Justin Martyr (100-165)

Now let’s go over Justin Martyr’s First Apology in depth, specifically Chapters 13, and 65 through 67, where he describes the ‘Protestant’ liturgy in the second century.

Chapter 13 describes the (2) offerings of “thanksgiving”, “thanks by word of processions” (Greek: διά λόγου πομπάς; Latin: rationalibus eum pompis; English: reasonable processions), and “hymns” (Greek: και ύμνους πέμπειν; Latin: et hymnis celebrare). The processions were the offerings of tithes and firstfruits, as these gifts were brought forward for presentation during the service while they were singing hymns. The word ‘processions’ can also mean ‘sending,’ which gives the same sense of bringing the thanksgiving forth. It is out of these ‘sent’ gifts that the bread and wine were taken for the (5) Lord’s Supper.

Chapter 65 shows that the (5) Lord’s Supper follows the (3) Oblation, which follows the (2) praise, glory, prayers and thanksgiving. The bread and cup are brought out after the prayers of thanksgiving have ended with an “Amen” expressed by everyone in the congregation. The bread and cup are consumed after the “Amen”.

In Chapter 66, we read that no one is allowed to participate in the thanksgiving—eucharist—who is not a baptized believer. Only the repentant, baptized believer may participate in the thanksgiving that follows. By implication, they must (1) be dismissed for they are not allowed to participate in (2) the thanksgiving: the (2) thanksgiving follows the (1) Dismissal.

Chapter 66 shows that the (5) Lord’s Supper follows the (4) Epiclesis, which follows the (2) Eucharist. The Epiclesis consecrates the common food and drink of the Eucharist that is then used in the Lord’s Supper.

Chapter 66 also states that the (4) Consecration (prayer of his word; δι’ εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ παρ’) is spoken over that (1-3) already eucharisted food (“that over which thanks have been given”; εὐχαριστηθείσαν τροφήν). It is by (4) this consecration (the simple epiclesis of Jesus’ words invoked) that the bread and wine become the flesh and blood of Jesus. Justin explicitly states that this is the apostles’ teaching.

Chapter 67 shows that the (2) thanksgiving—eucharist—is a tithe offering given (the procession of offerings of bread and wine, prayers and thanksgivings), followed by the (3) Oblation (with the corporate “Amen”), followed by the distribution of the now Eucharisted food (“that over which thanks have been given”). The explicit purpose of this thanksgiving offering is to help the poor.

The Roman Catholic reading this must be confused, wondering

The answer is simple: the tithe must first be offered in (2-3) the thanksgiving sacrifice before it can be distributed. Notably, it is the unconsecrated sacrificed thanksgiving that is distributed to the poor. The Lord’s Supper, which is made up of the previously ‘thanksed’—eucharisted—elements now consecrated, is not so distributed.

NOTE: Some have suggested that Chapter 67 is a later forgery. If it is, that would provide further condemnation of Roman Catholicism, but such as discussion is outside the scope of this series. It is merely being noted here for those who might want to do their own future research.

In  Dialogue with Trypho, Justin describes the valid sacrifices for Christians to offer, per Malachi’s prophecy in Malachi 1:10-12. He states that “prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God” Thus he provides the absolute basis for the (1) Dismissal and the (2) Eucharist. He states that proper sacrifices include “true and spiritual praises and giving of thanks.” So we find that to Justin Martyr only prayers and the giving of thanks (via gifts of tithes and firstfruits or hymns) are valid sacrifice for Christians to make, just as in Part 2: The Didache.

Rolled all together, you have the early church liturgy: “(1) Dismissal—(2) Eucharist—(3) Oblation—(4) Consecration—(5) Lord’s Supper”. The Roman Catholic liturgy not present. All of the pieces of the Roman Catholic liturgy have the appearance of being in play, but they are not in the right order and thus not the same pieces at all. In particular, the unconsecrated eucharistic sacrifice concludes with an oblation (“Amen”) before the consecration, so the body and blood of Christ could not have been offered as a sacrifice in the 2nd century.

Now, let’s look at FishEaters’ quote:

The most important thing to note is this quote:

This was, alternatively, translated by Dods and Reith above as:

Viewing these two together, it is clear what the translators are trying to make Justin say: the food becomes  eucharist by the words of institution (i.e. the eucharistic prayer). That is, the Epiclesis turned the food into the Eucharist, or in other words, the (4) Epiclesis came before (2-3) the Eucharist. This is an explicit description of the Roman liturgy in one of the earliest Christian sources!

If this were really the case, how could the Catholic Encyclopedia be correct that Justin Martyr’s liturgy did not match the Roman liturgy?

If this were the case, how could Anglican William Wigan Harvey (1857) have had so much trouble coming to terms with Justin Martyr saying that the words of institution came after the eucharistic offering was completed? (see:W. Wigan Harvey, “Sancti Irenæi Episcopi Lugdunensis, Libros Quinque Contra Haereses.” Volume 2, Typis Academicis (1857), 205n)

Worse, if this were true, as we’ve seen above, Justin Martyr would be committing a massive internal logical contradiction.

What gives?

As this is completely incompatible with the Roman liturgy, modern Catholics either blindly accept the mistranslated words of Justin, or do as they did with the Didache: conclude that any part of (3) the eucharistic prayer—not just (4) the words of institution “this is my body; this is my blood”—must qualify as a (4) Consecration, lest there be a contradiction. But this anachronistic understanding just begs-the-question.

In Dialogue with Trypo 41 (the same as quoted by FishEaters), Justin says the Old Testament offering of fine flour was:

Let’s go slowly to emphasize this: the flour of the ancient thanksgiving offering is a figure of the prepared bread in the tithe offering (the eucharist) in the church. What does this mean? In Dialogue with Trypo §117, Justin said that…

…noting that we offer the eucharist because Christ commanded us to. But, how was the flour a type of the eucharist? The answer is found in First Apology, Chapter 13, where Justin notes that the Hebrews offered their thanskgiving offerings by fire to God, but we offer our thanksgiving offerings (per Malachi) to God

That is how the Old Testament thanksgiving offering of flour became a type for the tithe offering—eucharist—of bread (and many other agricultural products) for use by the church.

Although cherry-picking the ancient writers of the church is common, I wish to highlight another common tactic at play. Someone will read “sacrifices offered to Him…of the bread of the Eucharist and likewise the cup of the Eucharist” and think this is evidence of the Roman liturgy, because in their mind they associate the bread and cup of the Eucharist with the Consecration instead of the Tithe. But this is a Roman Catholic assumption, reading back into the text what they expect to see, rather than what is actually there. As we’ve examined, the bread and cup of the Eucharist is the unconsecrated bread and cup of the tithe that was offered as a sacrifice to God.

References:

• “The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 1“
• “The Collapse of the Eucharist, Part 2“