Justin
is clearly trying to find a way to explain how it is that Jesus Christ is God,
yet distinct from the God and Creator of all, his Father. However, his manner of
explanation in terms of the divinity of the ineffable Father being transcendent
in a manner which prohibits him from being seen on earth, in fact undermines
the very revelation of God in Christ. The divinity of Jesus Christ, an “other
God,” is no longer that of the Father himself, but is 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 been me has seen the Father”
(Jn 14:9). This position would later be criticised by Irenaeus, though without mentioning
any names. For Irenaeus, such subordination would destroy the whole economy: if
God himself has not become visible in his Son, Jesus Christ, then no real
communion between God and man has been established. This same debate would be
played out a couple of centuries later, between the Arians, for whom the
transcendence of God was preserved by the mediating activity of the Son as a
lower divinity, and Athanasius, for whom the Son, consubstantial with the
Father, “true God from true God,” was the guarantee that God had indeed come
into the closest possible contact with the world. (John Behr, Formation of
Christian Theology, 2 vols. [Crestwood, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
2001], 1:104)