Tertullian: Against Marcion, Books I–V

Chapter III.—St. Paul Quite in Accordance with St. Peter and Other Apostles of the Circumcision. His Censure of St. Peter Explained, and Rescued from Marcion’s Misapplication. The Strong Protests of This Epistle Against Judaizers. Yet Its Teaching is Shown to Be in Keeping with the Law and the Prophets. Marcion’s Tampering with St. Paul’s Writings Censured.

But with regard to the countenance ^{Edition note 1} of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us ^{Edition note 2} that “fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem,” in order to confer with them ^{Edition note 3} about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case,) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method. ^{Edition note 4} So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions ^{Edition note 5} to be understood as in alliance with Judaism!

When indeed he says, that “neither was Titus circumcised,” ^{Edition note 6} he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the maintenance ^{Edition note 7} of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls “false brethren unawares brought in.” ^{Edition note 8} These persons went no further than to insist on a continuance of the law, retaining unquestionably a sincere belief in the Creator.

They perverted the gospel in their teaching, not indeed by such a tampering with the Scripture ^{Edition note 9} as should enable them to expunge ^{Edition note 10} the Creator’s Christ, but by so retaining the ancient régime as not to exclude the Creator’s law. Therefore he says:

Let us only attend to the clear ^{Edition note 12} sense and to the reason of the thing, and the perversion of the Scripture will be apparent. When he first says, “Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised,” and then adds, “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,” ^{Edition note 13} etc., he gives us an insight into his reason ^{Edition note 14} for acting in a clean contrary way, ^{Edition note 15} showing us wherefore he did that which he would neither have done nor shown to us, if that had not happened which induced him to act as he did.

But then ^{Edition note 16} I want you to tell us whether they would have yielded to the subjection that was demanded, ^{Edition note 17} if these false brethren had not crept in to spy out their liberty? I apprehend not. They therefore gave way (in a partial concession), because there were persons whose weak faith required consideration. ^{Edition note 18} For their rudimentary belief, which was still in suspense about the observance of the law, deserved this concessive treatment, ^{Edition note 19} when even the apostle himself had some suspicion that he might have run, and be still running, in vain. ^{Edition note 20} Accordingly, the false brethren who were the spies of their Christian liberty must be thwarted in their efforts to bring it under the yoke of their own Judaism before that Paul discovered whether his labour had been in vain, before that those who preceded him in the apostolate gave him their right hands of fellowship, before that he entered on the office of preaching to the Gentiles, according to their arrangement with him. ^{Edition note 21} He therefore made some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy circumcised, ^{Edition note 22} and the Nazarites introduced into the temple, ^{Edition note 23} which incidents are described in the Acts.

Their truth may be inferred from their agreement with the apostle’s own profession, how “to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them that were under the law, as under the law,”—and so here with respect to those who come in secretly,—“and lastly, how he became all things to all men, that he might gain all.” ^{Edition note 24} Now, inasmuch as the circumstances require such an interpretation as this, no one will refuse to admit that Paul preached that God and that Christ whose law he was excluding all the while, however much he allowed it, owing to the times, but which he would have had summarily to abolish if he had published a new god.

Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen, and themselves to the circumcision. ^{Edition note 25} Their agreement, also, “to remember the poor” ^{Edition note 26} was in complete conformity with the law of the Creator, which cherished the poor and needy, as has been shown in our observations on your Gospel. ^{Edition note 27} It is thus certain that the question was one which simply regarded the law, while at the same time it is apparent what portion of the law it was convenient to have observed.

Paul, however, censures Peter for not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel. No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of “eating,” ^{Edition note 28} which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with) “fearing them which were of the circumcision,” ^{Edition note 29} but not on account of any perverse opinion touching another god. For if such a question had arisen, others also would have been “resisted face to face” by the man who had not even spared Peter on the comparatively small matter of his doubtful conversation.

But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? For the rest, the apostle must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that “a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith:” ^{Edition note 30} faith, however, in the same God to whom belongs the law also. For of course he would have bestowed no labour on severing faith from the law, when the difference of the god would, if there had only been any, have of itself produced such a severance.

Justly, therefore, did he refuse to “build up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown.” ^{Edition note 31} The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John “cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord,” that valleys ^{Edition note 32} and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth ^{Edition note 33} —in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel.

For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us;” ^{Edition note 34} since the time when “the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined vain counsels;” when “the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ,” ^{Edition note 35} in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law, ^{Edition note 36} “because the just shall live by his faith.” ^{Edition note 37} Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first said this, yet you have the apostle here confirming the prophets, even as Christ did.

The object, therefore, of the faith whereby the just man shall live, will be that same God to whom likewise belongs the law, by doing which no man is justified. Since, then, there equally are found the curse in the law and the blessing in faith, you have both conditions set forth by ^{Edition note 38} the Creator: “Behold,” says He, “I have set before you a blessing and a curse.” ^{Edition note 39} You cannot establish a diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things; for the diversity is itself proposed by one and the same author.

Why, however, “Christ was made a curse for us,” ^{Edition note 40} is declared by the apostle himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the Creator’s appointment. But yet it by no means follows, because the Creator said of old, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” ^{Edition note 41} that Christ belonged to another god, and on that account was accursed even then in the law. And how, indeed, could the Creator have cursed by anticipation one whom He knew not of?

Why, however, may it not be more suitable for the Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own curse, than to have submitted Him to the malediction of that god of yours,—in behalf, too, of man, who is an alien to him? Now, if this appointment of the Creator respecting His Son appears to you to be a cruel one, it is equally so in the case of your own god; if, on the contrary, it be in accordance with reason in your god, it is equally so—nay, much more so—in mine. For it would be more credible that that God had provided blessing for man, through the curse of Christ, who formerly set both a blessing and a curse before man, than that he had done so, who, according to you, ^{Edition note 42} never at any time pronounced either.

“We have received therefore, the promise of the Spirit,” as the apostle says, “through faith,” even that faith by which the just man lives, in accordance with the Creator’s purpose. ^{Edition note 43} What I say, then, is this, that that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of faith. But when he also adds, “For ye are all the children of faith,” ^{Edition note 44} it becomes clear that what the heretic’s industry erased was the mention of Abraham’s name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be “children of Abraham,” ^{Edition note 45} and after mentioning him he expressly called us “children of faith” also.

But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not Abraham’s? For since “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness;” ^{Edition note 46} since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called “the father of many nations,” whilst we, who are even more like him ^{Edition note 47} in believing in God, are thereby justified as Abraham was, and thereby also obtain life—since the just lives by his faith,—it therefore happens that, as he in the previous passage called us “sons of Abraham,” since he is in faith our (common) father, ^{Edition note 48} so here also he named us “children of faith,” for it was owing to his faith that it was promised that Abraham should be the father of (many) nations.

As to the fact itself of his calling off faith from circumcision, did he not seek thereby to constitute us the children of Abraham, who had believed previous to his circumcision in the flesh? ^{Edition note 49} In short, ^{Edition note 50} faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to the dispensation ^{Edition note 51} of the other, ^{Edition note 52} so that it should impute righteousness to those who believe in him, and make the just live through him, and declare the Gentiles to be his children through faith.

Such a dispensation as this belongs wholly to Him through whose appointment it was already made known by the call of this self-same Abraham, as is conclusively shown ^{Edition note 53} by the natural meaning. ^{Edition note 54}