It is sometimes claimed that Justin Martyr held to the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (PST). Other's have mentioned in another thread that several people held this view and if you google the topic you will find several sites claiming just about everyone until fairly recently held to PST.
I believe what has occurred is that people have reached back into history to find support where none exists. The danger here is that history itself has become subjective and doctrine shallow. What is happening is that some are dismantling PST to include any mention of substitution and when they find such a mention (which if it is biblical, they will) they claim proof of Penal Substitution, rendering the term utterly meaningless and subjective.
But let's look at the evidence:
Justin Martyr, (AD 100–ca.165)
“Just as God commanded the sign to be made by the brazen serpent, and yet He is blameless; even so, though a curse lies in the law against persons who are crucified, yet no curse lies on the Christ of God, by whom all that have committed things worthy of a curse are saved. For the whole human race will be found to be under a curse. For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them.’ And no one has accurately done all, nor will you venture to deny this; but some more and some less than others have observed the ordinances enjoined. But if those who are under this law appear to be under a curse for not having observed all the requirements, how much more shall all the nations appear to be under a curse who practice idolatry, who seduce youths, and commit other crimes? If, then, the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He had been crucified and was dead, He would raise Him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if He were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves? For although His Father caused Him to suffer these things in behalf of the human family, yet you did not commit the deed as in obedience to the will of God.”
What we see is penal (Jesus became a curse) and substitution (for us or for our sins). BUT this is Jesus bearing our sins, NOT facing the punishment we would have faced. It is wrong to claim this as proof Martyr held to Penal Substitution Theory.
As evidence, Martyr continues by describing what he believes this curse to be:
"For the statement in the law, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,' confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to your, who do not know that this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ.”
The curse is Christ's physical death at the hands of the Jews (per Martyr). This is all a defense of Christianity in Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. Not only is this not PST, but look at the scope here. Jesus is not atoning for the sins of individuals, but for the entire human race.
That said, it was not until the 3rd century that we see the beginnings of a systematic doctrine of salvation. It is safe, I think, to leave Martyr under the broad scope of Christus Victor theory, maybe Ransom Theory, but probably just at his words because even in his "Defense of Christianity" there is not enough of a doctrine to establish a systematic theory.
My conclusion is those who seek antiquity are covering flies in the ointment of their theology. It is dishonest, poor scholarship and an example of people seeing what they want to see. My concern is that this is dangerous as it leads to subjective history and shallow doctrine. And in the end, it really doesn't matter what Martyr believed (it is not something worth a Christian losing his or her integrity over).
