Against Marcion 5.20

When he lists the variety of the preaching, that some, from confidence in his bonds, spoke the word more boldly, others through envy and strife, some even for the reputation of their speaking, most out of love, some out of rivalry, and certain ones even out of ill will, preached Christ, here if anywhere was the place to censure the preaching itself for a difference of doctrine, which would have produced so great a variety of minds too. But setting out only the motives of their minds, not differing rules of the mysteries, he affirms that there was one Christ and one God of his, preached with whatever intention; and so he says, “It is nothing to me whether Christ is announced in pretence or in truth,” because one Christ was being announced, whether out of pretence or out of truth of faith. For he related the mention of truth to the faith of the preaching, not to the rule itself, because the rule was one, but the faith of the preachers was, in some, true, that is, simple, and in others over-clever. Since this is so, it is plain that the Christ preached was the one who was always announced. For if another, far different, were being brought in by the apostle, the newness of the thing would have produced a difference. For there would not have been lacking those who would nonetheless interpret the gospel preaching of the Creator's Christ, since even today in all places the greater part hold our view rather than the heretics'. So the apostle would not have kept silent here about marking and rebuking the difference. So, since difference is not even censured, newness is not proved. Plainly the Marcionites think that here too, about the substance of Christ, the apostle supports them, that there was a phantom of flesh in Christ, when he says that, being in the form of God, he did not think it robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, not the reality, and in the likeness of man, not in a man, and found in fashion as a man, not in substance, that is, not in flesh. As though fashion and likeness and form did not also belong to substance! It is well that elsewhere too he calls Christ the image of the invisible God. Will Christ here too, then, where he places him in the form of God, likewise not be truly God, if he was not truly man either, placed in the form of man? For in both places the reality will have to be excluded, if form and likeness and fashion are claimed for a phantom. But if, in the form and image of God, as Son of the Father, he is truly God, it is already decided that, in the form and image of man, as Son of Man, he was found truly man. For he used “found” with good reason, that is, most certainly a man. For what is found is established to exist. So as he was found God by his power, so was he found man by his flesh, since he would not have declared him subject to death if he had not been placed in a mortal substance. And more is what he added: “even the death of the cross.” For he would not heighten its horror, extolling the courage of the struggle, if he had known it to be imaginary, in a phantom, one who eluded death rather than experienced it, and who did not exercise courage in his passion but put on a show. And what had he formerly counted as gain? What he lists above too: the glory of the flesh in the mark of circumcision, descent as a Hebrew of Hebrews, the title of the tribe of Benjamin, the dignity of a spotless Pharisee. These he now counts as loss for himself: not God, but the stupidity of the Jews. These too he counts as dung, in comparison with the knowledge of Christ, not in rejection of God the Creator, having no longer a righteousness of his own, which is from the law, but that which is through him, that is, through Christ, from God. “So,” you say, “by this distinction the law did not belong to the God of Christ.” Clever enough. Take then something cleverer. When he says, “not that which is from the law, but that which is through him,” he would not have said “through him” of any other than the one whose the law was. “Our citizenship,” he says, “is in heaven.” I recognize the Creator's ancient promise to Abraham: “And I will make your seed like the stars in heaven.” So also “star differs from star in glory.” And if Christ, coming from heaven, will transform the body of our lowliness to be conformed to the body of his glory, then this body of ours will rise, which is humbled in sufferings and cast down to the earth by the very law of death. For how will it be transformed if it will not exist at all? Or if this was said of those who, overtaken in the flesh at the Lord's coming, are to be changed, what will those do who will rise first? Will they have nothing from which to be transformed? And yet, he says, “together with them we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord.” If taken up with them, then surely transformed with them too.