Contra Faustum Manichaeum
In his response to Faustus of Mileve, a prominent Manichean thinker who rejected the authority of the Old Testament and claimed that its laws were incompatible with the New Testament revelation of Christ, Augustine wrote Contra Faustum Manichaeum (Against Faustus the Manichean). Faustus argued that the God of the Hebrew Bible was distinct from the God of Jesus, a claim reminiscent of Marcionite theology. Augustine, in his defense of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, refuted this assertion and asserted that divine law, while applied differently across covenants, remains fundamentally unified.
In Book 22 of Contra Faustum, Augustine addresses the Noahide Laws, defending their moral significance and arguing that they are not arbitrary or obsolete but part of God’s enduring will for humanity. He asserts:
“No one can deny that the laws given to Noah after the flood remain in force for all nations, since they were not bestowed upon a single people, as was the Law of Moses, but upon all mankind.” (Contra Faustum 22.27)
This passage is noteworthy because it demonstrates Augustine’s recognition of the Noahide Laws as a distinct moral framework separate from the Mosaic Law. He suggests that while the Law of Moses was specific to Israel, the moral principles imparted to Noah were intended for the entire human race. This aligns with rabbinic Jewish thought, which views the Noahide Laws as the ethical foundation for Gentiles even after the revelation of the Torah.
Augustine’s interpretation of the Noahide Laws aligns with his broader framework of lex naturalis (natural law). In works like De Civitate Dei (The City of God), he argues that moral principles are inherent in creation and accessible to all individuals through reason and conscience. This perspective implies that Augustine perceived the Noahide Laws not merely as divine commandments but as an expression of a universal moral order.
This interpretation is consistent with his argument in Contra Faustum that the moral aspects of the Old Testament remain binding, even as ritual and ceremonial laws specific to Israel are not. The Noahide Laws, predating Sinai and given to all humanity, naturally fit into Augustine’s understanding of divine law as something that is gradually revealed but always rooted in eternal truth.
Furthermore, the Noahide Laws are relevant to the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15. This decree addressed a dispute among Jewish leaders regarding whether Gentiles were required to follow the Mosaic Law. Augustine’s interpretation of the Noahide Laws as a universal moral framework suggests that they could serve as a foundation for Gentile morality, potentially resolving this issue.
Augustine’s understanding of the Noahide Laws helps illuminate early Christian attitudes toward Gentile believers. The Apostolic Decree in Acts 15 mirrors aspects of the Noahide Laws:
• Abstaining from idolatry → Noahide Law: Prohibition of idolatry.
• Avoiding blood and strangled animals → Noahide Law: Prohibition against eating the limb of a living animal.
• Avoiding sexual immorality → Noahide Law: Prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.
The overlap suggests that the early Church saw these laws as a universal moral standard for Gentile converts who were not required to observe the full Mosaic Law. Augustine’s brief mention of the Noahide Laws in Contra Faustum aligns with this understanding, reinforcing the idea that divine law for the nations is rooted in Noah’s covenant rather than Sinai.
Augustine vs. Marcion and Faustus: A Defense of Moral Continuity
Augustine’s argument directly counters Faustus’ (and indirectly Marcion’s) rejection of the Old Testament. Faustus, like Marcion, dismissed Jewish law as obsolete and viewed the God of the Old Testament as separate from the God of the New Testament. Augustine rejects this dualistic thinking and asserts that:
1. The Old Testament remains authoritative, though its laws are applied differently under the New Covenant.
2. The Noahide Laws represent a universal moral order that predates and transcends Israel’s covenant.
3. Christianity, rather than abolishing divine law, affirms and fulfills it through Christ.
By acknowledging the ongoing validity of the Noahide Laws, Augustine preserves the continuity of divine law across covenants. This also provides a theological basis for Christian engagement with non-Jews while upholding a moral framework distinct from the Jewish covenantal system.
Implications for Christian and Interfaith Thought
Augustine’s discussion of the Noahide Laws in Contra Faustum—though brief—has significant theological implications:
For Christianity: It supports the idea that moral law is universal and not abrogated by Christ, even as ritual laws specific to Israel are not required for Gentiles.
For Judaism: It aligns with the rabbinic concept of the Noahide Laws as a moral framework for non-Jews, opening space for dialogue between Jewish and Christian understandings of divine law.
For Islam: The Qur’anic affirmation of a universal divine law given to Noah (Surah 42:13) parallels Augustine’s claim that Noah’s laws remain binding for all nations.
Augustine’s defense of the moral continuity between the Testaments thus provides a key historical link between Jewish, Christian, and even Islamic discussions on the nature of universal ethics.
Conclusion: Augustine’s Contribution to the Noahide Tradition
While Augustine does not extensively elaborate on the Noahide Laws, his brief reference in Contra Faustum affirms their universal moral authority. His argument that divine law is revealed in stages but remains fundamentally unified aligns with both Jewish and Islamic traditions that recognize Noah as a key figure in the transmission of divine law. His distinction between moral and ritual commandments shaped later Christian theology and reinforced the idea that God’s moral expectations for humanity are continuous across covenants.
Incorporating Augustine’s perspective into discussions on the Noahide Laws bridges the gap between Jewish and Christian ethics and provides historical context for the way moral law has been understood in the Abrahamic traditions. His argument remains relevant for modern interfaith dialogue, particularly in exploring common ethical foundations between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
