Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 5 · Chapter 20

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 XX.—The Epistle to the Philippians. The Variances Amongst the Preachers of Christ No Argument that There Was More Than One Only Christ. St. Paul’s Phrases—Form of a Servant, Likeness, and Fashion of a Man—No Sanction of Docetism. No Antithesis (Such as Marcion Alleged) in the God of Judaism and the God of the Gospel Deducible from Certain Contrasts Mentioned in This Epistle. A Parallel with a Passage in Genesis. The Resurrection of the Body, and the Change Thereof.

When (the apostle) mentions the

‹ Book 5 · Chapter 19 Book 5 · Chapter 21 ›

several

motives

of

those

who

were

preaching

the

gospel

,

how

that

some

,

“

waxing

confident

by

his

bonds

,

were

more

fearless

in

speaking

the

word

,

”

while

others

“

preached

Christ

even

out

of

envy

and

strife

,

and

again

others

out

of

good

-

will

,

”

many

also

“

out

of

love

,

”

and

certain

“

out

of

contention

,

”

and

some

“

in

rivalry

to

himself

,

”

he

had

a

favourable

opportunity

,

no

doubt

,

of

taxing

what

they

preached

with

a

diversity

of

doctrine

,

as

if

it

were

no

less

than

this

which

caused

so

great

a

variance

in

their

tempers

.

But

while

he

exposes

these

tempers

as

the

sole

cause

of

the

diversity

,

he

avoids

inculpating

the

regular

mysteries

of

the

faith

,

and

affirms

that

there

is

,

notwithstanding

,

but

one

Christ

and

His

one

God

,

whatever

motives

men

had

in

preaching

Him

.

Therefore

,

says

he

,

it

matters

not

to

me

“

whether

it

be

in

pretence

or

in

truth

that

Christ

is

preached

,

”

because

one

Christ

alone

was

announced

,

whether

in

their

“

pretentious

”

or

their

“

truthful

”

faith

.

For

it

was

to

the

faithfulness

of

their

preaching

that

he

applied

the

word

truth

,

not

to

the

rightness

of

the

rule

itself

,

because

there

was

indeed

but

one

rule

;

whereas

the

conduct

of

the

preachers

varied

:

in

some

of

them

it

was

true

,

i

.

e

.

single

-

minded

,

while

in

others

it

was

sophisticated

with

over

-

much

learning

.

This

being

the

case

,

it

is

manifest

that

Christ

was

the

subject

of

their

preaching

who

was

always

the

theme

of

the

prophets

.

Now

,

if

it

were

a

completely

different

Christ

that

was

being

introduced

by

the

apostle

,

the

novelty

of

the

thing

would

have

produced

a

diversity

(

in

belief

.

)

.

For

there

would

not

have

been

wanting

,

in

spite

of

the

novel

teaching

,

men

to

interpret

the

preached

gospel

of

the

Creator’s

Christ

,

since

the

majority

of

persons

everywhere

now

-

a

-

days

are

of

our

way

of

thinking

,

rather

than

on

the

heretical

side

.

So

that

the

apostle

would

not

in

such

a

passage

as

the

present

one

have

refrained

from

remarking

and

censuring

the

diversity

.

Since

,

however

,

there

is

no

blame

of

a

diversity

,

there

is

no

proof

of

a

novelty

.

Of

course

the

Marcionites

suppose

that

they

have

the

apostle

on

their

side

in

the

following

passage

in

the

matter

of

Christ’s

substance

—

that

in

Him

there

was

nothing

but

a

phantom

of

flesh

.

For

he

says

of

Christ

,

that

,

“

being

in

the

form

of

God

,

He

thought

it

not

robbery

to

be

equal

with

God

;

but

emptied

Himself

,

and

took

upon

Him

the

form

of

a

servant

,

”

not

the

reality

,

“

and

was

made

in

the

likeness

of

man

,

”

not

a

man

,

“

and

was

found

in

fashion

as

a

man

,

”

not

in

his

substance

,

that

is

to

say

,

his

flesh

;

just

as

if

to

a

substance

there

did

not

accrue

both

form

and

likeness

and

fashion

.

It

is

well

for

us

that

in

another

passage

(

the

apostle

)

calls

Christ

“

the

image

of

the

invisible

God

.

”

For

will

it

not

follow

with

equal

force

from

that

passage

,

that

Christ

is

not

truly

God

,

because

the

apostle

places

Him

in

the

image

of

God

,

if

,

(

as

Marcion

contends

,

)

He

is

not

truly

man

because

of

His

having

taken

on

Him

the

form

or

image

of

a

man

?

For

in

both

cases

the

true

substance

will

have

to

be

excluded

,

if

image

(

or

“

fashion

”

)

and

likeness

and

form

shall

be

claimed

for

a

phantom

.

But

since

he

is

truly

God

,

as

the

Son

of

the

Father

,

in

His

fashion

and

image

,

He

has

been

already

by

the

force

of

this

conclusion

determined

to

be

truly

man

,

as

the

Son

of

man

,

“

found

in

the

fashion

”

and

image

“

of

a

man

.

”

For

when

he

propounded

Him

as

thus

“

found

”

in

the

manner

of

a

man

,

he

in

fact

affirmed

Him

to

be

most

certainly

human

.

For

what

is

found

,

manifestly

possesses

existence

.

Therefore

,

as

He

was

found

to

be

God

by

His

mighty

power

,

so

was

He

found

to

be

man

by

reason

of

His

flesh

,

because

the

apostle

could

not

have

pronounced

Him

to

have

“

become

obedient

unto

death

,

”

if

He

had

not

been

constituted

of

a

mortal

substance

.

Still

more

plainly

does

this

appear

from

the

apostle’s

additional

words

,

“

even

the

death

of

the

cross

.

”

For

he

could

hardly

mean

this

to

be

a

climax

to

the

human

suffering

,

to

extol

the

virtue

of

His

obedience

,

if

he

had

known

it

all

to

be

the

imaginary

process

of

a

phantom

,

which

rather

eluded

the

cross

than

experienced

it

,

and

which

displayed

no

virtue

in

the

suffering

,

but

only

illusion

.

But

“

those

things

which

he

had

once

accounted

gain

,

”

and

which

he

enumerates

in

the

preceding

verse

—

“

trust

in

the

flesh

,

”

the

sign

of

“

circumcision

,

”

his

origin

as

“

an

Hebrew

of

the

Hebrews

,

”

his

descent

from

“

the

tribe

of

Benjamin

,

”

his

dignity

in

the

honours

of

the

Pharisee

—

he

now

reckons

to

be

only

“

loss

”

to

himself

;

(

in

other

words

,

)

it

was

not

the

God

of

the

Jews

,

but

their

stupid

obduracy

,

which

he

repudiates

.

These

are

also

the

things

“

which

he

counts

but

dung

for

the

excellency

of

the

knowledge

of

Christ

”

(

but

by

no

means

for

the

rejection

of

God

the

Creator

)

;

“

whilst

he

has

not

his

own

righteousness

,

which

is

of

the

law

,

but

that

which

is

through

Him

,

”

i

.

e

.

Christ

,

“

the

righteousness

which

is

of

God

.

”

Then

,

say

you

,

according

to

this

distinction

the

law

did

not

proceed

from

the

God

of

Christ

.

Subtle

enough

!

But

here

is

something

still

more

subtle

for

you

.

For

when

(

the

apostle

)

says

,

“

Not

(

the

righteousness

)

which

is

of

the

law

,

but

that

which

is

through

Him

,

”

he

would

not

have

used

the

phrase

through

Him

of

any

other

than

Him

to

whom

the

law

belonged

.

“

Our

conversation

,

”

says

he

,

“

is

in

heaven

.

”

I

here

recognise

the

Creator’s

ancient

promise

to

Abraham

:

“

I

will

multiply

thy

seed

as

the

stars

of

heaven

.

”

Therefore

“

one

star

differeth

from

another

star

in

glory

.

”

If

,

again

,

Christ

in

His

advent

from

heaven

“

shall

change

the

body

of

our

humiliation

,

that

it

may

be

fashioned

like

unto

His

glorious

body

,

”

it

follows

that

this

body

of

ours

shall

rise

again

,

which

is

now

in

a

state

of

humiliation

in

its

sufferings

and

according

to

the

law

of

mortality

drops

into

the

ground

.

But

how

shall

it

be

changed

,

if

it

shall

have

no

real

existence

?

If

,

however

,

this

is

only

said

of

those

who

shall

be

found

in

the

flesh

at

the

advent

of

God

,

and

who

shall

have

to

be

changed

,

”

what

shall

they

do

who

will

rise

first

?

They

will

have

no

substance

from

which

to

undergo

a

change

.

But

he

says

(

elsewhere

)

,

“

We

shall

be

caught

up

together

with

them

in

the

clouds

,

to

meet

the

Lord

(

in

the

air

)

.

”

Then

,

if

we

are

to

be

caught

up

alone

with

them

,

surely

we

shall

likewise

be

changed

together

with

them

.

Notes

1
Phil. i. 14–17.
2
Utique.
3
Regulas sacramentorum.
4
Phil. i. 18.
5
Nihilominus.
6
Plane.
7
Compare the treatise, De Resur. Carnis, c. vi. (Oehler).
8
Exhausit ἐκένωσε.
9
Phil. ii. 6, 7.
10
Col. i. 15.
11
Posuit.
12
Inventum ratione.
13
Phil. ii. 8.
14
Phil. ii. 8.
15
Non enim exaggeraret.
16
Virtutem: perhaps the power.
17
See the preceding note.
18
Candidæ pharisaeæ: see Phil. iii. 4–6.
19
Phil. iii. 7.
20
Phil. iii. 8.
21
Phil. iii. 9.
22
Phil. iii. 20.
23
Gen. xxii. 17.
24
1 Cor. xv. 41.
25
Phil. iii. 21. [I have adhered to the original Greek, by a trifling verbal change, because Tertullian’s argument requires it.]
26
1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.
27
Deputari, which is an old reading, should certainly be demutari, and so say the best authorities. Oehler reads the former, but contends for the latter.
28
1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.