Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 4 · Chapter 36

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 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

‹ Book 4 · Chapter 35 Book 4 · Chapter 37 ›

,

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

.

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

.

”

Since

,

then

,

He

who

judges

will

also

Himself

be

the

avenger

,

He

proved

that

the

Creator

is

on

that

account

the

specially

good

God

,

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

,

the

other

justified

,

He

surely

,

by

thus

teaching

us

the

proper

discipline

of

prayer

,

has

determined

that

God

must

be

prayed

to

from

whom

men

were

to

receive

this

discipline

of

prayer

—

whether

condemnatory

of

pride

,

or

justifying

in

humility

.

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

down

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

,

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

.

”

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

,

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

;

”

sustaining

and

nourishing

and

assisting

even

Marcionites

themselves

!

When

afterwards

“

a

certain

man

asked

him

,

‘

Good

Master

,

what

shall

I

do

to

inherit

eternal

life

?

’

”

(

Jesus

)

inquired

whether

he

knew

(

that

is

,

in

other

words

,

whether

he

kept

)

the

commandments

of

the

Creator

,

in

order

to

testify

that

it

was

by

the

Creator’s

precepts

that

eternal

life

is

acquired

.

Then

,

when

he

affirmed

that

from

his

youth

up

he

had

kept

all

the

principal

commandments

,

(

Jesus

)

said

to

him

:

“

One

thing

thou

yet

lackest

:

sell

all

that

thou

hast

,

and

give

to

the

poor

,

and

thou

shalt

have

treasure

in

heaven

;

and

come

,

follow

me

.

”

Well

now

,

Marcion

,

and

all

ye

who

are

companions

in

misery

,

and

associates

in

hatred

with

that

heretic

,

what

will

you

dare

say

to

this

?

Did

Christ

rescind

the

forementioned

commandments

:

“

Do

not

kill

,

Do

not

commit

adultery

,

Do

not

steal

,

Do

not

bear

false

witness

,

Honour

thy

father

and

thy

mother

?

”

Or

did

He

both

keep

them

,

and

then

add

what

was

wanting

to

them

?

This

very

precept

,

however

,

about

giving

to

the

poor

,

was

very

largely

diffused

through

the

pages

of

the

law

and

the

prophets

.

This

vainglorious

observer

of

the

commandments

was

therefore

convicted

of

holding

money

in

much

higher

estimation

(

than

charity

)

.

This

verity

of

the

gospel

then

stands

unimpaired

:

“

I

am

not

come

to

destroy

the

law

and

the

prophets

,

but

rather

to

fulfil

them

.

”

He

also

dissipated

other

doubts

,

when

He

declared

that

the

name

of

God

and

of

the

Good

belonged

to

one

and

the

same

being

,

at

whose

disposal

were

also

the

everlasting

life

and

the

treasure

in

heaven

and

Himself

too

—

whose

commandments

He

both

maintained

and

augmented

with

His

own

supplementary

precepts

.

He

may

likewise

be

discovered

in

the

following

passage

of

Micah

,

saying

:

“

He

hath

showed

thee

,

O

man

,

what

is

good

;

and

what

doth

the

Lord

require

of

thee

,

but

to

do

justly

,

and

to

love

mercy

,

and

to

be

ready

to

follow

the

Lord

thy

God

?

”

Now

Christ

is

the

man

who

tells

us

what

is

good

,

even

the

knowledge

of

the

law

.

“

Thou

knowest

,

”

says

He

,

“

the

commandments

.

”

“

To

do

justly

”

—

“

Sell

all

that

thou

hast

;

”

“

to

love

mercy

”

—

“

Give

to

the

poor

:

”

“

and

to

be

ready

to

walk

with

God

”

—

“

And

come

,

”

says

He

,

“

follow

me

.

”

The

Jewish

nation

was

from

its

beginning

so

carefully

divided

into

tribes

and

clans

,

and

families

and

houses

,

that

no

man

could

very

well

have

been

ignorant

of

his

descent

—

even

from

the

recent

assessments

of

Augustus

,

which

were

still

probably

extant

at

this

time

.

But

the

Jesus

of

Marcion

(

although

there

could

be

no

doubt

of

a

person’s

having

been

born

,

who

was

seen

to

be

a

man

)

,

as

being

unborn

,

could

not

,

of

course

,

have

possessed

any

public

testimonial

of

his

descent

,

but

was

to

be

regarded

as

one

of

that

obscure

class

of

whom

nothing

was

in

any

way

known

.

Why

then

did

the

blind

man

,

on

hearing

that

He

was

passing

by

,

exclaim

,

“

Jesus

,

Thou

Son

of

David

,

have

mercy

on

me

?

”

unless

he

was

considered

,

in

no

uncertain

manner

,

to

be

the

Son

of

David

(

in

other

words

,

to

belong

to

David’s

family

)

through

his

mother

and

his

brethren

,

who

at

some

time

or

other

had

been

made

known

to

him

by

public

notoriety

?

“

Those

,

however

,

who

went

before

rebuked

the

blind

man

,

that

he

should

hold

his

peace

.

”

And

properly

enough

;

because

he

was

very

noisy

,

not

because

he

was

wrong

about

the

son

of

David

.

Else

you

must

show

me

,

that

those

who

rebuked

him

were

aware

that

Jesus

was

not

the

Son

of

David

,

in

order

that

they

may

be

supposed

to

have

had

this

reason

for

imposing

silence

on

the

blind

man

.

But

even

if

you

could

show

me

this

,

still

(

the

blind

man

)

would

more

readily

have

presumed

that

they

were

ignorant

,

than

that

the

Lord

could

possibly

have

permitted

an

untrue

exclamation

about

Himself

.

But

the

Lord

“

stood

patient

.

”

Yes

;

but

not

as

confirming

the

error

,

for

,

on

the

contrary

,

He

rather

displayed

the

Creator

.

Surely

He

could

not

have

first

removed

this

man’s

blindness

,

in

order

that

he

might

afterwards

cease

to

regard

Him

as

the

Son

of

David

!

However

,

that

you

may

not

slander

His

patience

,

nor

fasten

on

Him

any

charge

of

dissimulation

,

nor

deny

Him

to

be

the

Son

of

David

,

He

very

pointedly

confirmed

the

exclamation

of

the

blind

man

—

both

by

the

actual

gift

of

healing

,

and

by

bearing

testimony

to

his

faith

:

“

Thy

faith

,

”

say

Christ

,

“

hath

made

thee

whole

.

”

What

would

you

have

the

blind

man’s

faith

to

have

been

?

That

Jesus

was

descended

from

that

(

alien

)

god

(

of

Marcion

)

,

to

subvert

the

Creator

and

overthrow

the

law

and

the

prophets

?

That

He

was

not

the

destined

offshoot

from

the

root

of

Jesse

,

and

the

fruit

of

David’s

loins

,

the

restorer

also

of

the

blind

?

But

I

apprehend

there

were

at

that

time

no

such

stone

-

blind

persons

as

Marcion

,

that

an

opinion

like

this

could

have

constituted

the

faith

of

the

blind

man

,

and

have

induced

him

to

confide

in

the

mere

name

,

of

Jesus

,

the

Son

of

David

.

He

,

who

knew

all

this

of

Himself

,

and

wished

others

to

know

it

also

,

endowed

the

faith

of

this

man

—

although

it

was

already

gifted

with

a

better

sight

,

and

although

it

was

in

possession

of

the

true

light

—

with

the

external

vision

likewise

,

in

order

that

we

too

might

learn

the

rule

of

faith

,

and

at

the

same

time

find

its

recompense

.

Whosoever

wishes

to

see

Jesus

the

Son

of

David

must

believe

in

Him

;

through

the

Virgin’s

birth

.

He

who

will

not

believe

this

will

not

hear

from

Him

the

salutation

,

“

Thy

faith

hath

saved

thee

.

”

And

so

he

will

remain

blind

,

falling

into

Antithesis

after

Antithesis

,

which

mutually

destroy

each

other

,

just

as

“

the

blind

man

leads

the

blind

down

into

the

ditch

.

”

For

(

here

is

one

of

Marcion’s

Antitheses

)

:

whereas

David

in

old

time

,

in

the

capture

of

Sion

,

was

offended

by

the

blind

who

opposed

his

admission

(

into

the

stronghold

)

—

in

which

respect

(

I

should

rather

say

)

that

they

were

a

type

of

people

equally

blind

,

who

in

after

-

times

would

not

admit

Christ

to

be

the

son

of

David

—

so

,

on

the

contrary

,

Christ

succoured

the

blind

man

,

to

show

by

this

act

that

He

was

not

David’s

son

,

and

how

different

in

disposition

He

was

,

kind

to

the

blind

,

while

David

ordered

them

to

be

slain

.

If

all

this

were

so

,

why

did

Marcion

allege

that

the

blind

man’s

faith

was

of

so

worthless

a

stamp

?

The

fact

is

,

the

Son

of

David

so

acted

,

that

the

Antithesis

must

lose

its

point

by

its

own

absurdity

.

Those

persons

who

offended

David

were

blind

,

and

the

man

who

now

presents

himself

as

a

suppliant

to

David’s

son

is

afflicted

with

the

same

infirmity

.

Therefore

the

Son

of

David

was

appeased

with

some

sort

of

satisfaction

by

the

blind

man

when

He

restored

him

to

sight

,

and

added

His

approval

of

the

faith

which

had

led

him

to

believe

the

very

truth

,

that

he

must

win

to

his

help

the

Son

of

David

by

earnest

entreaty

.

But

,

after

all

,

I

suspect

that

it

was

the

audacity

(

of

the

old

Jebusites

)

which

offended

David

,

and

not

their

malady

.

Notes

1
Luke xviii. 1–8.
2
Luke xviii. 7, 8.
3
Meliorem Deum.
4
Reprobatum.
5
Luke xviii. 10–14.
6
Sive reprobatricem superbiæ, sive justificatricem humilitatis.
7
Destructorem.
8
See above, chap. xxvi. p. 392.
9
Luke xviii. 19.
10
Utique.
11
Matt. v. 45.
12
Ad contestandum.
13
Luke xviii. 18–20.
14
Luke xviii. 21, 22.
15
See above, chap. ix., near the beginning.
16
Adjecit quod deerat.
17
Ubique.
18
Traduceretur.
19
Matt. v. 17.
20
Mic. vi. 8. The last clause agrees with the Septuagint: καὶ ἕτοιμον εἶναι τοῦ πορεύεσθαι μετὰ Κυρίου Θεοῦ σου.
21
The clauses of Christ’s words, which are here adapted to Micah’s, are in every case broken with an inquit.
22
Tunc pendentibus: i.e., at the time mentioned in the story of the blind man.
23
Notitiam.
24
Luke xviii. 38.
25
Non temere.
26
Luke xviii. 39.
27
Luke xviii. 40.
28
Atquin.
29
Infameretis.
30
Luke xviii. 42.
31
Remunerator.
32
That is, in the sound only, and phantom of the word; an allusion to the Docetic absurdity of Marcion.
33
That is, that He was “Son of David,” etc.
34
Censum: that is, must believe Him born of her.
35
This, perhaps, is the meaning in a clause which is itself more antithetical than clear: “Ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam antithesim.”
36
In book iii. chap. vii. (at the beginning), occurs the same proverb of Marcion and the Jews. See p. 327.
37
See 2 Sam. v. 6–8.
38
The Marcionites.
39
See 2 Sam. v. 8.
40
Fidei equidem pravæ: see preceding page, note 3.
41
Atquin.
42
Et hoc filius David: i.e., præstitit, “showed Himself good,” perhaps.
43
De suo retundendam. Instead of contrast, he shows the similarity of the cases.
44
Ejusdem carnis: i.e., infirmæ (Oehler).
45
Exorandum sibi.