Tertullian: Against Marcion, Books I–V

Chapter XIV.—The Divine Power Shown in Christ’s Incarnation. Meaning of St. Paul’s Phrase. Likeness of Sinful Flesh. No Docetism in It. Resurrection of Our Real Bodies. A Wide Chasm Made in the Epistle by Marcion’s Erasure. When the Jews are Upbraided by the Apostle for Their Misconduct to God; Inasmuch as that God Was the Creator, a Proof is in Fact Given that St. Paul’s God Was the Creator. The Precepts at the End of the Epistle, Which Marcion Allowed, Shown to Be in Exact Accordance with the Creator’s Scriptures.

If the Father “sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” ^{Edition note 1} it must not therefore be said that the flesh which He seemed to have was but a phantom. For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it out to be “the law of sin dwelling in his members,” and “warring against the law of the mind.” ^{Edition note 2} On this account, therefore, (does he mean to say that) the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might redeem this sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which bare a resemblance to sinful flesh, although it was itself free from sin.

Now this will be the very perfection of divine power to effect the salvation (of man) in a nature like his own. ^{Edition note 3} For it would be no great matter if the Spirit of God remedied the flesh; but when a flesh, which is the very copy ^{Edition note 4} of the sinning substance—itself flesh also—only without sin, (effects the remedy, then doubtless it is a great thing). The likeness, therefore, will have reference to the quality ^{Edition note 5} of the sinfulness, and not to any falsity ^{Edition note 6} of the substance.

Because he would not have added the attribute “sinful,” ^{Edition note 7} if he meant the “likeness” to be so predicated of the substance as to deny the verity thereof; in that case he would only have used the word “flesh,” and omitted the “sinful.” But inasmuch as he has put the two together, and said “sinful flesh,” (or “flesh of sin,”) ^{Edition note 8} he has both affirmed the substance, that is, the flesh and referred the likeness to the fault of the substance, that is, to its sin.

But even suppose ^{Edition note 9} that the likeness was predicated of the substance, the truth of the said substance will not be thereby denied. Why then call the true substance like? Because it is indeed true, only not of a seed of like condition ^{Edition note 10} with our own; but true still, as being of a nature ^{Edition note 11} not really unlike ours. ^{Edition note 12} And again, in contrary things there is no likeness.

Thus the likeness of flesh would not be called spirit, because flesh is not susceptible of any likeness to spirit; but it would be called phantom, if it seemed to be that which it really was not. It is, however, called likeness, since it is what it seems to be. Now it is (what it seems to be), because it is on a par with the other thing (with which it is compared). ^{Edition note 13} But a phantom, which is merely such and nothing else, ^{Edition note 14} is not a likeness.

The apostle, however, himself here comes to our aid; for, while explaining in what sense he would not have us “live in the flesh,” although in the flesh—even by not living in the works of the flesh ^{Edition note 15} —he shows that when he wrote the words, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” ^{Edition note 16} it was not with the view of condemning the substance (of the flesh), but the works thereof; and because it is possible for these not to be committed by us whilst we are still in the flesh, they will therefore be properly chargeable, ^{Edition note 17} not on the substance of the flesh, but on its conduct.

Likewise, if “the body indeed is dead because of sin” (from which statement we see that not the death of the soul is meant, but that of the body), “but the spirit is life because of righteousness,” ^{Edition note 18} it follows that this life accrues to that which incurred death because of sin, that is, as we have just seen, the body. Now the body ^{Edition note 19} is only restored to him who had lost it; so that the resurrection of the dead implies the resurrection of their bodies.

He accordingly subjoins: “He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies.” ^{Edition note 20} In these words he both affirmed the resurrection of the flesh (without which nothing can rightly be called ^{Edition note 21} body, nor can anything be properly regarded as mortal), and proved the bodily substance of Christ; inasmuch as our own mortal bodies will be quickened in precisely the same way as He was raised; and that was in no other way than in the body.

I have here a very wide gulf of expunged Scripture to leap across; ^{Edition note 22} however, I alight on the place where the apostle bears record of Israel “that they have a zeal of God”—their own God, of course—“but not according to knowledge. For,” says he,

Hereupon we shall be confronted with an argument of the heretic, that the Jews were ignorant of the superior God, ^{Edition note 24} since, in opposition to him, they set up their own righteousness—that is, the righteousness of their law—not receiving Christ, the end (or finisher) of the law. But how then is it that he bears testimony to their zeal for their own God, if it is not in respect of the same God that he upbraids them for their ignorance? They were affected indeed with zeal for God, but it was not an intelligent zeal: they were, in fact, ignorant of Him, because they were ignorant of His dispensations by Christ, who was to bring about the consummation of the law; and in this way did they maintain their own righteousness in opposition to Him.

But so does the Creator Himself testify to their ignorance concerning Him: “Israel hath not known me; my people have not understood me;” ^{Edition note 25} and as to their preferring the establishment of their own righteousness, (the Creator again describes them as) “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;” ^{Edition note 26} moreover, as “having gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ” ^{Edition note 27} —from ignorance of Him, of course.

Now nothing can be expounded of another god which is applicable to the Creator; otherwise the apostle would not have been just in reproaching the Jews with ignorance in respect of a god of whom they knew nothing. For where had been their sin, if they only maintained the righteousness of their own God against one of whom they were ignorant? But he exclaims: “O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God; how unsearchable also are His ways!” ^{Edition note 28} Whence this outburst of feeling?

Surely from the recollection of the Scriptures, which he had been previously turning over, as well as from his contemplation of the mysteries which he had been setting forth above, in relation to the faith of Christ coming from the law. ^{Edition note 29} If Marcion had an object in his erasures, ^{Edition note 30} why does his apostle utter such an exclamation, because his god has no riches for him to contemplate? So poor and indigent was he, that he created nothing, predicted nothing—in short, possessed nothing; for it was into the world of another God that he descended.

The truth is, the Creator’s resources and riches, which once had been hidden, were now disclosed. For so had He promised: “I will give to them treasures which have been hidden, and which men have not seen will I open to them.” ^{Edition note 31} Hence, then, came the exclamation, “O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God!” For His treasures were now opening out. This is the purport of what Isaiah said, and of (the apostle’s own) subsequent quotation of the self-same passage, of the prophet: “Who hath known the mind of the Lord?

or who hath been His counsellor? Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him again?” ^{Edition note 32} Now, (Marcion,) since you have expunged so much from the Scriptures, why did you retain these words, as if they too were not the Creator’s words? But come now, let us see without mistake ^{Edition note 33} the precepts of your new god: “Abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good.” ^{Edition note 34} Well, is the precept different in the Creator’s teaching?

“Take away the evil from you, depart from it, and be doing good.” ^{Edition note 35} Then again: “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love.” ^{Edition note 36} Now is not this of the same import as: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self?” ^{Edition note 37} (Again, your apostle says:) “Rejoicing in hope;” ^{Edition note 38} that is, of God. So says the Creator’s Psalmist: “It is better to hope in the Lord, than to hope even in princes.” ^{Edition note 39} “Patient in tribulation.” ^{Edition note 40} You have (this in) the Psalm: “The Lord hear thee in the day of tribulation.” ^{Edition note 41} “Bless, and curse not,” ^{Edition note 42} (says your apostle.)

But what better teacher of this will you find than Him who created all things, and blessed them? “Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.” ^{Edition note 43} For against such a disposition Isaiah pronounces a woe. ^{Edition note 44} “Recompense to no man evil for evil.” ^{Edition note 45} (Like unto which is the Creator’s precept:) “Thou shalt not remember thy brother’s evil against thee.” ^{Edition note 46} (Again:) “Avenge not yourselves;” ^{Edition note 47} for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” ^{Edition note 48} “Live peaceably with all men.” ^{Edition note 49} The retaliation of the law, therefore, permitted not retribution for an injury; it rather repressed any attempt thereat by the fear of a recompense.

Very properly, then, did he sum up the entire teaching of the Creator in this precept of His: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” ^{Edition note 50} Now, if this is the recapitulation of the law from the very law itself, I am at a loss to know who is the God of the law. I fear He must be Marcion’s god (after all). ^{Edition note 51} If also the gospel of Christ is fulfilled in this same precept, but not the Creator’s Christ, what is the use of our contending any longer whether Christ did or did not say, “I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it?” ^{Edition note 52} In vain has (our man of) Pontus laboured to deny this statement. ^{Edition note 53} If the gospel has not fulfilled the law, then all I can say is, ^{Edition note 54} the law has fulfilled the gospel.

But it is well that in a later verse he threatens us with “the judgment-seat of Christ,”—the Judge, of course, and the Avenger, and therefore the Creator’s (Christ). This Creator, too, however much he may preach up another god, he certainly sets forth for us as a Being to be served, ^{Edition note 55} if he holds Him thus up as an object to be feared.