Justin Martyr

plum · May 26, 2006

I was reading what Justyn Martyr sent to the Roman Emperor explaining Christianity in 155 C.E.

From his "First Apology":

This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus. For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks, said, "Do this for my memorial, this is my body"; and likewise taking the cup and giving thanks he said, "This is my blood"; and gave it to them alone.

After these [services] we constantly remind each other of these things. Those who have more come to the aid of those who lack, and we are constantly together. Over all that we receive we bless the Maker of all things through his Son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

And on the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites [us] to the imitation of these noble things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. And, as said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen; the distribution, and reception of the consecrated [elements] by each one, takes place and they are sent to the absent by the deacons.
Those who prosper, and who so wish, contribute, each one as much as he chooses to. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of orphans and widows, and those who are in want on account of sickness or any other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourners among [us], and, briefly, he is the protector of all those in need.

We all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God transforming darkness and matter made the universe, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these things which I have passed on to you also for your serious consideration.

Here's the whole article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/121/52.0.html

What do you think about what Justin Martyr wrote? What was going on in 155 CE that would give us a clue as to what changes had been or were happening?
Was there, at this time, a "head of the church" authority or was it still community-based?

Sephania · May 26, 2006

From reading only what you quoted I see many misunderstanding of the Jewish books they were studying.

1. They were only studying the 'NT' thus were not getting any background in what Yeshua was teaching nor any of the apostles in their letters.

2. They totally misunderstand the Shabbats, as he specifically said he was crusified on Friday, which most of us here do not agree to.

3. His reasoning for making the day of the week meeting on the first day, first he says because that is the day the L-RD made the universe ( which I don't beleive, I think that falls under "In the beginining" ) but also he is mentioneing darkness, and thus by using this description holding in high esteem darkness and chaos instead of perfection and completion like does the Sabbath ( the seventh day). Yeshua even said He was the L-RD the same L-rD of the Sabbath, the one he alone concecrated and made Holy on the first seventh day.

4. He also speaks about blessing food and making it Holy. I don't know where that started. In Jewish understanding of prayers and blessing, when we break the bread, we don't bless the bread, nor ask G-d to make it good for us to eat. He already claimed that at the creation, he said 'it is good'. But instead we Bless him, and no we have no power to 'Bless' Him as many today and I see even back then understood. But instead we need to get to the root of the word, 'Bracha' , which in the ancient Hebrew consists of letters that pictoraly means literally to 'bend the knee'.

So when you say: Barouch ata Adonai, Elohenu Meleck HaOlam, HaMotzi lechem min haaretz', (You are saying and should be doing) 'Baruch (we should bow down to you) L-RD G-D, King of the Universe, who brings bread from the earth.'

There is nothing we can do to make that bread holy or unholy even.

It is nice that they were focusing on widows and orphans, that is a very Jewish concept, and more than that commanded.

shmuel · May 26, 2006

What do you think about what Justin Martyr wrote? What was going on in 155 CE that would give us a clue as to what changes had been or were happening?

I've posted material from Justin before. History is good for correcting ideas about the past. Americans seem to be poor about knowing history even the history of the US. Here is a link I have used many times before:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/fathers.htm

From the introduction to Justin's work:

Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis, a city of Samaria, the modern Nablous. The date of his birth is uncertain, but may be fixed about a.d. 114. His father and grandfather were probably of Roman origin. Before his conversion to Christianity he studied in the schools of the philosophers, searching after some knowledge which should satisfy the cravings of his soul. At last he became acquainted with Christianity, being at once impressed with the extraordinary fearlessness which the Christians displayed in the presence of death, and with the grandeur, stability, and truth of the teachings of the Old Testament. From this time he acted as an evangelist, taking every opportunity to proclaim the gospel as the only safe and certain philosophy, the only way to salvation. It is probable that he traveled much. We know that he was some time in Ephesus, and he must have lived for a considerable period in Rome. Probably he settled in Rome as a Christian teacher. While he was there, the philosophers, especially the Cynics, plotted against him, and he sealed his testimony to the truth by martyrdom.

Whatever one thinks of Justin's views, I believe that intellectual integrity demands that we acknowledge that Justin was more knowledgeable of the languages, customs, practices, and beliefs of early believers than anyone posting on this forum. He was probably familiar with Greek, Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew. Whether one believes that he is correct on the day of crucifixion or the day of resurrection his testimony with regard to the practice of the church ca. 160 is very valuble. It confirms that more than one and a half centuries before Constantine that Christians were worshipping on the first day of the week and celebrating a weekly eucharist. His writings also indicate that he is proficient in the Tanakh. In fact, during Justin's life it is not clear that the Scripture was understood to be composed of more than the Tanakh. Notice how he refers to the prophets and the book of Revelation:

"For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: `For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, saith the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, `According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, `The day of the Lord is as a thousand years, ' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, `They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.'

To acknowledge the value of Justin's writings is not to be construed in anyway to imply that Justin is infalible.

ramblin_ag02 · May 26, 2006

I have to admit I am fascinated by Early Christian history. Unfortunately, I haven't able to indulge that fascination as much as I would like.

I think Justin Martyr's writings are absolutely typical of "Western" (especially Roman) Christian practice in his time. It aligns closely with the earlier writings of Mathetes 60 years before, what we know of Anicetus around the same time, and the edicts of Victor 40 years later.

However, Justin's practice of Christianity is not universal in Christianity until the beginning of the third century. The Persian churches particularly differed in Christian religious practice from Rome. Polycarp (one of the Apostle John's disciples) famously debated Anicetus (then Bishop of Rome) over various matters including the date of Passover. Later, Polycrates sent a stinging letter to "Pope" Victor after being ordered to follow Rome on penalty of excommunication. He lists many Apostles and many other righteous men who follow Scripture "neither adding nor taking away" (sound familiar?) and will stop doing so for no man. IMHO, this is an ancient argument over the necessity and appropriateness of Torah-observance among Christians.

As you can probably guess, I think the Persians had the right side of it. Persian churches benefited from the extremely long life of the Apostle John and the equally long life of Polycarp, his pupil. They were also largely insulated from what I would call the "corrupting influence" of Rome. In contrast, both Peter and Paul were both executed in their youth, and there was frequent turnover among the Bishops of Rome. They were also more easily influenced by both Roman culture and the power of the Emperors simply from proximity.

Search

Search

Justin Martyr

plum

my thoughts are free

More options

Sephania

Well-Known Member

More options

shmuel

Well-Known Member

More options

ramblin_ag02

Member

More options

Similar threads