When
was the Logos Begotten?
IT has been shown already that the
generation of the Logos-Son represented a new departure in the manner of His existence.
For, if the Father is αγενετος
and the Son πρωτοτοκος, then,
conceivably in the order of thought, “Fuit tempus cum Filius non fuit.”
Though it be convenient to
inquire, When did the generation of the Logos eventuate? the question in these
temporal terms is not stated quite correctly. For the “event,” if rightly so
called, is said to have taken place “before things created”—before time, and not
in the sequence of time. Therefore, practically speaking, it “happened” in
eternity. But it cannot be called an “eternal generation,” since that notion
was unknown to Justin.
The most precise statements he
provides are—“His Son . . . being present with Him and begotten before created
things, when in the beginning He created and arranged all things by Him” (II Apol.,
6:44D), etc., and “begotten absolutely before all creatures” (Dial.,
129:359B; cf. Dial., 62:258B, 84:310B, 100:326B). But it is incorrect to
interpret the “before” in these passages as equal to “just before,” as it were “in
connection with,” or “as part of” the creative activity, as does Semisch. The Apologist
nowhere states that Logos was begotten “at Creation.” Undoubtedly, Justin’s
phrase is indefinite, and if interpreted in a temporal sense, may indicate a
period of any conceivable length. But since it refers to an “event” prior to
time itself, to apply to it a temporal meaning rigidly, can lead only to
confusion of thought. (V. A. Spence Little, The Christology of the Apologists
[London: Duckworth, 1934], 120-21)
However, Mr. Blunt (Intro. to
Justin’s Apologies) considers that the “phrase συνων και γεννωμενος (II Apol., 6:44D)
expresses the same idea as Origien in eternal generation. It implies that He
who is with the Father is still in process of being begotten, and that this was
the state of things before creatures were made.”
If this be Justin’s real meaning,
it is strange that he does not indicate it in his many other statements upon
the generation of the Logos. Supposing Mr. Blunt’s view correct, it is evident
that Justin has not realized the significance of “eternal generation”
sufficiently to commit himself to it as a rule. But, I believe, the probability
is that he never had the notion at all.
Newman, J. H., in his Unadvisable
Terms notes that while Justin nowhere definitely teaches the eternal generation
of the Son, he does not exclude that idea. However, I object to Newman’s phrase
“temporal generation,” as applied to Logos, as misleading. None of the Apologists
teach a “temporal generation” of the Son. Logos is generated “before the
creation,” and none of the Apologists are confused as to the meaning of this
phrase. Some critics give the Apologists scant credit for either common sense,
learning or intelligence. (Ibid., 120-21 n. 2)
