GOD'S SABBATH AND THE REAL TRUTH OF COL 2:14-17 WHO DO WE BELIEVE GOD or MAN?
- Thread starter LoveGodForever
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You won't even find the word "Gospel" in the old testament. Just more SDA propaganda. 
the phrase "Old Testament" is an invention of a catholic man named Marcion, he did have "issuse" with the RCC but they kept his doctrine so.... he only accepted Paul's writings and said the "OT" God was mean and unmerciful.... Yet the prophet Isayah and other prophets spoke of YHWH mercy in sending the Messiah...
Here is some info on the topic;
Marcionism and Marcionites… What is Marcionism?
Mar·cion·ism: the doctrinal system of a sect of the second and third centuries a.d. accepting some parts of the New Testament (Paul) but denying Christ's corporality and humanity and condemning the Creator God of the Old Testament.
Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known. The subject will be treated under the following heads:
I. Life of Marcion;
II. Doctrine and Discipline;
III. History;
IV. Mutilation of the New Testament;
V. Anti-Marcionite Writers.
Life of Marcion
Marcion was son of the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus, born c. A.D. 110, evidently from wealthy parents. He is described as nautes, nauclerus, a ship owner, by Rhodon and Tertullian, who wrote about a generation after his death. Epiphanius (Haeres., XLII, ii) relates that Marcion in his youth professed to lead a life of chastity and asceticism, but, in spite of his professions, fell into sin with a young maiden. In consequence his father, the bishop, cast him out of the Church. He besought his father for reconciliation, i.e. to be admitted to ecclesiastical penance, but the bishop stood firm in his refusal. Not being able to bear with the laughter and contempt of his fellow townsmen, he secretly left Sinope and traveled to Rome. The story of Marcion's sin is rejected by many modern scholars (e.g. G. Krüger) as a piece of malicious gossip of which they say Epiphanius was fond; others see in the young maiden but a metaphor for the Church, the then young bride of Christ, whom Marcion violated by his heresy, though he made great professions of bodily chastity and austerity. No accusations of impurity are brought against Marcion by earlier Church writers, and Marcion's austerity seems acknowledged as a fact. Irenaeus states that Marcion flourished under Pope Anicetus (c. 155-166) [invaluit sub Aniceto]. Though this period may mark Marcion's greatest success in Rome, it is certain that he arrived there earlier, I. c. A.D. 140 after the death of Hyginus, who died that year and apparently before the accession of Pius I. Epiphanius says that Marcion sought admittance into the Roman Church but was refused. The reason given was that they could not admit one who had been expelled by his own bishop without previous communication with that authority. The story has likewise been pointed out as extremely unlikely, implying, as it does, that the great Roman Church professed itself incompetent to override the decision of a local bishop in Pontus. It must be borne in mind, however, that Marcion arrived at Rome sede vacante, "after the death of Hyginus", and that such an answer sounds natural enough on the lips of presbyters as yet without a bishop.
Moreover, it is obvious that Marcion was already a consecrated bishop. A layman could not have disputed on Scripture with the presbyters as he did, nor have threatened shortly after his arrival: "I will divide your Church and cause within her a division, which will last forever", as Marcion is said to have done; a layman could not have founded a vast and worldwide institution, of which the main characteristic was that it was episcopalian; a layman would not have been proudly referred to for centuries by his disciples as their first bishop, a claim not disputed by any of their adversaries, though many and extensive works were written against them; a layman would not have been permanently cast out of the Church without hope of reconciliation by his own father, notwithstanding his entreaties, for a sin of fornication, nor thereafter have become an object of laughter to his heathen fellow townsmen, if we accept the story of Epiphanius. A layman would not have been disappointed that he was not made bishop shortly after his arrival in a city whose see was vacant, as Marcion is said to have been on his arrival at Rome after the death of Hyginus.
This story has been held up as the height of absurdity and so it would be, if we ignored the facts that Marcion was a bishop, and that according to Tertullian (De Praeser., xxx) he made the Roman community the gift of two hundred thousand sesterces soon after his arrival. this extraordinary gift of 1400 pounds (7000 dollars), a huge sum for those days, may be ascribed to the first fervour of faith, but is at least as naturally, ascribed to a lively hope. The money was returned to him after his breach with the Church. This again is more natural if it was made with a tacit condition, than if it was absolute and the outcome of pure charity. Lastly, the report that Marcion on his arrival at Rome had to hand in or to renew a confession of faith (Tert., "De Praeser., " xxx; "Adv. Mar.", I, xx; "de carne Christi", ii) fits in naturally with the supposition of his being a bishop, but would be, as G. Krüger points out, unheard of in the case of a layman.
We can take it for granted then, that Marcion was a bishop, probably an assistant or suffragan of his father at Sinope. Having fallen out with his father he travels to Rome, where, being a seafarer or shipowner and a great traveler, he already may have been known and where his wealth obtains him influence and position. If Tertullian supposes him to have been admitted to the Roman Church and Epiphanius says that he was refused admittance, the two statements can easily be reconciled if we understand the former of mere membership or communion, the latter of the acceptance of his claims. His episcopal dignity has received mention at least in two early writers, who speak of him as having "from bishop become an apostate" (Optatus of Mileve, IV, v), and of his followers as being surnamed after a bishop instead of being called Christians after Christ (Adamantius, "Dial.", I, ed. Sande Bakhuysen). Marcion is said to have asked the Roman presbyters the explanation of Matthew 9:16-17, which he evidently wished to understand as expressing the incompatibility of the New Testament with the Old, but which they interpreted in an orthodox sense. His final breach with the Roman Church occurred in the autumn of 144, for the Marcionites counted 115 years and 6 months from the time of Christ to the beginning of their sect. Tertullian roughly speaks of a hundred years and more. Marcion seems to have made common cause with Cerdo (q.v.), the Syrian Gnostic, who was at the time in Rome; that his doctrine was actually derived from that Gnostic seems unlikely. Irenaeus relates (Against Heresies III.3) that St. Polycarp, meeting Marcion in Rome was asked by him: Dost thou recognize us? and gave answer: I recognize thee as the first born of Satan. This meeting must have happened in 154, by which time Marcion had displayed a great and successful activity, for St. Justin Martyr in his first Apology (written about 150), describes Marcion's heresy as spread everywhere. These half a dozen years seem to many too short a time for such prodigious success and they believe that Marcion was active in Asia Minor long before he came to Rome. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII.7.106) calls him the older contemporary of Basilides and Valentinus, but if so, he must have been a middle-aged man when he came to Rome, and as previous propaganda in the East is not impossible. That the Chronicle of Edessa places the beginning of Marcionism in 138, strongly favors this view. Tertullian relates in 207 (the date of his Adv. Marc., IV, iv) that Marcion professed penitence and accepted as condition of his readmittance into the Church that he should bring back to the fold those whom he had led astray, but death prevented his carrying this out. The precise date of his death is not known.
Doctrine and discipline
We must distinguish between the doctrine of Marcion himself and that of his followers. Marcion was no Gnostic dreamer. He wanted a Christianity untrammeled and undefiled by association with Judaism. Christianity was the New Covenant pure and simple. Abstract questions on the origin of evil or on the essence of the Godhead interested him little, but the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling-block to the refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty, and the Old Testament had to be set aside. The two great obstacles in his way he removed by drastic measures. He had to account for the existence of the Old Testament and he accounted for it by postulating a secondary deity, a demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The metaphysical relation between these two gods troubled Marcion little; of divine emanation, aeons, syzygies, eternally opposed principles of good and evil, he knows nothing. He may be almost a Manichee in practice, but in theory he has not reached absolute consistency as Mani did a hundred years later. Marcion had secondly to account for those passages in the New Testament which countenanced the Old. He resolutely cut out all texts that were contrary to his dogma; in fact, he created his own New Testament admitting but one gospel, a mutilation of St. Luke, and an Apostolicon containing ten epistles of St. Paul. The mantle of St. Paul had fallen on the shoulders of Marcion in his struggle with the Judaisers. The Catholics of his day were nothing but the Judaisers of the previous century. The pure Pauline Gospel had become corrupted and Marcion, not obscurely, hinted that even the pillar Apostles, Peter, James, and John had betrayed their trust. He loves to speak of "false apostles", and lets his hearers infer who they were. Once the Old Testament has been completely got rid of, Marcion has no further desire for change. He makes his purely New Testament Church as like the Catholic Church as possible, consistent with his deep seated Puritanism. The first description of Marcion's doctrine dates from St. Justin: "With the help of the devil Marcion has in every country contributed to blasphemy and the refusal to acknowledge the Creator of all the world as God". He recognizes another god, who, because he is essentially greater (than the World maker or Demiurge) has done greater deeds than he (hos onta meizona ta meizona para touton pepikeni) The supreme God is hagathos, just and righteous. The good God is all love, the inferior god gives way to fierce anger. Though less than the good god, yet the just god, as world creator, has his independent sphere of activity. They are not opposed as Ormusz and Ahriman, though the good God interferes in favour of men, for he alone is all-wise and all-powerful and loves mercy more than punishment. All men are indeed created by the Demiurge, but by special choice he elected the Jewish people as his own and thus became the god of the Jews.
Marcionism and Marcionites… What is Marcionism?
Mar·cion·ism: the doctrinal system of a sect of the second and third centuries a.d. accepting some parts of the New Testament (Paul) but denying Christ's corporality and humanity and condemning the Creator God of the Old Testament.
Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known. The subject will be treated under the following heads:
I. Life of Marcion;
II. Doctrine and Discipline;
III. History;
IV. Mutilation of the New Testament;
V. Anti-Marcionite Writers.
Life of Marcion
Marcion was son of the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus, born c. A.D. 110, evidently from wealthy parents. He is described as nautes, nauclerus, a ship owner, by Rhodon and Tertullian, who wrote about a generation after his death. Epiphanius (Haeres., XLII, ii) relates that Marcion in his youth professed to lead a life of chastity and asceticism, but, in spite of his professions, fell into sin with a young maiden. In consequence his father, the bishop, cast him out of the Church. He besought his father for reconciliation, i.e. to be admitted to ecclesiastical penance, but the bishop stood firm in his refusal. Not being able to bear with the laughter and contempt of his fellow townsmen, he secretly left Sinope and traveled to Rome. The story of Marcion's sin is rejected by many modern scholars (e.g. G. Krüger) as a piece of malicious gossip of which they say Epiphanius was fond; others see in the young maiden but a metaphor for the Church, the then young bride of Christ, whom Marcion violated by his heresy, though he made great professions of bodily chastity and austerity. No accusations of impurity are brought against Marcion by earlier Church writers, and Marcion's austerity seems acknowledged as a fact. Irenaeus states that Marcion flourished under Pope Anicetus (c. 155-166) [invaluit sub Aniceto]. Though this period may mark Marcion's greatest success in Rome, it is certain that he arrived there earlier, I. c. A.D. 140 after the death of Hyginus, who died that year and apparently before the accession of Pius I. Epiphanius says that Marcion sought admittance into the Roman Church but was refused. The reason given was that they could not admit one who had been expelled by his own bishop without previous communication with that authority. The story has likewise been pointed out as extremely unlikely, implying, as it does, that the great Roman Church professed itself incompetent to override the decision of a local bishop in Pontus. It must be borne in mind, however, that Marcion arrived at Rome sede vacante, "after the death of Hyginus", and that such an answer sounds natural enough on the lips of presbyters as yet without a bishop.
Moreover, it is obvious that Marcion was already a consecrated bishop. A layman could not have disputed on Scripture with the presbyters as he did, nor have threatened shortly after his arrival: "I will divide your Church and cause within her a division, which will last forever", as Marcion is said to have done; a layman could not have founded a vast and worldwide institution, of which the main characteristic was that it was episcopalian; a layman would not have been proudly referred to for centuries by his disciples as their first bishop, a claim not disputed by any of their adversaries, though many and extensive works were written against them; a layman would not have been permanently cast out of the Church without hope of reconciliation by his own father, notwithstanding his entreaties, for a sin of fornication, nor thereafter have become an object of laughter to his heathen fellow townsmen, if we accept the story of Epiphanius. A layman would not have been disappointed that he was not made bishop shortly after his arrival in a city whose see was vacant, as Marcion is said to have been on his arrival at Rome after the death of Hyginus.
This story has been held up as the height of absurdity and so it would be, if we ignored the facts that Marcion was a bishop, and that according to Tertullian (De Praeser., xxx) he made the Roman community the gift of two hundred thousand sesterces soon after his arrival. this extraordinary gift of 1400 pounds (7000 dollars), a huge sum for those days, may be ascribed to the first fervour of faith, but is at least as naturally, ascribed to a lively hope. The money was returned to him after his breach with the Church. This again is more natural if it was made with a tacit condition, than if it was absolute and the outcome of pure charity. Lastly, the report that Marcion on his arrival at Rome had to hand in or to renew a confession of faith (Tert., "De Praeser., " xxx; "Adv. Mar.", I, xx; "de carne Christi", ii) fits in naturally with the supposition of his being a bishop, but would be, as G. Krüger points out, unheard of in the case of a layman.
We can take it for granted then, that Marcion was a bishop, probably an assistant or suffragan of his father at Sinope. Having fallen out with his father he travels to Rome, where, being a seafarer or shipowner and a great traveler, he already may have been known and where his wealth obtains him influence and position. If Tertullian supposes him to have been admitted to the Roman Church and Epiphanius says that he was refused admittance, the two statements can easily be reconciled if we understand the former of mere membership or communion, the latter of the acceptance of his claims. His episcopal dignity has received mention at least in two early writers, who speak of him as having "from bishop become an apostate" (Optatus of Mileve, IV, v), and of his followers as being surnamed after a bishop instead of being called Christians after Christ (Adamantius, "Dial.", I, ed. Sande Bakhuysen). Marcion is said to have asked the Roman presbyters the explanation of Matthew 9:16-17, which he evidently wished to understand as expressing the incompatibility of the New Testament with the Old, but which they interpreted in an orthodox sense. His final breach with the Roman Church occurred in the autumn of 144, for the Marcionites counted 115 years and 6 months from the time of Christ to the beginning of their sect. Tertullian roughly speaks of a hundred years and more. Marcion seems to have made common cause with Cerdo (q.v.), the Syrian Gnostic, who was at the time in Rome; that his doctrine was actually derived from that Gnostic seems unlikely. Irenaeus relates (Against Heresies III.3) that St. Polycarp, meeting Marcion in Rome was asked by him: Dost thou recognize us? and gave answer: I recognize thee as the first born of Satan. This meeting must have happened in 154, by which time Marcion had displayed a great and successful activity, for St. Justin Martyr in his first Apology (written about 150), describes Marcion's heresy as spread everywhere. These half a dozen years seem to many too short a time for such prodigious success and they believe that Marcion was active in Asia Minor long before he came to Rome. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata VII.7.106) calls him the older contemporary of Basilides and Valentinus, but if so, he must have been a middle-aged man when he came to Rome, and as previous propaganda in the East is not impossible. That the Chronicle of Edessa places the beginning of Marcionism in 138, strongly favors this view. Tertullian relates in 207 (the date of his Adv. Marc., IV, iv) that Marcion professed penitence and accepted as condition of his readmittance into the Church that he should bring back to the fold those whom he had led astray, but death prevented his carrying this out. The precise date of his death is not known.
Doctrine and discipline
We must distinguish between the doctrine of Marcion himself and that of his followers. Marcion was no Gnostic dreamer. He wanted a Christianity untrammeled and undefiled by association with Judaism. Christianity was the New Covenant pure and simple. Abstract questions on the origin of evil or on the essence of the Godhead interested him little, but the Old Testament was a scandal to the faithful and a stumbling-block to the refined and intellectual gentiles by its crudity and cruelty, and the Old Testament had to be set aside. The two great obstacles in his way he removed by drastic measures. He had to account for the existence of the Old Testament and he accounted for it by postulating a secondary deity, a demiurgus, who was god, in a sense, but not the supreme God; he was just, rigidly just, he had his good qualities, but he was not the good god, who was Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The metaphysical relation between these two gods troubled Marcion little; of divine emanation, aeons, syzygies, eternally opposed principles of good and evil, he knows nothing. He may be almost a Manichee in practice, but in theory he has not reached absolute consistency as Mani did a hundred years later. Marcion had secondly to account for those passages in the New Testament which countenanced the Old. He resolutely cut out all texts that were contrary to his dogma; in fact, he created his own New Testament admitting but one gospel, a mutilation of St. Luke, and an Apostolicon containing ten epistles of St. Paul. The mantle of St. Paul had fallen on the shoulders of Marcion in his struggle with the Judaisers. The Catholics of his day were nothing but the Judaisers of the previous century. The pure Pauline Gospel had become corrupted and Marcion, not obscurely, hinted that even the pillar Apostles, Peter, James, and John had betrayed their trust. He loves to speak of "false apostles", and lets his hearers infer who they were. Once the Old Testament has been completely got rid of, Marcion has no further desire for change. He makes his purely New Testament Church as like the Catholic Church as possible, consistent with his deep seated Puritanism. The first description of Marcion's doctrine dates from St. Justin: "With the help of the devil Marcion has in every country contributed to blasphemy and the refusal to acknowledge the Creator of all the world as God". He recognizes another god, who, because he is essentially greater (than the World maker or Demiurge) has done greater deeds than he (hos onta meizona ta meizona para touton pepikeni) The supreme God is hagathos, just and righteous. The good God is all love, the inferior god gives way to fierce anger. Though less than the good god, yet the just god, as world creator, has his independent sphere of activity. They are not opposed as Ormusz and Ahriman, though the good God interferes in favour of men, for he alone is all-wise and all-powerful and loves mercy more than punishment. All men are indeed created by the Demiurge, but by special choice he elected the Jewish people as his own and thus became the god of the Jews.
His theological outlook is limited to the Bible, his struggle with the Catholic Church seems a battle with texts and nothing more. The Old Testament is true enough, Moses and the Prophets are messengers of the Demiurge, the Jewish Messias is sure to come and found a millennial kingdom for the Jews on earth, but the Jewish messias has nothing whatever to do with the Christ of God. The Invisible, Indescribable, Good God (aoratos akatanomastos agathos theos), formerly unknown to the creator as well as to his creatures, has revealed Himself in Christ. How far Marcion admitted a Trinity of persons in the supreme Godhead is not known; Christ is indeed the Son of God, but he is also simply "God" without further qualification; in fact, Marcion's gospel began with the words; "In the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius God descended in Capharnaum and taught on the Sabbaths". However daring and capricious this manipulation of the Gospel text, it is at least a splendid testimony that, in Christian circles of the first half of the second century the Divinity of Christ was a central dogma. To Marcion however Christ was God Manifest not God Incarnate. His Christology is that of the Docetae rejecting the inspired history of the Infancy, in fact, any childhood of Christ at all; Marcion's Savior is a "Deus ex machina" of which Tertullian mockingly says: "Suddenly a Son, suddenly Sent, suddenly Christ!" Marcion admitted no prophecy of the Coming of Christ whatever; the Jewish prophets foretold a Jewish Messias only, and this Messias had not yet appeared. Marcion used the story of the three angels, who ate, walked, and conversed with Abraham and yet had no real human body, as an illustration of the life of Christ (Adv. Marc., III, ix). Tertullian says (ibid.) that when Apelles and seceders from Marcion began to believe that Christ had a real body indeed, not by birth but rather collected from the elements, Marcion would prefer to accept even a putative birth rather than a real body. Whether this is Tertullian's mockery or a real change in Marcion's sentiments we do not know. To Marcion matter and flesh are not indeed essentially evil, but are contemptible things, a mere production of the Demiurge, and it was inconceivable that God should really have made them His own. Christ's life on earth was a continual contrast to the conduct of the Demiurge. Some of the contrasts are cleverly staged: the Demiurge sent bears to devour children for puerile merriment (Kings)-- Christ bade children come to Him and He fondled and blessed them; the Demiurge in his law declared lepers unclean and banished them — but Christ touched and healed them. Christ's putative passion and death was the work of the Demiurge, who, in revenge for Christ's abolition of the Jewish law delivered Him up to hell. But even in hell Christ overcame the Demiurge by preaching to the spirits in Limbo, and by His Resurrection He founded the true Kingdom of the Good God. Epiphanius (Haer., xlii, 4) says that Marcionites believed that in Limbo Christ brought salvation to Cain, Core, Dathan and Abiron, Esau, and the Gentiles, but left in damnation all Old Testament saints. This may have been held by some Marcionites in the fourth century, but it was not the teaching of Marcion himself, who had no Antinomian tendencies. Marcion denied the resurrection of the body, "for flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God", and denied the second coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead, for the good God, being all goodness, does not punish those who reject Him; He simply leaves them to the Demiurge, who will cast them into everlasting fire.
With regard to discipline, the main point of difference consists in his rejection of marriage, i.e. he baptized only those who were not living in matrimony: virgins, widows, celibates, and eunuchs (Tert., "Adv. Marc.", I, xxix); all others remained catechumens. On the other hand the absence of division between catechumens and baptized persons, in Marcionite worship, shocked orthodox Christians, but it was emphatically defended by Marcion's appeal to Galatians 6:6. According to Tertullian (Adv. Marc., I, xiv) he used water in baptism, anointed his faithful with oil and gave milk and honey to the catechumens and in so far retained the orthodox practices, although, says Tertullian, all these things are "beggarly elements of the Creator." Marcionites must have been excessive fasters to provoke the ridicule of Tertullian in his Montanist days. Epiphanius says they fasted on Saturday out of a spirit of opposition to the Jewish God, who made the Sabbath a day of rejoicing. This however may have been merely a western custom adopted by them.
History
It was the fate of Marcionism to drift away almost immediately from its founder's ideas towards mere Gnosticism. Marcion's creator or Jewish god was too inconsistent and illogical a conception, he was inferior to the good God yet he was independent; he was just and yet not good; his writings were true and yet to be discarded; he had created all men and done them no evil, yet they had not to worship and serve him. Marcion's followers sought to be more logical, they postulated three principles: good, just, and wicked, opposing the first two to the last; or one principle only, the just god being a mere creation of the good God. The first opinion was maintained by Syneros and Lucanus or Lucianus. Of the first we know nothing beyond the mention of him in Rhodon; of the second we possess more information, and Epiphanius has devoted a whole chapter to his refutation. Both Origen and Epiphanius, however, seem to know of Lucanus' sect only by hearsay; it was therefore probably extinct toward the end of the third century. Tertullian (De Resur., Carn., ii) says that he outdid even Marcion in denying the resurrection, not only of the body, but also of the soul, only admitting the resurrection of some tertium quid (pneuma as opposed to psyche?). Tertullian says that he had Lucanus' teaching in view when writing his "De Anima". It is possible that Lucanus taught transmigration of souls; according to Epiphanius some Marcionites of his day maintained it. Though Lucanus' particular sect may soon have died out, the doctrine comprised in the three principles was long maintained by Marcionites. In St. Hippolytus' time (c. 225) it was held by an Assyrian called Prepon, who wrote in defense of it a work called "Bardesanes the Armenian" (Hipp., "Adv. Haer.", VII, xxxi). Adamantius in his "Dialogue" (see below) introduces a probable fictitious Marcionite doctrine of three principles, and Epiphanius evidently puts it forward as the prominent Marcionite doctrine of his day (374). The doctrine of the One Principle only, of which the Jewish god is a creature, was maintained by the notorious Apelles, who, though once a disciple of Marcion himself, became more of a Gnostic than of a Marcionist. He was accompanied by a girl called Philumena, a sort of clairvoyante who dabbled in magic, and who claimed frequent visions of Christ and St. Paul, appearing under the form of a boy. Tertullian calls this Philumena a prostitute, and accuses Apelles of unchastity, but Rhodon, who had known Apelles personally, refers to him as "venerable in behavior and age". Tertullian often attacks him in writings ("De Praeser., " lxvii; "Adv. Marc.," III, g. 11, IV, 17) and even wrote a work against him: "Adversus Apelleiacos", which is unfortunately lost, though once known to St. Hippolytus and .htm-->St. Augustine. Some fragments of Apelles have been collected by A. Harnack (first in "Texte u. Unters.", VI, 3, 1890, and then ibid., XX, or new ser., V, 3, 1900), who wrote, "De Apelles Gnosi Monarchica" (Leipzig, 1874), though Apelles emphatically repudiated Marcion's two gods and acknowledged "One good God, one Beginning, and one Power beyond all description" (akatanomastos).
This "Holy and Good God above", according to him, took no notice of things below, but made another god who made the world. Nor is this creator-god the only emanation of the Supreme God; there is a fire-angel or fire-god ("Igneus Praeses mali" according to Tertullian, "De Carne", viii) who tampered with the souls of men; there is a Jewish god, a law-god, who presumably wrote the Old Testament, which Apelles held to be a lying production. Possibly, however, the fire-god and the law-god were but manifestations of the creator-god. Apelles wrote an extensive work called Syllogismoi to prove the untrustworthiness of the Old Testament, of which Origen quotes a characteristic fragment (In Gen., II, ii). Apelles' Antidocetism has been referred to above. Of other followers of Marcion the names only are known. The Marcionites differed from the Gnostic Christians in that they thought it unlawful to deny their religion in times of persecution, nobly vying with the Catholics in shedding their blood for the name of Christ. Marcionite martyrs are not infrequently referred to in Eusebius' "Church History" (IV.15; IV.46; V.16; V.21; VII.12). Their number and influence seem always to have been less in the West than in the East, and in the West they soon died out. Epiphanius, however, testifies that in the East in A.D. 374 they had deceived "a vast number of men" and were found, "not only in Rome and Italy but in Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus and the Thebaid and even in Persia". And Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in the Province of the Euphrates from 423 to 458, in his letter to Domno, the Patriarch of Antioch, refers with just pride to having converted one thousand Marcionites in his scattered diocese. Not far from Theodoret's diocese, near Damascus, and inscription was found of a Marcionite church, showing that in A.D. 318-319 Marcionites possessed freedom of worship (Le Boss and Waddington, "Inscr. Grec.", Paris, 1870). Constantine (Eusebius, "Vita", III, lxiv) forbade all public and private worship of Marcionism. Though the Paulicians are always designated by their adversaries as Manichæans, and though their adoption of Manichaean principles seems undeniable, yet, according to Petrus Siculus, who lived amongst Paulicians (868-869) in Tibrike and is therefore a trustworthy witness, their founder, Constantine the Armenian, on receiving Marcion's Gospel and Apostolicon from a deacon in Syria, handed it to his followers, who at first at least kept it as their Bible and repudiated all writings of Mani. The refutation of Marcionism by the Armenian Archpriest Eznic in the fifth century shows the Marcionites to have been still numerous in Armenia at that time (Eznik, "Refutation of the Sects", IV, Ger. tr., J. M. Schmid, Vienna, 1900). Ermoni maintains that Eznik's description of Marcion's doctrine still represents the ancient form thereof, but this is not acknowledged by other scholars ("Marcion dans la littérat. Arménienne" in "Revue de l'Or. Chrét.", I)
Mutilation of the New Testament
Marcion's name appears prominently in the discussion of two important questions, that of the Apostle's Creed, and that of the Canon of the New Testament.
With regard to discipline, the main point of difference consists in his rejection of marriage, i.e. he baptized only those who were not living in matrimony: virgins, widows, celibates, and eunuchs (Tert., "Adv. Marc.", I, xxix); all others remained catechumens. On the other hand the absence of division between catechumens and baptized persons, in Marcionite worship, shocked orthodox Christians, but it was emphatically defended by Marcion's appeal to Galatians 6:6. According to Tertullian (Adv. Marc., I, xiv) he used water in baptism, anointed his faithful with oil and gave milk and honey to the catechumens and in so far retained the orthodox practices, although, says Tertullian, all these things are "beggarly elements of the Creator." Marcionites must have been excessive fasters to provoke the ridicule of Tertullian in his Montanist days. Epiphanius says they fasted on Saturday out of a spirit of opposition to the Jewish God, who made the Sabbath a day of rejoicing. This however may have been merely a western custom adopted by them.
History
It was the fate of Marcionism to drift away almost immediately from its founder's ideas towards mere Gnosticism. Marcion's creator or Jewish god was too inconsistent and illogical a conception, he was inferior to the good God yet he was independent; he was just and yet not good; his writings were true and yet to be discarded; he had created all men and done them no evil, yet they had not to worship and serve him. Marcion's followers sought to be more logical, they postulated three principles: good, just, and wicked, opposing the first two to the last; or one principle only, the just god being a mere creation of the good God. The first opinion was maintained by Syneros and Lucanus or Lucianus. Of the first we know nothing beyond the mention of him in Rhodon; of the second we possess more information, and Epiphanius has devoted a whole chapter to his refutation. Both Origen and Epiphanius, however, seem to know of Lucanus' sect only by hearsay; it was therefore probably extinct toward the end of the third century. Tertullian (De Resur., Carn., ii) says that he outdid even Marcion in denying the resurrection, not only of the body, but also of the soul, only admitting the resurrection of some tertium quid (pneuma as opposed to psyche?). Tertullian says that he had Lucanus' teaching in view when writing his "De Anima". It is possible that Lucanus taught transmigration of souls; according to Epiphanius some Marcionites of his day maintained it. Though Lucanus' particular sect may soon have died out, the doctrine comprised in the three principles was long maintained by Marcionites. In St. Hippolytus' time (c. 225) it was held by an Assyrian called Prepon, who wrote in defense of it a work called "Bardesanes the Armenian" (Hipp., "Adv. Haer.", VII, xxxi). Adamantius in his "Dialogue" (see below) introduces a probable fictitious Marcionite doctrine of three principles, and Epiphanius evidently puts it forward as the prominent Marcionite doctrine of his day (374). The doctrine of the One Principle only, of which the Jewish god is a creature, was maintained by the notorious Apelles, who, though once a disciple of Marcion himself, became more of a Gnostic than of a Marcionist. He was accompanied by a girl called Philumena, a sort of clairvoyante who dabbled in magic, and who claimed frequent visions of Christ and St. Paul, appearing under the form of a boy. Tertullian calls this Philumena a prostitute, and accuses Apelles of unchastity, but Rhodon, who had known Apelles personally, refers to him as "venerable in behavior and age". Tertullian often attacks him in writings ("De Praeser., " lxvii; "Adv. Marc.," III, g. 11, IV, 17) and even wrote a work against him: "Adversus Apelleiacos", which is unfortunately lost, though once known to St. Hippolytus and .htm-->St. Augustine. Some fragments of Apelles have been collected by A. Harnack (first in "Texte u. Unters.", VI, 3, 1890, and then ibid., XX, or new ser., V, 3, 1900), who wrote, "De Apelles Gnosi Monarchica" (Leipzig, 1874), though Apelles emphatically repudiated Marcion's two gods and acknowledged "One good God, one Beginning, and one Power beyond all description" (akatanomastos).
This "Holy and Good God above", according to him, took no notice of things below, but made another god who made the world. Nor is this creator-god the only emanation of the Supreme God; there is a fire-angel or fire-god ("Igneus Praeses mali" according to Tertullian, "De Carne", viii) who tampered with the souls of men; there is a Jewish god, a law-god, who presumably wrote the Old Testament, which Apelles held to be a lying production. Possibly, however, the fire-god and the law-god were but manifestations of the creator-god. Apelles wrote an extensive work called Syllogismoi to prove the untrustworthiness of the Old Testament, of which Origen quotes a characteristic fragment (In Gen., II, ii). Apelles' Antidocetism has been referred to above. Of other followers of Marcion the names only are known. The Marcionites differed from the Gnostic Christians in that they thought it unlawful to deny their religion in times of persecution, nobly vying with the Catholics in shedding their blood for the name of Christ. Marcionite martyrs are not infrequently referred to in Eusebius' "Church History" (IV.15; IV.46; V.16; V.21; VII.12). Their number and influence seem always to have been less in the West than in the East, and in the West they soon died out. Epiphanius, however, testifies that in the East in A.D. 374 they had deceived "a vast number of men" and were found, "not only in Rome and Italy but in Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cyprus and the Thebaid and even in Persia". And Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in the Province of the Euphrates from 423 to 458, in his letter to Domno, the Patriarch of Antioch, refers with just pride to having converted one thousand Marcionites in his scattered diocese. Not far from Theodoret's diocese, near Damascus, and inscription was found of a Marcionite church, showing that in A.D. 318-319 Marcionites possessed freedom of worship (Le Boss and Waddington, "Inscr. Grec.", Paris, 1870). Constantine (Eusebius, "Vita", III, lxiv) forbade all public and private worship of Marcionism. Though the Paulicians are always designated by their adversaries as Manichæans, and though their adoption of Manichaean principles seems undeniable, yet, according to Petrus Siculus, who lived amongst Paulicians (868-869) in Tibrike and is therefore a trustworthy witness, their founder, Constantine the Armenian, on receiving Marcion's Gospel and Apostolicon from a deacon in Syria, handed it to his followers, who at first at least kept it as their Bible and repudiated all writings of Mani. The refutation of Marcionism by the Armenian Archpriest Eznic in the fifth century shows the Marcionites to have been still numerous in Armenia at that time (Eznik, "Refutation of the Sects", IV, Ger. tr., J. M. Schmid, Vienna, 1900). Ermoni maintains that Eznik's description of Marcion's doctrine still represents the ancient form thereof, but this is not acknowledged by other scholars ("Marcion dans la littérat. Arménienne" in "Revue de l'Or. Chrét.", I)
Mutilation of the New Testament
Marcion's name appears prominently in the discussion of two important questions, that of the Apostle's Creed, and that of the Canon of the New Testament.
It is maintained by recent scholars that the Apostle's Creed was drawn up in the Roman Church in opposition to Marcionism (cf. F. Kattenbusch, "Das Apost. Symbol.", Leipzig, 1900; A.C. McGiffert, "The Apostle's Creed", New York, 1902). Passing over this point, Marcion's attitude toward the New Testament must be further explained. His cardinal doctrine was the opposition of the Old Testament to the New, and this doctrine he had amply illustrated in his great (lost) work, Antithesis, or "Contrasts". In order, however, to make the contrast perfect he had to omit much of the New Testament writings and to manipulate the rest. He took one Gospel out of the four, and accepted only ten Epistles of St. Paul. Marcion's Gospel was based on our canonical St. Luke with omission of the first two chapters. The text has been as far as possible restored by Th. Zahn, "Geschichte d. N.T. Kanons", II, 456-494, from all available sources especially Epiphanius, who made a collection of 78 passages. Marcion's changes mainly consist in omissions where he modifies the text. The modifications are slight thus: "I give Thee thanks, Father, God of heaven and earth," is changed to "I give thanks, Father, Lord of heaven". "O foolish and hard of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken", is changed into, "O foolish and hard of heart to believe in all that I have told you." Sometimes slight additions are made: "We found this one subverting our nation" (the accusation of the Jews before Pilate) receives the addition: "and destroying the law and the prophets."
A similar process was followed with the Epistles of St. Paul. By the omission of a single preposition Marcion had coined a text in favor of his doctrine out of Ephesians 3:10: "the mystery which from the beginning of the world has been hidden from the God who created all things" (omitting en before theo). However cleverly the changes were made, Catholics continued to press Marcion even with the texts which he retained in his New Testament, hence the continual need of further modifications. The Epistles of St. Paul which he received were, first of all, Galatians, which he considered the charter of Marcionism, then Corinthians I and II, Romans I and II, Thessalonians, Ephesians (which, however, he knew under the name of Laodicians), Colossians, Philippians and Philemon. The Pastoral epistles, the Catholic Epistles, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as well as Acts, were excluded. Recently De Bruyne ("Revue Benedictine", 1907, 1-16) has made out a good case for the supposition that the short prefaces to the Pauline epistles, which were once attributed to Pelagius and others, are taken out of as Marcionite Bible and augmented with Catholic headings for the missing epistles.
Anti-Marcionite writers
(1) St. Justin the Martyr (150) refers to the Marcionites in his first Apology; he also wrote a special treatise against them. This, however, mentioned by Irenæus as Syntagma pros Markiona, is lost. Irenaeus (Haer., IV, vi, 2) quotes short passages of Justin containing the sentence: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself if He had announced any other than the Creator"; also, V, 26, 2.
(2) Irenaeus (c. 176) intended to write a special work in refutation of Marcion, but never carried out his purpose (Haer., I, 27, 4; III, 12, 13); he refers to Marcion, however, again and again in his great work against Heresies especially III, 4, 2; III, 27, 2; IV, 38, 2 sq.; III, 11, 7, 25, 3.
(3) Rhodon (180-192) wrote a treatise against Marcion, dedicated to Callistion. It is no longer extant, but is referred to by Eusebius (Church History V.13) who gives some extracts.
(4) Tertullian, the main source of our information, wrote his "Adversus Marcionem" (five books) in 207, and makes reference to Marcion in several of his works: "De Praescriptione", "De Carne Christi", "De Resurrectione Carnis", and "De Anima". His work against Apelles is lost.
(5) Pseudo-Tertullian, (possibly Commodian. See H. Waitz, "Ps. Tert. Gedicht ad M.", Darmstadt, 1901) wrote a lengthy poem against Marcion in doggerel hexameters, which is now valuable. Pseudo-Tertullian's (possibly Victorinus of Pettau) short treatise against all heresies (c. A.D. 240) is also extant.
(6) Adamantius — whether this is a real personage or only a nom de plume is uncertain. His dialogue "De Recta in Deum Fide", has often been ascribed to Origen, but it is beyond doubt that he is not the author. The work was probably composed about A.D. 300. It was originally written in Greek and translated by Rufinus. It is a refutation of Marcionism and Valentinianism. The first half is directed against Marcionism, which is defended by Megethius (who maintains three principles) and Marcus (who defends two). (Berlin ed. of the Fathers by Sande Bakhuysen, Leipzig, 1901).
(7) St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 220) speaks of Marcion in his "Refutation of All Heresies", book VII, ch. 17-26; and X, 15)
(8) St. Epiphanius wrote his work against heresies in 374, and is the second main source of information in his Ch. xlii-xliv). He is invaluable for the reconstruction of Marcion's Bible text, as he gives 78 and 40 passages from Marcion's New Testament where it differs from ours and adds a short refutation in each instance.
(9) St. Ephraem (373) maintains in many of his writings a polemic against Marcion, as in his "Commentary on the Diatesseron" (J.R. Harris, "Fragments of Com. on Diates.", London, 1895) and in his "Metrical Sermons" (Roman ed., Vol II, 437-560, and Overbeek's Ephraem etc., Opera Selecta).
(10) Eznik, an Armenian Archpriest, or possibly Bishop of Bagrawand (478) wrote a "Refutation of the Sects", of which Book IV is a refutation of Marcion. Translated into German, J.M. Schmid, Vienna, 1900.
Sources
Meyboom. Marcion en de Marcioneten (Leyden, 1888); Idem, Het Christendom der tweede Eeuw (Groningen, 1897); Krueger, extensive article in Hauck, Real Encyclop. der Prot. Theol., XII, 1903; s.v.; Harnack, Gescichte der altchrist Lit., I, 191-197, 839-840; Texte und untersuchung, VI, 3 pp., 109-120; XX, 3, pp. 93-100 (1900); 2nd II, 2, 537; Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. lit. II (1902); Zahn, Geschichte des N.T. Kanons, I and II (1888); Das Apost. Symbol. (Leipzig, 1893); Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte des Ur-Christenhums (Leipzig, 1884).
About this page
APA citation. Arendzen, J. (1910). Marcionites. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 5, 2014 from New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Marcionites
MLA citation. Arendzen, John. "Marcionites." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 5 Feb. 2014 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm>.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Tom Crossett.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Marcion
Around the year 85 Marcion was born, the son of a bishop. He traveled around the world as a merchant and moved to Rome around 135 where he became known in the church and began to teach.
Marcion observed the vast differences between the God represented in the Old Testament and the God of Jesus in the NT. His answer was to reject the God of the OT, seeing him as the evil craftsman (gk. demiurge) creator of an evil world. Marcion constructed a list that represents the first recorded listing of NT texts, basically his personal canon - he excluded the entire OT, and included only Paul's letters and Luke's gospel. He also excluded a few parts of Paul's letters - anything where Paul refers to the OT in a positive way (Marcion claimed these had been tampered with by Jews) and references to hell and/or judgment (for example 2 Thess 1:6-8). It is this unorthodox canon that leads the church fathers to begin naming the "accepted" documents.
Marcion's influence was significant enough for his teaching to be argued against by several church fathers including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. He worked hard as an evangelist and the Marcionite churches spread throughout the Roman world. Marcionite churches held strong until the beginning of the fourth century.
The Canon of Marcion the heretic
A. Who was Marcion and when did he live?
Marcion was born about 110 AD, being the son of the wealthy Bishop of Sinope in Pontus.
By 144 AD, at age 34, Marcion had caused such a stir, that his teachings were the subject of an investigation and condemnation.
B. What did Marcion believe that made him a dangerous heretic:
Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament was an evil creator god that Jesus came to destroy.
Marcion believed that this evil god did in fact reveal his will through the Old Testament. Thus he believed in the "inspiration" of the Old Testament from divine sources, although from an evil source.
Marcion's canon: Luke + Paul's writings. Marcion accepted only the gospel of Luke to the exclusion of the other three gospels. He also accepted all of Paul's writings but he would "cut out" any Old Testament quote or anything else that contradicted his theological views. He rejected all other books of the Bible except Luke + Paul's writings.
"It is usually said that Marcion "rejected" the Old Testament and accepted in its place only his own canon of Luke plus Pauline Epistles, edited to remove all allusions to the Old Testament. This, however, obscures two important points. First, Marcion's rejection of the Old Testament was indeed total, in that he regarded it as completely alien to the revelation of salvation brought by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament documents he accepted. But this was not because he did not believe that the God of the Old Testament actually existed, or thought that the Old Testament itself was a purely human invention, pseudo-oracles of an imaginary god. On the contrary, Marcion firmly believed that the Old Testament God did exist, and that he was the Creator of the world. The problem was that his creation was evil, and he himself therefore a malign being; it was precisely the role of Jesus, and of the Unknown God now revealed in him, to deliver humankind from the malice of the evil Creator. Furthermore, the creator-god really had spoken the words attributed to him in the Old Testament: these were fully true and accurate oracles, not a human invention. They truly expressed the thoughts of the maker of the universe, and there could be no question of suggesting that they had been falsified in any way or contaminated by human intervention. "The Jewish Scriptures represent a true revelation of the Creator, but they do not speak of or for the God whom alone Christians ought to worship."" Marcion's "rejection" of the Old Testament thus needs to be qualified."" (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 344, 2002)
"Marcion, we may conclude, was important for two reasons. He rejected the Old Testament as the document of an alien religion; and he taught that Jesus had come to save humankind from the control of the evil Creator to whom the Old Testament witnesses. These are precisely the two aspects of his work on which patristic condemnations, from Tertullian onwards, focus. In the process he denied the validity of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, which he saw as a means of accommodating it to Christian belief; this too is picked up by Tertullian. In short, Marcion was not a major influence on the formation of the New Testament; he was simply a Marcionite." (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 354, 2002)
C. Others quickly identified Marcion as a dangerous heretic:
At any rate, it is clear that Tertullian was not the first to realize that there was a problem with Marcion's Bible and try to answer his claims. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 311, 2002)
Tertullian too contrasted Marcion's reductionism with what he considered Valentinus's expansion of the gospel material: 'Of the scriptures we have our being before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by [heretics]. . . . One man perverts the scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has nonetheless laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent scriptures to square with his own subject-matter ... and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word....' (Praescr. 38) (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 312, 2002)
D. Marcion's canon was much less than what was already accepted as scripture by Christians in general.
Marcion's concern was to exclude books that he disapproved of from his "canon." He was not assembling a collection of Christian books, but making a (very restricted) selection from the corpus of texts which already existed and which must already have been recognized as sacred by many in the church-otherwise he would not have needed to insist on abolishing them. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 342, 2002)
The New Testament books, or at any rate the central "core" of the Gospels and the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, were already used very widely in the time before Marcion, and continued to be so used after him. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 343, 2002)
In his attitude to the Old Testament Marcion really does look more like an innovator than he was in his "canonization" of the New Testament. Nevertheless it is unlikely that his theology seemed so new to him. Rather, he regarded it as the continuation of a central theme in Paul: the supersession of the law by the gospel. Paul "spoiled" the novelty of this theme by continuing to quote the Old Testament as though it were authoritative for Christians, and Marcion accordingly had to expurgate even the Pauline letters that he retained. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 351, 2002)
D. Roman Catholic and Orthodox get Marcion wrong:
Father James Bernstein, an Orthodox church leader wrote: "The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. ... Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly defined canon of its own." (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 7)
A similar process was followed with the Epistles of St. Paul. By the omission of a single preposition Marcion had coined a text in favor of his doctrine out of Ephesians 3:10: "the mystery which from the beginning of the world has been hidden from the God who created all things" (omitting en before theo). However cleverly the changes were made, Catholics continued to press Marcion even with the texts which he retained in his New Testament, hence the continual need of further modifications. The Epistles of St. Paul which he received were, first of all, Galatians, which he considered the charter of Marcionism, then Corinthians I and II, Romans I and II, Thessalonians, Ephesians (which, however, he knew under the name of Laodicians), Colossians, Philippians and Philemon. The Pastoral epistles, the Catholic Epistles, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as well as Acts, were excluded. Recently De Bruyne ("Revue Benedictine", 1907, 1-16) has made out a good case for the supposition that the short prefaces to the Pauline epistles, which were once attributed to Pelagius and others, are taken out of as Marcionite Bible and augmented with Catholic headings for the missing epistles.
Anti-Marcionite writers
(1) St. Justin the Martyr (150) refers to the Marcionites in his first Apology; he also wrote a special treatise against them. This, however, mentioned by Irenæus as Syntagma pros Markiona, is lost. Irenaeus (Haer., IV, vi, 2) quotes short passages of Justin containing the sentence: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself if He had announced any other than the Creator"; also, V, 26, 2.
(2) Irenaeus (c. 176) intended to write a special work in refutation of Marcion, but never carried out his purpose (Haer., I, 27, 4; III, 12, 13); he refers to Marcion, however, again and again in his great work against Heresies especially III, 4, 2; III, 27, 2; IV, 38, 2 sq.; III, 11, 7, 25, 3.
(3) Rhodon (180-192) wrote a treatise against Marcion, dedicated to Callistion. It is no longer extant, but is referred to by Eusebius (Church History V.13) who gives some extracts.
(4) Tertullian, the main source of our information, wrote his "Adversus Marcionem" (five books) in 207, and makes reference to Marcion in several of his works: "De Praescriptione", "De Carne Christi", "De Resurrectione Carnis", and "De Anima". His work against Apelles is lost.
(5) Pseudo-Tertullian, (possibly Commodian. See H. Waitz, "Ps. Tert. Gedicht ad M.", Darmstadt, 1901) wrote a lengthy poem against Marcion in doggerel hexameters, which is now valuable. Pseudo-Tertullian's (possibly Victorinus of Pettau) short treatise against all heresies (c. A.D. 240) is also extant.
(6) Adamantius — whether this is a real personage or only a nom de plume is uncertain. His dialogue "De Recta in Deum Fide", has often been ascribed to Origen, but it is beyond doubt that he is not the author. The work was probably composed about A.D. 300. It was originally written in Greek and translated by Rufinus. It is a refutation of Marcionism and Valentinianism. The first half is directed against Marcionism, which is defended by Megethius (who maintains three principles) and Marcus (who defends two). (Berlin ed. of the Fathers by Sande Bakhuysen, Leipzig, 1901).
(7) St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 220) speaks of Marcion in his "Refutation of All Heresies", book VII, ch. 17-26; and X, 15)
(8) St. Epiphanius wrote his work against heresies in 374, and is the second main source of information in his Ch. xlii-xliv). He is invaluable for the reconstruction of Marcion's Bible text, as he gives 78 and 40 passages from Marcion's New Testament where it differs from ours and adds a short refutation in each instance.
(9) St. Ephraem (373) maintains in many of his writings a polemic against Marcion, as in his "Commentary on the Diatesseron" (J.R. Harris, "Fragments of Com. on Diates.", London, 1895) and in his "Metrical Sermons" (Roman ed., Vol II, 437-560, and Overbeek's Ephraem etc., Opera Selecta).
(10) Eznik, an Armenian Archpriest, or possibly Bishop of Bagrawand (478) wrote a "Refutation of the Sects", of which Book IV is a refutation of Marcion. Translated into German, J.M. Schmid, Vienna, 1900.
Sources
Meyboom. Marcion en de Marcioneten (Leyden, 1888); Idem, Het Christendom der tweede Eeuw (Groningen, 1897); Krueger, extensive article in Hauck, Real Encyclop. der Prot. Theol., XII, 1903; s.v.; Harnack, Gescichte der altchrist Lit., I, 191-197, 839-840; Texte und untersuchung, VI, 3 pp., 109-120; XX, 3, pp. 93-100 (1900); 2nd II, 2, 537; Bardenhewer, Gesch. der altkirchl. lit. II (1902); Zahn, Geschichte des N.T. Kanons, I and II (1888); Das Apost. Symbol. (Leipzig, 1893); Hilgenfeld, Ketzergeschichte des Ur-Christenhums (Leipzig, 1884).
About this page
APA citation. Arendzen, J. (1910). Marcionites. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved February 5, 2014 from New Advent: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Marcionites
MLA citation. Arendzen, John. "Marcionites." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910. 5 Feb. 2014 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm>.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Tom Crossett.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Marcion
Around the year 85 Marcion was born, the son of a bishop. He traveled around the world as a merchant and moved to Rome around 135 where he became known in the church and began to teach.
Marcion observed the vast differences between the God represented in the Old Testament and the God of Jesus in the NT. His answer was to reject the God of the OT, seeing him as the evil craftsman (gk. demiurge) creator of an evil world. Marcion constructed a list that represents the first recorded listing of NT texts, basically his personal canon - he excluded the entire OT, and included only Paul's letters and Luke's gospel. He also excluded a few parts of Paul's letters - anything where Paul refers to the OT in a positive way (Marcion claimed these had been tampered with by Jews) and references to hell and/or judgment (for example 2 Thess 1:6-8). It is this unorthodox canon that leads the church fathers to begin naming the "accepted" documents.
Marcion's influence was significant enough for his teaching to be argued against by several church fathers including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. He worked hard as an evangelist and the Marcionite churches spread throughout the Roman world. Marcionite churches held strong until the beginning of the fourth century.
The Canon of Marcion the heretic
A. Who was Marcion and when did he live?
Marcion was born about 110 AD, being the son of the wealthy Bishop of Sinope in Pontus.
By 144 AD, at age 34, Marcion had caused such a stir, that his teachings were the subject of an investigation and condemnation.
B. What did Marcion believe that made him a dangerous heretic:
Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament was an evil creator god that Jesus came to destroy.
Marcion believed that this evil god did in fact reveal his will through the Old Testament. Thus he believed in the "inspiration" of the Old Testament from divine sources, although from an evil source.
Marcion's canon: Luke + Paul's writings. Marcion accepted only the gospel of Luke to the exclusion of the other three gospels. He also accepted all of Paul's writings but he would "cut out" any Old Testament quote or anything else that contradicted his theological views. He rejected all other books of the Bible except Luke + Paul's writings.
"It is usually said that Marcion "rejected" the Old Testament and accepted in its place only his own canon of Luke plus Pauline Epistles, edited to remove all allusions to the Old Testament. This, however, obscures two important points. First, Marcion's rejection of the Old Testament was indeed total, in that he regarded it as completely alien to the revelation of salvation brought by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament documents he accepted. But this was not because he did not believe that the God of the Old Testament actually existed, or thought that the Old Testament itself was a purely human invention, pseudo-oracles of an imaginary god. On the contrary, Marcion firmly believed that the Old Testament God did exist, and that he was the Creator of the world. The problem was that his creation was evil, and he himself therefore a malign being; it was precisely the role of Jesus, and of the Unknown God now revealed in him, to deliver humankind from the malice of the evil Creator. Furthermore, the creator-god really had spoken the words attributed to him in the Old Testament: these were fully true and accurate oracles, not a human invention. They truly expressed the thoughts of the maker of the universe, and there could be no question of suggesting that they had been falsified in any way or contaminated by human intervention. "The Jewish Scriptures represent a true revelation of the Creator, but they do not speak of or for the God whom alone Christians ought to worship."" Marcion's "rejection" of the Old Testament thus needs to be qualified."" (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 344, 2002)
"Marcion, we may conclude, was important for two reasons. He rejected the Old Testament as the document of an alien religion; and he taught that Jesus had come to save humankind from the control of the evil Creator to whom the Old Testament witnesses. These are precisely the two aspects of his work on which patristic condemnations, from Tertullian onwards, focus. In the process he denied the validity of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, which he saw as a means of accommodating it to Christian belief; this too is picked up by Tertullian. In short, Marcion was not a major influence on the formation of the New Testament; he was simply a Marcionite." (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 354, 2002)
C. Others quickly identified Marcion as a dangerous heretic:
At any rate, it is clear that Tertullian was not the first to realize that there was a problem with Marcion's Bible and try to answer his claims. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 311, 2002)
Tertullian too contrasted Marcion's reductionism with what he considered Valentinus's expansion of the gospel material: 'Of the scriptures we have our being before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by [heretics]. . . . One man perverts the scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has nonetheless laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent scriptures to square with his own subject-matter ... and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word....' (Praescr. 38) (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 312, 2002)
D. Marcion's canon was much less than what was already accepted as scripture by Christians in general.
Marcion's concern was to exclude books that he disapproved of from his "canon." He was not assembling a collection of Christian books, but making a (very restricted) selection from the corpus of texts which already existed and which must already have been recognized as sacred by many in the church-otherwise he would not have needed to insist on abolishing them. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 342, 2002)
The New Testament books, or at any rate the central "core" of the Gospels and the Pauline and Catholic Epistles, were already used very widely in the time before Marcion, and continued to be so used after him. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 343, 2002)
In his attitude to the Old Testament Marcion really does look more like an innovator than he was in his "canonization" of the New Testament. Nevertheless it is unlikely that his theology seemed so new to him. Rather, he regarded it as the continuation of a central theme in Paul: the supersession of the law by the gospel. Paul "spoiled" the novelty of this theme by continuing to quote the Old Testament as though it were authoritative for Christians, and Marcion accordingly had to expurgate even the Pauline letters that he retained. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; John Barton, Marcion Revisited, p 351, 2002)
D. Roman Catholic and Orthodox get Marcion wrong:
Father James Bernstein, an Orthodox church leader wrote: "The first person on record who tried to establish a New Testament canon was the second-century heretic, Marcion. ... Many scholars believe that it was partly in reaction to this distorted canon of Marcion that the early Church determined to create a clearly defined canon of its own." (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 7)
Refutation of James Bernstein (Orthodox):
It is clear from our documentation that most scholars today reject the idea that Marcion had any direct influence on the development of the canon. But the Orthodox church wants to desperately to believe that there was no Bible till the 4th century and that church tradition was the rule of the day.
The consensus of scholars is the Marcion started with a larger list of New Testament books and from this list of universally known inspired books, started removing books from the list.
Marcion clearly proves that all the writings of Paul were considered inspired and universally distributed. The Orthodox church practices countless things the contradict the writings of Paul.
Conclusion:
When we study Marcion, it should be obvious that the vast majority of New Testament books were already recognized as part of the New Testament canon.
Marcion's specific removal and denial of many New Testament books from his own canon, including all of Peter, James and John, proves they were already in use between 125-144 AD and widely accepted as scripture.
Marcion, the Canon, the Law, and the Historical Jesus
A survey of Marcion's life and legacy.
by Chris Price (October 14, 2002)
It is ironic that perhaps one of the most influential of figures in Church History is also one of the most reviled heretics: Marcion. Although his ideas were completely rejected by the Apostolic Fathers of the second-century church, the very need to reject them forced the second-century church to consider, clarify, and consolidate its beliefs about important issues: the contents of the Christian Bible (the Canon), the relationship between Christianity and Judaism (or between Law and Grace), and finally, the source of the church's knowledge of Jesus.
OUR SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The main sources for Marcion's life are Iranaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. But the Jewish writer Celsus also knew of Marcion and used his writings to argue against Christianity. Robin L. Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 516. Additional information about Marcion and his followers can be gleaned from other Christian writers who continued to engage Marcionites centuries after his death.
Marcion's major work was entitled Antithesis and has not survived. This is not due to an intentional cleansing or burning by Orthodox Christians. It is simply the result of the passage of time. The writings of religious groups that became extinct were largely doomed to extinction themselves because writing materials of that time simply did not last very long. Without eager new generations of scribes willing to recopy aging texts, it is very unlikely that any manuscripts would survive.
MARCION GOES TO ROME
Marcion was actually born into a Christian family. His father was a Christian bishop. He was born in Sinope, Asia Minor in about 85 CE. Marcion was a wealthy merchant and shipowner. After being accused of "defiling a virgin" and reportedly excommunicated by the church in Sinope, Marcion left Asia Minor and moved to Rome in about 135 CE. Perhaps to ensure his acceptance in the Roman Church after his misdeeds in Asia Minor, Marcion gave the Roman Church 200,000 sesterces (a very sizable gift) upon his arrival. At first, Marcion was accepted by the Roman Church.
However, it soon became obvious that his teachings were a radical departure from traditional Christianity. Marcion came under the influence of the gnostic teacher Cedro "who believed that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The God of the Old Testament was unknowable; the latter had been revealed." Marcion, by Dermot McDonald, in The History of Christianity, at 104-105. Cedro also stressed the existence of "secret knowledge" from Jesus that had not been previously made public (a common claim among gnostics). Marcion adopted these ideas into his "heretical" brand of Christianity.
MARCION'S TEACHINGS
Marcion's teachings departed from traditional Christianity in a number of ways. Most dramatically, perhaps, Marcion rejected the idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were the same being. Up until then, the traditional Church had considered the Old Testament to be sacred and assumed that Christianity was a fulfillment or continuation of Judaism. Marcion's rejection of that idea affected many different doctrines and beliefs.
Marcion's Own Canon of Scripture
Marcion faced an uphill battle with his revolutionary ideas. He faced a pretty obvious problem. For more than 100 years, Christians had been using the Old Testament as Christian Scripture, and even the most sacred documents of Christians referred to and relied heavily on, the Old Testament. The solution for Marcion was to completely reject the Old Testament and establish a canon that de-emphasized Christianity's Old Testament and Jewish roots as much as possible.
Paul, with his focus on free grace, was by far Marcion's favorite Apostle. As a result, he rejected the writings attributed to all the other Apostles and relied on forms of Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline epistles that he redacted. Although a small number of scholars have, from time to time, argued that Marcion may have had access to earlier forms of the gospels (especially Luke), even John Knox, the most prominent promoter of this theory, admits that Marcion intentionally and knowingly excised as much Old Testament and Jewish influence as he could find in the Paulines and Gospel of Luke. "That Marcion, for example, did not have the account of John the Baptist's announcement of Jesus as Messiah or the story of Jesus' temptation is almost certainly to be accounted for by Marcion's omission of these passages. Not only are they inconsistent with Marcion's theological position but (more important) they are also deeply imbedded in the Synotpic tradition, and to explain them as late additions to a Gospel which was already dependent (as Marcion's was) upon that tradition is next to impossible." John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, at 95.
The scope of Marcion's redactions is large. As Dr. Fisher explained, Marcion rejected "the entire Old Testament, [and] settled for Luke's Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 & 2 as too Jewish) and Paul's letters (except for the pastoral ones)." "The Canon of the New Testament," by Milton Fisher, in The Origin of the Bible, ed. Philip Comfort, at 71. Beyond chapters 1 and 2 of Luke, Marcion also removed Luke 4:1-3 (temptation narrative that refers to Dueteronomy 3 times), Luke 4:16-30 (Jesus claiming—while teaching in a synagogue—that his ministry was a fulfillment of the Old Testament), Luke 5:39 ("The old is good"), and Luke 8:19 (reference to Jesus' family). All of these verses were just too Jewish and conflicted too much with Marcion's heresies.
Significantly, Marcion also took a scalpel to Paul's letters, eliminating as many positive references to Judaism or the Old Testament as possible. "Marcion dealt with the text of Paul's letters in the same way as with the text of Luke's gospel: anything which appeared inconsistent with what he believed to be authentic Pauline teaching was regarded as a corruption proceeding from an alien hand." F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, at 140. The mention of Abraham as an example of faith was eliminated from Galatians (3:6-9), as well as the connection between the law and the gospels (3:15-25). He removed Romans 1:19-21:1, 3:21-4:25, and most of Romans 9-11, and everything after Romans 14:23.
Additionally, Marcion simply altered the content of many verses in Luke and Paul's letters to soften the connection with Judaism. For example, in place of "Thy Kingdom Come" in the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2), Marcion's gospel stated, "Let they Holy Spirit come on us and cleanse us." Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, at 138. In Ephesians, he changed, "the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (3:9) to "the mystery hidden for ages from the God who created all things." Id. at 139. This simple little change has the creating God being duped by the God of the New Testament.
It is clear from our documentation that most scholars today reject the idea that Marcion had any direct influence on the development of the canon. But the Orthodox church wants to desperately to believe that there was no Bible till the 4th century and that church tradition was the rule of the day.
The consensus of scholars is the Marcion started with a larger list of New Testament books and from this list of universally known inspired books, started removing books from the list.
Marcion clearly proves that all the writings of Paul were considered inspired and universally distributed. The Orthodox church practices countless things the contradict the writings of Paul.
Conclusion:
When we study Marcion, it should be obvious that the vast majority of New Testament books were already recognized as part of the New Testament canon.
Marcion's specific removal and denial of many New Testament books from his own canon, including all of Peter, James and John, proves they were already in use between 125-144 AD and widely accepted as scripture.
Marcion, the Canon, the Law, and the Historical Jesus
A survey of Marcion's life and legacy.
by Chris Price (October 14, 2002)
It is ironic that perhaps one of the most influential of figures in Church History is also one of the most reviled heretics: Marcion. Although his ideas were completely rejected by the Apostolic Fathers of the second-century church, the very need to reject them forced the second-century church to consider, clarify, and consolidate its beliefs about important issues: the contents of the Christian Bible (the Canon), the relationship between Christianity and Judaism (or between Law and Grace), and finally, the source of the church's knowledge of Jesus.
OUR SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The main sources for Marcion's life are Iranaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus. But the Jewish writer Celsus also knew of Marcion and used his writings to argue against Christianity. Robin L. Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 516. Additional information about Marcion and his followers can be gleaned from other Christian writers who continued to engage Marcionites centuries after his death.
Marcion's major work was entitled Antithesis and has not survived. This is not due to an intentional cleansing or burning by Orthodox Christians. It is simply the result of the passage of time. The writings of religious groups that became extinct were largely doomed to extinction themselves because writing materials of that time simply did not last very long. Without eager new generations of scribes willing to recopy aging texts, it is very unlikely that any manuscripts would survive.
MARCION GOES TO ROME
Marcion was actually born into a Christian family. His father was a Christian bishop. He was born in Sinope, Asia Minor in about 85 CE. Marcion was a wealthy merchant and shipowner. After being accused of "defiling a virgin" and reportedly excommunicated by the church in Sinope, Marcion left Asia Minor and moved to Rome in about 135 CE. Perhaps to ensure his acceptance in the Roman Church after his misdeeds in Asia Minor, Marcion gave the Roman Church 200,000 sesterces (a very sizable gift) upon his arrival. At first, Marcion was accepted by the Roman Church.
However, it soon became obvious that his teachings were a radical departure from traditional Christianity. Marcion came under the influence of the gnostic teacher Cedro "who believed that the God of the Old Testament was different from the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The God of the Old Testament was unknowable; the latter had been revealed." Marcion, by Dermot McDonald, in The History of Christianity, at 104-105. Cedro also stressed the existence of "secret knowledge" from Jesus that had not been previously made public (a common claim among gnostics). Marcion adopted these ideas into his "heretical" brand of Christianity.
MARCION'S TEACHINGS
Marcion's teachings departed from traditional Christianity in a number of ways. Most dramatically, perhaps, Marcion rejected the idea that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were the same being. Up until then, the traditional Church had considered the Old Testament to be sacred and assumed that Christianity was a fulfillment or continuation of Judaism. Marcion's rejection of that idea affected many different doctrines and beliefs.
Marcion's Own Canon of Scripture
Marcion faced an uphill battle with his revolutionary ideas. He faced a pretty obvious problem. For more than 100 years, Christians had been using the Old Testament as Christian Scripture, and even the most sacred documents of Christians referred to and relied heavily on, the Old Testament. The solution for Marcion was to completely reject the Old Testament and establish a canon that de-emphasized Christianity's Old Testament and Jewish roots as much as possible.
Paul, with his focus on free grace, was by far Marcion's favorite Apostle. As a result, he rejected the writings attributed to all the other Apostles and relied on forms of Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline epistles that he redacted. Although a small number of scholars have, from time to time, argued that Marcion may have had access to earlier forms of the gospels (especially Luke), even John Knox, the most prominent promoter of this theory, admits that Marcion intentionally and knowingly excised as much Old Testament and Jewish influence as he could find in the Paulines and Gospel of Luke. "That Marcion, for example, did not have the account of John the Baptist's announcement of Jesus as Messiah or the story of Jesus' temptation is almost certainly to be accounted for by Marcion's omission of these passages. Not only are they inconsistent with Marcion's theological position but (more important) they are also deeply imbedded in the Synotpic tradition, and to explain them as late additions to a Gospel which was already dependent (as Marcion's was) upon that tradition is next to impossible." John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, at 95.
The scope of Marcion's redactions is large. As Dr. Fisher explained, Marcion rejected "the entire Old Testament, [and] settled for Luke's Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 & 2 as too Jewish) and Paul's letters (except for the pastoral ones)." "The Canon of the New Testament," by Milton Fisher, in The Origin of the Bible, ed. Philip Comfort, at 71. Beyond chapters 1 and 2 of Luke, Marcion also removed Luke 4:1-3 (temptation narrative that refers to Dueteronomy 3 times), Luke 4:16-30 (Jesus claiming—while teaching in a synagogue—that his ministry was a fulfillment of the Old Testament), Luke 5:39 ("The old is good"), and Luke 8:19 (reference to Jesus' family). All of these verses were just too Jewish and conflicted too much with Marcion's heresies.
Significantly, Marcion also took a scalpel to Paul's letters, eliminating as many positive references to Judaism or the Old Testament as possible. "Marcion dealt with the text of Paul's letters in the same way as with the text of Luke's gospel: anything which appeared inconsistent with what he believed to be authentic Pauline teaching was regarded as a corruption proceeding from an alien hand." F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, at 140. The mention of Abraham as an example of faith was eliminated from Galatians (3:6-9), as well as the connection between the law and the gospels (3:15-25). He removed Romans 1:19-21:1, 3:21-4:25, and most of Romans 9-11, and everything after Romans 14:23.
Additionally, Marcion simply altered the content of many verses in Luke and Paul's letters to soften the connection with Judaism. For example, in place of "Thy Kingdom Come" in the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2), Marcion's gospel stated, "Let they Holy Spirit come on us and cleanse us." Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, at 138. In Ephesians, he changed, "the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (3:9) to "the mystery hidden for ages from the God who created all things." Id. at 139. This simple little change has the creating God being duped by the God of the New Testament.
Two Different Gods
Once Marcion had rewritten the Christian scriptures, he could make his case. Or, as Robin Lane Fox writes, "y rewriting scripture, he presented a powerful case." Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 332. His theology was a tremendous departure from that of the Christian churches in which he had grown up. Key to his theology was the notion that there were actually two "Gods." One of these "Gods" was the God of the Old Testament. He was a completely different—and indeed a lesser—entity than the God of the New Testament. Jesus was the product of the New God. This God was not Jehovah, but the "unknown God" referred to by Paul in Acts in his speech in Athens.
"Marcion shocked the Church by denying any connection between the Gods of the Old and New Testament. . . . The creator, he argued, was an incompetent being: why else had he afflicted women with the agonies of childbirth? 'God' in the Old Testament was a 'committed barbarian' who favored bandits and such terrorists as Israel's King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God. Marcion's teaching was the most extreme statement of the newness of the Christian faith. Combined with virginity and a rejection of marriage, it became 'Marcionism' and continued to attract followers especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the Fourth Century." Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 332.
So Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old Testament was the "creating God," but he was harsh, cruel, and incompetent. Marcion contrasted this creating God with the God of Jesus, who was nothing less than love and grace.
Jesus Not the Expected Messiah and Not Human
Marcion's revolutionary thoughts on the identity of God were accompanied by a just as revolutionary idea about the identity of Jesus and his relationship to God. Marcion "adopted the Gnostic idea of Demiurge and thought Christ only 'appeared' to be human. . . ." Although Jesus "revealed the God of love and forgiveness [t]here will be no resurrection of the flesh, second coming, or judgment by Christ. Marcion vehemently repudiated the idea of a Judgment. According to him, the God of the Old Testament was to have sent a messiah to collect the chosen people into the Kingdom to rule over the whole earth and to exercise judgment over sinners. But at this point God appeared, showing mercy on sinners and freeing all from the bonds of the God of the Jews." Hinson, The Early Church, at 92.
In other words, while the creating God of the Old Testament was preparing to send a messiah that would establish an earthly Kingdom, the new God acted more quickly by sending Jesus to teach love and mercy for all. There would be no judgment, no bodily resurrection, and no second coming of Jesus. The purpose of Jesus was to free people from the bondage of the Jewish God, not from the bonds of sinful nature.
Tertullian described Marcion's beliefs as the following:
"Marcion laid down the position that Christ, who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from him who was ordained God, the Creator for the restoration of a Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these, he interposes a separation of a great and absolute difference as great as lies between what is just and what is good, as great as lies between the law and the gospel, as great as is the difference between Christianity and Judaism." Against Marcion, IV.6.
Marriage and Sex
Despite sounding almost antinomian, Marcion and his followers were actually very strict. "Curiously, Marcion also preached strict ascetism, denied the right of marriage, and formulated stern regulations concerning fasting." Hinson, The Early Church, at 92. This was not unusual in an of itself. "During the second and third centuries, many heretical groups taught that marriage was Satanic and akin to fornication; some connected it with the work of an inferior creator. Followers of Marcion spoke of the body as a 'nest of guilt'. Several sayings were ascribed to Jesus in which he reviled and praised the androgynous state of man at creation." Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 358. Needless to say, Marcionite commitment to complete celibacy was to have a big impact on the Marcionite sect's ability to sustain itself.
CHRISTIAN REACTION
Marcion's teachings were rejected by his church and the Apostolic Fathers who were leading the other Apostolic Churches. "To any church leader, Marcion's heresy was the most shocking deviation from Apostolic truth. He had denied the Old Testament's inspiration and the continuity of the God and Creator with Christ. Bishop Polycarp had known how to deal with him. When Polycarp met Marcion, said Polycarp's pupil Iraneaus, he had greeted him as 'the first born child of satan.'" Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 492.
Marcion was expelled from the Roman Church in 144 CE. They were so adamant about rejecting his teachings that they even returned the generous donation he had given them. "Marcion's departure was a heavy financial blow to the Rome Church and his money enabled him to attract a huge following in the East." Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, at 47. Thereafter, Marcion used those funds and attempted to emulate Paul by engaging in missionary activities to spread his new version of Christianity. Marcion met with some success. As Tertullian put it, he planted churches "as wasps make nests." He left churches in Rome, Carthage, Nicomedia, Smyrna, Phyrygia, Gartyna, Antioch, and in Syria.
Apparently, Marcion's churches—despite being built on a complete rejection of legalism or the law—were very rigorous about membership. Only a few were ultimately deemed worthy to receive baptism and become members of his churches. It eventually only established a lasting presence in Syria, but it died out completely by the mid-to-late 300s. As Professor Johnson stated, "belief in celibacy necessarily proves fatal to a heretical movement." Id. at 47. Still, the fact that the movement lasted more than 150 years based on conversions alone shows that Marcion's ideas had a strong appeal.
THE IMPACT OF MARCION
The impact of the Marcionite controversy on Church History on three issues was tremendous. First, the establishment of an Orthodox Christian Canon of Scripture (the New Testament). Second, Christianity's embracing its Jewish heritage. Third, the Church's reliance on the "Apostolic Tradition."
The Christian Canon
Marcion's choice of a highly selective canon and his mutilation of Christian scriptures forced the Church to specifically identify its own writings. In some ways, Marcion is the first person we know of to establish a "canon"—that is, to specify exactly which writings were "in" and which were "out." In so doing, he spurred the traditional Church to specify what is considered to be the canon. "The heretic Marcion, by defending a limited canon of his own (c. 140) in effect hastened the day when the Orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue." Fisher, "The Canon of the New Testament," in The Origin of the Bible, ed. Philip Comfort. The Church eventually responded by embracing the Four Gospels: Mark, Luke (fully restored), Matthew, and John. The Church also embraced all of the Apostles, not just Paul. This lead to acceptance of the Johaninne Epistles, the Epistle of James, and the Epistles of Peter. As a result, the Church embraced a much broader theology and perspective than that envisioned by Marcion.
Christianity's Relationship with Judaism
Marcion's complete rejection of any link between Judaism and Christianity, the Law and the Gospel, forced the church to conclusively link Christianity to its Jewish predecessor, and the Gospel to the Law. As Prof. Hinson states, "No early Christian thinker, heterodox or orthodox, did more than Marcion to bring to a head the question of Christianity's relation to Judaism." The Early Church, at 9.
These early Christians realized that Christianity was not a separate revelation from Judaism, but the fulfillment of Judaism's promise. N.T. Wright explains that even Marcion's focus on Paul and his focus on grace and freedom as representing a complete departure was fundamentally flawed:
"Some readers, starting at least with Marcion in the second century, have seen this as evidence that [Paul] abandoned the Jewish Story altogether, embracing a quite different symbolic universe. . . . But Paul's fundamental narrative would give no deep echo to that of paganism in any of its first-century or other forms. It continues to resonate with the Story of Israel. Because Israel's story speaks of a creator god who claims all people, all lands, as his own, Paul is able to reach out from within that story and address Jews and Gentiles. He thus claims that the story of Jesus fulfills the purpose for which the creator God called Abraham in the first place." N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, at 407.
As a result, the Christian Canon includes the Old and New Testaments, and Christianity respects the Law while recognizing the powerful work of Grace Jesus accomplished on the Cross. Indeed, it is probable that the only way to fully appreciate Jesus' accomplishment on the cross is to recognize the validity of the law.
The Apostolic Tradition
Marcion's reliance (and that of other gnostics) on "secret knowledge" was met with a forceful commitment to the "Apostolic Tradition." Marcion was not the only such figure arguing for "secret knowledge." Others such as Valentenius also stressed that they possessed knowledge that had secretly been passed down to them from the Apostles or Jesus. The Church reacted by rejecting this idea of a "secret knowledge" that was really just manufactured by gnostic leaders. Instead, the Church committed itself to the "Apostolic Tradition." The Apostolic Tradition was considered to be the publically proclaimed message of the Church since its existence. It could also be called a rudimentary commitment to the "historical Jesus." This commitment was to give the Church a standard to which it was subordinate: the New Canon contained the public professions of the Apostles. Church teaching must be based on that standard, rather than on newly discovered or revealed teachings that no one had heard before.
Conclusion
In many ways, Marcion caused the Orthodox Church to be more moderate. The Church had to acknowledge its Jewish roots and embrace Jewish literature, without forfeiting its Christian revelation. The Church acknowledged that Jesus brought grace and freedom, but refused to descend into antinomianism or reject the idea that the law had any moral instruction to offer. The Church was staunchly opposed to fornication and adultery, but accepted that sex within marriage and procreation were moral and necessary. All in all, despite his obvious heresy, Marcion's impact on Church History actually was largely positive.
Once Marcion had rewritten the Christian scriptures, he could make his case. Or, as Robin Lane Fox writes, "y rewriting scripture, he presented a powerful case." Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 332. His theology was a tremendous departure from that of the Christian churches in which he had grown up. Key to his theology was the notion that there were actually two "Gods." One of these "Gods" was the God of the Old Testament. He was a completely different—and indeed a lesser—entity than the God of the New Testament. Jesus was the product of the New God. This God was not Jehovah, but the "unknown God" referred to by Paul in Acts in his speech in Athens.
"Marcion shocked the Church by denying any connection between the Gods of the Old and New Testament. . . . The creator, he argued, was an incompetent being: why else had he afflicted women with the agonies of childbirth? 'God' in the Old Testament was a 'committed barbarian' who favored bandits and such terrorists as Israel's King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God. Marcion's teaching was the most extreme statement of the newness of the Christian faith. Combined with virginity and a rejection of marriage, it became 'Marcionism' and continued to attract followers especially in the Syriac-speaking East, far into the Fourth Century." Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 332.
So Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of the New Testament. The God of the Old Testament was the "creating God," but he was harsh, cruel, and incompetent. Marcion contrasted this creating God with the God of Jesus, who was nothing less than love and grace.
Jesus Not the Expected Messiah and Not Human
Marcion's revolutionary thoughts on the identity of God were accompanied by a just as revolutionary idea about the identity of Jesus and his relationship to God. Marcion "adopted the Gnostic idea of Demiurge and thought Christ only 'appeared' to be human. . . ." Although Jesus "revealed the God of love and forgiveness [t]here will be no resurrection of the flesh, second coming, or judgment by Christ. Marcion vehemently repudiated the idea of a Judgment. According to him, the God of the Old Testament was to have sent a messiah to collect the chosen people into the Kingdom to rule over the whole earth and to exercise judgment over sinners. But at this point God appeared, showing mercy on sinners and freeing all from the bonds of the God of the Jews." Hinson, The Early Church, at 92.
In other words, while the creating God of the Old Testament was preparing to send a messiah that would establish an earthly Kingdom, the new God acted more quickly by sending Jesus to teach love and mercy for all. There would be no judgment, no bodily resurrection, and no second coming of Jesus. The purpose of Jesus was to free people from the bondage of the Jewish God, not from the bonds of sinful nature.
Tertullian described Marcion's beliefs as the following:
"Marcion laid down the position that Christ, who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from him who was ordained God, the Creator for the restoration of a Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these, he interposes a separation of a great and absolute difference as great as lies between what is just and what is good, as great as lies between the law and the gospel, as great as is the difference between Christianity and Judaism." Against Marcion, IV.6.
Marriage and Sex
Despite sounding almost antinomian, Marcion and his followers were actually very strict. "Curiously, Marcion also preached strict ascetism, denied the right of marriage, and formulated stern regulations concerning fasting." Hinson, The Early Church, at 92. This was not unusual in an of itself. "During the second and third centuries, many heretical groups taught that marriage was Satanic and akin to fornication; some connected it with the work of an inferior creator. Followers of Marcion spoke of the body as a 'nest of guilt'. Several sayings were ascribed to Jesus in which he reviled and praised the androgynous state of man at creation." Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 358. Needless to say, Marcionite commitment to complete celibacy was to have a big impact on the Marcionite sect's ability to sustain itself.
CHRISTIAN REACTION
Marcion's teachings were rejected by his church and the Apostolic Fathers who were leading the other Apostolic Churches. "To any church leader, Marcion's heresy was the most shocking deviation from Apostolic truth. He had denied the Old Testament's inspiration and the continuity of the God and Creator with Christ. Bishop Polycarp had known how to deal with him. When Polycarp met Marcion, said Polycarp's pupil Iraneaus, he had greeted him as 'the first born child of satan.'" Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, at 492.
Marcion was expelled from the Roman Church in 144 CE. They were so adamant about rejecting his teachings that they even returned the generous donation he had given them. "Marcion's departure was a heavy financial blow to the Rome Church and his money enabled him to attract a huge following in the East." Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, at 47. Thereafter, Marcion used those funds and attempted to emulate Paul by engaging in missionary activities to spread his new version of Christianity. Marcion met with some success. As Tertullian put it, he planted churches "as wasps make nests." He left churches in Rome, Carthage, Nicomedia, Smyrna, Phyrygia, Gartyna, Antioch, and in Syria.
Apparently, Marcion's churches—despite being built on a complete rejection of legalism or the law—were very rigorous about membership. Only a few were ultimately deemed worthy to receive baptism and become members of his churches. It eventually only established a lasting presence in Syria, but it died out completely by the mid-to-late 300s. As Professor Johnson stated, "belief in celibacy necessarily proves fatal to a heretical movement." Id. at 47. Still, the fact that the movement lasted more than 150 years based on conversions alone shows that Marcion's ideas had a strong appeal.
THE IMPACT OF MARCION
The impact of the Marcionite controversy on Church History on three issues was tremendous. First, the establishment of an Orthodox Christian Canon of Scripture (the New Testament). Second, Christianity's embracing its Jewish heritage. Third, the Church's reliance on the "Apostolic Tradition."
The Christian Canon
Marcion's choice of a highly selective canon and his mutilation of Christian scriptures forced the Church to specifically identify its own writings. In some ways, Marcion is the first person we know of to establish a "canon"—that is, to specify exactly which writings were "in" and which were "out." In so doing, he spurred the traditional Church to specify what is considered to be the canon. "The heretic Marcion, by defending a limited canon of his own (c. 140) in effect hastened the day when the Orthodox believers needed to declare themselves on this issue." Fisher, "The Canon of the New Testament," in The Origin of the Bible, ed. Philip Comfort. The Church eventually responded by embracing the Four Gospels: Mark, Luke (fully restored), Matthew, and John. The Church also embraced all of the Apostles, not just Paul. This lead to acceptance of the Johaninne Epistles, the Epistle of James, and the Epistles of Peter. As a result, the Church embraced a much broader theology and perspective than that envisioned by Marcion.
Christianity's Relationship with Judaism
Marcion's complete rejection of any link between Judaism and Christianity, the Law and the Gospel, forced the church to conclusively link Christianity to its Jewish predecessor, and the Gospel to the Law. As Prof. Hinson states, "No early Christian thinker, heterodox or orthodox, did more than Marcion to bring to a head the question of Christianity's relation to Judaism." The Early Church, at 9.
These early Christians realized that Christianity was not a separate revelation from Judaism, but the fulfillment of Judaism's promise. N.T. Wright explains that even Marcion's focus on Paul and his focus on grace and freedom as representing a complete departure was fundamentally flawed:
"Some readers, starting at least with Marcion in the second century, have seen this as evidence that [Paul] abandoned the Jewish Story altogether, embracing a quite different symbolic universe. . . . But Paul's fundamental narrative would give no deep echo to that of paganism in any of its first-century or other forms. It continues to resonate with the Story of Israel. Because Israel's story speaks of a creator god who claims all people, all lands, as his own, Paul is able to reach out from within that story and address Jews and Gentiles. He thus claims that the story of Jesus fulfills the purpose for which the creator God called Abraham in the first place." N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, at 407.
As a result, the Christian Canon includes the Old and New Testaments, and Christianity respects the Law while recognizing the powerful work of Grace Jesus accomplished on the Cross. Indeed, it is probable that the only way to fully appreciate Jesus' accomplishment on the cross is to recognize the validity of the law.
The Apostolic Tradition
Marcion's reliance (and that of other gnostics) on "secret knowledge" was met with a forceful commitment to the "Apostolic Tradition." Marcion was not the only such figure arguing for "secret knowledge." Others such as Valentenius also stressed that they possessed knowledge that had secretly been passed down to them from the Apostles or Jesus. The Church reacted by rejecting this idea of a "secret knowledge" that was really just manufactured by gnostic leaders. Instead, the Church committed itself to the "Apostolic Tradition." The Apostolic Tradition was considered to be the publically proclaimed message of the Church since its existence. It could also be called a rudimentary commitment to the "historical Jesus." This commitment was to give the Church a standard to which it was subordinate: the New Canon contained the public professions of the Apostles. Church teaching must be based on that standard, rather than on newly discovered or revealed teachings that no one had heard before.
Conclusion
In many ways, Marcion caused the Orthodox Church to be more moderate. The Church had to acknowledge its Jewish roots and embrace Jewish literature, without forfeiting its Christian revelation. The Church acknowledged that Jesus brought grace and freedom, but refused to descend into antinomianism or reject the idea that the law had any moral instruction to offer. The Church was staunchly opposed to fornication and adultery, but accepted that sex within marriage and procreation were moral and necessary. All in all, despite his obvious heresy, Marcion's impact on Church History actually was largely positive.
he even wrote his own gospel
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Gospel of Marcion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Gospel of Marcion would seem to have been intended as a direct counteractive to the Aramaic gospels. A native of Pontus and the son of a bishop, Marcion settled at Rome in the first half of the 2nd century and became the founder of the anti-Jewish sect that acknowledged no authoritative writings but those of Paul. This work forms a striking example of what liberties, in days before the final formation of the canon, could be taken with the most authoritative and the most revered documents of the faith, and also as showing the free and practically unlimited nature of the controversy, of which the canon as finally adopted was the result. He rejected the Old Testament entirely, and of the New Testament retained only the Gospel of Luke, as being of Pauline origin, with the omission of sections depending on the Old Testament and ten epistles of Paul, the pastoral epistles being omitted. The principal Church Fathers agree upon this corruption of Luke's Gospel by Marcion; and the main importance of his gospel is that in modern controversy it was for some time assumed to be the original gospel of which Luke's Gospel was regarded as merely an expansion. The theory was shown first in Germany and afterward independently in England to be quite untenable. It was lately revived by the author of Supernatural Religion; but Dr. Sanday's work on The Gospels in the Second Century (chapter viii) may be said to have closed the controversy. (Compare also Salmon's Intro, Lect XI.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Gospel of Marcion:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Gospel of Marcion would seem to have been intended as a direct counteractive to the Aramaic gospels. A native of Pontus and the son of a bishop, Marcion settled at Rome in the first half of the 2nd century and became the founder of the anti-Jewish sect that acknowledged no authoritative writings but those of Paul. This work forms a striking example of what liberties, in days before the final formation of the canon, could be taken with the most authoritative and the most revered documents of the faith, and also as showing the free and practically unlimited nature of the controversy, of which the canon as finally adopted was the result. He rejected the Old Testament entirely, and of the New Testament retained only the Gospel of Luke, as being of Pauline origin, with the omission of sections depending on the Old Testament and ten epistles of Paul, the pastoral epistles being omitted. The principal Church Fathers agree upon this corruption of Luke's Gospel by Marcion; and the main importance of his gospel is that in modern controversy it was for some time assumed to be the original gospel of which Luke's Gospel was regarded as merely an expansion. The theory was shown first in Germany and afterward independently in England to be quite untenable. It was lately revived by the author of Supernatural Religion; but Dr. Sanday's work on The Gospels in the Second Century (chapter viii) may be said to have closed the controversy. (Compare also Salmon's Intro, Lect XI.)[/FONT]
"old testament" Congress from here
2 Corinthians 3: 14. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
"New Testament" comes from here
Matthew 26: 28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
2 Corinthians 3: 14. But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
"New Testament" comes from here
Matthew 26: 28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
"old testament" is simply English for "παλαιᾶς διαθήκης"
found here
and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians3&version=NLT
found here
and to this day whenever the old covenant is being read
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians3&version=NLT
that verse is in context, talking about those still seeking to operate a levite priesthood.
the veil is how they entered the holy place.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Levites entered through the physical veil, which split when Yahshua was Sacrificed. At this time the Levitical priesthood was disbanded. However, the Levites continued to try to run the Levitical priesthood until the destruction of the temple.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]John 14:6, "[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Matthew 27:50-51, “And [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit. And see, the veil of the Dwelling Place was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were split.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 9:1-3, “Now the first covenant indeed had regulations of worship and the earthly set-apart place. For a Tent was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, and the table, and the showbread, which is called the Set-apart Place. And after the second veil, the part of the Tent which is called Most Set-apart.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 9:24, “For Messiah has not entered into a Set-apart Place made by hand – figures of the true – but into the heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of Elohim on our behalf,"9:25, "not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the Set-apart Place year by year with blood not his own.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 9:11-12, “But Messiah, having become a High Priest of the coming good matters, through the greater and more perfect Tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, entered into the Most Set-apart Place once for all, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood, having obtained everlasting redemption.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 10:19-22, “So, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Set-apart Place by the blood of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע[FONT=Times New Roman, serif], by a new and living way which He instituted for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh. by a new and living way which He instituted for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the House of YHWH. let us draw near with a true heart in completeness of belief, having our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and our bodies washed with clean water.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Eze 36:25[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 4:14-16, "Therefore, since we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the Son of Elohim, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who was tried in all respects as we are, apart from sin. Therefore, let us come boldly to the throne of favor, in order to receive compassion, and find favor for timely help."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 9:1-28, "9:1, "Now the first covenant indeed had regulations of worship and the earthly set-apart place."9:2, "For a Tent was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, and the table, and the showbread, which is called the Set-apart Place."9:3, "And after the second veil, the part of the Tent which is called Most Set-apart,"9:4, "to which belonged the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that held the manna, and the rod of Aharon that budded, and the tablets of the covenant,"9:5, "and above it the keruḇim of esteem were overshadowing the place of atonement – about which we do not now speak in detail."9:6, "And these having been prepared like this, the priests always went into the first part of the Tent, accomplishing the services."9:7, "But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for sins of ignorance of the people,a Footnote: aNum 15:15-28."9:8, "the Set-apart Spirit signifying this, that the way into the Most Set-apart Place was not yet made manifest while the first Tent has a standing,"9:9, "which was a parable for the present time in which both gifts and slaughters are offered which are unable to perfect the one serving, as to his conscience,"9:10, "only as to foods and drinks, and different washings, and fleshly regulations imposed until a time of setting matters straight."9:11, "But Messiah, having become a High Priest of the coming good matters, through the greater and more perfect Tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation,"9:12, "entered into the Most Set-apart Place once for all, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood, having obtained everlasting redemption."9:13, "For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the defiled, sets apart for the cleansing of the flesh,"9:14, "how much more shall the blood of the Messiah, who through the everlasting Spirit offered Himself unblemished to Elohim, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living Elohim?"9:15, "And because of this He is the Mediator of a renewed covenant, so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance."9:16, "For where a covenant is, it is necessary for the death of the covenanted one to be established."9:17, "For a covenant over those dead is firm, since it is never valid while the covenanted one is living."9:18, "Therefore not even the first covenant was instituted without blood."9:19, "For when, according to Torah, every command had been spoken by Mosheh to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,"9:20, "saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which Elohim commanded you.” Exo 24:8."9:21, "And in the same way he sprinkled with blood both the Tent and all the vessels of the service."9:22, "And, according to the Torah, almost all is cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."9:23, "It was necessary, then, that the copies of the heavenly ones should be cleansed with these, but the heavenly ones themselves with better slaughter offerings than these."9:24, "For Messiah has not entered into a Set-apart Place made by hand – figures of the true – but into the heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of Elohim on our behalf,"9:25, "not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the Set-apart Place year by year with blood not his own."9:26, "For if so, He would have had to suffer often, since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the offering of Himself."9:27, "And as it awaits men to die once, and after this the judgment,"9:28, "so also the Messiah, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, Isa 53:12 shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to those waiting for Him, unto deliverance."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Exodus 26:31, "“And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet material, and fine woven linen, the work of a skilled workman, made with keruḇim."26:32, "“And you shall put it on the four columns of acacia wood overlaid with gold, their hooks of gold, upon four sockets of silver."26:33, "“And you shall hang the veil from the hooks, and shall bring the ark of the Witness there, behind the veil. And the veil shall make a separation for you between the Set-apart and the Most Set-apart Place."26:34, "“And you shall put the lid of atonement upon the ark of the Witness in the Most Set-apart Place."26:35, "“And you shall set the table outside the veil, and the lampstand opposite the table on the side of the Dwelling Place toward the south, and put the table on the north side."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 10:19, "So, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Set-apart Place by the blood of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif],"10:20, "by a new and living way which He instituted for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,"10:21, "and having a High Priest over the House of Elohim,"10:22, "let us draw near with a true heart in completeness of belief, having our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and our bodies washed with clean water.b Footnote: bEze 36:25."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Acts 17:24, "“[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif], who made the world and all that is in it, this One being Master of heaven and earth, does not dwell in dwellings made with hands.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Acts 7:48-50, "7:48, "“However, the Most High does not dwell in dwellings made with hands,c as the prophet says: Footnote: cSee also Act 17:24."7:49, "‘The heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. What house shall you build for Me? says [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif], or what is the place of My rest?"7:50, "‘Has My hand not made all these?’ Isa 66:1-2."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][1] Jerusalem Talmud:[/FONT]
“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][2] Babylonian Talmud:[/FONT]
“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’ did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves” (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"iniquity" is: #0458 anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} from G0459[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1) the condition of without law 1a) because ignorant of it1b) because of violating it, 2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mattithyah 24:12, "And because iniquity will abound, the love of the many will grow cold."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
the veil is how they entered the holy place.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The Levites entered through the physical veil, which split when Yahshua was Sacrificed. At this time the Levitical priesthood was disbanded. However, the Levites continued to try to run the Levitical priesthood until the destruction of the temple.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]John 14:6, "[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]said to him, “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Matthew 27:50-51, “And [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit. And see, the veil of the Dwelling Place was torn in two from top to bottom, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were split.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 9:1-3, “Now the first covenant indeed had regulations of worship and the earthly set-apart place. For a Tent was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, and the table, and the showbread, which is called the Set-apart Place. And after the second veil, the part of the Tent which is called Most Set-apart.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 9:24, “For Messiah has not entered into a Set-apart Place made by hand – figures of the true – but into the heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of Elohim on our behalf,"9:25, "not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the Set-apart Place year by year with blood not his own.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 9:11-12, “But Messiah, having become a High Priest of the coming good matters, through the greater and more perfect Tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, entered into the Most Set-apart Place once for all, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood, having obtained everlasting redemption.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 10:19-22, “So, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Set-apart Place by the blood of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע[FONT=Times New Roman, serif], by a new and living way which He instituted for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh. by a new and living way which He instituted for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the House of YHWH. let us draw near with a true heart in completeness of belief, having our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and our bodies washed with clean water.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Eze 36:25[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 4:14-16, "Therefore, since we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the Son of Elohim, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who was tried in all respects as we are, apart from sin. Therefore, let us come boldly to the throne of favor, in order to receive compassion, and find favor for timely help."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 9:1-28, "9:1, "Now the first covenant indeed had regulations of worship and the earthly set-apart place."9:2, "For a Tent was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, and the table, and the showbread, which is called the Set-apart Place."9:3, "And after the second veil, the part of the Tent which is called Most Set-apart,"9:4, "to which belonged the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that held the manna, and the rod of Aharon that budded, and the tablets of the covenant,"9:5, "and above it the keruḇim of esteem were overshadowing the place of atonement – about which we do not now speak in detail."9:6, "And these having been prepared like this, the priests always went into the first part of the Tent, accomplishing the services."9:7, "But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for sins of ignorance of the people,a Footnote: aNum 15:15-28."9:8, "the Set-apart Spirit signifying this, that the way into the Most Set-apart Place was not yet made manifest while the first Tent has a standing,"9:9, "which was a parable for the present time in which both gifts and slaughters are offered which are unable to perfect the one serving, as to his conscience,"9:10, "only as to foods and drinks, and different washings, and fleshly regulations imposed until a time of setting matters straight."9:11, "But Messiah, having become a High Priest of the coming good matters, through the greater and more perfect Tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation,"9:12, "entered into the Most Set-apart Place once for all, not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood, having obtained everlasting redemption."9:13, "For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the defiled, sets apart for the cleansing of the flesh,"9:14, "how much more shall the blood of the Messiah, who through the everlasting Spirit offered Himself unblemished to Elohim, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living Elohim?"9:15, "And because of this He is the Mediator of a renewed covenant, so that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called might receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance."9:16, "For where a covenant is, it is necessary for the death of the covenanted one to be established."9:17, "For a covenant over those dead is firm, since it is never valid while the covenanted one is living."9:18, "Therefore not even the first covenant was instituted without blood."9:19, "For when, according to Torah, every command had been spoken by Mosheh to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,"9:20, "saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which Elohim commanded you.” Exo 24:8."9:21, "And in the same way he sprinkled with blood both the Tent and all the vessels of the service."9:22, "And, according to the Torah, almost all is cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."9:23, "It was necessary, then, that the copies of the heavenly ones should be cleansed with these, but the heavenly ones themselves with better slaughter offerings than these."9:24, "For Messiah has not entered into a Set-apart Place made by hand – figures of the true – but into the heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of Elohim on our behalf,"9:25, "not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the Set-apart Place year by year with blood not his own."9:26, "For if so, He would have had to suffer often, since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the offering of Himself."9:27, "And as it awaits men to die once, and after this the judgment,"9:28, "so also the Messiah, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, Isa 53:12 shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to those waiting for Him, unto deliverance."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Exodus 26:31, "“And you shall make a veil of blue and purple and scarlet material, and fine woven linen, the work of a skilled workman, made with keruḇim."26:32, "“And you shall put it on the four columns of acacia wood overlaid with gold, their hooks of gold, upon four sockets of silver."26:33, "“And you shall hang the veil from the hooks, and shall bring the ark of the Witness there, behind the veil. And the veil shall make a separation for you between the Set-apart and the Most Set-apart Place."26:34, "“And you shall put the lid of atonement upon the ark of the Witness in the Most Set-apart Place."26:35, "“And you shall set the table outside the veil, and the lampstand opposite the table on the side of the Dwelling Place toward the south, and put the table on the north side."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hebrews 10:19, "So, brothers, having boldness to enter into the Set-apart Place by the blood of [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהושע[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif],"10:20, "by a new and living way which He instituted for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh,"10:21, "and having a High Priest over the House of Elohim,"10:22, "let us draw near with a true heart in completeness of belief, having our hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and our bodies washed with clean water.b Footnote: bEze 36:25."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Acts 17:24, "“[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif], who made the world and all that is in it, this One being Master of heaven and earth, does not dwell in dwellings made with hands.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Acts 7:48-50, "7:48, "“However, the Most High does not dwell in dwellings made with hands,c as the prophet says: Footnote: cSee also Act 17:24."7:49, "‘The heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. What house shall you build for Me? says [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]יהוה[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif], or what is the place of My rest?"7:50, "‘Has My hand not made all these?’ Isa 66:1-2."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][1] Jerusalem Talmud:[/FONT]
“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][2] Babylonian Talmud:[/FONT]
“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’ did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves” (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]"iniquity" is: #0458 anomia {an-om-ee'-ah} from G0459[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Greek Word Study (Transliteration-Pronunciation Etymology & Grammar)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]1) the condition of without law 1a) because ignorant of it1b) because of violating it, 2) contempt and violation of law, iniquity, wickedness[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Mattithyah 24:12, "And because iniquity will abound, the love of the many will grow cold."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]
incorrect that greek word "diathéké" means "covenant" and asI said they were trying to keep the levitical priesthood, the old veil, they entered the holy place through the literl veil, thise of Yahsua enter through. Him
also if one is truly seekingtruth they will find out what the word "chadash" pre vowel pointing means, but I dont expect anyone to choose truth over tradition.
also if one is truly seekingtruth they will find out what the word "chadash" pre vowel pointing means, but I dont expect anyone to choose truth over tradition.