1.2.4 The Inspiration of Prophecy
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit clear. The difficulty stems from whether øØ–ı ÅØ (in 7.3) should be understood to parallel Œ ø (4.1) and ºÅæø (7.1). In 7.3 Justin says the unbelieving prophets who are filled (K ºÅØ) with an erring and unclean spirit have never done miracles as true prophets have done. Here K ºÅØ parallels the filling (ºÅæø) of the true prophets with the Holy Spirit in 7.1.
Dial 7.3 ends with the Old Man imploring Justin to pray for the opening of the gates of light, thereby avoiding the blindness characterizing the false prophets, for things 'are neither visible nor comprehensible, unless God and his Christ give understanding.' Since the understanding given by God and Christ would enable the one who prays to be 'with sight,' this activity would seem to have the same effect as the adorning and filling activity of the Spirit.
Good reason exists, however, not to rush to the conclusion that Justin attributes to them the same activity: øØ–ı ÅØ could just as well distinguish the activity of 'God and his Christ' from the activity of the Spirit defined by Œ ø and ºÅæø. Justin would then be positing one activity in which the involvement of all three persons is distinct, but such an explanation would surpass Justin's grasp of activity within the Godhead.29 Therefore, since the effect of the Spirit's adorning activity in Dial 4.1 is identical to the activity of 'God and his Christ,' and since Justin does not indicate that the various verbs are intended to function as a means of differentiation, we ought to conclude that Justin conceives of the adorning activity as belonging to the Spirit and to 'God and his Christ' without distinction.
1.2.4 The Inspiration of Prophecy The frequent use of the title 'prophetic Spirit' by Justin would seem to suggest that he considers the Spirit's role in producing prophecy to be a distinguishing activity.30 Justin's statements, however, about the agency of the Word and Spirit in the production of prophecy do not support such a conclusion. While
Justin's discussion of this topic in 1 Apol 33.9 is more succinct, 1 Apol 36–51 is more significant. 1 Apol 38–51 unpacks the statement made in 36.1–2:
29 Fundamental to such an account is an explanation of how the Three are united as One, and how the One is differentiated as Three. Only after one can articulate the diversity and unity of the members of the Godhead, can one express how the Three can engage in one activity and remain distinct. I hope to show in the final section of this chapter that Justin's logic is far from being able to express the fundamental feature necessary to this reasoning.
30 The title 'prophetic Spirit' is Justin's most common way to refer to the Spirit of God. There is no reason to think that Justin conceives of more than one Spirit: a 'holy Spirit,' a 'prophetic
Spirit,' etc. We find confirmation of this in the fact that he understands the seven spirits of Isa.
11:1–3, including the spirit of foreknowledge/prophecy, to refer to the one Spirit of God (Dial
39.2 and 87.2; see Section 1.3.2).
Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century
But when you hear the sayings of the prophets spoken as if from a person, you should not believe they are spoken from the inspired persons themselves, but from the divine Word who moves them. For sometimes He speaks as one announcing future things that are to be; sometimes He speaks as if from the person of God the Father and Master of all; sometimes as if from the person of Christ; sometimes as if from the person of the people answering the Lord and His Father.31
In this pericope Justin explains that the divine Word moves the prophets in the process of inspiration by communicating with them under four different personae. In the sections that follow, however, he says it is the 'prophetic
Spirit' who communicates with the prophets under the same four personae.
First, the prophetic Spirit 'speaks from the person of Christ' in 1 Apol 38.1.32
Second, 1 Apol 39–43 contains Justin's discussion about the communication of 'future things that are to be.' The initial lines of 39.1 open the discussion, 'when as one prophesying future things, the prophetic Spirit says things that are to be;' and the opening lines of section 42.1 initiate the conclusion of the discussion,
'when the prophetic Spirit speaks of future things that are to be.'33 Third, the holy prophetic Spirit speaks 'as if from [the person of] God the Master and Father of all things' in 1 Apol 44–5.34 And fourth, in 1 Apol 47.1 Justin notes the prophetic Spirit said words that 'were spoken as if from the person of the people.'35 1 Apol 48.4 and 49.1 combine to refer again to the Spirit predicting
'as if from the person of Christ himself.'36 The presence of nearly identical wordings with regard to the activity of the Spirit in the sections following 1 Apol 36 as we find for the Word in 1 Apol 36.1–2 warrants the 31 ὍÆ b a º Ø H æ çÅH ºª Æ ‰ Ie æ ı IŒ Å, c I' ÆPH
H Kı ø º ªŁÆØ Å, Iºº' Ie F ŒØ F ÆP f Ł ı ¸ª ı — b b ªaæ H æ ƪªºØŒH a ºº Æ ªŁÆØ º ªØ, j b b H Ie æ ı F ı ø ŒÆd Ææe Ł F çŁ ªªÆØ, b b H Ie æ ı F æØ F, b b H Ie æ ı ºÆH I ŒæØ ø fiH Œıæ fiø ŒÆd fiH Ææd ÆP ı. Though on occasion producing a stilted translation, I have always rendered I as 'from' in order to highlight the continuity in Justin's language.
32 `e æ ı F æØ F º ªfiÅ. In 1 Apol 37.1, Justin introduces a quotation saying, 'the words were spoken from the person of the Father through the aforementioned prophet Isaiah.'
The most recent quotation of Isaiah occurs in 35.5 where Marcovich supplies e æ çÅØŒe
FÆ to clarify the ambiguity with regard to the subject of º ªØ. However, this attribution is not clear-cut given the fact that references to the divine Word as the agent of inspiration bracket this passage (in 1 Apol 36.1, and esp. 1 Apol 33.9 where 'none other than the divine Word' inspires). Thus, 'from the person of the Father' in 1 Apol 37.1 could be given first place in this discussion. Nevertheless, I have chosen not to include it because it lacks the explicit reference to the 'prophetic Spirit' that occurs in the other locations—a problematic deficiency since the previous reference to the inspiring agent of Isaiah remains uncertain.
33 1 Apol 39.1: ὍÆ b ‰ æ çÅF a ºº fiÆ ª ŁÆØ ºÆºfiB e æ çÅØŒe FÆ; and 42.1: ὍÆ b e æ çÅØŒe FÆ a ºº Æ ª ŁÆØ . . . º ªfiÅ.
34 1 Apol 44.2: ‰ Ie <æ ı> F Ææe H ‹ºø ŒÆd ı Ł F.
35 1 Apol 47.1: YæÅÆØ . . . ‰ Ie æ ı ºÆH.
36 1 Apol 49.1: ‰ Ie æ ı ÆP F F æØ F.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit conclusion that Justin intends to assign the same activity of revelation to both the Spirit and Word in 1 Apol.
The failure to distinguish between the Spirit and the Word in the activity of inspiration is not limited to 1 Apol but also occurs in his Dial.37 Two observations illustrate this fact. First, a survey of the text reveals that of the nineteen different verbs Justin uses in Dial to refer to the Spirit or the Word as the agents behind revelation, eleven are used of the Spirit alone, two of the Word alone, and five of both the Spirit and the Word.38 So, while in Dial Justin uses more verbs to refer to the agency of the Spirit than that of the Word, at least seven, and possibly eight, of the nineteen verbs apply to the Word. This reveals considerable overlap in the language he uses to discuss revelatory activity.
Second, the more interesting, and perhaps more illuminating, observation stems from the fact that Justin refers only to the Spirit as the agent of revelation in the early portion of Dial, but changes his practice at the moment he begins a focused argument for the divinity of the Word in Dial 55–62.
There, the majority of his references are to the Word as the agent of revelation.
References to the Spirit as the agent of revelation predominate once again when the divinity of the Word ceases to be his primary concern, though the revelatory activity of the Word remains present.39 Justin's emphasis on the revelatory agency of the Word during the course of his argument serves as a secondary justification for the Word's divinity. The fact that he makes use of this additional device highlights the freedom with which he alternates the activity of revelation in Dial when it suits his purpose.40
Justin's ascription of prophetic agency to both the Spirit and the Word attenuates the significance of prophetic activity for our understanding of Justin's conception of the Spirit. It also diminishes how much the title
'prophetic Spirit,' his most frequent name for the Holy Spirit, differentiates the Spirit from the Word.41 Nevertheless, the ever-present title 'prophetic
Spirit' ought to be recognized as Justin's attempt to say something distinct 37 Justin makes no statements applicable to this discussion in 2 Apol.
38 See the chart appended to the end of this essay. In addition to the five verbs that are used for both the Spirit and the Word, Justin uses º ª Ç ÆØ in Dial 56.14 with regard to the Spirit, in parallel with O Çø in Dial 56.13 with regard to the Word. Thus, of the nineteen words used in Dial, six could be used for both the Spirit and the Word.
39 According to my count, Justin refers to the Spirit as the agent of revelation nine times in Dial 1–54; to the Spirit seven times and to the Word eight times in Dial 55–62; to the Word twice in Dial 63, which may be seen as a continuation of Dial 55–62 or the beginning of the discussion of the Word's incarnation; to the Spirit eleven times and to the Word six times in Dial 64–142.
40 That the ascription of prophetic activity to the Word is an aspect of Justin's argument in Dial weighs against Lebreton's proposal that Justin attributes this activity to the Word when his readers are more receptive to that idea than to the inspiration of the Spirit—that is, the Greek readers of 1 Apol (Lebreton 1928, vol. 2: 464–5).
41 Contra, Vigne (2000). At the root of Vigne's argument lies the understanding that the Spirit possesses a peculiar link to the concept of prophecy in Justin's mind. This analysis undermines such a determination.
Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century
about the activity of the Spirit,42 even if he fails in this attempt.43 Therefore,
Justin attributes prophetic agency to both the Spirit and the Word, negating much of its ability to distinguish between the Spirit and the Word. Distinct, however, the Spirit and the Word do remain in these discussions, even if with little justification.
Justin fails to distinguish between the activity of the Spirit and the Word in each of these four examples, which serves as evidence for his binitarian orientation. Yet, the recognition of this binitarian schema cannot lead us to discount that he continues to affirm their distinction, even if his logic entails no justification for doing so. We must affirm, then, that in these passages he manifests a binitarian theological account alongside Trinitarian theological convictions. We may attribute this discord between logic and affirmation to the early Christian transition from binitarian to Trinitarian theological accounts.44 Given this state of transition, it should not surprise the reader to find in Justin elements of a binitarian orientation that extend beyond the failure to distinguish the activity of the Spirit and the Word to a failure to distinguish the identity of the Spirit and the Word. The last section of this study will document two such occurrences, wherein Spirit-Christology further reveals a binitarian tendency in Justin.
1.3 SPIRIT-CHRISTOLOGY IN 1 APOL 33 AND DIAL
87–88: THE SUBORDINATION OF TRINITARIAN
CONVICTION TO BINITARIAN ORIENTATION
The final section of this chapter will show that Justin twice fails to differentiate the identities of the Word and Spirit, and that we should recognize both of these occasions as instances of Spirit-Christology. We have already found a binitarian tendency in Justin by observing his frequent failure to distinguish the activity of the Spirit from that of the Word. The presence of SpiritChristology in 1 Apol 33 and Dial 87–88 should be understood as rare
42 Though I remain unconvinced by Vigne's argument (2000: 343) that the title 'prophetic
Spirit' is equivalent to that of 'holy Spirit', I commend his desire to understand the significance of the title, rather than to assume its obvious character. For previous attempts to understand the title 'prophetic Spirit' see Robinson (1920: 25) and Grant (1993: 12).
43 The distinction Justin intends to present contradicts Osborn's statement (1973: 89) that 'from the subject matter of prophecy it is clear that only the logos can be its author'. On the other hand, it reaffirms Goodenough's critique of von Engelhardt, who 'referred prophetic inspiration ultimately to the Logos, and considered the Holy Spirit to be only the personal agent whom the Logos used for that purpose. Von Engelhardt adduces no evidence for the suggestion because there is none to adduce' (Goodenough 1923; repr. 1968: 181).
44 Segal (1999: 79).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit occurrences in which Justin subordinates his Trinitarian convictions to a binitarian orientation. We will see that the binitarian tendency that manifests itself in Justin's failure to distinguish between the activity of the Spirit and the activity of the Word, twice manifests itself as a binitarian account of the Godhead.
Goodenough's analysis of Dial 128 went a long way toward finding in Justin a doctrine of Spirit-Christology when he showed Justin understands the Word to be classed among irreducible Powers, a certain category of angels, since they share origin and function.45 His contention that Justin conceived of the origin of the Holy Spirit along the same lines—the Spirit, like the Word, went forth as a Power from the Father—would have completed the picture if he had been able to produce a text in which Justin affirms the Spirit to be a Power. He could not do so, leaving him to argue for the connection, and that but weakly: 'Justin had but one theory for the generation of Divine Beings, that of emanation from the One Divine Source . . . There is no reason for trying to imagine for Justin a different sort of emanation of the Holy Spirit.'46 He could produce no more compelling evidence for this assertion than a reference to 1 Apol 6.2: 'we worship and revere both that one and the Son from Him, who came and taught us these things, and the army of good angels, who follow and are like him, and the prophetic Spirit, honoring (him) in reason and truth.'47
We now may supplement Goodenough's classification of the Word as an irreducible Power with the later essay of Christian Oeyen, which showed that Justin's references to ıØ in Dial 87 ought to be identified with the Spirit.48 Though he himself does not make the connection, Oeyen's study completes Goodenough's work. It enables us to discern that for Justin both the 45 Goodenough (1923; repr. 1968: 148–50, 155–9); he focuses on Dial 128.3–4. According to Goodenough, as a result of its common origin with these Powers, the will of God alone determines the unique rank of the Word (Dial 93.2, 'he who loves God . . . will, because God wishes, revere that angel who is loved by the same Lord and God'). C. Oeyen added to this conversation by pointing out that Justin distances himself from the idea of reducibility that is conveyed in Dial 128.3, and which would be an early form of modalism (Oeyen, SP 11. 2 1972:
215–21, here 221 n. 2). He also notes that the Word is only ever referred to as 'power' in the singular, concluding: 'while the one Holy Spirit and the seven powers are identical, the Son is the first, separated from all others' (p. 221).
46 Goodenough (1923; repr. 1968: 185).
47 Ibid. 186. The weakness in Goodenough's use of this passage lies in the fact that its association of the Spirit with the good angels is not explicit. In using it, Goodenough does not prove, but rather assumes, Justin would not have placed the Spirit after the angels unless they shared their origin, and to a certain degree, their identity.
Robinson's view (1920: 27) that Justin's 'immediate purpose was to show what a wealth of spiritual powers Christianity could set out in contrast to the "many gods"—the demons—of the heathen world' runs counter to Justin's desire to differentiate the true God from other spiritual beings not deserving worship.
48 Oeyen, SP 11.2 (1972: esp. 219–1). This study follows his work on corresponding concepts in Clement of Alexandria (Oeyen, IKZ 55 1965 and IKZ 56 1966). Bucur's articles mentioned above build upon Oeyen.