Chap. XI. - The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The Creator the Father of Mercies. Shown to Be Such in the Old Testament, and also in Christ. The Newness of the New Testament. The Veil of Obdurate Blindness upon Israel, Not Reprehensible on Marcion’s Principles. The Jews Guilty in Rejecting the Christ of the Creator. Satan, the God of This World. The Treasure in Earthen Vessels Explained Against Marcion. The Creator’s Relation to These Vessels, i.e., Our Bodies.
If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God has become a common name (since in the world there are said and believed to be “gods many” (1Co_8:5)), yet “the blessed God,” (who is “the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ, (2Co_1:3) will be understood to be no other God than the Creator, who both blessed all things (that He had made), as you find in Genesis, (Gen_1:22) and is Himself “blessed by all things,” as Daniel tells us. (Dan_2:19-20; Dan_3:28-29; Dan_4:34-37) Now, if the title of Father may be claimed for (Marcion’s) sterile god, how much more for the Creator? To none other than Him is it suitable, who is also “the Father of mercies,” (2Co_1:3) and (in the prophets) has been described as “full of compassion, and gracious, and plenteous in mercy.” (Psa_86:15; Psa_112:4; Psa_145:8; Jon_4:2) In Jonah you find the signal act of His mercy, which He showed to the praying Ninevites. (Jon_3:8) How inflexible was He at the tears of Hezekiah! (2Ki_20:3, 2Ki_20:5) How ready to forgive Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, the blood of Naborb, when he deprecated His anger. (1Ki_21:27, 1Ki_21:29) How prompt in pardoning David on his confession of his sin (2Sa_12:13) - preferring, indeed, the sinner’s repentance to his death, of course because of His gracious attribute of mercy. (Eze_33:11) Now, if Marcion’s god has exhibited or proclaimed any such thing as this, I will allow him to be “the Father of mercies.” Since, however, he ascribes to him this title only from the time he has been revealed, as if he were the father of mercies from the time only when he began to liberate the human race, then we on our side, too,259 adopt the same precise date of his alleged revelation; but it is that we may deny him! It is then not competent to him to ascribe any quality to his god, whom indeed he only promulged by the fact of such an ascription; for only if it were previously evident that his god had an existence, could he be permitted to ascribe an attribute to him. The ascribed attribute is only an accident; but accidents260 are preceded by the statement of the thing itself of which they are predicated, especially when another claims the attribute which is ascribed to him who has not been previously shown to exist. Our denial of his existence will be all the more peremptory, because of the fact that the attribute which is alleged in proof of it belongs to that God who has been already revealed. Therefore “the New Testament” will appertain to none other than Him who promised it - if not “its letter, yet its spirit;” (2Co_3:6) and herein will lie its newness. Indeed, He who had engraved its letter in stones is the same as He who had said of its spirit, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” (Joe_2:28) Even if “the letter killeth, yet the Spirit giveth life;” (2Co_3:6) and both belong to Him who says: “I kill, and I make alive; I wound, 453 and I heal.” (Deu_32:39) We have already made good the Creator’s claim to this twofold character of judgment and goodness (see above in book ii. [chap. xi. p. 306.]) - “killing in the letter” through the law, and “quickening in the Spirit” through the Gospel. Now these attributes, however different they be, cannot possibly make two gods; for they have already (in the prevenient dispensation of the Old Testament) been found to meet in One.261 He alludes to Moses’ veil, covered with which “his face could not be stedfastly seen by the children of Israel.” (2Co_3:7, 2Co_3:13) Since he did this to maintain the superiority of the glory of the New Testament, which is permanent in its glory, over that of the Old, “which was to be done away,” (2Co_3:7-8) this fact gives support to my belief which exalts the Gospel above the law and you must look well to it that it does not even more than this. For only there is superiority possible where was previously the thing over which superiority can be affirmed. But then he says, “But their minds were blinded”262 - of the world; certainly not the Creator’s mind, but the minds of the people which are in the world.263 Of Israel he says, Even unto this day the same veil is upon their heart;” (2Co_3:15) showing that the veil which was on the face of Moses was a figure of the veil which is on the heart of the nation still; because even now Moses is not seen by them in heart, just as he was not then seen by them in eye. But what concern has Paul with the veil which still obscures Moses from their view, if the Christ of the Creator, whom Moses predicted, is not yet come? How are the hearts of the Jews represented as still covered and veiled, if the predictions of Moses relating to Christ, in whom it was their duty to believe through him, are as yet unfulfilled? What had the apostle of a strange Christ to complain of, if the Jews failed in understanding the mysterious announcements of their own God, unless the veil which was upon their hearts had reference to that blindness which concealed from their eyes the Christ of Moses? Then, again, the words which follow, But when it shall turn to the Lord, the evil shall be taken away,” (2Co_3:16) properly refer to the Jew, over whose gaze Moses’ veil is spread, to the effect that, when he is turned to the faith of Christ, he will understand how Moses spoke of Christ. But how shall the veil of the Creator be taken away by the Christ of another god, whose mysteries the Creator could not possibly have veiled - unknown mysteries, as they were of an unknown god? So he says that “we now with open face” (meaning the candour of the heart, which in the Jews had been covered with a veil), “beholding Christ, are changed into the same image, from that glory” (wherewith Moses was transfigured as by the glory of the Lord) “to another glory.” (2Co_3:18) By thus setting forth the glory which illumined the person of Moses from his interview with God, and the veil which concealed the same from the infirmity of the people, and by superinducing thereupon the revelation and the glory of the Spirit in the person of Christ - “even as,” to use his words, “by the Spirit of the Lord”264 - he testifies that the whole Mosaic system265 was a figure of Christ, of whom the Jews indeed were ignorant, but who is known to us Christians. We are quite aware that some passages are open to ambiguity, from the way in which they are read, or else from their punctuation, when there is room for these two causes of ambiguity. The latter method has been adopted by Marcion, by reading the passage which follows, “in whom the God of this world,” (2Co_4:4) as if it described the Creator as the God of this world, in order that he may, by these words, imply that there is another God for the other world. We, however, say that the passage ought to be punctuated with a comma after God, to this effect: “In whom God hath blinded the eyes of the unbelievers of this world.”266 “In whom” means the Jewish unbelievers, from some of whom the gospel is still hidden under Moses’ veil. Now it is these whom God had threatened for “loving Him indeed with the lip, whilst their heart was far from Him,” (Isa_24:13) in these angry words: “Ye shall hear with your ears, and not understand; and see with your eyes, but not perceive;” (Isa_6:10, only adapted) and, “If ye will not believe, ye shall not understand;” (Isaiah 7:9, LXX) and again, “I will take away the wisdom of their wise men, 454 and bring to nought267 the understanding of their prudent ones.” But these words, of course, He did not pronounce against them for concealing the gospel of the unknown God. At any rate, if there is a God of this world,268 He blinds the heart of the unbelievers of this world, because they have not of their own accord recognised His Christ, who ought to be understood from His Scriptures.269 Content with my advantage, I can willingly refrain from noticing to any greater length270 this point of ambiguous punctuation, so as not to give my adversary any advantage,271 indeed, I might have wholly omitted the discussion. A simpler answer I shall find ready to hand in interpreting “the god of this world” of the devil, who once said, as the prophet describes him: “I will be like the Most High; I will exalt my throne in the clouds.” (Isa_14:14) The whole superstition, indeed, of this world has got into his hands,272 so that he blinds effectually the hearts of unbelievers, and of none more than the apostate Marcion’s. Now he did not observe how much this clause of the sentence made against him: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the light of the knowledge (of His glory) in the face of (Jesus) Christ.” (2Co_4:6) Now who was it that said; “Let there be light?” (Gen_1:3) And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light to the world: “I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles” (Isaiah 49:6, LXX quoted in Act_4:16) - to them, that is, “who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death?” (Isa_9:2; Mat_4:16) (None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in the Psalm answers, in His foresight of the future, saying, “The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, hath been displayed upon us.” (Psalms 4:7, LXX) Now the countenance (or person) of the Lord here is Christ. Wherefore the apostle said above: Christ, who is the image of God.” (2Co_4:4) Since Christ, then, is the person of the Creator, who said, “Let there be light,” it follows that Christ and the apostles, and the gospel, and the veil, and Moses - nay, the whole of the dispensations - belong to the God who is the Creator of this world, according to the testimony of the clause (above adverted to), and certainly not to him who never said, “Let there be light.” I here pass over discussion about another epistle, which we hold to have been written to the Ephesians, but the heretics to the Laodiceans. In it he tells273 them to remember, that at the time when they were Gentiles they were without Christ, aliens from (the commonwealth of) Israel, without intercourse, without the covenants and any hope of promise, nay, without God, even in his own world, (Eph_2:12) as the Creator thereof. Since therefore he said, that the Gentiles were without God, whilst their god was the devil, not the Creator, it is clear that he must be understood to be the lord of this world, whom the Gentiles received as their god - not the Creator, of whom they were in ignorance. But how does it happen, that “the treasure which we have in these earthen vessels of ours” (2Co_4:7) should not be regarded as belonging to the God who owns the vessels? Now since God’s glory is, that so great a treasure is contained in earthen vessels, and since these earthen vessels are of the Creator’s make, it follows that the glory is the Creator’s; nay, since these vessels of His smack so much of the excellency of the power of God, that power itself must be His also! Indeed, all these things have been consigned to the said “earthen vessels” for the very purpose that His excellence might be manifested forth. Henceforth, then, the rival god will have no claim to the glory, and consequently none to the power. Rather, dishonour and weakness will acrue to him, because the earthen vessels with which he had nothing to do have received all the excellency! Well, then, if it be in these very earthen vessels that he tells us we have to endure so great sufferings, (2Co_4:8-12) in which we bear about with us the very dying of God,274 (Marcion’s) god is really ungrateful and unjust, if he does not mean to restore this same I substance of ours at the resurrection, wherein so much has been endured in loyalty to him, in which Christ’s very death is borne about, wherein too the excellency of his power is treasured. (2Co_4:10) For he gives prominence to the statement, “That the life also of Christ may be manifested in our body,” (2Co_4:10) as a contrast to the preceding, that His death is borne about in our body. Now of what life of Christ does he here speak? Of that which we are now living? Then how is it, that in the words which follow he exhorts us not to the things 455 which are seen and are temporal, but to those which are not seen and are eternal (2Co_4:16-18) - in other words, not to the present, but to the future? But if it be of the future life of Christ that he speaks, intimating that it is to be made manifest in our body, (2Co_4:11) then he has clearly predicted the resurrection of the flesh. (2Co_4:14) He says, too, that “our outward man perishes,” (2Co_4:16) not meaning by an eternal perdition after death, but by labours and sufferings, in reference to which he previously said, “For which cause we will not faint.” (2Co_4:16) Now, when he adds of “the inward man” also, that it “is renewed day by day,” he demonstrates both issues here - the wasting away of the body by the wear and tear275 of its trials, and the renewal of the soul276 by its contemplation of the promises.
Chap. XII. - The Eternal Home in Heaven. Beautiful Exposition by Tertullian of the Apostle’s Consolatory Teaching Against the Fear of Death, so Apt to Arise Under Anti-Christian Oppression. The Judgment-Seat of Christ - The Idea, Anti-Marcionite. Paradise. Judicial Characteristics of Christ Which Are Inconsistent with the Heretical Views About Him; the Apostle’s Sharpness, or Severity, Shows Him to Be a Fit Preacher of the Creator’s Christ.
As to the house of this our earthly dwelling-place, when he says that “we have an eternal home in heaven, not made with hands,” (2Co_5:1) he by no means would imply that, because it was built by the Creator’s hand, it must perish in a perpetual dissolution after death.277 He treats of this subject in order to offer consolation against the fear of death and the dread of this very dissolution, as is even more manifest from what follows, when he adds, that “in this tabernacle of our earthly body we do groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with the vesture which is from heaven, (2Co_5:2-3) if so be, that having been unclothed,278 we shall not be found naked;” in other words, shall regain that of which we have been divested, even our body. And again he says: “We that are in this tabernacle do groan, not as if we were oppressed279 with an unwillingness to be unclothed, but (we wish) to be clothed upon.” (2Co_5:4) He here says expressly, what he touched but lightly280 in his first epistle, where he wrote:) “The dead shall be raised Incorruptible (meaning those who had undergone mortality), “and we shall be changed” (whom God shall find to be yet in the flesh). (1Co_15:52) Both those shall be raised incorruptible, because they shall regain their body - and that a renewed one, from which shall come their incorruptibility; and these also shall, in the crisis of the last moment, and from their instantaneous death, whilst encountering the oppressions of anti-christ, undergo a change, obtaining therein not so much a divestiture of body as “a clothing upon” with the vesture which is from heaven.281 So that whilst these shall put on over their (changed) body this, heavenly raiment, the dead also shall for their part282 recover their body, over which they too have a supervesture to put on, even the incorruption of heaven;283 because of these it was that he said: “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” (1Co_15:53) The one put on this (heavenly) apparel,284 when they recover their bodies; the others put it on as a supervesture,285 when they indeed hardly lose them (in the suddenness of their change). It was accordingly not without good reason that he described them as “not wishing indeed to be unclothed,” but (rather as wanting) “to be clothed upon;” (2Co_5:4) in other words, as wishing not to undergo death, but to be surprised into life,286 “that this moral (body) might be swallowed up of life,” (2Co_5:4; and see his treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, chap. xlii.) by being rescued from death in the supervesture of its changed state. This is why he shows us how much better it is for us not to be sorry, if we should be surprised by death, and tells us that we even hold of God “the earnest of His Spirit” (2Co_5:5) (pledged as it were thereby to have “the clothing upon,” which is the object of our hope), and that “so long as we are in the flesh, we are absent from the Lord;” (2Co_5:6) moreover, that we ought on this account to prefer287 “rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord,” (2Co_5:8) and so to be ready to meet even death with joy. In this 456 view it is that he informs us how “we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according as he hath done either good or bad.” (2Co_5:10) Since, however, there is then to be a retribution according to men’s merits, how will any be able to reckon with288 God? But by mentioning both the judgment-seat and the distinction between works good and bad, he sets before us a Judge who is to award both sentences, (2Co_5:10) and has thereby affirmed that all will have to be present at the tribunal in their bodies. For it will be impossible to pass sentence except on the body, for what has been done in the body. God would be unjust, if any one were not punished or else rewarded in that very condition,289 wherein the merit was itself achieved. “If therefore any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old; things are passed away; behold, all things are become new;” (2Co_5:17) and so is accomplished the prophecy of Isaiah. (Isa_43:19) When also he (in a later passage) enjoins us “to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and blood” (His reading of 2Co_7:1) (since this substance enters not the kingdom of Gods (1Co_15:50)); when, again, he “espouses the church as a chaste virgin to Christ,” (2Co_11:2) a spouse to a spouse in very deed,290 an image cannot be combined and compared with what is opposed to the real nature the thing (with which it is compared). So, when he designates “false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves” into likenesses of himself, (2Co_11:13) of course by their hypocrisy, he charges them with the guilt of disorderly conversation, rather than of false doctrine.291 The contrariety, therefore, was one of conduct, not of gods.292 If “Satan himself, too, is transformed into an angel of light,” (2Co_11:14) such an assertion must not be used to the prejudice of the Creator. The Creator is not an angel, but God. Into a god of light, and not an angel of light, must Satan then have been said to be transformed, if he did not mean to call him “the angel,” which both we and Marcion know him to be. On Paradise is the title of a treatise of ours, in which is discussed all that the subject admits of.293 I shall here simply wonder, in connection with this matter, whether a god who has no dispensation of any kind on earth could possibly have a paradise to call his own - without perchance availing himself of the paradise of the Creator, to use it as he does His world - much in the character of a mendicant.294 And yet of the removal of a man from earth to heaven we have an instance afforded us by the Creator in Elijah. (2Ki_2:11) But what will excite my surprise still more is the case (next supposed by Marcion), that a God so good and gracious, and so averse to blows and cruelty, should have suborned the angel Satan - not his own either, but the Creator’s - “to buffet” the apostle, (2Co_12:7-8) and then to have refused his request, when thrice entreated to liberate him! It would seem, therefore, that Marcion’s god imitates the Creator’s conduct, who is an enemy to the proud, even “putting down the mighty from their seats.” Is he then the same God as He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that his “strength might be made perfect in weakness?” (Job_1:12; 2Co_12:9) How is it that the censurer of the Galatians (Gal_1:6-9) still retains the very formula of the law: “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established?” (2Co_13:1) How again is it that he threatens sinners “that he will not spare” them (2Co_13:2) - he, the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even declares that “the Lord hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their presence!” (2Co_13:10) Deny now, O heretic, (at your cost,) that your god is an object to be feared, when his apostle was for making himself so formidable!
Chap. XIII. - The Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul Cannot Help Using Phrases Which Bespeak the Justice of God, Even when He Is Eulogizing the Mercies of the Gospel. Marcion Particularly Hard in Mutilation of This Epistle. Yet Our Author Argues on Common Ground. The Judgment at Last Will Be in Accordance with the Gospel. The Justified by Faith Exhorted to Have Peace with God. The Administration of the Old and the New Dispensations in One and the Same Hand.
Since my little work is approaching its termination,295 457
I must treat but briefly the points which still occur, whilst those which have so often turned up must be put aside. I regret still to have to contend about the law - after I have so often proved that its replacement (by the gospel)296 affords no argument for another god, predicted as it was indeed in Christ, and in the Creator’s own plans297 ordained for His Christ. (But I must revert to that discussion) so far as (the apostle leads me, for) this very epistle looks very much as if it abrogated298 the law. We have, however, often shown before now that God is declared by the apostle to be a Judge; and that in the Judge is implied an Avenger; area in the Avenger, the Creator. And so in the passage where he says: “I am not ashamed of the gospel (of Christ): for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith,” (Rom_1:16-17) he undoubtedly ascribes both the gospel and salvation to Him whom (in accordance with our heretic’s own distinction) I have called the just God, not the good one. It is He who removes (men) from confidence in the law to faith in the gospel - that is to say,299 His own law and His own gospel. When, again, he declares that “the wrath (of God) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,” (Rom_1:18) (I ask) the wrath of what God? Of the Creator certainly. The truth, therefore, will be His, whose is also the wrath, which has to be revealed to avenge the truth. Likewise, when adding, “We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth,” (Rom_2:2) he both vindicated that wrath from which comes this judgment for the truth, and at the same time afforded another proof that the truth emanates from the same God whose wrath he attested, by witnessing to His judgment. Marcion’s averment is quite a different matter, that300 the Creator in anger avenges Himself on the truth of the rival god which had been detained in unrighteousness. But what serious gaps Marcion has made in this epistle especially, by withdrawing whole passages at his will, will be clear from the unmedullated text of our own copy.301 It is enough for my purpose to accept in evidence of its truth what he has seen fit to leave unerased, strange instances as they are also of his negligence and blindness. If, then, God will judge the secrets of men - both · of those who have sinned in the law, and of those who have sinned without law (inasmuch as they who know not the law yet do by nature the things contained in the law) (Rom_2:12-16) - surely the God who shall judge is He to whom belong both the law, and that nature which is the rule302 to them who know not the law. But how will He conduct this judgment? “According to my gospel,” says (the apostle), “by (Jesus) Christ.” (Rom_2:16) So that both the gospel and Christ must be His, to whom appertain the law and the nature which are to be vindicated by the gospel and Christ - even at that judgment of God which, as he previously said, was to be according to truth. (Rom_2:2) The wrath, therefore, which is to vindicate truth, can only be revealed from heaven by the God of wrath; (Rom_1:18) so that this sentence, which is quite in accordance with that previous one wherein the judgment is declared to be the Creator’s,303 cannot possibly be ascribed to another god who is not a judge, and is incapable of wrath. It is only consistent in Him amongst whose attributes are found the judgment and the wrath of which I am speaking, and to whom of necessity must also appertain the media whereby these attributes are to be carried into effect even the gospel and Christ. Hence his invective against the transgressors of the law, who teach that men should not steal, and yet practise theft themselves. (Rom_2:21) (This invective he utters) in perfect homage304 to the law of God, not as if he meant to ten sure the Creator Himself with having commanded (Exo_3:22) a fraud to be practised against the Egyptians to get their gold and silver at the very time when He was forbidding men to steal, (Exo_20:15; see above, book iv. chap. xxiv. p. 387) - adopting such methods as they are apt (shamelessly) to charge upon Him in other particulars also. Are we then to suppose305 that the apostle abstained through fear from openly calumniating God, from whom notwithstanding He did not hesitate to withdraw men? Well, but he had gone so far in his censure of the Jews, as to point against them the denunciation of the prophet, “Through you the name of God is blasphemed (among the Gentiles).” (Rom_2:24) But how absurd, that he should himself blaspheme Him for blaspheming whom he upbraids them 458 as evil-doers! He prefers even circumcision of heart to neglect of it in the flesh. Now it is quite within the purpose of the God of the law that circumcision should be that of the heart, not in the flesh; in the spirit, and not in the letter. (Rom_2:29) Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: “Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart;” (Jer_4:4) and even of Moses: “Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart,” (Deu_10:16) - the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who presented the letter also which clips306 the flesh; and “the Jew which is one inwardly” will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is “a Jew outwardly;” (Rom_2:28) because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews. It was once307 the law; now it is “the righteousness of God which is by the faith of (Jesus) Christ.” (Rom_3:21-22) What means this distinction? Has your god been subserving the interests of the Creator’s dispensation, by affording time to Him and to His law? Is the “Now” in the hands of Him to whom belonged the “Then”? Surely, then, the law was His, whose is now the righteousness of God. It is a distinction of dispensations, not of gods. He enjoins those who are justified by faith in Christ and not by the law to have peace with God.308 With what God? Him whose enemies we have never, in any dispensation,309 been? Or Him against whom we have rebelled, both in relation to His written law and His law of nature? Now, as peace is only possible towards Him with whom there once was war, we shall be both justified by Him, and to Him also will belong the Christ, in whom we are justified by faith, and through whom alone God’s310 enemies can ever be reduced to peace. “Moreover,” says he, “the law entered, that the offence might abound.” (Rom_5:20) And wherefore this? “In order,” he says, “that (where sin abounded), grace might much more abound.” (Rom_5:20) Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that311 the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of312 producing some employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost said, a god unknown to Him), “that as sin had” in His own dispensation313 “reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ,” (Rom_5:21) His own antagonist! For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had “concluded all under sin,” (Gal_3:22) and had brought in “all the world as guilty (before God),” and had “stopped every mouth, (Rom_3:19) so that none could glory through it, in order that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the Creator, but of Marcion! I may here anticipate a remark about the substance of Christ, in the prospect of a question which will now turn up. For he says that “we are dead to the law.”314 It may be contended that Christ’s body is indeed a body, but not exactly315 flesh. Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions “the body of Christ,”316 whom he immediately after states to have been “raised from the dead,” (Rom_7:4) none other body can be understood than that of the flesh,317 in respect of which the law was called (the law) of death. (compare the first part of Rom_7:4 with Rom_7:5 and Rom_7:6 and Rom_8:2-3) But, behold, he bears testimony to the law, and excuses it on the ground of sin: “What shall we say, therefore? Is the law sin? God forbid.” (Rom_7:7) Fie on you, Marcion. “God forbid!” (see how) the apostle recoils from all impeachment of the law. I, however, have no acquaintance with sin except through the law.318 But how high an encomium of the law (do we obtain) from 459 this fact, that by it there comes to light the latent presence of sin!319 It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but “sin, taking occasion by the commandment.” (Rom_7:8) Why then do you, (O Marcion,) impute to the God of the law what His apostle dares not impute even to the law itself? Nay, he adds a climax: “The law is holy, and its commandment just and good.” (Rom_7:13) Now if he thus reverences the Creator’s law, I am at a loss to know how he can destroy the Creator Himself. Who can draw a distinction, and say that there are two gods, one just and the other when He ought to be believed to be both one and the other, whose commandment is both “just and good?” Then, again, when affirming the law to be “spiritual” (Rom_7:14) he thereby implies that it is prophetic, and that it is figurative. Now from even this circumstance I am bound to conclude that Christ was predicted by the law but figuratively, so that indeed He could not be recognised by all the Jews.
Chap. XIV. - The Divine Power Shown in Christ’s Incarnation. Meaning of St. Paul’s Phrase. Likeness of Sinful Flesh. No Docetism in It. Resurrection of Our Real Bodies. A Wide Chasm Made in the Epistle by Marcion’s Erasure. When the Jews Are Upbraided by the Apostle for Their Misconduct to God; Inasmuch as that God Was the Creator, a Proof Is in Fact Given that St. Paul’s God Was the Creator. The Precepts at the End of the Epistle, Which Marcion Allowed, Shown to Be in Exact Accordance with the Creator’s Scriptures.
If the Father “sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” (Rom_8:3) it must not therefore be said that the flesh which He seemed to have was but a phantom. For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it out to be “the law of sin dwelling in his members,” and “warring against the law of the mind.”320 On this account, therefore, (does he mean to say that) the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might redeem this sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which bare a resemblance to sinful flesh, although it was itself free from sin. Now this will be the very perfection of divine power to effect the salvation (of man) in a nature like his own,321 For it would be no great matter if the Spirit of God remedied the flesh; but when a flesh, which is the very copy322 of the sinning substance itself flesh also-only without sin, (effects the remedy, then doubtless it is a great thing). The likeness, therefore, will have reference to the quality323 of the sinfulness, and not to any falsity324 of the substance. Because he would not have added the attribute “sinful,”325 if he meant the “likeness” to be so predicated of the substance as to deny the verity thereof; in that case he would only have used the word “flesh,” and omitted the “sinful.” But inasmuch as he has put the two together, and said “sinful flesh,” (or “flesh of sin,”)326 he has both affirmed the substance, that is, the flesh and referred the likeness to the fault of the substance, that is, to its sin. But even suppose327 that the likeness was predicated of the substance, the truth of the said substance will not be thereby denied. Why then call the true substance like? Because it is indeed true, only not of a seed of like condition328 with our own; but true still, as being of a nature329 not really unlike ours.330 And again, in contrary things there is no likeness. Thus the likeness of flesh would not be called spirit, because flesh is not susceptible of any likeness to spirit; but it would be called phantom, if it seemed to be that which it really was not. It is, however, called likeness, since it is what it seems to be. Now it is (what it seems to be), because it is on a par with the other thing (with which it is compared).331 But a phantom, which is merely such and nothing else,332 is not a likeness. The apostle, however, himself here comes to our aid; for, while explaining in what sense he would not have us “live in the flesh,” 460 although in the flesh - even by not living in the works of the flesh (see Rom_8:5-13) - he shows that when he wrote the words, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” (1Co_15:50) it was not with the view of condemning the substance (of the flesh), but the works thereof; and because it is possible for these not to be committed by us whilst we are still in the flesh, they will therefore be properly chargeable,333 not on the substance of the flesh, but on its conduct. Likewise, if “the body indeed is dead because of sin” (from which statement we see that not the death of the soul is meant, but that of the body), “but the spirit is life because of righteousness,” (Rom_8:10) it follows that this life accrues to that which incurred death because of sin, that is, as we have just seen, the body. Now the body334 is only restored to him who had lost it; so that the resurrection of the dead implies the resurrection of their bodies. He accordingly subjoins: “He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies.” (Rom_8:11) In these words he both affirmed the resurrection of the flesh (without which nothing can rightly be called335 body, nor can anything be properly regarded as mortal), and proved the bodily substance of Christ; inasmuch as our own mortal bodies will be quickened in precisely the same way as He was raised; and that was in no other way than in the body. I have here a very wide gulf of expunged Scripture to leap across;336 however, I alight on the place where the apostle bears record of Israel “that they have a zeal of God” - their own God, of course - “but not according to knowledge. For,” says he, “being ignorant of (the righteousness of) God, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Rom_10:2-4) Hereupon we shall be confronted with an argument of the heretic, that the Jews were ignorant of the superior God,337 since, in opposition to him, they set up their own righteousness - that is, the righteousness of their law - not receiving Christ, the end (or finisher) of the law. But how then is it that he bears testimony to their zeal for their own God, if it is not in respect of the same God that he upbraids them for their ignorance? They were affected indeed with zeal for God, but it was not an intelligent zeal: they were, in fact, ignorant of Him, because they were ignorant of His dispensations by Christ, who was to bring about the consummation of the law; and in this way did they maintain their own righteousness in opposition to Him. But so does the Creator Himself testify to their ignorance concerning Him: “Israel hath not known me; my people have not understood me;” (Isa_1:3) and as to their preferring the establishment of their own righteousness, (the Creator again describes them as) “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;” (Isaiah 29:13, LXX) moreover, as “having gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ” (Psa_2:2) - from ignorance of Him, of course. Now nothing can be expounded of another god which is applicable to the Creator; otherwise the apostle would not have been just in reproaching the Jews with ignorance in respect of a god of whom they knew nothing. For where had been their sin, if they only maintained the righteousness of their own God against one of whom they were ignorant? But he exclaims: “O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God; how unsearchable also are His ways!” (Rom_11:33) Whence this outburst of feeling? Surely from the recollection of the Scriptures, which he had been previously turning over, as well as from his contemplation of the mysteries which he had been setting forth above, in relation to the faith of Christ coming from the law.338 If Marcion had an object in his erasures,339 why does his apostle utter such an exclamation, because his god has no riches for him to contemplate? So poor and indigent was he, that he created nothing, predicted nothing - in short, possessed nothing; for it was into the world of another God that he descended. The truth is, the Creator’s resources and riches, which once had been hidden, were now disclosed. For so had He promised: “I will give to them treasures which have been hidden, and which men have not seen will I open to them.” (Isa_45:3) Hence, then, came the exclamation, 461 “O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God!” For His treasures were now opening out. This is the purport of what Isaiah said, and of (the apostle’s own) subsequent quotation of the self-same passage, of the prophet: “Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again?” (Isa_40:13, quoted in Rom_9:1-33:34-35, LXX) Now, (Marcion,) since you have expunged so much from the Scriptures, why did you retain these words, as if they too were not the Creator’s words? But come now, let us see without mistake340 the precepts of your new god: “Abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good.” (Rom_12:9) Well, is the precept different in the Creator’s teaching? “Take away the evil from you, depart from it, and be doing good.” (Psa_34:14) Then again: “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love.” (Rom_12:10) Now is not this of the same import as: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self?” (Lev_19:18) (Again, your apostle says:) “Rejoicing in hope;” (Rom_12:12) that is, of God. So says the Creator’s Psalmist: “It is better to hope in the Lord, than to hope even in princes.” (Psa_118:9) “Patient in tribulation.” (Rom_12:12) You have (this in) the Psalm: “The Lord hear thee in the day of tribulation.” (Psa_20:1) “Bless, and curse not,” (Rom_12:12) (says your apostle.) But what better teacher of this will you find than Him who created all things, and blessed them? “Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.” (Rom_12:16) For against such a disposition Isaiah pronounces a woe. (Isa_5:21) “Recompense to no man evil for evil.” (Rom_12:17) (Like unto which is the Creator’s precept:) “Thou shalt not remember thy brother’s evil against thee.” (Lev_19:17-18) (Again:) “Avenge not yourselves;” (Rom_12:19) for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” (Rom_12:19, quoted from Deu_32:25) “Live peaceably with all men.” (Rom_12:18) The retaliation of the law, therefore, permitted not retribution for an injury; it rather repressed any attempt thereat by the fear of a recompense. Very properly, then, did he sum up the entire teaching of the Creator in this precept of His: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Rom_13:9) Now, if this is the recapitulation of the law from the very law itself, I am at a loss to know who is the God of the law. I fear He must be Marcion’s god (after all).341 If also the gospel of Christ is fulfilled in this same precept, but not the Creator’s Christ, what is the use of our contending any longer whether Christ did or did not say, “I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it?” (Mat_5:17) In vain has (our man of) Pontus laboured to deny this statement.342 If the gospel has not fulfilled the law, then all I can say is,343 the law has fulfilled the gospel. But it is well that in a later verse he threatens us with “the judgment-seat of Christ,” - the Judge, of course, and the Avenger, and therefore the Creator’s (Christ). This Creator, too, however much he may preach up another god, he certainly sets forth for us as a Being to be served,344 if he holds Him thus up as an object to be feared.
Chap. XV. - The First Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Shorter Epistles Pungent in Sense and Very Valuable. St. Paul Upbraids the Jews for the Death First of Their Prophets and Then of Christ. This a Presumption that Both Christ and the Prophets Pertained to the Same God. The Law of Nature, Which Is in Fact the Creator’s Discipline, and the Gospel of Christ Both Enjoin Chastity. The Resurrection Provided for in the Old Testament by Christ. Man’s Compound Nature.
I shall not be sorry to bestow attention on the shorter epistles also. Even in brief works there is much pungency?345 The Jews had slain their prophets. (1Th_2:15) I may ask, What has this to do with the apostle of the rival god, one so amiable withal, who could hardly be said to condemn even the failings of his own people; and who, moreover, has himself some hand in making away with the same prophets 462 whom he is destroying? What injury did Israel commit against him in slaying those whom he too has reprobated, since he was the first to pass a hostile sentence on them? But Israel sinned against their own God. He upbraided their iniquity to whom the injured God pertains; and certainly he is anything but the adversary of the injured Deity. Else he would not have burdened them with the charge of killing even the Lord, in the words, “Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets,” although (the pronoun) their own be an addition of the heretics.346 Now, what was there so very acrimonious347 in their killing Christ the proclaimer of the new god, after they had put to death also the prophets of their own god? The fact, however, of their having slain the Lord and His servants, is put as a case of climax.348 Now, if it were the Christ of one god and the prophets of another god whom they slew, he would certainly have placed the impious crimes on the same level, instead of mentioning them in the way of a climax; but they did not admit of being put on the same level: the climax, therefore, was only possible349 by the sin having been in fact committed against one and the same Lord in the two respective circumstances.350 To one and the same Lord, then, belonged Christ and the prophets. What that “sanctification of ours” is, which he declares to be “the will of God,” you may discover from the opposite conduct which he forbids. That we should “abstain from fornication,” not from marriage; that every one “should know how to possess his vessel in honour.” (1Th_4:3-4) In what way? “Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles.” (1Th_4:5) Concupiscence, however, is not ascribed to marriage even among the Gentiles, but to extravagant, unnatural, and enormous sins.351 The law of nature352 is opposed to luxury as well as to grossness and uncleanness;353 it does not forbid connubial intercourse, but concupiscence; and it takes care of354 our vessel by the honourable estate of matrimony. This passage (of the apostle) I would treat in such a way as to maintain the superiority of the other and higher sanctity, preferring continence and virginity to marriage, but by no means prohibiting the latter. For my hostility is directed against355 those who are for destroying the God of marriage, not those who follow after chastity. He says that those who “remain unto the coming of Christ,” along with “the dead in Christ, shall rise first,” being “caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” (1Th_4:15-17) I find it was in their foresight of all this, that the heavenly intelligences gazed with admiration on “the Jerusalem which is above,” (Gal_4:26) and by the mouth of Isaiah said long ago: “Who are these that fly as clouds, and as doves with their young ones, unto me?” (Isa_60:8) Now, as Christ has prepared for us this ascension into heaven, He must be the Christ of whom Amos356 spoke: “It is He who builds His ascent up to the heavens,” (Amo_9:6) even for Himself and His people. Now, from whom shall I expect (the fulfilment of) all this, except from Him whom I have heard give the promise thereof? What “spirit” does he forbid us to “quench,” and what “prophesyings” to “despise?” (1Th_5:19-20) Not the Creator’s spirit, nor the Creator’s prophesyings, Marcion of course replies. For he has already quenched and despised the thing which he destroys, and is unable to forbid what he has despised.357 It is then incumbent on Marcion now to display in his church that spirit of his god which must not be quenched, and the prophesyings which must not be despised. And since he has made such a display as he thinks fit, let him kn
