Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 5 · Chapter 2

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 II.—On the Epistle to the Galatians. The Abolition of the Ordinances of the Mosaic Law No Proof of Another God. The Divine Lawgiver, the Creator Himself, Was the Abrogator. The Apostle’s Doctrine in the First Chapter Shown to Accord with the Teaching of the Old Testament. The Acts of the Apostles Shown to Be Genuine Against Marcion. This Book Agrees with the Pauline Epistles.

The epistle which we also allow to

‹ Book 5 · Chapter 1 Book 5 · Chapter 3 ›

be

the

most

decisive

against

Judaism

,

is

that

wherein

the

apostle

instructs

the

Galatians

.

For

the

abolition

of

the

ancient

law

we

fully

admit

,

and

hold

that

it

actually

proceeds

from

the

dispensation

of

the

Creator

,

—

a

point

which

we

have

already

often

treated

in

the

course

of

our

discussion

,

when

we

showed

that

the

innovation

was

foretold

by

the

prophets

of

our

God

.

Now

,

if

the

Creator

indeed

promised

that

“

the

ancient

things

should

pass

away

,

”

to

be

superseded

by

a

new

course

of

things

which

should

arise

,

whilst

Christ

marks

the

period

of

the

separation

when

He

says

,

“

The

law

and

the

prophets

were

until

John

”

—

thus

making

the

Baptist

the

limit

between

the

two

dispensations

of

the

old

things

then

terminating

—

and

the

new

things

then

beginning

,

the

apostle

cannot

of

course

do

otherwise

,

(

coming

as

he

does

)

in

Christ

,

who

was

revealed

after

John

,

than

invalidate

“

the

old

things

”

and

confirm

“

the

new

,

”

and

yet

promote

thereby

the

faith

of

no

other

god

than

the

Creator

,

at

whose

instance

it

was

foretold

that

the

ancient

things

should

pass

away

.

Therefore

both

the

abrogation

of

the

law

and

the

establishment

of

the

gospel

help

my

argument

even

in

this

epistle

,

wherein

they

both

have

reference

to

the

fond

assumption

of

the

Galatians

,

which

led

them

to

suppose

that

faith

in

Christ

(

the

Creator’s

Christ

,

of

course

)

was

obligatory

,

but

without

annulling

the

law

,

because

it

still

appeared

to

them

a

thing

incredible

that

the

law

should

be

set

aside

by

its

own

author

.

Again

,

if

they

had

at

all

heard

of

any

other

god

from

the

apostle

,

would

they

not

have

concluded

at

once

,

of

themselves

,

that

they

must

give

up

the

law

of

that

God

whom

they

had

left

,

in

order

to

follow

another

?

For

what

man

would

be

long

in

learning

,

that

he

ought

to

pursue

a

new

discipline

,

after

he

had

taken

up

with

a

new

god

?

Since

,

however

,

the

same

God

was

declared

in

the

gospel

which

had

always

been

so

well

known

in

the

law

,

the

only

change

being

in

the

dispensation

,

the

sole

point

of

the

question

to

be

discussed

was

,

whether

the

law

of

the

Creator

ought

by

the

gospel

to

be

excluded

in

the

Christ

of

the

Creator

?

Take

away

this

point

,

and

the

controversy

falls

to

the

ground

.

Now

,

since

they

would

all

know

of

themselves

,

on

the

withdrawal

of

this

point

,

that

they

must

of

course

renounce

all

submission

to

the

Creator

by

reason

of

their

faith

in

another

god

,

there

could

have

been

no

call

for

the

apostle

to

teach

them

so

earnestly

that

which

their

own

belief

must

have

spontaneously

suggested

to

them

.

Therefore

the

entire

purport

of

this

epistle

is

simply

to

show

us

that

the

supersession

of

the

law

comes

from

the

appointment

of

the

Creator

—

a

point

,

which

we

shall

still

have

to

keep

in

mind

.

Since

also

he

makes

mention

of

no

other

god

(

and

he

could

have

found

no

other

opportunity

of

doing

so

,

more

suitable

than

when

his

purpose

was

to

set

forth

the

reason

for

the

abolition

of

the

law

—

especially

as

the

prescription

of

a

new

god

would

have

afforded

a

singularly

good

and

most

sufficient

reason

)

,

it

is

clear

enough

in

what

sense

he

writes

,

“

I

marvel

that

ye

are

so

soon

removed

from

Him

who

hath

called

you

to

His

grace

to

another

gospel

”

—

He

means

)

“

another

”

as

to

the

conduct

it

prescribes

,

not

in

respect

of

its

worship

;

“

another

”

as

to

the

discipline

it

teaches

,

not

in

respect

of

its

divinity

;

because

it

is

the

office

of

Christ’s

gospel

to

call

men

from

the

law

to

grace

,

not

from

the

Creator

to

another

god

.

For

nobody

had

induced

them

to

apostatize

from

the

Creator

,

that

they

should

seem

to

“

be

removed

to

another

gospel

,

”

simply

when

they

return

again

to

the

Creator

.

When

he

adds

,

too

,

the

words

,

“

which

is

not

another

,

”

he

confirms

the

fact

that

the

gospel

which

he

maintains

is

the

Creator’s

.

For

the

Creator

Himself

promises

the

gospel

,

when

He

says

by

Isaiah

:

“

Get

thee

up

into

the

high

mountain

,

thou

that

bringest

to

Sion

good

tidings

;

lift

up

thy

voice

with

strength

,

thou

that

bringest

the

gospel

to

Jerusalem

.

”

Also

when

,

with

respect

to

the

apostles

personally

,

He

says

,

“

How

beautiful

are

the

feet

of

them

that

preach

the

gospel

of

peace

,

that

bring

good

tidings

of

good

”

—

even

proclaiming

the

gospel

to

the

Gentiles

,

because

He

also

says

,

“

In

His

name

shall

the

Gentiles

trust

;

”

that

is

,

in

the

name

of

Christ

,

to

whom

He

says

,

“

I

have

given

thee

as

a

light

of

the

Gentiles

.

”

However

,

you

will

have

it

that

it

is

the

gospel

of

a

new

god

which

was

then

set

forth

by

the

apostle

.

So

that

there

are

two

gospels

for

two

gods

;

and

the

apostle

made

a

great

mistake

when

he

said

that

“

there

is

not

another

”

gospel

,

since

there

is

(

on

the

hypothesis

)

another

;

and

so

he

might

have

made

a

better

defence

of

his

gospel

,

by

rather

demonstrating

this

,

than

by

insisting

on

its

being

but

one

.

But

perhaps

,

to

avoid

this

difficulty

,

you

will

say

that

he

therefore

added

just

afterwards

,

“

Though

an

angel

from

heaven

preach

any

other

gospel

,

let

him

be

accursed

,

”

because

he

was

aware

that

the

Creator

was

going

to

introduce

a

gospel

!

But

you

thus

entangle

yourself

still

more

.

For

this

is

now

the

mesh

in

which

you

are

caught

.

To

affirm

that

there

are

two

gospels

,

is

not

the

part

of

a

man

who

has

already

denied

that

there

is

another

.

His

meaning

,

however

,

is

clear

,

for

he

has

mentioned

himself

first

(

in

the

anathema

)

:

“

But

though

we

or

an

angel

from

heaven

preach

any

other

gospel

.

”

It

is

by

way

of

an

example

that

he

has

expressed

himself

.

If

even

he

himself

might

not

preach

any

other

gospel

,

then

neither

might

an

angel

.

He

said

“

angel

”

in

this

way

,

that

he

might

show

how

much

more

men

ought

not

to

be

believed

,

when

neither

an

angel

nor

an

apostle

ought

to

be

;

not

that

he

meant

to

apply

an

angel

to

the

gospel

of

the

Creator

.

He

then

cursorily

touches

on

his

own

conversion

from

a

persecutor

to

an

apostle

—

confirming

thereby

the

Acts

of

the

Apostles

,

in

which

book

may

be

found

the

very

subject

of

this

epistle

,

how

that

certain

persons

interposed

,

and

said

that

men

ought

to

be

circumcised

,

and

that

the

law

of

Moses

was

to

be

observed

;

and

how

the

apostles

,

when

consulted

,

determined

,

by

the

authority

of

the

Holy

Ghost

,

that

“

a

yoke

should

not

be

put

upon

men’s

necks

which

their

fathers

even

had

not

been

able

to

bear

.

”

Now

,

since

the

Acts

of

the

Apostles

thus

agree

with

Paul

,

it

becomes

apparent

why

you

reject

them

.

It

is

because

they

declare

no

other

God

than

the

Creator

,

and

prove

Christ

to

belong

to

no

other

God

than

the

Creator

;

whilst

the

promise

of

the

Holy

Ghost

is

shown

to

have

been

fulfilled

in

no

other

document

than

the

Acts

of

the

Apostles

.

Now

,

it

is

not

very

likely

that

these

should

be

found

in

agreement

with

the

apostle

,

on

the

one

hand

,

when

they

described

his

career

in

accordance

with

his

own

statement

;

but

should

,

on

the

other

hand

,

be

at

variance

with

him

when

they

announce

the

(

attribute

of

)

divinity

in

the

Creator’s

Christ

—

as

if

Paul

did

not

follow

the

preaching

of

the

apostles

when

he

received

from

them

the

prescription

of

not

teaching

the

Law

.

Notes

1
Principalem.
2
See above, in book i. chap. xx., also in book iv. chap. i.
3
Comp. Isa. xliii. 18, 19, and lxv. 17, with 2 Cor. v. 17.
4
Luke xvi. 16.
5
Apud quem.
6
Porro.
7
Immo quia.
8
Disciplina.
9
Ultro.
10
Discessionem.
11
Ut adhuc suggeremus.
12
Gal. i. 6, 7.
13
Deberet.
14
Moverat illos a.
15
Gal. i. 7.
16
Isa. xl. 9 (Septuagint).
17
Isa. lii. 7.
18
We have here an instance of the high authority of the Septuagint version. It comes from the Seventy: Καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνοματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν (Isa. xlii. 4.) From this Tertullian, as usual, quoted it. But what is much more important, St. Matthew has adopted it; see chap. xii, ver. 21. This beautiful promise of the Creator does not occur in its well-known form in the Hebrew original.
19
Isa. xlii. 6.
20
Apud: “administered by.”
21
Gal. i. 7.
22
Cum sit.
23
Gal. i. 8.
24
Gal. i. 8.
25
Referret.
26
A similar remark occurs in Præscript. Hæretic. c. xxiii. p. 253.
27
Ipsa materia.
28
See Gal. i. 11–24, compared with Acts xv. 5–29.
29
“The Acts of the Apostles” is always a plural phrase in Tertullian.
30
Ut non secutus sit.
31
Formam.
32
Dedocendæ legis; i.e., of Moses.