Against Marcion 4.33–4.35

Which two masters he says cannot both be served, since one must necessarily be offended and the other defended, he himself declares, setting forth God and mammon. So whom he wants to be understood by mammon, if you have no interpreter, you can learn from him. For when he advises us to secure for ourselves, from worldly goods, the support of friendships, after the example of that servant who, removed from his stewardship, relieved his master's debtors by reducing their bonds as a help for himself, he says: “And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by the mammon of unrighteousness,” that is, by money, as that servant also did. For we all know money to be the author of unrighteousness and the ruler of the whole world. Seeing the greed of the Pharisees enslaved to it, he attached this sentence: “You cannot serve God and mammon.” In fact the money-loving Pharisees mocked him, because they understood, of course, that mammon was said of money; so let no one think that by mammon the Creator is to be understood, and that Christ called them back from the service of the Creator. What then? Rather learn from this that one God was shown by Christ. For he named two masters, God and mammon, the Creator and money: so, “You cannot serve God” — surely the one whom they seemed to serve — “and mammon,” to whom they were more devoted. But if he were presenting himself as another, he would have pointed out not two masters but three — for the Creator too is a master, since he is God, and surely more a master than mammon, and more to be observed by man, inasmuch as he is more a master —; for what sort of thing is it that one who had called mammon a master and had joined it with the true master should have kept silent about the master himself, that is, God the Creator? Or by keeping silent about him did he concede that he must be served, since he denied only that both he himself and mammon could be served? So when he sets down one God — he who would have named the Creator too if he himself were another — he named as the Creator the one whom he set down without any other. And so that saying too will shine out, in what sense it was said: “(If) you have not been faithful in unrighteous mammon, who will entrust to you what is true?” — in unrighteous money, of course, not in the Creator, whom even Marcion makes just; and: “If you have not been found faithful in what is another's, who will give you what is mine?” For what is unrighteous ought to be foreign to the servants of God. But how was the Creator foreign to the Pharisees, being the proper God of the Jewish nation? If, then, these things do not apply to the Creator but to mammon, “who will entrust to you what is truer?” and “who will give you what is mine?” He cannot have spoken as though of another's gift, that of another god. For he would seem to have spoken so only if, by marking them as unfaithful toward the Creator and not toward mammon, he had by mentioning the Creator distinguished himself as another god, who would not entrust his truth to those unfaithful to the Creator; … since a thing can seem to belong to another only when it is not set forth for the purpose of being separated from the matter at hand.

And if the Pharisees too, justifying themselves before men, placed their hope of reward in man, he rebuked them in the same sense as the prophet Jeremiah: “Wretched is the man who has hope in man.” If he adds too, “But God knows your hearts,” he was recalling the power of that God (who) had declared himself a lamp searching the reins and hearts. If he touches on pride — “What is exalted among men is abhorrent to God” — he sets Isaiah before our eyes: “For the day of the Lord of hosts is upon everyone insolent and proud, upon everyone lofty and exalted, and they shall be brought low.”

I can now gather why Marcion's god was in hiding for so long an age. He was waiting, I suppose, until he had learned all these things from the Creator. So he learned up to John's time, and then came forward to announce the kingdom of God, saying: “The law and the prophets were until John; since then the kingdom of God is proclaimed.” As if we too did not recognize John as a kind of boundary set between the old and the new, at which Judaism would cease and from which Christianity would begin; yet not so that the stilling of the law and the prophets and the beginning of the gospel, in which is the kingdom of God, was brought about by another power. For if we have proved that the passing away of the old and the succession of the new were foretold by the Creator; if John too is shown to be the forerunner and preparer of the ways of the Lord, who would bring in the gospel and proclaim the kingdom of God; and if from the very fact that John came, the one who followed John as his forerunner will be the Christ; and if the old ceased and the new began with John standing between them, it will be no wonder that this comes from the Creator's arrangement, so that it may be proved from anywhere at all … more than from the setting of the law and the prophets in John and the rising of the kingdom of God from then on. Let heaven and earth pass away, then, sooner — as the law and the prophets did — than one tittle of the Lord's words: “For the word of our God,” says Isaiah, “abides forever.” For since in Isaiah even then Christ, that is, the Word and Spirit of the Creator, had foretold that John — “the voice of one crying in the wilderness: prepare the way of the Lord” — would come for this purpose, that the order of the law and prophets should cease from then on, by fulfillment, not by destruction, and the kingdom of God be proclaimed by Christ, he therefore added that the elements would pass away more easily than his words, confirming this too, that what he had said about John had not passed away.

(But Christ forbids divorce, saying: “Whoever puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, (and) whoever marries a woman put away by her husband is likewise an adulterer” — so as to forbid divorce in this way too, he makes the marriage of a repudiated woman unlawful — whereas Moses permits repudiation in Deuteronomy: “If someone takes a wife and lives with her, and it happens that she does not find favor with him because something shameful has been found in her, he shall write a bill of repudiation and put it in her hand and send her away from his house.” Do you see the difference between the law and the gospel, between Moses and Christ? Of course you do. For you have not accepted that other gospel too, of the same truth and the same Christ, in which, while forbidding divorce, he settled the particular question about it: “Moses, because of the hardness of your heart, commanded a bill of repudiation to be given; but from the beginning it was not so”; because, of course, he who had made male and female had said, “The two shall be in one flesh; therefore what God has joined, let man (not) separate.” For by this answer he both protected the ordinance of Moses as his own and set right the institution of the Creator, as the Creator's Christ. But since you are to be refuted from what you have accepted, I will meet you as if my Christ were (yours): did not he too, while forbidding divorce, and yet bearing the likeness of him who joined male and female, excuse rather than destroy the ordinance of Moses? But see, let this Christ of yours be one who teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on these terms: that if I do not show him to be contrary, he is mine. For I say that he made the prohibition of divorce conditional here: if someone puts away his wife in order to marry another. “Whoever puts away his wife,” he says, “and marries another has committed adultery; and whoever marries a woman put away by her husband is likewise an adulterer”: a woman put away, of course, for the same reason for which it is not lawful to put her away, namely so that another wife may be taken; for whoever marries a woman unlawfully put away, as though she had not been put away, is an adulterer. For a marriage that has not been properly dissolved remains; and to marry while a marriage remains is adultery. So if he forbade putting away a wife conditionally, he did not forbid it absolutely; and what he did not forbid absolutely he permitted in other cases, where the reason for which he forbade it is absent; and so he teaches nothing contrary to Moses, whose precept he preserves in a certain case — I do not yet say confirms. Or if you deny altogether that divorce is permitted by Christ, how is it that you dissolve marriages, neither joining male and female yourself nor admitting those joined elsewhere to the sacrament of baptism and of the Eucharist unless they have sworn together against the fruit of marriage, as against the Creator himself? Surely, what will a husband do among you if his wife has committed adultery? Will he keep her? But you (know) that not even your apostle allows the members of Christ to be joined to a prostitute. So the justice of divorce has Christ too as its defender. Here at once Moses is confirmed by him, since Moses allows repudiation on the same ground as Christ does: “if something shameful has been found in the woman.” For in the gospel of Matthew too he says: “Whoever puts away his wife except for the cause of adultery makes her commit adultery.” And so he too is judged an adulterer who marries a woman put away by her husband. But except on the ground of adultery, not even the Creator separates what he himself, of course, has joined, since the same Moses elsewhere lays down that one who has made a marriage by violating a woman may never put away his wife. And if a marriage compelled by violence will stand, how much more one entered willingly by agreement? As by the authority of prophecy: “You shall not put away the wife of your youth.” So you have Christ freely following everywhere in the footsteps of the Creator, both in permitting repudiation and in forbidding it; you have him also, whichever way you try to hide, as the guardian of marriage, which he wants neither to be broken apart, forbidding repudiation, nor to be kept with a stain on it, permitting divorce in that case. Blush, you who do not join those whom even your Christ has joined; blush also, you who separate them without the ground on which even your Christ was willing for them to be separated.

I must now show also from what the Lord drew this saying and at what he aimed it. For so it will be more fully established that he did not aim at destroying Moses by suddenly interposing a statement on repudiation, since it was not interposed suddenly, but has its root in the same mention of John. For John, rebuking Herod because, against the law, he had married the wife of his dead brother, who had a daughter by her — the law not permitting this, and indeed commanding it only when a brother has died childless, so that seed might be raised up for him by his own brother and from his own rib — had been cast into prison by the same Herod, and was afterwards killed. So, having mentioned John, the Lord, stirred surely by his death, hurled figures of unlawful marriages and of adultery at Herod, pronouncing an adulterer even one who marries a woman put away by her husband, so as to weigh down all the more the impiety of Herod, who had married a woman put away from her husband no less by repudiation than by death — and that when his brother had a daughter by her, and on that ground too unlawfully — at the prompting of lust, not of the law, and for that reason had also killed the prophet who upheld the law.

This discussion will help me also with the following argument, about the rich man in pain among the dead and the poor man at rest in Abraham's bosom. For that too, as regards the surface of the Scripture, is introduced suddenly; but as regards the intent of its meaning, it too coheres with the mention of John mistreated and of Herod wrongly married, depicting the end of each, Herod's torments and John's refreshment, so that Herod might now hear: “They have Moses and the prophets there; let them hear them.” But Marcion forces it another way: he assigns both of the Creator's rewards, whether of torment or of refreshment, to the underworld, as laid up for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets, but he defines the bosom and harbor of Christ and his god as heavenly. We will answer this too, since Scripture itself refutes his eyes, the Scripture which set Abraham's bosom for the poor man apart from the underworld. For the underworld, I think, is one thing, and Abraham's bosom another. For it says also that a great gulf lies between those regions and prevents passage either way. Nor would the rich man have lifted up his eyes, and that from afar, except toward higher places, and to the distance of the height, across that immense distance between height and depth. From this it is clear to every wise man who has ever heard of the Elysian fields that there is some determined place, called Abraham's bosom, for receiving the souls of his children, even from the nations — his, that is, as the father of many nations — who are to be counted in Abraham's line by the same faith with which Abraham too believed God, under no yoke of the law and in no sign of circumcision. That region, then, Abraham's bosom, I say, though not heavenly, yet higher than the underworld, provides refreshment meanwhile to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of things completes the resurrection of all with the fullness of reward. Then will appear the heavenly promise — which Marcion claims for his (god), as though it had not been proclaimed by the Creator — to which Christ builds his ascent into heaven, according to Hosea, surely for his own, where there is also the everlasting place of which Isaiah says: “Who will announce to you the everlasting place?” Who but Christ, walking in righteousness, speaking the right way, hating unrighteousness and iniquity? And if an everlasting place is promised and an ascent into heaven is built by the Creator, who also promises that the seed of Abraham will be like the stars of heaven, surely because of the heavenly promise, why, with that promise kept intact, should it not be admissible that Abraham's bosom is the name of some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, in which an image of the future is even now sketched and a certain bright foreview of both judgments is seen? It warns you heretics too, while you are in this life, … Moses and the prophets, who preach one God the Creator and preach his one Christ, and that both judgments, of punishment and of eternal salvation, rest with the one God, who kills and makes alive. No, he says, the admonition of our God from heaven commanded that not Moses and the prophets but Christ be heard: “Hear him.” Rightly. For by then the apostles had already heard Moses and the prophets enough, since they had followed Christ by believing Moses and the prophets. For Peter would not have been granted to say, “You are the Christ,” before he had heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had until then been announced. This faith of theirs, then, had earned confirmation even by a heavenly voice, commanding that he be heard whom they had recognized as preaching peace, preaching good things, announcing the everlasting place, building for them his ascent into heaven. But in the underworld it was said of those — “They have Moses and the prophets there; let them hear them” — who did not believe at all, or did not quite believe, that after death punishments had been announced by Moses and the prophets for the pride of riches and the glory of luxuries, and decreed by that God who puts down the mighty from their thrones and raises the needy from the dunghills. So since the difference between the two pronouncements befits the Creator, it is not a distinction between deities that must be established, but a distinction between the matters themselves.

Turning to the disciples in the same place, (he pronounces woe) on the author of stumbling blocks: it would have been better for him if he had not been born, or if he had been thrown into the deep with a millstone tied round his neck, than that he should cause one of those little ones, surely his disciples, to stumble. Consider what punishment he threatens. For no other will avenge the stumbling of his disciples. Recognize, then, both a judge, and one who speaks about care for his own with the same affection as the Creator long ago: “Whoever touches you is as one who touches the pupil of my eye.” The same sense belongs to the same one. He commands a sinning brother to be rebuked; whoever does not do this has surely sinned, either wishing out of hatred that his brother should persist in sin, or sparing him out of partiality. You have Leviticus: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall surely reprove your neighbor” — and surely your brother — “and you shall not incur sin because of him.” And no wonder he teaches this, who forbids you to disregard even your brother's cattle, if you find them straying on the road, rather than lead them back to your brother, much less to neglect bringing back your brother himself to himself. He also commands you to forgive a brother who sins against you, even seven times. Too little, plainly. For there is more with the Creator, who set no limit, declaring without end: “Do not remember your brother's malice,” and commands you to grant forgiveness not only to one who asks it but even to one who does not. For he wants you not merely to pardon the offense but to forget it.

How much interpretation the law of the lepers requires, regarding the kinds of that disease and the inspection by the high priest, is for us to know; for Marcion, it is to set against it the fussiness of the law, so as here too to affirm that Christ is its rival, anticipating the solemn rites of the law even in the healing of the ten lepers, whom he cleansed on the way, merely commanding them to go and show themselves to the priests, now without touch and without a word, by silent power and his will alone. As if, once Christ had been announced as the healer of sicknesses and diseases and proved by the results, there were any need to reconsider the manner of the cures, or to summon the Creator in Christ to account under the law, if he himself accomplished something otherwise than he laid down in the law; since surely the Lord works in one way by himself or through the Son, and in another (through) the prophets his servants, especially in proofs of might and power, which, as clearer and stronger, being his own, may rightly differ from those done by deputies. But things of this kind have already been said elsewhere, in the previous book. Now, even though he had said earlier that there were many lepers in Israel in the days of the prophet Elisha and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian, the number surely will not make for a difference of gods, to the destruction of the Creator, who healed one, and the preference of him who cleansed ten. For who will doubt that more could have been healed by him who had healed one than ten by the other, who had never before healed even one? But by this very saying he strikes at the distrust or the pride of Israel: that though there were many lepers there and a prophet was not lacking, even when a proof had been given, no one ran to God working in the prophet. So, since he himself was the authentic high priest of God the Father, he inspected them according to the hidden meaning of the law, which signifies that Christ is the true examiner and remover of human stains. But he also commanded what was plain in the law: “Go, show yourselves to the priests.” Why, if he was going to cleanse them first? Or was it as a mocker of the law, so that, having healed them on the way, he might show that the law, along with the priests themselves, is nothing? Well, let him see to it, to whom Christ seems so given to fancies. No, worthier interpretations and ones more in keeping with faith should be given: they were healed because, having been commanded to go to the priests according to the law, they had obeyed. For it is not credible that observers of the law earned healing from a destroyer of the law. But why did he give no such command to the earlier leper? Because neither did Elisha to Naaman the Syrian; and yet not for that reason was Elisha not the Creator's. I have answered enough; but the one who believes understands something deeper as well. Learn, then, the reasons too. The event took place in the regions of Samaria, and one of the lepers was also from there. Now Samaria had revolted from Israel, holding to that schism of the nine tribes, torn away through the prophet Ahijah, which Jeroboam had settled at Samaria. And besides, the Samaritans were always pleased with themselves over the mountains and wells of the fathers, as in John's gospel that Samaritan woman, talking with the Lord at the well: “Are you greater?” and so on; and again: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you say that one must worship at Jerusalem.” So he who had also said through Isaiah, “Woe to those who trust in the mountain of Samaria,” now himself deigning to restore it, deliberately commands them to show themselves to the priests — who surely were nowhere but where the temple was — subjecting the Samaritan to the Jew, since salvation is from the Jews, whether for Israelites or Samaritans, for the whole promise was to the tribe of Judah — so that they might know that at Jerusalem were the priests and the temple and the mother of religion and the fountain, not a well, of salvation. And so, when he saw that they had acknowledged that the law was to be fulfilled at Jerusalem, he healed them, since they were now to be justified by faith without the order of the law. That is why, marveling at that one Samaritan out of the ten, who was set free and mindful of divine grace, he does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he had already offered enough by giving glory to God, the Lord wishing this too to interpret the law. And yet to what God did the Samaritan give thanks, when not even an Israelite had until then learned of another god? To what other than the one to whom all those formerly healed by Christ gave thanks? And so he heard, “Your faith has saved you,” because he had understood that he ought to make the true offering to almighty God, namely thanksgiving, at his true temple and before his true high priest, Christ.

But neither can the Pharisees seem to have asked the Lord when the kingdom of another god would come, so long as no other god had been made known by Christ, nor can he seem to have answered about the kingdom of any other than the one about whose kingdom he was asked. “The kingdom of God,” he says, “does not come with observation, nor do they say, ‘See, here! See, there!’; for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” Who will not interpret “is within you” thus: that is, in your hand, in your power, if you hear and do God's commandment? And if the kingdom of God lies in the commandment, then set Moses against it, after the manner of our own antitheses, and the sense is one. “The commandment,” he says, “is not high nor far from you. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up into heaven and bring it down to us, and having heard it we will do it?’ Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross over and fetch it for us, and having heard it we will do it?’ The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart and in your hands, to do it.” This will be: “Not here nor there; for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” And lest heretical boldness argue that the Lord answered them not about the Creator's kingdom, about which he was asked, but about his own, what follows stands in the way. For by saying that the Son of Man must first suffer many things and be rejected before his coming, in which the kingdom too will be revealed in substance, he showed that the kingdom about which he had answered was his own, since it awaited his sufferings and rejection. And since he was to be rejected and afterwards acknowledged and taken up and exalted, he took even the word “rejected” from the place where, in the riddle of the stone, both his manifestations were sung in David, the first to be refused, the second to be honored: “The stone,” he says, “which the builders rejected, this has become the head of the corner; this was done by the Lord.” For it would be empty to believe that God prophesied about the dishonor or glory of some piece of flint, and did not portend him in the figure of a stone too, whom he had portended also in the figure of a rock and of a mountain.

But if he is speaking of his own coming, why does a mild and gentle god compare it to the dark and dreadful days of Noah and Lot? Why does he warn us to remember Lot's wife, who did not despise the Creator's command with impunity, if he will not come with judgment to avenge his own commands? Even if he does avenge like the Creator, if he judges, he ought not to have formed me by the proofs of the one he is destroying, lest it seem to be the Creator who forms me. But if here too he is not speaking of his own coming but of that of the Jews' Christ, let us wait still for him to preach something about his own, believing meanwhile that he is the Creator's Christ, since he preaches him in every place.