepts (the hermeneutical frame) are fully used in the
expansion of the figures of Rom 8: 1-30.
There are only a few figures in the commentary on Rom 8 that refer to
Abelard's anthropology. Abelard holds a dichotomous representation of the human
being as body and soul. And so death in Romans becomes the death of the
soul through sin and the death of the body in the commentary. The future
resurrection will glorify body and soul. A person has a reason and a will. The
reason receives the testimony of the spirit and can push away the suggestions
of the flesh with the help of Christ (Comm Rom III, viii, 222-224). The
will is the faculty of love and leads to virtuous deeds. The desires and the affectus
are in the heart. Carnal concupiscences lead to the vices. Abelard also makes a
distinction between the daily experience (experimentum) and the
experience acquired through practice (experientia). All these
anthropological notions are used in the commentary on Rom 8: 5-17. 22-27.
Abelard maintains the Augustinian anthropology while adding to it some
elements that come from an Aristotelian background. He maintains the theology
of the image and the likeness of God. After original sin, humanity lost its
original likeness and must restore it. On one hand, he maintains some elements
that look at human life from the point of view of its origins and as return to
the full image and likeness of God in which it was created. But Abelard also
talks a lot about our call to eternal beatitude. And so, on the other hand, he
conceives of the human being from the point of view of its finality. The human
being is then seen as a being of desire, capable of the glory to which it is
called. The exposition of Rom 8: 19-22 is a witness of the complementarity and
the tension between these two points of view. Abelard's anthropology is
personal and centered on the individual that is held responsible for his
choices and his destiny. The person acts in synergy with God. The consequence
of such a view is an internalization of salvation.[23]
William of Saint Thierry (1070/1075-1147/1148) is one the main
twelfth-century figures who was rediscovered during the past sixty years.[24]
Even if three of his works were attributed to Bernard of Clairvaux, they seemed
to have lost their interest when it was discovered that they had not been
written by Bernard. McGinn (1994, 225) even goes as far as to say that William
demonstrates a speculative mind greater than that of all the mystics of his
time. William wrote his Expositio in Epistolam ad Romanos between
1135-1139. He knew Abelard's commentary since he quotes from it. Verdeyen
(1989) has published a critical edition of this exposition. There exists only
one English translation that was made from the Latin text edited in the Patrologia
Latina. The translations that are given here are our own but we often
follow the published English translation.[25]
The commentary consists of seven books and three prefaces: one preface is at
the beginning of the commentary and the others come at the beginning of books
three and four.
The beginning of the first preface clearly introduces to William's
methodology:
We have begun Paul's epistle to the Romans, complicated as it is by many difficult questions, not to explain it, which is beyond our ability, but to weave a continuous commentary that is not our own, but which combines certain opinions and statements of the holy fathers, especially blessed Augustine. These [opinions] have been gathered from their books and tracts for our small work by omitting the troublesome questions in them. This [explanation] should be much more acceptable to the readers since it is not founded on novelty or vain presumption but is recommended by the great authority of outstanding doctors such as blessed Augustine, as I have said, and also Ambrose, Origen, and some other learned men, even some masters of our own day, who, we are certain, have not in any way transgressed the limits set by our Fathers. Therefore, no one should accuse us of theft, since we have given ourselves away. As in the poet's fable, we have clothed our little bird of the feathers and colors of other birds, so that if these should come and each one carry off what he recognizes as his own, our little crow would be naked of even nonexistent (Exp Rom Pr, 2-19).
William pursues the tradition of commentaries on Romans but
excludes the difficulties of the epistle itself and all the questions which
come from the Fathers because they are troublesome. William himself is then
part of a tradition which transmits and communicates a knowledge where the
Fathers assume the role of masters and he is but a disciple. He refuses all
novelties that transgress the limits set by the Fathers. The content of the
faith which comes from the canon of patristic authorities is thus enclosed
within limits which cannot be transgressed.
He continues his preface:
But the charm of contemplating the grace of God and the glory of God, which must be preached to all, have brought me to this task. The apostle Paul was a stouthearted defender of God's grace throughout this whole epistle, and defended it with apostolic authority and prudence against the Jews. The holy Fathers everywhere defended it against heretics. And we desire it to he inscribed in our hearts in order to acquire an affection (affectus) of total humility and the effect (effectus) of a pure devotion (Exp Rom Pr, 20-26).
Even if
William says that his commentary is not a defense against the heretics, it is
hard not to see subtle hints to Abelard's commentary in his refusal to deal
with the difficulties of the epistle and the questions raised by the Fathers
and his rejection of the novelties.
William usually follows the Vulgate but sometimes, as in the commentary
on Rom 8: 9, he will use two different readings of the Latin text. He also uses
grammar and rhetoric to comment Scripture. His use of rhetoric is clear in the
first recapitulation of his commentary after the exposition of Rom 1: 15:
After the apostle has begun to speak not in the learned and persuasive words of human wisdom, but in simplicity (simpliciter), as his God-given service of the gospel recommended (commendare), concerning the person who evangelizes, concerning the authority of the one who sends, concerning the cause itself, [and] after, as it were, he had made his entrance into the city of Rome by his letter with the fullness of Christ's blessings, he saluted it with peace, as the Lord taught, and he prepared a welcome for himself among his hearers by his pious and solicitous affection and by the work of his prayers, and then he started to preach the gospel to them (Exp Rom I, 346-355).
The words commendare
and simpliciter are typical expressions of ancient rhetoric. He
recommends his own person, the one who sent him and the cause of the gospel.
The doctrine of the gospel is preached with simplicity. His prayers and his
affection serve as a captatio beneuolentiae in order to prepare his
hearers to welcome him.
William addresses himself directly to his reader and he tells him that,
in his daily meditation of this commentary, he will acquire and experimental
knowledge of grace. This commentary wishes to communicate to the reader
something which he will want to do:
Those who completely devote themselves to divine worship should know that piety is the worship of God, as Scripture says. But there is no piety without thanksgiving and no thanksgiving without an acknowledgement of grace. By meditating frequently on this (commentary), they (are made to) become (efficiuntur) the blessed who are poor in spirit, to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs and whose spirit is believed to be totally with God (Exp Rom Pr, 26-31).
William's method is traditional. His exposition follows the text of the
epistle and continues the patristic tradition and the transmission of the
knowledge of the Fathers. Without naming him explicitly, he refuses part of
Abelard's methodology and the novelties. However, William's position is not one
sided; in his commentary, he will quote Abelard (Exp Rom I, 8-11). In
fact, he accepts Abelard's ideas as long as they do not transgress his own
opinion on the limits set by the Fathers.
William starts his exposition by commenting briefly on the figure of
Paul:
You are great, Lord, and exalted; you look down on the humble, and the proud you know from afar (Ps 137: 6). You knew Saul who derived the form of his name and of his persecution from a proud king and persecutor; but you did not know him from afar. You humbled him like the wounded proud [man] (Ps 88: 11) and with the arm of your power and the spirit of your grace you changed Saul to Paul, a young Benjamin penetrating the heavens in ecstasy (Ps 67: 28) and hearing secret words in God's paradise which are not permitted for a human being to utter (2 Cor 12: 4). Formerly he was a ravenous wolf but at evening time he divided the prey (Gen 49: 27). From there, he brought us back some [words] which are permitted for a human being to utter, but which no one can understand exactly (without heresy) unless he possesses something more than humanity (Exp Rom I, 2-13).
He was called Saul in Hebrew, Saulus in Latin, as if Saülus, just as Jacob becomes Jacobus and Joseph becomes Josephus, and so forth. When he was selected by you to be a chosen vessel to preach your grace to the Gentiles, he preferred to be called Paul rather than Saul. From the word paululus (little), that is a humble, quiet human being on whom the Holy Spirit rests, so that by his very name he might confound the pride of those who presumed to ascribe your grace to their own merits. This was for his own humility. As for your glory, when he had brought Paul the proconsul of Asia under your gentle yoke (Mt 11:30) and had made him a provincial of your kingdom, then he also preferred to be called Paul (Ac 13: 9) rather than Saul as a sign of so great a victory. For the enemy is more solidly defeated in him over whom he has a greater hold. And the ancient enemy holds a greater number of the proud by reason of their title of nobility, and still more of them by reason of their title of authority (Exp Rom I, 14-26).
William begins his exposition by addressing himself to God as he
implicitly invites the enunciatee to do the same thing. The expansion of
the figure "Paul" starts by mentioning his call. The figure of Saul
becomes an equivalent of pride and persecution while the figure of Paul means
humble, quiet and little (via the Latin paulus and paululus).
These figures follow the typologies of King Saul and of Benjamin. King Saul is
the figure of pride and persecution which applies to Saul before his
conversion. The figure of Benjamin also applies to Paul. Paul, as the anti-type
of Benjamin, is first described by Ps 67: 28 which, combined with 2 Co 12: 4,
describes Paul's mystical experience. Then the words of Jacob are quoted
(Gen 49: 27): in this context, they mean that Paul can share with us some words
he heard in the context of his experience of God. Paul is described here as one
who had a mystical experience. Furthermore, this experience and the meaning of
the name "Paul" as "humble" assures us that he has all the
competency needed to preach the grace of God. Finally, the text of Ac 13: 12-16
is related not only to explain the change of names but also as a witness to
God's glory.
So the exposition transforms the way Paul presents himself at the
beginning of the epistle. Paul becomes an apostle and a mystic who preaches
grace in his epistle. The commentary proposes to see Paul as a great mystic who
can guide the monk who has devoted himself to divine worship and can help him
acquire a knowledge of the experience of God's grace.
The exposition chooses to talk about grace. We can summarize what it
says on this point by using two general sequences which describe what grace
accomplishes in us.
First, grace operates before, during and after human activity:
Grace accomplishes (operates) good in us so we may will; it cooperates with us when we do will. And without it we can neither will nor accomplish any good. Just as we were created by God from no subsisting elements so that we might be something among his creatures, so by grace we have been created in good works by no merits of our own. And therefore if we merit anything, it is a grace, and what we merit is grace for grace. Indeed, to bear the fruit of a grace received is an increase of grace, just as to have received grace in the first place is a grace. Grace goes before us so we can pray; it helps us while we pray; and it gives us what we pray for (Exp Rom Pr, 36-42).
The second sequence describes the main themes used in his development on
grace: creative grace, elective grace, healing and illuminating grace, unifying
grace and the future grace.
When the human being becomes a Christian, the same creative grace is
operating in him as the one which did when that human being became Christ at
the moment of the incarnation (Exp Rom I, 61-65). Creative grace is also
active today through the word of the Lord Jesus who "calls those things
which are not, as though they were, and teaches the proud [how] to taste that
they are humans and [how] to be in accord with the humble because they are
brothers" (Exp Rom Pr, 54-58).
Elective grace means that we have been foreknown, predestined, called
and justified (Exp Rom Pr, 31-34). Furthermore, the only begotten son of
the Father came among us full of grace, that is, full of faith, hope and love
and he puts his own faith, his own hope and his own love in the hearts of the
penitent sinner (Exp Rom IV, 705).
Illuminating and healing grace operate simultaneously in the third state
of the man of God:
Sometimes a certain vision presents itself to the eyes of reason not so much by nature as by grace, so that the seer does not so much attract the object seen as the thing seen attracts the seer to it, conforms and adapts him to itself. When this happens without resistance, it is a token or pledge of approaching health. When this occurs, yet not without strife and contradiction, it is a warning that weakness is not yet consumed. This pertains to the third state of the man of God (Exp Rom III, 19-26).
Finally, William talks
about unitive grace (unus spiritus and the restoration of likeness) and
the future grace in relation to his descriptions of healing and illuminating
grace. The commentary on Rom 8: 1-30 develops the theology of healing and
illuminating grace.
Since the commentary on Rom 8: 3-4 is quite long, we will only mention
what deals with the representation of Christ's death; then we will analyze the
commentary on Rom 7: 25-8: 11 which deals mostly with healing grace and we will
describe how the exposition of Rom 8: 12-17. 26-27 explains the internalization
process of illuminating grace. Finally, we will say a word about the commentary
on Rom 8: 18-25.
At the beginning of the exposition on Rom 8: 3-4, William addresses
himself once again to the Lord Jesus to ask him to open the meaning of the text
because he has not found anything helpful in the Fathers' writings: "Loose
for us the seal which no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was found
worthy to loose except you, who hold the key of David" (Exp Rom IV,
661-663).
Then he interprets these verses of Romans by referring to He 9:
13-14:
For if sprinkling the blood of goats and calves and the ashes of a heifer sanctifies the defiled to the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, by the Holy Spirit, offered himself unspotted to God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? What here (in Romans) is called the 'condemnation of sin' is called there (in Hebrews) 'the cleansing of dead works', and the service of a clean conscience toward God is the same as the perfect fulfillment of justice (Exp Rom IV, 669-676).
After showing that the sacrifices of the law only purified the flesh and
not the conscience (Exp Rom IV, 676-686), the exposition asks what is
the justice of the law and it answers in sacrificial terms: "That which is
called the justice of the law is so called because it was given for the
fulfillment of the law. What is that but satisfaction for the past and
precaution for the future? But there can be no satisfaction from a nature
spoiled by sin and united with sin, and no precaution for the future that would
be outside of grace" (Exp Rom IV, 690-692).
After mentioning what the Only Begotten brings us through his
incarnation, the exposition then gives its interpretation of the syntagm de
paccato and the meaning of the death of Christ through its own synthesis of
the dramatic and satisfaction theories. It mentions that it is Christ who
permitted the devil to kill him. Hence there is no necessity imposed on God:
When the Only Begotten came into the world, he met the prince of this world, and he permitted himself to be killed by him for the sake of justice, although he had nothing against him. He gave the justice of his innocent death to the penitent sinner. He put his faith and charity into [the sinner's] heart, the saving confession of faith for salvation into his mouth, and his body and blood into his hand. In this way, he presents him to God the father as his own, a culprit yet redeemed. With the sin of the presumer condemned and the sin of the penitent destroyed, he restored him, pleasing and acceptable, through the sacrifice of his justice (Exp Rom IV, 701-709).
The innocent death is the performance of a narrative program which has
three objects in relation to three receivers. First, there is the
condemnation and the destruction of sin (first object) of the one who has
presumed of his right (first receiver). The Only Begotten pours into the heart
of the believer (second receiver) his faith and his love (part of the second
object) and puts the confession of faith in his mouth and places in his hand
his body and his blood (part of the second object) (Exp Rom IV,
704-706). Finally, Christ presents to his Father (third receiver) the redeemed
culprit who has become acceptable and agreeable (third object) through his
sacrifice of justice (Exp Rom IV, 706-709). These roles can be
articulated in the following actantial schema III —which can be compared with
schemas I and II:
|
God |
à |
1) Destruction
of the sin 2) Faith, hope
and love 3)
Presentation of the penitent sinner as acceptable and agreeable |
à à à |
1) The one who presumed 2) The penitent sinner 3) Father |
|
|
|
¡© |
|
|
|
Incarnation |
à |
Lord Jesus |
©¬ |
|
Finally he summarizes his interpretation of the death of Christ:
By means of the sin of the presumer, as I have said, he condemned the sin of the penitent sinner, and by the death of his own flesh he killed the death of the soul in us. In the law, the sacrifice for sin was called sin. Therefore, being himself the victim (hostia) of the sacrifice for sin, he condemned and destroyed all sin in us. This is the justice of the law which is not fulfilled by the law, but though him who came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it, Jesus Christ our Lord (Exp Rom IV, 755-763).
After original sin, human nature is sick and must also fight against
concupiscence. The exposition of Rom 7: 25-8: 3a describes what goes on during
the third state of the man of God: "Until now the man of God did not
clearly perceive himself or understand what was happening; now he begins to
discern himself and to understand who is operating in him" (Exp Rom IV,
602-604). This is when a war starts against himself since he must serve two
laws, the law of God by his reason and the law of sin and death which consists
in disobeying God when one follows the desires of concupiscence:
I serve he law of God with my reason by not consenting, and with my flesh I serve the law of sin by coveting. Yet in the latter I take pleasure and in the former I am not subdued. O old man, a new type of life is proclaimed for you. You are lifted up with the joy of newness, but you are weighed down with the burden of oldness. There begins for you a war against yourself. To the extent that you displease yourself, you are joined to God; and to the extent that you are joined to God you will be prepared to conquer yourself, because he who conquered all things is with you (Comm Rom IV, 607-614).
And so being
in Christ (Rom 8: 1) means serving the law of God with our reason and not
walking according to the flesh. When we do that, there is "no
condemnation" for us (Rom 8: 1).
Another aspect of healing grace consists in acquiring the virtues. By
the sending of the Son of God (Rom 8: 3), the grace of Christ overflowed into
our hearts. "First of all, he gave us faith, and then hope as though the
reward of faith. But hope does not disappoint, because soon the charity of God
is also poured forth (diffundere) in our hearts through the Holy
Spirit" (Exp Rom IV, 696-698).
Finally, we must stop living according to the prudence and the wisdom of
the flesh and live according to the prudence and the wisdom of the spirit:
If, in this, one only seeks what is pleasing to the flesh, it is the prudence of the flesh, and this is the death of the soul. For just as the soul is the life of the body, so God is the life of the soul, and whatever the soul seeks lower than God is death to it. The prudence of the spirit is to seek its own life, which is God, and the peace which is in God. This peace cannot exist in him who tastes carnal things, because as we have said, wisdom hates malice (Exp Rom V, 12-19).
The phroneô
of the flesh means that the soul desires what is lower than God and that brings
death (Rom 8: 5-9). The phroneô of the spirit means that the soul seeks
God with prudence and wisdom. This is the life of the soul and peace with God
(Rom 8: 5-9).
After original sin, we must also restore nature and this means
destroying vices (uitium) which are like defects (uitium, the
same word in Latin) in the nature:
Wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God, for it is not subject to the law of God nor can it be. What does this mean: nor can it be? It is not the human being or flesh or spirit or any nature which cannot be subject to the law of God but the prudence of the flesh which cannot be. The defect (uitium) cannot be subject, but the nature can. It is as if you said that limping is not included [in the idea of] normal walking, nor can it be. The foot can be, but limping cannot. Remove the limping and you will see normal walking ¡¦ Likewise, as long as prudence of the flesh is present there is no subjection to God. Let the prudence of the flesh disappear and the human being can be subject to God (Exp Rom V, 20-28).
And so, for
the commentary on Rom 8: 5-9, life and peace with God come from a restored
nature, when vice has disappeared and when the soul seeks God..
Healing grace
helps us serve the law of the spirit of life by waging war against our evil
desires (commentary on Rom 7: 25-8, 2); it is also the gift of virtues that
overflow into our hearts from Christ himself (commentary on the sending of the
Son in Rom 8: 3); and it helps us live according to the prudence and wisdom of
the spirit and not the prudence of the flesh so as to restore nature and
eliminate the vices (commentary on Rom 8: 5-9).
According to the exposition of Rom 8: 3-4, this all leads to unitive
grace which comes to us in the Eucharist through which we participate in
the sacrifice of Christ himself:
Your work is made true for us when we sacrifice to you this your sacrifice. When we remember with the sure sacrament of faith and a pious affection of heart what you have done for us. Faith, as it were, receives it with its mouth, hope chews it, and charity cooks the blessed and beatifying food of your grace into salvation and life. There you show yourself to the soul which desires you, accepting the embrace of her love and kissing her with the kiss of your mouth. As happens in a loving kiss, she pours out (effundere) to you her spirit, and you pour in (infundere) your spirit, so that you are made one body and one spirit (unus spiritus) when she receives in this way your body and your blood. There the conscience is not only cleansed from dead works, but is filled and strengthened with the fruits of life and the spirit 'to serve the living God', when the justice of the law is completely fulfilled in her (Exp Rom IV, 714-726).
The justice of the law is completely fulfilled (Rom 8: 4) by unifying
grace and the full fruits of the spirit. This union of spirits must not be
interpreted in terms of essence but in terms of relation; it is not a fusion of
the divine and human essence but a unifying relationship. There is also a
sequence of internalization which applies to healing grace. Christ, through the
spirit, diffuses his gifts in us: "to diffuse" means to spread out in
a certain area. But when it comes to unus spiritus, then Christ infuses
his spirit in us: an infusion happens when something spreads into the whole
area. And, when Christ totally fills our heart, then something comes out, an
effusion of our own spirit.
The commentary on Rom 8: 10-11 also describes the future life in
relation to healing grace when the consequences of sin will be removed:
"What was mortal did not die except by reason of sin. The change which
will take place in the resurrection will not only remove that death which
occurred because of sin, but also that mortality which the animal body had
before sin" (Exp Rom V, 84-88).
Finally, William gives a rhetorical explanation of the "also"
in the syntagm: "He will also give life to your mortal bodies" (Rom
8: 11):
Notice the brilliance of the apostle's knowledge. Whatever he says here he says to dissuade human beings from thinking that they derive little of no benefit from the grace of Christ because they must die a bodily death. They should note that the body still bears the punishment of sin which was contracted in the condition of death, but that the spirit already has begun to live on account of the justice of faith, although it had been killed in the human being by a certain death from infidelity¡¦. For the same reason, do not despair of the life of the body itself (Exp Rom V, 105-115).
In God, the Holy Spirit is love. The experience of the divine love which
is poured into our hearts and lives in us, enables us to know God. Illuminating
grace is a gift of loving knowledge which comes from an ever deepening
experience of our participation in the life of God. Following the commentary,
we can divide this internalization process in three stages on earth and then
see how the future grace is interpreted in terms of illuminating grace.
First stage. The man of God perceives who operates in himself, as we
have already mentioned above (Exp Rom I, IV, 602-607). The Holy Spirit
enables us to do good works not only with faith but also with love as the
commentary on Rom 8: 12 says: "Therefore, brothers, ¡¦. having received the
Holy Spirit, 'we are debtors, not to the flesh so that we should live according
to the flesh', but that we should have love, and that by it we might be able to
perform good deeds, for faith cannot operate except by love" (Exp Rom V,
125-132). And according to Rom 8: 14, the Holy Spirit moves those who are sons
of God: "The sons of God are moved to do what should be done and, when
they have done it, they give thanks to him by whom they were moved, because
they acted as they should, namely, with delight (delectatio) and love (dilectio)
of justice" (Exp Rom V, 144-148).
Second stage. According to Rom 8: 16, the Holy Spirit is poured into (diffundere)
our hearts. The verbs describe the multiple action of the Holy Spirit which is
love and cry:
If you are such (accomplishing the commandments of God with love and delight), you are a child and a son. All that the Father has is yours. The spirit of adoption inspires in you the love of the Father. In the spirit you cry out as much as you love, because he is the love and the cry in which you cry 'Abba, Father'. If you invoke the Father with a son's affection (affectus), the Holy Spirit, the author of grace, insinuates himself into your spirit, and by this effect (effectus) testifies that you are a son of God (Exp Rom V, 193-199).
Illuminating
grace also follows a process of internalization. The Holy Spirit first obtains
our spirit (part of the human being)
and then by means of it seizes the rest (all the human being) (Exp
Rom V, 353-354).
Third stage. The commentary on Rom 8: 26-27 deals with prayer in general
(Exp Rom V, 412-450) and then it goes on to talk about the different
kinds of intimate prayer (Exp Rom V, 412-450). The commentary quotes
Gregory the Great at lenght (Exp Rom V, 454-470) and adds something on
the third step of intimate prayer. William then gives us his own description of
the transformation of our knowledge into an other kind of loving knowledge
which comes from the Holy Spirit:
After the soul understands its small measure and is not disturbed with itself but is recollected and elevated and knows that it transcends all bodily things and has moved from the understanding (intellectus) of itself to an understanding (intellectus) of its author, then the understanding (intellectus) of God begins to operate in it as differently from its own understanding (intellectus) as the nature of uncircumscribed light differs from the nature of the soul. What the soul understands it grasps; but in this understanding (intellectus), in an unusual way, it does not grasp but is grasped and something sensible happens to it which only enlightened love is permitted to feel, a certain sweetness, not one which love has merited, but which, once tasted, causes love, something which is not known and sensed, the certain (quaedam) and most solid substance of things hoped for, a most certain evidence of things that appear not, the faithful testimony of the Lord to the Christian faith bestowing wisdom on the little ones. This is felt (sentire), this is relished (sapere) by the little, tranquil one on whom the spirit of God rests, so that the things which pertain to the flesh and to the world or to any creature, become so insipid for him that he would like to die while it is permitted to continue. He prays for what he does not know, since he does not know what he is experiencing. For it is the spirit which desires and asks on his behalf, and the spirit makes him experience what as yet he does not know, and the spirit makes him ask and desire that which he does not know through his senses (Exp Rom V, 476-496).
The figure sentire indicates the experimental aspect of this kind
of loving knowledge of God which enables to taste (sentire) and to feel
(sapere) a certain and solid substance of the realities which we hope
for. There is no doubt of the reality of this experience of love. Yet one does
not feel or taste the substance itself but only a certain (quaedam)
substance. The use of quaedam means that there is a distinction between
the reality itself and what we perceive.[26]
The intellectus is a higher level of functioning of the reason in the
human soul (McGinn, 1994, 256-257; Bell 1984, 244-246). In the experience of
God, the reason does not grasp the object but is itself grasped by it.[27]
The activity of love and knowledge penetrate each other while the two faculties
do not merge one into another.[28]
The commentary on Rom 8: 27 adds a note on the union with God:
And he who searches hearts knows what the spirit desires, that is, what he causes to be desired. He will fulfill it when his promise is fulfilled: 'Then you will know that I am he' ¡¦ There is a certain kind of learned ignorance taught by the spirit of God which helps our infirmity. [The spirit] humbles the human being by exercising him, and by humiliation forms and conforms him to the countenance which he seeks until, renewed to the image of him who created him, he begins through the unity of likeness to be a son who is always with the Father, to whom all the Father's possessions belong, and to whom, while others come and go, it is said: you, remain here with me (Exp Rom V, 497-510).
Finally the commentary on Rom 8: 17 describes our future inheritance in
terms of contemplation and vision of God. This will be the final and eternal
development of illuminating grace. "Our imperfect vision of him (the
Father) is destroyed by perfect vision. And yet if that imperfect vision did
not nourish us, we could not be made worthy for that other complete and direct
vision" (Exp Rom V, 222-224).
The commentary on Rom 8: 18-25 gives different definitions of creatura
but the figure always means more or less the human creature. William quotes
Augustine who portrays the structure of the human being as a microcosm. In the
exposition of these verses, William talks about the whole economy of salvation.
Hope is linked to the action of the Holy Spirit who prepares in us a sacrifice,
which will only be consumed in the future. We only want to mention three points
in this commentary.
Firstly, the commentary on Rom 8: 21-22 quotes Augustine and relates the
structures of the human creature to the different creatures in the universe:
Another meaning can be given to the name of creature. Every creature is summed up in the human being: not that all the angels and superlative virtues and powers are in him, or heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them, but because every creature is partly spiritual, partly animal, and partly corporeal ¡¦ Thus every creature is in the human being because he understands with the spirit, and feels with the soul, and is moved bodily through space (Exp Rom V, 315-321 quoting Augustine).
Even if
William adds the figurative path of the human creature to the epistle, he does
not gloss over the relation between creation and humanity. He recuperates this
idea through the interpretation of the human structure as a microcosm, an idea
that comes out of a quotation from Augustine.
Secondly, the commentary on Rom 8: 23 uses sacrificial language to talk
about the action of the Holy Spirit pouring out love and hope into our hearts:
"And he spoke well in saying, we who have the first fruits of the spirit,
meaning those whose spirits are offered to God as a sacrifice, and who are
seized by the divine fire of charity ¡¦. but the burnt offering has not yet been
offered¡¦. The burnt offering will take place when death is absorbed in
victory¡¦" (Exp Rom V, 346-353). Once again, the commentary
recategorizes the figures of the epistle by adding a sacrificial figurative
path.
Thirdly, the commentary mentions the frustrations, sufferings and trials
of this life. The exposition of Rom 8: 24-25 puts suffering in relation to the
condition of the body: "He is awaiting health of body because he did not
have the health that hunger and thirst destroy if they are not relieved" (Exp
Rom V, 378-380). The figures associated with suffering in Rom 8: 17.21.22.23.24-25
are all linked to living in hope. The expectation mentioned in Rom 8: 19
results in suffering because of asceticism: "That which suffers pain in us
because we mortify the deeds of the flesh" (Exp Rom V, 261-262).
Finally, the human creature suffers because of transgression of the precepts of
God. The human spirit is troubled by what it should have mastered (Exp Rom V,
321-326).
William wants to motivate his "reader" to acquire a deepened
experience of grace. This can be inferred from the type of communication chosen
in the exposition. He starts his commentary by addressing himself to the
enunciatee, so that he may acquire a will to deepen the experience of God's grace
through the frequent reading of the exposition (Exp Rom Pr, 29-31). When
he comments on the name of Paul, he addresses himself to God, and the
enunciatee also joins in this movement of prayer. This also helps the latter
enter into what the enunciator is doing and wishes to communicate. This type of
communication is paranetic since the enunciatee/reader is asked to acquire the
will to do something.
William's exposition is moral and spiritual since it explains the
relationship between God and the individual soul. In a certain sense, it is a
homily or a shared lectio divina. Scripture is read in order to foster,
nourish and deepen the experience of God. William writes a mystical commentary
on Romans as he elaborates the functions of grace and the Holy Spirit in
the internalization of the presence of God in one's heart. All this leads the
enunciatee/reader to union with God. His mystical theology is based on his
Trinitarian theology although this does not appear in the section of the
commentary that we have analyzed.
His exposition also has the characteristics of a commentary written in a
monastery. Grammar and rhetoric are used to comment upon the biblical text. His
sentences are long (Dahan 1999, 86). He sees his commentary as a contribution
to a collective work started by the Fathers, which does not mean that he is not
creative: "Les cisterciens, à côté de passages tirés de leur propre
expérience, procèdent souvent à une réécriture totale de leurs sources"
(Dahan 1999, 84). William resigned as abbot of the Benedictine monastery of
Saint Thierry and entered the Cistercian monastery of Signy, a new monastic
order. Again, we can see that the enunciator of the commentary interprets the
figure "Paul" according to his own experience of grace in a life "devoted
to divine worship" (Exp Rom Pr, 26) and lived in the setting of the
cloister: he considers Paul as a mystic who can teach the monk about grace
because of his unique experience of God.
We have mentioned that William uses traditional methods for his
exposition and puts aside the questions and all that goes beyond the limits
imposed by the Fathers. He considers the Fathers as persons qualified by their
sanctity and as great doctors who have left us their teachings. He does not use
what we call today quotation marks and his thought functions in fusion with the
teaching of the Fathers. They are the masters and he is a disciple who works
within the limits of their tradition. The first preface of his exposition gives
us the impression of a world closed in on itself. William also quotes the poets
and the philosophers without giving them the authority of the Fathers. It seems
that William sees ratio fidei as a content which excludes any novelty.
Furthermore, it is probable that ratio fidei did not only mean the
creed, as for Augustine (TeSelle 2002, 18-22), but also the teaching of the
Fathers.
But his exposition is not a compilation of patristic quotations.[29]
At the beginning of the exposition on Rom 8: 3-4, William acknowledges that
there is nothing in the Fathers that can help him in his task. He rarely quotes
the Fathers in the exposition of Rom 8: 5-26 and elaborates a theology of
healing and illuminating grace and of the Holy Spirit that, while depending on
Augustine and Gregory the Great, is creative and innovative. Here, we can see
how he develops his own ideas regardless of what he said in the first preface.
Fidelity to the Fathers does not mean a simple repetition of what they said. In
the twelfth century, the rediscovery of the Fathers was accompanied by a
vitality that, in the case of William, will set the theological foundations of
what will become known as affective mysticism.
William transforms the figures of the epistle by reframing them in his
own anthropology which, in turn, serves as a foundation on which he can build
and elaborate a theology of grace (healing and illuminating grace) and of the
Holy Spirit, which plays a central role in the dispensation of illuminating
grace. This commentary uses more anthropological terms than Abelard's. We will
present the three different viewpoints from which William develops his
anthropology in order to show how it lays the necessary foundations for his
theology of grace. Then we will finish with a summary of the theological frame.
William's anthropology represents the human being from three different
viewpoints: 1) the theological dimension is based on the notion of the image
and of the likeness of God; 2) the cosmological viewpoint considers the human
being as a microcosm; 3) the structural viewpoint describes the structure of
the human being and of the soul.
In the exposition on Rom 8: 1-30, the commentary mentions the image and
likeness of God only a few times. The human creature never loses the image even
if the seal of the image has been lost because of sin (Exp Rom V,
403-404) but union with God implies that the likeness is fully restored in
"the unity of the likeness of a son" (Exp Rom V, 500-508).
William also considers the human being as a microcosm. All the creatures
participate at least in one of the elements which constitute a human being: a
material body, a life-giving soul and a spirit that can understand. This
viewpoint is used in the commentary on Rom 8: 19-23 to talk about the relation
between the human creature and the cosmos.
In the exposition on Rom 8: 1-30, William uses Pauline vocabulary to
express the trichotomous structure of the human creature: body, soul and spirit
(Exp Rom V, 14; 315-326). The body can be also designated by the flesh (Exp
Rom V, 131-132) and the flesh only has a negative value when it is linked
to sin and concupiscence (Exp Rom V, 38-42). This triple structure
explains why "one death" in Romans becomes, in the commentary,
the death of the body, the death of the soul and also a certain death of the
spirit.
For William, the soul is usually considered to be composed of memory,
reason and will. But, in the expositions on Rom 7: 25-8: 11 and on Rom 8:
24-25, the soul is divided in heart and mind (spiritus: Exp Rom V,
183-186). The mind is a faculty capable of reasoning, making distinctions and
understanding (Exp Rom IV, 603-605); it is also a faculty capable of
desire and responsible for consent (Exp Rom IV, 605-609; 622-624). All
desires and affections (amor, caritas, dilectio) come from the heart.
William uses these psychological structures to describe the struggle of the man
of God.
This anthropology is based on two principles: the principle of hierarchy
and the principle of ordination. All creatures are considered in a hierarchical
ladder: matter, living creatures, the human being capable of understanding and
the angels. There also exists a hierarchy in the structure of the human being:
the material body, the soul which gives life and the spirit capable of
understanding. In the interpretation of Rom 8: 5-9, the prudence of the spirit
consists in the fact that the soul seeks what is above it and can give it life,
namely God. The prudence of the flesh consists in seeking what is below the
soul (the body and the concupiscence of the flesh) and leads to its death. When
the soul seeks what is above it, it is then ordained to its purpose and this is
an effect of healing grace.
Since we have already developed the main features of the theology of
grace and the Holy Spirit in the presentation of the commentary, we will only
mention what was said. William seems to show a preference for the sacrificial
interpretation of the death of Christ in Rom 8: 3-4 and the use of a
sacrificial figurative path to interpret the figure of "hope" in Rom
8: 23-25.
The exposition transforms the figures of Rom 7: 25-8: 11 into the
theological frame of healing grace and the figures of Rom 8: 12-17. 25-26 into
the frame of illuminating grace (and the action of the Holy Spirit). The
commentary on Rom 8: 1-30 is the place where he lays the theological
foundations of what is called today affective mysticism.
In the exposition on the name of Paul, Abelard first quotes Gen 49: 27
and the following biblical quotations (including Ps 67: 28) continue to develop
the typology of Benjamin. Paul is the last and the most loved apostle and he is
a great master of doctrine. William's commentary inverts the biblical
quotations. Ps 67: 28 presents Paul as a mystic, consequently Gen 49: 27 means
that, after his ecstasy, Paul can share some of the words which he heard in
heaven. Both commentaries use the same biblical sources, but each one in its
own way.
Each commentary on Rom 8: 1-30 transforms the figures of Romans according
to its own anthropological and theological frames. We will only compare here
the main features of the commentaries.
According to our semiotic analysis, Rom 8: 3-4 is theocentric since God
assumes the role of subject and Christ's death is interpreted in juridical
terms. Both commentaries transform the epistle. Abelard gives a christocentric
reading of these verses and an anthropological meaning to Christ's death while
William gives christocentric interpretation of the same text and a sacrificial
meaning to the Lord Jesus' death. We can also compare the different syntactic
and semantic transformations.
Syntactic Transformations. What we considered in our analysis as a
competency of God (being-able-to condemn sin in the flesh) becomes in the
commentaries a part of the object transmitted to a receiver, since Christ is
now the subject (actantial schemas II and III). Following the dramatic theory
(the third opinion mentioned by Abelard), the object is the destruction of sin
of the devil and the Jews by the subject, Christ. According to our analysis of
Abelard, the receivers are the devil and the Jews. In William's exposition, the
receiver is the presumer and the prince of this world whose sin consists of
having put Christ, an innocent, to death, and thus of having presumed unjustly
of his right. According to the satisfaction theory (Origen as quoted by Abelard
and William's exposition), Christ becomes a victim of a sin-offering. According
to the quotation of Origen, the sin is removed. Here, it is not clear who is
the receiver. According to William, the receiver is the Father who accepts an
agreeable sacrifice. The object is therefore us who, as penitent sinners,
become acceptable and agreeable to the Father through the sacrifice of Christ.
Finally, according to Abelard's own opinion, sin means the penalty of original
sin. The subject, Christ, destroys that penalty and opens the heavens for those
who are just (the receiver).
Both Abelard and William mention that Christ has destroyed sin, but the
epistle only says that God condemned sin in the flesh. According to our own
reading of these verses, condemnation does not mean destruction, and so God
does not destroy sin in the flesh.
What becomes of the "righteous requirement of the law" (Rom 8:
4), the object of the actantial schema I ? For Abelard, it means that divine
charity is poured into our hearts. William defines this syntagm in sacrificial
terms: the justice of the law means satisfaction for the past, which cannot be
given by a nature spoiled by sin, and a precaution for the future, which cannot
be given outside of grace. Only Christ can fulfill this.
Semantic Transformations. Abelard expands the syntagm of
"condemnation of sin" and what we call the benefits of redemption in
anthropological terms.[30]
He keeps the same thematic roles as in the epistle: Christ is the justifier and
the liberator while we are the ones who are justified and liberated.
Nevertheless the quotation of Origen in Abelard's exposition recategorizes the
epistle because it introduces a new figurative path (the sacrificial path) and
a new thematic role: Christ is the one who is sacrificed. William's exposition
also recategorizes the epistle since it adds a sacrificial figurative path and
new thematic roles: Christ is the purifier and we are purified. In William's
exposition, both the dramatic theory and the satisfaction theory are expressed
in sacrificial terms.
In the other parts of the commentaries, the action of the Holy Spirit is
described differently in the two expositions on Rom 8: 1-30. Abelard sees this
action as pouring into our hearts the benefits of Christ's redemption while
William describes this role mainly in terms of the development and
internalization of illuminating grace and the pouring into our hearts of faith,
hope and love.
William dwells at length on grace while Abelard only mentions it in
passing. As we have said, the problem seems to be that Abelard did not use
traditional vocabulary to talk about grace. But, if we replace
"faith" by "the grace of faith", we get another picture.
For Abelard, the grace of faith is what helps us, cooperating with human
activity during this life. The human being is then seen as working in synergy
with God..
TeSelle (2002, 45.271-272) mentions that Augustine glossed over the
relationship between creation and humanity in Rom 8: 19-22. Abelard does not
mention that either. William reads creatura as the human creature but
then quotes another text of Augustine describing the human being as a
microcosm. His exposition of these verses then talk about the relation between
the cosmos and the human creature in the context of the entire economy of
salvation.
Finally, we have also seen that Abelard has an anthropology that is
partly oriented towards the finality of human life, and describes future
beatitude in opposition to the frustrations and sorrows of the present life.
William, however, has a representation of the human being which focuses nearly
exclusively on its beginnings. His vision of heaven is a life which continues
and brings to perfection that which has already started to be reformed in this
life. After Adam's sin, healing grace heals our broken nature and the final
resurrection will give our body immortality and incorruptibility so that it
will have acquired what is had lost because of the fall. The future vision of
God face to face will also bring to perfection our imperfect vision and the
contemplation of God in this life.
We have used the semiotics of biblical commentaries to show how each
exposition transforms the figures of the commented text and to explain the
differences berween these transformations. As far as we know, this is the only
method that can analyze how a transformation occurs when a figure or a syntagm
"travels" from one text to another. In the syntactic component, it
permits us to see how the same actorial figure from the text of origin can be
differently articulated with other actorial figures and assume other actorial
roles. This helps to see how Rom 8: 3-4 is theocentric while the commentaries
are christocentric. In the semantic component, we can also see how a figure
from the text of origin can be integrated in different figurative paths in the
commentaries and thus produce different effects of meaning. This method can
analyze how these operations transform the commented text and how a given
figure produces different effects of meaning when it "travels" from
one text to another. We can also analyze and compare the different types of
communication between the enunciator and the enunciatee/reader.
Both commentators lived in the same cultural milieu as can be seen by
their use of the same biblical and patristic sources. The comparison of these
two commentaries gives us a glimpse of what pluralism meant in the twelfth
century. We can no longer talk about "a" medieval interpretation of Romans.
While using the Fathers as auctoritates, each expositor remains personal
and creative - these two commentaries are not a simple repetition of the Fathers.
Both commentators look at Paul and his epistles as foundations for their
faith and theology. And so, for William and Abelard, Paul was not a person of
the past but he seemed close enough to them to be able to be taken as an
example of a new kind of mysticism and the type (tupos) of a new social
category of master in theology (Froehlich 1990, 258-259).
These two commentaries show us that William is a theologian and a mystic
while Abelard is a theologian and a philosopher. The dispute between these two
men marked the starting point of the distinction and the split between theology
and spirituality. Later on, in the course of the centuries, these distinctions
will generate further separations between different disciplines such as
theology and exegesis, spiritual life and intellectual work. Part of today's
task could be to rediscover the relations between the different disciplines and
rebuild bridges.
References
Bell, David N. 1984. The Image and Likeness. The
Augustinian Spirituality of William of Saint Thierry. Cistercian Studies
Series 78. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications.
Boers, Hendrikus. 1994. The Justification of the
Gentiles. Paul's Letters to the Galatians and Romans. Hendrickson.
Brooke, Odo. 1980. Studies in Monastic Theology. Cistercian
Studies Series 37. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications.
Byrne, Bryan. 1996. Romans. Sacra Pagina Series
6. Collegeville: Liturgical Press / Michael Glazier.
Châtillon, Jean. 1984. "La Bible dans les Écoles du XIIe
siècle". 163 – 198 in P. Riché, and G. Lobrichon (eds.). Le Moyen
Âge et la Bible. Bible de tous les temps 4. Paris: Beauchesne.
Chenu, Marie Dominique. 1966. La
théologie au douzième siècle. Paris: Vrin.
Commentarius Cantabrigiensis in Epistolas
Pauli e schola Petri Abaelardi: 1. In Epistolam ad Romanos. 1937. A. Landgraf (ed.). Publication in
Mediaeval Studies 2. University of Notre Dame: Notre Dame.
Cranfield, C. E. B. 1979. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans. Volume 1. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Dahan, Gilbert. 1999. L¡¯exégèse chrétienne de la Bible en Occident
médiéval. XIIe – XIVe siècle. Patrimoines,
christianisme. Paris: Cerf.
Déchanet, Jean-Marie. 1962. "Introduction", in Guillaume de
Saint-Thierry. Exposé sur le Cantique des cantiques. Translation by M.
Dumontier. Sources chrétiennes 82. Paris: Cerf.
Doutre, Jean. 2002. L'Expositio super Epistolam ad Romanos de
Guillaume de Saint Thierry et ses rapports à l'épître commentée. Sémiotique du
commentaire. Doctoral thesis. Montréal: Université de Montréal.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1993. Romans. A New translation
with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible 33. New York. London.
Toronto. Sydney. Auckland: Doubleday.
Froehlich, Karlfried. 1990. "Romans 8: 1-11:
Pauline Theology in Medieval Interpretation". 239-260 in J.T. Carroll,
C.H. Cosgrove, and E.E. Johnson (eds.). Faith and History. Festschrift W.
Meyer. Atlanta: Scolars Press.
Genest, Olivette. 1995. Le discours du
Nouveau Testament sur la mort de Jésus. Épîtres et Apocalypse. Sainte-Foy:
Les presses de l'Université Laval.
Greene, M. D. 1991. "A note on Romans 8: 3".
Biblische Zeitschrift 35: 103-106.
Greimas, Algirdas J. and Joseph Courtès. 1982. Semiotics and
Language. An Analytical Dictionary. Translated by L. Crist, D. Patte and
others. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. (1979 in the French original).
Grenholm, Cristina and Daniel Patte, 2000. Reading
Israel in Romans. Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations.
Harrisburg, Pa: Trinity Press International.
Kâsemann, Ernst. 1973. Commentary on
Romans. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.
Luddy, Ailbe. J. 1947. The Case of Peter
Abelard. Dublin: Gill.
Luscombe, D. E. 1969. The School of Peter Abelard. The Influence of
Abelard's Thought in the Early Scholastic Period. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Malevez, L. 1933. "La doctrine de l'image et de la connaissance
mystique chez Guillaume de Saint-Thierry". Recherches de science
religieuse 22: 569-588.
McGinn, Bernard. 1994. The Growth of Mysticism. Gregory the Great
through the 12th Century. New York: Crossroad.
Moo, Douglas J. 1991. Romans 1-8. Wycliffe
Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody.
Panier, Louis. 1978a. "Sémiotique du commentaire :
problématique et procédures d¡¯analyse". Revue de Sciences Religieuses
52: 201 – 226.
_____ 1978b. "La citation biblique dans le
discours didactique. Éléments pour une approche sémiotique". 115 – 160
in ACFEB, Écriture et pratique chrétienne. Lectio divina 96. Paris:
Cerf.
_____ 1979a. "Sémiotique du discours religieux et sémiotique
générale". Actes sémiotiques. Le Bulletin 8: 5 – 17.
_____ 1979b. "Le discours d¡¯interprétation dans
le commentaire biblique". 239 – 254 in Greimas, A. J., Landowski,
É. (eds.). Introduction à l¡¯analyse du discours en sciences sociales.
Paris: Hachette.
_____ 1980. "Le texte du commentaire exégétique.
À propos d¡¯un commentaire de l¡¯épître aux Hébreux". Sémiotique et Bible
17: 6 – 37.
_____ 1983. "Le commentaire : expansion
figurative et sélection sémique". Sémiotique et Bible 31: 43 – 64.
_____ 1984. Récit et commentaires de la tentation
de Jésus au désert. Thèses. Paris: Cerf.
_____ 1991. La naissance du Fils de Dieu.
Sémiotique et théologie discursive. Lecture de Luc 1 – 2. Cogitatio Fidei
164. Paris: Cerf.
Pennington, Basil and Paul Verdeyen. 1979.
"Bibliographie de Guillaume de Saint-Thierry depuis 1890". 443 – 454
in Saint-Thierry. Une abbaye du VIe au XXe siècle.
Actes du colloque international d¡¯histoire monastique, Reims-Saint-Thiery, 11 –
14 octobre 1976. Saint Thierry.
Peppermüller, Rolf. 1972a. Abaelards
Auslegung des Römerbriefs. Beigräge zur Geschichte des Philosophie des
Mittelalters 10. Munster: Verlag Aschendorff.
_____ 1972b. "Zur kritischen Ausgabe
des Römerbriefs-Kommentar Abaelards". Scriptorium 26: 82-96.
_____ 2000. Abaelard. Expositio in Epistolam
ad Romanos. Römerbrief-Kommentar I, II, III. Fontes Christiani 26/1, 26/2,
26/3. Freiburg: Herder. Band I, II, III.
Petri Abaelardi. 1969. Opera Theologica I,
Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Apologia contra Bernardum. CCCM
XI. E.M. Buytaert (ed.). Turnholt: Brepols.
Rivière, Jean. 1934. Le dogme de la rédemdtion.
Paris: Vrin.
Sanday, W. and A.C. Headlam. 1895. A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark. Reprinted 1962.
Sheldrake, Phili1995. Spirituality and
Theology : Christian Living and the Doctrine of God. London: Darton,
Longman and Todd Ltd.
Souter, A. 1926. Pelagius' Exposition of Thirteen Epistles of St.
Paul. Texts. London.
Spicq, Ceslas. 1944. Esquisse d¡¯une histoire de
l¡¯exégèse latine au Moyen Âge. Paris: Vrin.
TeSelle, Eugene 2002. "Engaging Scripture:
Patristic interpretation of the Bible". 1-62 in D. Patte and E. TeSelle
(eds). Engaging Augustine on Romans. Self, Context, and Theology in
Interpretation. Harrisburg, Pa: Trinity Press International.
Thornton, T. C. G. 1971. "The Meaning of kai
peri hamartias in Romans viii. 3". Journal of Theological Studies
22: 515-517.
Thurén, Lauri. 2000. Derhetorizing Paul. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 124. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Verdeyen, Paul. (ed.) 1989. Guillelmi a Sancto Theodorico, Opera
Omnia, Pars 1. Expositio super Epistolam ad Romanos. CCCM 89. Turnhout:
Brepols.
Verdeyen, Paul. 2000. "Bibliographie de Guillaume de
Saint-Thierry". 415-436 in Association des Amis de l'Abbaye de Signy, Signy
l'Abbaye, site cistercien enfoui, site de mémoire et Guillaume de
Saint-Thierry, Actes du colloque international d'Études cisterciennes 9, 10, 11
septembre 1998. Les Vieilles Forges (Ardennes). 08460 Signy l'abbaye.
Weingart Richard E. 1970. The Logic of Divine Love.
A Critical Analysis of the Soteriology of Peter Abelard, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
William of Saint Thierry. 1980. Exposition on the Epistle to the
Romans. Translated by J.B. HASBROUCK. Edited and introduced by Anderson, J.
D. Cistercian Fathers Series 27. Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications.
Wright, Nicholas Thomas. 1980. "The
Meaning of peri hamartias in Romans 8: 3". Studia Biblica III.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 3: 453-459. Sheffield,
United Kingdom: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.
Zerbi, Piero. 1979. "Guillaume de Saint-Thierry
et son différend avec Abélard". 395-412 in Saint-Thierry, une abbaye du
VIe au XXe siècle. Actes du colloque international
d'histoire monastique. Saint-Thierry.
[1] We will not discuss the controversy
between them. For a history of the controversy, see: Luscombe 1969, 103-142;
Zerbi 1979.
[2] The notions we are using here are defined
in: Greimas and Courtès 1982.
[3] If we were dealing with a narrative, enunciator
and enunciatee would be called narrator and narratee.
[4] We only give a brief presentation of the
analysis; for a complete analysis, see Doutre 2002, 136-148, 209-238.
[5] Greimas and Courtès 1982; see the
following entries: sender, object, receiver, subject, helper, opponent.
[6] Sanday and Headlam 1895, 193; Käsemann
1973, 216; Wright 1980; Dunn 1988a, 422; Greene 1991; Moo 1991, 512; Byrne
1996, 234, 236-237.
[7] Fitzmyer 1993, 486; Cranfield 1975, 371.
[8] Boers 1994, 120-133; Genest 1995, 79.
[9] "A condemnation is aimed at sin and
not at an expiation. The sacrifice did not condemn sin but removed it."
[10] We quote the exposition in the following
way: Comm Rom III, viii, 5-9 means: Commentaria ¡¦ ad Romanos (ed.
Buytaert), book 3, chapter 8, lines 5-9. From here on, the biblical references
refer to the Vulgate since both Abelard and William follow the Vulgate.
[11] Some scholars study the school of Peter
Abelard (Froehlich 1990; Luscombe 1969; Rivière 1934), others limit their work
to Abelard himself (Weingart 1970); Peppermüller (1972a) focuses nearly
exclusively on the Romans' commentary.
[12] Commentarius Cantabrigiensis in
Epistolas Pauli e schola Petri Abaelardi: 1. In Epistolam ad Romanos, ed.
A. Landgraf, (Publication in Mediaeval Studies 2), University of Notre Dame,
Notre Dame, 1937. This commentary consists of the notes of a student.
[13] For bibliographies on Peter Abelard, see:
Buytaert 1969, xxix-xxxviii; Peppermüller 2000, 901-932.
[14] We read here monere instead of mouere
following Peppermüller's correction (Peppermüller 2000, 62). The first half of
the prologue follows the commentary of Pelagius: Pelagius, In Rom.,
Einleitung (1, 3 Souther); In Rom., argumentum omnium epistularum
(2, 2-5 Souther).
[15] Here Abelard quotes Pelagius' commentary
that was transmitted under the name of Jerome: Pelagius, In Rom., 1, 11
(3, 4 Souther).
[16] This is an example of the use of the
principles given in the introduction of the Sic et Non (Peppermüller
1972a, 19-20; 2000, 22-23).
[17] For a list of the questions see:
Peppermüller 1972a, 12-14.
[18] These two texts (the exposition of Rom 1:
1 and 8: 2) will be quoted when they are analyzed. These texts use typology and
allegory in the same way Augustine understands them (TeSelle 2002, 16-18). We
do not know if Abelard always understands them in the same way. Peppermüller
(1972, 24-27) does not make a clear distinction between typology and allegory.
[19] From Epistle 17, 375C. Quoted by
Weingart (1970, 2). We prefer Weingart's translation to Froehlich's (1990, 259
note 25).
[20] Froehlich (1990, 256-257) gives a brief
presentation of these two theories. Weingart (1970, 78-93) translates the
commentary of Rom 3: 21-26 and then analyses the content of the following
question. Rivière (1934, 97-104) and other mediaevalists saw in this question a
refutation of Anselm's Cur Deus Homo. But Weingart (1970, 89-90) does
not see in these lines a reference to Anselm's theory. Usually Abelard knows
his sources and always quotes them correctly; if Abelard were referring to
Anselm here, the presentation of his thought would be a mere caricature.
Peppermüller (1972, 92) believes that Abelard did not read Anselm's text but
that he could have been informed of his thought by some of Anselm's students.
[21] Abelard is well aware of the sacrificial
interpretation; he quotes Origen but never uses the sacrificial metaphor in the
exposition of Rom 8: 1-30. While Abelard "rejects the theories that
maintain the devil's legitimate dominion or the necessity of satisfactio
offered to God, he creatively uses most of the traditional metaphors to expound
the core of man's redemption borne by divine love" (Weingart 1970, 132).
But he "rejects the tendency of many Latin theologians to circumscribe the
atonement within the limits of sacrifice" (Weingart 1970, 134). Elsewhere
in his works, he does use the sacrificial metaphor to talk about Christ's death
(Weingart 1970, 133 note 4).
[22] We cannot enter in all the consequences of
such an interpretation of original sin and baptism (Weingart 1970, 46-51,
191-192; Peppermüller (1972a, 105-118) but Peppermüller (1972a, 119-120) thinks
that Abelard's position on original sin cannot be reconciled with his
soteriology. Yet, the fact that baptism opens the heavens for the individual
could also explain why Abelard talks so much about eternal beatitude in this
part of the commentary.
[23] William of Saint Thierry has accused
Abelard of not talking about cooperating grace. The commentary does mention
grace at the beginning and at the end of Christian life. But what happens in
between? According to Abelard, the human being has received everything he needs
with the gift of faith which is an illumination and the foundation of all good
things. According to Peppermüller (1972a, 79) when the exposition speaks of
faith, we must understand it as the grace of faith. The problem seems to have
been that Abelard refused to use the traditional vocabulary of grace.
[24] For bibliographies on William, see:
Pennington and Verdeyen 1979, 443-454; Verdeyen 1989, xxxii-li; Verdeyen 2000,
415-436.
[25] Translation by J. B. Hasbrouck in: William
of Saint Thierry, 1980.
[26] "William's overriding concern is to
try to show how love, by the action of the Holy Spirit, is lifted up and
transformed into an experimental knowledge of God that conveys a real, if
non-discursive, understanding of the Trinity. When he wishes to stress the
experiential nature of this knowledge, its directness and connaturality,
William generally speaks of it as the sensus amoris" (McGinn 1994,
254-255; see also Bell 1984, 242-243 note 92).
[27] "This humility of reason does not
mark its death or disappearance; rather, the voluntary withdrawal is what
allows reason to be subsumed or lifted up to the higher level of knowing that
William usually calls intellectus" (McGinn 1994, 255). Bell (1984,
71,201) speaks of an extra-conceptual operation.
[28] "Since the time of L. Malevez's
important article of 1932 [sic], there has been a growing consensus, though one
differently expressed by different authors (e.g., Déchanet, Brooke, Bell),
which interprets the intellectus amoris as an interpenetration, not an
identification, of love and knowledge in a suprarational or supradiscursive
mode of knowing perhaps best described as connatural" (McGinn 1994, 256;
and also Bell 1984, 245 quoting Brooke).
[29] Spick (1944, 122) says that William's
commentary is only "une suite d'extraits patristiques ou d'auteurs
ecclésiastiques." Déchanet (1962, 54 note 1) repeats the same opinion.
[30] Notwithstanding Abelard's interpretation
of original sin, when we compare his thought with William's treatment of
healing grace, the idea that God's love in us drives out the punishment of
original sin, the guilt of our sins and our vices does not appear in itself as
a specific feature of Abelard's theology (Against Froehlich 1990, 257). For us,
what seems more specific to Abelard's thought is that he internalizes totally
and radically the benefits of redemption; these benefits are psychological and
subjective (Peppermüller 1972a, 104).