Sunday, February 14, 2021

Justin Martyr – on the causality and numerical distinction of the Son of God from the Father

It has been well over a year since I have utilized Greek—in a comprehensive sense—during my studies. To rectify this hiatus, I have been examining a number of Christological passages found in the writings of Justin Martyr, comparing English translations with the Greek texts. I chose Justin because he “developed the first Christology" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 2.549). An important theme that emerges from Justin’s Christological passages is the causality of the Son of God from the Father. From Justin’s Apologies and Dialogue With Trypho we read:

1st Apology, ch. 21

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth[1] of God... (The First Apology, 21 - ANF 1.170)

And when we say also that the Word, who is the First-begotten[1] of God… (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 21 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.37)

[1] πρῶτον γέννημα (prōton gennēma)

Τῷ δὲ καὶ τὸν λόγον, ὅ ἐστι πρῶτον γέννημα τοῦ θεοῦ (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 34)

1st Apology, ch. 23

Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten[1] by God, being His Word and first-begotten[2], and power… (The First Apology, 23 - ANF 1.170)

Jesus Christ alone was really begotten[1] as Son of God, being His Word and First-begotten[2] and Power; (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 23 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.39)

[1] γεγέννηται (gegennētai)

[2] πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)

Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ γεγέννηται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων καὶ πρωτότοκος καὶ δύναμις (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 38)

1st Apology, ch. 33

It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born[1] of God, as the foresaid prophet Moses declared; (The First Apology, 33 - ANF 1.174)

The Spirit and Power from God cannot therefore be understood as anything else than the Word, who is also the First-begotten[1] of God, as Moses the above-mentioned prophet testified; (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 33 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.46)

[1] πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)

τὸ πνεῦμα  οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο νοῆσαι θέμις ἢ τὸν λόγον, ὃς καὶ πρωτότοκος τῷ θεῷ ἐστι Μωυσῆς (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 53)

1st Apology, ch. 46

We have been taught that Christ is the first-born[1] of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; (The First Apology, 46 - ANF 1.178)

We have been taught that Christ is the First-born[1] of God, and we have suggested above that He is the logos of whom every race of men and women were partakers. (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 46 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.55)

[1] πρωτότοκον (prōtotokon)

τὸν Χριστὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι ἐδι δάχθημεν καὶ προεμηνύσαμεν λόγον ὄντα, οὗ πᾶν γένος ἀν θρώπων μετέσχε. (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 70)

1st Apology, ch. 53

we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born[1] of the unbegotten[2] God(The First Apology, 53 - ANF 1.180)

we believe of a crucified man that He is the First-begotten[1] of the Unbegotten[2] God(Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 53 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.60)

[1] πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)

[2] ἀγεννήτῳ (agennētō)

γὰρ ἂν λόγῳ ἀν θρώπῳ σταυρωθέντι ἐπειθόμεθα, ὅτι πρωτότοκος τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ θεῷ ἐστι (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 78)

1st Apology, ch. 58

For they who are called devils attempt nothing else than to seduce men from God who made them, and from Christ His first-begotten[1]; (The First Apology, 53 - ANF 1.182)

[1] πρωτογόνου (prōtogonou)

οὐ γὰρ ἄλλο τι ἀγωνίζονται οἱ λεγόμενοι δαίμονες, ἢ ἀπάγειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀπὸ τοῦ ποιήσαντος θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρωτογόνου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ· (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, p. 86)

1st Apology, ch. 63

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son ; who also, being the first-begotten[1] Word of God, is even God. (The First Apology, 63 - ANF 1.184)

For they who affirm that the Son is the Father are shown neither to have known the Father, nor to know that the Father of the Universe has a Son;  who being the logos and First-begotten[1] is also God. (Leslie William Barnard, The First Apology, 63 – Ancient Christian Writers, 56.69)

[1] πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos)

οἱ γὰρ τὸν υἱὸν πατέρα φάσκοντες εἶναι ἐλέγχονται μήτε τὸν πατέρα ἐπιστάμενοι, μηθ' ὅτι ἐστὶν υἱὸς  τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων γινώσκοντες· ὃς καὶ λόγος πρωτότοκος ὢν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸς ὑπάρχει. (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, pp. 95, 96)

2nd Apology, ch. 6

But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten[1], there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words. Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten[2] before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him; (The Second Apology, 6 - ANF 1.190)

[1]  γεννήτ(agennētō)

[2] γεννώμενος (gennōmenos)

Ὄνομα δὲ τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετόν, ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι, οὐκ ἔστιν· ᾧ γὰρ ἂν καὶ ὄνομά τι προσαγορεύηται, πρεσβύ τερον ἔχει τὸν θέμενον τὸ ὄνομα. τὸ δὲ πατὴρ καὶ θεὸς καὶ κτίστης καὶ κύριος καὶ δεσπότης οὐκ ὀνόματά ἐστιν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν εὐποιϊῶν καὶ τῶν ἔργων προσρήσεις. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκεί νου, ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιη μάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος, ὅτε τὴν ἀρχὴν δι' αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε, Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ κεχρῖσθαι καὶ κοσ μῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται … (A.W.F. Blunt, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, pp. 112, 113)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 61

 "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures, that God begat[1] before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos ; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will ; just as we see happening among ourselves : for when we give out some word, we beget the word ; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word  [which remains] in us, when we give it out : and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another] , but remains the same ; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten[2] of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following : 'If I shall declare to you what happens daily, I shall call to mind events from everlasting, and review them. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works[3]. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled ; He begets me[4]. (Dialogue with Trypho, 61 - ANF 1.227, 228.)

[1] γεγέννηκε - Migne PG, 6.616

[2] γεννηθείς -  Migne PG, 6.616

[3] Prov. 8.22 (LXX): Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ - Migne PG, 6.616

[4] Prov. 8.25b (LXX): γεννᾷ με - Migne PG, 6.616

Μαρτύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν, ὦ φίλοι, ἔφην, ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ  θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν, ἥτις καὶ δόξα  κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ υἱός,  ποτὲ δὲ σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ ἄγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ θεός, ποτὲ δὲ κύριος  καὶ λόγος, ποτὲ δὲ ἀρχιστράτηγον ἑαυτὸν λέγει, ἐν ἀνθρώπου  μορφῇ φανέντα τῷ τοῦ Ναυῆ Ἰησοῦ· ἔχει γὰρ πάντα προσονο  μάζεσθαι ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγεννῆσθαι.  ἀλλ' οὐ τοιοῦτον  ὁποῖον καὶ ἐφ' ἡμῶν γινόμενον ὁρῶμεν; λόγον γάρ τινα προ  βάλλοντες, λόγον γεννῶμεν, οὐ κατὰ ἀποτομήν, ὡς ἐλαττωθῆ  ναι τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν λόγον, προβαλλόμενοι. καὶ ὁποῖον  ἐπὶ πυρὸς ὁρῶμεν ἄλλο γινόμενον, οὐκ ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου  ἐξ οὗ ἡ ἄναψις γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μένοντος, καὶ τὸ ἐξ  αὐτοῦ ἀναφθὲν καὶ αὐτὸ ὂν φαίνεται, οὐκ ἐλαττῶσαν ἐκεῖνο ἐξ  οὗ ἀνήφθη. μαρτυρήσει δέ μοι ὁ λόγος τῆς σοφίας, αὐτὸς  ὢν οὗτος ὁ θεὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων γεννηθείς, καὶ λόγος  καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις καὶ δόξα τοῦ γεννήσαντος ὑπάρχων, καὶ  διὰ Σολομῶνος φήσαντος ταῦτα· Ἐὰν ἀναγγείλω ὑμῖν τὰ καθ' ἡμέραν γινόμενα, μνημονεύσω τὰ ἐξ αἰῶνος ἀριθμῆσαι. κύριος  ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος  ἐθεμελίωσέ με ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ  τὰς ἀβύσσους ποιῆσαι, πρὸ τοῦ τὰς πηγὰς προελθεῖν τῶν ὑδά  των, πρὸ τοῦ τὰ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆναι· πρὸ δὲ πάντων τῶν βουνῶν  γεννᾷ με. (Migne PG, vol. 6.616)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 62

But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him ; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He  whom Solomon calls Wisdom, was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God(Dialogue with Trypho, 62 - ANF 1.228.)

ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τὸ τῷ ὄντι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς προβληθὲν  γέννημα πρὸπάντων τῶν ποιημάτων συνῆν τῷ πατρί, καὶ τούτῳ  ὁ πατὴρ προσομιλεῖ, ὡς ὁ λόγος διὰ τοῦ Σολομῶνος ἐδήλωσεν,  ὅτι καὶ ἀρχὴ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ποιημάτων τοῦτ' αὐτὸ καὶ γέννημα  ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγεγέννητο … (Migne PG, vol. 6.617, 620)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 84

the first-begotten[1] of all creation (Dialogue with Trypho, 84 - ANF 1.241.)

[1] πρωτότοκον (prōtotokos)

τὸν πρωτότοκον τῶν πάντων ποιημάτων (Migne PG, vol. 6.673)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 85

 ...this very Son of God—who is the Firstborn[1] of every creature(Dialogue with Trypho, 85 - ANF 1.241.)

κατὰ γὰρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ τούτου τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρωτοτόκου πάσης κτίσεως  (Migne PG, vol. 6.676)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 100

we know Him to be the first-begotten[1] of God, and to be before all creatures(Dialogue with Trypho, 100 - ANF 1.249.)

[1] πρωτότοκον (prōtotokon)

γνόντες αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον μὲν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων (Migne PG, vol. 6.709)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 105

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten[1] of the Father of all things, being begotten[2] in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. (Dialogue with Trypho, 105 - ANF 1.251.)

[1] Μονογενὴς (Monogenēs)

[2] γεγεννημένος (gegennēmenos)

Μονογενὴς γὰρ ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος, ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος καὶ δύναμις γεγεννημένος, καὶ ὕστερον ἄνθρωπος διὰ τῆς παρθένου γενόμενος, ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνη μονευμάτων ἐμάθομεν, προεδήλωσα. (Migne PG, vol. 6.720, 721)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 125

 yet nevertheless is God, in that He is the first-begotten[1] of all creatures. (Dialogue with Trypho, 125 - ANF 1.262.)

 [1] πρωτότοκον (prōtotokon)

θεοῦ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ εἶναι τέκνον πρωτότοκον τῶν ὅλων κτισμάτων (Migne PG, vol. 6.768)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 128

And that this power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun, but is indeed something numerically distinct[1], I have discussed briefly in what has gone before ; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father[2], by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided ; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided : and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same. (Dialogue with Trypho, 128 - ANF 1.264.)

[1] ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν (arithmō eteron)

[2] γεγεννῆσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρός (gegennēsthai apo tou Patros)

καὶ ὅτι δύναμις αὕτη, ἣν καὶ θεὸν καλεῖ  ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος, διὰ πολλῶν ὡσαύτως ἀποδέδεικται, καὶ  ἄγγελον, οὐχ ὡς τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ὀνόματι μόνον ἀριθμεῖται,  ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν τί ἐστι, καὶ ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις διὰ  βραχέων τὸν λόγον ἐξήτασα, εἰπὼν τὴν δύναμιν ταύτην γεγεν  νῆσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρός, δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ' οὐ κατὰ  ἀποτομήν, ὡς ἀπομεριζομένης τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας, ὁποῖα τὰ ἄλλα πάντα μεριζόμενα καὶ τεμνόμενα οὐ τὰ αὐτά ἐστιν ἃ καὶ πρὶν τμηθῆναι· καὶ παραδείγματος χάριν παρειλήφειν ὡς τὰ ἀπὸ πυρὸς ἀναπτόμενα πυρὰ ἕτερα ὁρῶμεν, οὐδὲν ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου, ἐξ οὗ ἀναφθῆναι πολλὰ δύνανται, ἀλλὰ ταὐτοῦ μένοντος. (Migne PG, vol. 6.776)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 129

The Lord created me[1] the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in the beginning, before He formed the earth, and before He made the depths, and before the springs of waters came forth, before the mountains were settled ; He begets[2] me before all the hillsthat the Scripture has declared that this Offspring[3] was begotten[4] by the Father before all things created ; and that that which is begotten[5] is numerically distinct[6] from that which begets[7], any one will admit. (Dialogue with Trypho, 129 - ANF 1.264.)

[1] Prov. 8.22 (LXX): Κύριος ἔκτισέ με (Kurios ektise me)

[2] Prov. 8.25b (LXX): γεννᾷ (genna)

[3] γεγεννῆσθαι (gegennēsthai)

[4] γέννημα (gennēma)

[5] γεννώμενον (gennōmenon)

[6] ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν (arithmō eteron)

[7] γεννῶντος (gennōntos)

Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ. πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθεμελίωσέ με, ἐν ἀρχῇ, πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ τὰς ἀβύσσους ποιῆσαι καὶ πρὸ τοῦ προελθεῖν τὰς πηγὰς τῶν ὑδάτων, πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη ἑδρασθῆ ναι· πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾷ με…καὶ ὅτι γεγεννῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦτο τὸ γέννημα πρὸ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ λόγος ἐδήλου, καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν ἐστι, πᾶς ὁστισοῦν ὁμολογήσειε. (Migne PG, vol. 6.777)

As already mentioned, there is an emphasis on the causality of the Son of God from the Father in the above referenced passages. In the last two, Justin also makes mention of a ‘numerical’ distinction between the Father and the Son. Those two passages are not the only instances he does so—note the following:

1st Apology, ch. 13

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second Place[1], and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. (First Apology, 13 – ANF 1.166, 167.)

[1] δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ (deutera chōra) - Migne, PG vol. 6.348

1st Apology, ch. 6o

For he gives the second place[1] to the Logos which is with God(First Apology, 60 – ANF 1.183.)

[1] Δευτέραν μὲν γὰρ χώραν (Deuteran men gar chōran) - (Migne, PG vol. 6.420)

Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 56

I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord[1] subject to the Maker of all things ; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all thingsabove whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to them. (Dialogue With Trypho, 56 – ANF 1.223.)

[1] Θεὸς καὶ Κύριος ἔτερος (theos kai kurios eteros) - (Migne, PG vol. 6.597)


It is now time to bring up a question that I suspect is on the minds of some of folk who have taken the time to read the above selections from the writings of Justin: was Justin a Trinitarian?

Ultimately, the answer depends on how one defines the doctrine of the Trinity. One ‘popular’ definition of the Trinity is provided by the Reformed Baptist apologist James R. White in his book The Forgotten Trinity:

Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Page 26)

Mr. White in his above book makes no mention of Justin at all. However, another Reformed Baptist (and former frequent poster here at AF), Ken Temple, published a post back on March 7, 2017 that directly answers our question: Justin Martyr was Trinitarian

Unfortunately for Ken, Justin did not adhere to at least one key component of White’s definition: the coequality of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Justin held to what patristic scholars have termed ‘subordinationism’—i.e. the Son is not coequal to the Father.

Note the following from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Word is numerically distinct from the Father (Dial., cxxviii, cxxix; cf. lvi, lxii). He was born of the very substance of the Father, not that this substance was divided, but He proceeds from it as one fire does from another at which it is lit (cxxviii, lxi); this form of production (procession) is compared also with that of human speech (lxi). The Word (Logos) is therefore the Son: much more, He alone may properly be called Son (II Apol., vi, 3); He is the monogenes, the unigenitus (Dial., cv). Elsewhere, however, Justin, like St. Paul, calls Him the eldest Son, prototokos (I Apol., xxxiii; xlvi; lxiii; Dial., lxxxiv, lxxxv, cxxv). The Word is God (I Apol., lxiii; Dial., xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, lvi, lxiii, lxxvi, lxxxvi, lxxxvii, cxiii, cxv, cxxv, cxxvi, cxviii). His Divinity, however, seems subordinate, as does the worship which is rendered to Him (I Apol., vi; cf. lxi, 13; Teder, "Justinsdes Märtyrers Lehre von Jesus Christus", Freiburg imBr., 1906, 103-19). (The Catholic Encyclopedia – 1910, VIII.585 – bold emphasis mine.)

And from John Behr’s, Formation of Christian Theology-Volume One: The Way to Nicaea, we read:

Although Justin speaks in the traditional manner of Jesus Christ, as the Word, revealing God, he shares the common philosophical presupposition of his day that as God is so totally transcendent to created reality he needs an intermediary, his Word, to act for him and to mediate between himself and creation. (p. 103)

As it is not God himself who thus appeared and spoke with man, the Word of God who did all of these things is, for Justin, “another God and Lord besides (ἔτερος παρὰ) the Maker of all," who is also called his "Angel," as he brings messages from the Maker of all, "above whom there is no other God" (Dial. 56.4)….The divinity of Jesus Christ, an “other God,” is no longer that of the Father himself, but subordinate to it, a lesser divinity(p.104 – bold emphasis mine.)

But then, if one begins their definition of the Trinity with the Monarchy of God the Father—which includes a strong emphasis on the causality of the Son from the Father and the teaching that the Father alone is autotheos—I would argue that the term ‘Trinitarian’ could legitimately be applied to Justin’s theology.

[Migne PG = Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus Series Graeca – vol. 6 PDF HERE; ANF = The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Roberts and Donaldson – vol. 1 PDF HERE; PDF of Blunt’s, The Apologies of Justin Martyr, HERE; for an excellent bibliography of works on and/or by Justin see the Early Church.org.uk entry HERE.]

 

Grace and peace,

David 

26 comments:

David Waltz said...

In the opening post, I linked to a definition of ‘subordinationism' by a reformed gent HERE. His definition seemed a bit too negative, so I would like to provide three other definitions that I posted way back on October 23, 2008 (link) Note the following:

SUBORDINATIONISM. Thus we call the tendency, strong in the theology of the 2nd and 3rd cc., to consider Christ, as Son of God, inferior to the Father. Behind this tendancy were gospel statements in which Christ himself stressed this inferiority (Jn 14, 28; Mk 10, 18; 13, 32, etc.) and it was developed esp. by the Logos-christology. This theology, partly under the influence of middle Platonism, considered Christ, logos and divine wisdom, as the means of liaison and mediation between the Father’s position to him. When the conception of the Trinity was enlarged to include the Holy Spirit, as in Origen, this in turn was considered inferior to the Son. Subordinationist tendencies are evident esp. in theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen and Novatian; but even in Irenaeus, to whom trinitarian speculations are alien, commenting on Jn 14, 28, has no difficulty in considering Christ inferior to the Father. (M. Simmonetti, Oxford Encyclopedia of the Early Church, II.797.)

SUBORDINATIONISM. Teaching about the Godhead which regards either the Son as subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost as subordinate to both. It is a characteristic tendency in much of Christian teaching of the first three centuries, and is a marked feature of such otherwise orthodox Fathers as St. Justin and Origen. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd ed., p. 1319.)

SUBORDINATIONISM. The term is a common retrospective concept used to denote theologians of the early church who affirmed the divinity of the Son or Spirit of God, but conceived it somehow as a lesser form of divinity than that of the Father. It is a modern concept that is so vague that is that it does not illuminate much of the theology of the pre-Nicene teachers, where a subordinationist presupposition was widely and unreflectively shared. (John Athony McGuckin, The Westminster Handbook to Patristic Theology, p. 321.)


Grace and peace,

David

Ken Temple said...

[1] πρωτογόνου (prōtotokou)

Is the transliteration right?

should it not be protogonou ?

Ken Temple said...

The eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father solves the dilemma.

Justin expresses an early form of the theology of the Trinity.


Two articles out of many of a recent controversy between theologians concerning the doctrine of the Trinity and the eternal submission or subordination of the Son in His role and function to the Father. (not subordinate in nature/substance/essence or power, but in role and function.)

Evangelical theologians who seemed to affirm an eternal subordinate relationship of the Son to the Father. by Wayne Grudem

The first one by J. I. Packer caught my eye; and also, other famous theologians. Be sure to read them all. The whole discussion is very interesting and the deeper one goes, the deeper one is pushed to think even more deeply about these things.

1. J. I. Packer, Knowing God (1973). (Packer is probably the best-known living evangelical theologian, and is sometimes called “the gate-keeper of evangelicalism.”)”Part of the revealed mystery of the Godhead is that the three persons stand in a fixed relation to each other….It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first. That is why He declares Himself to be the Son, and the first person to be His Father. Though co-equal with the Father in eternity, power, and glory, it is natural to Him to play the Son’s part, and find all His joy in doing His Father’s will, just as it is natural to the first person of the Trinity to plan and initiate the works of the Godhead and natural to the third person to proceed from the Father and the Son to do their joint bidding. Thus the obedience of the God-man to the Father while He was on earth was not a new relationship occasioned by the incarnation, but the continuation in time of the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father in heaven.” Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 54-55.

See the rest here:

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/06/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php

Ken Temple said...

For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten[1] of the Father of all things, being begotten[2] in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. (Dialogue with Trypho, 105 - ANF 1.251.)

when Justin uses "begotten" does he mean the birth of Christ into history / time and space from the virgin Mary? or eternally begotten or eternally generated out from the Father ?

Ken Temple said...

David,
What do you think "today" in Psalm 2:7 means?

1. the day of the coronation of the Davidic King
2. The day of Jesus birth? (Luke 1-2)
3. The day of resurrection of Christ in history? (Acts 13:33)
4. The day of Jesus exaltation to the right hand of the Father? (Hebrews 1:3-5)

5. The "eternal day" - Origen ? - of the Son's eternal generation from the Father?

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

It is great to see you taking the time to comment.

First, good eye on the error in transliteration; it has been corrected.

Second, concerning the subordination of the Son in Justin’s thought, the consensus among patristic scholars I have read maintain that Justin’s subordinationism is not limited to function and/or position only; but rather, extends to ontology as well. On this issue, I remain open to the remote possibility that a poor use of terminology on Justin’s part may be at play. But when conservative patristic scholars like John Behr state that Justin believed the Son’s divinity was ‘lesser’ than the Father’s, I cannot easily dismiss it. It sure seems that Justin believed the unbegotten God (i.e. the Father) begat His Logos/Word/Son to act as an intermediary.

Third, you wrote:

==when Justin uses "begotten" does he mean the birth of Christ into history / time and space from the virgin Mary? or eternally begotten or eternally generated out from the Father ?==

Justin worded it as follows:

>>His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word, who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him…>> (The Second Apology, 6 - ANF 1.190)

The Son/Word was “begotten before the works”. In my mind, “the works" would also include time, so there is a sense that we are talking about a begetting that is eternal.

Fourth, “What do you think "today" in Psalm 2:7 means?”

I lean towards #5, though I cannot be dogmatic on this.


Grace and peace,

David

Errol Amey said...

As another patristic scholar tersely summarized Justin's position:

“This seems to imply the error of subordinationism which teaches that the Father is greater than the Son.”
(Thomas B. Falls, Fathers of the Church 6:44)

Which does, as yet another patristic scholar has noted, have an impact on Their ontological relation:

“it was necessary to defend the real distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Such writers as the author of the Contra Noetum, Tertullian and Novatian did so by basing their claims primarily on the traditional Testimonia of the Bible (see Uribarri, Trinidad). Though able to formulate well, even with technical terms (esp. persona), the distinction of the divine persons (distributio), they were less successful in expressing the substantial unity in the distinction, unable to overcome a certain subordinationist tendency (ontological gradation of the persons in the overly close connection of the origin of the Son and the Spirit with the creation).”
(Basil Studer, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 3:836)

Ken Temple said...

I cannot easily dismiss it. It sure seems that Justin believed the unbegotten God (i.e. the Father) begat His Logos/Word/Son to act as an intermediary.

But God is never without his mind / reason / speech / communication, right?

The logos is a term which seems to indicate "mind & reason that is always in motion and expresses itself in words / communication / revelation.

John 1:1
and
John 17:5
and
Philippians 2:5-8 - "although existing in the form of God . . . "

seem to point to Jesus' eternality into the past.

David Waltz said...

Hi Errol,

Thanks much for the quotes. I had already read the selection from Falls’ Writings of Saint Justin Martyr (footnote 3, p. 44), but did not know of the existence of the three volume set Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity. [Found a great price for the set on Amazon, so I ordered it.]

I am assuming that Basil Studer was the author of one of the entries in the set; could you provide the name of the entry?

I have Basil Studer’s, Trinity and Incarnation, but it has been well over a decade since I last read it. Just now pulled it off of the shelf—it has a chapter titled, “The Soteriological Vision of the Greek Apologists" (#4), that includes some thoughts on Justin's subordinationism. (Will try to type up some quotes tomorrow, but it may be Saturday.)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hello again Ken,

You wrote:

==But God is never without his mind / reason / speech / communication, right?==

Correct. But, it seems that Justin (and other 2nd century Apologists) held to what has been termed the ‘two-stage Logos theory’. Before the begetting of the Son by the Father, the Logos is internal to the Father and does not become a second, distinct person until the Logos is begotten.

This concept is also known as the Logos/Word endiathetos and Logos/Word prophorikos. Note the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

>>As to the capital question of the generation of the Word, the orthodoxy of the Apologists is irreproachable: the Word was not created, as the Arians held later, but was born of the very Substance of the Father according to the later definition of Nicaea (Justin, "Dial.",128,Tatian, "Or.", v, Athenagoras, "Legat."x-xviii, Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, x; Tertullian "Adv. Prax.", vii). Their theology is less satisfactory as regards the eternity of this generation and its necessity; in fact, they represent the Word as uttered by the Father when the Father wished to create and in view of this creation (Justin, "IIApol.", 6; cf. "Dial.",6162; Tatian, "Or.",v, a corrupt and doubtful text; Athenagoras, "Legat.",x; Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, xxii; Tertullian,"Adv. Prax.", v-vii). When we seek to understand whatthey meant by this "utterance", it is difficult to givethe same answer for all Athenagoras seems to mean the role of the Son in the work of creation, the syncatabasis of the Nicene Fathers (Newman, "Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism" in "Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical",London, 1902, 238), others, especially Theophilus and Tertullian (cf. Novatian, "De Trinit.", xxxi), seem quite certainly to understand this "utterance" as properly so called. Mental survivals of Stoic psychology seem to be responsible forth is attitude: the philosophers of the Portico distinguished between the innate word (endiathetos) and the uttered word (prophorikos) bearing in mind this distinction the aforesaid apologists conceived a development in the Word of God after the same fashion. After this period, St. Irenaeus condemned very severely these attempts at psychological explanation (Adv.Haeres., II, xiii, 3-10, cf. II, xxviii, 4-6), and later Fathers rejected this unfortunate distinction between the Word endiathetos and prophorikos [Athanasius (?), "Expos. Fidei",i, in P. G., XXV, 201-cf. "Orat.", II, 35, in P. G.,XXVI, 221; Cyril of Jerusalem "Cat.", IV, 8, in P. G.,XXXIII, 465-cf. "Cat.", XI, 10, in P. G., XXXIII,701-cf. Council of Sirmium, can. viii, in Athan., "De Synod.", 27-P. G., XXVI,

As to the Divine Nature of the Word, all apologists are agreed but to some of them, at least to St.Justin and Tertuilian, there seemed to be in this Divinity a certain subordination (Justin, "I Apol.", 13-cf. "II Apol.", 13; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 9, 14, 26).>> [link]

More later, the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David

Errol Amey said...

Greetings David,

It's the "Trinity" entry, under the "II. The Ante-Nicene period" sub-section, vol. 3, pg. 836. I hope you enjoy the set as much as I have. I've found it to be a bit more comprehensive than the 2nd ed. of The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.

I noticed that your citations of both Simonetti and The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church put Justin in the same category as Origen on this matter. I imagine you're familiar with Bettenson's statement regarding the latter:

“According to the quotation in Justinian, Origen gave here a bold statement of the subordination of the Son and the Holy Spirit. ‘Subordinationism,’ it is true, was pre-Nicene orthodoxy”
(Henry Bettenson, The Early Christian Fathers, pg. 239)

Fairly recently in my readings I came across this assessment of what would seem to be an even bolder statement to this effect:

“the Savior said, ‘The Father who sent me is greater than I,’ and ‘although the Savior transcends in his essence, rank, power, divinity . . . , and wisdom, beings that are so great and of such antiquity, nevertheless, he is not comparable with the Father in any way.’ [13:151-152] . . .
“There is, moreover, a clear subordination of the Son to the Father in the Commentary [on John]. ‘The Father exceeds the Savior as much . . . as the Savior himself . . . exceeds the rest.’ [13:151-153] When ‘the Son of Man is glorified in God,’ it is a case of ‘the lesser’ being glorified ‘in the greater.’ [32:363-365] In spite of these subordinationist views, however, Origen rejects the view of those who, ‘in the delusion of glorifying the Father,’ declare ‘that something known by the Father is not known by the Son who refuses to be made equal to the perceptions of the unbegotten God.’ [1:187] It is perhaps in this same vein that one should understand Origen’s assertion that it is on the basis of the unity of the Son’s will with the Father’s that he says, ‘I and the Father are one.’ [13:228]”
(Ronald E. Heine, Fathers of the Church 89:28,34)

And, as chance should have it, last week I received Origen's Homilies on Psalms, and found the following just today:

“Interestingly, in light of later criticisms of Origen for having a ‘subordinationist’ understanding of Christ’s relationship to the Father, putatively inconsistent with equality of the persons of the Trinity proclaimed by post-Nicene orthodoxy, what Origen would consider impious (asebes) is not the belief that Christ is subordinate, but the prospect that he might not be subordinate to the Father.”
(Joseph W. Trigg, Fathers of the Church 141:91)

David Waltz said...

Hello again Errol,

Thanks much for those quotes from Heine, Trigg and Origen. This should give every student of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity some pause, for it was Origen who definitively expounded the eternal generation of the Son, and clearly he believed subordinationism was fully compatible with it—and it may be that he thought eternal generation demanded subordinationism.

As for Bettenson, I provided a portion of the quote you posted above way back on June 6, 2008 in THIS THREAD.

That thread reminds me of John Henry Newman’s thoughts on subordination in the pre-Nicene Fathers. In the same post, I provided the following:

>>Newman writes, “If we limit our view of the teaching of the Fathers by what they expressly state, St. Ignatius may be considered Patripassian, St. Justin arianizes, and St. Hippolytus is a Photinian...Tertullian is heterodox on the Lord’s divinity...Origen is, at the very least suspected, and must be defended and explained rather than cited as a witness of orthodoxy; and Eusebius was a Semi-Arian.”[4]

[4] John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, (6th edition 1989) p. 17.>>


Grace and peace,

David

leeseykay said...

Obedience, or subordination, is not always because the one who is subordinate is an ontological inferior. I am a subordinationist because the Son is clearly obedient to the Father. One reason would be that The Father gave all of His nature to the Son, not the other way around.

It is also in accord with right reason that rational children obey rational parents. That is why it is significant that Christ was obedient to St. Joseph and His Blessed Mother after they found Him teaching in the Temple. Obviously there was no ontological inferiority which made Jesus subject Himself to His parents:

"And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart."

---Luke 2:51

A different kind of inferiority was what made Jesus necessarily obedient to His parents who were "greater" than He. It is a law of nature and of both Testaments that human children obey and honor their parents because the parents enjoy a superior position of authority to the children. Jesus is teaching us about the Godhead as a family in which the Father reigns supreme. I am sure the mystery is inexhaustible. But one of the reasons why a child would obey His parent as Christ obeys the Father is because like Christ who was not autotheos, (independently God) as Calvin mistakenly taught, neither are children "autohuman".

I believe we err greatly if we attribute to ontology the truth that "the Father is greater I." For one thing, even if you say that it only has to do with Christ's Sacred Humanity, that would leave us with only a temporal truth. It would mean that before Christ obeyed the Father and became incarnate that there would be no sense in which "the Father was greater than I". Was Christ NOT uttering an eternal truth when He proclaimed that "the Father is greater than I"?

It is a remarkable statement by the Son: "The Father is greater than I." It seems to me that the ontology positions might detract other revelations about the dignity and importance of hierarchical personal relationships in the Godhead which probably have implications to human societies also. The subordinations of Christ to His Divine Father and to His human parents deserves deep reflection. We might also remember the rest of the dialogue in the Finding of Jesus in the Temple. Joseph and Mary were puzzled at Jesus' statement that he was "about His Father's business". Our Blessed Mother could be our model when we read above that she "...kept all these words in her heart."

Rory




David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Some excellent points concerning the Son’s casual, functional and hierarchical subordination to the Father.

I found the following especially insightful:

== I believe we err greatly if we attribute to ontology the truth that "the Father is greater I." For one thing, even if you say that it only has to do with Christ's Sacred Humanity, that would leave us with only a temporal truth. It would mean that before Christ obeyed the Father and became incarnate that there would be no sense in which "the Father was greater than I". Was Christ NOT uttering an eternal truth when He proclaimed that "the Father is greater than I"?==

Thomas Aquinas as well penned some interesting thoughts on Christ’s statement, “the Father is greater than I”. If you have the time, check out the following thread:

Aquinas on John 14:28 and John 5:19


Grace and peace,

David

Ken Temple said...

Mental survivals of Stoic psychology seem to be responsible forth is attitude: the philosophers of the Portico distinguished between the innate word (endiathetos) and the uttered word (prophorikos) bearing in mind this distinction the aforesaid apologists conceived a development in the Word of God after the same fashion. After this period, St. Irenaeus condemned very severely these attempts at psychological explanation (Adv.Haeres., II, xiii, 3-10,

At first, I was frustrated that you put up 2 Greek terms (innate Word and uttered word) that I never heard of before and I am glad that the reference finally defined them.

Does not John 17:5 speak to this, that Jesus says He pre-existed with the Father in a relationship as the Son (from 17:1 ff and all throughout His prayer, "O Father", etc. - that He was with the Father in relationship and shared His glory before creation) ?

Also, John 1:2 - "and the Word was with God" also - the "with" (pros, προς = "facing" or "toward" - does not this also point to relationship, person?

I read the Irenaeus section (tedious and hard to grasp, because of all the Aeons of Gnostic thought that keep emanating out from another one, etc.) referred to there, and it seems he is talking about Gnosticism rather than Stoicism. Or does Gnosticism in Irenaeus' day come from the more ancient philosophy of Stoicism?

One of the points Irenaeus rightly makes is that God is not like man and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9) and that it is wrong to apply human passions / emotionalism back onto God? Irenaeus seems to agree with Calvinism and basic Theology Proper that God is not emotional and with changing passions. For a good article on this, "God without Mood Swings" by Phil Johnson.
http://www.romans45.org/articles/impassib.htm

However, sometimes Reformed folks seem to go too far to say that God has no emotions at all.

Irenaeus' description of the Aeons and the Monad of Gnosticism reminds of Islam's understanding of Allah, without the denial that God created the physical world. (the Gnostic Demiurge, an emanation far down the line in the sequence.)

You are amazing in your knowledge of the minute details of historical theology.

Justin Martyr is obviously very familiar with John's Gospel.

Why do you think it seems he did not even know about Paul's writing?

He seems to mention the Gospels (the memoirs of the apostles) and John's writings and Revelation, but not Paul's epistles?

Ken Temple said...

https://ccel.org/ccel/tertullian/against_praxeas/anf03.v.ix.ix.html#fnf_v.ix.ix-p5.2

one of the references you gave to Tertullian (Against Praxeas, 9), that he ascribed some kind of subordination of the Son, is made clear by the use of the term, economy - which, I suppose is also where the idea of "The Economic Trinity" comes from (the understanding of the Persons and there relationship to one another and their distinct roles).

Also, Tertullian quotes from Psalm 8:5, but Hebrews 2:5-10 uses that "for a little while, lower than the angels" as talking about Christ's incarnation and suffering, not the eternal state of the Son in eternity past.

" . . . He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?"

the last sentence Tertullian seems to emphasize the subordination is about the persons, relations, personality

Ken Temple said...

Also, John 17:24 points to the eternal relationship of love between the Father and the Son:

"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world."

This phrase made my study this morning warm and devotional and I thank you for causing me to see it afresh and anew, along with John 17:5 and John 1:1 - together, these 3 indicate the eternality of the persons of the Trinity, and their love relationship.

Indeed, God is love.
Lover - the Father
Beloved - The Son
The Love between them = the Holy Spirit as a person - as a living, moving, feeling person (not just love as a "thing" or "concept")

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks much for your comments and questions. Will do my best to respond in a cogent manner; you wrote:

==Does not John 17:5 speak to this, that Jesus says He pre-existed with the Father in a relationship as the Son (from 17:1 ff and all throughout His prayer, "O Father", etc. - that He was with the Father in relationship and shared His glory before creation) ?==

Yes, and I would argue that one cannot fully understand John’s Gospel apart from the Son’s relationship with the Father prior to creation and His incarnation.

==Also, John 1:2 - "and the Word was with God" also - the "with" (pros, προς = "facing" or "toward" - does not this also point to relationship, person?==

I believe it does, and I find the Unitarian arguments that the Logos/Word as depicted in John’s Gospel is impersonal, to be quite lacking in merit.

==I read the Irenaeus section (tedious and hard to grasp, because of all the Aeons of Gnostic thought that keep emanating out from another one, etc.) referred to there, and it seems he is talking about Gnosticism rather than Stoicism. Or does Gnosticism in Irenaeus' day come from the more ancient philosophy of Stoicism?==

The primary focus of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies was to defend the apostolic faith from the Gnostic heretics. As for the origin of Gnosticism, if memory serves me correctly, a good deal of uncertainty exists among scholars. But, given the eclecticism that permeates Gnostic thought, I suspect that one can find some elements of Stoicism therein.

==Irenaeus' description of the Aeons and the Monad of Gnosticism reminds of Islam's understanding of Allah, without the denial that God created the physical world. (the Gnostic Demiurge, an emanation far down the line in the sequence.==

Interesting. Apart from Ismaili thought—and perhaps mystics like Al-Hallaj—I have not seen such a connection in Sunni and Twelver theology; could you elaborate on this a bit further.

==Justin Martyr is obviously very familiar with John's Gospel.==

I believe that he was; however, a number of Justin scholars believe he did not rely on John’s Gospel, and some that he had not even read it.

==Why do you think it seems he did not even know about Paul's writing?==

I do not remember saying/writing that; has my memory failed me here?


Grace and peace,

David

Ken Temple said...

I was not mean to imply that you wrote that Justin did not know Paul's letters.

What I mean is that that is the prevailing understanding I have heard, as Justin does not quote from them, at all.

Whereas Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp before him knew of them, and quoted and alluded to them, and Ireneaus and Tertullian after him.

Errol Amey said...

Just came across this one in my morning readings:

"The fact that Justin Martyr articulated his trinitarian faith by means of a problematic trinitarian theology is a commonplace in scholarship. Some scholars go so far as to claim that there simply is no doctrine of the Trinity in the Apologies and the Dialogue with Trypho. Others prefer to speak of a 'rudimentary' theology of the Trinity. Still other scholars argue that, since the very term 'Trinity' had not yet been invented for Christian discourse, discussing Justin’s alleged 'trinitarian theology' betrays a fundamentally misguided approach.
"The problem most often associated with Justin’s trinitarian theology is its subordinationism. Even more troubling is Justin’s view of the Holy Spirit. Erwin R. Goodenough’s observation, that '[t]here is no doctrine of Justin more baffling than his doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and no doctrine which has been more differently understood,' remains as true today as it was in 1923. His writings contain numerous references to 'the spirit,' 'the holy spirit,' 'the divine spirit,' 'the prophetic spirit,' 'the holy prophetic spirit,' 'God’s prophetic spirit,' or 'the divine, holy, prophetic spirit.' Nevertheless, Justin off ers 'very few clear ideas about the person and nature of the Prophetic Spirit.' Even though verdicts about Justin’s pneumatology 'se mantienen sensiblemente distanciadas,' especially on the issue of deciding whether pneuma is a personal or impersonal entity in the Apologies and the Dialogue, scholars generally agree that, by contrast to his extensive discussion about the Father and the Son, Justin is quite 'discreet' about the Spirit. In the words of André Wartelle, 'one is tempted to write that Justin has the Spirit intervene only when he cannot do otherwise.' It has been said, again and again, that Justin’s all-encompassing theory of the seminal Logos precludes the articulation of a robust pneumatology: 'in strict logic there is no place in Justin’s thought for the person of the Holy Spirit because the logos carries out his functions.'"
(Bogdan Gabriel Bucur, Angelomorphic Pneumatology, pp. 139-140)

David Waltz said...

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the clarification concerning Justin and Paul's epistles.

Now, I am not aware of any scholar who believes that Justin provided any direct quotes from Paul; however, there are some who are fully convinced Justin was familiar with a number of Paul's epistles, and that allusions and certain phrases from Paul are contained in Justin’s works.

L. W. Barnard in his Justin Martyr - His Life and Thought wrote:

>>Justin’s writings contain no certain quotations from the rest of the New Testament writings [i.e. ‘the rest' being the non-Gospels] although incidental allusions appear. He has contacts with Acts, the Epistle to the Romans (Justin’s argument about Abraham’s circumcision in Dial. xxiii undoubtedly echoes Rom. iv. 10, 11), I Corinthians, II Thessalonians, and the Epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews.>> (Pages 62, 63 – 2008 paperback edition)


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Errol,

So good to see you back—thanks for the quote. I do not own, nor have I read, Bucur’s Angelomorphic Pneumatology. But, I have read a number of his papers that were published prior to the book. It looks like the quote you provided was reproduced verbatim from the following paper:

The Angelic Spirit in Early Christianity - Justin, the Martyr and Philosopher (see pp. 191, 192)

For a number of other published papers by Bucur, check out the following link:

Acadamia.edu


Grace and peace,

David

Ken Temple said...

L. W. Barnard in his Justin Martyr - His Life and Thought wrote:

>>Justin’s writings contain no certain quotations from the rest of the New Testament writings [i.e. ‘the rest' being the non-Gospels] although incidental allusions appear. He has contacts with Acts, the Epistle to the Romans (Justin’s argument about Abraham’s circumcision in Dial. xxiii undoubtedly echoes Rom. iv. 10, 11), I Corinthians, II Thessalonians, and the Epistles to the Galatians, Colossians, and Hebrews.>> (Pages 62, 63 – 2008 paperback edition)


Thanks David!
Very helpful indeed.

Who is the author? L. W. Barnard - never heard of him.

Ken Temple said...

I looked in the index Justin's writings (volume 1 of apostolic fathers), and it appears that there are many more allusions to N.T. texts.

I have noticed a lot of allusions to John and OT and other gospels, but I need to study those sections to see what they refer to.

David Waltz said...

Hello Ken,

Good to hear that I was of some assistance.. You asked about the author L. W. Barnard. Leslie William Barnard, in addition to being the author of Justin Martyr – His Life and Thought (link), also wrote the book I quoted from for the alternative translations of Justin’s Apologies in my opening post (link).

The first edition of his Justin Martyr – His Life and Thought was published back in 1967, so I suspect he is no longer among the living. None of his published works give any sort of biography at all, and I have yet to locate anything about him online either.

Concerning the ‘Index of Texts’ in ANF volume 1, check out Davies list in the following book:

The Works now extant of S. Justin Martyr

Davies NT list is larger than the ANF list. Take a look at the Colossians texts; none of which are in the ANF list.


Grace and peace,

David

Errol Amey said...

And yet another:

“Justin believed that the very possibility of divine revelation required the existence of such a distinct, subordinated, or second-order divinity, for the possibility of God directly and immediately communicating himself to anyone else was ruled out by God’s own transcendence. How, in view of this, God is able to communicate himself to the Son is a question which Justin does not address. He is aware, however, that to speak of this ‘rational power’ as ‘another God’ distinct from the Father who begets him, is problematic for the belief that God is one. Justin solves the difficulty to his own satisfaction by insisting that the ‘other God’ (θεὸς ἕτερος) and Lord who is beside the maker of the universe, came into being by the will of the Father, and, though numerically distinct from him, ‘has never done anything except that which the God who is the maker of all, above whom there is no other God (ἄλλος . . . θεὸς), has willed him to do and to say’ (D 56.4, 11).”
(Denis Minns & Paul Parvis, Oxford Early Christian Texts 11:61-62)