Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho

[Nemo]

In the Dialogue with Trypho, Justin defends and explains Christianity to a Jew.

[Susan]

In IV through VI, there was some discussion of soul that I didn't really understand...but it made me recall an email I had by Taylor Marshall just the other day that might be interesting to discuss. (He has separate website I think and the New St. Thomas Institute that I am a member of.) It was prefaced something like, is the soul and spirit the same?
He wrote that we have a physical element: body headed by brain, and a metaphysical element: soul, headed by the spirit which is the highest intellectual faculty of the soul.
He compares Hebrew and Greek; Hebrew first...
BASAR: flesh or body; in Genesis, comes from dirt or mud, = the lowest/basest element of man.
NEPHESH: soul or life force; in Genesis, the 'life' of the living thing. Animals and perhaps plants have also.
RUACH: spirit or breath; In Genesis, God breathes this into Adam and it is what makes humans unique from all other animals. It is something we share with God-the intellectual and voluntary faculty that makes us rational animals or human. (Related to Justin I guess, saying we are all capable of vice or virtue, in 2nd apology VII)
Now Greek:
SARX: flesh-includes animal passions (nutrition/sex). St. Paul typically uses sarx to include effects of original sin in all humans.
SOMA: body-doesn't necessarily include passionate elements, but can.
PSYCHE: soul or life force; includes humans, animals and plants.
NOUS: mind; highest intellectual faculty of the human.
PNEUMA: spirit or breath; a supernatural element in man.
He says, church father Origen: 'nous' referred to the human mind, 'pneuma' referred to the human mind redeemed and filled with grace.
Nephesh and Psyche, chiefly life and motion. The Jews by divine revelation and the Greeks through philosophy were speaking of the same thing. Both understood that within the human person, there was something beyond the life force; set us apart, beyond food and sex, made us religious and reflective: "homo-liturgicus".
The rational spirit -> "why am I alive?", "what is the purpose of life?" "who made us", "what are we supposed to be doing?" "what happens after all this?"
He concludes, it seems that the presence of the divine Holy Spirit in our soul transforms our intellect into a spiritual intellect or into a 'spirit'.
"And with your Spirit...." from Mass, we aren't just saying "And also with you" (changed back recently), but we are acknowledging the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.

[Erick]

Susan wrote: "In IV through VI, there was some discussion of soul that I didn't really understand...but it made me recall an email I had by Taylor Marshall just the other day that might be interesting to discuss..."

Very interesting breakdown. I know pneuma doesn't show up quite as much in Greek philosophy, whereas, nous and psyche do a lot.

[Susan]

In LVI-LX, there is such interesting conversation about the distinctness of the two persons of God. It helped me really understand 'Logos' better (I think!) I have to admit I usually think of the second person as Jesus solely...even though I'm sure I heard He existed for all time, and I think I envisioned all those episodes in the OT as God the Creator actually....It really made things more clear, again, I think....
I was unsure about the use of the term Angel for the second person, as angels are quite different, but as the communicative, messenger of God, it made much more sense...ties a lot together.
Now to understand manna as "angel food" as they are intellect and will, I thought?? :)

[Susan]

I was just adding a comment that in CII, I did see, "...He made general and particular judgements;...". I do not know much about this aspect, but I think it had come up in prior conversation somewhere so waned to point it out.

[Nemo]

One of Trypho's objections to Jesus being the Christ is that Christ is supposed to be a triumphant figure, not suffering humiliating death as an accursed person.

Justin's response made me think:

Of all the peoples, the Jews perhaps suffered the most throughout their history. Their temple, the centre of their religious life, was destroyed by Romans two thousand years ago and they've never fully recovered since. If God exists and He has foreknowledge of all things, surely He knows the sufferings of His chosen people. Either their sufferings are punishments for their sins, or their sufferings are necessary to fulfill God's purpose on earth, and they shall triumph in the end by God's mercy and power.

Why is it so hard to accept that Jesus, though he suffered humiliating death, just like the Jewish nation, shall triumph in the end, just as it is prophesied?

[Nemo]

Susan wrote: "I was unsure about the use of the term Angel for the second person, as angels are quite different, but as the communicative, messenger of God, it made much more sense..."

"The Angel of the Lord" appears many times in the Old Testament, and always speaks as first person, this is quite different from a human messenger, who always makes clear that he is not speaking from himself when delivering a message, like the prophets of the Old Testament.

Justin's interpretation that the Angel of the Lord is the Word certainly makes sense. For God can speak in person and deliver the message Himself, if He chooses, whereas human beings bound by space-time cannot be at different places at the same time, and need to send messengers to deliver their messages.

In order to prove the Trinity from the Old Testament, Justin has to prove that the Angel of the Lord is numerically distinct from God the Father, but of the same essence, and worthy of the same appellations.

[Susan]

Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I was unsure about the use of the term Angel for the second person, as angels are quite different, but as the communicative, messenger of God, it made much more sense..."

"The Angel ..."

Thanks Nemo. Again, I think I probably used to think the Angel of the Lord, was an angel of God when I used to read the OT. Now, through this reading and understanding that it was the Logos pre-incarnation, I still did not understand the title Angel for the Logos, as we believe there are real actual angels, which are not obviously the Second Person; but as a 'messenger', I can certainly understand. Do you believe in angels?

[Erick]

Susan wrote: "I was unsure about the use of the term Angel for the second person, as angels are quite different, but as the communicative, messenger of God, it made much more sense... Now, through this reading and understanding that it was the Logos pre-incarnation, I still did not understand the title Angel for the Logos, as we believe there are real actual angels, which are not obviously the Second Person; but as a 'messenger'"

While it was fairly common for the Ante-nicene fathers to equate the Angel of the Lord with the Logos more directly, the Nicene fathers were a little more circumspect. Notable in this regard is Augustine. In his De Trinitate, Augustine plainly differentiates the Angel from the Logos.
I see the Angel as an Old Testament representative of the Logos; an angelic personification, but not the Logos in the same sense as Jesus is. The most important passage for understanding this in the Old Testament would be Exodus 23:20-23, where clearly both the Name (i.e. God Ha'Shem), and the One speaking (i.e. God the Logos), is distinguished from the Angel who is not speaking and is the one to go before the Israelites as a destroyer. The most important passages in the New Testament for understanding the role of the Angel of the Lord as compared to Christ would be Galatians chapters 3 - 4 and Hebrews chapters 1 - 2 where the revelation of angels in the OT is superseded by Christ.

[Susan]

Erick wrote: "Susan wrote: "I was unsure about the use of the term Angel for the second person, as angels are quite different, but as the communicative, messenger of God, it made much more sense... Now, through ..."

Oh, thank you Erick. That seeems to fit things more consistently.

[Erick]

Susan wrote: "Oh, thank you Erick. That seeems to fit things more consistently."

You are most welcome.