1.3.1 The Incarnation
Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century
Word and the Spirit belong to a category of heavenly beings called 'Powers,' a class also inhabited by certain angelic beings. This common origin and to a certain degree, identity, shared by the Word, the Spirit, and Angelic beings, as powers emanating from the Father, accounts for Justin's insertion of the angels into 1 Apol 6.2. Recognizing Justin's mutual classification of the Word and the Spirit as 'Powers' forms the basis for the final stage of this discussion: the identification of texts exhibiting a Spirit-Christology that involves the subordination of Trinitarian beliefs to binitarian logic. We now turn to consider 1
Apol 33 and Dial 87.49
1.3.1 The Incarnation 1 Apol 33.6 reads:
Therefore the Spirit and the Power that is from God should be understood according to custom as nothing other than the Word (who is also the Firstbegotten of God) . . . this one (the Word/Power/Spirit), when it came upon the virgin and overshadowed her, caused her to conceive not by intercourse, but by power.
The binitarianism evinced in Justin's failure to distinguish the activity of the Spirit from that of the Word finds its most explicit expression in Justin's statement that the Holy Spirit and Power from God mentioned in the annunciation narrative are none other than the Word. Moreover, the phrase 'according to custom' suggests Justin's interpretation was a common tradition within the Jewish-Christian community of the early Church.50
The significance of Justin's classification of the Word and Spirit among the Powers now becomes clear. In 1 Apol 32 he lays the groundwork for his conclusions in 1 Apol 33 when he says the Incarnation occurs through the agency of the Word because of its status as the first Power. Justin's reference to the testimony of Moses in 1 Apol 33.6 refers to the quotation of Gen. 49:10
49 The broader conceptual background for this discussion can be found in the work of Levison, esp. SBLSP 34 (1995), Gieschen, SBLSP 33 (1994) and (1998: esp. 114–19) and Bucur
(2009). Simonetti's earlier essay, Aug 12 (1972: 201–32), should not be overlooked.
50 Cf. Kelly (1960: 146–49, esp. 149). Justin's appeal to tradition to support his interpretation suggests an awareness of a competing tradition that did not identify the Holy Spirit, the Power, and the Word, or at least the recognition that the annunciation narrative could be read in a way that would not necessitate their identification. Evidence for a competing tradition may be found in Ignatius, To the Ephesians 18.2, 'The fact is, our God Jesus Christ was conceived by Mary according to God's dispensation of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit.' Unless otherwise noted, quotations of Ignatius are from J.A. Kleist, The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St Ignatius of Antioch (ACW 1; New York: Paulist Press, 1946).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit which he explicates in 1 Apol 32. The portion of that analysis which interests us most is his elucidation of 'blood of the grape' in 1 Apol 32.8–11.51 Justin contends that 'blood' signifies the Messiah would be human, but the idea that the blood comes from 'the grape,' as opposed to a human being, indicates that Jesus did not come from human seed but from the power of God. Having eliminated the possibility of conception by human agency, the Word as the first power after God the Father and Master of all then becomes the agent of its own incarnation.
This interpretation of Gen. 49:10 followed by the end of 1 Apol 32 and the whole of 1 Apol 33 forms Justin's account of how 'being made flesh, he became human.'52 Within this account, the equation of the Holy Spirit, Power, and Word in 1 Apol 33.6 is central to the success of his present argument. By identifying these three, Justin attempts to obviate the dissonance between his exegesis of Gen. 49:10 in 1 Apol 32.8–11, which consigns the Incarnation to the activity of the Word, and his quotation of the New Testament narratives concerning Mary's impregnation in 1 Apol 33.4–6, which associate the same activity with the Holy Spirit and the Power of God.
Preeminent in Justin's analysis of the Incarnation of the Word in 1 Apol 32 and 33 is his identification of the Word as a Power of God. In 1 Apol 32.9 the Word is æÅ ÆØ a e Æ æÆ ø, 'the First Power after the Father of all,' who himself was empowered to accomplish the divine impregnation of the virgin Mary.53 In 1 Apol 33.6 comes the equation of the Word and Power already mentioned, which identifies the Word as the one 'who is also the First-begotten of God,54 as Moses, the previously mentioned prophet, testified.' This reference to the testimony of Moses sends us back to Justin's explication of Gen. 49:10 in order to understand what Justin means by 'First-begotten of God.' We find there the only statement to which he could be referring, that the Word is 'the First Power after the Father of All.' Therefore, Justin's discussion of the Incarnation ends where it began, emphasizing all along the identification of the Word as a Power, or the First
Power of God.
These references to the Word as Power combined with his understanding of the Spirit as Power enables Justin to take the next step and assert the Word to be Spirit: Word = Power = Spirit is the same as Word = Spirit—a statement of Spirit-Christology.55 We are now able to add content to Goodenough's suspicion, stemming from 1 Apol 33.6, that Justin 'had no clear notion' of a 51 Barnard (1997: 150 n. 229).
52 1 Apol 32.9.
53 On the empowerment of the Word, see Goodenough (1923; repr. 1968: 236–7).
54 —æø Œ fiH ŁfiH.
55 Lebreton is on the right track when he suggests that the confusion in this passage is possible because of the lack of clarity the terms 'spirit' and 'power' possess, especially in the first centuries of the Church (Lebreton 1928, vol. 2: 477).