Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 4 · Chapter 11

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 XI.—The Call of Levi the Publican. Christ in Relation to the Baptist. Christ as the Bridegroom. The Parable of the Old Wine and the New. Arguments Connecting Christ with the Creator.

The publican who was chosen by the Lord

‹ Book 4 · Chapter 10 Book 4 · Chapter 12 ›

,

he

adduces

for

a

proof

that

he

was

chosen

as

a

stranger

to

the

law

and

uninitiated

in

Judaism

,

by

one

who

was

an

adversary

to

the

law

.

The

case

of

Peter

escaped

his

memory

,

who

,

although

he

was

a

man

of

the

law

,

was

not

only

chosen

by

the

Lord

,

but

also

obtained

the

testimony

of

possessing

knowledge

which

was

given

to

him

by

the

Father

.

He

had

nowhere

read

of

Christ’s

being

foretold

as

the

light

,

and

hope

,

and

expectation

of

the

Gentiles

!

He

,

however

,

rather

spoke

of

the

Jews

in

a

favourable

light

,

when

he

said

,

“

The

whole

needed

not

a

physician

,

but

they

that

are

sick

.

”

For

since

by

“

those

that

are

sick

”

he

meant

that

the

heathens

and

publicans

should

be

understood

,

whom

he

was

choosing

,

he

affirmed

of

the

Jews

that

they

were

“

whole

”

for

whom

he

said

that

a

physician

was

not

necessary

.

This

being

the

case

,

he

makes

a

mistake

in

coming

down

to

destroy

the

law

,

as

if

for

the

remedy

of

a

diseased

condition

.

because

they

who

were

living

under

it

were

“

whole

,

”

and

“

not

in

want

of

a

physician

.

”

How

,

moreover

,

does

it

happen

that

he

proposed

the

similitude

of

a

physician

,

if

he

did

not

verify

it

?

For

,

just

as

nobody

uses

a

physician

for

healthy

persons

,

so

will

no

one

do

so

for

strangers

,

in

so

far

as

he

is

one

of

Marcion’s

god

-

made

men

,

having

to

himself

both

a

creator

and

preserver

,

and

a

specially

good

physician

,

in

his

Christ

.

This

much

the

comparison

predetermines

,

that

a

physician

is

more

usually

furnished

by

him

to

whom

the

sick

people

belong

.

Whence

,

too

,

does

John

come

upon

the

scene

?

Christ

,

suddenly

;

and

just

as

suddenly

,

John

!

After

this

fashion

occur

all

things

in

Marcion’s

system

.

They

have

their

own

special

and

plenary

course

in

the

Creator’s

dispensation

.

Of

John

,

however

,

what

else

I

have

to

say

will

be

found

in

another

passage

.

To

the

several

points

which

now

come

before

us

an

answer

must

be

given

.

This

,

then

,

I

will

take

care

to

do

—

demonstrate

that

,

reciprocally

,

John

is

suitable

to

Christ

,

and

Christ

to

John

,

the

latter

,

of

course

,

as

a

prophet

of

the

Creator

,

just

as

the

former

is

the

Creator’s

Christ

;

and

so

the

heretic

may

blush

at

frustrating

,

to

his

own

frustration

,

the

mission

of

John

the

Baptist

.

For

if

there

had

been

no

ministry

of

John

at

all

—

“

the

voice

,

”

as

Isaiah

calls

him

,

“

of

one

crying

in

the

wilderness

,

”

and

the

preparer

of

the

ways

of

the

Lord

by

denunciation

and

recommendation

of

repentance

;

if

,

too

,

he

had

not

baptized

(

Christ

)

Himself

along

with

others

,

nobody

could

have

challenged

the

disciples

of

Christ

,

as

they

ate

and

drank

,

to

a

comparison

with

the

disciples

of

John

,

who

were

constantly

fasting

and

praying

;

because

,

if

there

existed

any

diversity

between

Christ

and

John

,

and

their

followers

respectively

,

no

exact

comparison

would

be

possible

,

nor

would

there

be

a

single

point

where

it

could

be

challenged

.

For

nobody

would

feel

surprise

,

and

nobody

would

be

perplexed

,

although

there

should

arise

rival

predictions

of

a

diverse

deity

,

which

should

also

mutually

differ

about

modes

of

conduct

,

having

a

prior

difference

about

the

authorities

upon

which

they

were

based

.

Therefore

Christ

belonged

to

John

,

and

John

to

Christ

;

while

both

belonged

to

the

Creator

,

and

both

were

of

the

law

and

the

prophets

,

preachers

and

masters

.

Else

Christ

would

have

rejected

the

discipline

of

John

,

as

of

the

rival

god

,

and

would

also

have

defended

the

disciples

,

as

very

properly

pursuing

a

different

walk

,

because

consecrated

to

the

service

of

another

and

contrary

deity

.

But

as

it

is

,

while

modestly

giving

a

reason

why

“

the

children

of

the

bridegroom

are

unable

to

fast

during

the

time

the

bridegroom

is

with

them

,

”

but

promising

that

“

they

should

afterwards

fast

,

when

the

bridegroom

was

taken

away

from

them

,

”

He

neither

defended

the

disciples

,

(

but

rather

excused

them

,

as

if

they

had

not

been

blamed

without

some

reason

)

,

nor

rejected

the

discipline

of

John

,

but

rather

allowed

it

,

referring

it

to

the

time

of

John

,

although

destining

it

for

His

own

time

.

Otherwise

His

purpose

would

have

been

to

reject

it

,

and

to

defend

its

opponents

,

if

He

had

not

Himself

already

belonged

to

it

as

then

in

force

.

I

hold

also

that

it

is

my

Christ

who

is

meant

by

the

bridegroom

,

of

whom

the

psalm

says

:

“

He

is

as

a

bridegroom

coming

out

of

his

chamber

;

His

going

forth

is

from

the

end

of

the

heaven

,

and

His

return

is

back

to

the

end

of

it

again

.

”

By

the

mouth

of

Isaiah

He

also

says

exultingly

of

the

Father

:

“

Let

my

soul

rejoice

in

the

Lord

;

for

He

hath

clothed

me

with

the

garment

of

salvation

and

with

the

tunic

of

joy

,

as

a

bridegroom

.

He

hath

put

a

mitre

round

about

my

head

,

as

a

bride

.

”

To

Himself

likewise

He

appropriates

the

church

,

concerning

which

the

same

Spirit

says

to

Him

:

“

Thou

shalt

clothe

Thee

with

them

all

,

as

with

a

bridal

ornament

.

”

This

spouse

Christ

invites

home

to

Himself

also

by

Solomon

from

the

call

of

the

Gentiles

,

because

you

read

:

“

Come

with

me

from

Lebanon

,

my

spouse

.

”

He

elegantly

makes

mention

of

Lebanon

(

the

mountain

,

of

course

)

because

it

stands

for

the

name

of

frankincense

with

the

Greeks

;

for

it

was

from

idolatry

that

He

betrothed

Himself

the

church

.

Deny

now

,

Marcion

,

your

utter

madness

,

(

if

you

can

)

!

Behold

,

you

impugn

even

the

law

of

your

god

.

He

unites

not

in

the

nuptial

bond

,

nor

,

when

contracted

,

does

he

allow

it

;

no

one

does

he

baptize

but

a

cælebs

or

a

eunuch

;

until

death

or

divorce

does

he

reserve

baptism

.

Wherefore

,

then

,

do

you

make

his

Christ

a

bridegroom

?

This

is

the

designation

of

Him

who

united

man

and

woman

,

not

of

him

who

separated

them

.

You

have

erred

also

in

that

declaration

of

Christ

,

wherein

He

seems

to

make

a

difference

between

things

new

and

old

.

You

are

inflated

about

the

old

bottles

,

and

brain

-

muddled

with

the

new

wine

;

and

therefore

to

the

old

(

that

is

to

say

,

to

the

prior

)

gospel

you

have

sewed

on

the

patch

of

your

new

-

fangled

heresy

.

I

should

like

to

know

in

what

respect

the

Creator

is

inconsistent

with

Himself

.

When

by

Jeremiah

He

gave

this

precept

,

“

Break

up

for

yourselves

new

pastures

,

”

does

He

not

turn

away

from

the

old

state

of

things

?

And

when

by

Isaiah

He

proclaims

how

“

old

things

were

passed

away

;

and

,

behold

,

all

things

,

which

I

am

making

,

are

new

,

”

does

He

not

advert

to

a

new

state

of

things

?

We

have

generally

been

of

opinion

that

the

destination

of

the

former

state

of

things

was

rather

promised

by

the

Creator

,

and

exhibited

in

reality

by

Christ

,

only

under

the

authority

of

one

and

the

same

God

,

to

whom

appertain

both

the

old

things

and

the

new

.

For

new

wine

is

not

put

into

old

bottles

,

except

by

one

who

has

the

old

bottles

;

nor

does

anybody

put

a

new

piece

to

an

old

garment

,

unless

the

old

garment

be

forthcoming

to

him

.

That

person

only

does

not

do

a

thing

when

it

is

not

to

be

done

,

who

has

the

materials

wherewithal

to

do

it

if

it

were

to

be

done

.

And

therefore

,

since

His

object

in

making

the

comparison

was

to

show

that

He

was

separating

the

new

condition

of

the

gospel

from

the

old

state

of

the

law

,

He

proved

that

from

which

He

was

separating

His

own

ought

not

to

have

been

branded

as

a

separation

of

things

which

were

alien

to

each

other

;

for

nobody

ever

unites

his

own

things

with

things

that

are

alien

to

them

,

in

order

that

he

may

afterwards

be

able

to

separate

them

from

the

alien

things

.

A

separation

is

possible

by

help

of

the

conjunction

through

which

it

is

made

.

Accordingly

,

the

things

which

He

separated

He

also

proved

to

have

been

once

one

;

as

they

would

have

remained

,

were

it

not

for

His

separation

.

But

still

we

make

this

concession

,

that

there

is

a

separation

,

by

reformation

,

by

amplification

,

by

progress

;

just

as

the

fruit

is

separated

from

the

seed

,

although

the

fruit

comes

from

the

seed

.

So

likewise

the

gospel

is

separated

from

the

law

,

whilst

it

advances

from

the

law

—

a

different

thing

from

it

,

but

not

an

alien

one

;

diverse

,

but

not

contrary

.

Nor

in

Christ

do

we

even

find

any

novel

form

of

discourse

.

Whether

He

proposes

similitudes

or

refute

questions

,

it

comes

from

the

seventy

-

seventh

Psalm

.

“

I

will

open

,

”

says

He

,

“

my

mouth

in

a

parable

”

(

that

is

,

in

a

similitude

)

;

“

I

will

utter

dark

problems

”

(

that

is

,

I

will

set

forth

questions

)

.

If

you

should

wish

to

prove

that

a

man

belonged

to

another

race

,

no

doubt

you

would

fetch

your

proof

from

the

idiom

of

his

language

.

Notes

1
He means Levi or St. Matthew; see Luke v. 27–39.
2
Profanum.
3
Matt. xvi. 17.
4
Luke v. 31.
5
Male descendit.
6
Homo a deo Marcionis.
7
See chap. vii. of this book, and chap. ii. of book. iii.
8
Plenum ordinem.
9
See below, chap. xviii.
10
Tuebor.
11
Ipsum.
12
Marcion’s diversitas implied an utter incompatibility between John and Christ; for it assigned John to the Creator, from whom it took Christ away.
13
De disciplinis: or, “about discipleships.”
14
De auctoritatibus; or, “about the authors thereof.”
15
Humiliter.
16
Luke v. 34, 35.
17
Concessit.
18
Rejecturus alioquin.
19
Ps. xix. 5, 6.
20
Isa. lxi. 10.
21
Deputat.
22
The same, which spake again by Isaiah.
23
Isa. xlix. 18.
24
Song of Sol. iv. 8.
25
There is also in Hebrew an affinity between הנבל, “frankincense,” and זובבִל, “Lebanon.” [Note this strange but reiterated and emphatic identification of incense with idolatry. In the Gentile church it was thoroughly identified with Paganism.]
26
See also book i. chap. xxix. [On this reservation of Baptism see Elucidation II.]
27
Alter.
28
Jer. iv. 3.
29
His reading of (probably) Isa. xliii. 19; comp. 2 Cor. v. 17.
30
Olim statuimus.
31
Ille.
32
Novitas.
33
Vetustas.
34
That is, “the oldness of the law.”
35
That is, “the newness of the gospel.”
36
Notandam.
37
Separatione. The more general reading is separationem.
38
Alienis: i.e., “things not his own.”
39
Amplitudinem.
40
Provehitur, “is developed.”
41
Aliud.
42
See Ps. lxxviii. 2.