: Does Aquinas have the wrong approach to the concept of Logos?

[Vanellus]

This article has been prompted by the chapter on Thomas Aquinas on the Trinity by Anselm Kyongsuk Min (Anselm Min) in the Cambridge Companion to the Trinity.

In Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, there is the statement: "At the head of the train of thought sketched by the term, logos, there stands, not a concept, but the event which as taken place, and in which God declares Himself, causing His Word to be enacted". Kittel argues that the concept of logos is not the starting point citing examples that do not depend on the concept e.g. 2 Cor 1:19

For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us--by me and Silas and Timothy--was not "Yes" and "No," but in him it has always been "Yes."

So here, Jesus Christ is described as being the word "yes" in His historical person without use of the word, logos. In a typically thorough article, Kittel and the other contributors describe how the concept of "word" is developed in the Old Testament. In brief, Kittel understands "word" in the Old Testament as closely tied to the Law and the Prophets e.g. the "words of the covenant" in Ex 34:28, which uses the common Hebrew word, dabar. The Law has universal application and significance: for all God's people and for all time. On the other hand, prophecy often has topical relevance, especially in the writing prophets which include the concept of "word" in their formulaic introductions e.g. The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem Is 2:1 ESV. So one can see how Jesus being the Logos Word is rooted in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfils the prophetic aspect of the Old Covenant and becomes the "legal" New Covenant.

Anselm Min's chapter is appropriately dense given the subject matter (Aquinas on the Trinity). Min distinguishes between immanent and transient actions or processions. Transient actions proceed from the agent and result in an effect different from and external to the agent. Immanent actions remain within the agent e.g. the intellect. There is no requirement for ontological difference between agent and effect. This idea is used to argue that the divine Word can proceed from the Father yet be of the same substance as the Father. In human beings the act of understanding is not identical to the substance of the intellect, but in God the understanding is more perfect and so is identical to the intellect.

However, the above summary of Aquinas' concept of the divine Word shows that he has approached this by first considering the idea of "word" in the intellect of human beings. Aquinas has started with the concept rather than the "event" of Jesus ontological existence and life actions. So has Aquinas approached the concept of the Divine Word from the wrong direction (an approach based on Hellenistic philosophy) rather than from the direction described in the Bible. Or are these two approaches complementary, dealing with different issues?

Prior to this I've taken the idea of Jesus as the Word as being described in:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son from Heb 1

So Jesus is the Word spoken by God because of who He is (ontologically) and what He has done and does.

 

[RC1970]

The "logos" terminology is trying to marry two concepts. On the one hand you have what God intends (His word, meaning, thinking or logic) and on the other hand you have His perfect example, namely Jesus.

As humans, we can only understand something spoken in as much as we understand the meaning (logic) of the words. Jesus is the living Word(s) of God and "becomes", from our perspective, the perfect means of understanding.

 

[pshun2404]

The term "Word" for which the closest Greek word was "Logos" is a pre-New Testament Rabbinical concept. The Word of Memra is a visible or audible manifestation of YHVH...in Greek He would be one Hypostasis of the Ousia which is "God". The idea is that when ever the Lord appeared as a man, or the Shekinah, or as "The Angel of the Lord" it was God Himself, When John wrote John 1:1 he was not borrowing from Greek philosophia he was speaking directly to the diaspora Rabbis. Google "The Memra" for starters...

In the Targum Jonathan on Genesis 19:24 Jonathan writes, “and the Word of YHVH caused to descend upon the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, brimstone and fire from the YHVH in heaven“.

On Exodus 24:1, The Targum Jonathan understands the scripture to be saying, “the Word of YHVH said to Moses, come up to YHVH“, and just previously in 20:1, he said, “and the Word of the LORD spoke all these glorious words“!

Targum Onkelos renders Genesis 15:6 as, “and Abraham trusted in the Word of YHVH, and He counted it to him for righteousness“,

The Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 22:14 says, “and Abraham worshiped and prayed in the name of the Word of YHVH and said, You are the YHVH who does see, but You cannot be seen“. In Genesis 16:3 he has Hagar praying “in the name of the Word of YHVH“, as if God had made Himself seeable, and yet she was not consumed!

Paul