@slimboyfat
Your
response seeks to drive a wedge between Justin Martyr’s second-century Logos
theology and Nicene Trinitarianism by positing that Justin distinguishes
between “the God” (ho theos, the Father) and “a god” (theos, the Logos/Son) in
a way that constitutes real ontological subordination—a second, lesser deity.
This reading is asserted to be based on explicit linguistic and philosophical
distinctions in Justin’s text, allegedly corroborated by the scholarly
consensus and the supposed absence of Nicene metaphysics in Justin’s era. Such
a reconstruction, however, misreads both the language and the intent
of Justin’s thought, as well as the actual nature of theological development in
early Christianity.
First, the
insistence that the absence of the article before theos (θεός) in Greek
signals ontological inferiority or a “lesser god” status—whether in the New
Testament or in Justin’s writings—rests on a fundamental grammatical fallacy.
As repeatedly demonstrated in contemporary Greek grammar and patristic
scholarship, the presence or absence of the article in Koine Greek has multiple
possible functions: it can mark definiteness, but it can also serve to indicate
the qualitative aspect of the noun, as in John 1:1c (“καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”), where the absence of the
article before theos is best read as signifying that the Logos possesses
the very nature of God, not that the Logos is merely “a god.” To treat
every anarthrous occurrence of theos as a pointer to ontological
subordination is simply ungrammatical, and is flatly contradicted by the usage
of Greek authors themselves, both biblical and patristic. In Greek, the
article’s presence or absence can shift meaning, but it’s not a rigid rule that
"theos" without the article means "a god" in a subordinate
sense. Context determines the intent. Justin’s use of "another God"
reflects a distinction in personhood, not a diminishment of divinity. His
consistent emphasis on the Logos being "begotten" and sharing the
Father’s will and essence undermines the idea of a "second subordinate
god" as a separate, lesser being.
The claim that Justin Martyr (and others) explicitly
distinguishes "the God" from "a god" to mean a "second
subordinate god" oversimplifies their theology. Justin’s writings show a
nuanced view: the Logos is divine, begotten of the Father, and distinct yet not
lesser in essence. While terms like "another God" appear, they
reflect a proto-Trinitarian understanding rather than a strict
subordinationism. The video you mentioned, featuring Dan McClellan, may
highlight these distinctions, but a full reading of Justin suggests a more
complex picture than a simple hierarchy of gods.
The
assertion that Justin deliberately distinguishes “the God” and “a god”
to signal two tiers of divinity imports a post-Nicene debate into a context
where the key issue was personal distinction, not denial of shared
divine nature. Justin’s “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all
things” (Dialogue with Trypho 56) must be read in context: Justin is at pains
to demonstrate, to a Jewish interlocutor, the reality of personal distinction within
the Old Testament theophanies. He identifies the Angel of the Lord—who is
called God and acts with divine prerogatives—as the Logos, thus showing that
the One God of Israel is not a monadic individual, but possesses a personal
plurality. The expression “another God” is thus intended not to multiply
deities, but to establish that the Godhead is not a solitary monad—a point
entirely consonant with Trinitarian doctrine. The phrase “subject to the Maker
of all things” does not denote a created or inferior nature but a filial
relationship and a personal distinction of origin—precisely what orthodox
Trinitarianism has always confessed.
Justin’s
use of “another God” (theos kai kurios eteros) does not imply a separate
or lesser deity but a distinction in personhood within the Godhead. In Dialogue
with Trypho 56, Justin states, “I shall attempt to persuade you… that there
is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of
all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever
the Maker of all things—above Whom there is no other God—wishes to announce to
them.” The term “subject to” reflects a relational dynamic, not an ontological
inferiority. Justin clarifies that this “other God” is numerically distinct but
not in will: “He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and
is called God, is distinct from God the Creator; distinct, that is, in number,
but not in mind” (Dialogue 56:11). This unity of will aligns with
Trinitarian theology, where the three persons share one divine will and
essence.
In First Apology 63, Justin describes the Logos as "another God and Lord under the Creator of all things," yet insists on the Logos’ divine status. This reflects relational distinction, not ontological subordination. Justin actually never used the phrase “deuteros theos” in reference to Jesus, he used “theos kai kurios eteros”, which parallels Johannine language (John 1:1), where the Logos is distinct (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) yet fully God (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). Justin does not mean “theos kai kurios eteros” in the sense of proposing two separate gods. Instead, within the broader context of Dialogue with Trypho, Justin seeks to demonstrate to a Jewish audience that Old Testament theophanies — such as the appearance of God to Abraham involving "three men," with one identified as "the Lord" and the other two as angels (Genesis 18) — can be understood as manifestations of God and possibly hint at a plurality within the divine nature (a proto-Trinitarian concept). Justin's intent is not to propose two independent, separate gods (in henotheistic sense) but to demonstrate, using the Old Testament, that certain figures identified as God and Lord (e.g., the Angel of the Lord) align with his understanding of the pre-incarnate Christ, who is distinct in person yet unified in essence with the Father. So Justin does not imply a separate deity but acknowledges the personal distinctions within the Godhead. His Apology (Chapter 63) affirms, "We worship and adore Him, the Son... and the prophetic Spirit, in reason and truth."
Furthermore,
Justin’s analogy of fire kindling fire (Dialogue 61) illustrates that
the Son’s generation does not diminish the Father’s essence: “When we give out
some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word
in us… 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.” This analogy, later
adopted by Nicene theologians, suggests that the Son shares the same divine
substance as the Father, not a separate or diminished divinity. The video’s
claim that this is merely a Middle Platonic concept of non-diminished substance
ignores Justin’s explicit rejection of the Son as a created being. He states
that the Logos was “begotten before all creatures” and was “with the Father
before all the creatures” (Dialogue 62), directly contradicting
Arianism’s view of the Son as created ex nihilo.
The Arian
polemic repeatedly insists that Justin’s language of numerical distinction but
unity of will is mere “functional” unity, not ontological. But this misreads
both the philosophical language of the time and Justin’s intent. In
second-century thought, especially in Christian writers, the unity of will was not
conceived as a mere moral harmony, but as a manifestation of a deeper
ontological communion. When Justin writes that the Logos is “distinct in number
but not in mind” (Dialogue 56:11), he is not reducing the unity of Father and
Son to mere cooperation or agreement, but expressing, within the constraints of
available terminology, the very thing later formalized as unity of essence and
will. This is reinforced by Justin’s repeated analogies: fire from fire, word
from mind, light from light. These analogies are not, as the Arian critique
suggests, mere borrowings from Middle Platonism with no ontological content;
rather, they serve as accessible ways to convey real participation in the
same essence without division or diminution. The Father does not lose
anything in the begetting of the Son; the Son is fully divine, possessing all
that belongs to deity, save personal distinction. This is why Justin will say
that the Logos is “God begotten of the Father” and that Christians “worship and
adore Him, the Son… and the prophetic Spirit” (First Apology 63). The
very fact that Justin ascribes latreia (the worship due to God alone) to
the Son is a direct refutation of Arian or henotheistic readings: in the Jewish
and early Christian context, worship is strictly reserved for the one true God.
Justin’s
identification of the Son with Old Testament theophanies, such as the Angel of
the Lord in Genesis 18 and Exodus 3, further supports his belief in the Son’s
full divinity. He argues that the one who appeared to Abraham and Moses is
called “God” and “Lord” in Scripture, yet is distinct from the Father who
remains in the “supercelestial places” (Dialogue 56, 60). This aligns
with the “Two Powers in Heaven” concept from Second Temple Judaism, which
Justin strategically and rhetorically adapts to show that the Son is divine and pre-existent, not a secondary, separate god. His statement in First Apology 63, “We worship and adore Him, the
Son… and the prophetic Spirit, in reason and truth,” indicates that the Son is
worthy of worship, a prerogative reserved for God alone in monotheistic
Christianity, thus affirming His full divinity.
Justin’s
use of “Angel” refers to the Son’s role as a messenger (angelos simply means
“messenger” in Greek), not a created spirit being. In Dialogue 56, he
explains that the Son is called an Angel “because He announces to men
whatsoever the Maker of all things… wishes to announce to them.” This
functional title does not diminish the Son’s divinity, as Justin also calls Him
“God” and “Lord” in the same contexts. For example, in Dialogue 61, the
Son is “the Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of
all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter.”
The video’s interpretation misrepresents Justin’s intent, as he explicitly
distinguishes the Son from created angels, noting that the Son was “begotten
before all creatures” and is “numerically distinct” but not ontologically
separate (Dialogue 128). Hence, even the text of Dialogue 56 makes clear, Justin uses “angel” only in the etymological sense of “messenger”—one who is sent. The Logos is called “angel” because He is the divine Messenger, not because He is a created spirit. Indeed, Justin is at pains to distinguish the Son from the angels, ascribing to the Son unique divine prerogatives, titles, and functions, and identifying Him with the Yahweh who appears in the Old Testament. This is a claim so staggering, so theologically maximal, that no Jew or Arian could accept it, and it is why Justin’s argument is so unpalatable to both.
It is a
gross distortion, then, to suggest that Justin “sidesteps” charges of
polytheism by making the Logos a “diminished divinity” and claiming that “it
doesn’t count” as polytheism because the second god is subordinate. The entire
thrust of Justin’s argument is against polytheism; his intent is not to
introduce a secondary, lesser god, but to explain the possibility of a distinct
hypostasis who is yet fully divine, in continuity with the Old Testament’s
complex portrayal of divine agency. The subordinationist tone found in Justin and other early Fathers
is best explained as an artifact of their struggle to articulate personal
distinction and order of origin within the Godhead, not as a denial of
essential unity or the Son’s true divinity. This is why, in Dialogue 61,
Justin insists that the Logos “was begotten from the Father, by His power and
will, but not by abscission as if the essence of the Father were divided.” This
is an affirmation of divine unity at the level of ousia (essence),
anticipating later Nicene formulations even if not yet employing their
technical vocabulary.
Justin’s
phrase “distinct in number but not in mind” indeed emphasizes unity of will,
but this does not preclude ontological unity. In second-century theology, the
concept of “mind” (nous) often encompassed both will and essence, as the
divine nature was understood holistically. Justin’s statement that the Son
“never did or said anything other than what the Creator… desired” (Dialogue
56:11) reflects perfect harmony in will, which is consistent with Trinitarian
theology’s view of one divine will shared by three persons. His fire analogy
further clarifies that the Son’s generation does not divide the Father’s
essence, suggesting a shared divine nature: “This power was begotten from the
Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the
Father were divided” (Dialogue 56).
The video’s
claim that Justin’s concept of substance is purely Middle Platonic and
unrelated to Nicene homoousios oversimplifies the issue. Scholars like
Michael F. Bird note that while Justin’s terminology reflects second-century
philosophical categories, his intent is to affirm the Son’s divinity and unity
with the Father (Jesus among the Gods, p. 151). Justin’s rejection of
modalism in First Apology 63, where he states that “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,” underscores his
belief in real distinctions within the Godhead, not merely functional roles.
This aligns with proto-Trinitarianism, where the Son is distinct in person but
one in essence with the Father.
The Arian
polemic also relies heavily on a parade of scholars (Diels, Hillar, Maspero,
etc.) who favor a subordinationist or “proto-Arian” reading of Justin, but it
conveniently ignores the significant body of scholarship that recognizes the developmental
character of patristic theology and the continuity between the second-century
Fathers and Nicene orthodoxy. J.N.D. Kelly, for example, concedes that “the
apologists as a body…were high trinitarians, at least in germ” (Early
Christian Doctrines, p. 95). Michael F. Bird, whose work the video
critiques, correctly notes that Justin “deploys the language of generation, of
sharing in the Father’s being, of divinity that is undiminished, and of worship
that is properly rendered only to God.” To dismiss these claims as mere
“retrojection” is to assume what must be proved: that there is no real
continuity between Justin and the Nicene tradition, a thesis patently
contradicted by the actual language and logic of the sources.
The
repeated claim that Justin’s theology is fundamentally Platonic and foreign to
the later Trinity again reveals a false dichotomy. Justin certainly draws on
the conceptual resources of his age, but he does so precisely to express the
unique Christian experience of God’s revelation in Christ. His insistence on
the Logos as the pre-existent, active, creative Word, eternally with the
Father, and properly called God, reflects the trajectory of Christian dogma
from the apostolic period through the anti-Nicene Fathers to Nicaea. It is not
“retrojection” to recognize this continuity; it is, rather, the recognition
that dogmatic articulation grows organically from seed to full flower.
While
Justin employs Middle Platonic terminology to communicate Christian beliefs to
a Greco-Roman audience, his theology transcends mere philosophical borrowing.
He integrates biblical revelation with philosophical concepts to affirm the
Son’s divinity. In Dialogue with Trypho 61, Justin describes the Logos
as “God begot 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.” This multiplicity of titles reflects the Son’s divine
roles, not a lesser status. Justin’s assertion that the Logos “was with the
Father before all the creatures” and is “begotten by an act of the Father’s
will” (Dialogue 61) indicates eternal pre-existence, not a temporal
creation as Arianism posits.
The video’s
claim that Justin’s Logos is a “diminished divinity” misinterprets his use of
Middle Platonic analogies. Justin’s fire analogy (Dialogue 61) and light
analogy (Dialogue 128) emphasize that the Son’s generation does not
divide or diminish the Father’s essence, aligning with the later Nicene concept
of homoousios. The video cites scholars like Diels and Hillar to argue
that Justin’s theology requires a second god to preserve divine transcendence,
but this overlooks Justin’s monotheistic commitment. In On the Sole
Government of God, Justin affirms strict monotheism, and in First
Apology 16 and 17, he states that Christians worship God alone, yet
includes the Son and Spirit in this worship (First Apology 63). This
triadic worship suggests a proto-Trinitarian framework, where the Father, Son,
and Spirit are distinct persons within one divine essence.
The video’s
reliance on Middle Platonic parallels, such as Numenius or Philo, ignores
Justin’s grounding in biblical texts. He cites Genesis 1:26 (“Let Us make
man”), Genesis 3:22 (“Behold, Adam has become as one of us”), and Genesis 19:24
(“The Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven”) to
argue for a plurality within the Godhead (Dialogue 62, 129). These
passages, interpreted as conversations between the Father and the Son,
prefigure Trinitarian distinctions. Justin’s use of Proverbs 8, where Wisdom
(identified as the Son) is “begotten before all the hills,” further supports
the Son’s eternal existence (Dialogue 61).
Finally,
the claim that “most scholars” today agree that Justin’s theology is
incompatible with Trinitarianism is simply inaccurate. The scholarly literature
is divided: some, especially those hostile to Nicene orthodoxy or influenced by
historicist reductionism, read Justin as a subordinationist, while many others
see him as a crucial link in the tradition that culminates in Nicaea. Justin
does not possess the conceptual vocabulary to articulate the homoousion or the
eternal generation of the Son as Nicaea does; but his logic, his scriptural
exegesis, and his analogies all point toward the very realities that would
later be defined. He is not a “proto-Arian” but a witness to the Church’s
perennial faith that the Logos is truly God from God, Light from Light,
begotten not made, of one substance with the Father.
While
Justin’s theology predates the Nicene Creed and lacks its precise terminology,
it contains the seeds of Trinitarian doctrine. The video correctly notes that
concepts like homoousios were formalized later, but it errs in
dismissing Justin’s theology as non-Trinitarian. Scholars like D.T. Sheffler
argue that “the basic outlines of Trinitarian doctrine are in the pages of the
New Testament,” and Justin’s writings reflect this early development (Justin
Martyr on the Trinity). Justin’s triadic references to Father, Son, and
Spirit in First Apology 6 and 60, where he mentions the Holy Spirit as
the third in the divine order, suggest a proto-Trinitarian framework. The statement that the Son is “God the Son of God” and “deserving to be worshipped
as God and as Christ” (Dialogue 63:5, 128:1) affirms the Son’s full
divinity.
The video’s
citation of scholars like Diels and Hillar reflects a selective reading. While
some scholars emphasize Justin’s subordinationist language, others, such as
J.N.D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines), argue that Justin’s theology
is a precursor to Nicene orthodoxy, emphasizing the Son’s eternal pre-existence
and shared essence. Justin’s use of Psalm 45 and 110 to identify the Son as
“God” and “Lord of Hosts” (Dialogue 36, 37) further supports his high
Christology, as these titles are reserved for Yahweh in the Old Testament. The
video’s claim that Justin’s theology is closer to a Middle Platonic demiurge
ignores his biblical grounding and monotheistic commitment.
The video
selectively cites scholars like Diels and Hillar to support a subordinationist
reading, but this overlooks the broader context of Justin’s writings and the
views of scholars like Bird and Kelly, who see his theology as foundational to
Trinitarianism. The accusation of retrojecting Nicene theology is valid to an
extent, as Justin’s terminology is not identical to later creeds, but his
emphasis on the Son’s deity, pre-existence, and unity with the Father aligns
more closely with proto-Trinitarianism than Arianism.
Justin
wrote in a second-century context where Christian theology was still
developing. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) later clarified the Son’s
co-equality and consubstantiality with the Father, but Justin’s writings
predate this by over 150 years. His use of Middle Platonic concepts, such as
the Logos as a mediator, was a strategic apologetic tool to make Christianity
intelligible to a Greco-Roman audience. However, his reliance on biblical
texts, such as John 1:1 (“the Word was God”) and Old Testament theophanies,
grounds his theology in Christian revelation, not merely philosophy.
The video’s
claim that Justin’s theology is closer to a Middle Platonic demiurge or world
soul ignores his monotheistic framework. In On the Sole Government of God,
Justin affirms that there is only one God, and his triadic references in First
Apology 6 and 60 include the Spirit, suggesting a proto-Trinitarian
understanding. His rejection of polytheism (Address to the Greeks) and
his insistence that the Son is worshipped as God (First Apology 63)
further demonstrate his commitment to monotheism, where the Father, Son, and
Spirit are distinct persons within one divine essence.
In summary,
the Arian reading is anachronistic, wooden, and reductionist. It is blind to
the nuances of Greek, deaf to the idioms of second-century Christian theology,
and tone-deaf to the organic continuity of dogma. Justin’s “other God” is not a
lesser being, but a distinct hypostasis within the one Godhead. His use of
“begotten” and analogies of fire and light are not mere philosophical
window-dressing, but genuine efforts to articulate personal distinction within
essential unity. The subordinationist flavor reflects the theological grammar
of his era, not an endorsement of ontological inequality. Justin stands not
with Arius, but with the fathers who confessed, at Nicaea, the Son’s full
divinity and coeternity with the Father. Any other reading is not only
unhistorical but fundamentally un-Christian.
Justin
Martyr’s theology is best understood as proto-Trinitarian, laying the
groundwork for later Nicene formulations. His use of “another God” simply reflects a
distinction in personhood, not a separate or lesser deity, as evidenced by his
analogies of fire and light, his affirmation of the Son’s eternal
pre-existence, and his inclusion of the Son in divine worship. The video’s
claims, while highlighting Justin’s Middle Platonic influences, misrepresent
his theology by overemphasizing subordinationist elements and ignoring his
monotheistic and biblical commitments. Justin’s theology directly opposes
Arianism’s view of the Son as a created being, instead affirming the Son’s full
divinity and unity with the Father, making him a precursor to orthodox
Trinitarian doctrine.