1.3.2 The Bestowal of Spiritual Gifts
Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century
'metaphysical or functional distinction.'56 Justin's failure to distinguish the identities and activities of the Spirit and the Word in 1 Apol 33.6 rests upon their common classification as Powers.
At this point I will offer a cautionary note. Barnard states that 1 Apol 33.6
'seems decisive proof, at least on the surface, that for Justin Spirit and Logos were two names for the same person.'57 He qualifies this assertion with the phrase 'at least on the surface,' and he even goes on to say that this understanding 'does not exclude the possibility of his believing in the Spirit distinct from the Father and the Son.'58 Nevertheless, saying, 'for Justin Spirit and Logos were two names for the same person,' though true to Justin's thought in 1 Apol 33, borders on the brink of generalization. Such a generalization would fail to reflect the majority of cases in Justin's writing in which he affirms the distinction of the Spirit and the Word while failing to distinguish their activity.
In other words, his incipient theological account, defined by a binitarian framework, is unable to express his Trinitarian faith—a faith, nevertheless, which remains Trinitarian.
1.3.2 The Bestowal of Spiritual Gifts Dial 39 and 87 contain similar lists of spiritual gifts.59 The difference between the list of spiritual gifts presented in Dial 39.2 and those presented in Dial 87.2 can be explained by Justin's dependence on Isa. 11 alone in Dial 87.2, but on both 1
Cor. 12 and Isa. 11:2–3 in Dial 39.2. Stanton writes, 'three allusions to 1 Corinthians 12 are woven into the list (of gifts in 39.2): "healing" recalls 1 Cor. 12:9b;
56 Goodenough (1923; repr. 1968: 236). Recognizing the presence of a Spirit-Christology in Justin's thought negates the need to suggest that the identification of the Spirit and Word reveals an attempt by Justin to avoid the notion of the Spirit's superiority over the Word, which Goodenough says would accompany a doctrine in which the activity of the Spirit renders
Mary pregnant. Justin gives no indication that he intends to avoid such a 'parental relation' by means of his argument, neither should we understand its purpose as such.
According to Stanton (2004: 331) anyone who interprets 1 Apol 33.6 as confirming 'that for Justin the Spirit and the Logos were two names for the same person proposes a conclusion that outruns the evidence'. He bases this determination, however, on an inaccurate understanding of Goodenough, whose observation (1923; repr. 1968: 181) with regard to the paucity of evidence for such a conclusion refers to the notion that Justin fails to distinguish the Spirit and Word in his references to prophetic agency. Goodenough's analysis of 1 Apol 33.6 in pp. 235–6 are of a different character altogether, as my quotations indicate. Swete's assessment (1912: 38) is accurate: 'while [Justin] usually distinguishes the Spirit of prophecy from the Logos, he fails to draw this distinction in reference to the Conception'.
57 Barnard (1967: 104).
58 Ibid. 104; author's emphasis.
59 Many have commented upon the roles that Christ and the Spirit play in the distribution of spiritual gifts in these chapters of the Dialogue. See, for instance, Goodenough (1968: 186);
Lebreton (1928, vol. 2: 478); Oeyen, SP 11.2 (1922: 215–21); Osborn (1973: 92); Morgan-Wynne,
VC 38 (1984: 172–7, here 174–5); Skarsaune (1987: 196–7, 274–6); Vigne (2000: 339–41);
Stanton (2004: 332–4).
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit "foreknowledge" is just Justin's interpretation of "prophecy" in 1 Cor. 12:10b; and "teaching" alludes to 1 Cor. 12:28.'60 But while Isa. 11:2–3 refers to the Spirit alone and 1 Cor. 12:11 attributes the distribution of the gifts to the activity and volition of the Spirit, Dial 39.4 quotes Ps. 68:19 to assert the primacy of Christ in this activity following his ascension: 'These are the words:
"he ascended on high; he made captivity captive; he gave gifts to men".'61 Dial 39.4 offers no explanation for this departure from Isa. 11:2–3 and especially 1
Cor. 12. Dial 87, however, contains a similar reading, though based upon Isa.
11:1–3 alone, that clarifies Justin's approach.
Dial 87.2 begins with the quotation of Isa. 11:1–3 which Trypho uses to challenge the preexistence of Christ: 'How can it be shown that he was preexisting, who through the powers of the Holy Spirit, which the Scripture of Isaiah enumerates, is filled as if he was lacking them?' Trypho's question follows from the determination that preexistence rests upon Christ's possession of the powers of the Holy Spirit. In order for Justin to demonstrate continuity between the preand post-incarnate states of being he must show
Christ to be linked with the powers of the Holy Spirit at all times, in particular his pre-incarnate possession of those powers. If the powers are bestowed upon Christ at some time during his incarnation, at his baptism for instance or even at the moment of his birth, then according to Trypho his preexistence cannot be affirmed, leaving Justin to work with an adoptionist theology. In response to Trypho, Justin asserts Christ's continual possession of the powers by stating in Dial 87.3 and 87.5 that the powers 'find an end on' Christ.
(Dial 87.3) The scriptures say these powers of the Spirit, the ones enumerated, have come on him (Christ) not as if he was lacking them, but as if intending to find their rest on that one, that is to find an end on him.62
(Dial 87.5) The Spirit rested, therefore, that is ceased, when that one (Christ) came. After which <by means of> this economy [the powers] were bound to cease among you, and while taking rest in this one they will occur again in time among his people; gifts will occur as has been prophesied, which from the grace of the power of his Spirit may be given to those who believe in him, by his knowledge of the worth of each one.63
60 Stanton (2004: 332).
61 Skarsaune suggests Justin's quotation of Ps. 68:19 comes from Eph. 4:8, it is then appropriate to note Eph. 4:7 emphasizes Christ's role in the giving of gifts (1987: 100).
62 ÆÆ a ŒÆÅæØŁÅ Æ F Æ ıØ På ‰ K F ÆP F ø Z çÅd › ¸ª KºÅºıŁ ÆØ K' ÆP, Iºº' ‰ K' KŒE IÆıØ ºº ıH ØEŁÆØ, ı Ø K' ÆP F æÆ ØEŁÆØ.
63 `ÆÆ s, ı Ø KÆÆ , KºŁ KŒ ı, Ł' n <Øa> B NŒ Æ ÆÅ ÆÆŁÆØ Ø ÆPa Iç' H, ŒÆd K fiø IÆıØ ºÆÆ ºØ <KºŁE> E
K åæø IŁæ Ø ÆP F ª Ø, ‰ Kæ çı ªŁÆØ ÆÆ, L Ie B åæØ B ıø F Æ KŒ ı E K' ÆPe Ø ıØ øØ, ‰ ¼Ø ŒÆ K ÆÆØ.
Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century
Dial 87.5 expands upon the introductory statement of 87.3, which states Christ did not receive the powers listed in Isa. 11:1–3 'as if he was lacking them,' but rather as if they found 'an end on him.' Justin offers an interpretation of the text of Isaiah which he believes does not jeopardize the preexistence of Christ – an interpretation that affirms Christ's pre-possession of the powers of the Holy Spirit. The key movement in the explanation of Dial 87.5 is Justin's interpretation of the 'resting of the powers' in Isa. 11:1–3 as 'ceasing.' 'Rest' should not be interpreted as indicating any addition of powers, rather 'rest' means that the powers 'cease.' By 'cease' Justin intends to convey that Christ did not lack the powers—that he already possessed them.
Scholars, however, have not explained how Justin's conception of these powers 'ending' or 'ceasing' in the person of Christ explains their continual possession by Christ. Skarsaune comes close to broaching the subject:
One should expect an interpretation (of Isa. 11:1–3) along the lines of John 1:32f
( . . . ŒÆd Ø K' ÆPe): the Spirit should find its lasting rest in Jesus, i.e., abide permanently on him . . . But this exegesis of IÆÆÆØ is only hinted at by Justin. The main thrust of his argument in Dial 87 goes in another direction:
IÆıØ ØEŁÆØ means æÆ ØEŁÆØ.64
He then associates this exegetical maneuver with Justin's conception of the relationship between Jesus and John—John's activity ceases at Jesus' coming.65
Nevertheless, what Justin means by K' ÆP F æÆ ØEŁÆØ ('to find an end on him') remains unexplained. I believe the answer lies in Justin's identification of Christ as a Power combined with Oeyen's study that identifies the Spirit with power language and the grouping of seven Powers in particular in Dial 87.
Oeyen argues from Dial 87.2–3 that the seven spirits enumerated in the quotation of Isa. 11:1–3, and referred to by both Trypho and Justin as 'Powers of the Holy Spirit', appear to be a 'definite number of higher hypostases' rather than 'an accidental naming of several powers among many others.'66 Justin's alternating references in Dial 87.3–4 to 'Powers of the spirit' and to various
'spirits' with regard to the seven spirits listed in Isa. 11:1–3 shows he uses the words 'Power' and 'Spirit' to refer to the same reality.67 Furthermore, Justin coordinates 'Power' and 'Powers' in Dial 88.1: 'it was not because he lacked
64 Skarsaune (1987: 196–7); author's emphasis.
65 Dial 49–51.
66 Oeyen, SP 11.2 (1972: 218).
67 Ibid. 219.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit Power that it was prophesied that the Powers enumerated by Isaiah would come on him, but because they (the Powers) will no longer exist.'68 In so doing, he summarizes the understanding with which he worked throughout
Dial 87: the one Power and the seven Powers of the Spirit are the same reality, which is at the same time one and sevenfold; the one power is the fullness, which contains all seven powers and brings them to unity. In the end
(88.1) the argument that governs the whole interpretation is repeated once more:
Christ does not need the power of the Spirit, which came down on him at the Jordan, but it comes, in order to find its rest on him.69
Oeyen calls attention to Dial 116.1 where Justin refers to the angel of God that stands against the devil as the 'power of God who was sent to us through Jesus
Christ.' He then states, 'This power can only be the Holy Spirit . . . Justin understands the Holy Spirit both as one power only, as well as a group of seven powers.'70 Therefore, in Dial 87 and 88, Justin conceives of the seven
'Spirits' or 'Powers' referred to in Isa. 11:1–3 as identified with the 'Powers' or 'Power' of the Holy Spirit, and indeed, with the Holy Spirit itself.71
Thus, the 'Powers of the Holy Spirit' which must at all times be continually possessed by Christ refer to the Holy Spirit. Yet, we still have not determined how 'find an end on him' in Dial 87.3 and 'that is, ceased' in Dial 87.5 explain
Christ's continual possession of the Spirit without affirming that the Spirit is ever added to Christ. Spirit-Christology meets both these interpretive conditions. In Dial 87 and 88, Christ is the incarnation of the Spirit-Power-Word, whom we have encountered as the agent of the incarnation in 1 Apol 33.6.
Justin uses the phrases ı Ø K' ÆP F æÆ ØEŁÆØ ('that is to find an end on him;' Dial 87.3) and ı Ø KÆÆ ('that is ceased;' Dial 87.5) to explain the resting of the Spirit at the time of the Incarnation. The rest, that is 'ceasing' or 'ending,' of the Spirit involves the understanding that the one who once acted among the Jews ceases to act among them at the time of the Incarnation because that one, as Christ, now acts among those who believe in Christ.72 This is why Justin states in Dial 87.5 that the gifts, which will occur among the followers of Christ, come 'from the grace of the power of his Spirit.'
68 Dial 88.1: P Øa e rÆØ ÆPe KB ıø Kæ çı KºŁÆØ K' ÆPe a ıØ a ŒÆÅæØŁÅ Æ ˙Æ ı, Iººa Øa e K ŒØÆ c ººØ ŁÆØ.
69 Oeyen, SP 11.2 (1972: 220).
70 Ibid. 220–21. For various interpretations of Dial 116.1 see the references listed by Oeyen, p. 220 n. 7. For an interpretation of the power as Christ, see Barbel (1941: 59–60).
71 Oeyen argues Justin is identifying the Holy Spirit with the Sabai which, according to Second Temple Jewish traditions, are the highest class of angelic beings consisting of seven powers or spirits (Oeyen, SP 11.2 1972: 215–19).
72 Justin's use of the terms 'gifts' in Dial 87.5 and 'charisms' in 88.1 emphasizes the new orientation of this activity in the new economy. Cf. Oeyen, SP 11.2 (1972: 219); Morgan-Wynne,
VC 38 (1984: 177 n. 8).
Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century
With this phrase Justin signals that the same one who once acted among the Jews now acts as Christ among his followers. The incarnation of this one
Spirit-Power-Word does not entail any notion by which the Spirit is added to Christ and affirms that Christ never lacks the Spirit. Therefore, recognizing the rubric of Spirit-Christology in Dial 87 and 88 explains why Justin does not understand the resting of the Spirit on Christ along the lines of Jn. 1:32, as Skarsaune would expect. The Spirit does not 'accompany' the Incarnate Word, rather it is the Spirit/Word who becomes incarnate—an argument that secures the pre-existence of Christ.
We may now explain Justin's apparent departure in Dial 39.2 from the references to the Spirit in Isa. 11 and 1 Cor. 12. If Justin intends his reference to Christ in 39.2 to be the Incarnate Spirit/Word, as he does in Dial 87, then it makes sense for him to use texts speaking of the gift-giving activity of the Spirit to support the gift-giving activity of the Christ. Nothing in 39.2 hinders or prevents this interpretation. At no time does Justin refer to the pre-incarnate identity of the Christ, permitting Dial 87 to guide our understanding of the parallel passage in 39.2. Therefore, Spirit-Christology enables us to grasp the reasoning of 39.2.
The gift-giving activity of Christ did not exclude the gift-giving activity of the Spirit, but embodied it; the same understanding we find in 87.5.
Spirit-Christology also explains Justin's insistence on the symbolic nature of the baptismal accounts. Dial 88.4 states, 'he went to the river, we know, not as if he needed to be baptized or (needed) the Spirit who came on him in the form of a dove'—an assertion he sets up by stating in 88.2, 'as soon as [Christ] was born he possessed his Powers.' Justin eschews any interpretation of the baptismal accounts that ascribe to the resting of the Spirit on Christ any effect other than a symbolic confirmation of Christ's identity for the sake of other human beings because the logic of Dial 87 entails the presence of the Spirit in Christ already.73
His position that the resting of the Spirit on Christ at his baptism has no effect permits Justin to continue to affirm that Christ does not receive the Spirit at his baptism. Since there is no effect, there is no reason to think that anything real happened. Therefore, the symbolic interpretation of the baptismal narrative in Dial 88 coordinates the Trinitarian theophany of the baptismal story, as presented in the New Testament writings, with the binitarian logic of SpiritChristology underlying Justin's thought in Dial 87 and 88.74
73 Dial 88.4 and 9 emphasize the symbolic interpretation. My argument seems to coincide with Skarsaune's proposal that Dial 87 and 88 reveal Justin to be interacting with two different sources, the second and apparently more influential 'regards Christ as endowed with his full dynamis from his birth' (1987: 197–9, here p. 199).
74 Irenaeus' mature second-century theology, which is Trinitarian in logic, contrasts with Justin's symbolic interpretation. In AH 3.9.3 he interprets the descent of the dove in the baptismal narrative as indicating the Spirit's anointing of Christ. He quotes Isa. 11:1–3 to support his interpretation. See chapter 4, pp. 59–77 for my discussion of Irenaeus' account of the Spirit's anointing of Jesus.
Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit In his consideration of the baptismal account of Dial 88.3, Stanton focuses his attention on the phrase that recounts Christ's entrance into the river: 'Jesus went down into the water and fire was ignited in the Jordan.' He concludes that fire 'evokes the Spirit.' Though he recognizes that Justin's reference to fire does not belong to the synoptic tradition, Stanton tries to bolster his conclusion with references to Matt. 3:11 and Luke 3:16 ('he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire').75 If Justin did intend to associatefire with the Spirit, it would suggest that he does not consider the baptismal account to be purely symbolic, because it makes little sense to transmit a tradition that draws attention to the descent of the Spirit when arguing that the descent had no effect.
Stanton's association of Dial 88.3 with Matt. 3:11 and Luke 3:16 possesses several weaknesses, despite the fact that a basic similarity exists in their common topic of baptism and the common references to the Spirit and fire. The foremost flaw is the fact that Jesus was baptized with John's baptism, a baptism of repentance. Baptism with the Spirit and fire is that which Jesus will offer to his followers, not what he experienced. One could argue that Justin recognized this difference but casts Jesus' baptism as being similar to the baptism his own followers would later experience in order to establish continuity between Christ and his followers. But Justin presents the baptismal narrative in order to differentiate the Christ from all other men, especially the prophets of Israel who had possessed a portion of the Spirit in the past, not to establish continuity between Jesus and his followers. Thus, the notion that Justin intends to evoke the Spirit by his reference to fire cannot be supported by these verses in Matthew and Luke.
Stanton's treatment also fails to consider Skarsaune's contention that the presence of fire at Jesus' baptism follows the tradition of the Sibylline Oracles.
Sib 6.4–7 reads, 'when [Jesus] had washed in the streams of the river Jordan, which moves with gleaming foot, sweeping the waves. He will escape the fire and be the first to see delightful God coming in the Spirit on the white wings of the dove.'76 Skarsaune suggests Justin was probably not aware of the original meaning of the passage which intended to show that 'Jesus as God's Son was tested by the fire, but not made God's Son by his baptism'—the fire proved who Jesus was.77 While Skarsaune's interpretation of what the Sibyl intended to convey (by the reference to fire) is not as evident as his statements imply, it would seem that Sib 6.4–7 does contain the tradition to which Justin refers.
Therefore, Skarsaune may be correct that Justin's use of the story to simply proclaim Jesus' identity indicates he was unaware of its original meaning, for according to Justin, the baptism does not prove or test Jesus to be God's Son.
More importantly for this present study, Skarsaune's argument that Justin 75 Stanton (2004: 324).
76 'Sibylline Oracles,' (1983: here, 407).
77 Skarsaune (1987: 392). Vigne attributes the fire in the Jordan to a Jewish-Christian milieu that Justin incorporates, corrects, and critiques (1992: 74, 310–11).
Justin Martyr and the Pneumatology of the Mid-Second Century
used the tradition to proclaim Jesus' identity alone undermines Stanton's suggestion that Justin's reference to fire 'evokes the Spirit.' Therefore, Justin's understanding of the baptismal account remains altogether symbolic, which permits its assimilation into a binitarian orientation.
We have found 1 Apol 33.6 and Dial 87–88 to be instances of SpiritChristology, wherein the Spirit and Word/Christ are identified. At times, then, binitarianism leads Justin's logic to jeopardize his Trinitarian convictions. As with his failure to distinguish the activity of the Spirit and Word, these occurrences ought to be understood as reflecting the transition of earliest
Christian theologies from binitarian to Trinitarian theological accounts. In acknowledging the transitional nature of Justin's thought, it is important to recognize that his rare binitarian accounts of the Godhead are very much the exceptions that prove the rule. Justin's commitment to Trinitarian belief is firm; it is just that his logic is not well enough developed to support his convictions, which results in occasional instances of Spirit-Christology.
Chapter Conclusion This chapter suggests the following alternatives to the three-point summary of Goodenough's conclusions that I offered earlier. First, confusion of function does not prevent Justin's distinction of the Word and Spirit in identity, though
Justin does fail to distinguish their identity in 1 Apol 33.6 and Dial 87–88.
Second, the direct cause of the lack of clarity in Justin's approach to the Spirit stems from a conflict between a binitarian tendency and a Trinitarian confession. This is evident from his regular failure to differentiate the activity of the Word and the Spirit and his occasional failure to differentiate their identities, both of which occur alongside clear statements of Trinitarian belief. Third, the indirect cause of the lack of clarity in Justin's approach to the Spirit lies in his utilization of a traditional understanding of the Word and Spirit as Powers.
Now that we have found evidence in Justin's thought for the existence of binitarian logic alongside Trinitarian belief, I would like to return to my point of departure. It is appropriate to classify Justin's understanding of the Spirit as confused, given his inability to construct a theology of the Spirit that possesses distinct conceptions of activity and identity. His theological account does not support the Trinitarian convictions his confessional statements confirm. In so finding, we cannot lose perspective and condemn a theologian of the second century for failing to meet the standards of the fourth century, a long-standing habit often found in earlier works. Neither, however, ought we to attribute to Justin a more developed approach to the Spirit than he, in fact, evinces.
Binitarianism and Trinitarianism exist in tension within Justin to the detriment of the Holy Spirit who remains partially eclipsed by the Word.
This is the pneumatological milieu of the mid-second century. This is the state of pneumatological reasoning which Irenaeus encounters, from which he can draw, with which he has to work, and which he must overcome.