Chapter XXXVIII.—Christ’s Refutations of the Pharisees. Rendering Dues to Cæsar and to God. Next of the Sadducees, Respecting Marriage in the Resurrection. These Prove Him Not to Be Marcion’s But the Creator’s Christ.  Marcion’s Tamperings in Order to Make Room for His Second God, Exposed and Confuted.

Christ knew “the baptism of John, whence it was.”2660    Luke xx. 4. Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question.  Suppose their answer to have been, that John’s baptism was “of men,” they would have been immediately stoned to death.2661    Luke xx. 6. Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up2662    Existeret. and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator’s!  Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually2663    Ipse. on the very precipice. For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree.2664    “Of knowledge of good and evil.” The “law” thereof occurs in Gen. iii. 3. But John’s baptism was “from heaven.” “Why, therefore,” asks Christ, “did ye not believe him?”2665    Luke xx. 5. He therefore who had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure2666    Increpaturus. them because they had not believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate,2667    Certe. [The word sacrament not technical here.] when He actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things,”2668    Luke xx. 8. He returned evil for evil! “Render unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.”2669    Luke xx. 25. What will be “the things which are God’s?” Such things as are like Cæsar’s denarius—that is to say, His image and similitude. That, therefore, which he commands to be “rendered unto God,” the Creator, is man, who has been stamped with His image, likeness, name, and substance.2670    Materia. Let Marcion’s god look after his own mint.2671    Monetam. Christ bids the denarius of man’s imprint to be rendered to His Cæsar, (His Cæsar I say,) not the Cæsar of a strange god.2672    Non alieno. The truth, however, must be confessed, this god has not a denarius to call his own! In every question the just and proper rule is, that the meaning of the answer ought to be adapted to the proposed inquiry. But it is nothing short of madness to return an answer altogether different from the question submitted to you. God forbid, then, that we should expect from Christ2673    Quo magis absit a Christo. conduct which would be unfit even to an ordinary man! The Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection, in a discussion on that subject, had proposed to the Lord a case of law touching a certain woman, who, in accordance with the legal prescription, had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other. The question therefore was, to which husband must she be reckoned to belong in the resurrection?2674    Luke xx. 27–33. This, (observe,) was the gist of the inquiry, this was the sum and substance of the dispute.  And to it Christ was obliged to return a direct answer. He had nobody to fear; that it should seem advisable2675    Ut videatur. for Him either to evade their questions, or to make them the occasion of indirectly mooting2676    Subostendisse. a subject which He was not in the habit of teaching publicly at any other time. He therefore gave His answer, that “the children of this world marry.”2677    Luke xx. 34. You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. “But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection.”2678    Luke xx. 35, 36. If, then, the meaning of the answer must not turn on any other point than on the proposed question, and since the question proposed is fully understood from this sense of the answer,2679    Surely Oehler’s responsio ought to be responsionis, as the older books have it. then the Lord’s reply admits of no other interpretation than that by which the question is clearly understood.2680    Absolvitur. You have both the time in which marriage is permitted, and the time in which it is said to be unsuitable, laid before you, not on their own account, but in consequence of an inquiry about the resurrection. You have likewise a confirmation of the resurrection itself, and the whole question which the Sadducees mooted, who asked no question about another god, nor inquired about the proper law of marriage. Now, if you make Christ answer questions which were not submitted to Him, you, in fact, represent Him as having been unable to solve the points on which He was really consulted, and entrapped of course by the cunning of the Sadducees. I shall now proceed, by way of supererogation,2681    Ex abundanti. and after the rule (I have laid down about questions and answers),2682    We have translated here, post præscriptionem, according to the more frequent sense of the word, præscriptio. But there is another meaning of the word, which is not unknown to our author, equivalent to our objection or demurrer, or (to quote Oehler’s definition) “clausula qua reus adversarii intentionem oppugnat—the form by which the defendant rebuts the plaintiff’s charge.” According to this sense, we read: “I shall now proceed…and after putting in a demurrer (or taking exception) against the tactics of my opponent.” to deal with the arguments which have any consistency in them.2683    Cohærentes. They procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work with its text, by reading it thus:2684    Decucurrerunt in legendo: or, “they ran through it, by thus reading.” “Those whom the god of that world shall account worthy.” They add the phrase “of that world” to the word “god,” whereby they make another god “the god of that world;” whereas the passage ought to be read thus: “Those whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world” (removing the distinguishing phrase “of this world” to the end of the clause,2685    We have adapted, rather than translated, Tertullian’s words in this parenthesis.  His words of course suit the order of the Latin, which differs from the English. The sentence in Latin is, “Quos autem dignatus est Deus illius ævi possessione et resurrectione a mortuis.” The phrase in question is illius ævi.  Where shall it stand? The Marcionites placed it after “Deus” in government, but Tertullian (following the undoubted meaning of the sentence) says it depends on “possessione et resurrectione,” i.e., “worthy of the possession, etc., of that world.” To effect this construction, he says, “Ut facta hic distinctione post deum ad sequentia pertineat illius ævi;” i.e., he requests that a stop be placed after the word “deus,” whereby the phrase “illius ævi” will belong to the words which follow—“possessione et resurrectione a mortuis.” in other words, “Those whom God shall account worthy of obtaining and rising to that world.” For the question submitted to Christ had nothing to do with the god, but only with the state, of that world. It was: “Whose wife should this woman be in that world after the resurrection?”2686    Luke xx. 33. They thus subvert His answer respecting the essential question of marriage, and apply His words, “The children of this world marry and are given in marriage,” as if they referred to the Creator’s men, and His permission to them to marry; whilst they themselves whom the god of that world—that is, the rival god—accounted worthy of the resurrection, do not marry even here, because they are not children of this world. But the fact is, that, having been consulted about marriage in that world, not in this present one, He had simply declared the non-existence of that to which the question related. They, indeed, who had caught the very force of His voice, and pronunciation, and expression, discovered no other sense than what had reference to the matter of the question. Accordingly, the Scribes exclaimed, “Master, Thou hast well said.”2687    Luke xx. 39. For He had affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form2688    Formam: “its conditions” or “process.” thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees. Now, He did not reject the attestation of those who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. If, however, the Scribes thought Christ was David’s Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord,2689    Luke xx. 41–44. what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally confute2690    Non obtundebat. an error of the Scribes, yet David asserted the honour of Christ, when he more prominently affirmed that He was his Lord than his Son,—an attribute which was hardly suitable to the destroyer of the Creator. But how consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question! For He, who had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as “the Son of David,”2691    Luke xviii. 38. then made no remark on the subject, not having the Scribes in His presence; whereas He now purposely moots the point before them, and that of His own accord,2692    Luke xx. 41. in order that He might show Himself whom the blind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply declared to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord. He thus honoured the blind man’s faith which had acknowledged His Sonship to David; but at the same time He struck a blow at the tradition of the Scribes, which prevented them from knowing that He was also (David’s) Lord.  Whatever had relation to the glory of the Creator’s Christ, no other would thus guard and maintain2693    Tueretur. but Himself the Creator’s Christ.

CAPUT XXXVIII.

Sciebat Christus baptisma Joannis (Luc. XX) unde esset, et cur quasi nesciens interrogabat. Sciebat non responsuros sibi Pharisaeos, et cur frustra interrogabat. An ut ex ore ipsorum judicaret illos, vel ex corde? Refer ergo et haec ad excusationem Creatoris, et ad comparationem Christi; et considera jam quid secuturum esset, si quid Pharisaei ad interrogationem renuntiassent. Puta illos renuntiasse humanum Joannis baptisma, statim lapidibus elisi fuissent. Existeret 0452D aliqui Marcion adversus Marcionem, qui 0453A diceret: O Deum optimum! o Deum diversum a Creatoris exemplis! Sciens praeceps ituros homines, ipse illos in praeruptum imposuit. Sic enim et de Creatore, in arboris lege, tractatur. Sed de coelis fuit baptisma Joannis. Et quare, inquit Christus, non credidistis ei? Ergo qui credi voluerat Joanni, increpaturus quod non credidissent, ejus erat cujus sacramentum Joannes administrabat. Certe nolentibus renuntiare quid saperent, cum et ipse vicem opponit. Et ego non dico vobis in qua virtute haec facio; malum pro malo reddit . Reddite quae Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt Dei Deo. Quae erunt Dei? quae similia sunt denario Caesaris, imago scilicet et similitudo ejus. Hominem igitur reddi jubet Creatori, in cujus imagine et similitudine et nomine et materia 0453B expressus est. Quaerat sibi monetam deus Marcionis. Christus denarium hominis suo Caesari jubet reddi, non alieno; nisi quod necesse est qui suum denarium non habet. Justa et digna praescriptio est in omni quaestione ad propositum interrogationis pertinere debere sensum responsionis. Caeterum, aliud consulenti, aliud respondere dementis est. Quo magis absit a Christo, quod ne homini quidem convenit. Sadducaei resurrectionis negatores, de ea habentes interrogationem, proposuerant Domino ex lege materiam mulieris, quae septem fratribus ex ordine defunctis secundum praeceptum legale nupsisset, cujus viri deputanda esset in resurrectione. Haec fuit materia quaestionis, haec substantia consultationis. Ad hoc respondisse Christum 0453C necesse est. Neminem timuit, ut quaestiones aut declinasse videatur, aut per occasionem earum, quod alias palam non docebat subostendisse. Respondit igitur: Hujus quidem aevi filios nubere. Vides quam pertinenter ad caussam. Quia de aevo venturo quaerebatur, in quo neminem nubere definiturus , praestruxit, hic quidem nubi, ubi sit et mori; quos vero dignatus sit Deus, illius aevi possessione et resurrectione a mortuis, neque nubere, neque nubi; quia nec morituri jam sint, cum similes angelorum sint , Dei et resurrectionis filii facti. Cum igitur sensus responsionis non ad aliud sit dirigendus, quam ad propositum interrogationis; si hoc sensu responsionis, 0454A propositum absolvitur interrogationis, non aliud responsio Domini sapit, quam quo quaestio absolvitur. Habes et tempora permissarum et negatarum nuptiarum, non ex sua propria, sed ex resurrectionis quaestione. Habes et ipsius resurrectionis confirmationem, et totum quod Sadducaei sciscitabantur, non de alio Deo interrogantes, nec de proprio nuptiarum jure quaerentes. Quod si ad ea facis respondere Christum, de quibus non est consultus, negas eum de quibus interrogatus est respondere potuisse, Sadducaeorum scilicet sapientia captum. Ex abundanti nunc et post praescriptionem, retractabo adversus argumentationes cohaerentes. Nacti enim Scripturae textum, ita in legendo decucurrerunt: Quos autem dignatus est Deus, illius aevi, illius aevi Deo adjungunt, 0454B quo alium Deum faciant illius aevi; cum sic legi oporteat: Quos autem dignatus est Deus, ut facta hic distinctione post Deum, ad sequentia pertineat illius aevi, id est, quos dignatus sit Deus, illius aevi possessione et resurrectione. Non enim de Deo, sed de statu illius aevi consulebatur, cujus uxor futura esset post resurrectionem in illo aevo. Sic et de ipsis nuptiis responsum subvertunt: Ut filii hujus aevi nubunt et nubuntur, de hominibus dictum est Creatoris, nuptias permittentis, se autem quos Deus illius aevi, alter scilicet, dignatus sit resurrectione, jam et hic non nubere, quia non sint filii hujus aevi: quando de nuptiis illius aevi consultus, non de hujus, eas negaverat de quibus consulebatur. Itaque qui ipsam vim et vocis et pronuntiationis et distinctionis 0454C exceperant, nihil aliud senserunt, quam quod ad materiam consultationis pertinebat. Atque adeo scribae: Magister, inquiunt, bene dixisti. Confirmaverat enim resurrectionem, formam ejus edendo adversus Sadducaeorum opinionem. Denique testimonium eorum qui ita eum respondisse praesumpserant, non recusavit. Si autem Scribae Christum filium David existimabant, ipse autem David Dominum eum appellat; quid hoc ad Christum? Non David errorem Scribarum obtundebat, sed honorem Christo David procurabat, quem Dominum Christum magis quam filium David confirmabat; quod non congrueret destructori Creatoris. At ex nostra parte, quam conveniens 0455A interpretatio! Nam qui olim a caeco illo filius David fuerat invocatus, quod tunc reticuit, non habens in praesentia scribas, nunc ultro coram eis de industria protulit: ut se, quem caecus secundum scribarum doctrinam filium tantum David praedicarat, Dominum quoque ejus ostenderet; remunerata quidem fide caeci, qua filium David crediderat illum; pulsata vero traditione Scribarum, qua non et Dominum eum norant. Quodcumque ad gloriam spectaret Christi Creatoris, sic non alius tueretur, quam Christus Creatoris.