BOOK V
1. Nothing is without an origin except God alone. In as much as of all things as they exist the origin comes first, so must it of necessity come first in the discussion of them. Only so can there be agreement about what they are: for it is impossible for you to discern what the quality of a thing is unless you are first assured whether itself exists: and you can only know that by knowing where it comes from. As then I have now in the ordering of my treatise reached this part of the subject, I desire to hear from Marcion the origin of Paul the apostle. I am a sort of new disciple, having had instruction from no other teacher. For the moment my only belief is that nothing ought to be believed with- out good reason, and that that is believed without good reason which is believed without knowledge of its origin: and I must with the best of reasons approach this inquiry with uneasiness when I find one affirmed to be an apostle, of whom in the list of the apostles in the gospel I find no trace. So when I am told that he was subsequently promoted by our Lord, by now at rest in heaven, I find some lack of foresight in the fact that Christ did not know beforehand that he would have need of him, but after setting in order the office of apostleship and sending them out upon their duties, considered it necessary, on an impulse and not by deliberation, to add another, by compulsion so to speak and not by design. So then, shipmaster out of Pontus, supposing you have never accepted into your craft any smuggled or illicit merchandise, have never appropriated or adulterated any cargo, and in the things of God are even more careful and trustworthy, will you please tell us under what bill of lading you accepted Paul as apostle, who had stamped him with that mark of distinction, who commended him to you, and who put him in your charge? Only so may you with confidence disembark him: only so can he avoid being proved to belong to him who has put in evidence all the documents that attest his apostleship. He himself, says Marcion, claims to be an apostle, and that not from men nor through any man, but through Jesus Christ.a Clearly any man can make claims for himself: but his
V. 1 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
511 |
claim is confirmed by another person's attestation. One person writes the document, another signs it, a third attests the signature, and a fourth enters it in the records. No man is for himself both claimant and witness. Besides this, you have found it written that many will come and say, I am Christ.b If there is one that makes a false claim to be Christ, much more can there be one who professes that he is an apostle of Christ. Thus far my converse has been in the guise of a disciple and an inquirer: from now on I propose to shatter your confidence, for you have no means of proving its validity, and to shame your presumption, since you make claims but reject the means of establishing them. Let Christ, let the apostle, belong to your other god: yet you have no proof of it except from the Creator's archives. Even Genesis long ago promised Paul to me. Among those figures and prophetical bless- ings over his sons, when Jacob had got to Benjamin he said, Benjamin is a ravening wolf: until morning he will still devour, and in the evening will distribute food.c He foresaw that Paul would arise of the tribe of Benjamin, a ravening wolf devouring until the morning, that is, one who in his early life would harass the Lord's flock as a persecutor of the churches, and then at evening would distribute food, that is, in declining age would feed Christ's sheep as the doctor of the gentiles. Also the harshness at first of Saul's pursuit of David, and afterwards his repentance and contentment on receiving good for evil,d had nothing else in view except Paul in Saul according to tribal descent, and Jesus in David by the Virgin's descent from him. If these figurative mysteries do not please you, certainly the Acts of the Apostles have handed down to me this history of Paul, nor can you deny it. From them I prove that the persecutor became an apostle, not from men, nor by a man: from them I am led even to believe him: by their means I
dis- lodge you from your claim to him, and have no fear of you when you ask, And do you then deny that Paul is an apostle? I speak no evil against him whom I retain for myself. If I deny, it is to force you to prove. If I deny, it is to enforce my claim that he is mine. Otherwise, if you have your eye on our belief, accept the evidence on which it depends. If you challenge us to adopt yours, tell us the facts on which it is founded. Either prove that the things you believe really are so: or else, if you have no proof, how can you believe? Or who are you, to believe in despite of him from whom alone there
826805 S
V. 2 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
513 |
is proof of what you believe? So then accept the apostle on my evi- dence, as as you do Christ: he is my apostle, as also Christ is mine. Here too our contest shall take place on the same front: my
chal- lenge shall be issued from the same stance, of a case already pro- ven: which is, that an apostle whom you deny to be the Creator's, whom in fact you represent as hostile to the Creator, has no right to teach anything, to think anything, to intend anything, which accords with the Creator, but must from the outset proclaim his other god with no less confidence than that with which he has broken loose from the Creator's law. For it is not likely that in
di- verging from Judaism he did not at the same time make it clear into which god's faith he was diverging: because it would be
impos- sible for anyone to pass over from the Creator, without knowing to whom his transit was expected to lead. Now if Christ had already revealed that other god, the apostle's attestation had to follow: else he would not have been taken for the apostle of the god whom Christ had revealed, and indeed it was not permissible for a god already revealed by Christ to be kept hidden from the apostle. Or if Christ had made no such revelation about that god, there was the greater need for his being revealed by the apostle: for there was now no possibility of his being revealed by any other, and without question there could be no belief in him if not even an apostle revealed him. Such is my preliminary argument. From now on I claim I shall prove that no other god was the subject of the apostle's profession, on the same terms as I have proved this of Christ: and my evidence will be Paul's epistles. That these have suffered mutilation even in number, the precedent of that gospel, which is now the heretic's, must have prepared us to expect.
2. On the Epistle to the Galatians.1 [Gal. 1.] We too claim that the primary epistle against Judaism is that addressed to the Galatians. For we receive with open arms all that abolition of the ancient law. The abolition itself derives from the Creator's ordinance, and I have already in these books more than once discussed the renovation foretold by the prophets of the God who is mine. But if the Creator promised that old things would pass away, because, he said, new things were to arise, and Christ has marked the date of that passing—The law and the prophets were until John?—setting up John as a boundary stone between the
2. 1 See Appendix 2.
V. 2 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
515 |
one order and the other, of old things thereafter coining to an end, and new things beginning, the apostle also of necessity, in Christ revealed after John, invalidates the old things while validating the new, and thus has for his concern the faith of no other god than that Creator under whose authority it was even prophesied that the old things were to pass away. Consequently both the dismantling of the law, and the establishment of the gospel, are on my side of the argument when in this actual epistle they are connected with that assumption by which the Galatians conceived the possibility of having faith in Christ, the Creator's Christ, while still keeping the Creator's law: because it still seemed to them beyond belief that the law should be set aside by its own Author. Now if they had been taught by the apostle about an entirely different god, they would at once have known they must depart from the law of that God whom they had de- serted when they followed the other. For would any man who had accepted a new god, have waited any longer to be told that he must follow a new rule of conduct? Really, the fact that the same deity was being preached in the gospel who had always been known in the law, while the rule of conduct was not the same— here lay the whole ground of the discussion, whether the Creator's law must needs be put out of court by the gospel, in the Creator's Christ. Take away that ground, and there is nothing left for discussion. But if there were nothing left for discussion because all of them acknowledged they had to depart from the Creator's order through faith in that other god, the apostle would have found no reason for so strongly enforcing a duty which faith itself had naturally enjoined. Therefore the whole intent of this epistle is to teach that departure from the law results from the Creator's ordinance, as I shall next proceed to show. Also if he projects no mention of any new god—a thing he could never have more con- veniently done than while on this subject, where he could have found for them a reason for the abeyance of the law in this sole and all-inclusive proposition of a new divinity—it is evident in what sense he writes, I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into grace, unto another gospel—another in manner of life, not in religion, another in rule of conduct, not in divinity: be- cause the gospel of Christ must needs be calling them away from the law, towards grace, not away from the Creator towards another god. For no one had removed them away from the Creator, so
V. 2 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
517 |
as to give them the impression that being transferred to another gospel was as though they were being transferred <back again> to the Creator. For when he also adds that there is no possible other gospel, he confirms that that is the Creator's, which he claims is the gospel. Now the Creator promises a gospel when he speaks by Isaiah, Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that preachest the gospel to Sion, lift up the voice in thy strength, thou that preachest the gospel to Jerusalem:b also, to the person of the apostles, How timely are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that preach the gospel of good thingsc—those, he means, who preach the gospel among the gentiles, because again, In his name shall the gentiles hoped— Christ's name, that is, to whom he says, I have set thee for a light of the gentiles.e So that if there is also a gospel of this new god, and you will have it that this is what the apostle was then upholding, in that case there are two gospels, belonging to two gods, and the apostle told a lie when he said there was no possible other gospel, though there is another, and he could just as well have upheld his own gospel by proving it the better one, not by laying it down that it is the only one. But perhaps, to escape from this, you will say, And that is why he subjoined, Though an angel from heaven preach the gospel otherwise, let him be anathema, because he knew the Creator also was going to preach the gospel. So again you are tying yourself in knots: for this is what you are entangled with. It is not possible for one to affirm there are two gospels, who has just denied that there is more than one. Yet his meaning is clear, as he has put himself down first: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach the gospel otherwise. He said it for the sake of emphasis. And yet, if he himself is not going to preach the gospel otherwise, certainly an angel is not. So the reason why he referred to the angel was that as they were not to believe an angel, or an apostle, even less must they believe men: he had no intention of connecting the angel with the Creator's gospel. After that, as he briefly describes the course of his conversion from persecutor to apostle he confirms what is written in the Acts of the Apostles,f in which the substance of this epistle is reviewed; namely, that certain persons intervened who said the men ought to be circum- cised, and that Moses' law must be kept, and that then the apostles, when asked for advice on this question, reported on the authority of the Spirit that they ought not to lay burdens upon
V. 3 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
519 |
men which not even their fathers had been able to bear. Now if even to this degree the Acts of the Apostles are in agreement with Paul, it becomes evident why you reject them: for they preach no other god than the Creator, nor the Christ of any god but the Creator, since neither is the promise of the Holy Spirit proved to have been fulfilled on any other testimony than the
documen- tary evidence of the Acts. And it is by no means reasonable that that writing should in part agree with the apostle, when it relates his history in accordance with the evidence he supplies, and in part disagree, when it proclaims in Christ the godhead of the Creator, with intent to make out that Paul did not follow the preaching of the apostles, though in fact he did receive from them the pattern of teaching how the law need not be kept.
3. [Gal. 2 and 3.] So he writes that after fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem, to seek the support of Peter and the rest of the apostles, to confer with them concerning the content of his gospel, for fear lest for all those years he had run, or was still running, in vain—meaning, if he was preaching the gospel in any form inconsistent with theirs. So great as this was his desire to be approved of and confirmed by those very people who, if you please, you suggest should be understood to be of too close kindred with Judaism. But when he says that not even was Titus circumcised, he now begins to make it plain that it was solely the question of circumcision which had suffered disturbance, be- cause of their continued maintenance of the law, from those whom for that reason he calls false brethren unawares brought in: for their policy was none other than to safeguard the continuance of the law, dependent no doubt on unimpaired faith in the Creator; so that they were perverting the gospel, not by any such interpolation of scripture as to suggest that Christ belonged to the Creator, but by such a retention of the old rule of conduct as not to repudiate the Creator's law. So he says, On account of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might reduce us to bondage, we gave place by subjection not even for an hour. For let us pay attention to the meaning of his words, and the purpose of them, and <your> falsification of scripture will become evident. When he says first, But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised, and then proceeds, On account of false brethren
V. 3 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
521 |
unawares brought in, and what follows, he begins at once to render a reason for a contrary action, indicating for what purpose he did a thing he would neither have done nor have let it be known he had done, except for the previous occurrence of that on account of which he did do it. So then I would have you tell me, if those false brethren had not come in unawares to spy out their liberty, would they have given place to subjection? I think not. Then they did give place because there were people on whose account concession was advisable. For this was in keeping with faith un- ripe and still in doubt regarding the observance of the law, when even the apostle himself suspected he might have run, or might still be running, in vain. So there was cause to discountenance those false brethren who were spying upon Christian liberty, to prevent them from leading it astray into the bondage of Judaism before Paul learned that he had not run in vain, before those who were apostles before him gave him their right hands, before with their agreement he undertook the task of preaching among the gentiles. Of necessity therefore he gave place, for a time, and so also had sound reason for circumcising Timothy,a and bringing nazirites into the temple,b facts narrated in the Acts, and to this extent true, that they are in character with an apostle who pro- fesses that to the Jews he became a Jew that he might gain the Jews, and one living under the law for the sake of those who were living under the lawc—and so even for the sake of those brought in unawares—and lastly that he had become all things to all men, that he might gain them all. If these facts too require to be under- stood in this sense, neither can any man deny that Paul was a preacher of that God and that Christ, whose law, although he rejects it, yet he did now and again for circumstances' sake act on, but would have needed without hesitation to thrust out of his way if it had been a new god he had brought to light. Well it is therefore that Peter and James and John gave Paul their right hands, and made a compact about distribution of office, that Paul should go to the gentiles, and they to the circumcision: only that they should remember the poor—this too according to the law of that Creator who cherishes the poor and needy, as I have proved in my discussion of your gospel.1 Thus it is beyond doubt that it was a question solely of the law, until decision was reached as to how much out of the law it was convenient should be
3. 1 i.e. IV. 14.
V. 3 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
523 |
retained. But, you object, he censures Peter for not walking up- rightly according to the truth of the gospel. Yes, he does censure him, yet not for anything more than inconsistency in his taking of food: for this he varied according to various kinds of company, through fear of those who were of the circumcision, not because of any perverse view of deity: on that matter he would have with- stood any others to their face, when for the smaller matter of
incon- sistent converse he did not spare even Peter. But what do the Marcionites expect us to believe? For the rest, let the apostle proceed, with his statement that by the works of the law a man is not justified, but only by faith. The faith however of that same God whose is the law. For he would not have taken so much trouble to distinguish faith from law—a distinction which differ- ence of deity would have made without his insistence, if there had been any such difference. Quite naturally, he was not rebuilding the things he had pulled down. But the law was due to be pulled down since the time when John's voice cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord,d so that river valleys and hills and mountains should be filled up or laid low, and crooked and rough places should be brought into straightness and into level plains— that is, the difficulties of the law into the facilities of the gospel. He has now remembered that the time of the psalm is come: Let us break their bonds off from us, and cast away from us their yoke,e now that the heathen have raged and the peoples imagined vain things: the kings of the earth have stood up, and the rulers have gathered together into one, against the Lord and against his Christ: so that now a man is justified by the freedom of faith and not by the bondage of the law: because the just liveth by faith:f and as the prophet Habakkuk said this first, you have also the apostle expressing agreement with the prophets, as Christ himself did. Consequently the faith in which the just man shall live, must be of that God whose also is that law by which the man who labours in it is not justified. Moreover if in the law there is a curse, but in faith a blessing, you have both of these set before you by the Creator: Behold, he says, I have set before thee cursing and blessing.g You cannot claim there is opposition: although there is opposition of effects, there is none of authorities, for both effects are set before them by the one authority. But as the apostle him- self explains how it is that Christ was made a curse for us, it is
V. 3 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
525 |
evident how well this supports my case, is in fact in accordance with faith in the Creator. Because the Creator has given judge- ment, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree,h it will not follow from that that Christ belongs to another god and for that reason was already in the law made accursed by the Creator. How can the Creator have put a curse beforehand upon him he does not know exists? Yet is it not more reasonable for the Creator to have
sur- rendered his own Son to his own malediction, than to have sub- jected him for malediction to that god of yours, and that for the benefit of man who belonged to another? Again if in the Creator this seems a dreadful act in respect of his Son, no less is it so in your god: while if it has a reasonable explanation in your god, no less has it in mine, or even more in mine. For it would be easier to believe that to have provided a blessing for man by putting Christ under a curse was the act of him who had in former time set before man both cursing and blessing, than of him who according to you had never made profession of either. So we have received, he says, a spiritual blessing by faith; the faith, he means, by which, as the Creator puts it, the just man lives. This then is my contention, that the faith belongs to that God to whom belongs the original pattern of the grace of faith. And again when he adds, For ye are all the sons of faith, it becomes evident how much before this the heretic's diligence has erased, the reference, I mean, to Abraham, in which the apostle affirms that we are by faith the sons of Abraham, and in accordance with that reference he here also has marked us off as sons of faith. Yet how sons of faith? and of whose faith if not Abraham's? For if Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned for righteousness, and thenceforth he had the right to be called the father of many <gentile> nations: and if we by believing God are the more thereby justified, as Abraham was, and the more obtain life, as the just man lives by faith: so it comes about that up above he pro- nounced us sons of Abraham, as the father of faith, and here sons of faith, that by which Abraham had received the promise of being the father of the gentiles. In this very fact of dissociating faith from circumcision, was not his purpose to constitute us sons of Abraham, of him who had believed while his body was still unmutilated? So then the faith of one god cannot obtain ad- mittance to the rule laid down by another God, so as to credit
V. 4 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
527 |
believers with righteousness, cause the just to have life, and call the gentiles sons of faith. The whole of this belongs to that God in whose revelation it has already for a long time been known.
4. [Gal. 4-6.] Involved in the same reference to Abraham—and yet the sequence of thought shows him wrong—I still, he says, speak after the manner of a man: so long as we were children we were placed under the elements of the world, so as to be in bondage to them. Yet this is not spoken in human fashion; it is not an illustration, but the truth. For what young child—young in mind, at least, as the gentiles are—is not subject to those elements of the world which he looks up to instead of God? But it was in human fashion that the apostle said, After the manner of a man, and continued, Yet even a man's testament no man setteth aside or addeth thereto: for by the example of a man's testament, which is permanently valid, he found security for the testament of God. To Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He said not 'seeds' as though they were many, but 'seed', as of one, and that is Christ. Let Marcion's eraser be ashamed of itself: except that it is superfluous for me to discuss the passages he has left out, since my case is stronger if he is shown wrong by those he has retained. But when it came about that the time was fulfilled, God sent his Son—evidently that God who is the God even of those times of which the ages consist, who also has ordained the signs of the times, suns and moons and constellations and stars, and in short has both foreordained and foretold the revelation of his own Son at the far end of the times: In the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be made manifest,a and, In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,b as Joel has it. To have waited for the time to be fulfilled was characteristic of him to whom belonged the end of time, as also its beginning. But that leisured god of yours, who has never either done anything or prophesied anything, and so knows nothing of any time, what has he ever done to cause time to be fulfilled, and to justify wait- ing for its
fulfilment? If he has done nothing, it was foolish enough that he waited for the Creator's times, and thus did service to the Creator. But to what purpose did he send his Son? To redeem them that were under the law, that is, to make crooked places into a straight way, and rough places into smooth ways, as Isaiah says,c
so that old things might pass away and new things might arise, a new law out of Sion and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem,d
826805 T
V. 4 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
529 |
and that we might receive the adoption of sons, we the gentiles, who once were not sons: and he himself will be a light of the gentiles, and in his name shall the gentiles hope.e And so as to make it certain that we are God's sons, he hath sent his own Spirit into our hearts, crying Abba, Father: for he says, In the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.f By whose grace, if not his whose was the promise of grace? Who is the Father, if not he who was also the Maker? So then after these riches there had to be no turning back to the weak and beggarly elements. Now among Romans too the custom is for early instruction to be called elements. So it was not his wish, by derogatory language about the elements of the world, to alienate people from the God of those elements: even if, when he said just now, If therefore ye do service to these which by nature are no gods, he was castigating the error of physical, or natural, superstition which puts the elements in the place of God, not even so did he censure the God of those elements. But what he wishes to be understood by 'elements', that early school- ing in the law, he himself makes clear: Ye observe days and months and times and years—and sabbaths, I suppose, and meagre suppers,1 and fasts, and great days. For there was need for them to cease from these too, as also from circumcision: for the Creator had so decreed, when he spoke by Isaiah, Your new moons and sabbaths and great day I cannot away with: your fasting and workless days and feast days my soul hateth:g and by Amos, I hate, I have rejected, your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies:h also by Hosea, I will also cause all her mirths to cease, and her feast days and sabbaths and new moons and all her solemn assemblies.i Did he, you ask, wipe out observances he himself had appointed? Better he than someone else: else if it were some other, then that other supported the Creator's judgement, by abolishing observances the Creator had himself passed sentence on. But this is not the place for asking why the Creator has broken down his own laws: it is enough that we have proved he intended to break them down, so as to put it beyond doubt that the apostle has set up no rules in opposition to the Creator, since this removal of the law was the Creator's intention. Now it does happen to thieves that something let fall from their booty turns to evidence against them: and so I think Marcion has left behind him this final reference to Abraham— though none had more need of removal—even if he has changed
4. 1 Those on the evening before the sabbath.
V. 4 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
531 |
it a little. For if Abraham had two sons, one by a bondmaid and the other by a free woman, but he that was by the bondmaid was bom after the flesh, while he that was by the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorical, which means, indicative of something else : for these are two testaments—or two revelations, as I see they have translated it—the one from Mount Sinai referring to the synagogue of the Jews, which according to the law gendereth to bondage: the other gendering above all principality, power, and domination, and every name that is named not only in this world but also in that which is to come:j for she is our mother, that holy church, in whom we have expressed our faith: and consequently he adds, So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. In all this the apostle has clearly shown that the noble dignity of Christianity has its allegorical type and figure in the son of Abraham born of a free woman, while the legal bondage of Judaism has its type in the son of the bondmaid: and consequently, that both the dispensations derive from that God with whom we have found the outline sketch of both the dispensations. And the very fact that he speaks of that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free—does not this establish the fact that he who sets free is he who has been the possessor? Not even Galba ever set free another man's slaves:2 he would find it easier to let free men out of prison. So then liberty will be a boon from him under whom there has been the servitude of the law. And rightly. It was not seemly that men set free should again be bound under the yoke of servitude which is the law: for the psalm had now been fulfilled, Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us, after the rulers were assembled into one against the Lord and against his Christ.k As then they were now exempt from bondage, he was insistent on rubbing off from them the brand-mark of bondage, which was circumcision: and this by the authority of the prophets' preach- ing, for he remembered it was said by Jeremiah, And be circumcised in the foreskins of your heart:1 because Moses also said, Circumcise the hardness of your heart,m which means, not your flesh. Again if he was rejecting circumcision because he was the agent of a
4. 2 Suetonius, Galba 9 sq., relates that Galba, while still in Spain, on receiving an invitation to make himself 'defender of the human race', mounted the tribunal as though for the ceremony of manumission, and in dramatic form manu- mitted the statues and portraits of persons condemned and murdered by Nero: also, Nero 57, that on the report of Nero's death Roman citizens ran about the streets wearing freedmen's caps.
V. 4 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
533 |
different god, why does he deny that uncircumcision is of any avail in Christ, any more than circumcision is? For he ought to have done honour to the opposite of the circumcision he was attacking, if he were the agent of a god opposed to circumcision. But seeing that both circumcision and uncircumcision owed their origin to the one God, therefore both of them became of no avail in Christ, because faith had gained the preference—that faith of which it was written, And in his name shall the gentiles believe,n that faith which he says is perfected by love, and so again shows that it belongs to the Creator. If he means the love which is towards God, the Creator also says so: Thou shalt love God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy strength:o or else if he means towards one's neighbour, And thy neighbour as thyself,p is the Creator's command. But he that troubleth you shall bear his judgement. By which god? By that supremely good one? But that one does not judge. By the Creator? But not even he will judge an advocate of circum- cision. But if there is to be no other who can judge except the Creator, then the only one who can judge the upholders of the law is he who is himself determined upon its going into abeyance. What now if he also confirms the law, to the extent to which he must? For all the law, he says, has been fulfilled in you: thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.q Or else if he wishes 'has been fulfilled' to be taken to mean that it no longer needs to be fulfilled, then it is not his wish that I should love my neighbour as myself—so that this too will have gone into abeyance along with the law. But no, there will always be the need to continue in this com- mandment. And so the Creator's law meets with approval even from his adversary, and has acquired from him not dispossession but compression, the whole sum of it being now reduced to one commandment. And this again is an act more appropriate to the author of the law than to any other. Consequently when he says, Bear ye one another's burdens, and so ye shall fulfil the law of Christ, as this cannot be done unless a man loves his neighbour as himself, it becomes evident that Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, in which Bear ye one another's burdens is included, is the law of Christ, and that this is the Creator's, and Christ therefore belongs to the Creator in that the Creator's law is Christ's. Te are astray: God is not mocked. And yet Marcion's god can be mocked, because he has not learned how to be angry or to take vengeance. For what a man soweth, that shall he also reap: thus it is that the God of
V. 5 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
535 |
retribution and judgement utters a threat. But let us not become weary in well-doing, and, While we have time let us work that which is good: deny that it was the Creator who gave orders to do good, and look out for opposite teaching from your opposite divinity. But if he makes a promise of retribution, from the same God will come the harvest both of corruption and of life. Yet in his own time we shall reap, because the Preacher also says, There will be a time for every matter.r But even to me, the Creator's servant, the world is crucified, though not the God of the world, and I to the world, though not to the God of the world. For he wrote 'world' with reference to its manner of life and conduct, for by the re- nunciation of it we are crucified to it and die to it, and it to us. He calls them persecutors of Christ. But when he adds that he bears in his body the brand-marks of Christ—evidently bodily marks are intended—he asserts that the flesh of Christ, whose bodily brand-marks he draws attention to, is no putative flesh but true flesh in full reality.
5. On the First Epistle to the Corinthians.1 [1 Cor. 1.] My intro- duction to the previous epistle led me away from discussion of its superscription: for I was sure it could be discussed in some other connection, it being his usual one, the same in all his epistles. I pass over the fact that he does not begin by wishing health to those to whom he writes, but grace and peace. What had he still to do with Jewish custom, if he was the destroyer of Judaism? For even today the Jews salute one another in the name of peace, and of old in the scriptures such was their form of greeting. But I do understand how he claimed as his function the preaching of the Creator: How early are the feet of them that preach the gospel of good things, that preach the gospel of peace:a for as a preacher of good things, which means the grace of God, he knew how greatly was peace to be preferred. When he reports these as coming from God our Father and the Lord Jesus, making use of ordinary expressions such as are appropriate to our belief as well as yours, I do not think one can discern who is preached as God the Father, and as the Lord Jesus, except from the context, by asking to whom it best applies. First then I claim that none can be acknowledged as Father <and> Lord except the Creator and upholder of man and of the universe: also that to the Father the name of Lord is
5. 1 See Appendix 2.
V. 5 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
537 |
added by reason of his authority: and this name the Son also obtains from the Father. Also I claim that grace and peace be- long not only to him by whom their proclamation was made, but come from one who has been offended. For grace only comes after offence, and peace after war. But the people of Israel by transgression against instruction, and the whole I human race by shutting their eyes to nature, had both sinned and rebelled against the Creator: whereas Marcion's god was I incapable of taking offence, both because he was not known, and because he cannot be angry. What grace then can there be from one who has taken no offence? or what peace from one against whom no one has rebelled? He says the cross of Christ is foolish- ness to such as are to perish, but to such as are to obtain salvation it is the power and the wisdom of God: and to show whence this came about, he adds For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will make of no account the prudence of the prudent.b If these are the Creator's words, and it is he who reckons for foolishness I the things which pertain to the plea of the cross, then the cross, I and Christ by reason of the cross, will pertain to the Creator by whom was foretold that which pertains to the cross. Or else, if <your suggestion is that> the Creator, being hostile, has with this intent deprived men of wisdom, that the cross of his adversary's Christ should be accounted foolishness,—can the Creator by any means have made any pronouncement with reference to the cross of a Christ not his own, of whom, while he was foretelling, he was still ignorant? And again why, in the presence of a god supremely good and of abundant mercy, do some obtain salva- tion through believing that the cross is the power and wisdom of God, while others obtain perdition, those to whom the cross of Christ is accounted foolishness? Surely it means that the Creator has punished by the loss of wisdom and prudence some offence both of Israel and of the human race. The words that follow will confirm this, when he asks, Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? and when here again he adds the reason: Because in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom understood not God, God thought it good by the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe. But I must first come to a decision about 'world', inasmuch as here in particular these very acute heretics interpret 'world' by 'lord of the world', whereas we understand by it the man who is in
V. 5 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
539 |
the world, by that ordinary manner of human speech by which we frequently put that which contains for that which is contained in it—the circus shouted out, the hustings have spoken, the law- court was excited—meaning, the people who did things in those places. And so because the man, not the god, of the world in wisdom knew not God, whom he ought to have known—the Jew in the wisdom of the scriptures, and every nation in the wisdom of his works—therefore God, the same God who in his own wisdom had not been known, determined by foolishness to shock men's wisdom, by saving all such as believe in the foolish preaching of the cross: Because the Jews are asking for signs, though they ought by now to be quite sure about God, and the Greeks are seeking after wisdom, because indeed they do set up their own wis- dom, not God's. But if it were a new god being preached, what wrong had the Jews done in asking for signs by which to believe, or the Greeks in searching for wisdom in which they might by preference believe? So also the actual repayment both to Jews and Greeks proves God a zealous God and a judge, who by virtue of hostile and judicial retribution has made foolish the wisdom of the world. But if the pleadings belong to him whose scriptures are adduced in evidence, then when the apostle dis- courses of the Creator not being understood he is certainly claim- ing that the Creator ought to have been understood. Even in saying that his preaching of Christ is to the Jews an offence, he sets his seal on the Creator's prophecy about that, who speaks by Isaiah, Behold I have placed in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence? But the rock was Christ.d Even Marcion has kept that. But what is that foolish thing of God which is wiser than men, if not the cross and the death of Christ? What is that weak thing of God which is stronger than man, if not God's birth, and his human flesh? But if Christ was neither born of a virgin nor composed of flesh, and consequently has not truly suffered to the end either the cross or death, there was nothing in that either foolish or weak: and in that case God has not chosen the foolish things of the world to confound its wisdom, nor has God chosen the weak things of the world to confound the strong, nor things dishonourable and little and contemptible, things which are not, that is, which do not truly exist, to confound the things which are, that is, which do truly exist. For nothing ordained by God is
V. 6 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
541 |
really small and ignoble and contemptible, but <only> that <or- dained> by man. But in the Creator's view even <his> old things can be reckoned for foolishness and weakness and dishonour and littleness and contempt. What is more foolish, what more weak, than the demand by God of bloody sacrifices and the stench of whole burnt offerings? What is weaker than the cleansing of vessels and couches? What more dishonourable than the further despoiling of the flesh which has already enough to be ashamed of? What more lowly than the demand of eye for eye? What more contemptible than the distinction of meats? As far as I know, the whole Old Testament is a matter of scorn to every heretic: for God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, that he may con- found its wisdom—Marcion's god has nothing such, for his opposi- tion does not involve the confutation of opposites by opposites— that no flesh should glory, but that, as it is written, He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord. Which Lord? Evidently him who gave this instruc- tion—unless indeed the Creator gave instruction to glory in the god of Marcion.
6. [1 Cor. 2 and 3.] And so throughout this passage he makes it plain which God's wisdom he is speaking among them that are perfect—his in fact who has taken away the wisdom of the wise, and made the prudence of the prudent of none effect, who has made foolish the wisdom of the world, by choosing its foolish things and ordaining them for salvation. This wisdom which he says was kept secret is that which has been in things foolish and little and dishonourable, which has also been hidden under figures, both allegories and enigmas, but was afterwards to be revealed in Christ who was set for a light of the gentiles by that Creator who by the voice of Isaiah promises that he will open up invisible and secret treasures.a For that anything should have been kept hidden by that god who has never done anything at all under which one might suppose he had hidden something, is incredible enough: he himself, if he did exist, could not have remained hidden: far less could any mysteries of his. The Creator however is himself as well known as those mysteries of his which in Israel ran in open succession, though in the shade in respect of what they signified, mysteries in which was hidden that wisdom of God which in its own time was to be spoken among those that were
V. 6 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
543 |
perfect, but had been ordained in the purpose of God before the ages. And whose ages, if not the Creator's? For if the ages are constructed of times, and times are compounded of days and months and years, and days and months and years are marked out by the Creator's suns and moons and stars placed by him for this purpose—for he says, They shall be for signs of months andyearsb— then it is clear that the ages belong to the Creator, and that everything which it says was ordained before the ages belongs to no other than him to whom the ages belong. Or else let Marcion prove that his god has any ages: let him point to some actual world in which ages may be counted—some, so to speak, con- tainer of times—let him point to some signs, or the ordering of them. If he has nothing to show, I turn back to ask the question, Then how did he before the Creator's ages ordain our glory? He could be thought to have ordained before the ages a glory which he had revealed at the outset of an age. But when he does so now that all the Creator's ages are nearly drawn to an end, it was in vain that he ordained before the ages, and not rather be- tween the ages, that which he intended to reveal when the ages were nearly gone. To have been in a hurry with his ordaining is not the act of one who has been a laggard in his revealing. To the Creator however both things are possible, to have ordained before the ages and to have revealed at the end of the ages, because that which he ordained and has revealed, he did in the space between the ages give preliminary service of in figures and enigmas and allegories. But when, in reference to our glory, he adds that none of the princes of this world knew it, because if they had known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory, the heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord, the Christ of his other god, so that this too may fall to the discredit of the Creator. Yet I have already shown him by what means our glory must be reckoned to be from the Creator, and he ought to regard it as already settled that that glory which was kept secret in the Creator was necessarily un- known even to all the virtues and powers of the Creator—because even household servants are not allowed to know the intentions of their masters—and even less was it known to those apostate angels and the leader of their transgression, the devil, all of whom I should claim were because of their crime even more thoroughly
826805 U
V. 6 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
545 |
excluded from any cognizance of the Creator's ordinances. But now it is not permissible even for me to interpret the princes of this world as meaning the virtues and powers of the Creator, on the ground that to them the apostle imputes ignorance: while yet according to our gospel even the devil at the temptation knew who Jesus was,c and according to the document you share with us the evil spirit knew that he was the holy one of God and was named Jesus and had come to destroy them.d Also if that parable of the strong man armed, whom another stronger than he has overcome, and has taken possession of his goods,e is, as Marcion has it, taken for a parable of the Creator, in that case the Creator could no longer have remained in ignorance of your god of glory while he was being overcome by him: nor could he have hanged upon a cross that one against whom his strength was of no avail: and so it remains for me to argue that the virtues and powers of the Creator did know, and did crucify the God of glory, their own Christ, with that desperation and overflowing of wickedness with which also slaves steeped in villainy do not hesitate to murder their masters: for in the gospel as I have it, it is written that Satan entered into Judas,f But according to Marcion not even the apostle in this passage permits of ignorance against the Lord of glory being ascribed to the powers of the Creator, because in effect he will not have it that they are referred to as the princes of this world. And so, as it appears that he was not speaking of spiritual princes, then it was secular princes he meant, the princely people—which was not reckoned among the nations—and its rulers, the king Herod, and even Pilate, and him in whom sat in authority the major principality of this world, the majesty of Rome. In such a way, while the argumentations of the opposite faction are pulled down, my own expositions are built up. But you still claim that our glory belongs to your god and has been kept secret with him. Why then does your god, like the apostle, still rest his case upon the same document? What has he, here and everywhere, to do with the statements of the prophets? For who hath known the mind of the Lord, and who hath been his counsellor?g Isaiah said it. What has he to do with my God's evidences? For when he declares himself a wise master-builder, by this term we find indicated, by the Creator in Isaiah, the one
V. 7 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
547 |
who marks out the limits set by God's law of conduct: for he says, I will take away from Judaea, among other matters, even the wise master-builder.h And was not that a presage of Paul himself, who was destined to be taken away from Judaea, which means Judaism, for the building up of Christendom? For he was to lay that one and only foundation which is Christ. Indeed of this too the Creator speaks, by the same prophet: Behold I insert into the founda- tions of Sion a stone precious (and) honourable, and he that believeth in it shall not be put to shame.i Unless perhaps God was professing himself the fabricator of some terrestrial work, so that it was not his own Christ he indicated as the one who was to be the founda- tion of those who believe in him. And upon this according as each man builds, worthy or unworthy doctrine, if his work is to be approved by fire, if his wages are to be paid to him by fire, it belongs to the Creator: because the judgement by fire is of your superstructure, which <is set> upon his foundation, which means, his Christ. Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If man is both the property and the work and the image and the likeness of the Creator, and is flesh by virtue of the Creator's earth, and soul by virtue of his breath- ing, then Marcion's god is dwelling entirely on someone else's property, if it is not the Creator whose temple we are. But if anyone destroy the temple of God, he shall be destroyed: by the God of the temple. When you threaten him with an avenger, it is the Creator you will be threatening him with. Become fools, that ye may be wise. Why? Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Which god? If what has preceded does not constitute a precedent judgement in favour of my interpretation, well it is that here again he proceeds, For it is written, He that taketh the wise in their own naughtiness: and again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are worse than vain.j For in general we shall make it a standing rule that <your god> could never have made use of any sentence of that God whom it was his duty to destroy, with- out thereby giving teaching in his favour. Therefore, he says, let no man glory in a man. And this too is in line with the Creator's ruling: Wretched the man that hath hope in a man,k and, It is better to trust in God than to trust in men,l or, of course, to glory.
7. [1 Cor. 4-10.] He himself will bring to light the hidden things
V. 7 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
549 |
of darkness—evidently by Christ as agent—who has promised that Christ will be a light,a and has declared that he himself is a lantern, searching the heartsb and reins. Praise for each several man will come from him from whom, as from a judge, will come also the opposite of praise. Surely, you say, here at least by 'world' he means the god of the world, when he says, We are made a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men, because if by 'world' he had referred to the men of the world he would not have gone on to mention 'men'. Nay rather, to deprive you of this argument the Holy Spirit's foresight has indicated in what sense he meant We are made a spectacle to the world, (namely) the angels who minister to the world, and the men to whom they minister. Do you think a man of such strong convictions—I leave the Holy Spirit out of account—especially when writing to his sons whom he had be- gotten in the gospel, would hesitate to name freely the god of the world, against whom he could not give the impression of preach- ing except by doing so openly? I make no claim that it was by the Creator's lawc that the apostle disapproved of the man who had his father's wife: suppose him to have followed the rule of natural or state religion. But when he sentences him to be delivered unto Satan, he becomes the apparitor of a God who condemns. Pass over also what he means by, For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord, provided you admit that by destruction of the flesh and saving of the spirit he has spoken as a judge, and that when he orders the wicked person to be put away from among them, he has in mind one of the Creator's most regular expressions. Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new baking, even as ye are unleavened: so that unleavened bread was to the Creator a figure of ourselves, and in this sense too Christ our Passover was sacrificed. Yet how can Christ be the Passover except that the passover is a figure of Christ because of the simili- tude between the saving blood of the <paschal> lamb and of Christ? How can he have applied to us and to Christ the likenesses of the Creator's solemnities, if they were not ours already? In telling us to flee fornication he gives evidence of the resurrection of the flesh: The body, he says, is not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body, as the temple is for God and God for the temple. Shall the temple then perish for God, and God for the
V. 7 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
551 |
temple? But you see it written, He that hath raised up the Lord will also raise us up: in the body also he will raise us up, because the body is for the Lord and the Lord for the body. And well it is that he piles it on, know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? What has the heretic to say? Shall those members of Christ not rise again, which are ours no longer? For we have been bought at a great price. Evidently at no price at all if Christ was a phantasm without any corporal assets which he could pay over as the purchase-price for our bodies. So then Christ did possess something to redeem us with, and since in fact he has at some great price redeemed these bodies against which we are not to commit fornication because they are now not ours but Christ's, he will surely bring to salvation for himself possessions he has acquired at so great a cost. And besides, how can we glorify God, and how can we exalt him, in a body meant for destruction ? There follows a discussion of matrimony, which Marcion, of stronger character than the apostle, forbids. For although the apostle takes continency for the greater good, he still allows marriage to be contracted and put to use, even advising continuance in preference to separation. It is true that Christ forbids divorce, while Moses allows it. When Marcion deprives his faithful—I say nothing of his catechumens—of cohabitation in any form, demand- ing divorce even before marriage, whose judgement does he follow, Moses' or Christ's? And yet when Christ too commands the wife not to depart from her husband, or, if she does depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband, he gives permission for the divorce which he does not out and out prohibit, and sets his approval on the matrimony of which from the first he forbids the dissolution, and if perhaps there has been dissolution desires its restoration. Again, what reasons does he give for continency? Because the time is short. I had thought, 'because there is a different god in Christ'. And yet, he who causes the shortening of the tune must also be the cause of that which is contingent on the shorten- ing of the time. No man guides his actions by another's time. A petty sort of god you say yours is, Marcion, a god in some sort of constraint to the Creator's tune. Certainly when he rules that a woman may marry only in the Lord, so that no believer may contract matrimony with a heathen, he upholds the Creator's law, who always and everywhere forbids marriage with foreigners. But, though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth—
V. 7 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
553 |
it is evident how he means this: not that there really are, but because there are those that are called so, when they are not. He begins with idols his intended discussion of things offered to idols: We know that an idol is nothing. But even Marcion does not deny that the Creator is a God: so that we cannot suppose the apostle includes the Creator among those which are called gods and yet are not, because even if they had been, yet to us there would be one God, the Father. And from whom have we all things, if not from him whose are all things? And what are these? You have it in what he has said already: All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come. Thus he makes the Creator the God of all men and things, for from him are the world and life and death, and these cannot belong to that other god. Therefore from him, among those all things, is Christ. When giving instruction that every man's duty is to live by his own work, he had begun well enough by citing the example of soldiers and flock-masters and husbandmen: but divine authority was not there in evidence. He had therefore no choice but to adduce that law of the Creator which he was for abolishing: for he had no such law of his own god. Thou shalt not, he says, muzzle the ox that is threshing, and adds, Is God concerned about oxen ? Even about oxen is he kind, for men's sake? Yes, for our sakes, he says, it is written. Consequently, as our claim is, this is his proof that the law is allegorical, lending its support to those who make their living out of the gospel, and that therefore the preachers of the gospel belong to that same God whose is the law which has made provision for them: this when he says, Yes, for our sakes it is written. But he would not avail himself of the law's permission, preferring to work without wages. And this he has accounted to his own glorying, which he says no man shall make void: yet not to the discrediting of the law, which he approves of another man making use of. Now see how in his blindness Marcion stumbles at that rock of which our fathers drank in the wilderness: for if that rock was Christ, and Christ is the Creator's, as also Israel was, with what right does he ex- pound this as a type of a different god's religion? Or was it not with express intent to teach that those ancient things looked figuratively towards Christ who was to have his descent from those men? Yes, for when he proposes to narrate the subsequent history of that people, he begins by saying, Now these things were
V. 8 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
555 |
done as examples for us. Tell me, were they done by the Creator as examples for the men of some other god, an unknown one? or does that other god borrow them as examples from another God, his opponent? Is he attracting me to himself through fears suggested by the God from whom he is withdrawing my allegiance ? Is his adversary going to put me in a better relationship with him? If I now commit the same sins as Israel committed, shall I receive the same treatment, or shall I not? If not the same, vainly does he set before me terrors I am not going to experience. But from whom must I expect such treatment? If from the Creator, will they be such things as it beseems him to inflict? Yet how can it be that he, a jealous God, should punish a sinner against his opponent, and not on the contrary prefer to encourage him? If from that other god—yet he is incapable of punishing. Thus the apostle's entire treatment of this subject has no rational con- sistency, unless it refers to the Creator's rules of conduct. And once more, at the end there is correspondence with the beginning: Mow in whatsoever way these things happened to them, they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come. Behold this Creator, who has foreknowledge of the other god's Christians, and is the admonisher of them. I pass over at times the parallels of matters already discussed, while some things I dispatch with brevity. It is a great argument for that other god, this permission to use meats contrary to the law: as though we too did not claim that the burdens of the law have been relaxed, though by him who imposed them, him who promised renewal. So he who for- bade certain foods, has now restored that which he granted at the beginning. If however it had been some other god, an over- thrower of our God, his very first prohibition would have been against his men living on his opponent's provisions.
8. [1 Cor. 11-14.] The head of a man is Christ. Which Christ? The one who is not the man's author? Now he has written 'head' with reference to authority, and authority can belong to no other than the author. Of whose man then is he the head? Undoubtedly the man of whom he goes on to say, For the man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image of God. If therefore he is the image of the Creator—for it was he who, with a view to Christ his Word subsequently becoming Man, said, Let us make man unto our image and likeness—how can I have as head some other, and not him
V. 8 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
557 |
whose image I am? For since I am the image of the Creator, there is no room in me for any other head. Also, why shall a woman need to have power upon her head? If it is because she was taken out of the man, and was made for the man's sake according to the Creator's ordinance, in this case too the apostle has paid respect to the moral law of him by whose ordinance he explains the purposes of that law. He adds also, Because of the angels. Which? or rather, whose? If those which revolted from the Creator, with good reason, so that the woman's face, which was the cause of their offence, should wear, as a sort of mark, this garment of humility and eclipsing of beauty. If however he means the angels of your other god—what has he to fear, when even Marcionites have no hankering after women? I have already several times observed that by the apostle heresies are set down as an evil thing among things evil, and that those persons are to be understood as meeting with approval who flee from heresies as an evil thing. And further, I have already,1 in discussing the gospel, by the sacrament of the Bread and the Cup, given proof of the verity of our Lord's Body and Blood, as opposed to Mar- cion's phantasm. Also that every mention of judgement has reference to the Creator as the God who is a Judge, has been discussed almost everywhere in this work. I proceed to say of spiritual (gifts), that these too were promised by the Creator with reference to Christ, under that general rule—an entirely just one, I suggest—by which actual fulfilment must be regarded as the function of no other than the one whose the promise is shown to have been. Isaiah made the announcement, There shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall come up from the root, and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him. He goes on to recount its forms: The Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and godliness; the Spirit of the fear of God shall fill him.a Thus in the figure of a flower he pointed to Christ who was to rise up out of the rod which had come forth from the root of Jesse—that is, the virgin of the offspring of David the son of Jesse: and in that Christ the entire substance of the Spirit was to come to rest.2 Not that it was to come as a later addition to him who even before his incarnation has always been the Spirit of God—so that you may not use this as an argument that this prophecy refers to the Christ who as a
8. 1 i.e. at IV. 40. 2 On prophecy terminating in Christ, IV. 18. 4.
V. 8 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
559 |
mere man, solely of descent from David, will in the future <you say> acquire the spirit of his own God—but because from the moment that flower bloomed in the flesh assumed from the stock of David, the entire operation of spiritual grace was to come to rest in him and, as far as the Jews were concerned, to come to an end. And the facts themselves bear witness to this, since from then onwards the Spirit of the Creator no longer breathes among them, while from Judaea has been taken away the wise and prudent master-builder, the counsellor and the prophet:b so that this is the meaning of, The law and the prophets were until John.c Hear now in what terms he has made the statement that from Christ taken up into heaven gifts of grace would come. He hath gone up into the height, that is, into heaven: he hath led captivity captive, meaning, death and human bondage: he hath given gifts to the sons of men,d those free gifts which we call charismata. A graceful touch, that he says 'sons of men', and not just generally 'men', pointing to us as the sons of men, of those who are truly men, the apostles: for he says, In the gospel I have begotten you, and, O my sons, whom for a second time I bring to birth.e So now there is that promise of the Spirit made in general terms by Joel: In the last days I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh, and their sons and daughters shall prophesy, and upon my servants and handmaids I will pour forth of my Spirit.f And in fact if it was for the last days that the Creator promised the grace of the Spirit, while in the last days Christ has appeared as dispenser of spiritual things—for the apostle says, But when the time was fulfilled God sent his Son,g and again, Because the time is now short—it is clear also from that foretelling of the last times that this grace of the Spirit appertains to the Christ of him who foretold it. Set side by side the apostle's details and those of Isaiah:h To one, he says, is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, so at once Isaiah has set down, The Spirit of wisdom: to another the word of knowledge, and this must be the word of understanding and counsel: to another faith, by the same Spirit, which must mean the Spirit of godliness and the fear of God: to another the gift of healings, to another miracles, and this will be the Spirit of might: to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another diverse kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues, which will be the Spirit of knowledge. See how both when he sets out the apportionments of the one Spirit and when he expounds their
826805 X
V. 8 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
561 |
particular bearing, the apostle is in full agreement with the prophet. This I affirm: the fact that he has brought the unity of our body, in its many diverse members, into comparison with the compact structure of the various spiritual gifts, shows that there is one and the same Lord both of the human body and of the Holy Spirit, that Lord who was unwilling that there should be in a body of spirit any deserving of such spiritual gifts as he has not located also in the human body: that Lord who by that first and great commandment on which Christ also set his approval, Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart and all thy strength and all thy soul, and thy neighbour as thyself,i taught the apostle that charity must be more highly regarded than all spiritual gifts. And as he puts it on record that it is written in the law that the Creator will speak with other tongues and other lips, since with this reference he confirms <the legitimacy of> the gift of tongues, here again he cannot be supposed to have used the Creator's prophecy to express approval of a different god's spiritual gift. Once more, when he enjoins upon women silence in the church, that they are not to speak, at all events with the idea of learning—though he has already shown that even they have the right to prophesy, since he insists that a woman must be veiled, even when prophesying— it was from the law that he received authority for putting the woman in subjection,j that law which, let me say it once for all, <you suppose> he had no right to take note of except for its destruc- tion. So now, to leave this question of spiritual gifts, the facts themselves will be called upon to prove which of us is making rash claims for his god, and whether it can be alleged in opposition to my statement of claim, that even though the Creator has promised these for some Christ of his not yet revealed, because he is intended for the Jews alone, they will in their own time and in their own Christ and in their own people have their own operations. So then let Marcion put in evidence any gifts there are of his god, any prophets, provided they have spoken not by human emotion but by God's spirit, who have foretold things to come, and also made manifest the secrets of the heart: let him produce some psalm, some vision, some prayer, so long as it is a spiritual one, in ecstasy, which means abeyance of mind, if there is added also an interpretation of the tongue: let him also prove to me that in his presence some woman has prophesied, some great speaker from among those more saintly females of
V. 9 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
563 |
his. If all such proofs are more readily put in evidence by me, and are in full concord with the rules and ordinances and regula- tions of the Creator, without doubt both Christ and the Spirit and the apostle will belong to my God. Anyone who cares to demand it has here the statement of my case.
9. [1 Cor. 15: 12-28.] Meanwhile the Marcionite will put in evidence nothing of this nature, for he has no longer courage to state whose Christ for preference it is who is not yet revealed. Just as mine is to be expected, having been prophesied of since the beginning, so his for that reason is not to be expected, seeing he has not existed since the beginning. We have better right to believe in a Christ to come than the heretic in no Christ at all.1 We have first to inquire in what sense at that time some said there was no resurrection of the dead. Surely in the same sense as even now, seeing that the resurrection of the flesh is always under denial. The soul indeed certain of the philosophers claim is divine, and vouch for its salvation, and even the common man on that assumption pays respect to his dead, in that he is confident that their souls remain: their bodies however are manifestly re- duced to nothing, either immediately by fire or wild beasts, or even when carefully embalmed at length by passage of time. If then the apostle is refuting people who deny the resurrection of the dead, evidently he is defending against them that which they were denying, which is the resurrection of the flesh.2 There, in brief, is my answer. What follows is more than was necessary. For the fact that the expression used is 'resurrection of the dead' demands insistence on the precise meaning of the terms. So then 'dead' can only be that which is deprived of the soul by whose energy it was once alive. It is the body which is deprived of the soul and by that deprivation becomes dead: so that the term 'dead' applies to the body. So then if the resurrection is of something dead, and the dead thing is no other than the body, it will be a resurrection of the body. So too the term 'resurrection' lays claim to no other object than one that has fallen down. The verb 'rise' can be used of something which has in no sense fallen down, some- thing which in the past has always lain there. But 'rise again' applies only to that which has fallen down, since by rising again,
9. 1 The preceding three sentences conclude the argument of Ch. 8. 2 On this subject see de res. carnis, particularly chapters 42-54.
V. 9 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
565 |
because it has fallen down, it is said to experience resurrection: for the syllable 're' is always applied to some act of repetition. So we affirm that the body falls down to earth by death, as the fact itself bears witness, by the law of God. For it was to the body that God said, Earth thou art, and into earth shall thou go:a so that that which is from the earth will go into the earth. The falling down is of that which departs into the earth, the rising again is of that which falls down. Since by man <came> death, by man <came> also the resurrection. Here I find that Christ's body is indicated by the desig- nation 'man', for man consists of body, as I have already several times shown. But if as in Adam we are all brought to death, and in Christ are all brought to life, since in Adam we are brought to death in the body it follows of necessity that in Christ we are brought to life in the body. Otherwise the parallel does not hold, if our bringing to life in Christ does not take effect in the same substance in which we are brought to death in Adam. But he has added here another reference to Christ, which for the sake of the present discussion must not be overlooked: for there will be even more cogent proof of the resurrection of the flesh, the more I show that Christ belongs to that God in whose presence the resurrection of the flesh is an object of belief. When he says, For he must reign until he place God's enemies under his feet, here again by this saying he declares God an avenger, and consequently the same who has made Christ this promise, Sit thou at my right hand until I place thine enemies as a footstool of thy feet: the Lord shall send the rod of thy power out of Sion, and be the ruler with thee in the midst of thine enemies.b But it is necessary for me to claim for the support of my point of view those scriptures of which even the Jews attempt to deprive us. These say that he composed this psalm with reference to Hezekiah, because it was he who set his throne at the right side of the temple, and because God turned back his enemies and consumed them: and therefore again what follows, Before the dawn out of the womb have I begotten thee,c also applies to Hezekiah, and to Hezekiah's nativity. We produce the gospels—of their credibility we must at least in the course of this long work have given these people some assurance—which make it clear that our Lord was born at night, which is the meaning of before the dawn, indicated even more clearly by the star, and by the evidence of the angel who at night reported to the shep- herds that Christ had just then been born, and by the place
V. 9 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
567 |
of his birth, since an inn is where people come together at night. Perhaps also there was a mystic meaning in Christ being born at night, to be himself the light of truth to the darkness of ignorance. Also God would not have said, I have begotten thee, except to a real son. For although it was with reference to the whole nation that he said, I have begotten sons,d he did not go on to say, Out of the womb. But why did he go on to say Out of the womb, quite unnecessarily, as though there were any doubt that any one of mankind was born out of a womb, unless because the Spirit intended it to have a more subtle reference to Christ— Out of the womb have I begotten thee, that is, 'out of the womb alone', without the seed of a man—ascribing to the flesh that which is from the womb, to the spirit that which is from himself. To this is added: Thou art a priest for ever.e But Hezekiah was not a priest: and even if he had been, it would not have been 'for ever'. According to the order of Melchizedek,e he says. What had Hezekiah to do with Melchizedek, the priest of the Most High, who himself was not circumcised, yet on accepting the offering of tithes blessed Abrahamf who was circumcised?3 But to Christ the order of Melchizedek will be applicable, for Christ, the particular and legitimate minister of God, the pontifex of the uncircumcised priesthood, was there established among the gentiles from whom he was destined to find better acceptance, and will when he comes at the last time vouchsafe acceptance and blessing to the circum- cision, the offspring of Abraham, which will at long last acknow- ledge him. There is also another psalm which begins, O God, give thy judgement unto the king, to Christ who is to become a king: and thy righteousness unto the king's son,g that is, to Christ's people— for those reborn in him are his sons. Yet this psalm too will be alleged to prophesy of Solomon. But must not those expressions which are appropriate only to Christ make it plain that the rest also apply to Christ and not to Solomon? He cometh down, it says, like rain on to a fleece of wool, even as the drops that water the earth,h describing his quiet and imperceptible descent from heaven into the flesh. As for Solomon, although he did come down from somewhere, yet it was not like the rain, because it was not out of heaven. But I will set out all the more straightforward passages. His dominion, it says, shall be from the one sea to the other, and from
9. 3 When Abraham met with Melchizedek (Gen. 14) he was still uncircum- cised. The same mistake was made by Justin, dial. 33.
V. 10 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
569 |
the flood unto the world's ends. This has been granted to Christ alone, whereas Solomon had command only of that tiny country of Judaea. All kings shall give him worship: whom do all worship, except Christ? And all the gentiles shall do him service: whom, except Christ? Let his name remain for ever: whose name is eternal, except Christ's? His name shall remain before the sun, for the Word of God, which is Christ, was before the sun. And in him shall all the nations be blessed: in Solomon no gentile nation is blessed, but in Christ every one of them. What again, if this psalm also proves he is God? And they shall call him blessed: because, Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things: blessed is the name of his glory, and the whole earth shall be filled with his glory. Solomon on the other hand, I boldly say, lost even that glory which he had in God when he was dragged the whole way into idolatry by his wife. And so when this too is written down in the middle of the psalm, His enemies shall lick the dust,i being put underneath his feet, it will have application to that for which I have both quoted this psalm and claimed it in support of my position: and so I shall have made out my case that the glory of his kingdom and the subjection of his enemies are in accordance with the Creator's design, and I shall establish my further claim that there is no room for belief in any other Christ than the Creator's.
10. [1 Cor. 15: 29-58.] Let us return now to the resurrection. I have already, in opposition to all sorts of heretics, given this sufficient attention in a volume of its own:1 though here again I do not neglect it, for the benefit of people unaware of that little work. What, he asks, shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? That practice must speak for itself. Perhaps the kalends of February will answer him: pray for the dead.2 Abstain then from at once blaming the apostle as either having recently invented this or given it his approval, with intent to establish the resurrection of the flesh more firmly in that those who without any effect were having themselves baptized for the dead were
10. 1 The two treatises, de carne Christi and de res. carnis, were written to contro- vert all those who, denying that the human body can partake of salvation, held docetic views of the humanity of Christ. Such were Marcionites, Apelleasts, Valentinians, and gnostics of every sort.
2 'Kalends of February' stands by metonymy for the whole month, during which, but particularly on the 21st, honour was paid to the tombs of ancestors and offerings made to their manes: Ovid, Fasti ii. 533 sqq.
V. 10 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
571 |
doing so by faith in the resurrection. We see him in another context setting a limit, of one baptism.a Consequently, to be baptized for the dead is to be baptized for bodies: for I have shown that what was dead is the body. What shall they do who are baptized for bodies, if bodies do not rise again? And so with reason we here take our stand, to let the apostle introduce his second point of discussion, this too with reference to the body. But some men will say, How will the dead rise again ? And with what body will they come? For after the defence of the resurrection, which was under denial, his next step was to discuss those attri- butes of the body, which were not open to view. But concerning these we have to join issue with other opponents: for since Mar- cion entirely refuses to admit the resurrection of the flesh, promising salvation to the soul alone, he makes this a question not of attri- butes but of substance. For all that, he is most evidently dis- credited by the things the apostle says with reference to the attributes of the body for the benefit of those who do ask, How will the dead rise again, and with what body will they come ? For he has already declared that the body will rise again, by having discussed the body's attributes. Again if he proposes the examples of the grain of wheat, or something of that sort, things to which God gives a body, as it shall please him, and if he says that to every seed there is its own particular body, as there is one kind of flesh of men, and another of beasts and birds, and bodies celestial and terrestrial, and one glory of the sun and another of the moon and another of the stars, does he not indicate that this is a carnal and corporeal resurrection, which he commends by carnal and corporeal examples? And is he not giving assurance of it on behalf of that God from whom come the examples he adduces? So also, he says, is the resurrection. How so? Like the grain of wheat, as a body it is sown, as a body it rises again. Thus he has described the dissolution of the body into earth as the sowing of a seed, because it is sown in corruption, <in dishonour, in weakness, but is raised to incorruption>, to honour, to power. The process followed at the resurrection is the act of that same <God> whose was the course taken at the dissolution—-just like the grain. If not, if you take away from the resurrection that body which you have surrendered to dissolution, what ground can there be for any difference of outcome? And further, if it is sown an animate object and rises again a spiritual one, although soul or even spirit
V. 10 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
573 |
possesses some sort of body of its own, so that animate body might be taken to mean soul, and spiritual body to mean spirit, he does not by that affirm that at the resurrection the soul will become spirit, but that the body, which by being born along with the soul, and living by means of the soul may properly be termed animate, will become spiritual when by the spirit it rises again to eternity. In short, since it is not soul, but flesh, that is sown in corruption when dissolved into the earth, then that animate body cannot be soul, but is that flesh which has been an animate body, so that out of animate the body is made spiritual: as also he says, a little later, Not first that which is spiritual. In preparation for this, he has just now observed of Christ himself, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit—although this heretic in his folly has refused to let it be so, for instead of 'last Adam' he has written 'last Lord', fearing that if he treated the Lord as the last Adam we might claim that as the last Adam Christ belongs to the same God as the first Adam. But the falsification is evident. For why 'first Adam', if not be- cause there is also a last Adam? The only things that admit of numerical order are those of equal rank or of the same name or substance or author; for even if in things opposed to one another there can be one first and the other last, they do belong to the same author. If however the author too is a different one, even he can be referred to as 'the last': yet that which he has become the author of is a first thing, but a last thing if it is on an equality with the first. But it is not on an equality with the first, because it does not belong to the same author. In the same manner he will be confuted by the designation 'man'. The first man, he says, is of the earth, earthy: the second is the Lord from heaven. Why 'the second', if he is not a man, as the first was? Or perhaps also the first is 'the Lord', if the second is. But it is enough that if in the gospel he presents Christ as the Son of man, he cannot deny that as man, and in this manhood, he is Adam. The words that follow again bring him into difficulties. For when the apostle says, As is he who is from the earth, that is, the man, such also are the earthy, meaning, the men, it follows that as is the man who is from heaven, such also are the men who are from heaven. For it would not have been possible for him to contrast with earthy men heavenly beings who were not men: for his intention was to use their joint possession of that name to indicate a more accurate distinction between their present
V. 10 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
575 |
condition and their future expectation. For it is by the present and the future that he calls them earthy and heavenly, yet both equally men, who are reckoned either in Adam or in Christ according as their end will be. And consequently, for an exhortation towards the heavenly hope, he says, As we have borne the image of the earthy let us also hear the image of the heavenly, not with reference to any actu- ality of the resurrection, but to conduct in this present life. For his words are, Let us bear, not 'we shall bear', in the imperative, not the future indicative: for his desire is for us to walk as he himself has walked, and to depart from the image of the earthy man, the old man, which is the operation of the flesh. What does he say next? For this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot obtain possession of the kingdom of God—meaning those works of flesh and blood which when writing to the Galatians he said could not inherit the king- dom of God:b for his custom in other places besides is to let a substance stand for the works of that substance, as when he says that those who are in the flesh cannot please God.c For when shall we be able to please God if not while we are in this flesh? There is, I suppose, no other time for us to work in. But if, though situated in the flesh, we flee the works of the flesh, then we shall not be in the flesh, not because we escape from the substance of the flesh, but from its defect. But if under the designation 'flesh' it is the works of the flesh, not its substance, that we are bidden to divest ourselves of, it is to the works of the flesh, not the substance of the flesh, that under the name of flesh the kingdom of God is denied: for condemnation is passed not on that in which evil is done, but on the evil that is done. To administer poison is a felony, yet the cup in which it is administered is not brought under accusation. So also the body is the receptacle of carnal acts, but it is the soul which in the body mixes the poison of this or that evil deed. If then the soul, the author of the works of the flesh, is to be counted worthy of the kingdom of God through the cleansing of the sins it has committed in the body, how can it be that the body, a mere servant, is to continue under condemna- tion? Shall the poisoner be acquitted and the cup punished? For all that, it is not the kingdom of God that we insist on for the flesh, but the resurrection of the substance of it, as it were the door of the kingdom by which entry is made. The resurrection is one thing, the kingdom another: the resurrection comes first, the kingdom afterwards. So we affirm that the flesh rises again,
826805 Y
V. 11 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
577 |
but obtains the kingdom after being changed. For the dead shall rise again incorruptible, those, it means, who had become corrupt when their bodies collapsed into destruction: and we shall be changed, in an instant, in the momentary motion of an eye. For this corruptible thing—the apostle was grasping his own body when he spoke—must put on incorruption, and this mortal thing put on immor- tality, so that, in fact, its substance may be made suitable for the kingdom of God. For we shall be as the angels.d Such will be the change in the flesh—but flesh raised up again. Else if there is going to be no flesh, how shall it be clothed upon with incorrup- tion and immortality? So then, made into something else by that change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, being no longer flesh and blood, but the body which God will have given to it. And so the apostle rightly says, Flesh and blood shall not obtain the kingdom of God, for he ascribes that to the change which ensues upon the resurrection. So if then will be brought to pass the word which is written in the Creator's scriptures, O death, where is thy victory, or, thy striving? O death where is thy sting?—and this is a word of the Creator, spoken by the prophete—the fact itself, the kingdom, will belong to him whose word will come to pass in the kingdom. Nor are his thanks for having enabled us to gain the victory—over death, he means—addressed to any other god than the God from whom he has accepted that word of exultation over death, that word of triumph.
11. On the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.1 [2 Cor. 1-4.] If through the fault of men led astray the word 'god' has become a common noun, in that in the world both speech and belief are of gods in the plural, yet Blessed be the God of our Lord Jesus Christ will be understood to refer to none other than the Creator, who has both blessed all things—you have it in Genesisa—and is blessed by all things—you have it in Daniel.b Likewise, if 'father' is a possible description of a god with no offspring, the Creator has a far better right to it; yet even so, Father of mercies has to be the same one who is described as tender-hearted and pitiful and abundant in mercy. You have it in Jonah,c along with that actual instance of the mercy he showed to the Ninevites when they besought him. He is ready to be moved by the tears of Hezekiah,d ready also to forgive Naboth's blood to Ahab the
11. 1 See Appendix 2.
V. 11 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
579 |
husband of Jezebel when he asks for pardon,e ready at once to forgive David's sin when he confesses it,f preferring in fact a sinner's repentance to his deaths—and all this because of his disposition to mercy. If Marcion's god has either done or said anything of this sort, I shall acknowledge him as a father of mercies. But if Marcion attaches this title to him only from the time he was revealed, as though he has been the father of mercies only since he undertook to deliver the human race—well, since the time they allege he was revealed we too deny his existence. He cannot therefore attach any attribute to one whom he only brings into evidence while he attaches some attribute to him. Only if his existence were previously acknowledged could attributes be attached to him. That which is alleged as an attribute is <in logical terms> an accident, and accidents are preceded by evi- dence of the object to which they occur,—and especially so when someone else is already in possession of that which is being ascribed to him of whose existence there has been no previous evidence. There will be the more cause for denying his existence, the more that which is adduced as proof of his existence is the property of one already shown to exist. So also the New Testament will be- long to none other than him who made that promise: even if the letter is not his, yet the Spirit is: herein lies the newness. Indeed he who had engraved the letter upon tables of stone is the same who also proclaimed, in reference to the Spirit, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon allflesh.h And if the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life, both of them belong to him who said, I will kill and I will make alive, I will smite and I will heal.i I have long ago established my contention that the Creator's power is twofold, that he is both judge and kind, that by the letter he kills through the law, and by the Spirit he makes alive through the gospel. Two gods cannot be made out of facts which, though diverse, have already been recited in the evidence supplied by the one God. He also refers to Moses' veil with which he covered his face, which the children of Israel could not bear to look upon. If his purpose there was to maintain that the brightness of the New Testament, which remaineth in glory, is greater than the glory of the Old Testament, which was to be done away, this too is in agreement with my faith, which sets the gospel above the law: and in better agreement with mine. For the giving of superiority is possible only where there has existed something to give superiority over. And when he says,
V. 11 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
581 |
But the perceptions of the world were blunted, he is not referring to the Creator but to the people of Israel, who are in the world. For of Israel he says, Until this very day the same veil is in their heart. He indicates that the veil of the face in Moses was a figure of the veil of the heart in that people, because among them even now Moses is not clearly seen with the heart, just as then he was not clearly seen by face. What then is there still under a veil in Moses that has reference to Paul, if (as you allege) the Creator's Christ prophesied by Moses has not yet come? In what sense are the hearts of the Jews described as still covered up and veiled, if the things prophesied by Moses have not yet been brought to pass, the things concerning Christ, in whom they ought to have under- standing of Moses? What did it matter to the apostle of a different Christ, if the Jews failed to understand the mysteries of their own God, unless it was that the veil upon their heart had reference to the blindness by which they failed to look steadfastly upon Moses' Christ? Then again, that which follows, When however he turneth back to God the veil will be taken away, he addresses to the Jew in particular upon whom Moses' veil still lies: who, when he has passed over into the faith of Christ, understands how Moses prophesied of Christ. For the rest, how shall the Creator's veil be taken away in the Christ of a different god, over whose mysteries the Creator could not have laid a veil—unknown mysteries of an unknown god? So he says that we now with open face, the face of the heart which in the Jews has a veil upon it, looking steadfastly upon Christ are by the same image being transfigured from glory, the glory by which Moses also was transfigured by the glory of the Lord, into glory. Thus he first sets down Moses' corporal enlighten- ment on meeting with the Lord, and the corporal veil because of the feebleness of that people, and then sets over against them the spiritual revelation and the spiritual glory in Christ—as though, he says, by the Lord of spirits—thus bearing witness that the whole history of Moses was a figure of that Christ who is unknown among the Jews, but well known among ourselves. I am aware that certain expressions can be made of doubtful meaning through accent in pronunciation or manner of punctuation, when there is room for a double possibility in such respects. Marcion was catching at this when he read, In whom the god of this age,2 so that
11. 2 On 'the god of this world', compare a similar argument at IV. 38. 5-8, and below, V. 17. 7-9. Tertullian's first suggestion (taken over from Irenaeus,
[continued on p. 583
V. 11 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
583 |
by pointing to the Creator as the god of this age he might suggest the idea of a different god of a different age. I however affirm that it must be punctuated like this: In whom God; and then, Hath blinded the minds of the unbelievers of this age: In whom, meaning the unbelieving Jews, in whom was covered up—among some is still covered up—the gospel beneath Moses' veil. For against them, for loving him with their lips but in their heart removing far off from him, God had uttered threats:j With the ear ye shall hear, and not hear; with eyes ye shall see, and not see,k and, Unless ye believe ye shall not understand:l and, I will take away the wisdom of the wise, and will make of none effect the prudence of the prudent.m But it was not concerning the hiding away of the gospel of an unknown god that he made these threats. And so, even though it were, The god of this world, yet it is of the unbelievers of this world that he blinds the heart, because they have not of their own selves recognized his Christ, whom they ought to have known of from the scriptures. So much for this discussion of what is involved in doubtful punctua- tion—to prevent it from being of advantage to my opponent— satisfied to have won my case—I am even in a position entirely to bypass this argument. It will be quite easy for a more straight- forward answer to explain the lord of this world as the devil, who said, as the prophet relates: I will be like unto the Most High, I will set my throne in the clouds:n even as the entire superstition of this present age is under contract to him who blinds the hearts of unbelievers, and in particular the apostate Marcion. He in fact has not observed that the conclusion of the sentence is in opposition to him: Because God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, unto the light of the knowledge of himself in the countenance of Christ.3 Who was it that said, Let there be light?o And of the giving of light to the world, who was it said to Christ, I have set thee for a light of the gentiles,p those in fact who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death?q To this, by foreknowledge of the future, the Spirit answers in the psalm, There hath been set as a sign above us the light of thy countenance, O Lord.r Now the countenance of God is Christ the Lord: and of him the apostle has already said, Who is the image of God. So then if Christ is the countenance of the Creator who says Let there be light, then Christ and the apostles
A.H. in. vii. 1) that the correct phrasing is 'the unbelievers of this world', cannot stand: the Greek will not allow it. His 'simpler answer' is preferable. 11. 3 Tertullian has in mind two possible meanings of persona, 'face' and 'person'.
V. 11 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
585 |
and the gospel and the veil and Moses, and the whole sequence, does on the evidence of the end of the sentence belong to the Creator, the God of this world, and certainly not to him who has never said, Let there be light. I forbear to treat here of another epistle to which we give the title To the Ephesians, but the heretics To the Laodiceans. For he says that the gentiles remember that at that time when they were without Christ, aliens from Israel, without the association and the covenants and the hope of the promise, they were even without God, were in the world,s even though <they were> of the Creator. So then as he has said the gentiles are without God, and the god they have is the devil, not the Creator, it is clear that the lord of this age must be under- stood to be he whom the gentiles have accepted instead of God, not the Creator of whom they know nothing. Again, how is it that the treasure we have in our earthen vessels should not be his to whom the vessels belong? For if it is the glory of God that so great a treasure should be kept in earthen vessels, and the earthen vessels are the Creator's, then the glory also is the Crea- tor's, and it is his vessels that savour of the excellency of the power of God, and the power too is his: because these things were en- trusted to earthen vessels for just that purpose, that his excellency might be approved. By contrast then, there can be no glory, and therefore no power, for that other god, but rather dishonour and feebleness, if his excellency is contained in earthen vessels which are not even his own. But if these are the earthen vessels in which he says we suffer so many things, in which we even bear about the dying of God, God is ungrateful enough and unjust enough if he does not intend to raise up again this substance in which for the faith of him so much is suffered, in which also we bear about the death of Christ, in which the excellency of the power receives consecration. For he sets down the reason, That the life also of Christ may be made manifest in our body, even as, he means, his death too is borne about in the body. Of which life of Christ then is he speaking? Of that by which we are now alive in him? Yet how, in what follows, does he exhort us not towards things visible nor things temporal, but to things invisible and eternal, not, that is, to things present but to things to come? But if he is speaking of the future life of Christ, and says that it will be made manifest in the body, evidently this is a statement of the resurrection of the flesh: for he says that our outward man is decaying, yet not as by
V. 12 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
587 |
everlasting destruction after death, but through the labours and inconveniences of which he has already observed, Neither shall we faint. For when he says that our inward man is renewed from day to day, he is here drawing attention to both facts, the decay- ing of the body through the harassment of temptations, and the renewing of the mind by contemplation of the promises.
12. [2 Cor. 5-13.] So again when he says that after our earthly house has been dissolved we have an eternal home, not made with hands, in heaven, he does not mean that the home made by the Creator's hand perishes for ever by dissolution after death. That this discussion is intended to assuage the fear of death and the grief due to that dissolution, is even more evident from what follows, when he adds that in this tabernacle of an earthly body we groan, desiring to be clothed upon with that which is from heaven, seeing that when unclothed we shall not be found naked; that is, we shall have given to us again that of which we have been unclothed, the body. And again, For we that are in this tabernacle of the body do groan, because we are burdened, not wishing to be un- clothed but to be clothed upon. Here he has expressed clearly a matter he touched upon in his first epistle: And the dead shall rise again incorruptiblea—those already dead—and we shall be changed—we who while in the flesh shall have been found so by God. For they too will rise again incorruptible, receiving back their body, re- ceiving it entire, so as from henceforth to be incorruptible: and these <others> because it is the last moment of time, and because of their merits due to the harassments of antichrist, will be granted a bypassing of death, though changed, being not so much divested of the body as clothed upon with that which is from heaven. So if these latter are over their body to put on that heavenly <garment>, evidently the dead too will receive back their body, that over it they also may put on incorruption from heaven: because it is of them that he says, For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality.b The one part are clothed with it after they have received back the body: the other part are clothed upon with it, because they have al- ways kept their body. And so it was not without reason that he said, Not wishing to be divested of the body but to be clothed upon, which means, wishing not to experience death but to be antici- pated by life, that this mortal may be swallowed up by life when
V. 12 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
589 |
rescued from death by virtue of the overclothing of that changed condition. Consequently, because he has shown that this is the better thing, so that we may not be saddened, as perhaps we may, by the anticipation of death, he says that we have from God the earnest of the Spirit, as it were holding the pledge of that hope of being clothed upon; and that so long as we are in the flesh we are absent from the Lord, and therefore ought to think it better the rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord: so that we may even welcome death with gladness. Consequently he adds that we must all be presented before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one of us may receive back the things he has committed by means of his body, whether it be good or evil. If then reward of merits comes at that point, how can it be thought that some people are already with God? Also, by referring to the judgement-seat and the rewarding of good work and evil, he points to a judge who passes one sentence or the other, and has also affirmed the presentment <in court> of the bodies of all men. For the acts committed in the body can only be judged in the body: for God is unjust if a man is not punished or benefited by means of that by which he has done what he has done. So then, if there be any new creation in Christ, the old things are passed away, behold all things have been made new: Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled.c If he also bids us cleanse ourselves from the defile- ment of flesh and blood, it is not the substance <but the works of that substance he says are not> capable of the kingdom of God. And if his purpose is to present the church as a holy virgin to Christ, evidently as bride to bridegroom, the metaphor cannot be made to apply to one hostile to the actuality of the institution referred to.1 If also he describes as false apostles certain deceitful workers, transforming themselves, evidently by hypocrisy, he is charging them with falsification of manners, not of the faith they preach: so that the dispute was about the rule of conduct, not about the godhead. If Satan is transformed into an angel of light, this cannot be directed against the Creator: for the Creator is not an angel, but God, and he would have been described as trans- forming himself into a god of light, not an angel, if the reference had not been to that Satan whom both Marcion and I know to be an angel. Concerning paradise there is a separate work <of
12. 1 Marcion, who objects to matrimony (cf. I. 29), ought not to have retained the image or metaphor of 2 Cor. 11: 2.
V. 13 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
591 |
mine> touching on every question suggested by it. At present perhaps I have this to marvel at, whether a god with no terrestrial interests can have possessed a paradise of his own—unless perhaps he has by permission made use of the Creator's paradise, as <he has of the Creator's> world. Still, there is the Creator's precedent of lifting a man up to heaven, the case of Elijah.a I shall marvel even more if that lord supremely good, so averse from smiting and raging, should have applied not his own but the Creator's messenger of Satan to buffet his own apostle, and though thrice besought by him have refused to yield. So then Marcion's god administers correction after the manner of the Creator who is hostile to those exalted, who in fact puts down the mighty from their throne. And is it he also who gave Satan power even over Job's body, that strength might obtain approval in weakness? And how is it that this severe critic of the Galatians retains the rule of the law by premising that in three witnesses every word shall be established? How is it that he threatens that he will not spare the sinners, this preacher of your kind and gentle god? Indeed he claims that his power to act more sternly when present has been given him by the Lord. Profess now, heretic, that your god is not an object of fear: his apostle was.
13. On the Epistle to the Romans.1 [Rom. 1-7.] The nearer this work draws to its end, the less need there is for any but brief treatment of questions which arise a second time, and good reason to pass over entirely some which we have often met with. It is sheer boredom to argue again about the law: I have again and again proved that its withdrawal provides no argument for a different god in Christ, for it was prophesied and promised in expectation of Christ in the Creator's scriptures: so much so that this present epistle is seen for the most part to put the law into abeyance. Also I have already more than once proved that the substance of the apostle's preaching is of God as judge, and that judge implies avenger, and avenger creator. And so again here: when he says, For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew and to the Greek, because the righteousness of God is revealed in it from faith unto faith, there is no doubt he ascribes both gospel and salvation to a God not kind but just—if I am permitted to make the
13. 1 See Appendix 2.
826805 Z
V. 13 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
593 |
distinction the heretic makes—a God who carries men over from the faith of the law to the faith of the gospel: evidently his own law and his own gospel. Because he also says that wrath is re- vealed from heaven against the godlessness and unrighteousness of men who hold down the truth in unrighteousness. Which God's wrath? Surely the Creator's. Then the truth will belong to him whose is that wrath which is to be revealed to avenge the truth. Also when he adds, But we know that the judgement of God is according to truth, he sets his approval on that actual wrath from which proceeds judgement on behalf of the truth, and con- versely proves that the truth belongs to that same God of whose wrath he has expressed approval by approving of his judgement. It is quite a different matter if the Creator in anger is taking vengeance for the truth of that other god being held down in unrighteousness. But how many ditches Marcion has dug, especially in this epistle, by removing all that he would, will become evident from the complete text of my copy. I myself need do no more than accept, as the result of his carelessness and blindness, those passages which he did not see he had equally good reason to excise. For if God will judge the secret things of men, both those who have sinned in the law and those who have sinned without the law—because these too, though they are ignorant of the law, yet do by nature the things of the law— evidently the judge will be that God to whom belong both the law and that nature which to those who know not the law has the value of law. But how will he judge? According to the gospel, he says, by Christ. So then both the gospel and Christ belong to him whose are both law and nature, and both these will by the gospel and by Christ receive vindication from God in that judgement of God already referred to as according to truth. Therefore just as by the defence of it wrath is revealed from heaven—which can only be from a God of wrath—so again here the thought, in coherence with the former, in which the Creator's judgement is declared, can never be referred to that other god who neither judges nor is wroth, but only to him whose these are—I mean judgement and wrath—at the same time as those also are his by which judge- ment and wrath are to be exercised—I mean the gospel, and Christ. Hence his attack upon transgressors of the law, who teach men not to steal yet themselves steal, as a loyal servant of the God of the law, not as attainting the Creator himself under these
V. 13 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
595 |
heads, as one who while forbidding to steal gave command for deception against the Egyptians in the matter of gold and silvera— for after this fashion they hurl back other complaints against him. Do you think the apostle hesitated to cast open censure against the God from whom <you allege> he had not hesitated to revolt? No, his attack was as clearly against the Jews as was his introduc- tion of the prophetic rebuke, For your sakes the name of God is blasphemed.b How preposterous then that he should himself blaspheme the God whom he rebukes evil men for causing to be blasphemed. He says also that circumcision of the heart is better than uncircumcision: it was under the God of the law that first appeared this circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh; in the spirit, not in the letter. But if this is the circumcision Jeremiah means,c And circumcise the foreskins of your heart—as also Moses said,d
Circumcise your hardness of heart—then the Spirit who circumcises the heart will be his whose is the letter that slices off the flesh, and the Jew who is in secret will be his whose is the Jew who is one openly: because the apostle would not be disposed to give the name of Jew to one who was not the servant of the Jews' God. Of old there was the law, but now the righteousness of God by the faith of Christ. What is this distinction? Was it that your god did service to the Creator's design, granting him and his law time <to come into action>? Or did it belong to the same God then as now? The law belongs to him to whom belongs the faith of Christ: the distinction is not between two gods but two courses of divine action. He enjoins us who are justified, not by the law but by the faith of Christ, to have peace towards God. Which god? Him whose enemies we have never been, or him against whose law and nature we have been in rebellion? For if the peace needed is with him with whom there has been war, for him we shall be justified; and Christ by whose faith we shall be justified, will belong to him to whose peace it is needful that his enemies should sometime be brought back. But the law, he says, entered in besides, that the offence might abound. Why? So that grace, he says, might much more abound. Which god's grace, if not his whose is the law? Unless you think the Creator with this intent interposed the law, that he might provide business for the grace of that other god who was even his enemy—not to mention, unknown to him— so that as in his own days sin had reigned unto death, so also grace should reign in righteousness unto life through Jesus Christ
V. 14 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
597 |
his adversary. Had the Creator's law for this reason concluded all things under sin,e and brought the whole world under accusa- tion, and stopped every mouth, so that no man might glory be- cause of it, but that grace might be reserved for the glory of Christ, not the Creator's Christ but Marcion's? At this point again I can make preliminary observations regarding Christ's substance, with a view to the question soon to follow. We were dead, he says, to the law <by the body of Christ>. So then the body of Christ it can even be argued is a body, though not necessarily flesh. And yet, whatever that substance may be, seeing that he expressly says the body of him who, he goes on to say, has risen again from the dead, 'body' must of course be taken to mean a body consisting of flesh, the flesh against which the law of death has been pronounced. But see now, he gives evidence in favour of the law, and by reason of sin finds excuse for it. What shall we say then? That the law is sin? God forbid. Shame on you, Marcion. God forbid: the apostle expresses abhorrence of complaint against the law. Yet I know not sin except by the law. What noble com- mendation does this give to the law, that through it it was <not> possible for sin to remain hidden. So then it was not the law that led them astray, but sin taking occasion by the commandment. How can you blame the God of the law for something the apostle does not presume to blame his law for? Yet he adds even more: The law is holy, and its commandment is just, and good. When he has such reverence for the Creator's law, I do not see how he can be belittling the Creator. Who is this that makes a distinction be- tween two gods, one of them just, the other good, when he whose commandment is both good and just must himself be both the one and the other? As he also affirms that the law is spiritual, then it must be prophetic, and consequently figurative. For I am bound from this too to conclude that in the law Christ was preached under a figure, which is why not all the Jews were capable of recognizing him.
14. [Rom. 8-14.] That the Father sent Christ in the likeness of flesh of sin is no reason for saying that the flesh which was visible in him was a phantasm. The apostle has just recently attributed sin to the flesh, and has called it the law of sin dwelling in his members and warring against the law of the mind.a For this purpose then he says the Son was sent in the likeness of flesh of
V. 14 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
599 |
sin, that he might redeem flesh of sin by a similar substance, a fleshly substance, such as should be similar to sinful flesh, while not itself sinful. For in this will consist the power of God, in using a similar substance to accomplish salvation. For it would be no great matter if the Spirit of God were to give healing to flesh, though it is so when this is done by flesh exactly like sinful flesh, which is flesh, though not flesh of sin. Thus 'likeness' will be con- cerned with the matter of 'sin', making no suggestion of falsity of substance. For he would not have added 'of sin' if he had intended us so to understand likeness of substance as to exclude the verity of it: in such a case he would have written 'likeness of flesh', without 'of sin'. But as he has put it in this form, 'of flesh of sin', he has given assurance concerning the substance, which is flesh, but has made 'likeness' refer to the defect of the substance, which is sin. But suppose now he did mean likeness of substance: even so there will be no denial of the verity of the substance. Why then 'like', if true? Because although true, it was not of <human> seed: in quality it was both 'like' and true: in origin not so, but unlike. But among opposites there is no similitude. Spirit could not be described as 'likeness of flesh', because neither could flesh take upon it the likeness of spirit: if it was visible as that which it was not, it would be described as 'phantasm'. But it is called 'likeness' when it is what it is seen to be. For it is <a likeness> while it is the equal of something else: but a phantasm, provided it is no more than that, is not a likeness. Here again, when explaining how he would have us not to be in the flesh, though we are in the flesh, namely, that we should not be in the works of the flesh, he himself makes it clear that in this sense he wrote, Flesh and blood cannot obtain the kingdom of God,b not passing sentence on the substance, but on its works: and because while still in the flesh we are capable of not committing these, they will be accounted to the guilt not of the substance but of our conduct. Again, if the body indeed is dead because of sin, then this is not the death of soul but of body: but the spirit is life because of righteousness, to that upon which death has come because of sin, namely, the body. For restitution of an object is only made to him who has lost it, and so it can be a resurrection of the dead only so long as it is a resurrection of bodies. For he proceeds: He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies. In this way he confirms the resurrection of the flesh, since apart
V. 14 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
601 |
from flesh nothing else can be described as body, nor anything else be taken for mortal: and he has also given proof of Christ's corporal substance, in that our mortal bodies are to be quickened on the same terms on which he too was raised up again, and on the same terms can only mean in the body. I overleap here an immense chasm left by scripture carved away: though I take note of the apostle giving evidence for Israel that they have a zeal of God, their own God of course, though not by means of knowledge. For they, he says, being ignorant of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God: for Christ is the end of the law in righteousness to every one that believeth. Here the heretic will raise a quibble that it was that superior god whom the Jews did not know, and that against him they set up their own righteousness, that of their own law, while they refused to accept Christ, the end of the law. In that case why does he give his own testimony to their zeal towards God, if it is not also their lack of knowledge towards the same God that he puts to rebuke?—because they were led indeed by zeal for God, though not by means of knowledge, being in fact in ignorance of him, because they were ignorant of his purposes in Christ who was to establish fulfilment for the law, and were thus maintaining their own righteousness in opposition to him. In like terms the Creator himself attests their ignorance regarding him: Israel doth not know me and the people hath not understood me:c as also that they preferred to establish their own righteousness, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men,d and also were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ,e because of lack of know- ledge, of course. So then nothing must be explained as referring to another god, which is applicable to the Creator: for this would mean that in other places too the apostle had undeservedly re- buked the Jews for ignorance regarding a god unknown. For what sin had they committed in establishing the righteousness of their own God in opposition to the god they were ignorant of? And now he cries aloud, O the depth of the riches and wisdom of God! . . . and his ways past finding out! Whence that outburst? Out of his recollection of those scriptures to which he had already re- ferred: out of his meditation upon those types and figures which he had previously expounded as bearing on the faith of Christ which was to emerge from the law. If Marcion has of set purpose cut out these passages what is this exclamation his apostle makes,
V. 14 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
603 |
when he has no riches of <his> god to look upon, a poor god and needy as one must be who has created nothing, prophesied no- thing, in fact possessed nothing—one who has come down on to another's property? Moreover it was the Creator's wealth and riches which were formerly hidden away, but are now unlocked. For so he had promised: I will give them the hidden treasures, invisible <treasures> will I open for them.f
Hence then the exclamation, O the depth of the riches and wisdom of God, the God whose treasures were now laid open. That is Isaiah's: and what follows is from that same prophet's indenture: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? Who hath offered a gift to him, and it shall be recompensed to him again ?g When you took away so much from the scriptures, why did you retain this, as though this too were not the Creator's? Let us look at what clearly are the commandments of a new god: Abhorring, he says, the evil, and cleaving to the good. Does the Creator say anything different? Put away the evil from you,h and, Depart from evil and do good.i In love of the brotherhood kindly affectioned one to another: is not that the same as, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself ?j Rejoicing in hope,
the hope of God: for, It is better to hope in the Lord than to hope in governors.k Patient under distress: for, The Lord will hear thee in the day of distress:l you have the psalm. Bless, and curse not: who better can have given this teaching than he who established all things with blessings? Not high-minded, but consenting to the lowly, and be not wise in your own sight: for Isaiah pronounces woe against such as these.m Recom- pense to no man evil for evil: And remember not thy brother's wickedness.n Not avenging yourselves:
for, Vengeance is mine, and I will repay, saith the Lord.o Have peace with all men:
so also the law of retribution gave no permission to revenge an injury, but restrained the infliction of it by fear of revenge. With reason therefore has he embraced the Creator's whole moral law in its own principal commandment: Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. If this fulfilling of the law comes from the law itself, I am now at a loss who may be the God of the law. Perhaps it is Marcion's god. But if the gospel of Christ is fulfilled by this commandment, but what is Christ's is not the Creator's, what are we still contending about? Whether Christ said or did not say, I am not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it, to no purpose has Pontus raged and stormed to discount that saying. If the gospel has not fulfilled the law, even so the law has fulfilled the gospel. Well is it again that at the
V. 15 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
605 |
end he holds out the threat of Christ's judgement-seat, Christ being both judge and avenger, and clearly the Creator's Christ: certainly he lays it down that his favour must be sought who he indicates ought to be feared—even if it were that other he was telling of.
15. On the First Epistle to the Thessalonians.1 It will not come amiss to pay attention to the shorter epistles as well: there is savour even in brevity. The Jews had slain their own prophets. I may ask, What is this to the apostle of your other god, your god supremely good, who you say does not condemn the sins even of his own people, and himself in a sense puts those same prophets to death by destroying their credit? What wrong has Israel com- mitted in his sight if it has killed those whom he too has rejected, if it has anticipated him in passing hostile judgement upon them? But, <you object,> Israel sinned in the sight of their own God. Rebuke of iniquity has to be the act of him to whom belongs the one who has suffered the wrong: certainly of anyone rather than the opponent of the sufferer. And besides, he would not also have burdened them with the charge of the Lord's murder as well, in saying, Who both killed the Lord, and their own prophets—although 'their own' is the heretic's addition.2 Was there anything much to complain of, that they put to death Christ, the preacher of a different god, when they had slaughtered the prophets of their own God? It is the rhetorical figure of climax, that they had destroyed the Lord, and also his servants. But if it was one god's Christ they destroyed, and another God's prophets, this was no climax, no piling of wrong upon wrong, but a balancing of wrong against wrong. But there could be no question of balancing: there had to be piling up, and this could only be if the wrong was com- mitted against the same Lord under both counts. Therefore Christ and the prophets belong to the same God. Now what this sanctity of ours is which he says is the will of God, you might find out from those opposites which he prohibits. To abstain, he says, from fornication—not 'from matrimony': everyone should know how to use his own vessel with honour. How? While not in lust as do the gentiles. But not even among the gentiles is lust attributed to matri- mony, but to unusual and unnatural and outrageous forms of
15. 1 See Appendix 2. 2 But 'their own' found its way into the uncials KL, and the textus receptus.
V. 15 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
607 |
excess. <Sanctity> is also the opposite of obscenity and unclean- ness, putting a check not on matrimony but on lechery, as it uses our vessel in the honourable estate of matrimony. I shall be seen to have treated of this passage without prejudice to the superior rank of that other, that more complete, sanctity: for I assign to continence and virginity preference over marriage, yet without prohibiting marriage. My attack is against those who overthrow the God of marriage, not those who make a practice of chastity. He says that those who remain until the coming of Christ, will, along with those who are dead in Christ and are to be the first to rise again, be caught up in the clouds into the air to meet the Lord. I tell myself it was even so long ago with all this in prospect that the celestial existences held in admiration that Jerusalem which is above, and cried in the words of Isaiah, Who are they that fly hither as the clouds, and as doves with their nestlings towards me?a
If this is the ascent Christ has in store for us, Christ will be he of whom Amos speaks: Who buildeth up his ascent into the heavens,b surely for himself and his own. And next, from whom shall I now hope for these things, except from him from whom I have heard of them? Which spirit does he tell them not to quench, and which prophesyings does he say must not be despised? Marcion of course says, not the Creator's Spirit, nor the Creator's prophesyings: for these, which he brings into disrepute, he has himself already quenched and nullified, and is not in a position to forbid things he has made of no account. So Marcion's task is to put in evidence today in his church some spirit of his god which from now on is not to be quenched, and prophesyings that are not to be despised. And if he has put in evidence what he supposes <to be such>, let him know that we shall challenge that, whatever it is, according to the standard of spiritual and pro- phetic grace and power, calling on it to foretell the future, to reveal the secrets of the heart, and to expound mysteries. When it produces nothing of this kind, nor obtains its acceptance, we for our part shall produce both the Spirit and the prophesyings of the Creator, giving utterance as he directs. Thus there will be no further doubt to what things the apostle referred—those things in fact which were to come to pass in the church of that God who himself exists, whose Spirit also is in operation, and his promise being fulfilled. Come now, you who deny the salvation of the flesh, and whenever the word 'body' is used in this
826805 A a
V. 16 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
609 |
connection explain it as anything on earth except the substance of flesh, see how the apostle has made distinct reference under definite names to all the substances we consist of, and included them all in one prayer for salvation, desiring that our spirit and body and soul be preserved without complaint at the coming of our Lord and Saviour Christ. He has written both 'soul' and 'body', two things which are not the same thing.3 For although soul too is body of some sort, having its own attributes, as spirit has, yet when body and soul are spoken of separately soul has its own particular word, having no need for that common term 'body'. This is left to the flesh, which when not referred to by its own particular term, has to be making use of the common one. In any case, over against spirit and soul I am not aware in man of any other substance except flesh to which this term 'body' can be applied: so that as often as it is not given its own name I understand it under the name of 'body': much more so here when the flesh which is referred to as body, is being called by its proper name.
16. On the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. I am forced to repeat certain things again and again, so as to establish the truths connected with them. I affirm that here again the apostle repre- sents the Lord as giving recompense to deserts of either kind— either the Creator, or, as Marcion would deny, someone like the Creator, one with whom it is a righteous thing that tribulation should be the recompense of those who afflict us, and that rest should be the reward of us who are in affliction, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus when he comes from heaven with his mighty angels and in a flame of fire. But the heretic has extinguished flame and fire by crossing them out: otherwise he would have made him into a god like ours. But the uselessness of the erasure is evident. When the apostle writes that the Lord will come to exact vengeance of them that know not God and obey not the gospel, and says they will pay the penalty of destruction, an eternal penalty, from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his power, he must of necessity bring with him a flame of fire,
15. 3 In terms of Tertullian's Stoic metaphysics everything that exists, even God himself, is body (not 'has a body') of some sort. So de carne Christi 11.4, adv. Prax. 7.8. But, he observes, when corpus is used in a non-metaphysical context its natural meaning is caro.
V. 16 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
611 |
since he comes with intent to punish. So that in this too, though Marcion denies it, Christ belongs to a God who consumes with fire, and consequently, to the Creator, because he even takes vengeance on them that know not the Lord, which means the heathen: for he has made separate reference to those who obey not the gospel, whether they be Christian sinners, or Jews. But to exact penalties of the heathen, such, it seems, as do not know the gospel, is not the act of a god by nature unknown, one never revealed except in the gospel, one not capable of being known by all. But the Creator has the right to be known by nature, to be understood by means of his works, and thereafter to be sought for with a view to fuller knowledge. So then, to chastise those who know not God is within the competence of the God whom they have no right not to know. His very expression, From the face of the Lord and from the glory of his power, in which he uses Isaiah's words, of itself suggests that same Lord, who ariseth to shake terribly the earth.a
Now who is that man of sin, that son of perdition, who must needs be first revealed before the Lord's coming,—he who exalteth himself above all that is called God and all that is worshipped, who will take his seat in the temple of God and boast that he is god? We affirm that he is antichrist, as both the old and the new prophecies explain, as does John the apostle who says that antichrists have already come forth into the world,b forerunners of the spirit of antichrist, denying that Christ has come in the flesh, and dissolving Jesusc—meaning in God the Creator: though I suspect that according to Marcion antichrist is the Creator's Christ, for in his view <that Christ> has not yet come. But whichever of the two he is, I should like to know why his coming is with all power and signs and lying wonders. Because, he answers, they have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, and for this cause it will become for them an impulse of delusion, that they all may come under judgement who have not believed the truth but have taken pleasure in unrighteousness. So then if this is antichrist, and he is imitating the Creator, it will be God the Creator who sends him to thrust down into error those who have not believed the truth, that they might be saved: and the truth and the salvation also will belong to him who takes ven- geance on their behalf by the substitution of error, that is, the Creator: and to him also belongs that jealousy in deceiving by error those whom he has not gained by the truth. If however it
V. 17 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
613 |
is not antichrist, as we suggest, then it is the Creator's Christ, as Marcion claims. But how can it be that <Marcion's god> should send the Creator's Christ to avenge his own truth? But if he agrees regarding antichrist, I go on to ask how it is that <Marcion's god> should have need of Satan, the Creator's angel, and that <Satan> should be slain by him, when his task is to put in operation the working of delusion on the Creator's behalf. In short, if it is beyond doubt that both the angel and the truth and the salvation are his to whom belong also the wrath and enmity and the sending of delusion against despisers and de- serters, and even against the ignorant—and let Marcion at this point retire from his position and admit that his too is a jealous god—which will have the more right to be angry? He, I suggest, who since the beginning has provided the world of nature with works, with benefits, plagues, preachings, evidences by which men should know him, yet has remained unrecognized: or shall it be he who once only by the one single document of the gospel, even that far from clear, openly in fact giving evidence for a different God—has brought himself to notice? So then to him to whom vengeance belongs, will also belong that which is the ground for vengeance, the gospel and the truth and salvation. To command that that man must work who desires to eat, is the rule of conduct of one who has commanded that an ox must be unmuzzled when it treads out the corn.
17. On the Epistle to the Laodiceans.1 [Eph. 1 and 2.] By the church's truth we have it that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not the Laodiceans: Marcion has been at pains at some time to falsify its title, in this matter too an industrious discoverer of new ways. But the title is of no concern, since when the apostle wrote to some he wrote to all, and without doubt his teaching in Christ was of that God to whom the facts of his teaching rightly be- long. Now to whom can it rightly belong, according to that good pleasure which he purposed in the mystery of his will for a dispensation of the fullness of times—that I may so express it, since the word has this meaning in the Greek—to recapitulate— that is, to refer back to their beginning, or perhaps to recount from their beginning—all things unto Christ which are in heaven and
17. 1 See Appendix 2.
V. 17 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
615 |
which are in earth, to whom but to him to whom all things will be found to belong since the beginning, as did even the beginning, and from whom also are the times, and that dispensation of the fulfilling of the times on account of which in Christ all things are being counted back to their beginning? Your other god, what beginning has he, what 'since when', seeing no work of his exists? What times, when no beginning? What fulfilling, when no times? What dispensation, when no fulfilling? What in fact has he ever done of old upon earth to justify the reckoning of some long- standing dispensation of times that are to be fulfilled, for the recounting of all things in Christ, even those which are in heaven? Yet not even in heaven can we suppose acts have been done, whatever acts there are, by any other than him by whom we are agreed the acts were done upon earth. But if it is not possible for all things since the beginning to be regarded as belonging to any other than the Creator, how can one think they are being recounted by another god unto another Christ, and not by their own Maker unto his own Christ? If they are the Creator's, of necessity they are different from that different god: and if different, then contrary. How then can contrary things be recounted unto one by whom in fact they are being overthrown? Which Christ is it the next sentence refers to, when he says, That we should be to the praise of his glory who have previously hoped in Christ? Who can have previously hoped, which means hoped in Christ before his coming, except those Jews to whom since the beginning Christ was previously announced? He then that was previously an- nounced was also previously hoped in. And so the apostle refers to himself <and his own>, which means the Jews, in such form as to make a distinction when he turns to the gentiles: In whom ye also, after ye had heard the word of truth, the gospel, in whom ye believed, and were sealed with the holy Spirit of his promise. What promise? That made by Joel: In the last days I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh:a that is, upon the gentiles also. So then both the Spirit and the gospel have to be in that Christ who was previously hoped in, as he was previously prophesied of. Again, the Father of glory is he whose Christ, the King of glory, the psalm sings of as ascending: Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory.b The Spirit of wisdom is requested of him in whose scripture this particular form of spiritual gift is counted among the seven spirits, by Isaiah.c Enlightenment of the eyes of the
V. 17 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
617 |
heart will be the gift of him who has also enriched with light the outward eyes, and is displeased at the blindness of that people— And who is blind but my servants?d and, Those of God's household have been struck blind.d The riches of the inheritance in the saints are to be found in him who has promised that inheritance by his vocation of the gentiles: Desire of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance.e That mighty power of his in Christ, in raising him up from the dead, and setting him at his own right hand, and subjecting all things to him, was wrought by him who said, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet:f because also in another place the Spirit speaks to the Father con- cerning the Son, Thou hast subjected all things beneath his feet.g If from these texts, which quite evidently have reference to the Creator, inference is drawn to a different god and a different Christ, let us ask where now the Creator is. Clearly we have found him, I imagine, when he says that those men were dead in the sins in which they had walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, who is now at work in the sons of disbelief. Here again, Marcion cannot ex- plain 'world' to mean the God of the world: for the thing created is not equivalent to its Creator, nor the thing made to its Maker, nor the world to God. Nor can he who is the Prince of the power of the ages be described as the prince of the power of the air: no ruler over higher ranks takes his title from the lower, even though the lower also are counted as his. Nor can he be taken to be a worker of disbelief, when that is what he himself has to endure from both Jews and gentiles. Enough then that this description does not apply to the Creator. As however there is one to whom it does apply, surely the apostle was more likely <than you are> to know this. And who is this? Doubtless he who erects the sons of disbelief into a barrier even against the Creator, having taken possession of this air, as the prophet reports that he says, I will set my throne in the clouds, I will be like unto the Most High,h
And this must be the devil, whom again in another place—if at least they consent to the apostle being read in this form—we shall recognize as the god of this world:i for to that degree has he filled the whole world with his lying pretence of deity. Of course, if he had not existed perhaps this description might have applied to the Crea- tor. The apostle had in the past had his conversation in Judaism. His parenthesis about the sins in which we too have all been
V. 17 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
619 |
conversant gives no reason for thinking that the lord of sins and the prince of this air means the Creator: but it was because in Judaism he had been one of the sons of disbelief, having the devil at work in him when he was persecuting the church and the Creator's Christ, and that is why he says, We were the sons of wrath— by nature, however: otherwise, because the Creator called the Jews his sons, the heretic might have argued that the Creator is the lord of wrath. For when he says, We were by nature the sons of wrath, while the Jews are the Creator's sons not by nature but by <God's> promotion of their fathers, he brings 'sons of wrath' into relation with 'nature', not with the Creator, and adds at the end, Even as the others, who are not God's sons at all. It becomes evident that sins, and the lusts of the flesh, and disbelief, and wrath, are ac- counted to the common nature of all men, while yet the devil still has designs upon nature, which he has already corrupted by injecting the seed of sin. We are, he says, his own workmanship, created in Christ. To make is one thing, to create is another. But he has assigned both these acts to one alone. Now man is the Creator's workmanship: and so the same God who made us has also created us in Christ. In respect of our substance, <of what we are in our- selves>, he made us, but in respect of grace he has created us. Look closely at what follows. Remembering that ye were in time past gentiles in the flesh, who are called the uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh, made by hands: that ye were at that time without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants and their promise, having no hope, and with- out God, in the world. Without which god does he mean the gentiles were, and without which Christ? Evidently him to whom per- tained the commonwealth of Israel, and the covenants and the promises. But now, he says, in Christ ye who were afar off are made nigh by his blood. From whom were they formerly far off? From those mentioned, above from the Creator's Christ, from the commonwealth of Israel, from the covenants, from the hope of the promise, from God himself. If that is so, the gentiles are now in Christ being made nigh to those from whom they were then far off. But if in Christ we have been brought very near to the commonwealth of Israel, which is in the religion of God the Creator, and to their covenants and promise, and even to their God, it is very strange if the Christ of a different god has from far off brought us near to the Creator. The apostle remembered that
V. 17 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
621 |
so it was prophesied of the vocation of the gentiles, that they were to be called from far off: They that were far off from me, have drawn near to my righteousness.j
For both the righteousness and the peace of the Creator were proclaimed in Christ, as I have already often pointed out: and so he proceeds, He himself is our peace, who hath made the two into one, the Jewish people and the gentile, that which was near and that which was far off, having broken down the middle wall of hostility, in his own flesh. But Marcion has removed 'his own', so as to join flesh with hostility, as though this were a carnal defect rather than enmity against Christ. As I have re- marked before, with no Marrucine fidelity2 but with Pontic in- constancy, you have just now agreed about his blood, but here deny his flesh. If he has made void the law of commandments <contained> in judgements, this must have been by the fulfilling of the law. There is no need now for, Thou shall not commit adultery, when you have, Thou shall not look for the sake of lusting:k no need for Thou shall not kill, when you have, Thou shall not speak evil:1 and so you cannot make a promoter of the law into an opponent of it. So that he might create the two in himself-—he who had been the maker is the same that creates, as we saw just now, For we are his workmanship, created in Christ—into one new man, making peace—if really new, then really a man, not a phantasm, but himself new, and born in a new manner, of a virgin, by the Spirit of God— thai he might reconcile both to God—the God whom both nations had offended—both the Jewish and the gentile people in one body, as he expresses it, when in it he had slain the enmity by the cross. Here again, in Christ the body is flesh, for it was capable of suffering crucifixion. So then as he preaches peace to them that are nigh and to those afar off, we have along with them obtained access to the Father, and are no longer strangers or resident aliens, but fellow citizens of the saints, and resident in the household of God— evidently that God from whom we have just shown we were formerly foreigners, set at a far distance—being built upon the foundation of the apostles. The heretic has taken away 'and prophets', forgetting that the Lord has set in the church prophets as well as
17. 2 The Marrucini, a people on the Adriatic coast near Teate (Chieti), are praised by Silius Italicus as inured to war and, like their neighbours the Frentani, incapable of betraying trust: Punica xv. 566. A legion raised by Caesar in that country remained faithful in spite of the difficulties of the Spanish and African campaigns: Caesar, de bello civ. i. 23, ii. 34.
V. 18 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
623 |
apostles:m for he was afraid lest the building up of ourselves in Christ should stand upon the foundation of the older prophets, though the apostle himself ceases not in every place to quote those prophets for our edification. For from whom did he learn to call Christ the chief corner stone, unless it were from the indication given in the psalm, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?n
18. [Eph. 3-6.] As for the heretic's activity in pruning, no wonder he abstracts odd syllables, when he frequently filches away whole pages. To himself, the apostle says, last of all was the grace given of making all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which from the ages has been hidden in God who created all things. The heretic has removed the preposition 'in', and thus makes it read 'from the ages hidden from God who created all things'. But the deceit is evident: for the apostle proceeds, That unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God. Whose principalities and powers does he mean? If the Creator's, how is it that that god of yours should have been content for his own wisdom to be displayed to the Creator's principalities and powers but not to the Creator himself, when even the powers would not have been capable of getting to know anything if separate from their own principal ? Or else, if he omitted to mention God at this point because as their principal he is reckoned among them, in that case he would have declared that the mystery had been hidden from the principalities and powers of him who created all things, and by that means would have reckoned him among them. But if he means it was hidden from them, he ought to have added that it is manifest to him. So then it was not hidden from God, but hidden in God the Creator of all things, hidden however from his principalities and powers. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?a Convicted here, perhaps the heretic will change position and say that it was his own god who wished to make known to his own powers and principalities that dispensation of his own mystery which God the Creator of all things was ignorant of. But what point was there in asserting the ignorance of a Creator who was a stranger separated by far distances, when even those of the household of your superior god remained ignorant? But yet to the Creator also the future was
826805 B b
V. 18 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
625 |
known. Did he not inevitably know that which beneath his heaven and on his earth was due to be revealed? So this too is confirmation of our conclusion already reached. For if the Creator was sometime to come to know that secret mystery of the superior god, and if the scripture said 'hidden to God who created all things', then it ought to have continued, 'that there might be made known to him the manifold wisdom of god', <to him first and> then also to the powers and principalities of which- ever god it was, along with which the Creator was going to acquire knowledge. Thus it is clear that the word removed, even so remains safe in support of its own truth. My intention now is to work out my controversy with you in terms of the apostle's allegories. What models could your new god have found in the prophets? He led captivity captive, the apostle says. With what armour? in what battles? by laying waste what nation? by over- throwing what city? what women, what children, what chieftains has this conqueror put in chains? For when in David Christ is prophesied of as girded with a sword upon his thigh,b or in Isaiah as receiving the spoils of Samaria and the riches of Damascus,c you force him to become truly and visibly a warrior. Observe then here his spiritual armoury and warfare, if you have by now learned that there is a spiritual captivity, so as to admit that this too belongs to him, particularly because the apostle has borrowed his reference to this captivity from the same prophets from whom he had accepted these commandments. Putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour, and, Be ye angry and sin notd—in the very words in which the psalm would express his meaning— that the sun go not down upon your wrath. Have no fellowship with the works of darkness: for, With the righteous thou shall be righteous, and with the froward thou shall become froward, and, Put away the evil man from the midst of you,e
and, Go ye out from the midst of them, and touch not the unclean thing, be ye separate that bear the vessels of the Lord.j So also, To be drunken with wine is a dishonour, comes from the place where those are rebuked who make the saints drunken, And ye gave my holy ones wine to drinkg—which Aaron the priest and his sons were forbidden to drink when they went into the holy places.h To instruct them to sing to God with psalms and hymns is in character with him who knew that God's rebuke is directed more against those who drink to the sound of tabrets and psalteries.i So when I discover whose are the commandments and the seeds
V. 18 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
627 |
or expansions of commandments, I know whose the apostle is. But that wives ought to submit themselves to their husbands— how does he prove this? Because the husband, he says, is the head of the wife. Tell me, Marcion, does your god use the Creator's handi- work to build up authority for his law? In this at least there is evident inferiority, that he deduces from it the attributes of his own Christ and his church—even as Christ is the head of the church. So again when he says, He that loveth his wife loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loveth the church: you see how your Christ and your church are brought into comparison with a work of the Creator. What great honour is paid to the flesh under the name of the church! No man, he says—except of course Marcion alone— hateth his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ the church. Yet you alone show it hatred, by depriving it of resurrection. You will also need to hate the church, because it likewise has Christ's affection. Nay, but Christ has loved the flesh no less than the church: for no man can fail to have affection even for the portrait of his bride, but in fact will keep it safe and pay it re- spect and put a garland upon it. The likeness of a thing has partnership in honour with the thing itself. Need I now make heavy weather of it to prove that there is the same God of the man and of Christ, of the woman and the church, of the flesh and the spirit, when the apostle himself cites, and even expounds, the Creator's ruling? For her sake shall a man leave his father and mother . . . and the two shall be in one flesh: this is a great mystery. Enough meanwhile if the Creator's mysteries are great in the apostle's sight, though of low esteem among the heretics. But I speak, he continues, with reference to Christ and the church. You have there an interpretation, not a setting aside, of the mystery: his words prove that the type and figure of the mystery was set forth of old by him to whom also the mystery belonged. What does Marcion think? Anyway, the Creator was not in a position to provide types for an unknown god, who even if he were known, was hostile. The superior god had no right to take anything on loan from the inferior, even for the better purpose of discrediting him. Let children obey their parents. Now even though Marcion has cut out, For this is the first commandment with promise, the law still speaks: Honour thy father and mother.j
And, Parents bring up your children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord: for you have heard how it was said to the men of old, Ye shall tell these things in
V. 19 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
629 |
the ears of your children, and your children likewise in the ears of their children.k What need then have I of two gods, if there is but one rule of conduct? Even if there are two, I shall follow the one who taught first. But if our wrestling is against the world-rulers, oh what a number of creator gods there now are! Why should I not make this further claim, that he ought to have mentioned but one world-ruler, if he meant it was the Creator to whom be- longed the potentates just referred to. But since he has already bidden us put on in addition the armour in which we may stand against the wiles of the devil, this is proof that to the devil belong those <existences> which he associates with the devil, namely those powers and world-rulers of this darkness, which we also reckon are the devil's. Or else, if the devil means the Creator, whom shall the Creator have for devil? Or is it that as there are two gods, so there are two devils, and that is the meaning of the plurals, powers and world-rulers? Yet how shall the Creator be himself both god and devil, without the devil too being both devil and god? For either they are both of them gods, if they are already both of them devils, or else the one who is god is not also devil, as the devil is not also god. I wonder by what unjust claim the term 'devil' applies to the Creator. Perhaps it presented some claim by the superior god for the injury done him by that arch- angel, though he spoke a lie. For God had not forbidden them to taste of that tree lest they should become gods, but lest they should die for their trespass. Nor can spiritual hosts of wickedness indicate the Creator, because he has added in the heavens: for the apostle knew that spiritual hosts of wickedness had been at work in the heavens, when the angels were caused to offend against the daughters of men. And what need had the apostle to lay complaint against the Creator in ambiguous terms and by any kind of figurative language, when he was already in bonds for the liberty of his preaching, and was in fact putting at the church's disposal that boldness in making known the mystery by the opening of his mouth, for which he now enjoined them to make supplica- tion to God?
19. On the Epistle to the Colossians.1 In my statement of case
against all heresies my custom is to mark out a short cut on the
evidence of dating, claiming that our rule of faith came first and
19. 1 See Appendix 2.
V. 19 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
631 |
that all heresy is of more recent emergence. The apostle will now give evidence of this, when he speaks of the hope laid up in heaven, of which ye have heard in the word of the truth of the gospel, which is come unto you, even as into all the world. For if as early as that the gospel tradition had found its way everywhere, much more so now. Moreover if it is ours which has found its way everywhere, rather than any heretical one, not to speak of Marcion's which began in the days of Antoninus, then the apostolic will be ours. Suppose now that Marcion's has filled the whole world, not even so can it defend itself as apostolic. Even in such circumstances it must be clear that the apostolic is that which filled the world first with the gospel of that God who also in a psalm said this of the preaching of it: Their sound is gone out into every land, and their words unto the ends of the world.a
He says Christ is the image of the invisible God. But it is we who affirm that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that always in the past the Son, as the image of God, was visible to those to whom he did appear, under the name of God: so that Marcion may not on this account make division and opposition between god visible and god invisible, since from of old it was stated of our God, No man shall see the Lord, and live.b If Christ is not the first-begotten of creation, as being that Word of the Creator by whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made: if it is not true that in him all things were created in heaven and in earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominations or principalities or powers: if it is not true that by him and in him all things were created—for it was really necessary that Marcion should dis- approve of this—then the apostle would not have stated so plainly, And he is before all men. For how could he be before all men if he were not before all things? And how before all things if he were not the first-begotten of creation, if he were not the Creator's Word? How can you prove that one was before all men, who has made his appearance after all things? Who can know of the priority of one who he did not know existed? How again can it have been his good pleasure that in himself all full- ness should dwell? For in the first place, what is this fullness, if it does not consist of those things which Marcion has suppressed, those created in Christ, in heaven and on earth, both angels and men: if it does not consist of those things invisible and visible, of thrones and dominations and principalities and powers? Or if
V. 19 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
633 |
these have been imported of their own by our false apostles and Judaizing preachers of the gospel, let Marcion tell us what is the fullness of that god of his who has created nothing. Besides, how can it be that the rival and overthrower of the Creator should have been content for the Creator's fullness to dwell in his own particular Christ? On behalf of whom, once more, does he re- concile all things unto himself, making peace by the blood of his cross, if not of him whom all things had offended, against whom they had rebelled by that transgression—him in short to whom they be- longed? For they might have been conciliated to a stranger, but reconciled to no god except their own. So also us who were afore- time alienated and enemies in our mind by evil works, he has brought again into favour with the Creator against whom we had com- mitted offence by worshipping the creation in opposition to the Creator. But just as he affirms that the church is Christ's body, while here he says that he is filling up that which remains over of the afflictions of Christ in <his> flesh, for Christ's body's sake which is the church, you may not on that account entirely separate his reference to that body from the substance of flesh. For he has just said that we are being reconciled in his body by means of death: and evidently his death took place in that body in which by means of the flesh it was possible for him to die—not by means of the church, though no doubt for the sake of the church, ex- changing body for body, a carnal for a spiritual one. Now when he warns them to be on guard against subtle speech and philo- sophy, as a vain deceit which is in accordance with the elements of the world—not speaking in terms of heaven and earth but of secular literature—and in accordance with the tradition—he means of men of subtle speech, and philosophers—it would be tiresome indeed, and it belongs to a different treatise, to show how by this statement all heresies are under condemnation, because all of them take their stand upon the resources of subtle speech and the principles of philosophy. At least let Marcion admit that the principal term of his faith is from the school of Epicurus, for to avoid making him an object of fear he introduces a dull sort of god,2 and puts on loan even with God the Creator matter from the porch of the Stoics when he denies the resurrection of the flesh, which in fact no philosophy admits. From its devices our
19. 2 Perhaps a reminiscence of Seneca, de beneficiis vii. 31. 3, where the Epi- curean gods are described as ignavi hebetesque, lazy and dull.
V. 19 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
635 |
verity is so far removed that it both fears to stir up the wrath of God, and is assured that he has produced all things out of no- thing, and professes that he will reconstitute this same flesh, and is not ashamed that Christ was born of the womb of a virgin, in spite of the mockery of philosophers and heretics and the heathen as well. For God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound wise men—that God surely who out of regard for this ordinance of his threatened long ago that he would destroy the wisdom of the wise.c By this simplicity of the truth, the opposite of subtle speech and philosophy, we are precluded from imagining anything perverse. Again, as God quickeneth us together with Christ, forgiving our trespasses, we cannot suppose that trespasses are forgiven by him against whom they have not been committed because he was at that time unknown. Come now: when he says, Let no man judge you in meat and drink or in respect of an holy day or of the new moon or the sabbath, which are the shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ, what think you, Marcion? We are not now discussing the law, except that here too he explains in what way it is superseded, by being transferred out of shadow into body; that is, from figures into the truth, and that is Christ. So then the shadow belongs to him whose is the body; which means that the law is his whose also is Christ. Separate them off, to one god the law, to another god Christ, if indeed you can separate any shadow from that body of which it is the shadow. Evidently Christ belongs to the law, if he is the body of it, the shadow. Again if he passes censure upon some who because of visions of angels pro- fessed they must abstain from <certain> foods—touch not, taste not— walking in voluntary humility of mind, not holding fast the Head, he is not therefore charging the law, and Moses, with having forbidden the use of certain foods because of superstition about angels: for it is admitted that Moses received the law from God. In fact this sort of conduct—according to the commandments, he says, and doctrines of men—he has laid to the charge of those who were not holding fast the Head; that is, him in whom all things are being summed up, now that the absence of distinction of meats has been referred back to its origin in Christ. As the rest of his precepts are the same as elsewhere, let us be satisfied to have explained in other places how they have derived from the Creator: for when he foretold that old things were to pass away, as he was to make all things new,d and added the commandment, Renew
V. 20 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
637 |
for yourselves a new fallow,e he was as early as that teaching them to put off the old man and put on the new.
20. On the Epistle to the Philippians.1 As he enumerates various fashions of preaching—that some out of confidence in his bonds were more boldly preaching the word, while some through envy and strife, certain of them even of good will for the word, a cer- tain number because of affection, not a few from hostility, and some even from contentiousness, were preaching Christ—there was indeed even here opportunity for accusing the preaching itself of diversity of doctrine, seeing it was the cause of so much variety in men's tempers. Yet as he sets down as diverse only men's outlook of mind, and not the rules of <Christ's> mysteries, he affirms that with whatsoever intention it was one Christ, and one God, his God, who was the subject of that preaching: and consequently, I make no question, he says, whether in pretence or in truth Christ is preached, because the same one was preached of, whether that were in pretence or in the truth of the faith. For he brings this reference to the truth into relationship with the faith of the preachers, not the faith as laid down by rule, because there was but one rule, yet the faith of some of the preachers was a true one, being uncomplicated, while that of the others was excessively learned. And as that is so it is evident that the Christ preached of was he of whom announcement had always been made. For if a completely different Christ were being introduced by the apostle, the newness of the fact would have produced diversity. Yet there would not have been lacking those who would for all that expound the gospel preaching with reference to the Creator's Christ, in that even today in all localities there are more people of our judgement than of the heretical one. In which case not even here would the apostle have refrained from remark- ing on and castigating diversity: and so, when diversity is not even a matter of criticism, there is no approval of novelty. Evi- dently here too the Marcionites suppose that in respect of Christ's substance the apostle expresses agreement with them, <suggesting> that there was in Christ a phantasm of flesh, when he says that being established in the form of God he thought it not robbery to be made equal with God, but emptied himself by taking up the form of a servant— not 'the truth'—and <was> in the likeness of man—not 'in a man'—
20. 1 See Appendix 2.
V. 20 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
639 |
and was found in fashion as a man—not 'in substance', that is, not in flesh: as though fashion and likeness and form were not attri- butes of substance as well. But it is well that in.another place also he calls Christ the image of the invisible God.a
So then here too where he says he is in the form of God, Christ will have to be not really and truly God, if he was not really man when established in the form of man. For that 'really and truly' must of necessity be ruled out on both sides if form and likeness and fashion are to be claimed as meaning phantasm. But if in the form and image of the Father, being his Son, he is truly God, this is proof beforehand that when found also in the form and image of man, being the Son of man, he is truly man. And when he wrote 'found', he meant it—'most indubitably man'. For that which a thing 'is found' to be, it certainly is. So also he was found to be God through his act of power, as he is found to be man by reason of his flesh: for the apostle could not have declared him obedient unto death if he had not been established in a substance capable of death. More even than that, he adds the words, Even the death of the cross. For he would not have piled on the horror, lifting on high the virtue of subjection, if he had known this to be imaginary and phantasmal, if Christ had cheated death instead of suffering it, and in his passion had performed an act not of power but of illusion. Now the things he had formerly counted gain, the things he has just made a list of, glorying in the flesh, the mark of circumcision, the rank and descent of Hebrew from Hebrew, the nobility of the tribe of Benjamin, the dignity of pharisaic office,—it is these he now counts as loss to him—not the Jews' God, but the Jews' lack of feeling. These he now counts but as dung by comparison with the knowledge of Christ—not by any rejection of God the Creator—and has now a righteousness not his own or derived from the law, but a righteousness which is 'by him', meaning Christ, from God. So, you object, in view of this contrast, the law did not come from the God of Christ. How clever you are. Now hear something cleverer. When he says, Not that which is of the law but that which is through him, he could not have said through him except of one whose the law was. Our citizenship, he says, is in heaven. I recognize here the Creator's very old promise to Abraham: And I will make thy seed as the stars in heaven.b Consequently also, One star differeth from another star in glory.c But if Christ when he comes from heaven
826805 C C
V. 21 |
ADVERSUS MARCIONEM |
641 |
is to transform the body of our humility into conformity with the body of his glory, then that which is to rise again is this body of ours, which is humbled by what it undergoes, and is cast down to earth by nothing but the law of death. For how shall it be transformed, if it does not exist? Or if this is spoken of those who at God's coming are to be found still in the flesh and will then be changed,d what shall those do who rise first? Will they have nothing from which to be transformed? And yet he says, With them we shall be caught up together in the clouds to meet the Lord.e
If with them we are to be lifted up, with them we shall also have been transformed.
21. On the Epistle to Philemon. This epistle alone has so profited by its brevity as to escape Marcion's falsifying hands. As however he has accepted this letter to a single person, I do not see why he has rejected two written to Timothy and one to Titus about the church system. I suppose he had a whim to meddle even with the number of the epistles.
Take note, examiner, that the matters discussed in the previous part of this treatise I have now proved from the apostle's writings, and have completed such parts as were reserved for the present work. So then you are not to think superfluous the repetition by which I have confirmed my original intention, nor are you to doubt the legitimacy of the delay from which I have at length rescued these subjects. If your examination covers the whole work, you will censure neither superfluity in the present nor lack of conviction in the past.
826805 CC2
|