Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 4 · Chapter 34

About this work

A sustained refutation of Marcion’s theology and edited Scriptures, defending the unity of the Creator and Christ’s Father and reading the Gospel and Pauline letters against Marcionite claims.

Author: Tertullian
Date: Early 3rd century
Origin: Carthage, North Africa
Genre: Heresiology

Chapter 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, “

‹ Book 4 · Chapter 33 Book 4 · Chapter 35 ›

Whosoever

putteth

away

his

wife

,

and

marrieth

another

,

committeth

adultery

;

and

whosoever

marrieth

her

that

is

put

away

from

her

husband

,

also

committeth

adultery

.

”

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

.

”

You

see

,

therefore

,

that

there

is

a

difference

between

the

law

and

the

gospel

—

between

Moses

and

Christ

?

To

be

sure

there

is

!

But

then

you

have

rejected

that

other

gospel

which

witnesses

to

the

same

verity

and

the

same

Christ

.

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

”

—

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

.

”

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

purpose

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

represented

the

Father

,

even

Him

who

united

male

and

female

,

must

He

not

have

rather

exculpated

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

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

of

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

,

”

—

“

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

un

-

divorced

.

Permanent

is

the

marriage

which

is

not

rightly

dissolved

;

to

marry

,

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

,

when

there

is

an

absence

of

the

cause

why

He

gave

His

prohibition

.

In

very

deed

His

teaching

is

not

contrary

to

Moses

,

whose

precept

He

partially

defends

,

I

will

not

say

confirms

.

If

,

however

,

you

deny

that

divorce

is

in

any

way

permitted

by

Christ

,

how

is

it

that

you

on

your

side

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

,

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

,

if

his

wife

commit

adultery

?

Shall

he

keep

her

?

But

your

own

apostle

,

you

know

,

does

not

permit

“

the

members

of

Christ

to

be

joined

to

a

harlot

.

”

Divorce

,

therefore

,

when

justly

deserved

,

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

.

”

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

.

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

.

”

Thus

you

have

Christ

following

spontaneously

the

tracks

of

the

Creator

everywhere

,

both

in

permitting

divorce

and

in

forbidding

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

have

now

to

show

whence

the

Lord

derived

this

decision

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

ordinance

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

,

when

it

even

prescribed

such

a

marriage

,

in

order

that

by

his

own

brother

,

and

from

his

own

wife

,

seed

might

be

reckoned

to

the

deceased

husband

)

,

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

censure

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

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

;

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

man

tormented

in

hell

,

and

the

poor

man

resting

in

Abraham’s

bosom

.

For

this

passage

,

so

far

as

its

letter

goes

,

comes

before

us

abruptly

;

but

if

we

regard

its

sense

and

purport

,

it

naturally

fits

in

with

the

mention

of

John

wickedly

slain

,

and

of

Herod

,

who

had

been

condemned

by

him

for

his

impious

marriage

.

It

sets

forth

in

bold

outline

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

.

”

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

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

dazzles

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

,

”

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

,

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

.

”

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

”

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

?

”

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

,

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

glory

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

.

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

able

to

say

,

“

Thou

art

the

Christ

,

”

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

hear

Him

,

whom

they

had

recognized

as

preaching

peace

,

announcing

glad

tidings

,

promising

an

everlasting

abode

,

building

for

them

steps

upwards

into

heaven

.

Down

in

hell

,

however

,

it

was

said

concerning

them

:

“

They

have

Moses

and

the

prophets

;

let

them

hear

them

!

”

—

even

those

who

did

not

believe

them

or

at

least

did

not

sincerely

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

.

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

,

but

only

a

difference

in

the

actual

matters

before

us

.

Notes

1
Luke xvi. 18.
2
Deut. xxiv. 1.
3
A Marcionite challenge.
4
Plane.
5
St. Matthew’s Gospel.
6
Matt. xix. 8.
7
Matt. xix. 4, 6.
8
Direxit.
9
Gestans.
10
Excusaverit.
11
Ideo ut.
12
Luke xvi. 18.
13
Nubere. This verb is here used of both sexes, in a general sense.
14
Alias.
15
Etiam: first word of the sentence.
16
Alicubi.
17
Nondum.
18
Tu.
19
Alibi: i.e., than in the Marcionite connection.
20
Apud te.
21
Scilicet.
22
1 Cor. vi. 15.
23
Justitia divortii.
24
Matt. v. 32.
25
Deut. xxii. 28, 29.
26
Mal. ii. 15.
27
Debeo.
28
Sententiam.
29
Literally, “Moses.”
30
Illiberis. [N.B. He supposes Philip to have been dead.]
31
Costa: literally, “rib” or “side.”
32
Deut. xxv. 5, 6.
33
Jaculatus est.
34
The condition being that the deceased brother should have left “no child” see (Deut. xxv. 5).
35
Ad subsequens argumentum divitis.
36
Luke xvi. 19–31.
37
Ipsum.
38
Suggillati Herodis male maritati.
39
Deformans.
40
Luke xvi. 29.
41
Apud inferos. [Note the origin of this doctrine.]
42
Revincente: perhaps “reproves his eyesight,” in the sense of refutation.
43
Luke xvi. 23.
44
Sublimiorem inferis. [Elucidation VIII.]
45
Compare Heb. ii. 2 with x. 35 and xi. 26.
46
Ascensum in cœlum: Sept. ἀνάβασιν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, Amos ix. 6. See on this passage the article Heaven in Kitto’s Cyclopædia (3d edit.), vol. ii. p. 245, where the present writer has discussed the probable meaning of the verse.
47
Isa. xxxiii. 14–16, according to the Septuagint, which has but slight resemblance to the Hebrew.
48
Cur non capiat.
49
Candida quædam prospiciatur: where candida is a noun substantive (see above, chap. vii. p. 353).
50
There seems to be here an allusion to Luke ix. 35.
51
Nec accepisset.
52
Luke ix. 20.
53
See Isa. lii. 7, xxxiii. 14 (Sept.), and Amos ix. 6.
54
Omnino.
55
See 1 Sam. ii. 6–8, Ps. cxiii. 7, and Luke i. 52.
56
Divinitatum; “divine powers.”
57
Ipsarum materiarum.