Justin argues that the Son “being the
logos and First-begotten, is also God [or, a god].” (First Apology, 69
[63]) Yet one might suspect that analogical sonship does not necessarily entail
divinity. The special function of the Logos, inasmuch as he imparts knowledge
of God, might be seen as justification for ascribing deity to the Logos. But
Justin’s ontology seems to entail that only something that is unchanging is
God, (32) and there are reasons for thinking the Son does not qualify, as he is
not begotten and Justin ascribes change to the Logos. One could infer from
Numenius that to be a god is to be a transcendent mind; this definition would
quality the Logos for deity (“one endowed with reason.” (Justin, Dialogue,
95 [62.2] But Justin’s favored description for God—agenneton (unbegotten)—is
not, and cannot be, given to the Son. He explicitly rejects the idea that the
Logos is “indivisible and inseparable” from the Father, like light from the
sun, arguing that the Logos is “distinct in real number,” i.e. numerically
distinct (heteros arithmo). (Justin, Dialogue, 194 [128.4]) Both
Goodenough and Barnard claim that heteros arithmo means “different in
person.” (Goodenough, Theology of Justin, 146; Barnard, Justin,
89) but this phrase will not bear the trinitarian (or binitarian) weight these
scholars place upon it. Justin explains that he considers the other god to be
unified in will with the maker, in that he has never done anything that the
maker did not wish him to do, but is a distinct power (distinct powerful being)
(Dialogue, 93, 85 [56.4, 56.11]) It is precisely because of their
different natures that the Logos can speak to Moses from the burning bush and
God (the Father) cannot. Just in is clear that the Logos is a separate
substance from God, and it is in this way that Justin feels he can maintain one
(unbegotten) God, even while positing a second (begotten) god. (cf. Numenius, Fragments,
181 [fr. 16]) (Thomas Edmund Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest
Christology? [2d ed.; Nashville: Theophilus Press, 2023], 20-21)
On
heteros arithmo:
Goodenough seems to miss the point,
when he supposes that Justin (like Philo) endorsed the analogy of light from
the sun. Goodenough urges the Logos is “no sense independent of the Father”,
which seems the opposite of Justin’s explicit statement (Goodenough, Theology
of Justin, 148-50). As Minns responds, “when Justin says that the Logos was
begotten from the Father by the Father’s power and will, and not by abscission
(Dial 128.4), this is to eliminate any suggestion that the divine
substance (ousia) is divided or altered; it is not to make a claim of
substantial unity of the Logos with God” (Minns, “Justin Martyr,” 264). (Ibid.,
21 n. 35)
