Trinitarian Subordinationism in the Theology of Justin Martyr

"[...] what is begotten is numerically distinct from what begets." Just., dial. 129, 4.

The familiar creedal formulations of the Trinity were expressed only following centuries of discernment and intense debate, particularly during the 4th century. We can see the roots of the later Trinitarian controversies in the theology of Justin Martyr. He expresses Logos Theology (see here), but does so in a way that subordinates the Son/Logos to the Father, even as it attributes divinity to him. In this post, I’ll explore Justin’s attempts to grapple with the mystery of God: the nature of the Father, the Logos/Son and his relationship to the Father, and any hints of Trinitarianism.

The Nameless God

Justin repeatedly emphasizes the absolute transcendence of God the Father, claiming that the names and titles of God are not really “names” (ὀνόματα) but rather “appellatives” (προσρήσεις) derived from his works. He addresses God as Father is “the most true” (ὁ ἀληθέστατος) “the Father of justice and temperance” “unmixed with evil” (ἀνεπίμικτος κακίας) (1 apol. 6, 1). He is “the Father and creator of all things (ὁ πάντων πατὴρ καὶ δημιουργὸς) (1 apol. 8, 2), who made the world out of unformed matter (1 apol. 10, 2). He is “the good and unbegotten God” (ὁ ὰγαθὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος θεός) (1 apol. 14, 2), the changeless first cause (dial. 3). But, again, none of these are the names of God. God is nameless, above all our titles for him:

Ὄνομα δὲ τῷ πάντων πατρὶ θετόν, ἀγεννήτῳ ὄντι, οὐκ ἔστιν. ὃς γὰρ ἂν κατ’ ὄνομά τι προσαγορεύηται πρεσύτερον ἔχει τὸν θέμενον τὸ ὄνομα. τὸ δὲ πατὴρ καὶ θεὸς καὶ κτίστης καὶ κύριος καὶ δεσπότης οὐκ ὀνόματά ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῶν εὐποιϊῶν καὶ τῶν ἔργων προσρήσεις. ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐκείνου—ὁ μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υἱός, ὁ λόγος πρὸ τῶν ποιημάτων καὶ συνὼν καὶ γεννώμενος—Χριστὸς μὲν κατὰ τὸ χρῖσαι καὶ κοσμῆσαι τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸν θεὸν λέγεται, ὄνομα καὶ αὺτὸ περιέχον ἄγνωστον σημασίαν, ὃν τρόπον καὶ τὸ θεὸς προσαγόρευμα οὐκ ὄνομά ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ πράγματος δυσεξηγήτου ἔμφυτος τῇ φύσει τῶν ἀνθρώπων δόξα. Just., 2 apol. 5, 1-4 (ed. Minns - Parvis, Oxford 2009, 284, linn. 5-8 - 286, linn. 1-5).

For no name is bestowed on the Father of all things, since he is unbegotten. For whoever is addressed by some name has as older than him the one who gave him the name. For “father” and “god” and “creator” and “lord” and “master” are not names, but they are appellations derived from his beneficence and works. For his Son, who alone is rightly called Son, the Logos who was with him and begotten before creation—is called Christ because God anointed and adorned all things through him. The name also has an unknown meaning, just as the designation ‘god’ is not a name but a notion implanted in the nature of human beings about something difficult to explain.

Andrea del Verrocchio, The Baptism of Christ (1475)

The Subordinated Son

Justin’s view of the relationship between Father and Son is inescapably subordinationist. To Trypho, he argues for the distinct existence of the Son as he appears in the Old Testament. He is “a certain logical power” (δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν) derived from the Father (ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ). To illustrate, he uses the famous analogies of the spoken word and of fire from fire that have a long afterlife in later theology:

Μαρτύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν, ὦ φίλοι [...] ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι ἀρχὴν πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμίν τινα ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικήν, ἥτις καὶ δόξα κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται, ποτὲ δὲ υἱός, ποτὲ δὲ σοφία, ποτὲ δὲ ἄγγελος, ποτὲ δὲ θεός, ποτὲ δὲ κύριος καὶ λόγος, ποτὲ δὲ ἀρχιστράτηγον ἑαυτὸν λέγει, ἐν ἀνθρώπου μορφῇ φανέντα τῷ τοῦ Ναυῆ Ἰησοῦ· ἔχει γὰρ πάντα προσονομάζεσθαι ἔκ τε τοῦ ὑπηρετεῖν τῷ πατρικῷ βουλήματι καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς θελήσει γεγεννῆσθαι. ἀλλ’ οὐ τοιοῦτον ὁποῖον καὶ ἐφ’ ἡμῶν γινόμενον ὁρῶμεν; λόγον γάρ τινα προβάλλοντες, λόγον γεννῶμεν, οὐ κατὰ ἀποτομήν, ὡς ἐλαττωθῆναι τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν λόγον, προβαλλόμενοι. καὶ ὁποῖον ἐπὶ πυρὸς ὁρῶμεν ἄλλο γινόμενον, οὐκ ἐλαττουμένου ἐκείνου ἐξ οὗ ἡ ἄναψις γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μένοντος, καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἀναφθὲν καὶ αὐτὸ ὂν φαίνεται, οὐκ ἐλαττῶσαν ἐκεῖνο ἐξ οὗ ἀνήφθη. Just., dial. 61, 1-2.

So, my friends, I will give you another proof […] from the scriptures, that as a beginning before all his works God generated a certain logical power from himself, which by the Holy Spirit is called sometimes “glory of the Lord,” sometimes “son,” sometimes “wisdom,” sometimes “angel,” sometimes “god,” sometimes “lord” and “word,” and sometimes he calls himself “captain,” appearing in the form of a man to Joshua son of Nun. For he can be called all these things because he serves the will of the Father and is born by the will of the Father. But do we not see that some such things happens also among us men? For when we utter a word, we give birth to a word, not by cutting it off, for the intelligence in us is not diminished by uttering it. And just as we see happening in fire, when it is not diminished when a kindling happens from it, but remains the same, and the fire kindled from it shines on its own and does not lessen the fire from which it was taken.

The analogies have four main implications. (1) First, they emphasize the separation or “twoness” of the Father and Son. The word is different from the intelligence that utters it. Two fires are distinct from each other. This particular image survives in the current Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed in the phrase “light from light.” (2) Second, these images emphasize that the Father is not diminished by the generation of the Son. Speaking or begetting a word does not lessen the store of words inside an intelligence, nor is a fire lessened when it catches something else on fire. Similarly, the Logos is generated from the Father without a diminution of the Father. (3) Third, and most concerningly, the image of the intelligence and word certainly implies subordination. A word is subordinate to and the product of the intelligence that produces it. It is certainly not equal to it. (4) The image of the intelligence and the word also implies that the Father preexists and that the Son is produced only after a certain point. But notice that Justin’s main point in these analogies is the second: the Father is not diminished in the generation of the Son. In other words, Justin wishes to defend the Father’s sublimity, not the Son’s complete equality with the Father.

The Son’s generation happened before the rest of creation, when God emitted him by his power and will in a distinct manner. He appears under many guises in the Old Testament before his incarnation in the New: Wisdom (Prov. 8), Day (Ps. 117, 24), East (Zach. 6, 12), sword (Is. 27, 1), stone (Dan. 2, 34), rod (Is. 11, 1), Jacob (Ps., 24, 6), and Israel (Ps. 72, 18). Although Justin appears to assign divinity to the Son (dial. 125), he does not appear to hold to the coeternity of the Son with the Father. Following are three key passages:

Ἀπεκάλυψεν οὖν ἡμῖν πάντα ὅσα καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ νενοήκαμεν, γνόντες αὐτὸν πρωτότοκον μὲν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων […] Just., dial. 100, 2.

Thus he revealed to us as many things as we have understood from the scriptures through his grace, having known him to be the first-begotten of God and before all creatures.

Καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ γεγραμμένον αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασι τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ ἔχοντες καὶ υἱὸν αὐτὸν λέγοντες νενοήκαμεν ὄντα καὶ πρὸ πάντων ποιημάτων ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς δυνάμει αὐτοῦ καὶ βουλῇ προελθόντα, ὃς καὶ σοφία καὶ ἡμέρα καὶ ἀνατολὴ καὶ μάχαιρα καὶ λίθος καὶ ῥάβδος καὶ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραὴλ κατ’ ἄλλον καὶ ἄλλον τρόπον ἐν τοῖς τῶν προφητῶν λόγοις προσηγόρευται […] Just., dial. 100, 4.

And since we have it written in the memoirs of his apostles that he is the Son of God and since we call him Son, we have understood that he proceeded before all creatures from the Father by his power and will. And in the writings of the prophets he is addressed in one way or another as wisdom and day and East and sword and stone and rod and Jacob and Israel […]

Μονογενὴς γὰρ ὅτι ἦν τῷ πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων οὗτος, ἰδίως ἐξ αὐτοῦ λόγος καὶ δύναμις γεγεννημένος, καὶ ὕστερον ἄνθρωπος διὰ τῆς παρθένου γενόμενος, ὡς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀπομνημονευμάτων ἐμάθομεν, προεδήλωσα. Just., dial. 105, 1.

I have shown that he is the only-begotten of the Father of all things, begotten uniquely from him as Word and Power, and later having become man through the virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs.

Elsewhere, Justin emphasizes that the Father and Son are distinct entities, providing scriptural proofs such as the first person plural in Gen. 1, 26 (dial. 62, 1). The Son is not ultimately a form, power, aspect, or modality of the Father, but is “other” than the Father “by number.” In other words, Justin is not a modalist. But this obviously generates additional questions. If the Son and Father are distinct “by number” or “numerically” how can the Son also be fully God without compromising monotheism?

καὶ ὅτι δύναμις αὕτη, ἣν καὶ θεὸν καλεῖ ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος, διὰ πολλῶν ὡσαύτως ἀποδέδεικται, καὶ ἄγγελον, οὐχ ὡς τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ὀνόματι μόνον ἀριθμεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν τί ἐστι […] Just., dial. 128, 4.

But it has thus been shown at length that this power, which the prophetic word also calls God and Angel, is not only numbered as something different be its name (like the light of the sun), but is also something different by number.

Νοεῖτε, ὦ ἀκροαταί, εἴ γε καὶ τὸν νοῦν προσέχετε· καὶ ὅτι γεγεννῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦτο τὸ γέννημα πρὸ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ λόγος ἐδήλου, καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν ἐστι, πᾶς ὁστισοῦν ὁμολογήσειε. Just., dial. 129, 4.

Understand, my listeners, if you are paying attention: Scripture declares that this offspring was begotten by the Father singly before all creatures, and that everyone would admit that what is begotten is numerically distinct from what begets.

The incarnation is understood as the incarnation of the subordinate Logos.¹ Despite the subordinationism, Justin’s view excludes other heretical Christologies of the day, such as Adoptionism and Docetism, which he opposes elsewhere:²

καὶ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς μόνος ἰδίως υἱὸς τῷ θεῷ γεγέννεται, λόγος αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων καὶ προτότοκος καὶ δύναμις, καὶ τῇ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος ταῦτα ἡμᾶς ἐδίδαξεν ἐπ’ άλλαγῇ καὶ ἐπαναγωγῇ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου γένους. Just., 1 apol. 23, 2 (ed. Minns - Parvis, Oxford 2009, 138, linn. 7-10).

And Jesus Christ alone has been born in a peculiar manner a Son to God, being his Logos and firstborn and power, and having become man by his will he taught us these things for the alteration and restoration of the human race.

To summarize, Justin attempts to explain how the divinity of Christ is compatible with monotheism. He ends up creating a divine system on two levels: God the Father is absolutely transcendent and unmovable. Subordinate to him is the Logos generated by him at creation and expressing itself in the providential governance of the world and then in the incarnation undertaken for the benefit of humanity. Thus, the “monarchy” of God is viewed not so much as the rigid Jewish monotheism of Trypho, but in the sense of God exercising complete control over the cosmos, including the divine Logos, which is his product and entirely subordinate to his will.³

[S]ince God is transcendent and beyond all human beings, it is necessary to bridge the abyss which opens up between God and man. This is done by the Logos. He is the mediator between God the Father and the world. God communicates with the world only through the Logos. And he reveals himself exclusively through the Logos. The Logos is therefore the guide to God and the instructor of man. Originally he dwelt as a power in God. But shortly before the creation of the world he emanated and proceeded from him and he himself created the World.⁴

In Third (or Fourth) Place: The Holy Spirit

The Holy Spirit is not mentioned often in connection with the Father and the Son. But, when it appears, Justin clearly subordinates it as a divine force and inspirer of scripture. In the following passage, the “prophetic Spirit” is listed in fourth place after the Father, the Son, and the angels.

ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνόν τε καὶ τὸν παρ’ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν ἐλθόντα καὶ διδάξαντα ἡμᾶς ταῦτα, καὶ τὸν τῶν ἄλλων ἑπομένων καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρτόν, πνεῦμά τε τὸ προφητικὸν σεβόμεθα καὶ προσευνοῦμεν. Just., 1 apol. 6, 2 (ed. Minns - Parvis, Oxford 2009, 90, lin. 19 - 92, linn. 1-2).

This [God] we venerate and worship, along with the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the company of other good angels who follow and are similar to him, and the prophetic Spirit.

Elsewhere he states the subordinationism within the Godhead more clearly. The Son is honored in second place to the one who is “true God,” the Father. The prophetic Spirit is in third place. Again, this is clearly not an orthodox view of the Trinity by later standards, but one of the first attempts to articulate the Godhead while maintaining the oneness of God:

Τὸν διδάσκαλόν τε τούτων γενόμενον ἡμῖν καὶ εἰς τοῦτο γεννηθέντα Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, τοῦ γενομένου ἐν Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐπὶ χρόνοις Τιβερίου Καίσαρος ἐπιτρόπου, υἱὸν αὐτὸν τοῦ ὄντως θεοῦ μαθόντες καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες, πνεῦμά τε προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει ὅτι μετὰ λόγου τιμῶμεν, ἀποδείξομεν. Just., 1 apol. 13, 3 (ed. Minns - Parvis, Oxford 2009, 110, linn. 1-6).

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, begotten for this purpose, crucified under Pontius Pilate, in Judaea during the reign of the ruler Tiberius Caesar. We will show that we honor him with reason, having learned that he is Son of the true God and holding him in second place, and the prophetic Spirit in third place.

In some places, however, Justin appears to collapse the Spirit and the Logos together into a single entity:

τὸ πνεῦμα οὖν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐδὲν ἄλλο νοῆσαι θέμις ἢ τὸν λόγον, ὃς καὶ προτότοκος τῷ θεῷ ἐστι, Μωυσῆς ὁ προδεδηλωμένος προφήτης ἐμήνυσε. Just., 1 apol. 33, 6 (ed. Minns - Parvis, Oxford 2009, 174, linn. 1-4).

Moses the aforementioned prophet disclosed that it is not right to consider the Spirit and the power from God as anything other than the Logos, which is also the firstborn of God.

Conclusions and Scholarly Assessments

So where does this leave us in an assessment of Justin’s contribution to Trinitarian theology? Quasten provides a judicious summary of his concept of God that in no way excuses his subordinationism:

It seems that Justin tends to subordinationism as far as the relation between the Logos and the Father is concerned. […] Accordingly, Justin seems to suppose that the Logos became externally independent only in order to create and govern the world. The personal function gave him personal existence. He became a divine person, but subordinated to the Father.⁵

Chadwick, by contrast, emphasizes what Justin himself emphasizes—the undiminished nature of the Father—but he does not discuss the subordinationism that Justin’s view implies:

Just therefore insists that the Logos is ‘other than’ the Father, derived from the Father in a process which in no way diminishes or divides the bein of the Father, but in the manner in which one torch may be lit from another. He is Light of Light.⁶

Behr criticizes Justin’s subordinationism in harsh terms, arguing that subordination of the Son to the Father would limit the ability of the Son to adequately reveal the Father. He displays a surprising willingness for an Orthodox theologian to admit the development of doctrine of which Justin is clearly a part:

The divinity of Jesus Christ, an “other God,” is no longer that of the Father himself, but subordinate to it, a lesser divinity, and so it would no longer be true for the agent of such a theophany to claim, as Christ does, “he who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9).⁷

Ultimately, Justin’s theology is flawed by later standards: His Logos is produced by the ineffable Father as a first creation, and serves as a knowable intermediary to the God who cannot be known or named. In this, the first seeds of Arianism are planted, which will preserve the essentials of this system: the unknowable God and his created/subordinated Son. Thus, Arianism can be seen to have roots in an ancient strain of Christian theology, one testified by the teaching of saints and martyrs; it is not merely a heresy that springs forth suddenly and causelessly n Alexandria at the beginning of the 4th century. But the future should not cause us to lose sight of the real developments made by Justin in the theology of the Logos. In Justin we have sustained reflection on the place of the Logos in the Old Testament, the arc of salvation history, and the metaphysics of the Godhead. Essentially, he makes one of the first attempts to understand how God can be one and not one and how Christ can be divine without compromising monotheism. And if his solution was imperfect, it is a testimony to the difficulty of the problem. Even armed with the Hebrew scriptures, the memoirs of the apostles, a philosophical education, and a lively intellect, Justin’s answers display the limitations of a human mind that tries to approach the divine mystery.

1. Justin believes in a real incarnation, that Jesus Christ is entirely the Logos. There are three components to the incarnate Christ: Logos, body, and soul. This seems to be contrary to later heresies like Apollinarianism, which denied the human soul of Christ, but Justin has no such polemical point here: Μεγαλειότερα μὲν οὖν πάσης ἀνθρωπείου διδασκαλίας φαίνεται τὰ ἡμέτερα διὰ τοῦ τὸ λογικὸν τὸ ὅλον τὸν φανέντα δι’ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸν γεγονέναι, καὶ σῶμα καὶ λόγον καὶ ψυχήν. (Just., 2 apol. 10, 1). “Our teachings are greater therefore than every human teaching, because all that was rational [logical] became Christ who appeared among us: body, Logos, and soul.”

2. Against Adoptionism: καὶ γὰρ εἰσί τινες, ὦ φίλοι [...] ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑμετέρου γένους ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι, ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον ἀποφαινόμενοι· οἷς οὐ συντίθεμαι [...] Just., dial. 48, 4. “For there are some, my friends, [...] from our race, who confess that he is Christ, but claim that he is a man from men. I do not agree with them [...].” Against Docetism: ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἅ φημι ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐκείνοις παρακολουθησάντων συντετάχθαι, γέγραπται ὅτι ἱδρὼς ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι κατεχεῖτο, αὐτοῦ εὐχομένου καὶ λέγοντος· Παρελθέτω, εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο· ἐντρόμου τῆς καρδίας δῆλον ὅτι οὔσης καὶ τῶν ὀστῶν ὁμοίως καὶ ἐοικυίας τῆς καρδίας κηρῷ τηκομένῳ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, ὅπως εἰδῶμεν ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν καὶ ἐν τοιούτοις πάθεσιν ἀληθῶς γεγονέναι δι’ ἡμᾶς βεβούληται, καὶ μὴ λέγωμεν ὅτι ἐκεῖνος, τοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸς ὤν, οὐκ ἀντελαμβάνετο τῶν γινομένων καὶ συμβαινόντων αὐτῷ. Just., dial. 103, 8. “For in the memoirs, which have been written by his apostles and those which followed them, it has been written that sweat like drops of blood poured from him, while he prayed and said, “Let this cup pass me by, if it is possible.” And with his heart and bones evidently trembling and likewise with his heart melting like wax in his chest, thus we can see that the Father wished that his Son truly take part in these sufferings for our sake, and that we should not say that he, although being the Son of God, did not take part in the things which happened and were done to him.”

3. E. Prinzivalli – M. Simonetti, La teologia degli antichi cristiani, Brescia 2012, 56-57.

4. J. Quasten, Patrology, Vol. 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature From the Apostles Creed to Irenaeus, Notre Dame 1986 [1950], 208.

5. Ibid., 209.

6. H. Chadwick, The Early Church (New York, 1993 [1967]), 77.

7. J. Behr, The Way to Nicaea (New York, 2001), 104.