The city of Flavia Neapolis (now Nablus) in Samaria had been built by Flavius Vespasian. Its inhabitants were granted Roman citizenship. During the reign of Vespasian’s son, Titus, Justin Martyr’s family moved there. Justin was born around the beginning of the second century AD.
Justin moved to Ephesus and studied several Greek philosophies, including the Stoics, Peripatetics, Pythagoreans, and Platonists. He was converted in Ephesus around 130 AD when he met an old man who refuted Plato and told him of the prophecies and fulfillments concerning Christ. Another contributing factor in his conversion had been his observation of the heroism of other Christians in the face of death.
The record of Justin’s life after his conversion is somewhat sketchy. He did move to Rome, where, during the reign of Antoninus Pius, he opened a philosophical school. Here, he was able to engage in intellectual discourse and apologetic controversy; something he was prone to do anyway whenever possible. He subsequently traveled, but then went back to Rome. While there, he was examined and sentenced, along with six others, by Rusticus, prefect of Rome. He was martyred by decapitation around 165 AD during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
Justin was the premier apologists of the second century. His concerns were twofold: 1) To refute the attacks against Christianity, and 2) to “show that philosophy is truth, reason a spiritual power, and Christianity the fullness of both.” Of all the early Church Fathers, he was the “most optimistic about the harmony of Christianity and Greek philosophy.” In fact, there was for him no clear distinction between theology and philosophy.
In Justin’s view, the various schools of Greek philosophy each saw different aspects of the truth, with Platonism being the closest to Christianity. As a result of this perspective, he did not consider that the acceptance of Christianity required a radical rejection of earlier world views. That is, earlier philosophical world views.
Justin did not share the same syncretistic aspirations toward pagan religions and worship. These, he claimed, were devil inspired imitations of truth designed to confuse. Philosophy, however, was different. Its sources were legitimate. It was either derived from the Greek philosophers reading the writings of Moses, or it came from the exercise of reason.
Justin’s high regard for reason was connected to his view of Christ as the pre-existent divine Logos. Thomas B. Falls writes, “In combining Plato’s world of ideas with the Word-concept of the Holy Scripture, he became the originator of the philosophical conception of the Logos.” This very combination, however, would seem to indicate that he missed the Johannine conception of the Logos. Henry Chadwick goes so far as to claim that the “man chiefly responsible for making the Logos idea at home in Christian philosophy was little influenced by St. John.” Some of the doctrinal explanations that Justin bases on this Logos idea are, to say the least, questionable. His theology was influenced by and dependent upon Greek philosophy. Too much so.
There was, in Justin’s thought, this positive aspect of philosophy: that “all rational beings share in the Universal Logos.” Since the various philosophies were emphasizing different aspects of truth this meant that they were delving into reason, or logos. Justin equated this with the Logos and argued that the ancient philosophers had had partial access to Christ himself. Both Abraham and Socrates, he explained, were “Christians before Christ.”
The more serious influence of his Platonist philosophy is seen in Justin’s explanation of Old Testament theophanies. They were all manifestations of the divine Logos. This view, in itself, is not a problem. It becomes one when we are given the reasons. He writes in the “Dialogue with Trypho” CXXVII:
…you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for he existed before the world was made.
There is nothing particularly wrong with this statement until Justin writes that last phrase, “…for he existed before the world was made.” Why, then, would the same reason not apply to the Logos? Chadwick notes that this view was successful until the end of the fourth century, when it was noted that its presuppositions lead to Arianism. This does not necessarily mean that Justin was, for all practical purposes, an Arian. Falls points out Justin’s use of imperfect terminology and excuses it by saying that he wrote when the terms were not yet fixed. Perhaps this principle should be used to give him the most charitable reading possible.
Despite his dependence on philosophy, he endeavored not to allow philosophical criticism to compromise traditional Christian beliefs. Christianity, not philosophy, was supreme. It was that towards which Greek philosophy unknowingly pointed. And he would use Christianity, or, more specifically, the Biblical doctrine and his relation to the world, to pass judgment on philosophy. Christianity was divine; philosophy was human. Christianity was supernatural; philosophy was natural. Christianity was certain; philosophy could only guess. Moreover, Christianity had supernatural proofs: miracles, fulfilled prophecy, and the rapid extension of the gospel.
Perhaps the most notable feature of Justin’s scriptural exegesis is that he sees Christ everywhere. Of course, this is hampered by the fact that some of his specific interpretations are overly creative. For instance, “The two advents were signified by the two goats” (Dialogue CXI); or his explanation of the blessing on the tribe of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33:17. He quotes the verse, “His beauty is [like] the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an unicorn; with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.” And then he explains, “Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross” (Dialogue XCI).
Justin gets an ambivalent rating. On the one hand, he brings Christ to the forefront of scripture (despite the previous examples, he often does a good job of it). On the other hand, he also finds Christ in Greek philosophy. Who, then, is he really describing? He insists on a literal reading of scriptural history as the basis for seeing Christ, but then, he also insists on a literal, future, and earthly millennium. His reading of the Sermon on the Mount, according to Chadwick, is that it is a universal morality, wholly in line with natural law. Yet, just when he might be mistaken for a proto-liberal, he says this:
For if we looked for a human kingdom, we should also deny our Christ, that we might not be slain; and we should strive to escape detection, that we might obtain what we expect. But since our thoughts are not fixed on the present, we are not concerned when men cut us off…(First Apology XI).
Posted by kcourter at abril 13, 2004 12:44 AM