Chap. XXX. - Parables of the Mustard-Seed, and of the Leaven. Transition to the Solemn Exclusion Which Will Ensue when the Master of the House Has Shut the Door. This Judicial Exclusion Will Be Administered by Christ, who Is Shown Thereby to Possess the Attribute of the Creator.
When the question was again raised concerning a cure performed on the Sabbath-day, how did He discuss it: “Doth not each of you on the Sabbath loose his ass or his ox from the stall, and lead him away to watering?” (Luk_13:15) When, therefore, He did a work according to the condition prescribed by the law, He affirmed, instead of breaking, the law, which commanded that no work should be done, except what might be done for any living being;842 and if for any one, then how much more for a human life? In the case of the parables, it is allowed that I843 everywhere require a congruity. “The kingdom of God,” says He, “is like a grain of mustard-seed which a man took and cast into his garden.” Who must be understood as meant by the man? Surely Christ, because (although Marcion’s) he was called “the Son of man.” He received from the Father the seed of the kingdom, that is, the word of the gospel, and sowed it in his garden - in the world, of course844 - in man at the present day, for instance.845 Now, whereas it is said, “in his garden,” but neither the world nor man is his property, but the Creator’s, therefore He who sowed seed in His own ground is shown to be the Creator. Else, if, to evade this snare,846 they should choose to transfer the person of the man from Christ to any person who receives the seed of the kingdom and sows it in the garden of his own heart, not even this meaning847 would suit any other than the Creator. For how happens it, if the kingdom belong to the most lenient god, that it is closely followed up by a fervent judgment, the severity of which brings weeping?848 With regard, indeed, to the following similitude, I have my fears lest it should somehow849 presage the kingdom of the rival god! For He compared it, not to the unleavened bread which the Creator is more familiar with, but to leaven. (Luk_13:20, Luk_13:21) Now this is a capital conjecture for men who are begging for arguments. I must, however, on my side, dispel one fond conceit by another,”850 and contend with even leaven is suitable for the kingdom of the Creator, because after it comes the oven, or, if you please,851 the furnace of hell. How often has He already displayed Himself as a Judge, and in the Judge the Creator? How often, indeed, has He repelled, and in the repulse condemned? In the present passage, for instance, He says, “When once the master of the house is risen up;” (Luk_13:25) but in what sense except that in which Isaiah said, “When He ariseth to shake terribly the earth?” (Isa_2:19) “And hath shut to the door,” thereby shutting out the wicked, of course; and when these knock, He will answer, “I know you not whence ye are;” and when they recount how “they have eaten and drunk in His presence,” He will further say to them, “Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Luk_13:25-28) But where? Outside, no doubt, when they shall have been excluded with the door shut on them by Him. There will therefore be punishment inflicted by Him who excludes for punishment, when they shall behold the righteous entering the kingdom of God, but themselves detained without. By whom detained outside? If by the Creator, who shall be within receiving the righteous into the kingdom? The good God. What, therefore, is the Creator about,852 that He should detain outside for punishment those whom His adversary shut out, when He ought rather to have kindly received them, if they must come into His hands,853 for the greater irritation of His rival? But when about to exclude the wicked, he must, of course, either be aware that the Creator would detain them for punishment, or not be aware. Consequently either the wicked will be detained by the Creator against the will of the excluder, in which case he will be inferior to the Creator, submitting to Him unwillingly; or else, if the process is carried out with his will, then he himself has judicially determined its execution; and then he who is the very originator of the Creator’s infamy, will not prove to be one whit better than the Creator. Now, if these ideas be incompatible with reason - of one being supposed to punish, and the other to liberate - then to one only power will appertain both the judgment and the kingdom and while they both belong to one, He who executeth judgment can be none else than the Christ of the Creator.
401
Chap. XXXI. - Christ’s Advice to Invite the Poor in Accordance with Isaiah. The Parable of the Great Supper a Pictorial Sketch of the Creator’s Own Dispensations of Mercy and Grace. The Rejections of the Invitation Paralleled by Quotations from the Old Testament Marcion’s Christ Could Not Fulfil the Conditions Indicated in This Parable the Absurdity of the Marcionite Interpretation.
What kind of persons does He bid should be invited to a dinner or a supper? (Luk_14:12-14) Precisely such as he had pointed out by Isaiah: “Deal thy bread to the hungry man; and the beggars - even such as have no home - bring in to thine house,” (Isa_58:7) because, no doubt, they are “unable to recompense” your act of humanity. Now, since Christ forbids the recompense to be expected now, but promises it “at the resurrection,” this is the very plan854 of the Creator, who dislikes those who love gifts and follow after reward. Consider also to which deity855 is better suited the parable of him who issued invitations: “A certain man made a great supper, and bade many.” (Luk_14:6) The preparation for the supper is no doubt a figure of the abundant provision856 of eternal life. I first remark, that strangers, and persons unconnected by ties of relationship, are not usually invited to a supper; but that members of the household and family are more frequently the favoured guests. To the Creator, then, it belonged to give the invitation, to whom also appertained those who were to be invited - whether considered as men, through their descent from Adam, or as Jews, by reason of their fathers; not to him who possessed no claim to them either by nature or prerogative. My next remark is,857 if He issues the invitations who has prepared the supper, then, in this sense the supper is the Creator’s, who sent to warn the guests. These had been indeed previously invited by the fathers, but were to be admonished by the prophets. It certainly is not the feast of him who never sent a messenger to warn - who never did a thing before towards issuing an invitation, but came down himself on a sudden - only then858 beginning to be known, when already858 giving his invitation; only then inviting, when already compelling to his banquet; appointing one and the same hour both for the supper and the invitation. But when invited, they excuse themselves. (Luk_14:18) And fairly enough, if the invitation came from the other god, because it was so sudden; if, however, the excuse was not a fair one, then the invitation was not a sudden one. Now, if the invitation was not a sudden one, it must have been given by the Creator - even by Him of old time, whose call they had at last refused. They first refused it when they said to Aaron, “Make us gods, which shall go before us; (Exo_32:1) and again, afterwards, when “they heard indeed with the ear, but did not understand” (Isa_6:10) their calling of God. In a manner most germane859 I to this parable, He said by Jeremiah: “Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and ye shall walk in all my ways, which I have commanded you.” (Jer_7:23) This is the invitation of God. “But,” says He, “they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear.” (Jer_7:24) This is the refusal of the people. “They departed, and walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart.” (Jer_11:8) “I have bought a field - and I have bought some oxen - and I have married a wife.” (Luk_14:18-20) And still He urges them: “I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early even before day-light.” (Jer_7:25; Jer_25:4; Jer_26:5; Jer_44:4) The Holy Spirit is here meant, the admonisher of the guests. “Yet my people hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck.” (Jer_7:26) This was reported to the Master of the family. Then He was moved (He did well to be moved; for, as Marcion denies emotion to his god, He must be therefore my God), and commanded them to invite out of “the streets and lanes of the city.” (Luk_14:21) Let us see whether this is not the same in purport as His words by Jeremiah: “Have I been a wilderness to the house of Israel, or a land left uncultivated?” (Jer_2:31) That is to say: “Then have I none whom I may call to me; have I no place whence I may bring them?” “Since my people have said, We will come no more unto thee.” (Jer_2:31) Therefore He sent out to call others, but from the same city. (Luk_14:23) My third remark is this,860 that although the place abounded with people, He yet commanded that they gather men from the highways and the hedges. In other words, we are now gathered out of the 402 Gentile strangers; with that jealous resentment, no doubt, which He expressed in Deuteronomy: “I will hide my face from them, and I will show them what shall happen in the last days861 (how that others shall possess their place); for they are a froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy by that which is no god, and they have provoked me to anger with their idols; and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people: I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation” (Deu_32:20-21) - even with us, whose hope the Jews still entertain.862 But this hope the Lord says they should not realize;863 “Sion being left as a cottages864 in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers,” (Isa_1:8) since the nation rejected the latest invitation to Christ. (Now, I ask,) after going through all this course of the Creator’s dispensation and prophecies, what there is in it which can possibly be assigned to him who has done all his work at one hasty stroke,865 and possesses neither the Creator’s866 course nor His dispensation in harmony with the parable? Or, again in what will consist his first invitation,867 and what his admonition868 at the second stage? Some at first would surely decline; others afterwards must have accepted.”869 But now he comes to invite both parties promiscuously out of the city,870 out of the hedges,871 contrary to the drift872 of the parable. It is impossible for him now to condemn as scorners of his invitation873 those whom he has never yet invited, and whom he is approaching with so much earnestness. If, however, he condemns them beforehand as about to reject his call, then beforehand he also predicts874 the election of the Gentiles in their stead. Certainly875 he means to come the second time for the very purpose of preaching to the heathen. But even if he does mean to come again, I imagine it will not be with the intention of any longer inviting guests, but of giving to them their places. Meanwhile, you who interpret the call to this supper as an invitation to a heavenly banquet of spiritual satiety and pleasure, must remember that the earthly promises also of wine and oil and corn, and even of the city, are equally employed by the Creator as figures of spiritual things.
Chap. XXXII. - A Sort of Sorites, as the Logicians Call It, to Show that the Parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Drachma Have No Suitable Application to the Christ of Marcion.
Who sought after the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver? (Luk_15:1-10) Was it not the loser? But who was the loser? Was it not he who once possessed876 them? Who, then, was that? Was it not he to whom they belonged?877 Since, then, man is the property of none other than the Creator, He possessed Him who owned him; He lost him who once possessed him; He sought him who lost him; He found him who sought him; He rejoiced who found him. Therefore the purport878 of neither parable has anything whatever to do with him879 to whom belongs neither the sheep nor the piece of silver, that is to say, man. For he lost him not, because he possessed him not; and he sought him not, because he lost him not; and he found him not, because he sought him not; and he rejoiced not, because he found him not. Therefore, to rejoice over the sinner’s repentance - that is, at the recovery of lost man - is the attribute of Him who long ago professed that He would rather that the sinner should repent and not die.
Chap. XXXIII. - The Marcionite Interpretation of God and Mammon Refuted. The Prophets Justify Christ’s Admonition Against Covetousness and Pride. John Baptist the Link Between the Old and the New Dispensations of the Creator. So Said Christ - But so also Had Isaiah Said Long Before. One Only God, the Creator, by His Own Will Changed the Dispensations. No New God Had a Hand in the Change.
What the two masters are who, He says, cannot be served, (Luk_16:13) on the ground that while one is pleased880 the other must needs be displeased,881 He Himself makes clear, when He mentions God and mammon. Then, if you have no interpreter by you, you may learn 403 again from Himself what He would have understood by mammon.882 For when advising us to provide for ourselves the help of friends in worldly affairs, after the example of that steward who, when removed from his office,883 relieves his lord’s debtors by lessening their debts with a view to their recompensing him with their help, He said, “And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness,” that is to say, of money, even as the steward had done. Now we are all of us aware that money is the instigator884 of unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole world. Therefore, when he saw the covetousness of the Pharisees doing servile worship885 to it, He hurled886 this sentence against them, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Luk_16:13) Then the Pharisees, who were covetous of riches, derided Him, when they understood that by mammon He meant money. Let no one think that under the word mammon the Creator was meant, and that Christ called them off from the service of the Creator. What folly! Rather learn therefrom that one God was pointed out by Christ. For they were two masters whom He named, God and mammon - the Creator and money. You cannot indeed serve God - Him, of course whom they seemed to serve - and mammon to whom they preferred to devote themselves.887 If, however, he was giving himself out as another god, it would not be two masters, but three, that he had pointed out. For the Creator was a master, and much more of a master, to be sure,888 than mammon, and more to be adored, as being more truly our Master. Now, how was it likely that He who had called mammon a master, and had associated him with God, should say nothing of Him who was really the Master of even these, that is, the Creator? Or else, by this silence respecting Him did He concede that service might be rendered to Him, since it was to Himself alone and to mammon that He said service could not be (simultaneously) rendered? When, therefore, He lays down the position that God is one, since He would have been sure to mention889 the Creator if He were Himself a rival890 to Him, He did (virtually) name the Creator, when He refrained from insisting”891 that He was Master alone, without a rival god. Accordingly, this will throw light upon the sense in which it was said, “If ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?” (Luk_16:11) “In the unrighteous mammon,” that is to say, in unrighteous riches, not in the Creator; for even Marcion allows Him to be righteous: “And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who will give to you that which is mine?”892 For whatever is unrighteous ought to be foreign to the servants of God. But in what way was the Creator foreign to the Pharisees, seeing that He was the proper God of the Jewish nation? Forasmuch then as the words, “Who will entrust to you the truer riches?” and, “Who will give you that which is mine?” are only suitable to the Creator and not to mammon, He could not have uttered them as alien to the Creator, and in the interest of the rival god. He could only seem to have spoken them in this sense, if, when remarking893 their unfaithfulness to the Creator and not to mammon, He had drawn some distinctions between the Creator (in his manner of mentioning Him) and the rival god - how that the latter would not commit his own truth to those who were unfaithful to the Creator. How then can he possibly seem to belong to another god, if He be not set forth, with the express intention of being separated894 from the very thing which is in question. But when the Pharisees “justified themselves before men,” (Luk_16:15) and placed their hope of reward in man, He censured them in the sense in which the prophet Jeremiah said, “Cursed is the man that trusteth in man.” (Jer_17:5) Since the prophet went on to say, “But the Lord knoweth your hearts,” (Jer_17:10, in sense but not in letter) he magnified the power of that God who declared Himself to be as a lamp, “searching the reins and the heart.” (Jer_20:12) When He strikes at pride in the words: “That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God,” (Luk_16:15) He recalls Isaiah: “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is arrogant and lifted up, and they shall be brought low.” (Isaiah 2:12, LXX) I can now make out 404 why Marcion’s god was for so long an age concealed. He was, I suppose, waiting until he had learnt all these things from the Creator. He continued his pupillage up to the time of John, and then proceeded forthwith to announce the kingdom of God, saying: “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is proclaimed.” (Luk_16:16) Just as if we also did not recognise in John a certain limit placed between the old dispensation and the new, at which Judaism ceased and Christianity began - without, however, supposing that it was by the power of another god that there came about a cessation895 of the law and the prophets and the commencement of that gospel in which is the kingdom of God, Christ Himself. For although, as we have shown, the Creator foretold that the old state of things would pass away and a new state would succeed, yet, inasmuch as John is shown to be both the forerunner and the preparer of the ways of that Lord who was to introduce the gospel and publish the kingdom of God, it follows from the very fact that John has come, that Christ must be that very Being who was to follow His harbinger John. So that, if the old course has ceased and the new has begun, with John intervening between them, there will be nothing wonderful in it, because it happens according to the purpose of the Creator; so that you may get a better proof for the kingdom of God from any quarter, however anomalous,896 than from the conceit that the law and the prophets ended in John, and a new state of things began after him. “More easily, therefore, may heaven and earth pass away - as also the law and the prophets - than that one tittle of the Lord’s words should fail.” (Luk_16:17; Luk_21:23) “For,” as says Isaiah: “the word of our God shall stand for ever.” (Isa_40:8) Since even then by Isaiah it was Christ, the Word and Spirit897 of the Creator, who prophetically described John as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord,” (Isa_40:3) and as about to come for the purpose of terminating thenceforth the course of the law and the prophets; by their fulfilment and not their extinction, and in order that the kingdom of God might be announced by Christ, He therefore purposely added the assurance that the elements would more easily pass away than His words fail; affirming, as He did, the further fact, that what He had said concerning John had not fallen to the ground.
Chap. XXXIV. - Moses, Allowing Divorce, and Christ Prohibiting It, Explained. John Baptist and Herod. Marcion’s Attempt to Discover an Antithesis in the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man in Hades Confuted. The Creator’s Appointment Manifested in Both States.
But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery.” (Luk_16:18) In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: “When a man hath taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house.” (Deu_24:1) You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel- between Moses and Christ?898 To be sure there is!899 But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ.900 There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: “Moses,” says He, “because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so” (Mat_19:8) - for this reason, indeed, because He who had “made them male and female” had likewise said, “They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mat_19:4, Mat_19:6) Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose901 the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented902 the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated903 than abolished the enactment of Moses? But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that 405 His teaching is not contrary to them. I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of904 marrying another. His words are: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery,” (Luk_16:8) - “put away,” that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is undivorced. Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry,905 therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions,906 when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed907 His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially908 defends, I will not909 say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side910 destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else,911 unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect,912 if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know,913 does not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.” (1Co_6:15) Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved,914 has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” (Mat_5:32) He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. (Deu_22:28-29) Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: “Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth.” (Mal_2:15) Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in for-bidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have915 now to show whence the Lord derived this decision916 of His, and to what end He directed it. It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance917 by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John. For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying childless,918 when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and from his own wife,919 seed might be reckoned to the deceased husband), (Deu_25:5-6) and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was even put to death. The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure920 against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman that had been put away from her husband. This he said in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt, who had taken his brother’s wife, after she had been loosed from her husband not less by death than by divorce; who had been impelled 406 thereto by his lust, not by the prescription of the (Levirate) law - for, as his brother had left a daughter, the marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account;921 and who, when the prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore put him to death. The remarks I have advanced on this case will be also of use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable of the rich man922 tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham’s bosom. (Luk_16:19-31) For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally923 fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage.924 It sets forth in bold outline925 the end of both of them, the “torments” of Herod and the “comfort” of John, that even now Herod might hear that warning: “They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.” (Luk_16:29) Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life926 for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; whilst he defines the heavenly bosom and harbour to belong to Christ and his own god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles927 his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham’s bosom, where the poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment. “Hell” (I take it) means one thing, and “Abraham’s bosom” another. “A great gulf.” is said to separate those regions, and to hinder a passage from one to the other. Besides, the rich man could not have “lifted up his eyes,” (Luk_16:23) and from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said distance all up through the vast immensity of height and depth. It must therefore be evident to every man of intelligence who has ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some determinate place called Abraham’s bosom, and that it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham’s children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is “the father of many nations,” which must be classed amongst his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham’s bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell,928 (see Elucidation VIII.) and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the “full recompense of their reward.” (compare Heb_2:2; Heb_10:35; Heb_11:26) This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion, however, claims for his own god, just as if the Creator had never announced them. Amos, however, tells us of “those stories towards heaven”929 which Christ “builds” - of course for His people. There also is that everlasting abode of which Isaiah asks, “Who shall declare unto you the eternal place, but He (that is, of course, Christ) who walketh in righteousness, speaketh of the straight path, hateth injustice and iniquity?” (Isaiah 33:14-16, LXX, which has but slight resemblance to the Hebrew.) Now, although this everlasting abode is promised, and the ascending stories (or steps) to heaven are built by the Creator, who further promises that the seed of Abraham shall be even as the stars of heaven, by virtue certainly of the heavenly promise, why may it not be possible,930 without any injury to that promise, that by Abraham’s bosom is meant some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the future, and where is given some foresight of the glory931 of both judgments? If so, you have here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning that Moses and the prophets declare one only God, the Creator, and His only Christ, and how that both awards of everlasting punishment and eternal salvation rest with Him, the one only God, who kills and who makes alive. Well, but the admonition, says Marcion, of our God from heaven has commanded us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the command. (There seems to be an illusion to Luk_9:35) This is true enough. For the apostles had by that time sufficiently heard Moses and the prophets, for they had followed Christ, being persuaded by Moses and the prophets. For even Peter would not have been able932 to say, “Thou art the Christ,” (Luk_9:20) unless he had beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had been hitherto announced. Their faith, indeed, had deserved this confirmation by such a voice from heaven as should bid them hear407 Him, whom they had recognized as preaching peace, announcing glad tidings, promising an everlasting abode, building for them steps upwards into heaven. (see Isaiah 52:7, 33:14, LXX and Amo_9:6) Down in hell, however, it was said concerning them: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them!” - event hose who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely933 believe that after death there were punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury, announced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes from their thrones, and raiseth up the poor from dunghills. (see 1Sa_2:6-8; Psa_113:7; Luk_1:52) Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce different sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment, we shall have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods,934 but only a difference in the actual matters935 before us.
Chap. XXXV. - The Judicial Severity of Christ and the Tenderness of the Creator, Asserted in Contradiction to Marcion. The Cure of the Ten Lepers. Old Testament Analogies. The Kingdom of God Within You; This Teaching Similar to that of Moses. Christ, the Stone Rejected by the Builders. Indications of Severity in the Coming of Christ. Proofs that He Is Not the Impassible Being Marcion Imagined.
Then, turning to His disciples, He says: “Woe unto him through whom offences come! It were better for him if he had not been born, or if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones,” (Luk_17:1-2) that is, one of His disciples. Judge, then, what the sort of punishment is which He so severely threatens. For it is no stranger who is to avenge the offence done to His disciples. Recognise also in Him the Judge, and one too, who expresses Himself on the safety of His followers with the same tenderness as that which the Creator long ago exhibited: “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of my eye.” (Zec_2:8) Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A trespassing brother He will have rebuked. (Luk_17:3) If one failed in this duty of reproof, he in fact sinned, either because out of hatred he wished his brother to continue in sin, or else spared him from mistaken friendship,936 although possessing the injunction in Leviticus: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thy neighbor thou shalt seriously rebuke, and on his account shalt not contract sin.”937 Nor is it to be wondered at, if He thus teaches who forbids your refusing to bring back even your brother’s cattle, if you find them astray in the road; much more should you bring back your erring brother to himself. He commands you to forgive your brother, should he trespass against you even “seven times.” (Luk_17:4) But that surely, is a small matter; for with the Creator there is a larger grace, when He sets no limits to forgiveness, indefinitely charging you “not to bear any malice against your brother,” (Lev_19:18) and to give not merely to him who asks, but even to him who does not ask. For His will is, not that you should forgive938 an offence, but forget it. The law about lepers had a profound meaning as respects939 the forms of the disease itself, and of the inspection by the high priest. (see Leviticus 13-14) The interpretation of this sense it will be our task to ascertain. Marcion’s labour, however, is to object to us the strictness940 of the law, with the view of maintaining that here also Christ is its enemy - forestalling941 its enactments even in His cure of the ten lepers. These He simply commanded to show themselves to the priest; “and as they went, He cleansed them” (Luk_17:11-19) - without a touch, and without a word, by His silent power and simple will. Well, but what necessity was there for Christ, who had been once for all announced as the healer of our sicknesses and sins, and had proved Himself such by His acts,942 to busy Himself with inquiries943 into the qualities and details of cures; or for the Creator to be summoned to the scrutiny of the law in the person of Christ? If any pan of this healing was effected by Him in a way different from the law, He yet Himself did it to perfection; for surely the Lord may by Himself, or by His Son, produce after one manner, and after another manner by His servants the prophets, those proofs of His power and might especially, which (as excelling in glory and strength, because they are His own acts) rightly enough leave in the distance behind them the works which are done by His servants. But enough 408 has been already said on this point in a former passage. (see above in chap. ix.) Now, although He said in a preceding chapter,944 that “there were many lepers in lsrael in the days of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian,” yet of course the mere number proves nothing towards a diference in the gods, as tending to the abasement945 of the Creator in curing only one, and the pre-eminence of Him who healed ten. For who can doubt that many might have been cured by Him who cured one more easily than ten by him who had never healed one before? But His main purpose in this declaration was to strike at the unbelief or the pride of Israel, in that (although there were many lepers amongst them, and a prophet was not wanting to them) not one had been moved even by so conspicuous an example to betake himself to God who was working in His prophets. Forasmuch, then, as He was Himself the veritable946 High Priest of God the Father, He inspected them according to the hidden purport of the law, which signified that Christ was the true distinguisher and extinguisher of the defilements of mankind. However, what was obviously required by the law He commanded should be done: “Go,” said He, “show yourselves to the priests.” (Luk_17:14) Yet why this, if He meant to cleanse them first? Was it as a despiser of the law, in order to prove to them that, having been cured already on the road, the law was now nothing to them, nor even the priests? Well, the matter must of course pass as it best may,947 if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as these!948 But there are certainly better interpretations to be found of the passage, and more deserving of belief: how that they were cleansed on this account, because949 they were obedient, and went as the law required, when they were commanded to go to the priests; and it is not to be believed that persons who observed the law could have found a cure from a god that was destroying the law. Why, however, did He not give such a command to the leper who first returned?950 Because Elisha did not in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and yet was not on that account less the Creator’s agent? This is a sufficient answer. But the believer knows that there is a pro-founder reason. Consider, therefore, the true motives.951 The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria, to which country also belonged one of the lepers. (Luk_17:17) Samaria, however, had revolted from Israel, carrying with it the disaffected nine tribes,952 which, having been alienated953 by the prophet Ahijah, (1Ki_11:29-39; 1Ki_12:15) Jeroboam settled in Samaria. Besides, the Samaritans were always pleased with the mountains and the wells of their ancestors. Thus, in the Gospel of John, the woman of Samaria, when conversing with the Lord at the well, says, “No doubt954 Thou art greater,” etc.; and again, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.” (Joh_4:12, Joh_4:20) Accordingly, He who said, “Woe unto them that trust in the mountain of Samaria,” (Amo_6:1) vouchsafing now to restore that very region, purposely requests the men “to go and show themselves to the priests,” because these were to be found only there where the temple was; submitting955 the Samaritan to the Jew, inasmuch as “salvation was of the Jews,” (Joh_4:22) whether to the Israelite or the Samaritan. To the tribe of Judah, indeed, wholly appertained the promised Christ,956 in order that men might know that at Jerusalem were both the priests and the temple; that there also was the womb957 of religion, and its living fountain, not its mere “well.”958 Seeing, therefore, that they recognised959 the truth that at Jerusalem the law was to be fulfilled, He healed them whose salvation was to come960 of faith (Luk_17:19) without the ceremony of the law. Whence also, astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to the divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when “he glorified God; (Luk_17:15) for thus did the Lord will that the law’s requirement should be interpreted. And yet who was the God to whom the Samaritan gave thanks, because thus far not even had an Israelite heard of another god? Who else but He by whom all had hitherto been 409 healed through Christ? And therefore it was said to him, “Thy faith hath made thee whole,” (Luk_17:19) because he had discovered that it was his duty to render the true oblation to Almighty God - even thanksgiving - in His true temple, and before His true High Priest Jesus Christ. But it is impossible either that the Pharisees should seem to have inquired of the Lord about the coming of the kingdom of the rival god, when no other god has ever yet been announced by Christ; or that He should have answered them concerning the kingdom of any other god than Him of whom they were in the habit of asking Him. “The kingdom of God,” He says, “cometh not with observation; neither do they say, La here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luk_17:20-21) Now, who will not interpret the words “within you” to mean in your hand, within your power, if you hear, and do the commandment of God? If, however, the kingdom of God lies in His commandment, set before your mind Moses on the other side, according to our antitheses, and you will find the self-same view of the case.961 “The commandment is not a lofty one,962 neither is it far off from thee. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in thy hands, to do it.” (Deu_30:11-13) This means, “Neither in this place nor that place is the kingdom of God; for, behold, it is within you.” (Luk_17:21) And if the heretics, in their audacity, should contend that the Lord did not give an answer about His own kingdom, but only about the Creator’s kingdom, concerning which they had inquired, then the following words are against them. For He tells them that “the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected,” before His coming, (Luk_17:25) at which His kingdom will be really963 revealed. In this statement He shows that it was His own kingdom which His answer to them had contemplated, and which was now awaiting His own sufferings and rejection. But having to be rejected and afterwards to be acknowledged, and taken up964 and glorified, He borrowed the very word “rejected” from the passage, where, under the figure of a stone, His twofold manifestation was celebrated by David - the first in rejection, the second in honour: “The stone,” says He, “which the builders rejected, is become the head-stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing.” (Psa_118:21) Now it would be idle, if we believed that God had predicted the humiliation, or even the glory, of any Christ at all, that He could have signed His prophecy for any but Him whom He had foretold under the figure of a stone, and a rock, and a mountain. (see Isa_8:14; 1Co_10:4) If, however, He speaks of His own coming, why does He compare it with the days of Noe and of Lot, (Luk_17:26-30) which were dark and terrible - a mild and gentle God as He is? Why does He bid us “remember Lot’s wife,” (Luk_17:32) who despised the Creator’s command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts? If He really does punish, like the Creator,965 if He is my Judge, He ought not to have adduced examples for the purpose of instructing me from Him whom He yet destroys, that He966 might not seem to be my instructor. But if He does not even here speak of His own coming, but of the coming of the Hebrew Christ,967 let us still wait in expectation that He will vouchsafe to us some prophecy of His own advent; meanwhile we will continue to believe that He is none other than He whom He reminds us of in every passage.
Chap. XXXVI. - The Parables of the Importunate Widow, and of the Pharisee and the Publican. Christ’s Answer to the Rich Ruler, the Cure of the Blind Man. His Salutation - Son of David. All Proofs of Christ’s Relation to the Creator, Marcion’s Antithesis Between David and Christ Confuted.
When He recommends perseverance and earnestness in prayer, He sets before us the parable of the judge who was compelled to listen to the widow, owing to the earnestness and importunity of her requests. (Luk_18:1-6) He show us that it is God the judge whom we must importune with prayer, and not Himself, if He is not Himself the judge. But He added, that “God would avenge His own elect.” (Luk_18:7-8) Since, then, He who judges will also Himself be the avenger, He proved that the Creator 410 is on that account the specially good God,968 whom He represented as the avenger of His own elect, who cry day and night to Him, And yet, when He introduces to our view the Creator’s temple, and describes two men worshipping therein with diverse feelings - the Pharisee in pride, the publican in humility - and shows us how they accordingly went down to their homes, one rejected,969 the other justified, (Luk_18:10-14) He surely, by thus teaching us the proper discipline of prayer, has determined that that God must be prayed to from whom men were to receive this discipline of prayer - whether condemnatory of pride, or justifying in humility.970 I do not find from Christ any temple, any suppliants, any sentence (of approval or condemnation) belonging to any other god than the Creator. Him does He enjoin us to worship in humility, as the lifter-up of the humble, not in pride, because He brings down971 the proud. What other god has He manifested to me to receive my supplications? With what formula of worship, with what hope (shall I approach him?) I trow, none. For the prayer which He has taught us suits, as we have proved, (see above, chap. xxvi. p. 392) none but the Creator. It is, of course, another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the supremely and spontaneously good God! But who is this good God? There is, He says, “none but one.” (Luk_18:19) It is not as if He had shown us that one of two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly asserts that there is one only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God. Now, undoubtedly,972 He is the good God who “sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good;” (Mat_5:45) sustaining and nourishing and assisting even Marcionites themselves! When afterwards “a certain man asked him, ‘Good Master, what shal
