BOOK III
1. Continuing with my reconstruction of the work which was lost, and following its original lines, I have now to treat of the Christ, even though, by having completed my proof that divinity necessarily implies unity, I have rendered this superfluous. That the Christ cannot be thought of as belonging to any god except the Creator is involved in the decision already arrived at, that there cannot be any god besides the Creator. This is the Creator whom Christ preached: and the apostles after him proclaimed Christ as belonging to no other god than that God, the Creator, whom Christ had preached: so much so, that no mention was ever made of a second god or a second Christ until Marcion's offence came in. This is quite easily proved by a review of the apostolic churches and those of the heretics—namely, that where we find late appearance, there we must decide that the rule of the faith has been overturned. I have touched upon this already in my first book. But now again this discussion, like bees swarming, breaks off to treat of the Christ separately, and will have the result that in proving that Christ is the Creator's we shut out Marcion's god from this side as well. It is seemly that the truth should make use of all its resources: not that it is in danger of being overwhelmed—in fact it wins its case by the short-cut of prescriptions—but because it is eager to meet at every point an adversary so beside himself that he would rather assume the arrival of a Christ of whom there had been no previous announce- ment, than of one who has been foretold of all down the ages.
2. Now for my first line of attack. I suggest that he had no right to come so unexpectedly. For two reasons. First because he too was the son of his own god.1 Proper order required that father should tell of son's existence before son told of father's, and father bear witness to son before son bore witness to father. Secondly, besides this matter of sonship, he was an emissary. The sender's acknowledgement ought to have come first, in commendation
2. 1 Elsewhere, e.g. at I. 11. 8, it is implied that Marcion's superior god came down in person as Christ.
III.3 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
173 |
of the one who was sent. No one who comes by another's authority lays claim to it for himself, on his own bare statement, but looks for his credentials to the authority itself, headed by the style and title of the person who grants the authority. Moreover none can be recognized as a son unless a father has given him that name, nor can any be accepted as messenger unless he has been nomi- nated by some person whose commission he holds. The naming and the nomination would certainly have been on record if there had been a father, or one to grant a commission. Anything that diverges from the rule is bound to be suspect: and the primary rule of all is that which does not permit son to vouch for father, or agent for principal, or Christ for god. As that from which a thing originates came first in the ordaining of it, so it comes first in men's knowledge of it. Here you have a son unexpected, an agent unexpected, a Christ unexpected. But I suggest that with God nothing is unexpected, because with God nothing exists unordained. If then it was ordained beforehand, why was it not also announced beforehand, so that the announcement might prove it ordained, and the ordaining prove it divine? And surely there is another reason why so great a work, one taken in hand for man's salvation, could not have been unexpected— that it was to become effective through faith. It had to be believed, or remain ineffective. And so it required preparatory work in order to be credible—preparatory work built upon foundations of previous intention and prior announcement. Only by being built up in this order could faith with good cause be imposed upon man by God, and shown towards God by man—a faith which, since there was knowledge, might be required to believe because belief was a possibility, and in fact had learned to believe by virtue of that previous announcement.
3. There was no need, you say, for such an ordering of events, seeing that he would immediately by the evidence of miracles prove himself in actual fact both son and emissary, and the Christ of God. My answer will be that this form of proof by itself could never have provided satisfactory testimony to him, and in fact he himself subsequently discounted it. When he affirmed that many would come, and would work signs and perform great miracles, to the leading astray even of the elect,a but must not on that account be made welcome, he made it clear that the
III.3 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
175 |
credit of signs and miracles is precarious, as these are quite easy even for false Christs to perform. How could he possibly have been content to accept for himself approval and understanding and recognition from sources—miracles, I mean—which he dis- allowed in the case of others who themselves were to come no less unexpectedly, vouched for by no previous announcement? If you suggest that by coming before these others, by having, before they did, marked as his own the evidences of miracles, he had staked his claim to credit, as one marks one's turn at the baths, and had thus forestalled all later comers, take care that he himself is not caught in the position of those late-comers, when he is seen to have come later than the Creator who had been known long before, had in consequence worked miracles long before, and in similar terms had given warning that no credence was to be given to others—others after him, that is. It follows that if the fact that one has come first, and has first made this pronounce- ment concerning those who should come later, is to discredit these in advance, he will himself have been condemned in advance by that one subsequent to whom he too has come to our notice: the Creator alone, who cannot be subsequent to anyone, will have the right to lay down this rule against late-comers. That being so, I propose to prove that the same miracles which are the only evidence you lay claim to for belief in your Christ, the Creator had already of old wrought from time to time by his servants, and from time to time had indicated that they would be performed by his Christ: and from this I can with justice claim that miracles are no sufficient reason for <your> acceptance of Christ, the more so as those miracles would have been capable of proving that Christ belongs to the Creator and no other, since they correspond with those miracles of the Creator which he performed by his servants and promised in expectation of his own Christ. And besides, even if other evidences were found in your Christ, new ones I mean, we should find it easier to believe that even the new ones belonged to the same <God> as did the old ones, and not to a god who possesses none but new things, such as have not been submitted to the test of that antiquity which gives faith its victory. So his coming would need to have been indicated by previous announcements of his own to build up credibility for him, as well as by miracles, especially as he was going to present himself as an opponent of the Creator's Christ,
III.4 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
177 |
himself furnished with his own particular signs and prophecies. Only so could his rivalry of Christ be made clearly evident by all possible forms of difference. Yet how could a god never previously prophesied of, prophesy beforehand of any Christ of his? This it is then that demands that no credence be given either to your god or to your Christ: a god had no right to remain unknown, and a Christ did require to obtain recognition by virtue of a god's commendation.
4. Your god was too proud, I suppose, to copy our God's ordering of events, since he disapproved of him and thought he would soon be shown wrong. Himself a newcomer, he decided to come in novel fashion, the son before the father's acknowledgement, the emissary before his principal's warrant. In this way he would become the inventor of a faith most unnatural, in which belief in Christ's coming would precede any knowledge of his existence. It occurs to me here to discuss this further question, why he did not let (the Creator's) Christ come first. For when I perceive that through long ages his god with supreme patience suffered a cruel Creator to announce from time to time among men his Christ, and, whatever his reason, delayed either to reveal himself or to intervene, for the same reason I suggest he owed the Creator the further patience of letting him complete his arrangements in respect of his, the Creator's, Christ: in that way, when the whole activity of the hostile God and the hostile Christ was perfect and complete, he would have been able to superpose upon it ordi- nances of his own. But he became tired of all that patience, for we see that he has not waited until the end of the Creator's activities. There is no point in his having borne with the Creator's Christ being announced in advance, when he has not waited for his actual appearance. Either he was unjustified in breaking into another's course of events, or he was unjustified in so long abstaining from breaking into it. What was it that delayed him? or what that shook his patience? In effect, he is at fault in both directions, revealing himself too belatedly after the Creator, yet too soon before his Christ. The former he ought to have confuted long ago, the latter not yet. The savagery of the former he ought not to have borne with so long, the repose of the latter he ought not yet to have disturbed. In respect of both of them he falls short of his claim to be a god supremely good: himself without question
8268033 N
III.5 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
179 |
fickle and untrustworthy, lukewarm against the Creator, hot against his Christ, on both sides ineffective: he has neither put restraint on the Creator nor set a barrier against his Christ. The Creator is still at large, the same as ever: a Christ is still to come, as it is written that he will. Why has he come after the Creator, whose faults he has had no power to correct? Why was he brought out of hiding before the Creator's Christ, whose coming he cannot prevent? Or else, if he did correct the Creator's faults, he revealed himself rather late, so that things to be corrected might come first: in which case, as he was no less intending to correct the Creator's Christ, he ought to have waited a little longer, and then he might have come afterwards as a corrector of him as well as of the Creator. It is another matter if he too is to come again after that other, so that at his first coming he should have taken proceed- ings against the Creator by destroying his law and prophets, while at the second he will proceed against the Creator's Christ, dis- proving his kingship. As he will at that event complete his course, at that event, if ever, he will deserve our credence: or else, if his business is now already completed, his <second> coming will be devoid of purpose, seeing he will have nothing to do.
5. So much for skirmishing, as it might be at the first advance, and still at a distance. As from this point I take up the real battle, fighting hand to hand, I see I must even now mark off some front line at which the contest is to be carried on—I mean the Creator's scriptures. In accordance with these I propose to prove that Christ belonged to the Creator, seeing that in his Christ they were afterwards fulfilled: and so I find it necessary to set out the form and, so to speak, the character of these scriptures, to prevent them from being dragged into controversy as often as they are applied to special cases, and, by the intermixture of the defence of themselves with that of the case in hand, blunting the reader's attention. So from now on I demand that our opponents acknow- ledge two special cases of prophetic diction. The first is that by which things future are sometimes set down as if they had already taken place.1 For it is within the competence of deity to account complete all things it has already decided upon, because in God's sight there is no distinction of tense, since with him eternity itself controls a condition in which all tenses are alike. Thus it is the
5. 1 Past and future in prophecy: Justin, dial. 114; Irenaeus, demonstr. 67.
III.6 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
181 |
more usual practice of prophetic divination to set down what it foresees, while it foresees it, as already seen and so already made actual, with no doubt, that is, of its future fulfilment: so, in Isaiah, I gave my back to the scourging, and my cheeks to the smiting, I turned not my face away from spitting.a
For whether, as we interpret it, it was Christ so early as that making a pronouncement regarding himself, or whether, as the Jews would have it, the prophet was speaking of himself, in either case he was reporting a thing not yet done, as though it were already accomplished. Another form of speech will be that by which not a few things are set forth figuratively by means of enigmas and allegories and parables, and are to be understood otherwise than as they are written.2 And so we read that the mountains will distil sweetness,b yet not so that you should expect fruit-juice from stones or wine from rocks: and we hear of a land flowing with milk and honey,c yet not for you to think you will ever squeeze cakes and sweetmeats out of clods of earth: nor did God in set terms promise to be a water-diviner or a forester when he said, I will set rivers in a thirsty land, and the box-tree and the cedar in the wilderness.d
So also when he tells of the conversion of the gentiles, and says, The beasts of the field shall bless me, the sirens and the daughters of the sparrows,e he is certainly not expecting to receive favourable omens from swallows' fledgelings or from little foxes or from those preternatural fabulous women singers. Why need I say more of this practice? Even the heretics' own apostle interprets as concerning not oxen but ourselves that law which grants an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn,f and affirms that the rock that followed them to provide drink was Christ,g in the same way as he instructs the Galatians that the two narratives of the sons of Abraham took their course as an allegory,h and advises the Ephesians that that which was foretold in the beginning, that a man would leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife would become one flesh, is seen by him to refer to Christ and the Church.i
6. If we are for the moment in sufficient agreement concerning these two peculiarities of Jewish literature, the reader has to remember that we have agreed that when we adduce anything of this nature there is to be discussion not of the form of scripture,
5. 2 Types and figures: Justin, dial. 68, 72, 90, 130.
III. 6 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
183 |
but of the facts of the case. So then, since heretical madness was claiming that that Christ had come who had never been previously mentioned, it followed that it had to contend that that Christ was not yet come who had from all time been foretold: and so it was compelled to form an alliance with Jewish error, and from it to build up an argument for itself, on the pretext that the Jews, assured that he who has come was an alien, not only rejected him as a stranger but even put him to death as an opponent, although they would beyond doubt have recognized him and have treated him with all religious devotion if he had been their own. It can have been no Rhodian law,1 but a Pontic one, which assured this shipmaster that the Jews were incapable of making a mistake respecting their Christ; although, even if nothing of this sort were found to have been spoken in prophecies against them, human nature alone and by itself, wide open to deception, might have persuaded him that the Jews could have made a mistake, being men, and that it would be wrong to use as a precedent the judgement of persons who had likely enough been mistaken. But seeing there were also prophecies that the Jews would not recognize Christ and would therefore destroy him, it at once follows that he who was unrecognized by them, he whom they put to death, is the one whom they were marked down beforehand as going to treat in this fashion. If you demand proof of this, I shall not turn up those scriptures which by pro- nouncing that Christ will be put to death thereby assert that he will be unrecognized—for unless he had been unrecognized he could surely not have suffered <at their hands>—but, keeping these in reserve for the discussion of his passion, I shall be content at present to adduce those prophecies which prove that Christ would be for a time unrecognized. They do so in summary form, as they point out that the whole faculty of understanding was taken away from the people by the Creator. I will take away, he says, the wisdom of their wise, and will cover up the prudence of their prudent:a
and, Ye shall hear with the ear, and shall not hear, and ye shall see with the eyes and shall not see: for the heart of this people is become gross, and with their ears they have heard heavily, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should ever hear with their ears, and see with their eyes, and conceive in their heart, and be converted, and I should heal
6. 1 Rhodian maritime law was in high repute; some of its provisions were incorporated in the Digest.
III. 6 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
185 |
them.b This blunting of their salutary senses they had earned for themselves by loving God with their lips, but with their heart withdrawing far from him. Consequently, if the announcement of Christ was indeed made by the Creator who established! the thunder and closeth up the spirit and announceth unto men his Christ, according to the prophet Joel,c and if all the hope of the Jews, not to mention also the gentiles, was made to look forward to Christ's revealing, beyond doubt they were stigmatized, through deprivation of their powers of recognition and under- standing, their wisdom and prudence, as not likely to recognize or understand that which was announced <as not understood>, namely, Christ: for their principal wise men, the scribes, and their prudent men, the pharisees, were to be in error against him; as likewise the people were to hear with their ears and not hear— Christ teaching—and to see with their eyes and not see—Christ working miracles—as it is said also in another place, And who is blind but my servants, and who is deaf but he who lords it over them?d Also when he upbraids them, by Isaiah once more, I have begotten and brought up children, but they have rejected me: the ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master's crib, but Israel doth not know me and the people hath not understood mee—we
for our part, assured that Christ has always spoken in the prophets—being the Spirit of the Creator, as the prophet testifies, The person of our spirit, Christ the Lord,2,f who since the beginning, as the Father's representative, has been both heard and seen, under the name of God—we, I say, know that his were those words of this sort, when he even as early as that rebuked Israel for the sins it was prophesied they would commit against him: Ye have forsaken the Lord, and have provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger.g If however you will have it that this whole imputation of Jewish ignorance since the first beginning refers not to Christ but rather to God himself, if you refuse to admit that even in the past the Word and Spirit, the Christ of the Creator, was despised by them and unrecognized, even then you will be confuted. For as you do not deny that the Creator's Christ is the Son and the Spirit and the substance of the Creator,3 you have to admit that such as did not recognize the Father were incapable also of recognizing the Son, because
6. 2 This is at variance with both the Hebrew and LXX; cf. adv. Prax. 14.
3 Word, spirit, substance: see above, II. 9, n. 1.
III. 7 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
187 |
he is one and the same substance, with the same attributes, and if the fullness of this was beyond their understanding, so, a fortiori, was the derivative, seeing it is joint possessor with the fullness. If these facts are thus considered, it is now apparent for what reason the Jews both rejected Christ and put him to death—not because they took Christ for a stranger, but because though their own, they did not accept him. For how could they have taken for a stranger one of whom no announcement had ever been made, when they had been incapable of understanding him who had at all times been the subject of prophecy? The possibility of being understood or not being understood arises when some fact, by having a foundation in prophecy, is able also to provide subject- matter for acknowledgement or for error: whereas that which is devoid of subject-matter has no room for wisdom or its outcome. Consequently, it was not as belonging to another god that they objected to Christ and persecuted him, but as being nothing more than a man, whom they supposed to be a magician4 in his miracles, and their opponent in his doctrines: with the result that this man, as belonging to them, being a Jew, yet a perverter and overthrower of Judaism, they brought to judgement and punished by their law: a stranger they would certainly not have judged. So far are they from appearing to have taken Christ for a stranger, that it was not as a stranger that they brought his manhood5 to judgement.
7.1 It is now possible for the heretic to learn, and the Jew as well, what he ought to know already, the reason for the Jew's errors: for from the Jew the heretic has accepted guidance in this dis- cussion, the blind borrowing from the blind, and has fallen into the same ditch. I affirm that two descriptions of Christ, set forth by the prophets, indicated beforehand an equal number of advents: one of them, the first, in humility, when he was to be led like a sheep to sacrifice, and as a lamb before his shearer is voiceless so he opens not his mouth, and not even in form was
6. 4 Planus: the Greek word pla&noj, magician or deceiver, quoted from Matt. 27:63.
5 Hominem eius: Latin authors habitually used this expression for Christ's human nature, without any suggestion of a double personality: so adv. Prax. 30. 2.
7. 1 This chapter is taken up again, adv. Jud. 14: cf. apol. 21. 15; Justin, dial. 31, 49, 52, 110, 121; Irenaeus, A.H. IV. 1.
III. 7 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
189 |
he comely. For, he says, We have announced concerning him: as a little boy, as a root in thirsty ground: and he has no appearance nor glory, and we saw him, and he had no appearance or beauty, but his appearance was un- honoured, defective more than the sons of men, a man in sorrow, and knowing how to bear infirmity:a because set by the Father for a stone of stum- bling and a rock of offence.b Made by him a little lower than the angels :c declaring himself a worm and no man, the scorn of man and the outcast of the people.d These tokens of ignobility apply to the first advent, as the tokens of sublimity apply to the second, when he will become no longer a stone of stumbling or a rock of offence, but the chief corner-stone, after rejection taken back again and set on high at the summit of the temple—that is, the Church—that rock in fact mentioned by Daniel, which was carved out of a mountain, which will break in pieces and grind to powder the image of the kingdoms of this world.2,e Concerning this advent the same prophet speaks: And behold, one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, came even to the Ancient of days: he was in his presence: and the attendants brought him forward, and there was given to him royal power, and all nations of the earth after their kinds, and all glory to serve <him>, and his power even for ever, that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom, that shall not be destroyed:f then, it means, he will have an honourable appearance, and beauty unfading, more than the sons of men. For it says, Fairer in beauty beyond the sons of men; grace is poured forth in thy lips; therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. Gird the sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty in thy worshipfulness and thy beauty.g Then also the Father, now that he has made him a little lower than the angels, will crown him with glory and honour, and will put all things beneath his feet. Then those who pierced him will know who he is, and will smite their breasts, tribe to tribe— because in fact they formerly failed to recognize him in the humility of human condition: And he is a man, says Jeremiah, and who shall know him?h Because also, Isaiah says, His nativity, who shall tell of it?i So also in Zechariah, in the person of Jeshua, yes truly, in a name which is itself a sacrament, the veritable high priest of the Father, Christ Jesus, is by two styles of raiment marked out for two advents: he is at first clothed in filthy gar- ments, which means the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when also the devil stands as his adversary, the devil who put it into the heart of Judas the traitor, not to mention himself
7. 2 On Dan. 2: 34 cf. Justin, dial. 70.
III. 8 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
191 |
being the tempter after <Christ's> baptism: afterwards he is divested of his previous foulness, and arrayed in robe and mitre and shining crown, which means the glory and dignity of his second coming.3 If also I am to submit an interpretation of the two goats which were offered at the Fast,j are not these also figures of Christ's two activities?4 They are indeed of the same age and appearance because the Lord's is one and the same aspect: because he will return in no other form, seeing he has to be recognized by those of whom he has suffered injury. One of them however, surrounded with scarlet, cursed and spit upon and pulled about and pierced, was by the people driven out of the city into perdition, marked with manifest tokens of our Lord's passion: while the other, made an offering for sins, and given as food to the priests of the temple, marked the tokens of his second manifestation, at which, when all sins have been done away, the priests of the spiritual temple, which is the Church, were to enjoy as it were a feast of our Lord's grace, while the rest remain without a taste of salvation. So then, seeing that the first advent was for the most part prophesied under the obscurity of figures, and borne down with every sort of indignity, while the second was both clearly told of, and was of divine dignity, they set their eyes on that one alone which they could easily understand and easily believe, the second, and thus were, as might have been expected, misled in respect of the less evident, admittedly less dignified, which was the first. Thus even until this day they refuse to admit that their Christ has come, because he has not come in majesty, being unaware that he was first also to come in humility.
8. Let the heretic now give up borrowing poison from the Jew,— the asp, as they say, from the viper: let him from now on belch forth the slime of his own particular devices, as he maintains that Christ was a phantasm: except that this opinion too will have had other inventors, those so to speak premature and abortive Marcionites whom the apostle John pronounced antichrists, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh,a yet not with the inten- tion of setting up the law of a second god—else for this too they would have been censured <by the apostle>—but because they had assumed it incredible that God <should take to him human>
7. 3 On Zech. 3 cf. Justin, dial. 115, 116.
4 The two goats at the Atonement, Justin, dial. 40; other types, dial. 111.
III. 8 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
193 |
flesh. So Marcion, even more of an antichrist, seized upon this assumption, being better equipped in fact for denial of Christ's corporal substance, in that he had postulated that even Christ's god was neither the creator of flesh nor would raise it to life again—in this too supremely good, and entirely divergent from the lies and deceptions of the Creator. And that is why his Christ, so as not to tell lies, or to deceive, and in this fashion perhaps be accounted as belonging to the Creator, was not that which he appeared to be, and told lies about what he was—being flesh and not flesh, man and not man, and in consequence a Christ <who was> god and not god. For why should he not also have been clothed in a phantasm of god? Or can I believe what he says of his more recondite substance, when he has deceived me about that which was more evident? How shall he be accounted truthful about the secret thing, who has been found so deceptive about the obvious ? How can it have been that by confusing with- in himself truth of the spirit with deceit of the flesh, he conjoined that fellowship of light, which is truth, and deception, which is darkness, that the apostle says is impossible?b Also, now that it is found to be a lie that Christ <was made> flesh, it follows that all things that were done by means of Christ's flesh were done by a lie, his meetings with people, his touching of them, his partaking of food, his miracles besides. For if by touching some- one, or being touched by someone, he gave freedom from sickness, the act performed by the body cannot be credited as truly per- formed apart from the verity of the body itself. It was not feasible for anything solid to be performed by that which is void, anything full by that which is empty. Putative constitution, putative activity: imaginary operator, imaginary operations. Thus also the sufferings of Marcion's Christ will fail to find credence: one who has not truly suffered, has not suffered at all, and a phantasm cannot have truly suffered. Consequently God's whole operation is overthrown. There is a denial of Christ's death, the whole weight and value of the Christian name, that death which the apostle so firmly insists on, because it is true, declaring it the chief foundation of the gospel, of our salvation, and of his own preaching. For I delivered unto you, he says, fast of all, that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day.c But if his flesh is denied, how can his death be affirmed? For death is the particular experience of flesh, which by means of
8268076 O
III. 9 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
195 |
death is turned downwards into the earth from which it was taken: such is the law of its own Creator. But if the death is denied, as it is when the flesh is denied, neither can there be assurance of the resurrection. By whatever reasoning he did not die, by the same reasoning he did not rise again: which was that he had not the substance of flesh, to which death appertains, and likewise resurrection. But further, if doubt is cast upon Christ's resurrec- tion, ours also is overthrown: for if Christ's is not valid, neither can that be valid for the sake of which Christ came. For just as those who said there was no resurrection of the dead are con- futed by the apostle from the resurrection of Christ, so also, if Christ's resurrection fails, the resurrection of the dead is also taken away. And so also our faith is vain, and vain is the apostles' preaching.d They are also found false witnesses of God, because they have borne witness that he has raised up Christ, whom he has not raised up. And we are yet in our sins. And those who are fallen asleep in Christ, have perished—no doubt they will rise again, but in a phantasm perhaps, as Christ did.
9.1 If in this inquiry you think you can set against me the Creator's angels, alleging that they also, when in converse with Abraham and Lot,a were in a phantasm, evidently of putative flesh, and yet really met with them, and partook of food, and performed the task committed to them, <my answer will be> first, that you have no claim upon the evidences of that God whom you are concerned to depose. For, the more superior and the more perfect the character of the god you are commending, the more un- becoming to him are evidences belonging to that other: for unless he is entirely diverse from him he cannot be in any sense better or more perfect. Secondly, take note besides that we do not admit your claim that in those angels the flesh was putative: it was of veritable and complete human substance. For if it was not difficult for God to display true perceptions and activities in putative flesh, much easier did he find it to provide true perceptions and activities with true substance of flesh, the more so as he is himself its particular creator and maker. Now your god, seeing that he has never produced any flesh at all, may quite reasonably per- haps have brought in a phantasm of something he had not the ability to make the truth of. But my God, who reshaped into the
9. 1 This chapter is almost verbally reproduced in de carne Christi 3.
III. 9 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
197 |
quality we know, that flesh which he had taken up out of clay— it was not yet conceived of conjugal seed, yet was already flesh— was no less able out of any material whatsoever to construct flesh for angels as well: he had even built up the world out of nothing into all these various bodies, and had done this with a Word. And truly, if your god promises to men some time the true sub- stance of angels—They will, he says, be as the angelsb—why should not my God too have granted to angels the true substance of men, from wheresoever he may have taken it? Since you for your part will not answer me when I ask from whence that angelic <substance> you speak of is <to be> taken, no more is required of me than to affirm as a fact, which is in keeping with God's dignity, the truth of that object which he presented to three witnesses, the senses of sight, and touch, and hearing. God finds it more difficult to tell lies than to bring into existence veritable flesh, from whatsoever source, even without the process of birth. There are yet other heretics, who state that if in the angels that flesh had been truly human it would have needed to pass through human birth: to these we give in answer a firm reason why it was both truly human yet exempt from birth. It was truly human for the sake of the truth of God, who is a stranger to all lying and deceit, and because <the angels> could not have been received by men on human terms if they had not been in human substance: yet it had not passed through birth because Christ alone had the right to become incarnate of human flesh, so that he might reform our nativity by his own nativity, and thus also loose the bands of our death by his own death, by rising again in that flesh in which he was born with intent to be able to die. For this reason he too on that occasion appeared along with the angels in Abraham's presence, in flesh veritable indeed though not yet born, because it was not yet to die, though it was even then learning to hold converse among men. Even more so the angels, who were never by God's intention to die for us, had no need to receive their brief experience of flesh by means of birth, because they were not intending to lay it down by means of death: yet from wheresoever it was they acquired it, and in whatsoever manner they finally disposed of it, they certainly did not tell lies about it. If the Creator maketh his angels spirits and his attendants a flaming fire,c no less truly spirits than truly fire, he is the same who also made them truly flesh, so that we may
III. 10 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
199 |
now set it on record, and report back to the heretics, that the promise of some time reforming men into angels is made by that <God> who of old time formed angels into men.
10. So then, as you are not admitted to avail yourself, along with us, of the evidences the Creator provides, seeing these belong not to you, and have their own explanations, I wish you for your part would state what your god had in mind when he produced his Christ not in veritable flesh. If he held flesh in contempt,1 as being earthly and, as you people keep on saying, packed with dung, why did he not for the same reason despise even the similitude of it? No dishonourable object can have an honourable copy made of it: as the thing itself is, so will its likeness be. But, <you ask>, how could he hold converse among men except by means of a copy of man's substance? Why then not rather by means of the truth of it, so that he might truly hold converse, seeing he thought it necessary to hold converse ? With how much more dignity would necessity have made provision of good faith than of fraud? A sad sort of god is this you set up, in this very fact that he was incapable of bringing his Christ into view except in the likeness of some unworthy object, one which was not even his own. It may perhaps be permissible to make use of a certain number of unworthy objects, if they are our own: it cannot be right to use things not one's own, even though they are worthy. Why then did he not come in some other more worthy substance, something of his own for preference, so as not to show himself in need of unworthy things, which belonged to someone else? If my Creator entered into converse with a man by means of a bush and a flame, and afterwards by means of a cloud, and a ball <of fire>, and has made use of the bodies of the <four> elements in making himself present, these instances of divine power sufficiently prove that God stood in no need of any contrivance of false flesh, or even of true. Moreover, if we face the facts, no substance is worthy enough for God to clothe himself with it. Anything he does clothe himself with, he himself makes worthy—so long as no lie is in- volved. And in that case how can he have regarded as a dishonour the verity of flesh, any more than a lie about it? In fact he made
10. 1 On gnostic and Marcionite vilification of the human body, de carne Christi 4, de res. carnis 4.
III. 11 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
201 |
it honourable by shaping it <with his hands>.2 How noble now is that flesh, the mere phantasm of which became indispensable to your superior god.
11. All this jugglery of a putative corporeity in Christ has been taken up by Marcion with this in mind, that evidence of human substance might not serve for proof of his nativity as well: for in that case our claim would be justified that Christ belongs to the Creator, since the announcement had gone forth that he was to be born, and so needed to have human flesh. Here too that man of Pontus has acted unwisely, not observing that it would be easier to believe that in God there was flesh without birth, than that there was flesh which was not flesh, particularly since such a belief had had the way prepared for it by the Creator's angels, who conversed <with men> in flesh which was true flesh, but had not been born. Also that woman Philumena did better in persuad- ing Apelles and the other deserters of Marcion, that Christ was indeed clothed with veritable flesh, yet without nativity, having taken it on loan from the elements.1 But if Marcion was afraid that belief in the flesh might also carry with it belief in nativity—there is no doubt that he who was seen to be man was naturally thought to have been born. A certain woman cried out, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the breasts which thou hast sucked:a and how comes it that his mother and his brethren are reported standing without?b But we shall consider these texts in their proper place.2 Certainly when he himself described himself as the Son of man, this was a claim to have been born. For the moment—so that I may defer all these matters until I come to assess the evidence of the gospel—yet <this must stand> which I have already established, that if he who was seen to be a man had without question to be accepted as having been born, to no purpose has <Marcion> conjectured that belief in nativity can be ruled out by the supposition of imaginary flesh: for what advantage was it that that which was held for true should not
10. 2 Either this, as translated here, refers to God's shaping of man out of clay; or the sentence is a supposed interjection, that Marcion's god honoured human flesh even 'by his pretended assumption of it'.
11. 1 Apelles: de carns Christi 6-9. On the virgin Philumena see the statement of Rhodo, quoted by Eusebius, H.E. v. xiii. 2-7 [Stevenson, A New Eusebius, 82].
2 IV. 26 and de carne Christi 7.
III. 11 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
203 |
truly have been so, whether it were flesh or nativity? Or else, if you say human opinion is no concern of yours, you are now honouring your god with an ascription falsely applied, if he knew he was something other than he had caused men to think he was. And again, it was in your power also to have credited him with a putative nativity, and then you would not have stumbled over this question. Young women sometimes think them- selves pregnant, either because their periods fall late, or because they are swollen up by some distemper. And in fact it was his duty to act out the phantasm motif right to the end, so as to avoid cutting out the scene of the origin of the flesh, seeing he had not cut out the role of that substance itself. Evidently you have re- jected the idea that his nativity was a pretence: for you have affirmed that his flesh was real. Even a real nativity of God is of course a thing most disgraceful. Come on then, use all your elo- quence against those sacred and reverend works of nature, launch an attack upon everything that you are: revile that in which both flesh and soul begin to be: characterize as a sewer the womb, that workshop for bringing forth the noble animal which is man: continue your attack on the unclean and shameful torments of child-bearing, and after that on the dirty, troublesome, and ridiculous management of the new-born child. And yet, when you have pulled all those things to pieces, so as to assure yourself that they are beneath God's dignity, nativity cannot be more undignified than death, or infancy than a cross, or <human> nature than scourging, or <human> flesh than condemnation. If Christ did in very truth suffer those things, it was a lesser thing to be born: if, as a phantasm, his sufferings were a falsehood, so could his birth have been. So much for Marcion's general argu- ments, by which he makes out that there is another Christ.3 I think I have sufficiently shown that they have no sort of stability, while my plea is that it is much more consistent with God's character that that shape and form in which he brought his Christ to our knowledge should be the truth and not a lie. If it was the truth, there was flesh: if there was flesh he was born. The <truths> which this heresy attacks, are confirmed when those <allegations> are broken down by which it makes its attack. Consequently, if because he was born he must be admitted to
11. 3 i.e. the Creator's Christ, who according to Marcion—and the Jews (cf. 16. 3 below)—was still to come.
III. 12 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
205 |
have had <human> flesh, and if because he has <human> flesh he must be admitted to have been born, and if also <he was real> because he was no phantasm, he must be acknowledged to be the same one who, it was foretold by the Creator's prophets, would come in the flesh, and would do so by process of nativity—in other words, the Creator's Christ.
12.1 Appeal next, as your custom is, to this description of Christ which Isaiah makes, and assert your claim that it in no point agrees. In the first place, you allege, Isaiah's Christ will have to be named Emmanuel,a and afterwards to take up the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of the Assyrians:b and yet he who has come was neither known by any name of that kind, nor has ever performed any warlike act. My advice to you will be to consider the contexts of each of these two passages. For there is appended a translation of Emmanuel, God with us;c so that you should not only have in mind the sound of the name, but also its meaning. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, belongs to its own nation: but its meaning, which is God with us is by the translation made common <to all nations>. Inquire then whether that word, God-with-us, which is Emmanuel, is frequently used in regard to Christ ever since Christ's light has shone forth: and I think you will agree that it is, in that you yourself say, He is called God-with-us, and that is Emmanuel. Or else if, because among your company the word used is God- with-us, and not Emmanuel, you are so frivolous as to refuse to admit that that one is come to whom it particularly belongs to be named Emmanuel—as though this were not the same as God- with-us—you will find that among the Hebrews there are Christians, even Marcionites, who use the name Emmanuel when they wish to say God-with-us: as likewise every nation, in whatsoever words they have said God-with-us, have uttered the name Emmanuel, expressing the sound of the word by its mean- ing. But if Emmanuel is God-with-us, and God-with-us is Christ, who also is within us—for all you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christd—Christ is just as particularly implied
12. 1 The substance of Chapters 12—14 reappears as adv. Jud. 9. It is disputed whether that part of adv. Jud. was written by Tertullian or by someone who made use of his work—perhaps the unauthorized transcriber mentioned at I. 1. 1 above.
III. 13 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
207 |
in the signification of the name, which is God-with-us, as in the sound of the name, which is Emmanuel. And so it stands agreed that that one is already come who was foretold as Emmanuel, because that which Emmanuel signifies has come, and that is God-with-us.
13. No less are you being led by the sound of the words when you interpret the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria and the king of the Assyrians as indicating that the Creator's Christ will be a warrior.a You miss the point of what scripture promises <in the statement> that before <the child> knows how to say Father, and Mother, he will take up the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of the Assyrians. You must before all else take note of the indication of his age, <and ask> whether it can as yet represent Christ as a <grown> man, far less a commander <of armies>. Do you suppose the infant was going to call men to arms by his mewling, and give the signal for war with a rattle-box instead of a trumpet, and launch his attack upon the enemy not from horse or chariot or city-wall, but from his nurse's or nursemaid's shoulder or back, and thus obtain control of Damascus and Samaria in the place of <his mother's> breasts? Of course it is another matter if among the men of Pontus the infants of that barbarous race break forth to battle: I suppose they are first oiled and laid in the sun, and afterwards panoplied in swaddling-clothes and given butter for army-pay—these same who know how to handle a spear before they learn to chew. But now, since nature in no country gives permission <for infants> to go to war before they <learn to> live, to take up the strength of Damascus before they know the words Father, and Mother, it follows that the statement must be taken as figurative. But, says he, nature does not permit a virgin to bear <a child>, and yet you believe the prophet. And rightly so. For he began by building up credence for a fact incredible, by stating the reason, that it was intended for a sign. Therefore, it says, the Lord shall give you a sign, Behold a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear a son.1,b Now a sign from God, unless it were some preternatural novelty, would in no sense have been a sign. Consequently whenever the Jews, in the hope of disconcerting
13. 1 On Isa. 7: 14 and 8: 4 (above) with Ps. 72: 10: Justin, dial. 43 and 77, 78: on virgo, iuvencula also Irenaeus, A.H. III. xxiii, xxv.
III. 13 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
209 |
us, have the effrontery to utter their lie that it is contained in scripture that a young woman, not a virgin, is to conceive and bear, they are confuted by this fact, that evidently no sign is involved in an everyday occurrence, the pregnancy and child- bearing of a young woman. Therefore a virgin mother, ordained for a sign, naturally carries credence: an infant warrior by no means so. For in this second case no question of a sign is involved, but after the sign of the new nativity has been written down, immediately after the sign another part of the infant's upbring- ing is indicated, that he will eat honey and butter. Nor is this next remark meant for a sign, that he will not assent to malice, for this too is characteristic of infancy: but that he will take up the strength of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of the Assyrians <is a sign>. Observe the measure of his age while you look for the meaning of the prophecy: what is more, give back to the gospel of the truth the things of which you, a late-comer, have deprived it, and the prophecy as soon becomes intelligible as it is reported fulfilled. So let us retain those Wise Men from the East who in his infancy offer to the the new-born Christ gifts of gold and incense: thus the infant will have taken up the strength of Damascus without fighting or armament. For apart from the fact, known to everybody, that the strength of the East, that is, its force and power, is customarily potent in gold and spices, it is certainly possible for the Creator to constitute gold the strength of the other nations besides: as <he says> by Zechariah, And Judah shall encamp before Jerusalem and gather to- gether all the valiance of the peoples round about, gold and silver.c But of that gift of gold David also says, And there shall be given to him of the gold ofArabia;d and again, The kings of the Arabs and of Saba shall offer him gifts.e For the Orient for the most part held the Magi for kings,2 and Damascus was formerly reckoned to Arabia, before it was transferred to Syrophoenicia after the dividing up of the Syrias,3 and it was at that earlier time that Christ took up its strength, by taking up the tokens of it, namely gold and spices:
13. 2 Tertullian is the earliest writer to say that the Magi were kings; Justin dial. 78, had already said they came from Arabia.
3 Damascus was reckoned to Arabia until it was brought into Coele Syria, on the division of Syria by Septimius Severus between 193 and 198 (Dio Cassius 53.12): Justin, dial. 78, seems to have previous knowledge of this rearrangement unless the observation is a later addition.
8268076 P
III. 14 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
211 |
while as spoils of Samaria <he took up> the Magi themselves, who after they had discovered him, and honoured him with gifts, and had bowed the knee and worshipped him as God and king on the evidence of the star that was their informant and leader, were made the spoils of Samaria, that is, of idolatry, because they believed in Christ. For he stigmatized idolatry under the name of Samaria, which was in disgrace because of the idolatry by which it had of old revolted from God under king Jeroboam: for this is no unusual thing to the Creator, to make a figurative use of the transference of names when the things censured are of like character. So he also calls the princes of the Jews princes of Sodom, and the people themselves the people of Gomorra. And again in another place he says, Thy father was an Amorite and thy mother a Hittite, because of the same sort of impiety, although at another time he had even said they were his own sons, I have nourished and brought up sons. So also Egypt is sometimes in his scriptures understood to mean the whole world, when charged with idolatry and abomination: and in the same way Babylon also in our <apostle> John is a metaphor of the Roman city, which, like Babylon, is great, and proud of empire, and at war against the saints of God.f By this same usage he described the Magi also by the appellation of Samaritans, because, as I have observed, they were despoiled of idolatry, a thing they had in common with the Samaritans. Against the king of the Assyriansg you must understand to mean 'against Herod', against whom in fact the Magi then took action by not bringing him back news of Christ, whom he was seeking to destroy.
14. This interpretation of mine will receive support in that in other places too, where you suppose Christ a warrior because of the names of certain weapons of war, and verbs to the same effect, you stand refuted as we bring under consideration the purport of their context as a whole. Gird thee with a sword upon thy thigh,a says David. But what do you find written of Christ just before this? Thou art timely in beauty more than the sons of men, grace is poured forth on thy lips.b It is ridiculous to suppose that he was flattering, in the matter of timeliness of beauty and grace of lips, one whom he was girding for war with a sword. So also, when he goes on to say, And stretch forth and prosper and reign, he adds <the reason>, because of truth and gentleness and righteousness. Who is
III. 14 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
213 |
going to produce these results with a sword? Will not that rather produce the opposites of these, guile, and severity, and un- righteousness? These are surely the particular purpose and effect of battles. Let us inquire then whether there is a different mean- ing for that sword, which has so different an activity. Now the apostle John in the Apocalypse describes a sharp two-edged sword as proceeding from the mouth of God,c exceeding sharp: and this has to be understood as the divine word, doubly sharp in the two testaments of the Law and the Gospel, sharp with wisdom, directed against the devil, arming us against the spiri- tual hosts of wickedness and all concupiscence, and cutting us off even from our dearest for the sake of the name of God. But if you refuse acknowledgement of John,1 you have Paul, a teacher you share with us, who girds our loins with truth, and with the corselet of righteousness, and shoes our feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace—not of war—and bids us take to us the shield of the faith, that by it we may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the devil, and <to take> the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit, which, says he, is the word of God.d This is the sword which our Lord himself came to cast on to the earth,e not peace. If this is your Christ, then he too is a warrior. If he is not a warrior, but advances an allegorical sword, then it was permissible for the Creator's Christ in the psalm, without war- like intent, to be girt with the figurative sword of the word— and in keeping with this is the above-mentioned timeliness and grace of lips—the sword with which he was at that time girt upon the thigh, as David puts it, but was afterwards to cast upon the earth. For this is what he means by, Stretch forth and prosper and reign:f sending forth the word into all the earth, for the vocation of all the nations: destined to prosper by the pro- gress of the faith by which he has been received: and reigning from thenceforth in that he has overcome death by resurrection. And thy right hand, it says, shall marvellously lead thee forth, which means the power of spiritual grace, by which the knowledge of Christ is led forth. Thy arrows are sharp, the precepts which fly in every direction, and the threatenings and the searchings of heart, which pierce and transfix every man's conscience. Peoples shall fall down before thee, in worship. This is how the Creator's Christ is a warrior and an armed man, this is how he is even
14. 1 For Marcion's rejection of the Apocalypse cf. IV. 5. 2.
III. 15 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
215 |
today taking the spoils, not of Samaria only but of all the nations. You have been taught how his armour is allegorical: admit then that his spoils are figurative. As then our Lord speaks, and the apostle writes, figuratively of these matters, we do then with good confidence make use of those interpretations of his, instances of which even our adversaries acknowledge: and so the Christ who has come will be Isaiah's Christ, for the very reason that he was not a warrior, because he is not by Isaiah described as such.
15. On the question of the flesh, and, by implication, of the nativity, and for the time being of the one name, of Emmanuel, let this suffice. Next, as concerns his other names, and in particu- lar his name of Christ, what answer are my opponents going to give? If in your opinion the name of Christ is a common noun, just as the name of god is, with the result that it is permissible for the sons of each of two gods to be called Christ, as also for each <of those gods> to be called father <and> lord, assuredly reason will controvert this proposition. The name of god, being as it were a natural description of divinity, can be shared among all for whom divinity is claimed, such as idols, as the apostle says, For there are also those that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth.a But the name of Christ, which comes not from nature but from revelation, becomes the peculiar property of him by whom it is known to have been fore-ordained: nor is it subject to sharing with another god, especially one who is hostile, and has a dispensa- tion of his own, for which he will need to provide specific names. How ridiculous it is that when they have invented the idea of two gods with hostile dispensations, they admit a partnership of names into this discord of dispensations, although they could have to hand no more cogent proof of two hostile gods than that in their dispensation there should also be found diversity of names. For there exists no case of opposing attributes which is not marked off by its own particular terminology: and when a particular terminology is lacking, if it ever is, then the Greek catachresis— of the improper use of a term which does not belong—comes to one's rescue. But with a god, I imagine, there can be no possi- bility of anything lacking, or of his needing to furnish his own dispensations with property which belongs to another. What sort of a god is yours, who even for his own son lays claim to names from the Creator—names that are not only not his own, but are
III. 16 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
217 |
ancient and well known, and even on that account ought to be unsuitable for a god who is new and unknown ? In fact how can he tell us that a new patch is not sewn on to an old garment, nor new wine entrusted to old wineskins,b if he is himself patched on to, and dressed up in, names that are old? How has he managed to strip the gospel away from the law, if himself dressed up in the whole law—for that is what the name of Christ involves? Who has bidden him not to use a different name, seeing he is a preacher of something different, and comes from a different place, when in fact he has refused to take to him a veritable body with the express intention of not being thought the Creator's Christ? It was to no effect that he chose not to be taken for that one whose name he chose to bear, when even if he had in fact possessed a body, he would have been more likely not to be taken for the Creator's Christ if he were not using his name. As things stand, he has rejected the objective reality of one whose name he has accepted, though he could not avoid expressing approval of that objective reality by his use of its name. For if Christ means 'anointed', anointing is certainly something which is done to a body. One who had no body could not in any sense be anointed: one who could not in any sense be anointed could not by any means have had the name of Christ. It is another matter if he also pretended to a phantasm of the name. But how, they ask, could he have worked his way into the Jews' confidence except by a name which was usual and familiar among them? You tell a tale of a god without courage and without principles, since to promote a policy by deception is the device either of self- distrust or of dishonesty. With greater honesty and absence of guile the false prophets acted in opposition to the Creator by coming in the name of their own god. So I do not see how this device had any effect, since the Jews found it easier to believe he was either their own Christ, or else rather some deceiver, than the Christ of a different god—and so the gospel will prove.
16. Now supposing it true that he pilfered the name of Christ, like a petty thief after the dole-basket, why did he also choose to be called Jesus, a name about which the Jews had no such expectations? Although we for our part have by the grace of God obtained understanding of his mysteries, and recognize that this name too was destined for Christ, it does not follow that the
III. 16 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
219 |
Jews, deprived of wisdom, were to be aware of that fact. Indeed until this present day they are hoping for Christ, not for Jesus, and they would rather interpret Elijah as Christ, than Jesus [i.e. Joshua]. He then who has come also in this name in which Christ was not expected, had it in his power to come in that name alone which was the only one expected. But as he has combined the two, the expected and the unexpected, both of his designs are put out of court. For if his reason for being Christ was that he might for a time steal in on the pretence of belonging to the Creator, <the name of> Jesus opposes <this>, because there was no expectation of Jesus [Joshua] in the Creator's Christ: or if <he was named> Jesus so that he might be taken to belong to the other <god>, <the name> Christ forbids <this>, because the Christ that was hoped for belonged to no other than the Creator. Which of these <names> can hold its ground, I know not. But both can hold their ground in the Creator's Christ, in whom also <the name of> Jesus is found to be. In what way, you ask. Have your answer here, along with the Jews, who hold the half of your error.1 When Auses [Oshea] the son of Nave [Nun] was marked out as successor to Moses, you admit he is changed from his original name, and begins to be called Jesusa [Jehoshua] ?2 Just so, you answer. We observe first that this was a figure of him who was to be. Because Jesus the Christ was going to bring the second people, which are we, born in the wilderness of <this> world, into the land of promise, flowing with milk and honey, which means the inheritance of eternal life, than which nothing is sweeter: and because this was going to be effected not by Moses, not, that is, by the discipline of the law, but by Jesus, through the grace of the gospel, after we had been circumcised with the knife of flint, that is, the precepts of Christ—for the rock was Christ—therefore that man who was being set aside for the similitudes of this mystery was also first established in the like- ness of our Lord's name, being surnamed Jesus [Jehoshua]. Christ himself, when talking with Moses, bore witness that this name is his own. For who was it that was talking? Surely the Creator's Spirit, who is Christ. When therefore he spoke to the people, to whom he had given the commandments, and said, Behold I
16. 1 i.e. the Jews denied that the Creator's Christ was come, but had not invented a superior god or a different Christ, as Marcion had.
2 On the change of name cf. Justin, dial. 75 and 113.
III. 17 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
221 |
send my angel before thy face, to guard thee in the way, and to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee: give heed to him and hear him, disobey him not, for he will not hide it from thee that my name is upon him:b he called him an angel because of the great- ness of the exploits he was to perform, and because of his office of prophet in declaring the will of God: but he called him Jesus [Joshua] because of the mystery of his own name which was to be. Again and again he asserted his own name which he had conferred upon him, because he had ordered him to be addressed in future not as angel or as Auses [Oshea] but as Jesus [Joshua]. Therefore in as much as both these names are appropriate to the Creator's Christ, to that extent neither of them is appropriate to the Christ of a non-creator—nor again is the rest of what he did. So from this point onwards there must be marked out between you and me that firm and definite ruling, necessary to both parties, by which it is laid down that there can be nothing at all in common between the Christ of another god and the Christ of the Creator. You will have as great a need to defend their diversity, as I to oppose it: because you will only be able to prove that another god's Christ has come, by showing that he is far and away different from the Christ of the Creator: while I shall only be able to prove him the Creator's by showing him to be such a one as is commissioned by the Creator. On the matter of the names I have now gained my point: I claim Christ as mine, I assert that Jesus belongs to me.
17. Let us bring the rest of his activities into comparison with the scriptures. Whatever that poor body may be, in whatever condition it was, and however regarded, so long as he is without glory, without nobility, and without honour, he will be the Christ I know, because it was foretold that in condition and in aspect such he would be. Once more Isaiah helps us: We have announced, he says, before him: as a young boy, as a root in thirsty land: and he has no form nor glory, and we saw him, and he was without form or comeliness, but his form was dishonoured, defective beyond all men:a as also just before, <there was> the voice of the Father <speaking> to the Son, Even as many will be astounded at thee, so thy appearance will be without glory from men.b For though, as David has it, he is timely in beauty even above the sons of men,c yet this is in that allegorical state of spiritual grace, when he girds himself with the sword of the
III. 18 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
223 |
Word, which is in truth his very own form and comeliness and glory. But in his incorporate condition he is, according to the same prophet, even a worm, and no man, the scorn of men, and the contempt of the people.d It is no interior quality of his that he proclaims is of that nature. For if the fullness of the Spirit has come to rest upon him, I recognize a rod out of the root of Jesse:e and its flower will be my Christ, upon whom, according to Isaiah, has rested the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and god- liness, the Spirit of the fear of God. For there is no one of mankind in whom this diversity of spiritual testimonies has met together, except Christ, who was equated with a flower because of the grace of the Spirit, yet was accounted of the stem of Jesse, being descended from it through Mary. But I challenge you to say what you have in mind. If you grant that to him applies all this humility and patience and non-resistance, and in view of these he is to be Isaiah's Christ—a man in affliction, and knowing how to bear weakness,f who has been brought as a sheep to sacrifice, and as a lamb before the shearer he opened not his mouth: who neither did strive nor cry, nor was his voice heard out of doors: who did not break the bruised reed, which means the shaken faith of the Jews, nor quench the burning flax, which was the recently kindled ardour of the gentiles—he cannot be any other than the one the prophet foretold. His activity needs to be re- viewed by the canon of the scriptures, where, if I mistake not, it is distinguished as a twofold series of acts, of preaching and of power. But I shall arrange my treatment of both topics as follows. Since I have thought it well that Marcion's own gospel should be brought under discussion, I shall defer until then my treatment of various aspects of his teaching and miracles, as for the matter then in hand. Here however in general terms I shall complete the course I have entered upon, explaining meanwhile that Christ is announced by Isaiah as one who preaches: for he says, Who is there among you who feareth God, and will hear the voice of his Son?g and as a healer, for he says, He himself hath taken away our weak- nesses and borne <our> wearinesses.h
18.1 At least in the manner of his death, I suppose, you try to
suggest a difference, alleging that the passion of the cross was
18. 1 This chapter runs parallel with adv. Jud. 10.
III. 18 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
225 |
never prophesied of the Creator's Christ, with a further argu- ment that it is quite incredible that the Creator should have exposed his Son to that form of death on which he himself had laid a curse. Cursed, it says, is every one that hath hung on a tree.a Now the meaning of this curse I leave for later consideration— though it is in full keeping solely with that preaching of the cross which is our present subject of inquiry—because on other occa- sions also the proof of facts has preceded the explanation of them. I shall first explain about the types. And certainly there were most cogent reasons why this mystery could not escape being prophesied by types and figures. The more incredible it was, the more offensive it would become if it were prophesied in plain terms: and the more marvellous it was, the more it needed to be covered in obscurity, so that difficulty of understanding might make request for the grace of God. And so Isaac, to begin with, when delivered up by his father for a sacrifice, himself carried the wood for himself,b and did at that early date set forth the death of Christ, who when surrendered as a victim by his Father carried the wood of his own passion.2 Joseph also, himself to be a type of Christ—and not for this reason alone <that I delay not my course> that he suffered persecution from his brethren be- cause of God's grace, as Christ suffered from the Jews, his brethren according to the flesh—when blessed by his father in these precise terms, His glory is that of a bullock, his horns are the horns of a unicorn: with them will he winnow the nations together, even to the end of the earth,c was certainly not intended to be a rhinoceros with one horn or a minotaur with two horns: rather in him Christ was indicated, a bullock according to both accounts, to some people stern as a judge, to others kind as a saviour, whose horns were to be the extremities of the Cross.3 For in a yardarm, which is part of a cross, the extreme ends are called horns, while the unicorn is the upright middle post. So then by this virtue of the Cross, and by being horned after this manner, he is even now winnowing all the nations through faith, lifting them up from earth into heaven, as he will afterwards winnow them by judge- ment, casting them down from heaven to earth. He is also to be found as a bullock in another place in the same scripture, where
18. 2 On Isaac carrying the wood, and on Joseph persecuted by his brethren, Melito, de pascha 59.
3 On types of the Cross: Justin, dial. 91, 94, 112; Tertullian, ad nat. i. 12.
8268076 Q
III. 19 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
227 |
Jacob utters a spiritual reproof against Simeon and Levi, who stand for the scribes and pharisees, for their origin is counted from these: Simeon and Levi have perfected iniquity by their heresy— that, it means, by which they persecuted Christ—let not my soul come into their council, and let not my affections take rest in their assembly, because in their indignation they have put men to death—that is, the prophets—and in their concupiscence they have severed the sinews of a bulld—that is, of Christ, whom after the murder of the prophets they crucified, and with nails wrought savagery against his sinews. Otherwise it would be to no purpose if, after the murder of men, he were to rebuke them for the slaughter of some ox or other. And again, why did Moses on that occasion only when Joshua was warring against Amalek, pray sitting and with out- stretched hands,e when in such critical circumstances he might have been expected rather to commend his prayer by bended knees, by hands beating the breast, and face turned down to the ground? Evidently because on that occasion, when one was con- tending who bore our Lord's name, as our Lord himself was afterwards to contend against the devil, the form of the cross was essential, so that by it Joshua might gain the victory. The same Moses again, although he had forbidden the likeness of any thing,f afterwards set up a brazen serpent on a poleg in the attitude of one hanging, and commended it to be gazed upon for healing.4 Why was this, except that here too he was asserting the power of our Lord's Cross, by which <that old> serpent, the devil, was being reduced to bondage, while to everyone wounded by spiritual snake-bites who should look upon it and believe in it, was promised healing of the bites of sins, and salvation from thence forward?
19. Come now, if you have read in the Psalms,a The Lord hath reigned from the tree,1 I wonder what you understand by it: unless perhaps <you think> the reference is to some woodman as king of the Jews, and not to Christ, who ever since his suffering on the tree has been king through his conquest of death. For although death reigned from Adam until Christ, why should not Christ be said to have reigned from the tree, ever since by dying on the
18. 4 On the serpent of brass, Tertullian, de idol. 5.
19. 1 'From the tree' is not in the Hebrew or LXX or Latin Vulgate of Ps. 96: 10: but it was known to Justin, apol. i. 41, 42; dial. 73; and the epistle of Barnabas (8. 5) seems to be aware of it.
III. 19 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
229 |
tree of the Cross he drove out the kingdom of death? In the same sense also Isaiah says, Because to us a child is born:b what is new in this, unless he is speaking of the Son of God? And, Unto us one is given, whose government is placed upon his shoulder: which of the kings ever displays the sign of his dominion upon his shoulder, and not rather a crown upon his head or a sceptre in his hand, or some mark of appropriate apparel? No, only the new king of the new ages, Christ Jesus, <the king> of new glory, has lifted up upon his shoulder his own dominion and majesty, which is the Cross, so that from thenceforth, as our previous prophecy stated, he did as Lord reign from the tree. You have a hint of this tree also in Jeremiah, who prophesies to the Jews that they will say, Come and let us cast a tree into his bread,c meaning, his body. For so God has revealed it, even in the gospel which you accept, when he says that bread is his body:d so that even from this you can under- stand that he who gave bread the figure of his body is the same as he whose body the prophet had of old figuratively described as bread, as our Lord himself was afterwards to expound this mystery. If you ask for further prophecy of our Lord's Cross, you can find complete satisfaction in the twenty-first psalm, which comprises the whole passion of Christ, who was even at that date foretelling of his own glory. They pierced, he says, my hands and my feet,e which is the particular outrage of the cross. And again, while appealing for his Father's help, he says, Save me from the lion's mouth, meaning death: and <my> lowliness from the horns of the unicorn,f the points of the cross, as I have already pointed out.2 Now since neither David nor any king of the Jews had to suffer that cross, you cannot think this a prophecy of the passion of anyone else, but only of him who alone was so notably crucified by that people. So now, if the heretic's obstinacy contemns and derides all these interpretations of mine, I shall <be prepared to> grant him that the Creator has given <in this psalm> no indication of any cross of Christ, in that even on this ground he will not prove that he who was crucified was any other <than the Creator's Christ>—unless perchance he succeeds in showing that his death in this form was prophesied by his own god, so that diversity of prophesyings may prove there was diversity of passions and, in consequence, diversity of persons. But as there was no prophecy
19. 2 Ps. 22: 16 sqq. is discussed and interpreted by Justin, dial. 97-106 and apol. i. 38.
III. 20 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
231 |
of Marcion's Christ, far less of his cross, the prophecy of one death <and not two> is sufficient proof that the Christ who is meant is mine. From the fact that the manner of his death is not stated, it follows that it could have come about by a cross, and it could only have had reference to another if there had also been prophecy of another—unless perhaps he prefers that not even the death of my Christ was prophesied: in which case he is put to greater shame, while he tells of the death of his own Christ, whose birth he denies, but denies the death of my Christ, whose birth he admits. But I can prove both the death and the burial and the resurrection of my Christ by one word of Isaiah, who says, His sepulture hath been taken away out of the midst.g
He could not have been buried without having died, nor could his sepulture have been taken away out of the midst except by resurrection. And so he added, Therefore shall he have many for an inheritance, and of many shall he divide the spoils, because his soul hath been delivered over unto death.h For in this is indicated the purpose of this grace, that it is to be a recompense for the insult of death. It is likewise indicated that he is to obtain these things after death, by virtue, that is, of resurrection.
20.1 It is enough so far to have traced out Christ's course in these matters, far enough for it to be proved that he is such a one as was foretold, and consequently ought not to be taken as any other than he who it was foretold would be such as this. And so now, because what happened to him is in harmony with the Creator's scriptures, the prior authority of the majority of instances must restore credibility to those others which in the interest of opposing opinions are either brought into doubt or completely denied. I now go further, and build up all those parallels from the Creator's scriptures of things it was prophesied would occur after Christ's coming: for events are found to be happening as they were ordained, which could not have been the case apart from the coming of Christ which had to precede them. See how all the nations since then are looking up out of the abyss of human error towards God the Creator, and towards his Christ, and deny, if you dare, that this was prophesied. Even at the very beginning of the Psalms the Father's promise will meet you: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee: require of me and I will
20. 1 This chapter runs parallel with adv. Jud. 12.
III. 20 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
233 |
give thee the gentiles for thine inheritance, and the boundaries of the earth for thy possession.a You cannot claim that David, rather than Christ, is his son: or that the boundaries of the earth were promised to David, whose reign was confined to the one single nation of the Jews, rather than to Christ, who has by now taken the whole world captive by the faith of his gospel. So also by Isaiah: I have given thee for a covenant of the <human> race, for a light of the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, those who are in error, to loose from their bonds those that are bound, that is, to set them free from sins, and from the cell of the prison, which is death, those who sit in darkness, the darkness of ignorance.b If these things are coming to pass through Christ, they cannot have been prophesied of any other than him through whom they are coming to pass. Also in another place: Behold I have set him for a testimony to the nations, a prince and commander to the nations: nations which know not thee shall call upon thee, and peoples shall take refuge with thee.c You cannot interpret this of David on the ground that he had just previously said, And I will ordain for you an eternal covenant, the religious and faithful things ofDavid.d Nay rather, the more so from this <text> will you need to understand that Christ is reckoned <as derived> from David by carnal descent, because of the lineage of Mary the virgin. For it is in respect of this promise that in the psalm he swears an oath to David, Of the fruit of thy body shall I set upon thy throne.e Which body is this? David's own? Certainly not. David could not have been expected to give birth. Nor was it his wife's: for in that case he would not have said, Of the fruit of thy body, but, Of the fruit of thy wife's body. So it remains that by the mention of David's body he indicated one from among his descendants the fruit of whose body was to be the flesh of Christ: and this came to flower out of Mary's womb. That is why he made mention of the fruit of the body only, as of body in particular, as though it were the body alone, with no mention of a husband: and that is why he referred the body back to David, as the head of the race and the forefather of the family. So because it was impossible for him to refer that body to a virgin's husband, he referred it back to her forefather. And therefore this new covenant, which today is found to exist in Christ, must be that which the Creator was then promising when he told of the religious and faithful things of David, which were Christ's things, because Christ is from David. Indeed his flesh itself must be the religious and
III. 21 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
235 |
faithful things of David, being now holy by sacred usage, and faith- ful since its resurrection. So Nathan the prophet also, in the first of Kingdoms, makes a promise to David for his seed, which, says he, shall proceed out of his body.f If you interpret this simply as applying to Solomon, you will rouse my laughter: for it will look as though David was Solomon's mother. But is not Christ here indicated as the seed of David, out of that body which was de- scended from David—Mary's body? Yes, it was Christ rather than Solomon, who was to build up the temple of God, that holy manhood in which, as in a better temple, the Spirit of God was to dwell: and it was Christ rather than Solomon the son of David, who was to be held for God's Son.g Also a throne for ever and a kingdom for ever belongs to Christ rather than Solomon, who was but a temporal king. Moreover it was from Christ that the mercy of God did not depart away, though upon Solomon even the wrath of God came, because of lechery and idolatry: for Satan stirred up against him an enemy, an Edomite.2,h So then since all this is not at all apposite to Solomon, but only to Christ, the reasonableness of my interpretations is confirmed, for the out- come of these matters sets its approval on them as things evidently prophesied of Christ. And so, in him will consist the holy and faithful things of David: he it was, and not David, whom God set up as a testimony to the nations: he it was whom he set as a prince and commander to the nations, not David, who com- manded only Israel. It is Christ today upon whom the nations who knew him not are calling, and peoples today are taking refuge with Christ whom formerly they had never heard of. You cannot say an event is still future, when you now see it happening.
21. Neither for that matter can you establish that suggestion of yours, with a view to distinguishing between two Christs, as that the Judaic Christ was intended by the Creator for the regather- ing out of dispersion of the people <of Israel> and no others, whereas your Christ has been advanced by the supremely good god for the deliverance of the whole human race: because, when all is said, the Creator's Christians are found to have existed before Marcion's, in that all peoples have been receiving the call into his kingdom ever since God has reigned from the tree, before there was any Cerdo even, let alone Marcion. Refuted however
20. 2 A mistaken reference to 1 Chr. 21: 1.
III. 21 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
237 |
on the vocation of the gentiles, you now turn back to proselytes. You ask who they are from among the gentiles, that are passing over to the Creator, when those specifically mentioned by the prophet are proselytes, of a different condition, separate, by themselves: Behold, Isaiah says, proselytes by me shall come near unto thee,a showing that even proselytes were to come to God through Christ. Also the gentiles, which we are, likewise had their own mention, as people that were hoping in Christ: And in his name, he says, shall the gentiles hope.b Proselytes however, whom you inter- polate into the prophecy concerning the gentiles, do not as a rule hope in Christ's name, but in Moses' law, from which their instruction comes: whereas the promotion of the gentiles has come about in these last days. In those very words Isaiah says, And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest, namely, the majesty of God, and the temple of God above the top of the mountains, meaning Christ, the catholic temple of God, in whom God is worshipped, established above all the eminences of virtues and powers: and all the nations shall come to it, and many shall go and say, Come ye, let us go up into the mountain of the Lord, and into the house of the God of Jacob, and he will announce to us his way, and we will walk in it: for out of Sion shall go forth a law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem.c
This way must be the gospel of the new law, and of the new word in Christ, no longer in Moses. And he will judge among the nations, in respect of their error: and he shall confute a large people, in the first instance that of the Jews and their proselytes. And they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, that is, all the devices of injurious minds and hostile tongues and of all malice and blasphemy, they shall convert into the interests of moderation and peace. And nation shall not take up sword against nation, the sword of discord: neither shall they learn war any more,d that is, follow up hostilities: so that here too you may learn that the Christ who was promised was not one powerful in war, but a bringer of peace. Either deny that these things were prophesied, now that they are plainly seen, or deny that they have been fulfilled, now that you have read them: or, if you avoid both denials, they must have been fulfilled in him of whom they were prophesied. Take notice even now of the inception and progress of <his> vocation to the gentiles, who since the last days are coming to God the Cre- ator, that it was not <addressed> to proselytes, whose promotion
III. 22 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
239 |
<dates> rather from the earliest days. For this faith of ours was introduced by the apostles.1
22.1 You can see also how there were prophecies of the work of the apostles: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that preach the gospel of good things,a not of war or of evil things. The psalm also echoes this: Their sound is gone out into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the earth,b <the words> in fact of those who carry with them the law which is come forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem: so that that might come to pass which is written, All those that were far from my righteousness have drawn near to my righteousness and truth.c When the apostles were addressing themselves to this task, they parted company with the elders and rulers and priests of the Jews. And was not that, he asks, precisely because they were preachers of that other god? Oh no! preachers of that very same God whose scriptures they were then fulfilling. Turn aside, turn aside, Isaiah calls out, come out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing, blas- phemy against Christ: come out from the midst of it, the synagogue: be ye separate, that bear the vessels of the Lord.d For already, in accor- dance with the things above written, the Lord with his own arm had revealed his Holy One, that is, he had by his power revealed Christ openly to the gentiles, so that all the gentiles and the high places of the earth have seen the salvation which came from God. So also, in turning aside from Judaism itself, by exchanging the obligations and burdens of the law for the freedom of the gospel, they were doing as the psalm advised, Let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their yoke from us:e and evidently this was after the gentiles had made tumults and the peoples had imagined vain things, the kings of the earth had stood up, and the princes had gathered together, against the Lord and against his Christ.f And what was the apostles' experience after that? All the iniquity of persecutions, you answer, as from men who belonged to the Creator, the adversary of the god whom they were preaching. But why, if the Creator was Christ's adversary, does he not only prophesy that Christ's apostles will be so treated, but also show
21. 1 Franciscus Junius, quoted by Oehler, interprets induxerunt by deleverunt, suggesting that the Marcionites' conviction that proselytes alone were accepted is shown to be false by the fact that the apostles admitted others.
22. 1 This chapter runs parallel with adv. Jud. 11.
III. 23 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
241 |
himself displeased at it? He was not likely to be prophesying the activities of that other god, whose existence, you say, he was unaware of, nor to have expressed his displeasure at an occurrence he himself had arranged for: See how the righteous man doth perish, and no man taketh it to heart:g and righteous men are being taken away, and no man doth regard it: for the righteous man is removed away, by the person of unrighteousness.2 And who is this righteous man, if not Christ? Come, they say, let us take away the righteous man, because he is useless to us.h So by setting it down first, and repeating it in like terms afterwards, that even Christ has suffered, he prophesied that his righteous ones too would have the same sufferings, first the apostles, and afterwards all the faithful, sealed with that mark of which Ezekiel speaks: The Lord said unto me, Pass through in the midst of the gate in the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark TAU on the foreheads of the men.i For this same letter TAU of the Greeks, which is our T, has the appearance of the cross, which he foresaw we should have on our foreheads in the true and catholic Jerusalem, in which the twenty-first psalm, in the person of Christ himself addressing the Father, prophesies that Christ's brethren, the sons of God, will give glory to God the Father: I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the congregation will I sing praise to thee.j For with good reason did he assert that he himself would be the doer of that which in our day was destined to be done in his name and in his spirit. So a little later, My praise is from thee in the great congregation:k and in the sixty-seventh psalm, Bless ye the Lord God in the congregations:l so that the prophecy of Malachi had to be in agreement, / desire it not, saith the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices: because from the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name is glorified among the gentiles, and in every place a sacrifice is offered to my name, even a pure sacrificem—the rendering of glory, and benediction and praise and hymns. And since all these are found in use with you also, the sign on the foreheads, and the sacraments of the churches, and die pureness of the sacrifices, you ought at once to break forth and affirm that it was for your Christ that the Creator's Spirit prophesied.
23. Next, seeing you agree with the Jews in denying that their
22. 2 Isa. 57: i LXX. Tertullian evidently understands persona as 'person' (not 'presence', which the Greek could mean) and sublatus as 'destroyed' (not 'saved').
8268076 R
III. 23 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
243 |
Christ has come, take note also of the end which it was prophesied they would bring upon themselves after Christ's coming, through their impiety in despising him and putting him to death. First, since that day on which, as Isaiah says, man has thrown away his abominations of gold and silver,a which they made for the worship of vain and hurtful things, since, that is, the light of the truth has shone forth through Christ, and the human race has thrown away its idols, observe whether what follows has not been fulfilled: For the Lord of hosts hath taken away from Judaea and from Jerusalem, besides other matters, the prophet and the wise master-builder,b namely, the Holy Spirit, who is building the Church, which is the temple and home and city of God. For, from that time forward the grace of God has ceased among them, and commandment has been given to the clouds that they rain no rainc upon the vineyard of Sorech,d which means, that heavenly benefits have been commanded not to spring up for the house of Israel. For it had brought forth thorns, with some of which it made a crown for our Lord, not righteousness but a cry,c that cry by which they had required that he might be crucified. Thus the dews of spiri- tual graces were taken away from them, and the law and the prophets ceased with John. After that, by the same continuance of madness even the name of the Lord was through them blas- phemed, as it is written, For your sakes my name is blasphemed among the gentilese—for from them began that infamy—and they failed to understand that the time that intervened between Tiberius and Vespasian was <a time for> repentance: so their land was made desolate, their cities burned with fire, their country, strangers devour it in their presence, and the daughter of Sion was left as a watch-tower in a vineyard or a cottage in a garden of cucum- bersf—since the time, in fact, when Israel knew not the Lord, and the people would not understand him, but forsook him, and pro- voked the Holy One of Israel to indignation.g So also, under certain conditions, the threat of the sword, If ye be unwilling and refuse to hear me, the sword shall devour you,h proved that it was Christ whom they refused to hear, and therefore perished. He also in the fifty-eighth psalm demands of the Father their disper- sion, Disperse them in thy strength.i Again in Isaiah, ending his discourse of their being consumed with fire, he says, For my sake these things have been done to you, ye shall sleep in sorrow.j Quite meaningless this, if they suffered these things not for his sake who
III. 24 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
245 |
had openly stated that they would suffer them for his sake, but because of the Christ of some other god. Yes, you say, it was the Christ of the other god who was brought to the cross, by the Creator's powers and principalities which were hostile to him. I reply that he is shown as being avenged by the Creator, And wicked men are given for his burying-place, those who affirmed that it had been robbed, and rich men for his death,k those who had paid money to Judas for his betrayal, and money to the soldiers for false witness that the dead body had been stolen away. It follows that, either these things did not happen to the Jews because of him—but on this you are confuted by the agreement of the sense of the scriptures with the course of events and the order of the times—or, if they did happen because of him, it is impossible for the Creator to have avenged any Christ but his own, since he would by preference have rewarded Judas if it had been an opponent of their Lord whom the Jews had put to death. Cer- tainly, if the Creator's Christ has not yet come, the Christ on whose account it is prophesied that they are to suffer these things, it follows that when he does come they will suffer them. But where by that time will there be a daughter of Sion to be made desolate? Even today she is not. Where the cities to be burned with fire? They are already in ruinous heaps. Where the disper- sion of that nation? It is already in exile. Give back to Judaea its polity, that the Creator's Christ may find it so: only so can you claim that he who has come is a different Christ. In any case how can the Creator have given passage through his own heaven to one whom, on his own earth, he was going to put to death, after the violation of the more noble and glorious region of his own kingdom, after the treading under foot of his own palace and citadel? Or perhaps this is what he was aiming at? Evidently a jealous God: yet he is the victor. Shame on you, who trust in a god who has been vanquished. What have you to hope for from him who was not strong enough to protect himself? Either it was through infirmity that he was overpowered by the Creator's angels and men, or it was through malice, while he desired by tolerance to brand them with the guilt of so great a crime.
24. 'Yes,' you object, 'but I do hope for something from him— and this itself amounts to a proof that there are two different Christs—I hope for the kingdom of God, with an eternal heavenly
III. 24 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
247 |
inheritance: whereas your Christ promises the Jews their former estate, after the restitution of their country, and, when life has run its course, refreshment with those beneath the earth, in Abraham's bosom. Such a very good God, if when calmed down he gives back what he took away when angry: your God, who both smites and heals, who creates evil and makes peace: a God whose mercy reaches even down to hell.'
Of Abraham's bosom I shall speak at the proper time. As for the restoration of Judaea, which the Jews, misguided by the names of towns and territories, hope for exactly as described, it would be tedious to explain how the allegorical interpretation of it is spiritually applicable to Christ and the Church and to the possession and enjoyment of it. I have discussed this in another work, which I entitle Of the Hope of the Faithful.1 At present too it would be superfluous, not least because we are not discussing an earthly but a heavenly promise. For we do profess that even on earth a kingdom is promised us:2 but this is before we come to heaven, and in a different polity—in fact after the resurrection, for a thousand years, in that city of God's building, Jerusalema brought down from heaven, which the apostle declares is our mother on high: and when he affirms that our politeuma, our citizenship, is in heaven, he is evidently locating it in some heavenly city. This is the city which Ezekiel knows, and the apostle John has seen: and the word of the new prophecy, which is attached to our faith, bears witness to it, having even prophesied that for a sign there would also be an image of the city made present to view, before its actual manifestation. This prophecy was recently fulfilled, during the expedition to the East: for it is admitted, even on heathen men's evidence, that in Judaea for forty days there was a city suspended from the sky at the break of morning, that the whole fashion of the ramparts faded out as
24. 1 The work de spe fidelium, which is lost, was known to Jerome: it probably owed much to Irenaeus, AH. v. xxxi-xxxvi.
2 This account of the millennial reign of the saints on earth before the final resurrection may owe much to the imagination of Montanus and the new prophecy, as well as to Rev. 20: 6. But the idea is found also in Papias, Justin, and Irenaeus; Jerome says that Dionysius of Alexandria elegantly ridiculed the theory; Augustine, late in life, thought it a tolerable opinion, and one which he had himself once held. There is no other reference, either Christian or pagan, to a miraculous appearance in Palestine during the expedition of Severus against the Parthians.
III. 24 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
249 |
day advanced, and at other times it suddenly disappeared. This city we affirm has been provided by God for the reception of the saints by resurrection, and for their refreshment with abundance of all blessings—spiritual ones—in compensation for those which in this world we have either refused or been denied. For it is both just, and worthy of God, that his servants should also have joy in that place where they have suffered affliction in his name. This is the manner of the heavenly kingdom: within the space of its thousand years is comprised the resurrection of the saints, who arise either earlier or later according to their deserts: after which, when the destruction of the world and the fire of judge- ment have been set in motion, we shall be changed in a moment into angelic substance, by virtue of that supervesture of incorrup- tion,b and be translated into that heavenly kingdom, the same that you now bring under discussion as though it had not been prophesied in the Creator's scriptures, and it were thereby proved that Christ belongs to that other god by whom first and by whom alone you say it has been revealed. But be sure for the future that the Creator has in fact prophesied of that kingdom, and that even without prophecy it had a claim on the belief of such as belong to the Creator. What do you think? When, after that first promise by which it is to be as the sand for multitude,c Abraham's seed is also designed to be as the number of the stars,d are not these the intimations of an earthly as well as a heavenly dispensa- tion? When Isaac blesses his son Jacob with the words, God give to thee of the dew of heaven and of the fatness of the earth,e are not these indications of both kinds of bounty? In fact one must here take note even of the structure of the blessing itself. For in respect of Jacob, who is the type of God's later and more honourable people, that is, of ourselves, the first promise is of the dew of heaven, the second of the fatness of the earth. For we ourselves are first invited to heavenly <blessings> when we are rent away from the world, and so it appears afterwards that we are also to obtain earthly ones. Also your own gospel has, Seek ye fast the kingdom of God, and these things shall be added unto you.f But to Esau he promises an earthly blessing, and appends a heavenly one, when he says, Thy habitation shall be from the fatness of the earth and from the dew of heaven.g For the Jew's covenant is in Esau, as they are the sons prior by birth but inferior in affection, and having begun with earthly benefits through the law, is afterwards by an
III. 24 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
251 |
act of faith led to heavenly things through the gospel. But when Jacob dreams of a ladder set firm on earth up to heaven, and of angels some ascending and others descending, and of the Lord standing above it, shall we perchance be rash in our interpreta- tion that by this ladder it is indicated that a road to heaven, by which some arrive there, but from which others fall away, has been set up by the Lord's judgement? Why then, when he had woken up and had at first been shaken by the dread of the place, did he betake himself to an interpretation of the dream? Having said, How dreadful is this place, he adds, This is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.h For he had seen Christ the Lord, who is the temple of God and also the gate, for by him we enter heaven. And certainly he would not have mentioned a gate of heaven if in the Creator's dispensation there were no entry into heaven. But there is a gate which lets us in, and a way which leads us there, already laid down by Christ. Of him Amos says, Who buildeth up his ascent into heaven,i surely not for himself alone, but also for those of his who will be with him. And thou shalt bind them upon thee, it says, like adornment upon a bride.j Thus at those who by that ascent are making their way to heavenly kingdoms, the Spirit marvels, saying, They fly as those that are hawks, as the clouds fly, and as the nestlings of doves, towards me,k mean- ing, in simplicity, like doves. For we shall be taken up into the clouds to meet the Lord,l the apostle says, when that Son of man, of whom Daniel speaks,m comes in the clouds, and so shall we ever be with the Lord, so long as he is both on earth and in heaven: and, because of the ungrateful of both promises, he calls even the very elements to witness, Hear O heaven, and give ear O earth.n For my part, even though the scripture did not so often hold out to me the hand of heavenly hope, so as to give me sufficient reason to expect this promise too, yet because I am already in posses- sion of earthly grace, I should be in expectation also of some- thing from heaven, from God who is the God of heaven as he is of earth. So I should believe that the Christ who promises higher things is the Christ of him who had also promised things more lowly, of him who by small things had given proof of things greater, who also had reserved for Christ alone this proclamation of a kingdom unheard of—if it was unheard of—so that earthly glory should be spoken of by servants, but heavenly glory by God himself. You however argue for another Christ, even from
III. 24 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
253 |
the fact that he tells of a new kingdom. You need first to cite some instance of kindness given, or else I shall have good reason to doubt the credibility of so great a promise as you affirm is to be hoped for. In fact before all else you need to prove that he who you profess promises heavenly things, has any heaven of his own. As things are, you are giving invitations to dinner, but not showing at which house: you are telling of a kingdom, but not pointing out the palace. Is this because your Christ promises a heavenly kingdom when he has no heaven, in the same way as he made profession of humanity without having a body? What a phantasm it all is! What a hollow pretence of so great a promise!
|