Official Blog of HIST/REL 492, Christian Apologetics
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Justin Martyr--First Apology
Justin's Apology is only partly a legal defense. What else is Justin trying to accomplish? How successful is he? Could he have been more effective in his defense if he had wanted to escape eventual condemnation?
I like Justin's defense the best of the two. In addition to defending Christianity, he has a way of promoting it and reminding Christians of how they should be acting (idol worship, swearing, etc.). Right at the beginning it says he doesn't believe in following traditional opinions, especially if they are worthless. And that message is powerful because it's a challenge for people to take another look at their own beliefs. Let reason direct you rather than following the guidance of the masses. When answering the second question I began to look for ways of escaping condemnation for his words, but after re-reading chapter 2 it seemed like Justin wasn't concerned about escaping condemnation. In chapter 2, Justin says that "you can kill us, but not hurt us." This is a big challenge to the authorities letting them know that even if they do kill them, it won't matter because there will always be more Christians standing up become 'martyrs'.
The first thing that I noticed was Justin trying to accomplish is teaching the uniformed. The uninformed in question being the Roman Polititians. This is evident in the titles of the chapters. For example, "Symbols of the cross" and "The majesty of Christ." Personally, I think his apology is a great representation of the message of the Christian faith. Obviously, he wasn't completely successful because the persecutions would continue happening for about two hundred years, until Constantine converted the Empire with the Edict of Milan in 313. The fact that he took a more civil approach helped his case in the long run. He did, however, make the statement that the teachings of Christianity pre-dated Christ. This statement comes from Chapter 59; Justin makes reference to Plato's obligation to Moses. Justin makes one of the best defenses for Christianity, for his time period. He simply states his beliefs, rather than push them onto the Roman public. All he asks for is the persecutions to cease, and practice religion freely. This makes for a solid defense, in my opinion. Trent Dean
Having now read a few more apologists, I agree that Justine's points are strong, and just as good as any others that came after him. He really set a foundation with his writing that others try to follow.
First off, Justin was also a teacher, so this also was his chance to make a point on a great scale. Instead of defending himself, he quickly turns it into a defense of Christianity. However, Justin did it in a non-violent matter, which made it effective. Even though he still ends up losing his life for it, he provides one of the best defenses for the faith that not many can surpass even today. Kent Johnsen
Justin says that Christians are persecuted for being Christian, not for anything they have done and that they are not criminals. Although the Christians do not worship idols, they are not atheists. He says that Christians worship Jesus and God. He goes on to describe the Christian belief system.
Justin gives Jewish scriptural references to Jesus being the messiah and using the more ancient religion to give the new Christian religion some eminence and credibility. Truthfully, I was surprised to see the use of proof texting in documents this old; I thought it a more recent phenomenon. Some of verses can point to Jesus but when the entire chapter is read there are inconsistencies that can cast doubt.
I think these apologies are good examples of why religion and government need to be separated. When one religion is in charge of the government it makes all others second class.
Justin Martyr's apology speaks to how a Christian should face their trail. Justin stands in the shoes of Paul as he gives a testimony of the Christian Faith. Paul's defense was that he was a good Roman citizen and no body had a claim to defraud his name until he took up the Christian name. Paul also felt bad about his earlier attacks on the church and sees it fitting to be placed in chains and to suffer. Justin would also see it as a glory to suffer for the name of Christ, but he's not going to go silently.
In his apology Justin insists that Christians should be brought under equal protection of the law and not be condemned for their name, but by their works. Justin speaks well about equal rights for those being oppressed by the state, but it is imperative that these rights reach out to everyone.
Justin is effective at giving a testimony for Christ. Like the other saints he is not worried for being condemned by his speech for he knows he is speaking the truth. St. Paul was happy to be in chains and so should every good Christian.
It seems like Justin is not only defending himself in his trial but also using the opportunity to defend the Christian faith itself. He teaches his accusers and the public what the faith is all about, using his moment in the spotlight to not only point out what Christians do *not* do, but also how they differ from common Roman behavior.
For example, he says, "God does not need the material offerings which men can give." How crazy would that have seemed? Old Testament Hebrews, and modern-day (as in, Justin's era) gave offerings to God. Every Greek, Persian, Roman, etc. story one reads involves giving (tons) of elaborate offerings to their gods.
However, not everything he said would've been considered as wild. He repeats Christ's teaching to, "Render therefore to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's." Also, "We gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men." Christians weren't going to overthrow the kingdom or do away with taxes - and Jesus didn't teach them to do that. I think by including things like this, Justin does a good job of introducing new ideas but also including some teachings that would keep people calm and assure them that Christians weren't out to destroy them.
I think the biggest marker of Justin's success is that we are reading his words today in 2023. He obviously didn't end up escaping martyrdom, but that wouldn't have been his goal anyway. To a man with faith like Justin, the greatest way to live (and die) would've been in defense of Jesus and his faith, not by pleasing man.
In his Apology, Justin mentions that Christians are being condemned just because of the name. With this in mind, he is trying to turn the situation on those who accuse Christians by saying, "And those among yourselves who are accused you do not punish before they are convicted; but in our case you receive the name as proof against us, and this although, so far as the name goes, you ought rather to punish our accusers. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment." In this statement he is arguing that just because someone is a Christian, it does not give people a right to falsely accuse Christians and punishing them for things that they didn't do. I think he was successful in explaining how he felt about Christians getting wrongly accused of things and punished for them, but I think he could have been more successful had he gone into detail about how Christians are not Christ killers and how the judges were the real Christ killers. While this accusation may not have stopped him from dying, it could have helped the trial end differently.
I like Justin's apology because he seems to be a man that stood for the faith beyond what many even likely realized. At this point, him being a Christian, he probably knew he was headed towards his death, and there was nothing more he could do to prevent it. From there, I feel he likely does as the scripture says, opening his mouth and allowing the spirit to be his defendant. At this point, he presumably believed and trusted in his eternal security, and while that day forward, he may no longer be a teacher on earth, his words still rang loudly.
Justin allowed the spirit to speak, and look here today, a thousand-plus years later, we read his defense. This defense stood the test of time, and because of that, some ears were wise to listen to his reason. He strongly defended why to believe and, of course, why not to believe what the Pagans had to offer. This was a speech that would have brought converts to Christianity. Elegantly, he used scripture and reason to defeat those who thought his values were useless. It showed people that while Christianity was small, it had values many of the people of the time likely loaned for to exist in their society at that time. A spark at the time that was brighter in more comforting to the people likely than even the sun as it rose each morning.
I like Justin's defense the best of the two. In addition to defending Christianity, he has a way of promoting it and reminding Christians of how they should be acting (idol worship, swearing, etc.). Right at the beginning it says he doesn't believe in following traditional opinions, especially if they are worthless. And that message is powerful because it's a challenge for people to take another look at their own beliefs. Let reason direct you rather than following the guidance of the masses.
ReplyDeleteWhen answering the second question I began to look for ways of escaping condemnation for his words, but after re-reading chapter 2 it seemed like Justin wasn't concerned about escaping condemnation. In chapter 2, Justin says that "you can kill us, but not hurt us." This is a big challenge to the authorities letting them know that even if they do kill them, it won't matter because there will always be more Christians standing up become 'martyrs'.
The first thing that I noticed was Justin trying to accomplish is teaching the uniformed. The uninformed in question being the Roman Polititians. This is evident in the titles of the chapters. For example, "Symbols of the cross" and "The majesty of Christ." Personally, I think his apology is a great representation of the message of the Christian faith. Obviously, he wasn't completely successful because the persecutions would continue happening for about two hundred years, until Constantine converted the Empire with the Edict of Milan in 313. The fact that he took a more civil approach helped his case in the long run. He did, however, make the statement that the teachings of Christianity pre-dated Christ. This statement comes from Chapter 59; Justin makes reference to Plato's obligation to Moses. Justin makes one of the best defenses for Christianity, for his time period. He simply states his beliefs, rather than push them onto the Roman public. All he asks for is the persecutions to cease, and practice religion freely. This makes for a solid defense, in my opinion. Trent Dean
ReplyDeleteHaving now read a few more apologists, I agree that Justine's points are strong, and just as good as any others that came after him. He really set a foundation with his writing that others try to follow.
DeleteFirst off, Justin was also a teacher, so this also was his chance to make a point on a great scale. Instead of defending himself, he quickly turns it into a defense of Christianity. However, Justin did it in a non-violent matter, which made it effective. Even though he still ends up losing his life for it, he provides one of the best defenses for the faith that not many can surpass even today.
ReplyDeleteKent Johnsen
Justin says that Christians are persecuted for being Christian, not for anything they have done and that they are not criminals. Although the Christians do not worship idols, they are not atheists. He says that Christians worship Jesus and God. He goes on to describe the Christian belief system.
ReplyDeleteJustin gives Jewish scriptural references to Jesus being the messiah and using the more ancient religion to give the new Christian religion some eminence and credibility. Truthfully, I was surprised to see the use of proof texting in documents this old; I thought it a more recent phenomenon. Some of verses can point to Jesus but when the entire chapter is read there are inconsistencies that can cast doubt.
I think these apologies are good examples of why religion and government need to be separated. When one religion is in charge of the government it makes all others second class.
Jerry Taylor
Justin Martyr's apology speaks to how a Christian should face their trail. Justin stands in the shoes of Paul as he gives a testimony of the Christian Faith. Paul's defense was that he was a good Roman citizen and no body had a claim to defraud his name until he took up the Christian name. Paul also felt bad about his earlier attacks on the church and sees it fitting to be placed in chains and to suffer. Justin would also see it as a glory to suffer for the name of Christ, but he's not going to go silently.
ReplyDeleteIn his apology Justin insists that Christians should be brought under equal protection of the law and not be condemned for their name, but by their works. Justin speaks well about equal rights for those being oppressed by the state, but it is imperative that these rights reach out to everyone.
Justin is effective at giving a testimony for Christ. Like the other saints he is not worried for being condemned by his speech for he knows he is speaking the truth. St. Paul was happy to be in chains and so should every good Christian.
It seems like Justin is not only defending himself in his trial but also using the opportunity to defend the Christian faith itself. He teaches his accusers and the public what the faith is all about, using his moment in the spotlight to not only point out what Christians do *not* do, but also how they differ from common Roman behavior.
ReplyDeleteFor example, he says, "God does not need the material offerings which men can give." How crazy would that have seemed? Old Testament Hebrews, and modern-day (as in, Justin's era) gave offerings to God. Every Greek, Persian, Roman, etc. story one reads involves giving (tons) of elaborate offerings to their gods.
However, not everything he said would've been considered as wild. He repeats Christ's teaching to, "Render therefore to Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's." Also, "We gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men." Christians weren't going to overthrow the kingdom or do away with taxes - and Jesus didn't teach them to do that. I think by including things like this, Justin does a good job of introducing new ideas but also including some teachings that would keep people calm and assure them that Christians weren't out to destroy them.
I think the biggest marker of Justin's success is that we are reading his words today in 2023. He obviously didn't end up escaping martyrdom, but that wouldn't have been his goal anyway. To a man with faith like Justin, the greatest way to live (and die) would've been in defense of Jesus and his faith, not by pleasing man.
In his Apology, Justin mentions that Christians are being condemned just because of the name. With this in mind, he is trying to turn the situation on those who accuse Christians by saying, "And those among yourselves who are accused you do not punish before they are convicted; but in our case you receive the name as proof against us, and this although, so far as the name goes, you ought rather to punish our accusers. For we are accused of being Christians, and to hate what is excellent (Chrestian) is unjust. Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment." In this statement he is arguing that just because someone is a Christian, it does not give people a right to falsely accuse Christians and punishing them for things that they didn't do. I think he was successful in explaining how he felt about Christians getting wrongly accused of things and punished for them, but I think he could have been more successful had he gone into detail about how Christians are not Christ killers and how the judges were the real Christ killers. While this accusation may not have stopped him from dying, it could have helped the trial end differently.
ReplyDeleteI like Justin's apology because he seems to be a man that stood for the faith beyond what many even likely realized. At this point, him being a Christian, he probably knew he was headed towards his death, and there was nothing more he could do to prevent it. From there, I feel he likely does as the scripture says, opening his mouth and allowing the spirit to be his defendant. At this point, he presumably believed and trusted in his eternal security, and while that day forward, he may no longer be a teacher on earth, his words still rang loudly.
ReplyDeleteJustin allowed the spirit to speak, and look here today, a thousand-plus years later, we read his defense. This defense stood the test of time, and because of that, some ears were wise to listen to his reason. He strongly defended why to believe and, of course, why not to believe what the Pagans had to offer. This was a speech that would have brought converts to Christianity. Elegantly, he used scripture and reason to defeat those who thought his values were useless. It showed people that while Christianity was small, it had values many of the people of the time likely loaned for to exist in their society at that time. A spark at the time that was brighter in more comforting to the people likely than even the sun as it rose each morning.
Tanner Simon