John of Damascus and the soul as mid-point?

[RamistThomist]

This is from Damascene's On the Orthodox Faith. Is this an accurate way to speak of the soul's relation to the body, especially Christ's body?

The Word of God was united to flesh through the medium of mind, which stands midway between purity of God and grossness of flesh (III.6).

I am tentatively using mind as similar to soul (I Understand the nuances but other manuals speak of soul as mind+will). If this holds of Christ's hypostasis, then reasoning analogously can we posit the following for human hypostases?

P1: The flesh of the body is united with spirit via the medium of the soul?
​

I am not saying this is my position, but I am trying to flesh out (sorry) Damascene's position and see what implications it has for theological anthropology.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

This is from Damascene's On the Orthodox Faith. Is this an accurate way to speak of the soul's relation to the body, especially Christ's body?

The Word of God was united to flesh through the medium of mind, which stands midway between purity of God and grossness of flesh (III.6).

I am tentatively using mind as similar to soul (I Understand the nuances but other manuals speak of soul as mind+will). If this holds of Christ's hypostasis, then reasoning analogously can we posit the following for human hypostases?

P1: The flesh of the body is united with spirit via the medium of the soul?
​

I am not saying this is my position, but I am trying to flesh out (sorry) Damascene's position and see what implications it has for theological anthropology.

Are you inquiring how Christ is both man and God? or something about His Spirit? or what?

You quote John without much context. We have to know how he got there first. Anyway, you quote him from the following: "The Word of God was united to flesh through the medium of mind, which stands midway between purity of God and grossness of flesh". Unless John can make a scriptural claim from this statement than this is just pure conjecture.

I'd like to point out that this is THE book for the Eastern Orthodox. They have a different idea of soul and what this entails. Also, it should be pointed out that John was writing this in a time when his home was dominated by Muslims (he worked in the Islamic government for awhile as well).

1) I see no scriptural warrant for making such a claim. 2) This is too complex for finite minds to try and comprehend how Christ is united. 3) We will never understand how Christ is united.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is from Damascene's On the Orthodox Faith. Is this an accurate way to speak of the soul's relation to the body, especially Christ's body?

The Word of God was united to flesh through the medium of mind, which stands midway between purity of God and grossness of flesh (III.6).

I am tentatively using mind as similar to soul (I Understand the nuances but other manuals speak of soul as mind+will). If this holds of Christ's hypostasis, then reasoning analogously can we posit the following for human hypostases?

P1: The flesh of the body is united with spirit via the medium of the soul?
​

I am not saying this is my position, but I am trying to flesh out (sorry) Damascene's position and see what implications it has for theological anthropology.

Are you inquiring how Christ is both man and God? or something about His Spirit? or what?

You quote John without much context. We have to know how he got there first.

I thought the context of Book III was evident.

Anyway, you quote him from the following: "The Word of God was united to flesh through the medium of mind, which stands midway between purity of God and grossness of flesh". Unless John can make a scriptural claim from this statement than this is just pure conjecture.

I would guess he is drawing off of Greek ontology concerning body, soul, and spirit. It's not necessarily conjecture.

I'd like to point out that this is THE book for the Eastern Orthodox. They have a different idea of soul and what this entails. Also, it should be pointed out that John was writing this in a time when his home was dominated by Muslims (he worked in the Islamic government for awhile as well).

I don't see how his being under Muslim rule would have made a difference. In fact, it was the iconoclastic Muslim rule that allowed John to write his defense of icons, something he wouldn't have been able to do in iconoclastic Byzantium.

1) I see no scriptural warrant for making such a claim. 2) This is too complex for finite minds to try and comprehend how Christ is united. 3) We will never understand how Christ is united.

The Reformed and Lutheran have a fairly extensive "how it happens" worked out. See theologia unionis and ectypal theology. How is the divine related to the human? Must there be a third term? John hinted that there must be.