Chapter XXXVI.—The Parables of the Importunate Widow, and of the Pharisee and the Publican. Christ’s Answer to the Rich Ruler, the Cure of the Blind Man. His Salutation—Son of David. All Proofs of Christ’s Relation to the Creator, Marcion’s Antithesis Between David and Christ Confuted.

When He recommends perseverance and earnestness in prayer, He sets before us the parable of the judge who was compelled to listen to the widow, owing to the earnestness and importunity of her requests.2596    Luke xviii. 1–8. He show us that it is God the judge whom we must importune with prayer, and not Himself, if He is not Himself the judge. But He added, that “God would avenge His own elect.”2597    Luke xviii. 7, 8. Since, then, He who judges will also Himself be the avenger, He proved that the Creator is on that account the specially good God,2598    Meliorem Deum. whom He represented as the avenger of His own elect, who cry day and night to Him. And yet, when He introduces to our view the Creator’s temple, and describes two men worshipping therein with diverse feelings—the Pharisee in pride, the publican in humility—and shows us how they accordingly went down to their homes, one rejected,2599    Reprobatum. the other justified,2600    Luke xviii. 10–14. He surely, by thus teaching us the proper discipline of prayer, has determined that that God must be prayed to from whom men were to receive this discipline of prayer—whether condemnatory of pride, or justifying in humility.2601    Sive reprobatricem superbiæ, sive justificatricem humilitatis. I do not find from Christ any temple, any suppliants, any sentence (of approval or condemnation) belonging to any other god than the Creator. Him does He enjoin us to worship in humility, as the lifter-up of the humble, not in pride, because He brings down2602    Destructorem. the proud. What other god has He manifested to me to receive my supplications?  With what formula of worship, with what hope (shall I approach him?) I trow, none.  For the prayer which He has taught us suits, as we have proved,2603    See above, chap. xxvi. p. 392. none but the Creator. It is, of course, another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the supremely and spontaneously good God! But who is this good God? There is, He says, “none but one.”2604    Luke xviii. 19. It is not as if He had shown us that one of two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly asserts that there is one only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God. Now, undoubtedly,2605    Utique. He is the good God who “sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good;”2606    Matt. v. 45. sustaining and nourishing and assisting even Marcionites themselves! When afterwards “a certain man asked him, ‘Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’” (Jesus) inquired whether he knew (that is, in other words, whether he kept) the commandments of the Creator, in order to testify2607    Ad contestandum. that it was by the Creator’s precepts that eternal life is acquired.2608    Luke xviii. 18–20. Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: “One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”2609    Luke xviii. 21, 22. Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred2610    See above, chap. ix., near the beginning. with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother?” Or did He both keep them, and then add2611    Adjecit quod deerat. what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely2612    Ubique. diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious observer of the commandments was therefore convicted2613    Traduceretur. of holding money in much higher estimation (than charity). This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: “I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them.”2614    Matt. v. 17. He also dissipated other doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and Himself too—whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary precepts. He may likewise be discovered in the following passage of Micah, saying: “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to be ready to follow the Lord thy God?”2615    Mic. vi. 8. The last clause agrees with the Septuagint: καὶ ἕτοιμον εἶναι τοῦ πορεύεσθαι μετὰ Κυρίου Θεοῦ σου. Now Christ is the man who tells us what is good, even the knowledge of the law. “Thou knowest,” says He, “the commandments.” “To do justly”—“Sell all that thou hast;” “to love mercy”—“Give to the poor:” “and to be ready to walk with God”—“And come,” says He, “follow me.”2616    The clauses of Christ’s words, which are here adapted to Micah’s, are in every case broken with an inquit. The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his descent—even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably extant at this time.2617    Tunc pendentibus: i.e., at the time mentioned in the story of the blind man. But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a person’s having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public testimonial2618    Notitiam. of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known.  Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, “Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me?”2619    Luke xviii. 38. unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner,2620    Non temere. to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David’s family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety? “Those, however, who went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace.”2621    Luke xviii. 39. And properly enough; because he was very noisy, not because he was wrong about the son of David. Else you must show me, that those who rebuked him were aware that Jesus was not the Son of David, in order that they may be supposed to have had this reason for imposing silence on the blind man. But even if you could show me this, still (the blind man) would more readily have presumed that they were ignorant, than that the Lord could possibly have permitted an untrue exclamation about Himself. But the Lord “stood patient.”2622    Luke xviii. 40. Yes; but not as confirming the error, for, on the contrary, He rather displayed the Creator.  Surely He could not have first removed this man’s blindness, in order that he might afterwards cease to regard Him as the Son of David! However,2623    Atquin. that you may not slander2624    Infameretis. His patience, nor fasten on Him any charge of dissimulation, nor deny Him to be the Son of David, He very pointedly confirmed the exclamation of the blind man—both by the actual gift of healing, and by bearing testimony to his faith: “Thy faith,” say Christ, “hath made thee whole.”2625    Luke xviii. 42. What would you have the blind man’s faith to have been? That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god (of Marcion), to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David’s loins, the restorer2626    Remunerator. also of the blind? But I apprehend there were at that time no such stone-blind persons as Marcion, that an opinion like this could have constituted the faith of the blind man, and have induced him to confide in the mere name,2627    That is, in the sound only, and phantom of the word; an allusion to the Docetic absurdity of Marcion. of Jesus, the Son of David. He, who knew all this of Himself,2628    That is, that He was “Son of David,” etc. and wished others to know it also, endowed the faith of this man—although it was already gifted with a better sight, and although it was in possession of the true light—with the external vision likewise, in order that we too might learn the rule of faith, and at the same time find its recompense. Whosoever wishes to see Jesus the Son of David must believe in Him; through the Virgin’s birth.2629    Censum: that is, must believe Him born of her. He who will not believe this will not hear from Him the salutation, “Thy faith hath saved thee.” And so he will remain blind, falling into Antithesis after Antithesis, which mutually destroy each other,2630    This, perhaps, is the meaning in a clause which is itself more antithetical than clear: “Ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam antithesim.” just as “the blind man leads the blind down into the ditch.”2631    In book iii. chap. vii. (at the beginning), occurs the same proverb of Marcion and the Jews. See p. 327. For (here is one of Marcion’s Antitheses): whereas David in old time, in the capture of Sion, was offended by the blind who opposed his admission (into the stronghold)2632    See 2 Sam. v. 6–8.—in which respect (I should rather say) that they were a type of people equally blind,2633    The Marcionites. who in after-times would not admit Christ to be the son of David—so, on the contrary, Christ succoured the blind man, to show by this act that He was not David’s son, and how different in disposition He was, kind to the blind, while David ordered them to be slain.2634    See 2 Sam. v. 8. If all this were so, why did Marcion allege that the blind man’s faith was of so worthless2635    Fidei equidem pravæ: see preceding page, note 3. a stamp? The fact is,2636    Atquin. the Son of David so acted,2637    Et hoc filius David: i.e., præstitit, “showed Himself good,” perhaps. that the Antithesis must lose its point by its own absurdity.2638    De suo retundendam. Instead of contrast, he shows the similarity of the cases. Those persons who offended David were blind, and the man who now presents himself as a suppliant to David’s son is afflicted with the same infirmity.2639    Ejusdem carnis: i.e., infirmæ (Oehler). Therefore the Son of David was appeased with some sort of satisfaction by the blind man when He restored him to sight, and added His approval of the faith which had led him to believe the very truth, that he must win to his help2640    Exorandum sibi. the Son of David by earnest entreaty.  But, after all, I suspect that it was the audacity (of the old Jebusites) which offended David, and not their malady.

CAPUT XXXVI.

Nam et orandi perseverantiam et instantiam (Luc. XVIII) mandans, parabolam judicis ponit, coacti audire viduam, instantia et perseverantia interpellationum ejus. Ergo judicem Deum ostendit orandum, non se, si non ipse est judex. Sed subjunxit, facturum Deum vindictam electorum suorum. Si ergo ipse erit judex, qui et vindex. Creatorem ergo meliorem Deum probavit, quem electorum suorum clamantium ad eum die ac nocte vindicem ostendit. Et tamen, cum templum Creatoris 0449B inducit, et duos adorantes diversa mente describit Pharisaeum in superbia, Publicanum in humilitate; ideoque alterum reprobatum, alterum justificatum descendisse (Luc. XVIII); utique docendo qua disciplina sit orandum, eum et hic orandum constituit, a quo relaturi essent eam orandi disciplinam, sive reprobatricem superbiae, sive justificatricem humilitatis. Alterius Dei nec templum, nec oratores, nec judicium invenio penes Christum, nisi Creatoris. Illum jubet adorare in humilitate, ut allevatorem humilium; non in superbia, ut destructorem superborum. Quem alium adorandum mihi ostendit? qua disciplina? qua spe? Neminem opinor. Nam et quam docuit orationem, Creatori probavimus convenire. Aliud est si etiam adorari qua Deus optimus et ultro bonus non vult. Sed quis optimus, 0449C nisi unus, inquit Deus? Non quasi ex duobus diis unum optimum ostenderit; sed unum esse optimum Deum solum, qui sic unus sit optimus, qua solus Deus. Et utique optimus, qui pluit super justos et injustos, et solem suum oriri facit super bonos et malos, sustinens et alens et juvans etiam Marcionitas. Denique interrogatus ab illo quodam: Praeceptor optime, quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo? De praeceptis Creatoris an ea sciret, id est faceret, expostulavit, ad contestandum praeceptis Creatoris vitam acquiri sempiternam. Cumque ille principaliora quaeque affirmasset observasse se ab adolescentia: Unum, inquit, tibi deest. Omnia quaecumque habes vende, et da pauperibus, et habebis thesaurum in coelo, et veni, sequere me. Age Marcion, omnesque jam commiserones 0449D et coodibiles ejus haeretici, quid audebitis dicere? 0450A Resciditne Christus priora praecepta, non occidendi, non adulterandi, non furandi, non falsum testandi, diligendi patrem et matrem? An et illa servavit, et quod deerat, adjecit? quamquam et hoc praeceptum largitionis in egenos ubique diffusum sit in Lege et Prophetis, uti gloriosissimus ille observator praeceptorum pecuniam multo chariorem habiturus traduceretur. Salvum est igitur et hoc in Evangelio (Matth. V, 17), Non veni dissolvere Legem et Prophetas, sed potius adimplere. Simul et caetera dubitatione liberavit, manifestando unius esse et Dei nomen et optimi, et vitam aeternam, et thesaurum in coelo, et semetipsum; cujus praecepta supplendo et conservavit et auxit: secundum Michaeam quoque hoc loco recognoscendus, dicentem (Mich. VI, 8): Si annuntiavit 0450B tibi homo quid bonum, aut quid a te Dominus exquirit, quam facere judicium, diligere misericordiam, et paratum esse sequi Dominum Deum tuum? Et homo enim Christus annuntians quid sit bonum; scientiam legis: Praecepta, inquit, scis? facere judicium: Vende, inquit, quae habes; diligere misericordiam: Et da, inquit, egenis; paratum esse ire cum Deo . Et veni, inquit, sequere me. Tam distincta fuit a primordio Judaea gens per tribus et populos et familias et domos, ut nemo facile ignorari de genere potuisset, vel de recentibus Augustianis censibus adhuc tunc fortasse pendentibus. Jesus autem Marcionis et natus non dubitaretur, qui homo videbatur; utique qua non natus nullam potuerat generis sui in publico habuisse notitiam, sed erat unus aliqui deputandus ex iis, qui quoquo modo ignoti habebantur. Cum 0450C igitur praetereuntem illum caecus audisset, cur exclamavit: Jesu fili David, miserere mei, nisi quia filius David, id est, ex familia David non temere deputabatur, per matrem et fratres, qui aliquando ex notitia utique annuntiati ei fuerant. Sed antecedentes increpabant caecum, uti taceret. Merito, quoniam quidem vociferabatur, non quia de David filio mentiebatur. Aut doce increpantes illos scisse, quod Jesus non esset filius David, ut idcirco silentium caeco indixisse credantur. Sed etsi doceres, facilius illos ignorasse praesumeretur , quam Dominum falsam in se praedicationem sustinere potuisse. Sed patiens Dominus; non tamen confirmator erroris, imo etiam detector Creatoris; ut non prius hanc caecitatem hominis illius enubilasset, ne ultra Jesum filium David existimaret. 0450D Atquin, ne patientiam ejus infamaretis, 0451A nec ullam rationem dissimulationis illi affingeretis, nec filium David negaretis, manifestissime confirmavit caeci praedicationem, et ipsa remuneratione medicinae, et testimonio fidei. Fides, inquit, tua te salvum fecit. Quid vis caecum credidisse? Ab alio Deo descendisse Jesum ad dejectionem Creatoris? ad destructionem Legis et Prophetarum? non illum esse, qui ex radice Jesse et ex fructu lumborum David destinabatur (Ps. CXXXII, 11), caecorum quoque remunerator? Sed nondum puto ejusmodi tunc caeci erant, qualis Marcion, ut haec fuerit caeci illius fides, qua crediderit in voce, Jesu fili David. Qui hoc se et cognovit, et ab omnibus cognosci voluit, fidem hominis, etsi melius oculatam, etsi veri luminis compotem, exteriore quoque visione donavit, 0451B ut et nos regulam simulque mercedem fidei disceremus. Qui vult videre Jesum, David filium credat per virginis censum. Qui non ita credet, non audiet ab illo: Fides tua te salvum fecit. Atque ita caecus remanebit, ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam antithesim. Sic enim caecus caecum deducere solet. «Nam si aliquando (II Reg. V) Davidem in recuperatione Sionis offenderant caeci resistentes, quominus admitteretur» (in figuram populi proinde caeci, non admissuri quandoque Christum filium David), «ideo Christus ex diverso caeco subvenit, ut hinc se ostenderet non esse filium David, et ex animi diversitate bonus caecis, quos ille jusserat caedi. Et cur fidei, et quidem pravae, praestitisse se dixit?» Atquin et hoc filius David, antithesim de suo retundendam. 0451C Nam et qui David offenderant, caeci: nunc vero ejusdem carnis homo supplicem se obtulerat filio David, idcirco ei satisfacienti quodammodo placatus filius David, restituit lumina cum testimonio fidei, qua hoc ipsum crediderat, exorandum sibi esse filium David. Et tamen David audacia hominum puto offenderat, non valetudo.