Chap. IX. - Out of St. Luke’s Fifth Chapter (Luk_5:1-39) Are Found Proofs of Christ’s Belonging to the Creator, e.g. in the Call of Fishermen to the Apostolic Office, and in the Cleansing of the Leper. Christ Compared with the Prophet Elisha.
Out of so many kinds of occupations, why indeed had He such respect for that of fishermen, as to select from it for apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee (for it cannot seem to be the mere fact itself for which the narrative was meant to be drawn out187), saying to Peter, when he trembled at the very large draught of the fishes, “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men?” (see Luk_5:1-11) By saying this, He suggested to them the meaning of the fulfilled prophecy, that it was even He who by Jeremiah had foretold, “Behold, I will send many fishers; and they shall fish them,” (Jer_16:16) that is, men. Then at last they left their boats, and followed Him, understanding that it was He who had begun to accomplish what He had declared. It is quite another case, when he affected to choose from the college of shipmasters, intending one day to appoint the shipmaster Marcion his apostle. We have indeed already laid it down, in opposition to his Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the diversity which he supposes to exist between the Law and the Gospel, inasmuch as even this was ordained by the Creator, and indeed predicted in the promise of the new Law, and the new Word, and the new Testament. Since, however, he quotes with especial care,188 as a proof in his domain,189 a certain companion in misery (συνταλαίπωρον), and associate in hatred (συμμισούμενον), with himself, for the cure of leprosy, (Luk_5:12-14) I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food, (1Co_5:11) forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious: wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner. The Lord, therefore, wishing that the law should be more profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths by carnal facts190 - and thus191 not destroying, 356 but rather building up, that law which He wanted to have more earnestly acknowledged - touched the leper, by whom (even although as man He might have been defiled) He could not be defiled as God, being of course incorruptible. The prescription, therefore, could not be meant for Him, that He was bound to observe the law and not touch the unclean person, seeing that contact with the unclean would not cause defilement to Him. I thus teach that this (immunity) is consistent in my Christ, the rather when I show that it is not consistent in yours. Now, if it was as an enemy192 of the law that He touched the leper - disregarding the precept of the law by a contempt of the defilement - how could he be defiled, when he possessed not a body193 which could be defiled? For a phantom is not susceptible of defilement. He therefore, who could not be defiled, as being a phantom, will not have an immunity from pollution by any divine power, but owing to his fantastic vacuity; nor can he be regarded as having despised pollution, who had not in fact any material capacity194 for it; nor, in like manner, as having destroyed the law, who had escaped defilement from the occasion of his phantom nature, not from any display of virtue. If, however, the Creator’s prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone,195 to the exclusion of196 so many lepers in Israel, (compare 2Ki_5:9-14; Luk_4:27) this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse. The cleansing of the Syrian rather197 was significant throughout the nations of the world198 of their own cleansing in Christ their light,199 steeped as they were in the stains of the seven deadly sins: [see Elucidation I.] idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud.200 Seven times, therefore, as if once for each,201 did he wash in Jordan; both in order that he might celebrate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad;202 and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly imputed203 to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued with compendious efficacy.204 Even Marcion finds here an antithesis:205 how that Elisha indeed required a material resource, applied water, and that seven times; whereas Christ, by the employment of a word only, and that but once for all, instantly effected206 the cure. And surely I might venture207 to claim208 the Very Word also as of the Creator’s substance. There is nothing of which He who was the primitive Author is not also the more powerful one. Forsooth,209 it is incredible that that power of the Creator should have, by a word, produced a remedy for a single malady, which once by a word brought into being so vast a fabric as the world! From what can the Christ of the Creator be better discerned, than from the power of His word? But Christ is on this account another (Christ), because He acted differently from Elisha - because, in fact, the master is more powerful than his servant! Why, Marcion, do you lay down the rule, that things are done by servants just as they are by their very masters? Are you not afraid that it will turn to your discredit, if you deny that Christ belongs to the Creator, on the ground that He was once more powerful than a servant of the Creator - since, in comparison with the weakness of Elisha, He is acknowledged to be the greater, if indeed greater!210 For the cure is the same, although there is a difference in the working of it. What has your Christ performed more than my Elisha? Nay, what great thing has the word of your Christ performed, when it has simply done that which a river of the Creator effected? On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: “Go, show thyself to the priest, and 357 present the offering which Moses commanded.” (Luk_5:14) For the figurative signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of their prophetic import.211 These types signified that a man, once a sinner, but afterwards purified212 from the stains thereof by the word of God, was bound to offer unto God in the temple a gift, even prayer and thanksgiving in the church through Christ Jesus, who is the Catholic Priest of the Father.212 Accordingly He added: “that it may be for a testimony unto you” - one, no doubt, whereby He would testify that He was not destroying the law, but fulfilling it; whereby, too, He would testify that it was He Himself who was foretold as about to undertake214 their sicknesses and infirmities. This very consistent and becoming explanation of “the testimony,” that adulator of his own Christ, Marcion seeks to exclude under the cover of mercy and gentleness. For, being both good (such are his words), and knowing, besides, that every man who had been freed from leprosy would be sure to perform the solemnities of the law, therefore He gave this precept. Well, what then? Has He continued in his goodness (that is to say, in his permission of the law) or not? For if he has persevered in his goodness, he will never become a destroyer of the law; nor will he ever be accounted as belonging to another god, because there would not exist that destruction of the law which would constitute his claim to belong to the other god. If, however, he has not continued good, by a subsequent destruction of the law, it is a false testimony which he has since imposed upon them in his cure of the leper; because he has forsaken his goodness, in destroying the law. If, therefore, he was good whilst upholding the law,215 he has now become evil as a destroyer of the law. However, by the support which he gave to the law, he affirmed that the law was good. For no one permits himself in the support of an evil thing. Therefore he is not only bad if he has permitted obedience to a bad law; but even worse still, if he has appeared216 as the destroyer of a good law. So that if he commanded the offering of the gift because he knew that every cured leper would be sure to bring one; he possibly abstained from commanding what he knew would be spontaneously done. In vain, therefore, was his coming down, as if with the intention of destroying the law, when he makes concessions to the keepers of the law. And yet,217 because he knew their disposition,218 he ought the more earnestly to have prevented their neglect of the law,219 since he had come for this purpose. Why then did he not keep silent, that man might of his own simple will obey the law? For then might he have seemed to some extent220 to have persisted in his patience. But he adds also his own authority increased by the weight of this “testimony.” Of what testimony, I ask,221 if not that of the assertion of the law? Surely it matters not in what way he asserted the law - whether as good, or as supererogatory,222 or as patient, or as inconstant-provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position.223 Observe,224 he commanded that the law should be fulfilled. In whatever way he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first uttered that sentiment:225 “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.” (Mat_5:17) What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it?226 For you have confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in word.227 We have therefore good proof that He uttered the word, in the fact that He did the deed; and that you have rather expunged the Lord’s word, than that our (evangelists)228 have inserted it.
Chap. X. - Further Proofs of the Same Truth in the Same Chapter, from the Healing of the Paralytic, and from the Designation Son of Man Which Jesus Gives Himself. Tertullian Sustains His Argument by Several Quotations from the Prophets.
The sick of the palsy is healed, (Luk_5:16-26) and that in public, in the sight of the people. For, says Isaiah, “they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.” (Isa_35:2) What glory, and what excellency? “Be strong, ye weak hands, and ye feeble knees:” (Isa_35:3 in altered form) this refers to the palsy. “Be strong; fear not.” (Isa_35:4) Be strong is not vainly repeated, nor is fear not vainly added; because with the 358 renewal of the limbs there was to be, according to the promise, a restoration also of bodily energies: “Arise, and take up thy couch;” and likewise moral courage229 not to be afraid of those who should say, “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” So that you have here not only the fulfilment of the prophecy which promised a particular kind of healing, but also of the symptoms which followed the cure. In like manner, you should also recognise Christ in the same prophet as the forgiver of sins. “For,” he says, “He shall remit to many their sins, and shall Himself take away our sins.” (This seems to be Isa_53:12, last clause) For in an earlier passage, speaking in the person of the Lord himself, he had said: “Even though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow; even though they be like crimson, I will whiten them as wool.” (Isa_1:18) In the scarlet colour He indicates the blood of the prophets; in the crimson, that of the Lord, as the brighter. Concerning the forgiveness of sins, Micah also says: “Who is a God like unto Thee? pardoning iniquity, and passing by the transgressions of the remnant of Thine heritage. He retaineth not His anger as a testimony against them, because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, and will have compassion upon us; He wipeth away our iniquities, and casteth our sins into the depths of the sea.” (Mic_7:18, Mic_7:19) Now, if nothing of this sort had been predicted of Christ, I should find in the Creator examples of such a benignity as would hold out to me the promise of similar affections also in the Son of whom He is the Father. I see how the Ninevites obtained forgiveness of their sins from the Creator (Jon_3:10) - not to say from Christ, even then, because from the beginning He acted in the Father’s name. I read, too, how that, when David acknowledged his sin against Uriah, the prophet Nathan said unto him, “The Lord hath cancelled230 thy sin, and thou shalt not die;” (2Sa_12:13) how king Ahab in like manner, the husband of Jezebel, guilty of idolatry and of the blood of Naboth, obtained pardon because of his repentance; (1Ki_21:19) and how Jonathan the son of Saul blotted out by his deprecation the guilt of a violated fast.231 Why should I recount the frequent restoration of the nation itself after the forgiveness of their sins? - by that God, indeed, who will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and a sinner’s repentance rather than his death. (Eze_33:11) You will first have to deny that the Creator ever forgave sins; then you must in reason show232 that He never ordained any such prerogative for His Christ; and so you will prove how novel is that boasted233 benevolence of the, of course, novel Christ when you shall have proved that it is neither compatible with234 the Creator nor predicted by the Creator. But whether to remit sins can appertain to one who is said to be unable to retain them, and whether to absolve can belong to him who is incompetent even to condemn, and whether to forgive is suitable to him against whom no offence can be committed, are questions which we have encountered elsewhere, (see book i. chap xxvi-xxviii.) when we preferred to drop suggestions235 rather than treat them anew.236 Concerning the Son of man our rule237 is a twofold one: that Christ cannot lie, so as to declare Himself the Son of man, if He be not truly so; nor can He be constituted the Son of man, unless He be born of a human parent, either father or mother. And then the discussion will turn on the point, of which human parent He ought to be accounted the son - of the father or the mother? Since He is (begotten) of God the Father, He is not, of course, (the son) of a human father. If He is not of a human father, it follows that He must be (the son) of a human mother. If of a human mother, it is evident that she must be a virgin. For to whom a human father is not ascribed, to his mother a husband will not be reckoned; and then to what mother a husband is not reckoned, the condition of virginity belongs.238 But if His mother be not a virgin, two fathers will have to be reckoned to Him - a divine and a human one. For she must have a husband, not to be a virgin; and by having a husband, she would cause two fathers - one divine, the other human - to accrue to Him, who would thus be Son both of God and of a man. Such a nativity (if one may call it so)239 the mythic stories assign to Castor or to Hercules. Now, if this distinction be observed, that is to say, if He be Son of man as born of His mother, because not begotten of a father, and His mother be a virgin, because His father is not human - He will be that Christ whom Isaiah foretold that a virgin should conceive, (Isa_7:14) On what principle you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I 359 cannot possibly see. If through a human father, then you deny him to be Son of God; if through a divine one also,240 then you make Christ the Hercules of fable; if through a human mother only, then you concede my point; if not through a human father also,241 then He is not the son of any man,242 and He must have been guilty of a lie for having declared Himself to be what He was not. One thing alone can help you in your difficulty: boldness on your part either to surname your God as actually the human father of Christ, as Valentinus did (Compare T.’s treatise, Adversus Valentinianos, chap. xii.) with his Aeon; or else to deny that the Virgin was human, which even Valentinus did not do. What now, if Christ be described243 in Daniel by this very title of “Son of man?” Is not this enough to prove that He is the Christ of prophecy? For if He gives Himself that appellation which was provided in the prophecy for the Christ of the Creator, He undoubtedly offers Himself to be understood as Him to whom (the appellation) was assigned by the prophet. But perhaps244 it can be regarded as a simple identity of names;245 and yet we have maintained246 that neither Christ nor Jesus ought to have been called by these names, if they possessed any condition of diversity. But as regards the appellation “Son of man,” in as far as it Occurs by accident,247 in so far there is a difficulty in its occurrence along with248 a casual identity of names. For it is of pure249 accident, especially when the same cause does not appear250 whereby the identity may be occasioned. And therefore, if Marcion’s Christ be also said to be born of man, then he too would receive an identical appellation, and there would be two Sons of man, as also two Christs and two Jesuses. Therefore, since the appellation is the sole right of Him in whom it has a suitable reason,251 if it be claimed for another in whom there is an identity of name, but not of appellation,252 then the identity of name even looks suspicious in him for whom is claimed without reason the identity of appellation. And it follows that He must be believed to be One and the Same, who is found to be the more fit to receive both the name and the appellation; while the other is excluded, who has no right to the appellation, because he has no reason to show for it. Nor will any other be better entitled to both than He who is the earlier, and has had allotted to Him the name of Christ and the appellation of Son of man, even the Jesus of the Creator. It was He who was seen by the king of Babylon in the furnace with His martyrs: “the fourth, who was like the Son of man.” (Dan_3:25) He also was revealed to Daniel himself expressly as “the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven” as a Judge, as also the Scripture shows. (Dan_7:13) What I have advanced might have been sufficient concerning the designation in prophecy of the Son of man. But the Scripture offers me further information, even in the interpretation of the Lord Himself. For when the Jews, who looked at Him as merely man, and were not yet sure that He was God also, as being likewise the Son of God, rightly enough said that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone, why did He not, following up their point253 about man, answer them, that He254 had power to remit sins; inasmuch as, when He mentioned the Son of man, He also named a human being? except it were because He wanted, by help of the very designation “Son of man” from the book of Daniel, so to induce them to reflect255 as to show them that He who remitted sins was God and man - that only Son of man, indeed, in the prophecy of Daniel, who had obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of course, of forgiving sins likewise (for He who judges also absolves); so that, when once that objection of theirs256 was shattered to pieces by their recollection of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge Him to be the Son of man Himself by His own actual forgiveness of sins. I make one more observation,257 how that He has nowhere as yet professed Himself to be the Son of God - but for the first time in this passage, in which for the first time He has remitted sins; that is, in which for the first time He has used His function of judgment, by the absolution. All that the opposite side has to allege in argument against these things, (I beg you) carefully weigh258 what it amounts to. For it must needs strain itself to such a pitch of infatuation as, on the one hand, to maintain that (their Christ) is also Son of man, in order to save Him from the charge of falsehood; and, on the other hand, to deny that He was born of woman, lest they grant 360 that He was the Virgin’s son. Since, however, the divine authority and the nature of the case, and common sense, do not admit this insane position of the heretics, we have here the opportunity of putting in a veto259 in the briefest possible terms, on the substance of Christ’s body, against Marcion’s phantoms. Since He is born of man, being the Son of man. He is body derived from body.260 You may, I assure you,261 more easily find a man born without a heart or without brains, like Marcion himself, than without a body, like Marcion’s Christ. And let this be the limit to your examination of the heart, or, at any rate, the brains of the heretic of Pontus.262
Chap. XI. - The Call of Levi the Publican. Christ in Relation to the Baptist. Christ as the Bridegroom. The Parable of the Old Wine and the New. Arguments Connecting Christ with the Creator.
The publican who was chosen by the Lord,263 he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in264 Judaism, by one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. (Mat_16:17) He had nowhere read of Christ’s being foretold as the light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He, however, rather spoke of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, “The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick.” (Luk_5:31) For since by “those that are sick” he meant that the heathens and publicans should be understood, whom he was choosing, he affirmed of the Jews that they were “whole” for whom he said that a physician was not necessary. This being the case, he makes a mistake in coming down265 to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased condition because they who were living under it were “whole,” and “not in want of a physician.” How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the similitude of a physician, if he did not verify it? For, just as nobody uses a physician for healthy persons, so will no one do so for strangers, in so far as he is one of Marcion’s god-made men,266 having to himself both a creator and preserver, and a specially good physician, in his Christ. This much the comparison predetermines, that a physician is more usually furnished by him to whom the sick people belong. Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! (see chap. vii. of this book, and chap ii. of book iii.) After this fashion occur all things in Marcion’s system. They have their own special and plenary course267 in the Creator’s dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. (see below, chap. xviii.) To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do268 - demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to Joan, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator’s Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. For if there had been no ministry of John at all - “the voice,” as Isaiah calls him, “of one crying in the wilderness,” and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself269 along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity270 between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct,271 having a prior difference about the authorities272 upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity. But as it is, while modestly273 giving a reason why “the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the 361 time the bridegroom is with them,” but promising that “they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,” (Luk_5:34-35) He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed274 it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it,275 and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force. I hold also that it is my Christ who is meant by the bridegroom, of whom the psalm says: “He is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return is back to the end of it again.” (Psa_19:5-6) By the mouth of Isaiah He also says exultingly of the Father: “Let my soul rejoice in the Lord; for He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation and with the tunic of joy, as a bridegroom. He hath put a mitre round about my head, as a bride.” (Isa_59:10) To Himself likewise He appropriates276 the church, concerning which the same277 Spirit says to Him: “Thou shall clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal ornament.” (Isa_49:18) This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read: “Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse.” (Son_4:8) He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks;278 for it was from idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. Deny now, Marcion, your utter madness, (if you can)! Behold, you impugn even the law of your god. He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it; no one does he baptize but a cælebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism. (see also book i. chap. xxix.)[on this reservation of Baptism see Elucidation II.] Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of him who separated them. You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are inflated about the old bottles, and brain-muddled with the new wine; and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch of your new-fangled heresy. I should like to know in what respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself.279 When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, “Break up for yourselves new pastures,” (Jer_4:3) does He not turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how “old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making, are new,” (his reading of (probably) Isa_43:19; compare 2Co_5:17) does He not advert to a new state of things? We have generally been of opinion280 that the destination of the former state of things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain both the old things and the new. For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him. That person only281 does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done. And therefore, since His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the new condition282 of the gospel from the old state283 of the law, He proved that that284 from which He was separating His own285 ought not to have been branded286 as a separation287 of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them,288 in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things. A separation is possible by help of the conjunction through which it is made. Accordingly, the things which He separated He also proved to have been once one; as they would have remained, were it not for His separation. But still we make this concession, that there is a separation, by reformation, by amplification,289 by progress; just as the fruit is separated from the seed, although the fruit comes from the seed. So likewise the gospel is separated from the law, whilst it advances290 from the law - a different thing291 from it, but not an alien one; diverse, but not contrary. Nor in Christ do we even find any novel form of discourse. Whether He proposes similitudes 362 or refute questions, it comes from the seventy-seventh Psalm. “I will open,” says He, “my mouth in a parable” (that is, in a similitude); “I will utter dark problems” (that is, I will set forth questions). (see Psa_78:2) If you should wish to prove that a man belonged to another race, no doubt you would fetch your proof from the idiom of his language.
Chap. XII. - Christ’s Authority over the Sabbath. As Its Lord He Recalled It from Pharisaic Neglect to the Original Purpose of Its Institution by the Creator the Case of the Disciples who Plucked the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath. The Withered Hand Healed on the Sabbath.
Concerning the Sabbath also I have this to premise, that this question could not have arisen, if Christ did not publicly proclaim292 the Lord of the Sabbath. Nor could there be any discussion about His annulling293 the Sabbath, if He had a right294 to annul it. Moreover, He would have the right, if He belonged to the rival god; nor would it cause surprise to any one that He did what it was right for Him to do. Men’s astonishment therefore arose from their opinion that it was improper for Him to proclaim the Creator to be God and yet to impugn His Sabbath. Now, that we may decide these several points first, lest we should be renewing them at every turn to meet each argument of our adversary which rests on some novel institution295 of Christ, let this stand as a settled point, that discussion concerning the novel character of each institution ensued on this account, because as nothing was as yet advanced by Christ touching any new deity, so discussion thereon was inadmissible; nor could it be retorted, that from the very novelty of each several institution another deity was clearly enough demonstrated by Christ, inasmuch as it was plain that novelty was not in itself a characteristic to be wondered at in Christ, because it had been foretold by the Creator. And it would have been, of course, but right that a new296 god should first be expounded, and his discipline be introduced afterwards; because it Would be the god that would impart authority to the discipline, and not the discipline to the god; except that (to be sure) it has happened that Marcion acquired his very perverse opinions not from a master, but his master from his opinion! All other points respecting the Sabbath I thus rule. If Christ interfered with297 the Sabbath, He simply acted after the Creator’s example; inasmuch as in the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying around the walls of the ark of the covenant for eight days running, and therefore on a Sabbath-day, actually298 annulled the Sabbath, by the Creator’s command - according to the opinion of those who think this of Christ in this passage of St. Luke, in their ignorance that neither Christ nor the Creator violated the Sabbath, as we shall by and by show. And yet the Sabbath was actually then broken299 by Joshua,300 so that the present charge might be alleged also against Christ. But even if, as being not the Christ of the Jews, He displayed a hatred against the Jews’ most solemn day, He was only professedly following301 the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very hatred of the Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: “Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth.” (Isa_1:14) Now, in whatever sense these words were spoken, we know that an abrupt defence must, in a subject of this sort, be used in answer to an abrupt challenge. I shall now transfer the discussion to the very matter in which the teaching of Christ seemed to annul the Sabbath. The disciples had been hungry; on that the Sabbath day they had plucked some ears and rubbed them in their hands; by thus preparing their food, they had violated the holy day. Christ excuses them, and became their accomplice in breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees bring the charge against Him. Marcion sophistically interprets the stages of the controversy (if I may call in the aid of the truth of my Lord to ridicule his arts), both in the scriptural record and in Christ’s purpose.302 For from the Creator’s Scripture, and from the purpose of Christ, there is derived a colourable precedent303 - as from the example of David, when he went into the temple on the Sabbath, and provided food by boldly breaking up the shew-bread. (Luk_6:1-4; 1Sa_21:2-6) Even he remembered that this privilege (I mean the dispensation from fasting) was allowed to the Sabbath from the very beginning, when the Sabbath-day itself was instituted. For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, He yet permitted it on the one occasion only of the day before the Sabbath, 363 in order that the yesterday’s provision of food might free from fasting the feast of the following Sabbath-day. Good reason, therefore, had the Lord for pursuing the same principle in the annulling of the Sabbath (since that is the word which men will use); good reason, too, for expressing the Creator’s will,304 when He bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the Sabbath-day. In short, He would have then and there305 put an end to the Sabbath, nay, to the Creator Himself, if He had commanded His disciples to fast on the Sabbath-day, contrary to the intention306 of the Scripture and of the Creator’s will. But because He did not directly defend307 His disciples, but excuses them; because He interposes human want, as if deprecating censure; because He maintains the honour of the Sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work;308 because he puts David and his companions on a level with His own disciples in their fault and their extenuation; because He is pleased to endorse309 the Creator’s indulgence:310 because He is Himself good according to His example - is He therefore alien from the Creator? Then the Pharisees watch whether He would heal on the Sabbath-day, (Luk_6:7) that they might accuse Him - surely as a violator of the Sabbath, not as the propounder of a new god; for perhaps I might be content with insisting on all occasions on this one point, that another Christ311 is nowhere proclaimed. The Pharisees, however, were in utter error concerning the law of the Sabbath, not observing that its terms were conditional, when it enjoined rest from labour, making certain distinctions of labour. For when it says of the Sabbath-day, “In it thou shalt not do any work of thine,” (Exo_20:6) by the word thine312 it restricts the prohibition to human work - which every one performs in his own employment or business - and not to divine work. Now the work of healing or preserving is not proper to man, but to God. So again, in the law it says, “Thou shalt not do any manner of work in it,” (Exo_12:16) except what is to be done for any soul,313 that is to say, in the matter of delivering the soul;314 because what is God’s work may be done by human agency for the salvation of the soul. By God, however, would that be done which the man Christ was to do, for He was likewise God.315 Wishing, therefore, to initiate them into this meaning of the law by the restoration of the withered hand, He requires, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath-days to do good, or not? to save life, or to destroy it?” (Luk_6:9) In order that He might, whilst allowing that amount of work which He was about to perform for a soul,316 remind them what works the law of the Sabbath forbade - even human works; and what it enjoined - even divine works, which might be done for the benefit of any soul,317 He was called “Lord of the Sabbath,” (Luk_6:5) because He maintained318 the Sabbath as His own institution. Now, even if He had annulled the Sabbath, He would have had the right to do so,319 as being its Lord, (and) still more as He who instituted it. But He did not utterly destroy it, although its Lord, in order that it might henceforth be plain that the Sabbath was not broken320 by the Creator, even at the time when the ark was carried around Jericho. For that was really321 God’s work, which He commanded Himself, and which He had ordered for the sake of the lives of His servants when exposed to the perils of war. Now, although He has in a certain place expressed an aversion of Sabbaths, by calling them your Sabbaths, (Isa_1:13-14) reckoning them as men’s Sabbaths, not His own, because they were celebrated without the fear of God by a people full of iniquities, and loving God “with the lip, not the heart,” (Isa_24:13) He has yet put His own Sabbaths (those, that is, which were kept according to His prescription) in a different position; for by the same prophet, in a later passage, (Isa_58:13; Isa_56:2) He declared them to be “true, and delightful, and inviolable.” Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: He kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of His disciples, for He indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry, and in the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case intimating 364 by facts, “I came not to destroy, the law, but to fulfil it,” (Mat_5:17) although Marcion has gagged322 His mouth by this word.323 For even in the case before us He fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition; moreover, He exhibits in a dear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath324 and while imparting to the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by His own beneficent action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards,325 - a course which326 His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honouring the Creator’s Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it. Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha on this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman, (see 2Ki_4:23) you see, O Pharisee, and you too, O Marcion, how that it was proper employment for the Creator’s Sabbaths of old327 to do good, to save life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not after the example,328 the gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example He fulfils329 the prophetic announcement of a specific healing: “The weak hands are strengthened,” as were also “the feeble knees” (Isa_35:3) in the sick of the palsy.
Chap. XIII. - Christ’s Connection with the Creator Shown. Many Quotations out of the Old Testament Prophetically Bear on Certain Events of the Life of Jesus - Such as His Ascent to Praying on the Mountain; His Selection of Twelve Apostles; His Changing Simon’s Name to Peter, and Gentiles from Tyre and Sidon Resorting to Him.
Surely to Sion He brings good tidings, and to Jerusalem peace and all blessings; He goes up into a mountain, and there spends a night in prayer, (Luk_6:12) and He is indeed heard by the Father. Accordingly turn over the prophets, and learn therefrom His entire course.330 “Into the high mountain,” says Isaiah, “get Thee up, who bringest good tidings to Sion; lift up Thy voice with strength, who bringest good tidings to Jerusalem.” (Isa_40:9) “They were mightily331 astonished at His doctrine; for He was teaching as one who had power.” (Luk_4:32) And again: “Therefore, my people shall know my name in that day.” What name does the prophet mean, but Christ’s? “That I am He that doth speak - even I.” (Isa_52:6) For it was He who used to speak in the prophets - the Word, the Creator’s Son. “I am present, while it is the hour, upon the mountains, as one that bringeth glad tidings of peace, as one that publisheth good tidings of good.” (Our author’s reading of Isa_52:7) So one of the twelve (minor prophets), Naburn: “For behold upon the mountain the swift feet of Him that bringeth glad tidings of peace.” (Nah_1:15) Moreover, concerning the voice of His prayer to the Father by night, the psalm manifestly says: “O my God, I will cry in the day-time, and Thou shalt hear; and in the night season, and it shall not be in vain to me.” (Psa_22:2) in another passage touching the same voice and place, the psalm says: “I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy mountain.” (Psa_3:4) You have a representation of the name; you have the action of the Evangelizer; you have a mountain for the site; and the night as the time; and the sound of a voice; and the audience of the Father: you have, (in short,) the Christ of the prophets. But why was it that He chose twelve apostles, (Luk_6:13-19) and not some other number? In truth,332 I might from this very point conclude333 of my Christ, that He was foretold not only by the words of prophets, but by the indications of facts. For of this number I find figurative hints up and down the Creator’s dispensation334 in the twelve springs of Elfin; (Num_33:9) in the twelve gems of Aaron’s priestly vestment; (Exo_28:13-21) and in the twelve stones appointed by Joshua to be taken out of the Jordan, and set up for the ark of the covenant. Now, the same number of apostles was thus portended, as if they were to be fountains and rivers which should water the Gentile world, which was formerly dry and destitute of knowledge (as He says by Isaiah: “I will put streams in the unwatered ground” (Isa_43:20)); as if they were to be gems to shed lustre upon the church’s sacred 365 robe, which Christ, the High Priest of the Father, puts on; as if, also, they were to be stones massive in their faith, which the true Joshua took out of the layer of the Jordan, and placed in the sanctuary of His covenant. What equally good defence of such a number has Marcion’s Christ to show? It is impossible that anything can be shown to have been done by him unconnectedly,335 which cannot be shown to have been done by my Christ in connection (with preceding types).336 To him will appertain the event337 in whom is discovered the preparation for the same.338 Again, He changes the name of Simon to Peter, (Luk_6:14) [Elucidation III.] inasmuch as the Creator also altered the names of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and adding a syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? If it was because of the vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed “for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence.” (Isa_8:14; Rom_9:33; 1Pe_2:8) I omit the rest of the passage.339 Therefore He would fain340 impart to the dearest of His disciples a name which was suggested by one of His own especial designations in figure; because it was, I suppose, more peculiarly fit than a name which might have been derived from no figurative description of Himself.341 There come to Him from Tyre, and from other districts even, a transmarine multitude. This fact the psalm had in view: “And behold tribes of foreign people, and Tyre, and the people of the Ethiopians; they were there. Sion is my mother, shall a man say; and in her was born a man” (forasmuch as the God-man was born), and He built her by the Father’s will; that you may know how Gentiles then flocked to Him, because He was born the God-man who was to build the church according to the Father’s will - even of other races also. (Psalms 87:4-5, LXX) So says Isaiah too: “Behold, these come from far; and these from the north and from the west;342 and these from the land of the Persians.” (Isa_49:12) Concerning whom He says again: “Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold, all these have gathered themselves together.” (Isa_49:18) And yet again: “Thou seest these unknown and strange ones; and thou wilt say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these? But who hath brought me up these? And these, where have they been?” (Isa_49:21) Will such a Christ not be (the Christ) of the prophets? And what will be the Christ of the Marcionites? Since perversion of truth is their pleasure, he could not be (the Christ) of the prophets.
Chap. XIV. - Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. In Manner and Contents It so Resembles the Creator’s Dispensational Words and Deeds. It Suggests Therefore the Conclusion that Jesus Is the Creator’s Christ. The Beatitudes.
I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He adapts the peculiarity343 of His doctrine to what I may call His official proclamation as the Christ.344 “Blessed are the needy” (for no less than this is required for interpreting the word in the Greek,345 “because theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Luk_6:20) Now this very fact, that He begins with beatitudes, is characteristic of the Creator, who used no other voice than that of blessing either in the first fiat or the final dedication of the universe: for “my heart,” says He, “hath indited a very good word.” (Psa_45:1) [and see Vol. 1. p. 213 supra.] This will be that “very good word” of blessing which is admitted to be the initiating principle of the New Testament, after the example of the Old. What is there, then, to wonder at, if He entered on His ministry with the very attributes346 of the Creator, who ever in language of the same sort loved, consoled, protected, and avenged the beggar, and the poor, and the humble, and the widow, and the orphan? So that you may believe this private bounty as it were of Christ to be a rivulet streaming from the springs of salvation. Indeed, I hardly know which way to turn amidst so vast a wealth of good words like these; as if I were in a forest, or a meadow, or an orchard of apples. I must therefore look out for such matter as chance may
