CHAPTER X. JUSTIN MARTYR

But little is known about the life of this man, except what is found in his own writings. That which is generally accepted is that he was born in the city of Shechem (the modern Nablous), in Samaria, about 114 A. D. He was a Gentile, however, and evidently from a family of some wealth and social standing, for he traveled extensively, and was liberally educated in the learning of those times. Before adopting Christianity, he was a professional heathen philosopher. According to Eusebius and some other historians, he suffered martyrdom at Rome, in A. D. 165, as the result of a plot laid for him by the philosophers of that city. The following extracts from reputable church historians give a good idea of his character as a man, and as a professed leader of the Christian religion. Bishop Coxe, in his introductory note to the “First Apology,” says:—
“Justin was a Gentile, but born in Samaria, near Jacob’s well. He must have been well educated: he had traveled extensively, and he seems to have been a person enjoying at least a competence. After trying all other systems, his elevated tastes and refined perceptions made him a disciple of Socrates and Plato.”FACC 146.1

It is to be hoped that few will indorse the statement immediately following the above, that “so he climbed towards Christ.” If it is really true that Socrates and Plato were the steps by which Justin climbed toward Christ, then he never reached Christ; for one might as soon expect to reach the top of a mountain by going down into a mine, or to reach Heaven by descending into the bottomless pit, as to reach Christ by studying Socrates and Plato. The great trouble with Justin and the others who are misnamed “Christian Fathers,” is that their Christianity consisted largely of heathen philosophy. This it was that clouded their minds to the simple truth of the gospel, and made them such blind leaders of the blind. Whatever they learned of Christ, they learned in spite of their study of philosophy, and not because of it.FACC 146.2

Bishop Coxe says further:—
“He wore his philosopher’s gown after his conversion, as a token that he had attained the only true philosophy. And seeing, that, after the conflicts and tests of ages, it is the only philosophy that lasts and lives and triumphs, its discover deserves the homage of mankind.”FACC 147.1

The bishop’s note on the philosopher’s gown is worthy of more than passing notice. He says: “It survives in the pulpits of Christendom—Greek, Latin, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.—to this day, in slightly different forms.” This is a remarkable admission to come from a bishop of the Anglican Church,—that the surplice of the Episcopal, Catholic, or Lutheran clergyman is a link that connects his religion with that of ancient paganism—a sign that he is not fully emancipated from the bondage of superstition. Of course there are very few nowadays who stop to think of the significance of the vestments of “the church;” but we may be sure that Justin Martyr had a distinct purpose in retaining his philosopher’s gown after he professed Christianity. It was not a matter of convenience merely, but it signified that he was a philosopher still, but with a new idea. It signified that he could discern no incompatibility between Christianity and pagan philosophy. This conclusion is sustained by Dr. Killen, who says:—“Justin, even after his conversion, still wore the philosopher’s cloak, and continued to cherish an undue regard for the wisdom of the pagan sages. His mind never was completely emancipated from the influence of a system of false metaphysics; and thus it was that, whilst his views of various doctrines of the gospel remained confused, his allusions to them are equivocal, if not contradictory.”—Ancient Church, period 2, sec. 2, chap. 1, paragraph 6.FACC 147.2

The learned Neander testifies as follows:—
“Justin Martyr is remarkable, as the first among these apologists whose writings have reached us, and as the first of those better known to us, who became a teacher of the Christian church, in whom we observe an approximation between Christianity and the Grecian, but especially the Platonic philosophy.”—Rose’s Neander, p. 410.FACC 148.1

Mosheim says:—
“With the Jews, contended in particular Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho; and likewise Tertullian; but neither of them, in the best manner; because they were not acquainted with the language and history of the Hebrews, and did not duly consider the subject.”—Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, book 1, cent. 2, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 7.FACC 148.2

And Schaff bears the following testimony:—
“Justin was a man of very extensive reading, enormous memory, inquiring spirit, and many profound ideas, but wanting in critical discernment. His mode of reasoning is often ingenious and convincing, but sometimes loose and rambling, fanciful and puerile. His style is easy and vivacious, but diffuse and careless. He is the first of the church Fathers to bring classical scholarship and Platonic philosophy in contact with the Christian theology.”—Vol. 1, sec. 122.FACC 148.3

In view of these facts it is evident that Justin Martyr is really as unsafe a guide in matters of religion as Plato, or Socrates, or any other heathen philosopher. Nor can it be said that, although he himself may not be a safe teacher of theology, he may be relied on as a delineator of church customs in the second century, which may be followed; for, (1) The customs of the church at that time must necessarily have been perverted by the influx of pagans, and by the teaching and example of such men as Justin; and (2) Justin cannot be depended on as to matters of fact. Says Farrar:—
“Following in the footsteps of the rabbis he denies the plainest historical facts.”—History of Interpretation, p. 173.FACC 149.1

This being the case, it evidently will not do to place much reliance upon his word, whatever he may say. We can therefore rate the following as it deserves:—
“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.”—First Apology, chap. 67.FACC 149.2

Although Justin is so unreliable as to matters of fact, we may readily grant that this is a true statement of the custom of worship by some professed Christians in the latter part of the second century. Unfortunately Justin was not the only heathen philosopher who came into the church bringing his heathen philosophy and customs with him, and very many common people would naturally follow the lead of such men, so that the few who “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and practice” were lost to sight, and the church began to assume the color of paganism. This was the case whenever and wherever heathen philosophers accepted Christianity as merely another phase of their old-time philosophy. In the above account, the degeneration from primitive ordinances is further seen in the addition of water to the wine of the Lord’s Supper. This perversion of the ordinance also appears in the following:— “Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at his hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to (so be it). And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”—First Apology, chap. 65.FACC 150.1

It will be seen, however, that Justin did not regard Sunday as a rest day or a sacred day. He had always been accustomed to regard the first day of the week as a festival day, and had not changed his views when he adopted the form of Christianity. Only instead of pagan sacrifices on that day, he substituted the (perverted) forms of Christian worship. But he well knew that there was a difference between Sunday and Sabbath, as appears from the following:—
“The command of circumcision, again, bidding (them) always circumcise the children on the eight day, was a type of the true circumcision, by which we are circumcised from deceit and iniquity through him who rose from the dead on the first day after the Sabbath (namely through) our Lord Jesus Christ. For the first day after the Sabbath, remaining the first of all the days, is called, however, the eighth, according to the number of all the days of the cycle, and (yet) remains the first.”—Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 41.FACC 151.1

The origin of the absurdity of calling Sunday the first day and the eighth day also, may be learned from the above. It is just such a piece of theological jugglery as might be expected from a semi-heathen philosopher.FACC 152.1

Gibbon’s statement that the philosophers regarded all systems of philosophy as equally false, is corroborated by the following three extracts from Justin’s writings, which show that although a professed Christian, he assumed the right to dispense with all the requirements of the Bible. In his talk with Trypho the Jew he says:—
“The new law requires you to keep perpetual Sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances; if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true Sabbaths of God. If anyone has impure hands, let him wash and be pure.”—Id., chap12. 12.FACC 152.2

This shows that although he recognized the difference between Sabbath and Sunday, as has already been shown, he did not believe in keeping any Sabbath. The same appears in the following:—
“For, tell me, did God wish the priests to sin when they offer the sacrifices on the Sabbaths? Or those to sin, who are circumcised and do circumcise on the Sabbaths; since he commands that on the eight day—even though it happen to be a Sabbath—those who are born shall be always circumcised? or could not the infants be operated upon one day previous or one day subsequent to the Sabbath, if he knew that it is a sinful act upon the Sabbath? Or why did he not teach those—who are called righteous and pleasing to him, who lived before Moses and Abraham, who were not circumcised in their foreskin, and observed no Sabbaths—to keep these institutions?”—Id., chap. 27.FACC 152.3

Some may rejoice to learn that Justin declares that the righteous ones who lived before Moses and Abraham did not keep Sabbath; but the more cautious ones, who desire only the truth, will ask where he obtained that information, and will question his right to set himself up as one whose unsupported word must be accepted. In the following he teaches the abolition of all law:—
“For the law promulgated on Horeb is now old, and belongs to yourselves alone; but this is for all universally. Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law—namely, Christ—has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy, after which there shall be no law, no commandment, no ordinance.”—Id., chap. 11.FACC 153.1

Let no one presume to quote Justin Martyr as authority for Sunday-keeping, unless he is willing also to accept his dictum that the law of God is abolished.FACC 153.2

Compare the following with Ezekiel 14:14, and Justin’s untrustworthiness as a quoter of Scripture will be apparent:—
Some injunctions and acts were likewise mentioned in reference to the mystery of Christ, on account of the hardness of your people’s hearts. And that this is so, God makes known in Ezekiel, (when) he said concerning it: ‘If Noah and Jacob and Daniel should beg either sons or daughters, the request would not be granted them.’”—Id., chap. 44.FACC 153.3

This is not an isolated instance. Surely a man who cannot quote Scripture correctly is not to be trusted as a teacher of it.FACC 153.4

Again compare the following with the Scripture record:—
“Moreover, the prescription that twelve bells be attached to the (robe) of the high priest, which hang down to the feet, was a symbol of the twelve apostles, who depend on the power of Christ, the eternal Priest; and through their voice it is that all the earth has been filled with the glory and grace of God and of his Christ.”—Id., chap. 42.FACC 154.1

Not content with making a far-fetched comment upon Scripture, he has manipulated the text to accommodate his proposed comment. The Scripture nowhere tells the number of bells that were upon the high priest’s robe.FACC 154.2

Like all the Fathers, Justin was very shy of accepting any part of the Bible as literal. Speaking of the account of the three angels who came to Abraham, and for whom the patriarch prepared a meal, which they ate, Justin says:—
“I would say that the Scripture which affirms they ate bears the same meaning as when we would say about fire that it has devoured all things; yet it is not certainly understood that they ate, masticating with teeth and jaws. So that not even here should we be at a loss about anything, if we are acquainted even slightly with figurative modes of expression, and able to rise above them.”—Id., chap. 57.FACC 154.3

Exactly; not here nor anywhere else should we be at a loss to interpret the Scriptures, if we adopted the methods of Justin and the other Fathers. Just teach that they mean something different from what they say, and you will be all right; and the farther you get from the plain declaration of the text, the nearer right you are, according to the Fathers. That method is a very easy one, but it will ever fail to promote Christian growth. The “sincere milk of the word” alone can bring men up to “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”FACC 154.4

Following is another instance of Justin’s speculative exposition:—
“‘You know, then, sirs,’ I said, ‘that God has said in Isaiah to Jerusalem: “I saved thee in the deluge of Noah.” By this which God said was meant that the mystery of saved men appeared in the deluge. For righteous Noah, along with the other mortals at the deluge, i. e., with his own wife, his three sons and their wives, being eight in number, were a symbol of the eight day, wherein Christ appeared when he arose from the dead, forever the first in power. For Christ, being the first-born of every creature, became again the chief of another race regenerated by himself through water, and faith, and wood, containing the mystery of the cross; even as Noah was saved by wood when he rode over the waters with his household. Accordingly, when the prophet says, “I saved thee in the times of Noah,” as I have already remarked, he addresses the people who are equally faithful to God, and possess the same signs.’”—Id., chap. 138.FACC 155.1

One hardly knows whether to be amused or indignant at the cool assumption which this half-heathen philosopher shows in attempting to give a Jew instruction out of the Old Testament Scriptures. We may be quite sure that his fanciful theories did not make any great impression on Trypho. But they served to puff up Justin with a wonderful sense of his own importance, and have furnished weak-kneed Protestants with material with which to prove doctrines that cannot be found in the Bible.FACC 155.2

The careful reader will see, however, that in the above passage Justin has no reference whatever to the first day of the week as a day of rest; of such a thing he seems to have had no knowledge. But he is simply making the best argument that he knows how to make to prove that Jesus was the Christ. Of the prophecies which directly foretold the coming of Christ, the character of his work, and the time and object of his death and resurrection, he seems to have been ignorant, and all his ingenuity was expended in trying to make something out of nothing. His argument amounts to this: “There were eight persons saved in the ark; therefore Christ rose on the eighth day as the Saviour of men.” Very profound, isn’t it? Whoever is at all familiar with Roman Catholic controversial writings, will recognize the source whence Catholic theologians learn to dispute.FACC 155.3

But Justin finds in the ark two lines of proof concerning Christ. The first is that the eight persons signified that Christ was to rise on the eighth day, and the second is that the wood of which the ark was composed symbolized the wood of the cross. In this also we discover the Roman Catholic devotion to the figure and sign of the cross. The heathen had no knowledge of a religion which changes man’s nature; everything was formal with them. So when they nominally accepted Christianity, they looked upon the cross as the symbol of the new religion, and practically substituted it for the charms and shrines (see Acts 19:24), which they had reverenced while professed pagans. To those who regard Justin as so illustrious a Father, the following four passages from his writings are recommended:—
“‘When the people,’ replied I, ‘waged war with Amalek, and the son of Nave (Nun) by name Jesus (Joshua), led the fight, Moses himself prayed to God, stretching out both hands, and Hur with Aaron supported them during the whole day, so that they might not hang down when he got wearied. For if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten, as is recorded in the writings of Moses; but if he remained in this form, Amalek was proportionally defeated, and he who prevailed prevailed by the cross. For it was not because Moses so prayed that the people were stronger, but because, while one who bore the name of Jesus (Joshua) was in the forefront of the battle, he himself made the sign of the cross. For who of you knows not that the prayer of one who accompanies it with lamentation and tears, with the body prostrate, or with bended knees, propitiates God most of all? But in such a manner neither he nor any other one, while sitting on a stone, prayed. Nor even the stone symbolized Christ, as I have shown.’”—Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 90.FACC 156.1

That is to say that the army of Israel prevailed, not because Moses prayed, but because he stretched out his hands in the form of a cross. This is expressly stated in the above, and also in the latter part of the following passage:—
“‘Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is (like) the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of a unicorn; with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.’ Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted onto it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined onto the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the center, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns. And the expression, ‘With these shall he push as with horns the nations from one end of the earth to another,’ is indicative of what is now the fact among all the nations. For some out of all the nations, through the power of this mystery, having been so pushed, that is, pricked in their hearts, have turned from vain idols and demons to serve God. But the same figure is revealed for the destruction and condemnation of the unbelievers; even as Amalek was defeated and Israel victorious when the people came out of Egypt, by means of the type of the stretching out of Moses’s hands, and the name of Jesus (Joshua), by which the son of Nave (Nun) was called.”—Id., chap. 91.FACC 157.1

The reader is requested to give special attention to the first part of the above, which purports to be an exposition of the blessing which Moses pronounced upon Joseph. (See Deuteronomy 33:17.) No matter what the prophecy, Justin could see nothing more in it than some likeness to the form of the material cross. Of the power of the cross as standing for the atoning sacrifice of Christ, he seems to have had little if any conception; the material cross was everything to him, taking the place of the charms and images of his old heathen days.FACC 158.1

It seems almost a waste of valuable space to quote so much of this stuff, and yet it is only by so doing that the reader can be able for himself properly to rate Justin as an expositor. The following is a notable instance of Justin’s narrow view of the Scriptures, and of the feeble arguments by which he and the best of his class attempted to convince the Jews and the heathen:—
“And when I had quoted this, I added, ‘Hear, then, how this man, of whom the Scriptures declare that he will come again in glory after his crucifixion, was symbolized both by the tree of life, which was said to have been planted in Paradise, and by those events which should happen to all the just. Moses was sent with a rod to effect the redemption of the people; and with this in his hands at the head of the people, he divided the sea. By this he saw the water gushing out of the rock; and when he cast a tree into the waters of Marah, which were bitter, he made them sweet. Jacob, by putting rods into the water-troughs, caused the sheep of his uncle to conceive, so that he should obtain their young. With his rod the same Jacob boasts that he had crossed the river. He said that he had seen a ladder, and the Scripture has declared that God stood above it. But that this was not the Father, we have proved from the Scriptures. And Jacob, having poured oil on a stone in the same place, is testified to by the very God who appeared to him, that he had anointed a pillar to the God who appeared to him. And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we have also proved by many scriptures; and that the unguent, whether it was of oil, or of stacte, or of any other compounded sweet balsams, had reference to him, we have also proved, inasmuch as the word says: “Therefore God, even thy God, bath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” For indeed all kings and anointed persons obtained from him their share in the names of kings and anointed: just as he himself received from the Father the titles of King, and Christ, and Priest, and Angel, and such like other titles which he bears or did bear. Aaron’s rod, which blossomed, declared him to be the high priest, Isaiah prophesied that a rod would come forth from the root of Jesse, (and this was) Christ. And David says that the righteous man is “like the tree that is planted by the channels of waters, which should yield its fruit in its season, and whose leaf should not fade.” Again, the righteous is said to flourish like the palm tree. God appeared from a tree to Abraham, as it is written, near the oak in Mamre. The people found seventy willows and twelve springs after crossing the Jordan. David affirms that God comforted him with a rod and staff. Elisha, by casting a stick into the River Jordan, recovered the iron part of the ax with which the sons of the prophets had gone to cut down trees to build the house in which they wished to read and study the law and commandments of God; even as our Christ, by being crucified on the tree, and by purifying (us) with water, has redeemed us, though plunged in the direct offenses which we have committed, and has made (us) a house of prayer and adoration. Moreover, it was a rod that pointed out Judah to be the father of Tamar’s sons by a great mystery.’”—Id., chap. 86.FACC 158.2

One more extract shall suffice on the subject of the cross. In this “apology” to the rulers, he made the following final appeal:—
“But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they intimate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of his power and rule; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation. For consider all the things in the world, whether without this form they could be administered or have any community. For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it; diggers and mechanics do not their work except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, ‘The breath before our face is the Lord Christ.’ And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols on what are called ‘vexilla’ (banners) and trophies, with which all your state processions are made, using these as the insignia of your power and government, even though you do so unwittingly. And with this form you consecrate the images of your emperors when they die, and you name them gods by inscriptions. Since, therefore, we have urged you both by reason and by an evident form, and to the utmost of our ability, we know that now we are blameless even though you disbelieve; for our part is done and finished,”—First Apology, chap. 55.FACC 160.1

Surely that should have convinced them of the truth of the Christian religion—as Justin understood it. In fact, it was just such arguments that did bring the heathen world over to the profession of Christianity. When the Christian religion was narrowed down to the material cross, and to the making of the sign of the cross, and the heathen were told that this cross was represented everywhere and in everything, and that whatever prosperity they had while heathen was due to the ubiquitous figure of the cross, what was there to keep them from adopting it? They were convinced that Christianity was the universal religion—the religion of nature—and so they turned their temples into churches; the image which they had worshiped as Jupiter, they now worshiped as Christ; the cross became their household god; the vestal virgins gave place to nuns; the peripatetic philosophers became mendicant friars, and so eventually paganism became Roman Catholicism.FACC 161.1

But Justin was not limited in his arguments to the sign of the cross. He knew how to reach the minds of the heathen. For example, read the following:—
“But since sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eternal punishment is laid up (i. e., for the wicked), see that ye neglect not to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that these things are true. For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practice by immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls, and those who are called among the magi, Dream-senders and Assistant-spirits (Familiars), and all that is done by those who are skilled in such matters—let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation; and those who are seized and cast about by the spirits of the dead, whom all call demoniacs or madmen; and what you repute as oracles, both of Amphilochus, Dodona, Pytho, and as many other such as exist; and the opinions of your authors, Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates, and the pit of Homer, and the descent of Ulysses to inspect these things, and all that has been uttered of a like kind.”—Id., chap. 18.FACC 161.2

Notice that in this, as in the other instances, he does not argue from any high standard, but simply labors to show that their old religion is practically the same as Christianity. This quotation shows that Justin had never given up his belief in necromancy, and it shows also that the Christian church was even then being corrupted by heathen magic, which is what was now seen in the manifestations of modern Spiritualism. Yet although Justin thus speaks of the soul as surviving the body, and acting consciously independent of it, the following is an evidence of his inconsistency as a teacher. He was not above taking positions that were directly contradictory:—
“For as in the case of a yoke of oxen, if one or other is loosed from the yoke, neither of them can plough alone; so neither can soul or body alone effect anything, if they be unyoked from their communion.”—Justin on the Resurrection, chap. 8.FACC 162.1

But if this is true, the other is not, and if he told the truth when he said that the dead are conscious and do communicate with the living, then he did not tell the truth here. Whichever view of the matter is taken, Justin stands convicted of teaching contradictory views, and therefore of being an unreliable man. As a matter of fact, he told the truth in the latter instance; if he had not taught anything inconsistent with that, he might not have attained the dignity of a Father of the Roman Catholic Church, but he might have had the higher honor of being a humble disciple—a doer of the word.FACC 162.2

Lastly, as final proof that Justin used the Bible as a curiosity box, and nothing more, we cite the following:—
“Attend therefore to what I say. The marriages of Jacob were types of that which Christ was about to accomplish. For it was not lawful for Jacob to marry two sisters at once. And he serves Laban for (one of) the daughters; and being deceived in (the obtaining of) the younger, he again served seven years. Now Leah is your people and synagogue; but Rachel is our church. And for these, and for the servants in both, Christ even now serves. For while Noah gave to the two sons the seed of the third as servants, now on the other hand Christ has come to restore both the free sons and the servants amongst them, conferring the same honor on all of them who keep his commandments; even as the children of the free women and the children of the bond women born to Jacob were all sons, and equal in dignity. And it was foretold what each should be according to rank and according to foreknowledge. Jacob served Laban for speckled and many-spotted sheep; and Christ served, even to the slavery of the cross, for the various and many formed races of mankind, acquiring them by the blood and mystery of the cross. Leah was weak-eyed; for the eyes of your souls are excessively weak. Rachel stole the gods of Laban, and has hid them to this day; and we have lost our paternal and material gods. Jacob was hated for all time by his brother; and we now, and our Lord himself, are hated by you and by all men, though we are brothers by nature. Jacob was called Israel; and Israel has been demonstrated to be the Christ, who is, and is called, Jesus.”—Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 134.FACC 163.1

It is submitted in all candor, that if Justin had been a real student of the Bible, and had had any real knowledge of Christianity, he could not have thought to advance its claims by such flimsy and childish arguments. They are very interesting as an exhibition of his ingenuity; but sharpness is neither depth nor breadth. A person of vivid imagination may see all manner of figures in the burning coals, and thus it was with Justin. The Bible was to him only a book full of curiosities; therefore the final verdict must be that while he surpasses most of the other Fathers in knowledge of the words of the Bible, he rarely quotes it in a sensible manner. He quotes in a parrot-like manner what he had committed to memory. Of the meaning of the Scripture he was more ignorant than any child ten years of age would be, that has had the benefit of Christian training. We may not censure him or any other man for his ignorance; but we may justly censure those who set forth his ignorance as wisdom, and who would have the people look to vacancy for substance, to ignorance for wisdom, to darkness for light, and to error for righteousness. Justin must stand as a striking example of the impossibility for any man to fathom the deep things of God, by unaided human reason.FACC 164.1