Justin Martyr and a Developing Catholic Eucharist

Justin Martyr (c.114-165 C.E.) is an important Early Church Writer. The editor of the writings of the "Ante-Nicene Fathers", A.Cleveland Coxe, has noted, "the conversion of such a man marks a new era in the gospel history." Justin Martyr, before accepting his active role in developing catholic Christianity, was an outstanding disciple of Socrates and Plato. He continued to wear his philosophers gown, and as a Christian in the city of Rome, he taught "the only safe philosophy" (A.N.F. p.160). He, not unlike other Christian martyrs and Socrates before them gave his life for what he believed. In his view of the Christian use of the bread and wine, Justin Martyr records and passes to subsequent generations of "Church Fathers" a subtle yet important step in the evolution of the catholic rite.


There exists a consensus among scholars who study the history of early Christianity: New Testament Christianity underwent development in the hands of the dominant teachers of the following centuries. The homogenized teachings of these dominant and transitional authorities has been called "patristic orthodoxy" Scholarly opinion becomes more complex when the question of compatibility is raised, that is, compatibility between the evolving "patristic orthodoxy" and the teaching of the New Testament. The development of "patristic orthodoxy" is what Adolf Von Harnack called the "chronic Hellenization of Christianity" which he compared with the less patient "acute Hellenization" which was carried out among teachers who would later be categorized as "Gnostics". The early "orthodox" ancients set themselves against the more radical Hellenizing teachers; even though both would introduce pagan or Hellenistic elements into a form of Christianity.


Where can the student of this early history look to find a standard of authentic doctrine with which the more subtle Hellenization may be gauged? How far back and to what source should one push to find the real teaching of the Lord about the bread and the wine and salvation, free from false adjustments? If the prophetic scriptures of the New Testament are to be considered a complete doctrinal resource, essentially incomparable to other "Christian writings," then an answer is within reach. Jesus Christ sets forth the distinction between the word of God and the word of man, when addressing the Jewish traditionalists who held the extra-canonical writings to be of great doctrinal authority: And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men (Mark 7:6-8)." Note the further distinction in authority between what Moses (the apostle of God) taught and the writings of later Jewish teachers. Jesus was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said,....but you say,....thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down (Mark 7:9-13)." Alfred Edersheim notes that from a traditionalist's point of view it was thought that many of these extra-biblical traditions "had been orally delivered to, but not written down by Moses." If traditions were of another sort, Edersheim would say, "To this class belonged all that was supposed to be implied in, or that could be deduced from, the Law of Moses. The [Law of Moses] contained, indeed, in substance or germ, everything; but it had not been brought out, till circumstances successfully evolved what from the first had been provided in principle (Edersheim, p.70)." In the Mark 7 passage quoted above the dynamic designation "the word of God" is given to that which came through Moses. This designation is now applied to the gospel teachings of Jesus. Jesus promised to bring all things to the apostles’ remembrance and stated that "his sheep" would be made up, not only of his immediate disciples, but also "those who will believe in me through their word." These apostles understood their role in the forming of new prophetic scriptures to be similar to that of Moses in forming the Pentateuch of the Old Testament. Peter wrote: "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts (2 Peter 1:16-19). I am merely touching on the subject of the prophetic scriptures as the communication of the "word of God" here. A full discussion on the authority of the word of God might go on at length but let me merely give two quotes that exemplify our understanding. “For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).” “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (Galatians 1:9)!” The correct New Testament understanding of authority rightly exalts the teaching of Jesus Christ. For the purpose of our present topic we recognize that if the “word of God/ word of man distinction” is maintained then great force is given to what at any rate is an observable development from New Testament teaching to what becomes known to some as “patristic orthodoxy”. With the points made above in mind the early writings even of men like Justin Martyr should be examined for subtle shifts that become authoritative stepping stones in some minds for further development.


There are, in the main, three adjustments in Justin Martyr’s approach to the bread and wine that we should note: 1) He uses “Eucharist” as a technical term for the developing “orthodox” rite. 2) He assumes greater similarity with, and even adopts, the Hellenistic “mysteries” as a valid ritual category for his developing orthodoxy. 3) His “eucharist” has transitioned from the biblical use of the bread and wine with memorial words in the context of a fellowship meal to a mere symbolic or liturgical meal as a cultic rite.


Justin Martyr may be the earliest writer to apply the term "eucharist" to the bread and the wine. There is one writing by Ignatius in which the term is used but it shows evidence of being spurious (Lightfoot, Harmer, and Holmes p. 132, 133, 189). The designation “Eucharist” for a rite in which consecrated foods are distributed by a priest can be used as a rhetorical device to close what is actually a significant gap between a Hellenistic sacrificial system and the fellowship meal setting of the memorial rite of the bread and wine. Authentic Christianity is adverse to any ongoing sense of cultic sacrifice. Under the word translated “sacrifice” the theological dictionary of the New Testament recognizes that “...in His sayings concerning the temple in Mt. 12:6;26;61, cf27:40; Jn. 2:19; 4:21ff. Jesus makes it clear that sacrifices are of secondary value and are doomed to perish....This original purpose of sacrifice is finally fulfilled in the personal act of Christ, in the voluntary and unique offering up of his life. Sacrifice is thus brought to an end in Him. Cultic sacrifice is not merely transcended but ended by the unique self-offering of Christ. Heb. 10:18; cf. 9:8...(Kittel Vol. III, p. 184-185)." Undaunted by the New Testament aversion to an ongoing material sacrificial system, the writers of the developing "orthodoxy" create a rhetorical link to the New Testament's figurative phrase “sacrifice of thanksgiving” (Heb. 13:15) by adopting a new technical term for their ritual -Eucharist. The original context of Hebrews finds eucharistia used with it's lexical meaning "thanksgiving." It is only in later extra-biblical writings that "eucharist" is given the technical meaning that accomadates the Hellenistic and idolatrous ideas and actions of an ongoing ritual sacrifice. Hellenistic sacrificial thinking is so fused with the developing "orthodoxy’s hybrid ritual" that the developing "orthodoxy" would soon have to appeal to the Old Testament terminology and sacrificial system to explain their “eucharist”. The candor with which the conservative Lutheran, then Eastern Orthodox scholar Jarslov Pelikan traces this phenomenon makes the following quote worthwhile.

The growth of the cultic, hierarchical, and ethical structures of Christianity led to the Christianization of many features of Judaism....In the New Testament itself the concept of “priest” referred either to the Levites of the Old Testament, now made obsolete, or to Christ or to the entire church—not to the ordained ministry of the church. But Clement, who was also the first to use the term “layman,” already spoke of “priests” and of “the high priest” and significantly related these terms to the Levitical priesthood; a similar parallel occurred in the Didichae and in Hippolytus. For Tertullian, the bishop was already “the high priest,” and for his disciple Cyprian, it was completely natural to speak of a Christian “priesthood”. And so by the time of Chrysostom’s treatise On the Priesthood it seems to have become accepted practice to refer to Aaron and Eli as examples and warnings for the priesthood of the Christian church, Chrysostom also spoke of “the Lord being sacrificed and laid upon the altar and the priest standing and praying over the victim,” summarizing the sacrificial language about the Eucharist which had also become accepted practice. Therefore the apostles, too, were represented as priests. But this re-Judaization does not indicate any recovery of close association between Judaism and Christian theology, on the contrary,...[it was] a practice which was both an index to and a cause of the isolation of Gentile Christian thought from Judaism contemporary with itself as well as from the Jewish Christianity out of which it had originally come (Pelikan Vol.1,p.25).

We know the Old Testament had a material sacrificial system and this is why the Old Testament became a source for any biblical rationale to the developing eucharistic teaching. The actual and immediate source of strange ritual and ideas is everywhere present in the idolatrous Hellenistic religions. It is with this assertion that two remaining adjustments of Justin Martyr are chiefly related.

The term “mystery” in Hellenistic religion stands for the “magical action” or “for the formula which effects the magic” (Kittel Vol.4, p.810).

More generally the term refers to “...the sacramental rites which constitute the true event of the mystery, the cultic actualization of the deity, which shows itself to be present in the sacred drama, in the exposition by the hierophants of the sacred symbols and the pronouncement of the accompanying formulae, and which enters into sanctifying sacramental fellowship with the devotees. Because this encounter takes place in the mystery liturgy, the sacred actions and objects must be protected from all profanation (Kittel Vol.4, p. 807).”

Justin is not only familiar with the category of “mysteries” as used in his former Hellenistic religion-- “...we who, out of every race of men, used to worship Bacchus the son of Semele, and Apollo the son of Latona, and Proserpine and Venus (who were maddened with love of Adonis, and whose mysteries also you celebrate)...(A.N.F. Vol.1, p. 171)” –he may also have an affinity for “mysteries” as a valuable category in his new religion. By defending his developing “orthodoxy” with the declaration “that promiscuous intercourse is not one of our Mysteries (A.N.F., Vol.1 p. 172)” Justin seems to retain the category in general. The similarity becomes more obvious when Justin, after describing his eucharist in it’s developing form, he continues his description: “Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated (A.N.F. Vol.1, p. 185).


If this approaching parallel with the term “mystery” seems insignificant in Justin Martyr, we should only recognize that the following generation of “orthodox” writers will adopt the term “mystery” along with it’s Latin equivalent “sacramentum” and a host of mystery-religion-terms as the normal designation for the rite of the bread and the wine. “The original cultic concept of mystery found rejuvenation in the early church when [mystery] became a fixed term for the sacraments (Kittle Vol. 4, p.826).” We also notice that Justin Martyr’s use of “mysteries” as a category of cultic actions would not be out of step with developing a culturally elite “orthodoxy” in the city of Rome during this period. John C. Gager points out that “...it was in the second century that the emperors Hadrian and Marcus Aurelis became initiates of the Eleusinian mysteries...(Gager p.102).


A third point of adjustment in Justin Martyr’s eucharist is the separation of the memorial words of Jesus from the context of a fellowship meal and the reformation of the rite into a service with mere symbolic or liturgical eating of consecrated food alone. Justin says, “When our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought,...there is a distribution to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine and water for a participation in the eucharistic elements...(A.N.F. Vol.1, p.186)”
Justin Martyrs description does not prove there was no meal before or after but his is the first description that lacks reference to the meal context. The change in form makes the developing “orthodox” rite fit more closely with the descriptions of the liturgical eating of the Mithraic, and other ancient mystery cults. In the gospel accounts the institution of Christ’s memorial is in the context of a memorial meal -the Passover. In modern banquets we have experienced when one person rises at the meal to offer a toast which gathers the attention of all the participants of the meal. The memorial words with the bread and the cup at a meal are closer in form to this than to the liturgical eating and drinking of mystery cults. Notice in Matthew’s gospel that the context of the memorial is a meal at which conversation would not be inappropriate. “Now when evening had come He sat down with the twelve. Now as they were eating He said,...And each of them began to say to Him,...Then He answered and said, “He who dipped with me...Then Judas said...And as they were eating Jesus took bread,...(Matthew 26:19-26). The institution of the Lord’s memorial is recorded similarly in the gospel of Mark and the gospel of Luke with the explanatory words “this do, for my memorial (Luke 22:19 Marshall).” In the Corinthian church the very problem that Paul was addressing (1Cor. 11:20-34) was that some of those who were wealthier were partaking of their own food which they had in abundance, before it had been set out to share in common with the whole body of believers, they were (at the place of meeting) separating themselves; having a meal to themselves separate from the common meal in which the memorial with the bread and wine would take place. What was intended to be the “love feast”, was being made an “elite feast” by leaving the meager remains of food and drink for the general “fellowship” part of the meal. Paul’s complaint: what kind of fellowship meal could it be when by their actions the wealthy were despising the gathered people of God and thereby not being considerate of the body of Christ?


In sum, three areas of adjustment to the memorial of Christ’s body and blood found in Justin Martyr’s eucharist are: 1) Use of the technical term eucharist for the evolving “orthodox” ritual. 2) The association with, and apparent adoption of, “mysteries” as an “orthodox” category. 3) The transition in form from a memorial as part of a meal, to the “eucharist” participation as part of a liturgical ritual.