CTR n.s.

5/1 (Fall 2007) 53-67

HOW THE POST-APOSTOLIC

CHURCH RESPONDED TO
GOVERNMENT: GLEANING PUBLIC
DO'S AND DON'TS FROM THE
SECOND-CENTURY APOLOGISTS

C. Everett Berry
Criswell College, Dallas, TX

I. INTRODUCTION

T h e evangelical community in the United States currently faces a

daunting challenge because while this country was originally in some
ways a test case in Judeo-Christian values, now much of the social,
academic, and political ethos of Western culture is hostile toward
Christianity.1 At first glance this may seem disconcerting to many but in
actuality it merely places the church in a familiar context that it faced
during its initial years of development. In the late first and early second
centuries, the solemn confession that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and
one true and living God went against the religious grain of both Jewish
and Roman worldviews. Why? Because on the one hand with regard to
the Jewish community, the church was claiming that Christ was the
redemptive-historical link that solidified a theological continuity between
the Old and New Testaments, thus advocating that consummate
Jewishness could only become a reality by giving deference to the
Christian faith. And on the other hand with regard to Roman-Hellenistic
theistic persuasions, believers were proposing an ideology that was
explicitly monotheistic, contra the Greek pantheon, and heralded a

ironically, one could argue that certain values intrinsic to the Enlightenment
were also endemic to the conception of America. See John D. Hannah, Our
Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001)
243-44.
54 Criswell Theological Review

kingdom under the dominion of a particular King, contra ultimate

allegiance to Caesar.2
The results of these ideological clashes were severe to say the least.
Many Jews outside the church were eager to slander Christians and
denounce them to civil authorities while various Roman consortiums
additionally began to circulate empty rumors of atheism and bizarre
antics of immorality.3 Likewise, more sophisticated intellectual
arguments began to be posed against the rationality of Christian belief
and beginning with the emperors Domitian and Trajan, the church began
to experience fluctuating pockets of local persecutions.4 In response to
these dilemmas, early Christian apologists were compelled to articulate
their convictions before the unbelieving world in general, and Roman
officials in particular, in hopes of achieving some level of civil tolerance
and even possibly seeing leaders convert to Christianity.5
To accomplish these goals, the apologists essentially focused upon
one of at least four themes: (1) they either appealed to the assorted
Roman authorities to treat Christians fairly or justly, (2) attacked the
inconsistencies and errors of other pagan beliefs and practices, (3)
presented and defended certain Christian beliefs and ways of living, or (4)
provided theological concepts to justify the legitimacy of Christianity as a
viable religion within the Roman Empire.6 By engaging in these
endeavors, these thinkers were involved in the very activities that concern
our present-day evangelical community; namely, dialoguing with
audiences in the public square regarding the faith and how it impacts the
myriad of issues that believers face as law-abiding citizens. And in doing
so, these theological pioneers have left a collage of methodological

2
See analysis in Robert L. Wilken, "Toward a Social Interpretation of Early
Christian Apologetics," CH 39 (1970): 437-58; Robert M. Grant, Greek
Apologists of the Second Century (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988) 9-19.
3
Avery Dulles, A History of Apologetics (Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and
Stock, 1999) 22-23.
^These persecutions would occur sporadically until approximately AD 180.
Then beginning in AD 250 under the rule of Decius, empire-wide persecutions
commenced and continued up through the rule of Diocletian.
5
Dulles, History of Apologetics^ 23.
6
See Harry R Boer, A Short History of the Early Church (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1976; reprint, 1999) 48-49. As an aside, it should be mentioned that
there were other numerous reasons for the early apologists to arise on the scene.
For instance, one cannot deny that defective teachings such as Gnosticism,
Marcionism, and Montanism were beginning to make their way into Christian
communities. Indeed then, these Christian thinkers were articulating their views
in order to protect the faith for those inside the church as well as defend it against
those outside of it However, our concerns in this essay primarily pertain to the
latter objective rather than the former.
 C. Everrett Berry: How the Post-Apostolic Church Responded 55

strategies that perhaps correspond more closely to the current American

scenario than we previously have been willing to acknowledge.
Consequently, the purpose of this paper will be to highlight some of
the ways in which these early thinkers made theological headway with
their secular audiences as well as pinpoint some unfortunate capitulations,
which still reflect problematic approaches that various evangelical guilds
still emulate today. To accomplish this task, this essay will focus upon
select contributions from the works of Justin Martyr (AD 100-165),
Athenagoras (year of work- AD 170?), and Theophilus of Antioch (year
of works- A D 180-81?). 7 First, a concise summary will be provided
regarding some of the approaches that these thinkers took in constructing
their own defenses to the various authorities they addressed. Second,
subsequent analysis will then be given as to certain ideals that American
evangelicals in the contemporary Western setting should glean from the
early apologists as well as pitfalls that should be avoided.

II. JUSTIN MARTYR

Justin Martyr is one of the most accessible apologists that we have

among Christian thinkers in the early second century. The reason being
that currently we have three major works which are considered to be

Obviously not every Christian voice from the early to mid-second century
can be surveyed here. Some that could offer insights but will be omitted in this
essay include the earliest Christian apology that we currently possess by Aristides
(AD 140?), a resident of Athens who wrote a defense for Hadrian; two accessible
works of Justin Martyr's successor Tatian (AD 110-80), The Diatessaeron: To
the Greeks and an Apology: Oratio ad Graecos (i.e. Against the Hellenists)', the
work entitled Letter to Diognetus (AD 120-200?) of which the author is
unknown; and a treatise produced by Hermias entitled Satire on the Profane
Philosophers (date is disputed—anywhere from second to third century). In
addition to these sources, other thinkers could be helpful if their works had been
preserved more adequately. But the fact is that certainfiguresremain unreachable
in the past and are only known because they are referenced by assorted historians.
For example, there is Quadratus, (early second century) a bishop in Athens who
wrote a defense to Emperor Hadrian and the only fragment extant is in a brief
Eusebian citation; Melito (AD 175-90) a bishop in Sardis whose homily on the
Passover is quoted by Eusebius; Apollinaris, the bishop of Hierapolis whose
works are listed by Eusebius, and a converted Jew named Hegesipus (late second
century) who also is mentioned briefly. Likewise, there is Aristo of Pella who
apparently produced an early apology against the Jews entitled Discussion
Between Jason and Papiscus Concerning Christ (AD 135-75) but only a
fragment of it is preserved in the works of St. Jerome and a contemporary of
Tatian who defended Christianity in Asia Minor named Miltiades, whose works
have all been lost For more analysis of these works, cf., Grant, Greek Apologists;
Patrick J. Hamell, Handbook on Patrology (Staten Island, NY: Society of St.
Paul, 1968) 35-45; and Johannes Quasten, Patrology: Volume I (Reprint,
Westminster: Christian Classics, 1984) 186-253.
56 Criswell Theological Review

authentic, those being two Apologies (hereafter AI and All) and a work
entitled Dialogue with Trypho (hereafter DT).8 In AI and DT, Justin
provides some rudimentary information about himself including the fact
that he was a native Samaritan who was the son of a man named Priscus
and the grandson of Bachius, who was a native of Flavia Neaopolis in
Palestine.9 Following a complex journey through Stoicism and several
other philosophical systems which finally led him to Platonism, Justin
claims to have been initially impressed with how Christians were facing
dubious accusations from society and even threats of potential execution.
Then later after apparently having an encounter with an old man who
talked to him about the OT prophets, Justin eventually converted to the
faith.10 In time, he subsequently ended up investing his life in
supervising a Christian-catechetical school in Rome until his execution in
AD 165. Looking back on his ministry, it is clear that the obstacles Justin
encountered before his conversion were indicative of what he attempted
to address as a believer, namely to vindicate the right to be a Christian in
Roman society, highlight the ultimate inconsistencies of philosophical
systems apartfromtheir connection to Christian belief, and emphasize the
continuity between the Christian faith and the Messianic hopes of
Judaism. Moreover, it is in his available works that we see these points
being emphasized.

Apologies I &II

This first apology was written between AD 155-77 and being the
larger of the two apologies, this piece essentially argues that the Roman
authorities should not commit the proverbial sin of judging a book by its
cover.11 This is why the first eight sections attack the unwarranted
treatment of Christians because their behavior had not been sufficiently

References to these works will comefromJustin Martyr, First Apology, in

The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), edited and translated by Alexander Roberts and
James Donaldson, revised by A. Cleveland Coxe (Christian Literature, 1885;
reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999) 1.163-87; Second Apology (ANF
1.188-93); Dialogue with Trypho (ANF 1.194-270). Note that there are several
other works that Justin produced which are mentioned by himself as well as other
writers such as Irenaeus and Eusebius; however, they are lost to us today. See
discussion of these works in Hamell, Handbook of Patrology, 39-40; Quasten,
Patrology, 204-05.
9
Cf., Martyr, First Apology (ANF 1.163); Dialogue with Trypho (ANF
1.260).
10
Cf., Martyr, Second Apology (ANF 1.192); Robert M. Grant, "Aristotle and
the Conversion of Justin," JTS 7 (1956): 246-48; Oscar Skarsaune, "The
Conversion of Justin Martyr," ST 30 (1976): 53-74; and David F. Wright,
"Christian Faith in the Greek World: Justin Martyr's Testimony," EvQ 54 (1982):
77-87.
"Regarding the date of this work, see the treatment in Grant, Greek
Apologists, 52-53.
 C. Everrett Berry: How the Post-Apostolic Church Responded 57

investigated, if at all. The ongoing oppression against believers is being

fueled by baseless rumors and so the title "Christian" is viewed as a
cultural curse or cult. But as Justin contends, the church is a community
of theists, as opposed to atheists, who are simply affirming that the OT
expectations of the Jewish faith have been realized in Christ. Likewise,
the Roman authorities do not treat other coalitions in the empire as
automatically guilty or potential threats to society just because certain
groups spread bizarre stories about them. Justin's initial point then is that
the Christian community should have the same social opportunities of
survival as other viable worldviews. Subsequently in sections nine
through sixty-eight, Justin proceeds to articulate the beliefs that
Christians espouse regarding Christ, the OT, and everyday living.
Furthermore, he argues that even certain forms of Greek philosophy
reflect Christian ideals because various thinkers, such as Philo, drew from
the OT in developing their own unique perspectives. So in actuality, the
Romans should not only reconsider their treatment of Christians but also
take into account the possibility of becoming believers themselves.
The other apology, which dates anywhere between AD 140-60 is a
shorter supplement to the first and addresses a set of sporadic scenarios.12
For instance, Justin defends an unnamed female believer who was
wronged by her former husband as well as a pastoral figure in her life
named Ptolemaeus who was caught in the middle of the situation and
wrongfully treated simply because he confessed to be "Christian." He
then deals with accusations made against believers regarding their views
of death, truth, and judgment. Finally, Justin complements his case by
pleading with the authorities to publish his work so the masses can have a
fair chance to have all the information and make intelligent judgments of
what Christianity really is.

Dialogue with Trypho

In contrast to the two apologies, Dialogue with Trypho (hereafter

DAT) stands as the longest treatise that we presently have from Justin,
dating between AD 150-55. Though incomplete in certain sections, DAT
is essentially a summary of an apparent two-day conversation held in
Ephesus between Justin and a Jew named Trypho.13 It can be broken
down into four major segments: 1) books 1-8, the introduction in which
Justin discusses his intellectual pilgrimage to Christianity, 2) books 9-47

12
Hammell, Handbook ofPatrology, 39.
13
See the mentioning of this dialogue in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,
rev. ed., trans. C. F. Cruse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998) Book 18, 132.
Also, there is speculation as to whether this Trypho was an actualfigureor an
imaginary opponent described in the context of a diatribe. Some argue that he is
to be identified as the contemporary Rabbi Tarpho who is mentioned in the
Mishna. See discussion in Quasten, Patrology, 202-03.
58 Criswell Theological Review

includes his interpretation of the Mosaic economy and how it reaches

both its culmination and termination with the arrival of the Christian
faith, 3) books 48-108 focuses upon proving that OT expectations are
consummated with the person of Christ, and 4) books 109-42 concludes
Justin's diatribe with the case being made that all peoples who become
Christians make up the true people of God, or more specifically, the true
spiritual Israel.
When observing the overall approach to this work, the fundamental
element of Justin's "pro-Jewish" apologetic is his typological approach to
hermeneutics. Part of the reason for this was because he wanted to use
Rabbinic traditions via haggadic materials in order to find a theological
point of contact with Trypho.14 He took OT figures, events, and themes
and attempted to make parallels, sometimes literal and other times
allegorical, with motifs emphasized in the NT in order to not only show
the continuity of Christianity with the Jewish heritage, but also its
superiority.15 In doing so, he apparently thought he was following the
interpretive approach of the NT writers whom he believed were utilizing
a type of Christological neo-midrash in order to show how Christ as the
true Israel remained faithful to Yahweh and thus provided the missing
link in Judaism, namely the means of experiencing permanent spiritual
transformation.

III. ATHENAGORAS

Being a contemporary of Justin Martyr's successor Tatian,

Athenagoras (AD 133-190) was an Athenian who is known for
addressing Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. Note though that
other than the claim to be related to Athens, which is only based on the
subtitle to one of his preserved works, we have minimal information
regarding Athenagoras's background and life. A dubious observation is
made by an early fifth-century Pamphylian named Philip of Side who
speculated in his Christian History that Athenagoras was possibly the
first headmaster of the catechetical school in Alexandria.16 Other cursory
mentions of his contributions come from occasional quotations in a brief
fragment attributed to Methodius of Olympus as well as the writings of
Epiphanius, Photius, and Boethos.17 Then only in the tenth century
would he be recalled from obscurity by Arethas, the archbishop of

14
David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1992)65.
15
For more discussion on Justin's understanding of typology, see Willis
Shotwell, The Biblical Exegesis of Justin Martyr (London: SPCF, 1965); and
Oskar Skarsaune, Proof from Prophecy: A Study in Justin Martyr's Proof Text
Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 1987).
16
Quasten, Patrology, 229. This observation is scanty at best and most likely
completely false.
17
Ibid.
 C. Everrett Berry: How the Post-Apostolic Church Responded 59

Cappadocia.18 Regarding his apologetic works, Athenagoras is survived

by two treatises, one being entitled A Plea for the Christians (AD 177)
and the other being called On the Resurrection (after AD 177).19 In these
pieces, Athenagoras approaches many of the same issues that Justin
addressed previously and adds his own philosophical flare in dealing with
them. But how?

A Plea for the Christians

Scholars debate as to whether this defense, or "embassy" as some

call it, was given when Marcus Aurelius was touring Athens.20 In it,
Athenagoras has a concise focus and desires to deal with particular
concerns thereby dividing his address into three major sections. After the
introduction (books 1-3), where Athenagoras graciously and respectfully
claims that he will show that the mistreatment of Christians is not only
unjust but nonsensical, he commences with responses to three charges,
namely that Christians are atheists (books 4-12), cannibalists (books 13-
30), and sexually immoral because they are committers of incest (books
31-35). The first accusation regarding atheism is critiqued with two
primary axioms, those being that monotheism (or more specifically
trinitarianism) is the denial of polytheism but not theism proper and that
there are multiple pieces of evidence that show various non-Christian
philosophers advocating other forms of theism that are not necessarily
sympathetic to polytheism.21 Yet they are not being persecuted like
Christians are experiencing. Regarding the charge of cannibalism,
Athenagoras contends that the absurdity of this charge is not primarily in
the actual notion of such an unthinkable act but in the fact that the very
act of murder in any form is completely incongruent with the Christian
faith. Finally, the rumor about Oedipean incest is exposed for what it is,
an indefensible act of bigotry and hatred. Athenagoras claims that all the
Roman authorities have to do to put this story to rest is listen to what
Christians teach about marriage, virginity, and the family and such
notions will be seen as artificial as well as unjustifiable. Consequently,
those spreading this slander are the ones committing an act worthy of
legal punishment.

18
William Schoedel, ed. and trans., Athenagoras: Legatio and De
Resurrectione (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) ix.
19
Some scholars dispute the authenticity of the work on the resurrection but
that issue will not be addressed here. For arguments regarding this possibility, see
Grant, Greek Apologists, 109-10; idem, "Athenagoras or Pseudo-Athenagoras,"
#77? 47 (1954): 121-29.
20
See Grant, Greek Apologists, 100; T. D. Barnes, "The Embassy of
Athenagoras," ./TS 26(1975): 111-12.
21
See especially Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians (ANF 2.132-32).
60 Criswell Theological Review

On the Resurrection

At the end of his Plea for the Christians, Athenagoras mentions the
Christian belief in a bodily resurrection but then claims that he will defer
detailed comments for a later time.22 He keeps his word in this second
piece which is divided into two segments; the first dealing with how one
should speak of a God who can theoretically raise the physical dead ( 1 -
10) and the second contending that a resurrection is a necessary event to
make sense of human existence (11-25). Regarding the first section,
Athenagoras anticipates all kinds of criticisms regarding the very
possibility of a resurrection due to complexities regarding the soul's
relationship to the body as well as contingencies regarding the various
ways in which people die and have their bodies completely consumed by
animals, disease, or nature. His general response is that the God who
created all things which once did not exist can recreate those things which
temporarily "ceased" to exist.23 Moving then to questions regarding the
ethical pertinence of a resurrection, Athenagoras argues that if one
accepts the eternal existence of man and likewise concedes that man is
made up of a material as well as immaterial component, then one must
necessarily speak of physical resurrection so that both elements can co-
exist again forever. Furthermore, the concept of a resurrection is essential
to the related Christian belief in a future judgment. Man will bodily face
God and give an account for what he has done in his body.

IV. THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH

As opposed to Justin and Athenagoras, our third thinker under

consideration served as an official church officer. According to Eusebius,
Theophilus apparently was the seventh bishop of Antioch in Syria (AD
160-180).24 From his writings, we discover that he was born near the
Tigris and Euphrates, raised by pagan parents, and received a Hellenistic
education.25 Yet over an extended period of time, he studied the OT and
converted to Christianity in his later years of life.26 Once he became a
bishop, he produced numerous works for apologetic as well as
catechetical purposes. Again, Eusebius mentions several works that
Theophilus produced, which are now unavailable to us, including some
spurious catechetical literature and two polemics against heretics

^Ibid., 2.148.
^See his virtually classic comments in idem, On the Resurrection (ANF
2.150-51).
^Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.20, p. 133.
25
See Grant, Greek Apologists, 143-47; Quasten, Patrology, 236.
26
Thophilus, ToAutolycus (ANF 2.93); William R. Schoedel, "Theophilus of
Antioch: Jewish Christian?" Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993): 279-97.
 C. Everrett Berry: How the Post-Apostolic Church Responded 61

Hermogenes and Marcion.27 Likewise, Jerome briefly comments that he

had read several commentaries that bore Theophilus's name.28
The only extant writings that we possess from this thinker entail a
formal response to the criticisms posed by a pagan acquaintance named
Autolycus. This work, which is entitled To Autolycus, dates shortly after
AD 180 because the third volume includes a chronology of Rome's
history that mentions the death of Marcus Aurelius.29 It is made up of
three books wherein Theophilus intended to discredit the myths of Greek
philosophy and demonstrate the veracity of Christianity through assorted
"proofs" of nature and the consistency of the OT prophetic witness.30
The material covered follows in this order. The first section begins with a
discussion about the vanity of demanding that God be revealed
empirically because the human soul has to be spiritually re-hardwired in
order for man to acknowledge his existence. From here, Theophilus
subsequently critiques the emptiness of idolatry as well as emperor
worship, and then boldly argues that while he fully understands the nature
of paganism, Romans do not understand the true meaning of the word
"Christian." The second book deals with the reliability of the prophets
and the coherence of the Genesis account of creation, as interpreted with
a quasi-allegorical approach. Finally in the third segment, Theophilus
attempts to illustrate the ethical superiority of Christianity by showing
how pagan philosophies actually support immoral behavior and how the
truth of Christ chronologically precedes all Greek philosophers because it
was initially revealed through the ministry of Moses and the prophets. In
the end then, Theophilus's general point is that the most inconceivable
decision that a culture can support or an individual can make is that
Christianity is the epistemic source of physical violence, immorality, and
social irresponsibility.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS

Although one cannot look at the settings of these early second-

century Christian thinkers and say that American evangelicals are in the
exact same cultural plight, there are undeniable points of commonality
between the cultural incredulity of the second and twenty-first centuries.
There were unwarranted accusations against the life styles of the early
Christians, hostile attacks on central beliefs intrinsic to the coherence of
the Christian faith, and even violent attempts to suppress the growth of
converts to Christianity just as there are today around the world. The

27
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 24.1, p. 137-38.
28
Hamell, Handbook ofPatrology, 43.
29
Cf., Theophilus, To Autolycus (ANF 2.120); and background discussion in
Robert M. Grant, Theophilus of Antioch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970) ix-x.
30
Hans Svebakken, "Theophilus of Antioch," in The Dictionary of Historical
Theology, ed. Trevor A Hart (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 542.
62 Criswell Theological Review

only difference is that the church's enemies wear different

methodological masks as history progresses. Initially it was a Roman-
Hellenistic caricature that Christianity as a religion was a cultural-socio-
Judaistic anomaly. Then later the Enlightenment critique was that it was
scientifically and rationally untenable. Now the current postmodern
claim is that it is culturally scandalous because of metaphysical delusions
of epistemic authority. These assessments notwithstanding, the same
basic ethos exists within all of them, namely that Christianity has no place
in the spectrum of viable worldviews.
Note here that inherent within any of these historic repudiations of
Christianity is not the mere attempt to domesticate its doctrines and
beliefs. Rather, the agenda has been ultimately to silence and potentially
eliminate them so they cannot influence the issues pertinent to any given
culture. This reality is what acts as the point of contact between the early
Christian apologists and contemporary evangelicals. Caesar at one time
tried to crush the church with political and military might. Later he wore
the robes of the church itself and tried to suppress the internal yearnings
for reform and theological revolution. Currently, he waves a banner of
pluralistic tolerance and demands that the church relinquish her tyrannical
scandal of particularity. So even though we are not currently being
thrown into a coliseum to entertain the masses by being devoured by
lions, our biblical identity is gradually eroding through an intentional
process of marginalization from the public square, the academy, and
society. The question that still remains for us is whether the early
Christian apologists have left any mantles that can be taken up today and
utilized in order to preserve the faith in the present intellectual climate.
The answer is both positive and negative because there are some
strategies that proved to be helpful while others elicited harmful
ramifications that need to be avoided.

Points to Adopt

Upon comparing the strategies of Justin, Athenagoras, and

Theophilus, it is easy to see some common themes in each of their works
because obviously they were dealing with similar concerns and obstacles
as well as common audiences.31 Likewise, their apologetic approaches
have also left behind some methodological impressions that can still serve
evangelicals well today. Three in particular will be highlighted here: 1) a
mutual desire to seek justice for the Christian community as well as
society in general, 2) a focus upon clarifying orthodox beliefs by
emphasizing consistent orthopraxis within the church, 3) and an

31
Again, Justin Martyr and Athenagoras addressed Marcus Aurelius; and
Justin and Theophilus likewise wrote to skeptics of Christianity in diatribe form,
the former to Trypho and the latter to Autolycus.
 C. Everrett Berry: How the Post-Apostolic Church Responded 63

unabashed commitment to the concept of the supernatural regardless of

the incredulity it receivedfromthe surrounding culture.

a. Being a Justice-Seeker. The apologists pleaded for the proper

treatment of Christians within society as well as more consistent
interrogations of the dangerous ideas and practices of other religious
worldviews which were perceived to be allegedly contributing to society.
And even though they did this partly because they were following Paul's
example by utilizing their Roman citizenship as a platform for defending
their place in the culture, the more fundamental axiom that seemed to
guide their protests was a passionate concern for the state to practice
discernment, wisdom, and sane judgment. Why? Because there was an
inherent intolerance on behalf of the apologists against the ongoing
injustice that was being enacted toward Christians. But note that this
attitude also was expressed in terms that were critical of other worldviews
which in fact were emulating the very things that Christians were being
accused of practicing. So for the apologists, the defense of Christianity
was partly accomplished by engaging and exposing the "unjustness" of
other religions.
This element is critical in our current intellectual climate. Dialogue
and discovering points of contact are seen as the primary means for
discussing the veracity of Christian truth-claims in a pluralistic context.
And indeed this essay is not rejecting all the elements of what some such
as David Clark call "Dialogical Apologetics."32 Like the second-century
apologists, contemporary evangelicals should be sensitive to people's
backgrounds and thereby meet audiences in their religious contexts in
hopes of explicating the Christian faith in ways that converge with
questions they are asking. However, many times evangelicals seem to be
hesitant in making any kind of dogmatic or conclusive repudiations of
certain worldviews because they are convinced that the only way to
maintain a voice at the public table of worldviews is to concede a kind of
congenial equality among religions. Unfortunately this trend has led to a
theological cowardice whereby there is a fear to call other religions
immoral or label cults as nonchristian because evangelical guilds want to
avoid being falsely accused of instilling a new ethos of Fundamentalism
or even worse, of initiating a kind of elitist Protestant inquisition. The
problem for the early apologists is that this attitude of capitulation
fostered an atmosphere of injustice toward the faith because their beliefs
appeared to have been that part of their epistemic justification for being
Christians. Therefore, the other religions had no epistemic warrant.

b. Orthopraxy as a Verification Principle. The previous concern for

justice is further conjoined with the case that is made by the apologists
which pertains to the actual contributions that the Christian community

David Clark, Dialogical Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999).

64 Criswell Theological Review

gave to society itself. Here, the consistency of the plea for fair treatment
is in many ways based upon the apologists' confidence that the Christian
community was living up to the standards that they were describing. This
is why the responses that the apologists gave to the charges of immorality
and incoherent beliefs were couched in terms of asking the government to
simply observe how Christians actually lived and then make the right
decisions in how to treat them. The apologists claimed that Christians
loved one another, promoted kindness for those in the community, cared
for one another's needs, and fostered moral behavior at all levels that
benefited society from the church to the family and even the workplace.
Basically, part of the proof was in the pudding.
In recent decades, this correlation between doctrine and behavior
normally has been emphasized in evangelical churches and academic
settings at levels that are mainly focused upon discipleship and the
training of converts. Yet for these thinkers, it also was a critical part of
their apologetic tone. The reality of the faith being lived out in the church
was one of the very reasons why injustice toward believers was opposed.
Amazingly, these apologists put their theological necks on the line by
simply asking the government to examine churches and find out for
themselves just how believers were living. Today this kind of setting is
woefully vacant because the lifestyle of the average evangelical church
member is virtually identical to nonbelievers, if not observably worse.
Even more tragic, some thinkers are noticing this trend and trying to
foster a new kind of solution by arguing that piety is actually the essence
of evangelical identity. Unfortunately this kind of an approach is just a
revival of old liberalism which is cleverly couched in terms of
postmodern theories of epistemology such as coherentism and
pragmatism. Be this as it may, somewhere in between the extremes of
defending Christianity solely with forensic axioms or social moralism is a
kind of healthy orthopraxic verificationism that is needed in
contemporary evangelical apologetics. We must find a way to make
doctrines observable so that they can be seen and not just heard. Perhaps
we should hope for a kind of Christian neo-empiricism; otherwise called
discipleship.

c. The Supernatural as a Hermenéutica! Presupposition. A third

insight that the apologists provide as a breath of fresh air for the
contemporary setting is a clear commitment to the utter supernaturalness
of the Christian faith. Even though these early thinkers did not have to
deal with the complexities of Enlightenment skepticism, they still had to
respond to incredulous perceptions, especially with regard to the
incarnation and the concept of a physical resurrection. In doing so, it is
true that they presented arguments for their belief in these basic concepts.
But many times, the beginning place for giving support to a belief in a
miraculous event was not rational or empirical proof. Rather it was'the
sheer power of God himself. For instance, when Athenagoras deals with
 C. Everrett Berry: How the Post-Apostolic Church Responded 65

the objections to the very notion of a resurrection, he takes the discussion

to where it truly leads, namely the ability of God to give life to anything
dead. Whereas his audience thought the concept was nonsensical because
it was seemingly incoherent to speak of the dead being physically
resurrected when their bodies had been decimated by animals, the sea, or
sickness. Athenagoras simply responds by claiming that the real dilemma
is not how a body could be resurrected under such circumstances, but
how a body could be resurrected at all. And the answer is a supernatural
God who brings about a miraculous act.33
Granted, later skeptics such as Voltaire and David Hume would not
be satisfied with such arguments and so post-enlightenment apologists are
compelled to give further clarifications and responses. However, there is
a precommitment to the fundamental transcendence of God that guided
the way the apologists dealt with these kinds of questions, which has been
de-emphasized in our technological, information-filled world. As a
matter of fact, this element appears to reflect the exact same kind of
approach that Jesus took when he was questioned about similar matters.
This can be seen, for example, in the instance where the Sadducees
interrogated Christ about the very concept of a resurrection and irj giving
his answer, he bluntly claimed that they did not know the Scriptures nor
the power of God (Matt 22:29-30). The point being that a rejection of
God's Word and person automatically leads to a subsequent refusal to
believe he can do things that appear improbable. Augustine wasrightthen
to say that faith is the prerequisite for knowing. The problem though is
that much of contemporary dialogue about religious knowledge is
hammered out in contexts that demand that one start from a point of
reference that negates the very essence of Christian thought, namely the
supernatural.

Points to Avoid

Juxtaposed to the helpful insights that the apologists left for us, there
are assorted strategies that proved to be problematic for Christian
theology in the immediate decades of the late second and third centuries,
and still produce pitfalls today. Some of them are issues that could not be
seen during the times of the apologists and, so to be judicious, one should
not be overtly reductionistic. Nevertheless, there are certain themes that
pervade segments of the early apologists which appear to be theologically
noble at first but actually end up hurting their cause instead of helping.
Two will be mentioned here: 1) the emphasis on the continuity of the
Christian faith by ignoring certain contours within the development of
biblical revelation, and 2) dubious attempts to ground the idea of truth in
other religions other than Christianity.

33
See Athenagoras, On the Resurrection (ANF 2.150-51).
66 Criswell Theological Review

a. Continuity with No Contours. It has been said that hindsight is

always twenty-twenty. This is definitely true when it comes to
theological vision. One of the most unfortunate outcomes of the
strategies of some of the early apologists can be seen in sincere attempts
to emphasize a specific point regarding the continuity of the Christian
faith that in turn sets the stage for inadvertently alienating the very
audience which is intended to be reached. A perfect example of this
apologetic oversight can be seen in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho
whereby in an honest attempt to highlight the natural relationship
between the OT expectations of the Messiah and the ministry and work of
Christ, Justin claims that true Jewishness is found in becoming a part of
the true Israel, namely the church.34 On the one hand, this approach was
indeed justified because the only worldview that can give Israel her true
identity is one that recognizes the Lordship of Christ. Yet on the other
hand, ultimately the desire to reach the Jews of his day compelled Justin
to advocate a concept that would later set the stage for something that he
was oblivious to and that was the gradual establishment of a
supersessionist tradition within Christian thought. Ironically, his attempt
to formulate an apologetic that could compel unbelieving Jews to
embrace Christianity resulted in a hermeneutical paradigm that would
breed elitism and theological anti-Semitism.
There are many trajectories that one could take with regard to this
problem. The point here is that a sincere apologetic objective can be
blurred if it focuses so much on continuity that it fails to acknowledge the
nuances that exist within the theological point that is being made. In this
example, the desire to show the symmetry between OT promise and NT
fulfillment was expressed in terms that essentially led to a denial of the
contours of Israel's role in Christian theology. Justin's attempts to
decipher Israel's true identity as an apologetic project eventually led to
the jettisoning of her role as a nation in redemptive history. So the lesson
to learn is that in the public square, we must be careful not to allow our
goals of persuasion to cause us to miss the forest for the trees. Moreover,
in conjunction with this danger is another concern pertaining to the
epistemic relationship between the Christian faith and other religions.

b. God in Other Religions. In the midst of the apologists' critiques

and responses, ironically some instances arise which reveal explicit
capitulations to the notion that truth in seedbed form actually exists
within competing pagan ideologies. This can be seen, for example, in
Justin's occasional claims that the rationality of God, or the divine Logos,
exists residually within various beliefs of other worldviews. What is so
jolting about these kinds of observations is that Justin is attempting to
highlight a point of contact whereby he can possibly convince his Roman
audience that reason in its purest form is to be found in the Christian

34
See Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (ANF 1.258-68).
 C. Everrett Berry: How the Post-Apostolic Church Responded 67

faith. Herein, while reasonable concepts are embedded in non-Christian

traditions, rationality in its consummate form is to be discovered solely in
Christ, or the divine Logos?5 But how is man to follow the epistemic
trail that leads to saving faith? Justin's response is for the Greeks to
embrace the expectations of the OT regarding the promises of a coming
Messiah. And one could do so because their initial desire to search after
truth derives from an apparent noetic seed of the Logos that was placed
within them. Consequently, they could subsequently embrace the full
truth of the gospel as revealed in the person of Christ.36
Note that this idea does not fade away with Justin's work. It
becomes an even more emphatic apologetic via the strategies of the later
second and early third-century Alexandrian theologians Clement and
Origen who argued that just as God revealed truth to Moses in order to
prepare the Jews for the gospel, he likewise revealed truth to Plato in
order to prepare the Greeks as well.37 Among the obvious questions that
this kind of approach poses regarding the relationship between faith and
reason, one in particular that emerges pertains to the possibility that non-
Christian religious concepts can be precursors to content that is any way
salvific. Initially, it is not necessarily problematic to argue that certain
beliefs within assorted religions can reflect the morality of biblical
revelation because the Law of God is written on the hearts of every
person, Christian or not. However, to imply that salvific truth is
somehow embedded in rudimentary form in contexts outside of the work
of the Spirit as he exalts the risen Christ in the message of the gospel as
communicated in biblical revelation not only handicaps the early
apologists of the very thing that makes their message unique—the
particularity of the gospel—it also opens the door in today's context to
the current popularized notion of inclusivism. And when this occurs as it
has in various professing evangelical segments, the contemporary concern
for dialogue ultimately becomes arbitrary because the mandate of
apologetics, which is evangelism, is lost in a fog of pluralistic tolerance.
Moreover when this occurs, evangelicals are not doing apologetics. They
are just having talks.

35
Cf., Martyr, First Apology (ANF 1.178-83); Second Apology (ANF 1.191-
92).
36
Martyr, First Apology (ANF 1.178).
37
Cf., Clement, Exhortation to the Heathen (ANF 2.190); Origen, Contra
Celsum, translated with introduction and notes by Henry Chadwick (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1953; reprint, 1965).
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.