Scripture and God in Christianity

more precise and defend logically or in intelligible terms this seemingly contradictory position to
the attacks of Jews and pagans. Within Christianity, voices like "his suffering was but a make believe"
were raised by Marcion, Ptolemy and Gnostics. Marcion, for instance, absolutely denied
Jesus' humanity. Jesus "was too lofty to be confined within the prison of the flesh." 470
The Church while trying to defend Christs' humanity could not escape itself from the very problem
it was trying to solve, the problem of `docetism', as J. Pelikan observes: " the historical principle
that the line of demarcation between orthodoxy and heresy must not be drawn prematurely
or too precisely is borne out by the evidence that such docetism was not confined to the Gnostics
and other heretics, but was sufficiently widespread within the churches to evoke the reiterated
warnings of early Christian writers. Although the overt assertion that "his suffering was but a
make-believe " was the teaching of Gnostics and was early and easily identified as heretical, the
example of Clement of Alexandria shows that docetizing tendencies, even among orthodox believers,
must be seen as one way to "think of Jesus Christ as of God." 471 Bigg finds the Platonist
Clement "near to the confines of Docetism". 472 Moltmann observes that "The more it emphasized
the divinity of Christ, making use of this concept of God, the more difficult it became to demonstrate
that the Son of God who was of one substance with God was Jesus of Nazareth, crucified
under Pontius Pilate. Consequently, a mild docetism runs through the christology of the ancient
church." 473
Christianity had no choice but to be a little more precise in its' teachings regarding the relationship
between God the Father and Jesus the Christ to avert the intellectual attacks of paganism,
Greek philosophy and Judaism in an effort to prove them its' validity. It was difficult for non-
Christian Jews and pagans to understand the assertions of strict monotheism on one hand and divinity
of Jesus Christ and suffering and crucifixion of the true God on the other hand.
The Christian apologists like Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Tatian, Aristides and Athenagoras responded
to this rather embarrassing situation with philosophical suppositions and concepts to
vindicate the truth of Christianity. 474 They tried to draw a rather clear line between God and Jesus
using the philosophical concepts available.
Justin, the most renowned of them, insisted that though Jesus has come from God he is not identical
with God. "The ineffable Father and Lord of all," he says, "neither comes anywhere nor
walks nor sleeps nor rise up, but remains in his own place wherever that may be, quick to behold,
quick to hear, not with eyes or ears but with indescribable power." 475 Justin conceived of God "as
a transcendent being who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men or things.
To suppose that he had appeared in Christ, had been born of a woman, and had finally died upon
the cross seemed altogether absurd." 476 Strong belief in God's transcendence did not stop Justin
from thinking of Jesus as divine. To defend Christ's relationship with God he made use of the
current Christian phraseology and called Jesus the Son of God, Logos and also the Angel. Christ,
according to him, was worthy of these titles on account of his wisdom, virgin birth and because
he was God's first begotten Logos: "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." The Son of
God was not a man like other men. He is "generate- but in a special sense. He is God born of
God, as fire is kindled by fire, or light is produced from the sun. That is, he is divine, but in a derivative
or secondary way." 477 In the words of Norris "it was derivative, and for that reason infe-
58