Against Marcion Studies

[Secret Alias]

continued:

5. Faith of the Samaritan Leper (Luke 17:15-19)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Fides tua te salvum fecit... quia intellexerat veram se deo omnipotenti oblationem."
("Your faith has saved you... because he recognized that he was offering to the Almighty God.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.10.1) discusses how faith, even among non-Jews, can lead to salvation, as demonstrated by Naaman the Syrian’s healing. He emphasizes that the Creator’s mercy extends to those who believe, regardless of their ethnic background. Tertullian uses the example of the Samaritan leper, who returned to thank Christ, as evidence that faith in the Creator is what leads to salvation. Both authors highlight the importance of faith, whether in Jews or Gentiles, and show that Christ’s healing aligns with the Creator’s universal plan for salvation.
Scripture References: Luke 17:15-19 2 Kings 5:15-19 Romans 10:12-13

6. The Kingdom of God (Luke 17:20-21)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Non venit... regnum dei cum observatione... ecce enim regnum dei intra vos est." ("The Kingdom of God does not come with observation... for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses V.17.1) discusses the Kingdom of God as both a present reality in the hearts of believers and a future fulfillment. He argues that the spiritual presence of the Kingdom aligns with the Creator’s plan for redemption. Tertullian reinforces this, noting that the Kingdom of God is already within believers, a concept rooted in the Creator’s law. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize that Christ’s teaching about the Kingdom is consistent with the Creator’s design and counters Marcion’s claim of a separate, new god.
Scripture References: Luke 17:20-21, Matthew 6:33, John 18:36

Chapter 36

1. The Parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1-8)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Ergo iudicem deum ostendit orandum, non se, si non ipse est iudex. Sed subiunxit facturum deum vindictam electorum suorum." ("Thus He shows that God should be prayed to as the judge, not Himself, unless He is the judge. But He adds that God will avenge His elect.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.36.6) emphasizes that the Creator, not a separate god, is the one who responds to the pleas of His people. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize the Creator’s justice as central to Christ’s teachings, countering Marcion's theology of a lenient god. They affirm that Christ presents the Creator as the just judge, not a foreign god.
Scripture References: Luke 18:1-8 Isaiah 30:18

2. Pharisee and Publican at the Temple (Luke 18:9-14)
Tertullian’s Statement: "Templum creatoris inducit, et duos adorantes diversa mente describit, pharisaeum in superbia, publicanum in humilitate... eum et hic orandum constituit." ("He introduces the temple of the Creator and describes two worshippers with different minds—the Pharisee in pride and the publican in humility... showing that even here God is to be prayed to.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.25.3) highlights the importance of humility in true worship of the Creator, especially as exemplified by the publican. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize the necessity of humility in approaching God, affirming that the Creator’s temple and justice remain relevant, contrary to Marcion’s views.
Scripture References: Luke 18:9-14 Psalm 51:17

3. Christ’s Teaching on Wealth (Luke 18:18-23)

Tertullian’s Statement: "De praeceptis creatoris an ea sciret... ad contestandum praeceptis creatoris vitam acquiri sempiternam."
("[Jesus] asks about the commandments of the Creator... showing that eternal life is acquired by keeping the Creator’s commandments.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.13.1) discusses the commandments of the Creator as the path to eternal life. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue that Christ’s conversation with the rich man emphasizes obedience to the Creator’s commandments as essential to salvation, refuting Marcion’s dismissal of the law.
Scripture References: Luke 18:18-23 Exodus 20:12-16 Deuteronomy 5:16-20

4. Christ’s Affirmation of the Creator’s Commandments (Luke 18:19-20)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Salvum est igitur et hoc in evangelio: Non veni dissolvere legem et prophetas, sed potius adimplere." ("Thus it is preserved in the Gospel: I did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.13.1) emphasizes that Christ came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it, aligning with Matthew 5:17. Tertullian reaffirms this point in Luke, arguing that Christ upheld the Creator’s commandments, refuting Marcion’s claims of a new god or law.
Scripture References: Luke 18:19-20 Matthew 5:17

5. The Healing of the Blind Man (Luke 18:35-43)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Cur exclamavit, Iesu, fili David, miserere mei!... manifestissime confirmavit caeci praedicationem et ipsa remuneratione medicinae et testimonio fidei." ("Why did the blind man cry out, 'Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!'... He confirmed the blind man's proclamation with the healing and as a testimony of faith.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.10.1) emphasizes the significance of Christ’s healings as a fulfillment of the Creator’s promises. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus highlight the blind man’s recognition of Jesus as the "Son of David," affirming that Christ’s identity is rooted in the Creator’s plan for the Messiah.
Scripture References: Luke 18:35-43 Isaiah 35:5-6

6. Kingdom of God Within (Luke 17:20-21)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Non venit, inquit, regnum dei cum observatione... ecce enim regnum dei intra vos est." ("The Kingdom of God does not come with observation... for behold, the Kingdom of God is within you.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses V.25.3) discusses the present reality of the Kingdom of God within believers. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian affirm that Christ’s teachings about the Kingdom being "within" believers reflect the Creator’s work, refuting Marcion’s claim of a separate, new kingdom under a different god.
Scripture References: Luke 17:20-21 Romans 14:17

7. Christ and the Law of Moses (Luke 18:31-33)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Suum ostendit et regnum de quo responderat, quod passiones et reprobationes ipsius expectabat." ("He showed that His kingdom was foretold, and that His sufferings and rejection were expected.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.36.5) reflects on how Christ’s passion was prophesied in the Creator’s law, fulfilling the words of Moses and the prophets. Tertullian affirms that Christ’s prediction of His suffering is a fulfillment of the Creator’s promises, countering Marcion’s claim of a break with the Old Testament.
Scripture References: Luke 18:31-33 Isaiah 53 Deuteronomy 18:15

Chapter 37

1. Zacchaeus and the Salvation of His House (Luke 19:1-10)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Zachaei domus salutem. Quo merito? Numquid vel ille crediderat Christum a Marcione venisse? ... Enimvero Zachaeus etsi allophylus... praecepta eius impleverat."
("Salvation came to Zacchaeus’ house. By what merit? Did he believe Christ came from Marcion? ... Indeed, even though Zacchaeus was an outsider, he followed His commandments.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.36.7) discusses salvation as Christ’s fulfillment of the Creator’s law and plan. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue that Zacchaeus’ actions reflected the Creator’s commandments (such as in Isaiah 58:7), demonstrating that Christ’s declaration of salvation aligns with the Creator’s mission. This counters Marcion's claim that Christ brought a new, separate God.
Scripture References: Luke 19:1-10 Isaiah 58:7

2. Zacchaeus’ Acts of Repentance (Luke 19:8)
Tertullian’s Statement: "Confringito, inquit, panem tuum esurienti, et non habentes tectum in domum tuam inducito... in omnia misericordiae opera dimidium substantiae offerens." ("Break your bread for the hungry, and bring the homeless into your house... offering half of your substance in all acts of mercy.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.13.3) emphasizes charitable deeds as part of fulfilling the Creator’s moral law. Tertullian uses Zacchaeus’ charitable acts as proof of his alignment with the Creator’s law, reinforcing that Christ’s mission is consistent with the Creator’s teachings on repentance and mercy.
Scripture References: Luke 19:8 Isaiah 58:7

3. Christ Came to Save What Was Lost (Luke 19:10)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Venit enim filius hominis salvum facere quod periit... sed in alterius quaestionis gradum dirigo. De homine agi nulla dubitatio est."
("For the Son of Man came to save what was lost... there is no doubt that this refers to humanity.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses III.18.7) emphasizes that Christ came to restore humanity, both body and soul, as part of the Creator’s plan. Tertullian echoes this view, countering Marcion’s dualistic rejection of the material world and the salvation of the flesh. Both Fathers argue that Christ’s mission was to save the entirety of humanity, not just the soul.
Scripture References: Luke 19:10 Ezekiel 34:16

4. The Parable of the Talents (Luke 19:11-27)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Servorum quoque parabola, qui secundum rationem feneratae pecuniae dominicae diiudicantur, iudicem ostendit deum, etiam ex parte severitatis." ("The parable of the servants, who are judged based on their use of the master’s money, shows God as judge, even in His severity.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.36.4) interprets parables of judgment as illustrating the Creator’s justice. Tertullian similarly argues that the parable of the talents reflects the Creator’s right to judge and reward or punish based on responsibility. Both Fathers use this parable to affirm that Christ’s teachings uphold the Creator’s authority as judge, countering Marcion’s view of a lenient god.
Scripture References: Luke 19:11-27 Matthew 25:14-30

5. The Severeness of the Creator (Luke 19:22)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Aut si et hic creatorem finxerit austerum, tollentem quod non posuerit et metentem quod non severit." ("Or did He portray the Creator as severe, taking what He did not put down and reaping what He did not sow?")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.29.2) defends the Creator’s justice, explaining that His strictness is part of His role as a fair judge. Tertullian reinforces this idea, arguing that the “severe” nature of the Creator in the parable is a reflection of His rightful authority to judge. Both argue that the Creator’s strictness in judgment is part of His justice, aligning with Christ’s teachings.
Scripture References: Luke 19:22 Job 21:19

Chapter 38

1. Christ’s Interrogation of the Pharisees (Luke 20:3-8)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Sciebat Christus baptisma Ioannis unde esset... Et cur quasi nesciens interrogabat?... Sic enim et de creatore in arboris lege tractatur." ("Christ knew where John’s baptism was from... So why did He ask as if He didn’t know?... In the same way, the Creator is questioned about His own laws.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.15.2) similarly discusses Christ’s interrogation of the Pharisees, noting that it was meant to expose their hypocrisy. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Christ’s question about John’s baptism challenged the Pharisees’ rejection of a prophet sent by the Creator. This critique of the Pharisees is consistent with the Creator’s justice, countering Marcion’s claim that Christ opposed the Creator’s law.
Scripture References: Luke 20:3-8

2. Rendition of Caesar’s Coin (Luke 20:25)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Reddite quae Caesaris Caesari, et quae sunt dei deo... Hominem igitur reddi iubet creatori, in cuius imagine et similitudine et nomine et materia expressus est." ("Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s... He commands that man be rendered to the Creator, in whose image and likeness he was made.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.30.1) refers to this passage to assert the Creator’s authority over humanity. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian interpret Christ’s response as acknowledging the Creator’s dominion over humanity, made in His image. They reject Marcion’s theology, emphasizing that Christ’s teachings affirm the Creator’s authority over all creation.
Scripture References: Luke 20:25 Genesis 1:27

3. The Sadducees’ Question About Resurrection (Luke 20:27-38)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Sadducaei, resurrectionis negatores, de ea habentes interrogationem... Nam qui ipsam vim et vocis et pronuntiationis et distinctionis exceperant, nihil aliud senserunt quam quod ad materiam consultationis pertinebat."
("The Sadducees, deniers of the resurrection, questioned Him about it... But those who heard Him didn’t grasp the full meaning beyond the legal question.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses V.2.2) addresses Christ’s teaching on the resurrection, affirming it as part of the Creator’s plan. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Christ’s defense of resurrection was consistent with the Creator’s promise of life after death, directly opposing the Sadducees and Marcion’s views.
Scripture References: Luke 20:27-38 Isaiah 26:19

4. Christ’s Identity as the Son of David and the Lord (Luke 20:41-44)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Si autem scribae Christum filium David existimabant, ipse autem David dominum eum appellat... ut se, quem caecus secundum scribarum doctrinam filium tantum David praedicarat, dominum quoque eius ostenderet."
("If the scribes believed Christ was only the son of David, yet David himself calls Him Lord... He was showing that He was not only David’s son but also his Lord.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses III.10.2) discusses Christ’s identity as both the son of David and the Lord, affirming His divinity and role in fulfilling the Creator’s promises. Tertullian echoes Irenaeus, arguing that Christ’s lineage and lordship demonstrate His fulfillment of the Creator’s covenant with Israel, refuting Marcion’s claim of a new god.
Scripture References: Luke 20:41-44 Psalm 110:1

5. Clarification on Resurrection and the "Age to Come" (Luke 20:35-36)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Quos vero dignatus sit deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione a mortuis... Non enim de deo, sed de statu illius aevi consulebatur." ("Those whom God deems worthy to attain the age to come and the resurrection from the dead... It was not about a new god but the state of the age to come.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses V.36.2) reflects on the "age to come" and resurrection, affirming that it is part of the Creator’s promises. Tertullian, like Irenaeus, argues that Christ’s teaching about the future resurrection aligns with the Creator’s plan for humanity, directly opposing Marcion’s dualistic theology.
Scripture References: Luke 20:35-36

Chapter 39

1. False Christs and the Proprietary Name of Jesus (Luke 21:8)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Venient denique illi dicentes, Ego sum Christus. Recipies eos, qui consimilem recepisti." ("Indeed, they will come saying, ‘I am Christ.’ Will you accept them, just as you accepted someone like them?")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses III.16.8) argues that the name "Christ" belongs solely to Jesus, and false Christs will try to usurp that name to deceive people. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize the exclusive nature of the name "Christ," reinforcing that only the Creator’s Christ can bear this title. Tertullian builds on Irenaeus’ argument to discredit Marcion’s Jesus by claiming that Marcion’s Christ is a false claimant to the name.
Scripture Reference: Luke 21:8

2. Signs of the End Times (Luke 21:9-11)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Bella, opinor, et regnum super regnum, et gentem super gentem... Haec cum adicit etiam oportere fieri, quem se praestat? destructorem an probatorem creatoris?" ("Wars, I suppose, and kingdom against kingdom, and nation against nation... When He adds that these must happen, who is He? A destroyer or the one who tests the Creator?")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses V.30.1) speaks of wars, famines, and earthquakes as signs that were foretold by the Creator as part of the end times. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus interpret these events as manifestations of the Creator’s will and prophecies, not the work of a malevolent deity. Tertullian uses Irenaeus’ reasoning to show that these signs fit into the Creator’s plan, countering Marcion’s idea that they were incompatible with the Creator’s nature.
Scripture Reference: Luke 21:9-11

3. Persecutions and Martyrdom (Luke 21:12-19)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Ante haec autem persecutiones eis praedicat et passiones venturas, in martyrium utique et in salutem."
("Before all these things, He foretells persecutions and future sufferings, leading to martyrdom and salvation.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses IV.34.8) discusses the role of persecution in the salvation of the righteous, emphasizing that it is part of the Creator’s plan for humanity. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian affirm that suffering and martyrdom are means of achieving salvation within the Creator’s justice. Tertullian draws from Irenaeus’ view to argue that martyrdom fits within the Creator’s design, refuting Marcion’s claim that suffering would not come from a benevolent God.
Scripture Reference: Luke 21:12-19

4. Jerusalem’s Destruction and Cosmic Signs (Luke 21:20-27)

Tertullian’s Statement: "signa iam ultimi finis enarrat, solis et lunae siderumque prodigia... quod et ipsae vires caelorum concuti habeant." ("He describes signs of the final end—wonders of the sun, moon, and stars... and that even the powers of the heavens will be shaken.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses V.25.3) refers to celestial disturbances as signs of the coming judgment. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus see these signs as evidence of the Creator’s power and His control over the end times. Tertullian, following Irenaeus’ interpretation, asserts that these cosmic events are part of the Creator’s divine plan, disproving Marcion’s claim that Christ’s message was unrelated to the Creator.
Scripture Reference: Luke 21:20-27

5. The Coming of the Son of Man (Luke 21:27-28)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Et tunc videbunt filium hominis venientem de caelis cum plurima virtute... appropinquavit redemptio vestra." ("And then they will see the Son of Man coming from the heavens with great power... your redemption is near.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses V.25.4) discusses the return of the Son of Man as the fulfillment of the Creator’s promises of redemption. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize that Christ’s second coming and the redemption He brings are part of the Creator’s salvation plan. Tertullian uses Irenaeus’ framework to show that the return of the Son of Man belongs to the Creator’s work, further challenging Marcion’s concept of a separate, benevolent savior.
Scripture Reference: Luke 21:27-28

6. The Parable of the Fig Tree (Luke 21:29-31)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Aspice ficum et arbores omnes... cum fructum protulerint, intellegunt homines aestatem appropinquasse." ("Look at the fig tree and all the trees... when they bear fruit, people understand that summer is near.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses V.33.4) interprets the fig tree and its fruit as a sign of the coming kingdom of God. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use this metaphor to explain the progression of time toward the Creator’s final judgment. Tertullian echoes Irenaeus by arguing that the parable of the fig tree demonstrates the unfolding of the Creator’s plan, refuting Marcion’s theology of a separate and unrelated kingdom.
Scripture Reference: Luke 21:29-31

Chapter 40

1. Christ’s Desire to Keep Passover (Luke 22:15)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Concupiscentia concupivi pascha edere vobiscum, antequam patiar. O legis destructorem, qui concupierat etiam pascha servare!" ("With desire, I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. O, the destroyer of the law, who desired to observe even the Passover!")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (IV.17.5), Irenaeus emphasizes that Christ’s desire to eat the Passover reflects His fulfillment of the law, not its destruction. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian highlight the irony of Marcion claiming Christ abolished the law while observing the Passover, a key Jewish tradition. Tertullian echoes Irenaeus in showing that Christ’s participation in the Passover demonstrates His respect for the law, refuting Marcion’s view that Christ rejected it.
Scripture Reference: Luke 22:15

2. Christ as the Fulfillment of the Paschal Lamb (Isaiah 53:7; Luke 22:19)
Tertullian’s Statement: "An ipse erat qui tanquam ovis ad victimam adduci habens... figuram sanguinis sui salutaris implere concupiscebat?" ("Was He not the one who, like a lamb, was led to be sacrificed... desiring to fulfill the figure of His saving blood?")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (IV.33.10), Irenaeus identifies Christ as the Paschal Lamb, fulfilling Isaiah 53:7’s prophecy. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian stress that Christ’s sacrificial death was prefigured in the Old Testament, making it part of the Creator’s plan rather than a separate event. Tertullian reuses Irenaeus’ argument that Christ, like the lamb in Isaiah, willingly fulfilled the prophecy through His passion.
Scripture Reference: Isaiah 53:7 Luke 22:19

3. Judas’ Betrayal for Thirty Pieces of Silver (Zechariah 11:12-13; Matthew 27:3-10)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Pro eo quod venumdedere iustum... acceperunt triginta argenteos." ("For selling the just one... they received thirty pieces of silver.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (IV.34.12), discusses Judas’ betrayal of Christ for thirty pieces of silver, citing it as the fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize that Judas’ betrayal was foretold, demonstrating that Christ’s suffering was not an accident but part of the Creator’s plan. Tertullian follows Irenaeus in asserting that even the betrayal price was prophesied, directly refuting Marcion’s view that Christ’s passion had no connection to the Creator’s plan.
Scripture Reference: Zechariah 11:12-13 Matthew 27:3-10

4. The Eucharist and the Real Body of Christ (Luke 22:19-20)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei." ("Taking the bread and giving it to the disciples, He made it His body, saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (IV.18.5), affirms that the bread and wine in the Eucharist represent Christ’s real body and blood, countering docetic views that deny Christ’s bodily reality. Tertullian draws from Irenaeus’ argument to emphasize that Christ’s body was real and substantial, not a mere illusion, as Marcion claimed. The Eucharist, for both Irenaeus and Tertullian, signifies the true body and blood of Christ, supporting the orthodox Christian belief against Marcion’s docetism.
Scripture Reference: Luke 22:19-20

5. The Blood of the New Covenant (Luke 22:20; Jeremiah 31:31)

Tertullian’s Statement: "In calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum, substantiam corporis confirmavit."
("In the mention of the cup, establishing the testament sealed with His blood, He confirmed the substance of His body.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (V.22.3), Irenaeus interprets the Last Supper as Christ’s establishment of the new covenant in His blood, fulfilling the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:31. Tertullian builds on this argument, asserting that the cup of Christ represents the new covenant and confirms His real, physical body. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian see this new covenant as fulfilling the Creator’s plan, in opposition to Marcion’s denial of the connection between Christ and the God of the Old Testament.
Scripture Reference: Luke 22:20 Jeremiah 31:31

6. Wine as a Symbol of Blood (Genesis 49:11; Isaiah 63:2-3)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Lavabit, inquit, in vino stolam suam et in sanguine uvae amictum suum." ("He will wash His robe in wine and His garments in the blood of grapes.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (IV.34.4), interprets Genesis 49:11 as a prophecy that uses wine as a symbol of Christ’s blood. Isaiah 63:2-3 also refers to the Messiah’s garments being stained with blood, similar to a winepress. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian associate these symbols with Christ’s passion and Eucharist, reinforcing that the bloodshed was part of the Creator’s redemptive plan. Tertullian follows Irenaeus in connecting these Old Testament images to Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy through His suffering.
Scripture Reference: Genesis 49:11 Isaiah 63:2-3

Chapter 41

1. Woe to Judas for Betraying the Son of Man (Luke 22:22)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Vae, ait, per quem traditur filius hominis... nisi si Iudas impune erat tantum sceleris relaturus."
("Woe, He says, to the one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed... unless Judas was to be let off without punishment for such a crime.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.18.6), Irenaeus discusses Judas' betrayal as part of God’s plan while affirming that Judas still bears responsibility for his sin. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use this prophecy to counter Marcion’s theology by showing that Jesus’ betrayal by Judas was foreknown and part of the Creator’s plan for salvation. Tertullian follows Irenaeus in asserting that Judas is condemned for his act, emphasizing the Creator’s justice in contrast to Marcion’s belief in a disconnected deity.
Scripture Reference: Luke 22:22

2. Jesus’ Knowledge of Judas' Betrayal (John 13:18, Psalm 41:9)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Aut si impune, vacat Vae: si non impune, utique ab eo puniendus in quem scelus traditionis admisit."
("If it were without punishment, then 'woe' would be empty; but since it is not without punishment, surely Judas must be punished for his betrayal.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.19.1), Irenaeus references Psalm 41:9, where the betrayal is prophesied: “He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.” Both Irenaeus and Tertullian assert that Judas’ betrayal was foreseen in scripture, emphasizing the link between Jesus and Old Testament prophecies. Tertullian reuses Irenaeus' reasoning to show that Judas’ act was both a fulfillment of prophecy and an act of sin, solidifying the continuity between Jesus and the Creator’s plan.
Scripture Reference:John 13:18 Psalm 41:9

3. Jesus Refuses to Reveal His Full Identity (Luke 22:67-69)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Si dixero enim vobis, non credetis." ("If I tell you, you will not believe.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.6.1), Irenaeus explains that Jesus’ refusal to openly declare His identity was due to the disbelief of His accusers, which was prophesied in the Old Testament. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian highlight that Jesus strategically withheld His identity because He knew that the Pharisees would not believe Him regardless. Tertullian follows Irenaeus by using this argument to show that Jesus’ actions during His trial align with Old Testament prophecies, refuting Marcion’s claim of a disconnected Christ.
Scripture Reference: Luke 22:67-69

4. Jesus’ Connection to Daniel’s Son of Man (Daniel 7:13, Psalm 110:1)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Suggerebat enim se ex Danielis prophetia filium hominis, et e psalmo David sedentem ad dexteram dei."
("For He was indicating that He was the Son of Man from Daniel’s prophecy, and the one sitting at the right hand of God from David’s Psalm.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.21.7), Irenaeus connects Jesus' self-identification with the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13 and His reference to sitting at God’s right hand in Psalm 110:1. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue that these Old Testament references demonstrate Christ’s messianic authority and divinity. Tertullian builds on Irenaeus’ analysis to argue that Christ’s fulfillment of these prophecies ties Him to the Creator’s plan, not to a separate god as Marcion claimed.
Scripture Reference: Daniel 7:13 Psalm 110:1

5. Jesus' Response: “You say that I am” (Luke 22:70)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Sed respondit, Vos dicitis, quasi non ego." ("But He answered, 'You say so,' as if not I.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.6.5), Irenaeus examines Jesus’ indirect response to the high priests’ question about His identity as the Son of God. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian interpret this as a subtle affirmation of Christ’s divine identity. Tertullian mirrors Irenaeus by showing that Jesus’ response fulfills prophecy without giving His accusers direct grounds for blasphemy charges. This interpretation from canonical Luke underscores the connection between Jesus’ identity and Old Testament prophecies, opposing Marcion’s claims.
Scripture Reference: Luke 22:70

Chapter 42

1. Jesus' Trial Before Pilate (Luke 23:1-3)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Perductum enim illum ad Pilatum onerare coeperunt quod se regem diceret Christum, sine dubio dei filium, sessurum ad dei dexteram." ("They brought Him to Pilate, accusing Him of saying He was the Christ, the King, undoubtedly the Son of God, seated at God’s right hand.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.16.9), Irenaeus emphasizes the accusation against Jesus as the King and Son of God, noting its consistency with Old Testament prophecy. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian focus on this accusation, showing that Jesus fulfilled the prophetic role of the Messiah. Tertullian draws from Irenaeus to argue that the trial before Pilate underscores Jesus’ messianic identity, directly challenging Marcion’s attempt to separate Jesus from the Creator.
Scripture Reference: Luke 23:1-3

2. Jesus Responding to Pilate (Luke 23:3) Tertullian’s Statement: "Pilato quoque interroganti, Tu es Christus? proinde, Tu dicis." ("When Pilate asked Him, 'Are you the Christ?' He answered, 'You say so.'")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.6.3), Irenaeus discusses Jesus’ subtle response to Pilate, which implicitly affirms His identity. Tertullian follows this approach, using Jesus’ reply to demonstrate that His mission was in line with Old Testament prophecy. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian uses this moment to show that Jesus did not deny His identity, reinforcing His role as the Messiah foretold by the prophets.
Scripture Reference: Luke 23:3

3. Fulfillment of Prophecy: Psalm 2:1-2 and Isaiah 3:14

Tertullian’s Statement: "Ipse dominus in iudicium venit cum presbyteris et archontibus populi, secundum Esaiam." ("The Lord Himself came into judgment with the elders and rulers of the people, according to Isaiah.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.16.6), discusses how Psalm 2 and other prophecies predicted the rulers’ conspiracy against the Messiah. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian reference these passages to argue that Jesus’ trial and suffering were foretold in scripture. Tertullian reuses Irenaeus’ insights, emphasizing that Jesus’ trial fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah and Psalm 2, directly linking His suffering to the Creator’s plan.
Scripture Reference: Psalm 2:1-2 Isaiah 3:14

4. Jesus' Silence Before Herod (Luke 23:9)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Nec vocem ullam ab eo audivit. Tanquam agnus enim coram tondente, sic non aperuit os suum." ("He did not say a word. Like a lamb before its shearers, He did not open His mouth.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.18.2), Irenaeus emphasizes Jesus’ silence before His accusers as a fulfillment of Isaiah 53:7, which describes the suffering servant as a lamb silent before its shearers. Tertullian, following Irenaeus, uses this fulfillment to argue that Jesus’ silence during His trial confirms His role as the prophesied suffering Messiah, countering Marcion’s claim that Jesus was separate from the Old Testament.
Scripture Reference: Isaiah 53:7 Luke 23:9

5. Jesus’ Crucifixion and Division of His Garments (Luke 23:34, Psalm 22:18)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Vestitum plane eius a militibus divisum, partim sorte concessum." ("His garments were divided by the soldiers, and some were awarded by lot.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.16.5), Irenaeus refers to Psalm 22:18, where the division of the Messiah’s garments is prophesied. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize that the events of Jesus’ crucifixion, including the division of His garments, fulfill Old Testament prophecies, confirming His messianic identity. Tertullian follows Irenaeus in using this fulfillment to connect Jesus to the Creator’s plan, opposing Marcion’s claim of a separate, non-Jewish Christ.
Scripture Reference: Psalm 22:18 Luke 23:34

6. The Darkness at Noon (Luke 23:44, Amos 8:9)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Et erit illa die, dicit dominus, occidet sol meridie." ("On that day, says the Lord, the sun will set at noon.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.16.8), Irenaeus references the darkness that fell during Jesus’ crucifixion as a fulfillment of Amos 8:9. Tertullian, like Irenaeus, interprets this event as a sign of the Creator’s involvement, countering Marcion’s claim that Jesus was unconnected to the God of the Old Testament. Both authors emphasize the darkness as evidence that Jesus’ death was part of the Creator’s plan.
Scripture Reference: Amos 8:9 Luke 23:44

7. The Tearing of the Temple Veil (Luke 23:45)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Scissum est et templi velum." ("And the temple veil was torn.")
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.22.4), interprets the tearing of the temple veil as a symbol of the end of the old covenant and the establishment of the new covenant through Jesus’ sacrifice. Tertullian reuses this argument to show that Jesus’ death fulfilled the Creator’s promises and inaugurated the new covenant, challenging Marcion’s separation of Jesus from the Creator.
Scripture Reference: Luke 23:45

8. Jesus’ Final Words on the Cross (Luke 23:46, Psalm 31:5)

Tertullian’s Statement: "Vociferatur ad patrem, ut et moriens ultima voce prophetas adimpleret." ("He cried out to the Father, fulfilling the prophets with His final words.")
Irenaeus Connection: In Adversus Haereses (III.18.5), Irenaeus highlights Jesus’ final words, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit,” as a fulfillment of Psalm 31:5. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue that Jesus’ death and final words were prophesied, linking Him to the Creator’s plan for salvation. Tertullian follows Irenaeus in using this fulfillment to refute Marcion’s argument that Jesus was disconnected from the Old Testament.
Scripture Reference: Psalm 31:5 Luke 23:46

Book 5

Chapter 1

1. Apostolic Origin Argument (V.1.1-2)
Tertullian’s Statement: "Nihil enim sine origine est nisi solus Deus."
("Nothing exists without an origin except God alone.")
Tertullian opens by challenging Marcion’s claim that Paul had a unique apostleship disconnected from the Twelve. He stresses that apostleship must have a legitimate origin, mirroring the concern in early Christianity for apostolic succession.
Irenaeus Connection: In Against Heresies (III.13.1), Irenaeus defends the apostolic tradition by asserting that apostolic authority comes directly from Christ and was passed down through a clear line of succession. Like Tertullian, Irenaeus argues that heretics like Marcion distort this teaching by severing Paul from his rightful place within the broader apostolic tradition.
Comparison: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize that Paul’s legitimacy stems from his continuity with the apostolic tradition. By questioning the origin of Paul’s apostleship, Tertullian builds on Irenaeus’ concern with maintaining the integrity of the apostolic lineage against heretical claims.

2. Comparison to False Prophets (V.1.3-4)
Tertullian’s Statement: "Sicut multi falsi christi, ita et multi falsi apostoli."
("Just as there are many false Christs, so too are there many false apostles.")
Tertullian compares those who claim false apostleship, like Marcion, to the false Christs warned about in the Gospels. He argues that Marcion’s collection of Paul’s letters represents a distortion of the truth.
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.1.1), similarly warns against false teachers who appropriate apostolic authority but teach heresies. He emphasizes the danger of those who claim to speak for Christ but distort the true faith.
Comparison: Tertullian’s comparison of false apostles to false Christs echoes Irenaeus’ concern for guarding against heretical claims to apostolic authority. Both argue that figures like Marcion misuse Paul’s authority to promote false doctrines.

3. Use of Genesis to Predict Paul (V.1.5)
Tertullian’s Statement: "Sed et in Genesi scriptum est de tribu Beniamin... Lupus rapax mane, et vespere praedam partietur."
("But it is written in Genesis about the tribe of Benjamin... 'Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; in the morning he devours the prey, and in the evening he divides the spoil.'")
Tertullian interprets Genesis 49:27 as a prophecy about Paul’s transformation from a persecutor (the wolf) to an apostle of the Church.
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus frequently engages in typological readings of the Old Testament, where figures and events prefigure New Testament realities. In Against Heresies (III.12.1), he interprets Old Testament figures as foreshadowing the apostles and Christ.
Comparison: Tertullian’s typological reading of Genesis to prefigure Paul’s conversion echoes Irenaeus’ method of connecting Old Testament prophecies to New Testament fulfillments. Both see Paul as part of the Creator’s divine plan, countering Marcion’s claim of Paul’s independence from Jewish tradition.

4. Acts of the Apostles as Proof of Paul’s Legitimacy (V.1.6)
Tertullian’s Statement: "Factum apostolum a Deo per eius [Pauli] reformationem."
("He was made an apostle by God through his conversion.")
Tertullian defends Paul’s legitimacy by citing his conversion in the Acts of the Apostles as evidence of divine intervention, contrasting this with Marcion’s selective editing of Paul’s letters.
Irenaeus Connection: In Against Heresies (III.13.3), Irenaeus defends Paul’s apostleship by referencing the Acts of the Apostles, specifically Paul’s conversion and his role as an apostle to the Gentiles. Irenaeus sees this as historical proof of Paul’s legitimacy, against heretical claims.
Comparison: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use the historical record in Acts to establish Paul’s authority as a true apostle. Tertullian builds on Irenaeus’ argument to further challenge Marcion’s version of Paul’s ministry as separate from the other apostles.

5. Apostolic Testimony to a Single God (V.1.9)
Tertullian’s Statement: "Epistolae eius ipsae deum creatorem, deum legis, deum prophetarum confitentur."
("His letters themselves confess the Creator God, the God of the Law, the God of the prophets.")
Tertullian asserts that Paul’s letters affirm the same God revealed in the Law and the prophets, rejecting Marcion’s claim that Paul preached about a new and separate deity.
Irenaeus Connection: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.16.8), emphasizes that Paul’s letters, when read in their proper context, align with the teachings of the Creator God. He argues that heretics like Marcion twist Paul’s words to suggest a division between Jesus and the Creator.
Comparison: Tertullian’s conclusion that Paul’s letters bear witness to the Creator directly follows Irenaeus’ assertion of the unity of Christian teaching. Both theologians reject Marcion’s interpretation by insisting that Paul’s writings are consistent with the original apostolic faith.

Chapter 2

1. Law and Gospel Continuity (V.2.1)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that Paul’s teachings in Galatians highlight the abolition of the old Law and the establishment of a new covenant, predicted by the Creator. He emphasizes that this shift is a continuation of the Creator’s divine plan.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.12.14), similarly argues that Paul’s rejection of strict legalism does not signify a new god, but rather the fulfillment of the Creator’s Law through Christ.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 3:19-24 – The purpose of the Law before Christ. Jeremiah 31:31 – Prophecy about the establishment of a new covenant.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Paul’s teachings in Galatians represent a continuity between the Law and the Gospel, framing the transition as part of the Creator’s long-term plan. Tertullian uses Paul’s letters to show that Paul never introduced a new deity but rather emphasized the fulfillment of the old covenant through Christ, countering Marcion’s claim of a new god.

2. No Mention of a New God (V.2.2)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that Paul never taught about a new god, and the Galatians did not hear any teaching about a god other than the Creator. If Paul had taught about a new god, the Galatians would have clearly recognized this break from the Creator’s Law.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.16.3), makes a similar argument, claiming that Paul consistently teaches about the Creator and never introduces a new deity.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 1:6-7 – Paul’s shock at the Galatians turning to another gospel. Galatians 1:3-4 – Paul refers to “our God and Father,” indicating continuity with the Creator.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, following Irenaeus, uses Paul’s silence on the issue of a new god as evidence that Paul’s gospel is rooted in the Creator’s message. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that if Paul had indeed been preaching about a new god, this would have been explicitly mentioned and rejected by his audience.

3. Galatians 1:6-9 – Paul’s Surprise (V.2.4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian focuses on Paul’s surprise at how quickly the Galatians abandoned the true gospel for a false one, interpreting this to mean that Paul was calling them back to the gospel of the Creator, not introducing a new god or teaching.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.13.1), uses the same passage from Galatians to argue that heretics distort the true gospel. He insists that Paul’s teachings are the fulfillment of the Creator’s plan and do not advocate for a new deity.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 1:6-9 – Paul expresses his astonishment at the Galatians turning to a false gospel. Isaiah 52:7 – The prophecy of the gospel of peace, showing the gospel as part of the Creator’s plan.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s rebuke in Galatians 1:6-9 to show that Paul was defending the Creator’s gospel, not introducing a different one. This passage is critical for both theologians in refuting Marcion’s claim of a new gospel about a separate deity.

4. The Creator’s Gospel Predicted by Isaiah (V.2.5)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Isaiah 40:9 and 52:7 to argue that the gospel Paul preached to the Galatians is the one predicted by the Creator, reinforcing that Paul’s gospel is a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.6.4), makes a similar connection between Isaiah’s prophecies and the gospel preached by Paul, arguing that Paul’s message is rooted in the Creator’s longstanding plan for salvation.
Scriptures Used: Isaiah 40:9 – The proclamation of good news by the Creator. Isaiah 52:7 – The prophecy of those who proclaim peace and salvation.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, like Irenaeus, emphasizes that Paul’s gospel aligns with the Old Testament prophecies of the Creator’s salvation plan. Both theologians use Isaiah to show the continuity between the Old Testament and Paul’s preaching, undermining Marcion’s notion of a new god.

5. Refutation of Marcion’s “Two Gospels” Theory (V.2.6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian challenges Marcion’s claim of two gospels—one from the Creator and one from a new god—by citing Paul’s statement that there is no other gospel. He argues that Paul reinforces the unity of the gospel, connected to the Creator’s covenant.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.16.8), similarly insists that there is only one gospel, which fulfills the Creator’s promises, rejecting any dualistic interpretations.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 1:7 – Paul affirms that there is only one true gospel. Deuteronomy 4:2 – A warning not to add or take away from God’s Law, symbolizing the unity and continuity of the divine message.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus reject Marcion’s concept of two gospels, using Paul’s explicit denial of a second gospel as evidence that his message was a continuation of the Creator’s covenant. This forms a central part of their argument that Paul was not advocating a new deity.

6. Paul’s Apostleship Confirmed in Acts (V.2.7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian references Paul’s conversion in Acts, emphasizing that Paul’s apostleship was confirmed by God and aligned with the other apostles, refuting Marcion’s claim that Paul had a unique revelation about a new god.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.12.1), makes a similar appeal to Acts to defend Paul’s legitimacy as an apostle within the broader apostolic tradition.
Scriptures Used: Acts 9:15 – God’s choice of Paul as His instrument. Acts 22:14-15 – Paul’s testimony and mission, aligned with the other apostles.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Paul’s apostleship was grounded in divine authority and aligned with the other apostles. By appealing to Acts, they refute Marcion’s claim that Paul was preaching a separate message about a different god.

Chapter 3

1. Apostolic Authority (V.3.1-2)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s visit to Jerusalem after fourteen years to confer with the apostles about his gospel (Gal. 2:1-2). He argues that Paul sought the approval of the original apostles to demonstrate the unity of his message with theirs.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.13.1-2), also uses Paul’s journey to Jerusalem to emphasize that Paul's teaching was in harmony with the original apostles. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use this event to refute Marcion’s claim that Paul’s gospel was independent or distinct from the apostolic tradition.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 2:1-2 – Paul’s account of his visit to Jerusalem to meet the apostles. Acts 15:2 – Paul and Barnabas consult the apostles in Jerusalem.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both argue that Paul’s appeal to apostolic authority confirms the unity of the gospel, which Marcion denies. This connection with the other apostles strengthens the argument that Paul was not preaching a new god, but rather the same God as the Creator.

2. Circumcision and False Brethren (V.3.3-5)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian explains that the “false brethren” clung to the old discipline of circumcision, trying to bring Christians under Jewish law (Gal. 2:3-5). He defends Paul’s opposition to their teaching as a means of protecting the gospel’s freedom from the ritualistic aspects of the Law.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.12.14-15), similarly highlights the controversy around circumcision, stressing Paul’s rejection of the necessity of circumcision for salvation while affirming the continuity between the gospel and the Law. Both use the issue of circumcision to show that Paul rejected ritual obligations but did not sever the connection between the Old and New Covenants.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 2:3-5 – Paul’s refusal to submit to circumcision pressure from false brethren. Acts 15:1-2 – Dispute over circumcision among early Christians.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian follows Irenaeus in framing Paul’s opposition to circumcision not as a rejection of the Creator’s Law, but as a defense of the gospel’s freedom. Both emphasize that Paul upheld the integrity of the gospel without negating the Law, refuting Marcion’s dichotomy.

3. Rejection of Judaizing Tendencies (V.3.6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that Paul firmly opposed any Judaizing influence that sought to bring Christians back under the yoke of Jewish Law, refusing to yield “even for an hour” (Gal. 2:5). He emphasizes Paul’s steadfastness in preserving the gospel’s message.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.13.3), also highlights Paul’s refusal to accommodate Judaizing tendencies to protect the gospel’s purity. Both argue that Paul’s opposition was aimed at maintaining the integrity of the gospel, not rejecting the Creator.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 2:5 – Paul’s refusal to compromise the gospel. Acts 15:10 – Peter’s speech against placing the yoke of the Law on Gentile converts.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s opposition to Judaizers to affirm that Paul was protecting the gospel’s message, not creating a new teaching or introducing a new god. This argument further dismantles Marcion’s claim that Paul rejected the Creator’s Law completely.

4. Paul’s Adaptability (V.3.7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Paul’s strategy of becoming “a Jew to win Jews” (1 Cor. 9:20) as an example of Paul’s flexibility in accommodating Jewish customs when necessary. This included the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:3), demonstrating Paul’s evangelistic pragmatism.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.12.15), uses the circumcision of Timothy to show that Paul did not oppose the Law but saw it fulfilled in Christ. Both theologians emphasize that Paul’s actions were strategic, not indicative of a rejection of the Law, as Marcion claimed.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 9:20 – Paul becomes like a Jew to win Jews. Acts 16:3 – Paul circumcises Timothy.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, following Irenaeus, uses Paul’s adaptability to show that Paul did not oppose the Law but was strategic in applying it for evangelistic purposes. Both reject Marcion’s interpretation that Paul’s actions were a rejection of the Creator’s Law.

5. Criticism of Peter’s Inconsistency (V.3.8)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian recounts how Paul rebuked Peter for withdrawing from Gentiles when Jewish Christians were present (Gal. 2:11-14). He emphasizes that Peter’s inconsistency was a behavioral issue, not a doctrinal one, underscoring the unity of the apostles in their message.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.12.14), also addresses the conflict between Paul and Peter, emphasizing that their disagreement was about behavior, not doctrine. Both use this event to demonstrate the essential unity of the apostles, contrary to Marcion’s claim of division.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 2:11-14 – Paul’s confrontation with Peter over his inconsistency. Acts 10:28 – Peter’s vision about not calling any person impure or unclean.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus stress that the apostles’ unity remained intact despite the behavioral inconsistency. This further refutes Marcion’s claim that Paul’s gospel was at odds with the rest of the apostles.

6. Christ and the Law: A United Message (V.3.9-10)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that Paul’s message of freedom from the Law was not a rejection of the Creator’s Law but a fulfillment of it through Christ. He emphasizes that grace and faith are integral to the Creator’s plan and Paul’s gospel aligns with this, contrary to Marcion’s interpretation.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.12.12), similarly argues that Paul’s message of grace and faith represents the fulfillment of the Creator’s Law in Christ. Both Fathers reject Marcion’s notion of a new god, showing that Paul’s gospel aligns with the Creator’s will.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 2:16 – Justification through faith in Christ, not the works of the Law. Jeremiah 31:31-34 – The promise of a new covenant written on hearts.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, like Irenaeus, argues that Paul’s gospel of grace is in perfect harmony with the Creator’s plan and the fulfillment of the Law. Both refute Marcion’s dualism by showing the unity between the gospel of Christ and the Law.

7. The Blessing and Curse of the Law (V.3.11)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian discusses Paul’s statement that Christ became a curse for us by dying on the cross (Gal. 3:13), referencing Deuteronomy 21:23. He uses this to argue that both the blessing and curse come from the same Creator and that Christ’s death fulfilled the Law.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (III.13.3), also uses Galatians 3:13 to demonstrate that Christ’s death fulfilled the requirements of the Law, linking the curse of the Law to Christ’s redemption. Both Fathers show that Paul’s teaching affirms the Creator’s Law, not a rejection of it.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 3:13 – Christ became a curse for us. Deuteronomy 21:23 – A hanged man is cursed.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s argument about Christ becoming a curse to affirm that the blessing and curse stem from the same Creator. This directly opposes Marcion’s claim that Paul rejected the Creator’s Law.

Chapter 4

1. Allegory of Abraham’s Two Sons (V.4.1)
Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian references Paul’s allegory of Abraham’s two sons (Gal. 4:22-26), one born of a slave woman and the other of a free woman, representing the two covenants. He argues that both covenants come from the same God, countering Marcion’s view of two gods.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.16.3), also interprets this allegory to argue that the freedom in Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, not a rejection of the Creator. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus stress the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, refuting Marcion’s attempt to sever the connection.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 4:22-26 – The allegory of Abraham’s two sons. Genesis 21:10 – The casting out of Hagar and Ishmael.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian mirrors Irenaeus in showing that Paul’s allegory supports the Creator’s consistent plan of salvation. Both use the allegory to demonstrate that the New Covenant is a fulfillment, not a rejection, of the Old Covenant, thereby refuting Marcion’s dichotomy between the two covenants.

2. Law and Grace (V.4.2)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that Paul taught the transition from Law to grace (Gal. 3:19), but emphasizes that the same God who gave the Law also provides grace through Christ. This continuity, Tertullian says, discredits Marcion’s claim that Paul preached about a new god.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.12.14-15), makes a similar argument, showing that the Law’s role was to lead to Christ and that the Law’s fulfillment through Christ proves the Creator’s overarching plan. Both emphasize that grace follows from the same God who gave the Law.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 3:19 – The purpose of the Law and its relationship to grace. Jeremiah 31:31-34 – The prophecy of a new covenant.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Paul’s teaching of grace does not reject the Law but fulfills it. They assert that the Creator’s covenant was realized through Christ, challenging Marcion’s claim of a new god or separate deity.

3. Freedom from Elementary Principles (V.4.3)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s teaching that before Christ, humanity was enslaved to “elemental principles” (Gal. 4:3). He interprets these principles as the ceremonial aspects of the Jewish Law but argues that Paul’s message of freedom through Christ doesn’t reject the Creator.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.16.6), addresses the same “elemental principles,” showing that they were preparatory for Christ. Like Tertullian, Irenaeus argues that these principles were part of the Creator’s plan and should not be discarded.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 4:3 – Enslavement to the elemental principles of the world. Colossians 2:8 – Paul’s warning against being captivated by hollow philosophy.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both theologians refute Marcion’s view that Paul’s rejection of the Law’s ceremonial aspects signifies a rejection of the Creator. Instead, they argue that Paul’s teachings reveal the Law’s fulfillment in Christ, maintaining the unity of God’s plan.

4. Observances of Days and Ceremonial Laws (V.4.4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian uses Paul’s criticism of observing “days, months, seasons, and years” (Gal. 4:10) to argue that these practices were now obsolete in Christ. However, Tertullian asserts that this change was part of the Creator’s plan, not a rejection of Him.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.12.12), addresses the ceremonial observances, explaining that they served a purpose before Christ but are no longer necessary. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus show that rejecting these observances doesn’t mean rejecting the God who established them.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 4:10 – Paul’s critique of observing ceremonial days. Isaiah 1:13-14 – God’s rejection of empty ritual observances.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus agree that while Paul rejected the need for certain ritual observances, this was part of the Creator’s foreordained plan, not a break from His Law. They refute Marcion’s argument that Paul preached against the Creator.

[StephenGoranson]

My mistake. I missed the post where you, Secret Alias, proposed the title of your prospective book, because I was not currently reading all of your lengthy posts.
Without needing to quote everything, I do find it helpful when identifying to whom you are responding. (On killing religion, or whatnot.)
As to your proposed outline of the book, I suggest you give at least a brief history of scholarship in order to situate your contribution.
But I leave that with you and your editor.

[Secret Alias]

Thanks. Sometimes scholarship goes left when it should have gone right. Tertullian never says he has the Marcionite canon in front of him. Irenaeus says he will combat Marcion from the portion of Luke he retains. Tertullian frequently copies Irenaeus's treatises verbatim. A lot of Adversus Marcionem derives from Irenaeus. The minutes of the Marcion Appreciation Society are exclusively preserved in German. Germans are too good at following the lead of others. That's why we went left instead of right originally and kept marching left for the last two hundred years. That's about the size of it. We were just taking orders, the scholarly edition. Leave it to a German Jew to test out "right." It's odd that the most anti-Semitic culture in world history should also have a near monopoly on Marcion. Why should German be a pre-requisite for Marcion? There's something strange about the German monopoly on Marcion.

You know Hitler had a huge bust of Nietzsche greeting his visitors. Nietzsche was not an anti-Semite. But there was a version of Nietzsche propagated by his sister that was passed onto the Nazis which was anti-Semitic. Marcion is like that. Don't trust the German Marcion.



Only a German could be so stupid to read Nietzsche and ignore all the pro-Jewish things he says and glean only the "blond beast" metaphors etc. Germans and that Kevin Kline character from a Fish Called Wanda.

[Secret Alias]

continued:

5. Allegory of Freedom in Christ (V.4.5)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that Paul’s allegory about freedom in Christ (Gal. 5:1) demonstrates that the law of Christ fulfills the Creator’s Law. Paul’s message of freedom is not about rejecting the Creator but about completing His covenant.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.12.15), also interprets Paul’s message of freedom as a fulfillment of the Creator’s plan. Both Fathers stress that the freedom Paul teaches is the completion of the Creator’s Law through Christ.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 5:1 – Paul’s message of freedom in Christ. Isaiah 61:1 – Proclaiming liberty to captives as part of the Messiah’s mission.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Paul’s message of freedom is not about breaking with the Creator but about realizing the true freedom found in the fulfillment of His Law through Christ, directly opposing Marcion’s claims.

6. Circumcision and Christian Freedom (V.4.6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian notes Paul’s teaching that circumcision is irrelevant in Christ (Gal. 5:6). He uses this to argue that while circumcision is no longer required, it was part of the Creator’s original plan, which Paul still upholds.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.12.14), similarly uses Paul’s rejection of circumcision as a requirement for salvation to argue that Paul did not reject the Creator’s covenant with Abraham but saw it fulfilled in Christ.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 5:6 – Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters in Christ. Genesis 17:10-11 – The covenant of circumcision with Abraham.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s teaching on circumcision to argue that Paul wasn’t rejecting the Creator’s covenant but clarifying that it was fulfilled in Christ. They reject Marcion’s assertion that Paul’s teaching opposed the Creator.

7. Faith and Love in Christ (V.4.7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian concludes by emphasizing that Paul’s teaching fulfills the entire law through love (Gal. 5:14). He argues that love is the fulfillment of the Creator’s Law, confirming that Paul preached the same God who gave the Law.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses (III.13.3), also emphasizes that the law is fulfilled in love, using this to argue that Paul’s message is consistent with the Creator’s Law. Both Fathers use this teaching to refute Marcion’s claim of a separate god.
Scriptures Used: Galatians 5:14 – The law is fulfilled in the command to love one’s neighbor. Leviticus 19:18 – The command to love one’s neighbor as oneself.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, following Irenaeus, uses Paul’s message of love to demonstrate the continuity between Paul’s gospel and the Creator’s Law. They argue that Paul’s teachings reflect the fulfillment of the Law, countering Marcion’s assertion of a new god.

Chapter 6

1. Greeting of Peace and Grace (V.5.1)
Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that the common Pauline greeting of “grace and peace” (1 Cor. 1:3) reflects the Creator’s reconciliation of humanity through Christ. He counters Marcion’s claim that the greeting reflects a new god, asserting instead that it points to the Creator’s plan of salvation.

Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses III.16.3, Irenaeus similarly emphasizes that Paul’s greetings of peace and grace reflect the Creator’s plan of reconciliation through Christ. Both theologians argue that Paul’s gospel is rooted in the Creator’s covenant.

Scriptures Used:

1 Corinthians 1:3 – Paul’s greeting of grace and peace.
Isaiah 52:7 – The prophecy of peace and salvation.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, following Irenaeus, interprets Paul’s greetings as confirmations of the Creator’s reconciliation plan, refuting Marcion’s claim that they introduce a new deity. The continuity of peace and grace in Paul’s message points to the Creator’s role in salvation.

2. Wisdom of the World vs. Foolishness of the Cross (V.5.2)
Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s teaching that the wisdom of the world is made foolish by the cross of Christ (1 Cor. 1:18-25). He argues that the Creator’s wisdom is revealed through the cross, which is perceived as foolishness by worldly standards.

Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.4, makes a similar point, arguing that the cross reveals divine wisdom by subverting human pride and wisdom. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize the cross as the ultimate expression of the Creator’s wisdom.

Scriptures Used:

1 Corinthians 1:18-25 – Paul’s contrast between divine wisdom and worldly foolishness.
Isaiah 29:14 – The prophecy of God destroying human wisdom.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s contrast between worldly wisdom and divine foolishness to refute Marcion’s view of a separate god. They argue that the Creator’s plan, revealed through the cross, fulfills Old Testament prophecies.

3. The Prophetic Basis of Christ’s Death (V.5.3)
Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Paul’s use of Isaiah’s prophecy (“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise”) to argue that Christ’s death was part of the Creator’s redemptive plan, foretold by the prophets.

Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.19.1, also highlights the role of the prophets in predicting Christ’s crucifixion, showing that it was not an invention of a new god. Both theologians use Paul’s reference to Isaiah to show that Christ’s death was part of the Creator’s design.

Scriptures Used:

1 Corinthians 1:19 – Paul’s quotation of Isaiah.
Isaiah 29:14 – The prophecy of the destruction of wisdom.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian mirrors Irenaeus’s argument that Christ’s crucifixion fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, particularly Isaiah’s predictions. Both theologians use Paul’s teaching to refute Marcion’s claim of a new god, showing the cross was central to the Creator’s plan.

4. Paul’s Use of “Scandal” and “Foolishness” (V.5.4)
Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s statement that Christ is a “stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Cor. 1:23), interpreting it as the fulfillment of the prophecy of the “stone of stumbling” (Isa. 28:16).

Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.20.2, also emphasizes the prophecy of the stumbling block, using it to show that Christ’s rejection by the Jews was part of the Creator’s redemptive plan. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian see Christ’s rejection as prophesied, refuting Marcion’s view of a separate god.

Scriptures Used:

1 Corinthians 1:23 – Christ as a stumbling block and foolishness.
Isaiah 28:16 – The prophecy of the stone of stumbling.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both theologians use Paul’s reference to the “scandal” of the cross to argue that Christ’s rejection and crucifixion were part of the Creator’s plan, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy. They reject Marcion’s separation of Christ from the Old Testament.

5. God’s Use of the “Foolish” and the “Weak” (V.5.5)
Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian highlights Paul’s teaching that God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27), arguing that this reflects the Creator’s use of seemingly weak things to demonstrate divine power.

Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.4, makes a similar point, showing that the Creator’s plan has always involved using what appears weak or foolish to reveal divine wisdom. Both theologians use Paul’s message to show the consistency of God’s methods.

Scriptures Used:

1 Corinthians 1:27 – God’s use of the foolish and weak.
Isaiah 40:29 – God’s power through the weak.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, following Irenaeus, shows that Paul’s message of God using the weak to shame the wise aligns with the Creator’s longstanding methods. Both use Paul’s words to argue against Marcion’s notion of a new, superior god.

6. The Stumbling Block in Zion (V.5.6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that the “stone of stumbling” in Zion (Isa. 28:16, Rom. 9:33) represents Christ’s rejection by the Jews, fulfilling the Creator’s prophecies.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.19.3, also uses this prophecy to show that Christ’s rejection was part of the Creator’s plan. Both theologians argue that Paul’s reference to the stumbling block confirms the unity of the gospel with Old Testament prophecy.
Scriptures Used: Isaiah 28:16 – The prophecy of the stone of stumbling. Romans 9:33 – Paul’s reference to the stumbling block.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus interpret Paul’s reference to the stumbling block as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, demonstrating that the gospel is connected to the Creator’s plan, refuting Marcion’s claim of a new god.

7. The Scandal of the Cross (V.5.7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that the scandal of the cross (1 Cor. 1:23) reveals the Creator’s wisdom by using what the world sees as foolishness to demonstrate divine power.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.4, also argues that the cross, though scandalous and foolish to the world, is the key to the Creator’s wisdom. Both theologians show that the cross is central to the Creator’s plan of salvation.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 1:23 – The cross as a scandal and foolishness. Isaiah 53:3 – The suffering servant as rejected and despised.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, drawing from Irenaeus, shows that the cross, though scandalous, reveals the Creator’s wisdom and plan of salvation. Both refute Marcion’s claim that the cross points to a new god by grounding it in the Creator’s prophecy.

Chapter 6

1. Wisdom Hidden in Allegories (V.6.1)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that the wisdom of God, hidden in allegories and figures, was revealed in Christ as “a light to the nations” (Isa. 42:6), showing continuity between the Old Testament and Christ’s revelation (1 Cor. 2:6-7).
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses IV.26.1, Irenaeus similarly asserts that God’s hidden wisdom, prefigured in the Old Testament, was revealed through Christ. Both theologians use this theme to argue that Paul’s gospel unveils the mysteries of God that were previously concealed.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 2:6-7 – Paul speaks of God’s wisdom hidden before the ages. Isaiah 42:6 – The prophecy of Christ as a light to the nations.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that the revelation of divine wisdom through Christ and Paul’s teachings align with the Creator’s pre-existing plan, countering Marcion’s claim of a new, unknown deity.

2. The Creator as the God of Ages (V.6.2)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that time and the “ages” belong to the Creator, citing Genesis 1:14, which shows God setting the stars to mark time. Paul’s reference to “before the ages” (1 Cor. 2:7) affirms that the Creator’s plan predates all creation.
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses III.11.8, Irenaeus also highlights that the Creator is the master of time and that Christ’s revelation fits within the Creator’s plan. Both fathers reject Marcion’s separation of time and creation from the Creator’s control.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 2:7 – God’s wisdom predestined before the ages. Genesis 1:14 – God setting the stars to mark days, months, and years.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, following Irenaeus, emphasizes that the Creator governs time and that any divine plan must originate with Him, refuting Marcion’s claim of a new god’s involvement.

3. The Ignorance of the Rulers of This Age (V.6.3)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian interprets Paul’s reference to the “rulers of this age” (1 Cor. 2:8) as earthly rulers like Herod and Pilate, who acted in ignorance of God’s plan when they crucified Christ.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses II.20.4, similarly argues that the rulers who crucified Christ were earthly powers, acting without understanding the Creator’s hidden wisdom. Both fathers emphasize that the crucifixion was part of God’s plan, not a disruption by a new deity.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 2:8 – Paul on the rulers who crucified Christ. Luke 22:3 – Satan entering Judas, causing the betrayal.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both argue that the rulers’ ignorance was anticipated by the Creator, whose plan was hidden from them, countering Marcion’s interpretation of the crucifixion as a mistake by an inferior god.

4. Satan and the Rejection of the Creator’s Plan (V.6.4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian references Satan entering Judas (Luke 22:3) and highlights Satan’s role in opposing Christ, even though Satan knew Jesus was the “Holy One of God” (Luke 4:34). This shows Satan’s active opposition to the Creator’s plan.
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses III.23.1, Irenaeus uses similar language to describe Satan’s opposition to the Creator’s plan, despite knowing Christ’s identity. Both theologians argue that Satan’s involvement in Christ’s crucifixion was part of the Creator’s overarching redemptive plan.
Scriptures Used: Luke 22:3 – Satan entering Judas. Luke 4:34 – Satan recognizing Jesus as the “Holy One of God.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, like Irenaeus, frames Satan’s role in the crucifixion as confirmation of the Creator’s plan. Both refute Marcion’s separation of the Creator from the gospel narrative, showing Satan’s opposition to the same Creator God.

5. The Wisdom of the World Made Foolish (V.6.5)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s teaching that God makes the wisdom of the world foolish (1 Cor. 1:19-20) and links it to the Creator’s historical dealings with humanity, which favored divine wisdom over worldly pride.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses II.27.1, echoes this theme by arguing that the Creator has always valued divine wisdom over human understanding. Both theologians use this idea to counter Marcion’s claim of a different god revealing wisdom apart from the Creator.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 – The wisdom of the world made foolish. Isaiah 29:14 – Prophecy of God destroying human wisdom.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize the Creator’s method of using what the world deems foolish to reveal divine wisdom, affirming the unity of the gospel with the Old Testament.

6. Architect and Foundation of Faith (V.6.6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Paul’s description of himself as a “wise architect” (1 Cor. 3:10), emphasizing that Paul was building on the Creator’s foundation, laid through Christ (Isa. 28:16).
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses IV.20.2, Irenaeus similarly uses the image of Christ as the foundation laid by the Creator, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. Both fathers reject Marcion’s claim that Paul introduced a new foundation or gospel.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 3:10 – Paul as the wise architect. Isaiah 28:16 – Prophecy of the cornerstone laid by God.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian’s use of Paul’s language about architecture mirrors Irenaeus’s interpretation of Christ as the cornerstone, reinforcing the idea that Paul’s gospel builds on the Creator’s foundation.

7. The Temple of God (V.6.7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian reminds his readers that believers are the “temple of God” (1 Cor. 3:16), arguing that this temple belongs to the Creator, who gave humanity His Spirit.
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses V.6.1, Irenaeus similarly asserts that believers are the Creator’s temple, emphasizing the continuity of the gospel with the Creator’s plan. Both fathers reject Marcion’s idea of a separate god inhabiting a temple made by the Creator.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 3:16 – Believers as the temple of God. Genesis 2:7 – God giving humanity His Spirit.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, following Irenaeus, affirms that the temple belongs to the Creator, rejecting any separation between the Creator’s work in humanity and the indwelling of the Spirit.

Chapter 7

1. Illumination of Hidden Things (V.7.1)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian claims that Christ illuminates the hidden things of darkness, fulfilling Isaiah’s prophecy of Christ as the "light to the nations" (Isa. 42:6). This divine wisdom, hidden before, is revealed through Christ (1 Cor. 4:5).
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses IV.33.4, Irenaeus also emphasizes Christ as the light revealing hidden mysteries, aligning this with the Creator’s redemptive plan. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus affirm that Christ’s role as the illuminator fulfills Old Testament prophecies.
Scriptures Used:1 Corinthians 4:5 – Christ will bring to light what is hidden. Isaiah 42:6 – Christ as a light to the nations.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers argue that Christ’s role in revealing divine wisdom is part of the Creator’s plan, countering Marcion’s claim of a new and separate god.

2. Paschal Imagery and the Resurrection (V.7.2)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian connects Paul’s use of Passover imagery to Christ’s sacrifice, emphasizing that Christ as the Paschal Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7) fulfills the Creator’s symbolic system established in the Old Testament.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.10.1, similarly argues that the Old Testament sacrificial system prefigures Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. Both stress that Paul’s message reflects the Creator’s plan rather than a new doctrine.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 5:7 – Christ as the Passover Lamb. Exodus 12:5-11 – The institution of the Passover.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus show that Paul’s gospel aligns with the Creator’s Old Testament covenant, refuting Marcion’s separation of the Old Testament from Christ’s work.

3. Body and Resurrection (V.7.3)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian defends the resurrection of the body, citing Paul’s statement, "The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body" (1 Cor. 6:13). He argues that Paul’s teachings affirm bodily resurrection, opposing Marcion’s rejection of the body.
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses V.14.3, Irenaeus makes a similar case for the resurrection of the body, defending the continuity between the present body and the resurrected one. Both emphasize that Paul’s teaching aligns with the Creator’s plan for bodily resurrection.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 6:13 – The body is for the Lord. Job 19:25-27 – A testimony to bodily resurrection.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both counter Marcion’s rejection of the body’s importance by affirming Paul’s belief in the resurrection of the same body, thereby supporting the Creator’s redemptive plan.

4. Christ as the Foundation (V.7.4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s metaphor of Christ as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), interpreting it as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the cornerstone (Isa. 28:16).
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.11.8, also refers to Isaiah’s prophecy to assert that Christ is the foundation laid by the Creator, not a new god. Both theologians use the foundation metaphor to show continuity with the Old Testament.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 3:11 – Christ as the foundation. Isaiah 28:16 – The cornerstone prophecy.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian, like Irenaeus, emphasizes that Christ as the foundation was part of the Creator’s prophetic plan, directly refuting Marcion’s claim of a different foundation or deity.

5. Law and Grace (V.7.5)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that the same Creator who gave the law rescinded it, following Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10. He insists that the burdens of the law were lifted by the same God who imposed them.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.16.3, makes a similar argument about the Creator’s dual role in both establishing and fulfilling the law. Both theologians reject Marcion’s idea that Paul’s gospel of grace points to a different god.
Scriptures Used:1 Corinthians 9:9-10 – The lifting of the law’s burdens. Deuteronomy 25:4 – The law about oxen, used allegorically by Paul.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both argue that the law’s fulfillment through Christ reflects the Creator’s overarching plan, rejecting Marcion’s attempt to create a dichotomy between law and grace.

6. The Rock as Christ (V.7.6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that Paul’s identification of the spiritual rock as Christ (1 Cor. 10:4) demonstrates the continuity of the Creator’s salvific plan.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.9.1, also interprets the rock as a symbol of Christ, connecting it to the Creator’s plan for salvation. Both use this image to show that Paul’s teaching aligns with the Old Testament narrative.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 10:4 – The spiritual rock as Christ. Exodus 17:6 – The water from the rock.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both argue that Paul’s reference to the rock points to the Creator’s consistent plan for salvation through Christ, refuting Marcion’s dualistic theology.

7. Warnings from the Old Testament (V.7.7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that the warnings given to Israel in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:6) are applicable to Christians today, underscoring the continuity between the Creator’s dealings with Israel and the church.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.26.2, makes a similar argument, emphasizing that Old Testament warnings were written for the instruction of the church. Both theologians assert that Paul’s use of Old Testament examples demonstrates continuity with the Creator’s plan.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 10:6 – Old Testament warnings as examples for Christians. Numbers 14:2 – The rebellion in the wilderness.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus show that Paul’s warnings to the church are rooted in the Creator’s dealings with Israel, rejecting Marcion’s separation of the Old Testament from Christian doctrine.

8. Christ’s Fulfillment of the Law (V.7.8)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that Paul’s teachings on love fulfilling the law (1 Cor. 13:13) reflect the Creator’s commandments in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.12.3, similarly argues that Christ’s command to love fulfills the Creator’s law. Both theologians use Paul’s teachings to demonstrate that the law was not abolished but fulfilled in Christ.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 13:13 – Love as the fulfillment of the law. Deuteronomy 6:5 – The commandment to love God. Leviticus 19:18 – The commandment to love one’s neighbor.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both show that Paul’s teachings on love affirm the Creator’s law, countering Marcion’s claim that Paul rejected the Old Testament.

Chapter 8

1. Christ as the Head of Man (V.8.1)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that Christ is the head of man, reflecting the Creator’s design (1 Cor. 11:3), where man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). He argues that Christ’s headship comes directly from the Creator’s authority.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.16.1, also discusses Christ’s authority as being aligned with the Creator’s original design. Both emphasize that Christ’s role as head reflects the Creator’s order, rejecting Marcion’s separation of Christ from the Creator.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 11:3 – Christ as the head of man. Genesis 1:26 – Man made in the image of God.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus stress that Christ’s headship is grounded in the Creator’s design, refuting Marcion’s claim of a new god and demonstrating continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

2. Angels and Humility (V.8.2)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian explains Paul’s mention of women covering their heads "because of the angels" (1 Cor. 11:10), tying this to the discipline of humility instituted by the Creator and the fall of the angels due to lust.
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses IV.30.2, Irenaeus addresses the importance of modesty and humility, connecting it to the Creator’s moral order. Both theologians use Paul’s teachings to argue that Christian morality continues the Creator’s original order.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 11:10 – Women covering their heads. Genesis 6:2 – The fall of the angels due to lust.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize the importance of humility and modesty as part of the Creator’s moral discipline, countering Marcion’s idea of a new moral order.

3. Spiritual Gifts and the Prophecies of Isaiah (V.8.3)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian links Paul’s teachings on spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 12) to Isaiah’s prophecy about the Spirit of the Lord resting on the Messiah (Isa. 11:1-2), arguing that these gifts were promised by the Creator and fulfilled in Christ.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.33.3, also connects spiritual gifts to the prophecies of Isaiah, demonstrating the fulfillment of the Creator’s promises in Christ. Both theologians stress the continuity between the Old Testament prophecies and Christ’s mission.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 12 – Spiritual gifts in the church. Isaiah 11:1-2 – The Spirit of the Lord and its gifts.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus show that the spiritual gifts given to the church fulfill the Creator’s promises in the Old Testament, opposing Marcion’s attempt to separate the Spirit’s gifts from the Creator.

4. Continuity of Prophecy and the Holy Spirit (V.8.4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Joel’s prophecy (Joel 2:28) about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, asserting that the Creator fulfilled this prophecy in Christ and the apostles.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.1, also highlights the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy in Christ and the church, arguing that the spiritual gifts come from the Creator’s promises, not a new god.
Scriptures Used:
Joel 2:28 – The prophecy of the outpouring of the Spirit. Acts 2:17 – Fulfillment of the prophecy at Pentecost.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers emphasize that the Creator’s promise of the Spirit was fulfilled in the New Testament, challenging Marcion’s claim of a new divine order.

5. Christ as the Fulfiller of the Law (V.8.5)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian stresses that Christ is the fulfillment of the law (1 Cor. 15:24-28), demonstrating continuity with the Creator’s plan for humanity.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.22.4, also argues that Christ’s role as law-fulfiller affirms the Creator’s plan. Both fathers show that Paul’s teachings about Christ fulfilling the law are rooted in Old Testament prophecy.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 – Christ as the fulfiller of the law. Isaiah 9:6-7 – Christ’s authority in fulfilling the law.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both use Paul’s teachings to demonstrate that Christ fulfilled the law established by the Creator, directly opposing Marcion’s claim that Christ introduced a new law.

6. Love as the Fulfillment of the Law (V.8.6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s teaching that love fulfills the law (1 Cor. 13:1-13), arguing that this reflects the Creator’s command to love God and neighbor (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18).
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses IV.12.1, Irenaeus also emphasizes that love fulfills the Creator’s law, pointing to the same Old Testament commandments.
Scriptures Used:1 Corinthians 13:1-13 – Love as the greatest gift. Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18 – Commandments to love.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Paul’s teaching on love is rooted in the Creator’s moral law, countering Marcion’s claim that Christ brought a new law unrelated to the Old Testament.

7. Submission of Women and the Law (V.8.7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s command for women to remain silent and submit to their husbands (1 Cor. 14:34), explaining that this submission is based on the Creator’s law.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.16.6, similarly emphasizes the Creator’s law regarding the roles of men and women, showing that Paul’s teaching aligns with the Creator’s moral order.
Scriptures Used:
1 Corinthians 14:34 – Women’s submission in the church. Genesis 3:16 – The law of submission after the fall.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both affirm that Paul’s teachings on the roles of men and women are grounded in the Creator’s law, opposing Marcion’s claim of a new moral system.

8. Spiritual Gifts and the Body of Christ (V.8.8)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian explains Paul’s analogy of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12-27), where different spiritual gifts are distributed among the members of the church, reflecting the Creator’s design.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.6.1, also uses the body of Christ analogy to demonstrate the Creator’s wisdom in diversifying spiritual gifts among the church.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 – The body of Christ and spiritual gifts. Romans 12:4-5 – Different gifts within the body of Christ.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers use the analogy of the body of Christ to affirm that spiritual gifts are part of the Creator’s plan, rejecting Marcion’s attempt to disconnect spiritual gifts from the Creator’s work.

Chapter 9

1. Resurrection of the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes Paul’s teaching on the bodily resurrection, arguing that the resurrection involves the same body that dies, rejecting the idea that only the soul is saved. He connects this to Genesis 3:19, which states that the body returns to dust.
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses V.7.1, Irenaeus similarly argues for the bodily resurrection, stating that the body that dies is the one that must rise. Both fathers reject Marcion’s denial of the flesh’s role in salvation, using Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians to affirm the resurrection of the body.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 – “In Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
Genesis 3:19 – “From dust you are, and to dust you will return.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s teachings to assert that salvation includes the resurrection of the body, countering Marcion’s dualistic theology that separates the body from salvation.

2. Christ as Lord at the Right Hand of God (Psalm 110:1)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian invokes Psalm 110:1 to argue that Christ’s authority comes from the Creator, emphasizing that Christ’s reign involves subduing his enemies, fulfilling the Creator’s promises.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.1, also uses Psalm 110:1 to affirm that Christ’s authority derives from the Creator. Both theologians use this Psalm to counter Marcion’s claim that Christ’s authority comes from a separate deity.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 110:1 – “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both show that Christ’s authority as Lord comes directly from the Creator, refuting Marcion’s attempt to separate Christ from the God of the Old Testament.

3. Christ as a Priest after the Order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that Christ is a priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” contrasting Christ’s eternal priesthood with the temporary Levitical priesthood, showing that Christ’s priesthood is rooted in the Creator’s plan.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.14.3, also emphasizes Christ’s eternal priesthood as prefigured in Melchizedek, arguing that Christ’s mission is consistent with the Creator’s plan. Both fathers use this to refute Marcion’s attempt to detach Christ from Old Testament theology.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 110:4 – “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize Christ’s eternal priesthood as part of the Creator’s plan, countering Marcion’s doctrine of a separate, new deity for the New Testament.

4. Adam/Christ Parallel in the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian stresses that Paul’s teaching on the parallel between Adam and Christ refers to both bodily death and bodily resurrection. As in Adam all die, so in Christ all will rise.
Irenaeus Comparison: In Adversus Haereses V.12.3, Irenaeus also highlights the Adam/Christ parallel, arguing that both involve the physical body. Both fathers use this argument to affirm the bodily resurrection, opposing Marcion’s spiritual-only interpretation.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:22 – “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize the physical resurrection of the body, using Paul’s comparison of Adam and Christ to refute Marcion’s denial of the body’s role in salvation.

5. Messianic Prophecies (Psalm 72)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian interprets Psalm 72 as a prophecy of Christ’s reign, noting that Christ’s rule extends “from sea to sea,” proving that Christ’s mission fulfills the Creator’s global plan for salvation.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.4, also uses Psalm 72 to argue that Christ’s reign is universal and fulfills the Creator’s promises. Both fathers use this prophecy to oppose Marcion’s claim of a limited or separate divine mission.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 72:8 – “May he rule from sea to sea.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both highlight the universality of Christ’s reign, linking it to the Creator’s promises and opposing Marcion’s claim that Christ’s mission belongs to a new deity.

6. Christ as the Light (Psalm 110:3)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Christ as the light that existed “before the morning star” (Psalm 110:3), interpreting this as a reference to Christ’s eternal nature and divine mission.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.20.4, also emphasizes Christ as the light prophesied by the Creator. Both fathers argue that Christ’s role as the light fulfills Old Testament prophecies, countering Marcion’s claim that Christ originated from a different deity.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 110:3 – “From the womb of the morning, you have the dew of your youth.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both assert Christ’s role as the eternal light, tying his mission to the Creator’s plan and rejecting Marcion’s idea of a new divine source for Christ’s authority.

7. The Role of Christ as Judge (Psalm 110:1)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that Christ’s role as judge aligns with the Creator’s justice, citing Psalm 110:1 as evidence of Christ’s authority to subdue his enemies and execute judgment.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.27.2, similarly emphasizes Christ’s judicial authority as granted by the Creator. Both fathers refute Marcion’s claim that Christ represents a non-judgmental god, affirming that Christ’s role as judge is rooted in the Creator’s justice.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 110:1 – “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Christ’s role as judge is consistent with the Creator’s justice, countering Marcion’s rejection of divine judgment.

8. Divine Glory and Universality (Psalm 72:19)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian points to the extension of God’s glory throughout the earth, arguing that Christ’s reign fulfills the Creator’s promise of universal salvation (Psalm 72:19).
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.21.1, also emphasizes the universality of Christ’s reign as fulfilling the Creator’s promise to bring salvation to all nations. Both fathers oppose Marcion’s attempt to limit Christ’s mission to a separate deity.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 72:19 – “May the whole earth be filled with his glory.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both argue that Christ’s mission is universal, fulfilling the Creator’s promises, in direct opposition to Marcion’s doctrine of a limited, new divine mission.

Chapter 10

1. Defense of the Resurrection of the Body (1 Corinthians 15)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection involves the physical body, distinguishing between the "animal body" (fleshly, perishable) and the "spiritual body" (glorified, eternal).
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.7.1, also defends the bodily resurrection, arguing that the body which dies is the same body that will rise, in a glorified form. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus counter Marcion’s denial of the body’s role in salvation.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15 – Paul’s defense of the resurrection, especially verses 35-44, where the concept of the "spiritual body" is developed.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus assert that the resurrection involves the same body that dies, transformed into a glorified state, directly rejecting the Gnostic and Marcionite claims of a purely spiritual resurrection.

2. Grain and Seed Metaphor (1 Corinthians 15:36-38)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian uses Paul’s metaphor of grain and seed, explaining that just as a seed dies and produces new life, the body is sown in corruption and raised in a glorified form.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.7.2, also employs this metaphor, arguing that the body that dies is the same one that rises in a transformed state. Both writers emphasize the continuity between the physical body and the resurrected body.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:36-38 – “What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both use the seed metaphor to explain the bodily resurrection, affirming that the physical body will rise again, but in a glorified form, opposing the Marcionite rejection of the material body.

3. The First and Last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45-49)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian highlights Paul’s comparison between Adam (who brought death) and Christ (who brings life), stating that just as we bear Adam’s image, we will bear Christ’s image in the resurrection.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.12.3, similarly emphasizes this parallel, arguing that Christ, as the "last Adam," reverses the effects of Adam’s sin by restoring life. Both use this comparison to defend the bodily resurrection and to reject the Gnostic dichotomy between physical and spiritual.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 – The parallel between Adam and Christ.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both writers employ Paul’s comparison of Adam and Christ to support the bodily resurrection, affirming that salvation includes the physical body and refuting Marcion’s spiritualized interpretation.

4. Christ’s Role as the Victor over Death (1 Corinthians 15:54-57)
Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s declaration that Christ has triumphed over death, using this as evidence of the Creator’s promise of resurrection. He notes that Paul quotes from Hosea 13:14, affirming that the victory over death is rooted in Old Testament prophecy.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.13.1, also emphasizes that Christ’s victory over death fulfills the Creator’s promise, using Paul’s citation of Hosea to argue for the continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:54-57 – “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” (quoting Hosea 13:14)
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s argument to show that Christ’s defeat of death is part of the Creator’s plan, opposing Marcion’s claim of a separate god bringing resurrection.

5. "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom" (1 Corinthians 15:50)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian explains Paul’s statement that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" as referring not to the body itself, but to the sinful nature. He argues that while the body will be transformed, it will remain the same body that rises.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.9.1, also clarifies that Paul’s statement refers to sinful corruption, not to the physical body. Both emphasize that the body will be transformed and made suitable for eternal life.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:50 – “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus reject the notion that Paul denies the bodily resurrection. They argue that Paul refers to the transformation of the sinful, corrupt body into a glorified one, opposing Marcion’s claim that the body is irrelevant to salvation.

6. Transformation of the Body (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian insists that the resurrection involves the transformation of the body, where it will be clothed in incorruptibility and immortality. He emphasizes that the same body will be transformed into a glorified state.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.7.2, makes the same point, arguing that the body will be transformed in the resurrection, rising in a glorified, incorruptible state. Both writers reject the Gnostic denial of the physical resurrection.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:51-53 – “We will all be changed, in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize the transformation of the body in the resurrection, asserting that it is the same body that rises but is changed into a glorified form.

7. Christ as the Last Adam Restoring Humanity

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian stresses that Christ, as the last Adam, restores what was lost through the first Adam, emphasizing that Christ’s role includes defeating death and restoring humanity.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.19.1, also highlights Christ as the last Adam, who reverses Adam’s disobedience and restores humanity. Both use this argument to connect Christ’s mission to the Creator’s original plan, opposing Marcion’s separation of Christ from the Creator.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:45-49 – The comparison of Adam and Christ.
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both argue that Christ, as the last Adam, fulfills the Creator’s plan of restoring humanity, rejecting Marcion’s claim that Christ introduces a new, unrelated mission.

Chapter 11

1. Creator as Father of Mercies (2 Corinthians 1:3)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that the "Father of mercies" refers to the Creator, who consistently shows mercy to Israel, citing examples like Nineveh and Hezekiah.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.4, similarly argues that the Creator is the source of all goodness and mercy, emphasizing the moral attributes of the Creator.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 1:3 – "Father of mercies." Jonah 4:2 – God’s mercy on Nineveh 2 Kings 20:5 – God’s mercy on Hezekiah.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use examples of Old Testament mercy to demonstrate that the Creator is the true "Father of mercies." This directly counters Marcion’s claim that the Creator is harsh and unmerciful.

2. The Veil of Moses (2 Corinthians 3:13-16)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian interprets the veil Moses wore as symbolic of the Jews’ inability to understand Christ. He argues that the veil remains until they turn to the Creator’s Christ.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.20.11, also interprets the veil as representing the Jews' blindness to Christ, highlighting the prefiguration of Christ in the Old Testament.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 3:13-16 – The veil of Moses. Exodus 34:33 – Moses and the veil.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both writers use the veil as a symbol of the Jews’ inability to understand the full meaning of the Old Testament, emphasizing that Christ is the key to understanding Moses’ teachings, thereby reinforcing the connection between the Old and New Testaments.

3. The New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that the New Covenant is given by the same God who gave the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant "kills" through the law, but the same Creator gives life through the Spirit.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.9.1, also argues that the New Covenant fulfills the Old Covenant and is given by the same God.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 3:6 – The New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:31 – The prophecy of the New Covenant.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus reject Marcion’s dualism and emphasize the unity of the Old and New Covenants under the same God, showing that both law and grace come from the Creator.

4. God as Light (2 Corinthians 4:6)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that the Creator is the one who said, "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3), and therefore is the source of spiritual illumination.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.11.1, also emphasizes that the Creator is the source of both physical and spiritual light, using the creation narrative to affirm this.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 4:6 – “God...made his light shine in our hearts.” Genesis 1:3 – “Let there be light.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize that God is the source of light, linking both physical and spiritual creation to the Creator and refuting Marcion’s introduction of a different god.

5. The God of This Age (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian rejects Marcion’s claim that the "god of this age" refers to the Creator. Instead, he argues that this refers to the devil, who blinds unbelievers.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.28.1, similarly argues that the "god of this age" refers to the devil, not the Creator.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 4:4 – "The god of this age." John 12:31 – The ruler of this world.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both writers reject the association of the Creator with evil, firmly attributing the role of deceiver and blinder of unbelievers to the devil, not the Creator, which dismantles Marcion’s argument.

6. Christ as the Image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that Christ, as the "image of God," reveals the Creator to humanity and cannot be the emissary of a different god.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.1, also emphasizes that Christ, as the image of God, demonstrates continuity between Christ and the Creator.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 4:4 – "Christ, who is the image of God." Colossians 1:15 – "He is the image of the invisible God."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus affirm Christ’s role as the image of the Creator, directly countering Marcion’s claim that Christ came from a different god.

7. Treasure in Jars of Clay (2 Corinthians 4:7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian explains Paul’s metaphor of "treasure in jars of clay" as referring to the human body, created by the Creator but containing the glory of God’s Spirit.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.6.1, similarly emphasizes the dignity of the human body, which, though fragile, carries the glory of God’s Spirit.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 4:7 – "We have this treasure in jars of clay."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both writers defend the value of the human body as part of God’s design, opposing Marcion’s denigration of the material body.

8. Resurrection and the Future Glory (2 Corinthians 4:14-16)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that Paul’s hope in the resurrection involves the transformation of the body, which demonstrates the Creator’s plan for both body and soul.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.31.2, similarly emphasizes the bodily resurrection as part of the Creator’s redemptive plan.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 4:14-16 – The outer man wasting away, the inner man renewed.
Analysis/Conclusion: Both writers see the resurrection as involving the transformation of the body, rejecting the Marcionite belief in a purely spiritual resurrection and emphasizing the Creator’s comprehensive plan for human salvation.

Chapter 12

1. Tertullian's Use of 1 Corinthians 15:52-53

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Paul’s statement, "And the dead shall rise incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:52-53), to emphasize the bodily resurrection. He uses this passage to argue that the resurrection involves the transformation of the same body into an incorruptible state.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.7.2, similarly emphasizes the bodily resurrection, citing the same verse from Paul to argue that the corruptible body will "put on incorruption," defending the bodily resurrection against Gnostic and Marcionite beliefs.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:52-53 – "The dead shall rise incorruptible."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s argument to assert the importance of the bodily resurrection, rejecting Marcion’s dualistic theology that denies the resurrection of the flesh.

2. Nudity and Bodily Resurrection (1 Corinthians 5:3)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that, after death, believers will be "clothed again" with a new body, referring to Paul’s metaphor of not being "found naked." This suggests a continuity between the present body and the resurrected, glorified body.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses V.6.1 discusses the concept of being "clothed in incorruption," referencing Paul’s metaphor to highlight the bodily resurrection, where the soul is clothed with a new body.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 5:3 – "We will not be found naked."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use the metaphor of being "clothed" with a new body to support the idea that the same body will be resurrected, transformed into an incorruptible state. This directly challenges Marcion’s rejection of the body’s role in the afterlife.

3. Tertullian’s Argument on Resurrection and Judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian references 2 Corinthians 5:10 to argue that judgment will occur based on what one has done "in the body," highlighting the body’s role in both moral actions and resurrection.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.31.1, makes the same argument, stating that judgment will be conducted for deeds "done in the body," and therefore the body is essential in the final judgment.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 5:10 – "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers argue that Paul’s teaching about judgment emphasizes the importance of the body, refuting Marcion’s idea that the body is irrelevant to salvation and judgment.

4. The Use of "Flesh and Blood" in Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:50)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian addresses Paul’s statement, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," explaining that this refers to the sinful state of the flesh, not to a rejection of the physical body.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.9.3, similarly explains that Paul’s rejection of "flesh and blood" refers to the sinful nature, not the physical substance of the body, and emphasizes the transformation of the body in the resurrection.
Scriptures Used: 1 Corinthians 15:50 – "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both writers clarify that Paul’s words do not reject the physical body, but rather point to the transformation needed for the body to inherit the kingdom of God, opposing Marcion’s dualistic interpretation.

5. Tertullian's Mention of Satan and Paul's Thorn (2 Corinthians 12:7)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Paul’s thorn in the flesh, described as "a messenger of Satan to buffet me," to argue that Paul’s suffering in the body is consistent with Christian teaching on bodily resurrection and endurance.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses V.9.4 similarly uses Paul’s thorn in the flesh to argue that suffering and bodily weakness do not negate the resurrection of the flesh, but instead, they highlight the body’s importance.
Scriptures Used: 2 Corinthians 12:7 – "A thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Paul’s experience of bodily suffering (the thorn) underscores the importance of the body in the Christian life and resurrection, refuting Marcion’s claim that the body is irrelevant.

Chapter 13

1. Romans 1:16-17 and the Justice of God

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Romans 1:16-17, where Paul says that the righteousness of God is revealed "from faith to faith." He emphasizes that Paul’s message reveals the justice of the Creator, not a separate, lesser deity as Marcion suggests.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.16.3, uses this same passage to argue that God’s righteousness is revealed through faith and is part of the Creator’s salvific plan. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use this verse to show that Paul’s gospel fulfills the law and demonstrates the righteousness of the Creator.
Scriptures Used: Romans 1:16-17 – "The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Romans 1:16-17 to assert that Paul’s message is rooted in the justice of the Creator, countering Marcion’s claim that Paul’s gospel belongs to a different god.

2. Romans 2:6-16 on Judgment According to Deeds

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian quotes Romans 2:6, where Paul says, "God will repay each person according to what they have done." He argues that this judgment is consistent with the Creator’s justice, highlighting the moral continuity between the Old and New Testaments. Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.27.2, similarly argues that judgment based on works comes from the Creator, affirming that Paul’s teachings on judgment apply to the same God of the Old Testament. Both use Paul’s letter to show that the Creator’s justice extends into the New Testament.
Scriptures Used: Romans 2:6 – "He will repay each person according to what they have done."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers refute Marcion’s view of a disjointed God by showing that Paul’s teaching on judgment aligns with the Creator’s justice, emphasizing the continuity of divine law across the Testaments.

3. Romans 3:31 on the Law

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian cites Romans 3:31, where Paul says that faith does not nullify the law but upholds it. He argues that the Creator’s law remains valid in the context of faith in Christ, contrary to Marcion’s rejection of the law.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.27.4, also emphasizes that Paul’s teaching upholds the law through faith, demonstrating that the law is fulfilled, not abolished. Both use this passage to argue against Marcion’s separation of law and gospel.
Scriptures Used: Romans 3:31 – "Do we nullify the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we uphold the law."
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both highlight that Paul’s gospel supports the fulfillment of the law through faith, showing that Paul’s teachings affirm the Creator’s covenant rather than discarding it.

4. Romans 5:20-21 on the Purpose of the Law

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian quotes Romans 5:20-21, explaining that the law was given to increase awareness of sin and to demonstrate the abundance of grace through Christ. He argues that both the law and grace come from the same God.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.7, also argues that the law was a necessary precursor to grace and that both come from the Creator. Both writers emphasize the law’s role in leading to grace, refuting Marcion’s claim of two separate gods.
Scriptures Used: Romans 5:20-21 – "Where sin increased, grace increased all the more."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers argue that Paul’s teaching reveals the law as part of the Creator’s plan, which culminates in grace through Christ, opposing Marcion’s idea of a distinct god of grace.

5. Romans 7:7-12 on the Law and Sin

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian discusses Paul’s assertion in Romans 7:7-12 that the law is not sinful but reveals sin. He argues that the law is holy, just, and good, highlighting its role in making sin known.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.22.1, also explains that the law reveals sin and is therefore good and holy, given by the Creator. Both argue that Paul’s teaching affirms the goodness of the law and refutes Marcion’s negative view of the Creator’s law.
Scriptures Used: Romans 7:7-12 – "I had not known sin, except through the law."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus assert that the law is part of the Creator’s design to reveal sin, defending the law’s holiness against Marcion’s portrayal of it as flawed or evil.

6. Romans 7:14 on the Spiritual Nature of the Law

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian acknowledges Paul’s statement in Romans 7:14 that the law is spiritual. He argues that this spiritual aspect of the law points to its fulfillment in Christ, aligning the Old and New Testaments.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.6, also emphasizes the spiritual nature of the law and its fulfillment in Christ. Both use this passage to argue for the continuity of the Creator’s law and its ultimate fulfillment in the gospel.
Scriptures Used: Romans 7:14 – "For we know that the law is spiritual."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers demonstrate that the law, while spiritual, remains consistent with the gospel’s teachings, countering Marcion’s assertion that the law is separate from the gospel.

7. Romans 5:12 on Death and Sin Entering the World through Adam

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian uses Romans 5:12 to argue that death entered the world through Adam’s sin, but salvation comes through Christ. He insists that both Adam’s sin and Christ’s redemption are part of the Creator’s plan.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.23.2, similarly discusses the role of Adam’s sin in bringing death into the world, which is countered by Christ’s redemptive work. Both argue that Paul’s teaching ties the narrative of sin and redemption to the Creator’s overarching plan.
Scriptures Used: Romans 5:12 – "By one man’s disobedience, sin entered the world, and death through sin."
Analysis/Conclusion: Tertullian and Irenaeus both use Paul’s teaching on Adam and Christ to show that death and salvation are part of the Creator’s plan, rejecting Marcion’s idea that death is unrelated to the Creator’s actions.

[Secret Alias]

continued.

Chapter 15

1. 1 Thessalonians 2:15 – "They Killed the Lord Jesus and the Prophets"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that the Jews who killed the prophets were also responsible for Christ’s death, highlighting continuity between the Old Testament prophets and Christ. This serves as a rebuttal to Marcion’s separation of the Old and New Testaments.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.34.1, also connects the killing of the prophets to the death of Christ, arguing that the same God sent both the prophets and Christ, creating a continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
Scriptures Used: 1 Thessalonians 2:15 – "They killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets."
Adversus Haereses citation: "The prophets foretold His coming, and the apostles proclaimed Him. Both derive from the same God."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use this verse to argue for the consistency between the Old and New Testaments, directly countering Marcion’s attempts to disconnect Christ from the Jewish tradition.

2. 1 Thessalonians 4:17 – "Caught Up in the Clouds"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian links Paul’s phrase "caught up in the clouds" to the prophecy in Isaiah about people coming to the Lord "like clouds," demonstrating that Old Testament prophecies support New Testament eschatology.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.36.1, also connects Isaiah’s prophecy to Paul’s description of the faithful being gathered to Christ, emphasizing the unity of the Old Testament prophecies with Paul’s eschatological hope.
Scriptures Used: 1 Thessalonians 4:17 – "Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air."
Isaiah 60:8 – "Who are these that fly like clouds?"
Adversus Haereses citation: "For just as the prophets said, ‘They will come like clouds to Him,’ so too will the faithful be gathered up to Christ."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers use Paul’s language and Isaiah’s prophecy to illustrate the continuity between Old Testament prophecy and New Testament fulfillment, emphasizing that both Testaments are part of the Creator’s unified plan.

3. 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20 – "Do Not Quench the Spirit; Do Not Despise Prophecies"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian accuses the Marcionites of having already "quenched the Spirit" by rejecting the prophets of the Creator, directly referencing Paul’s warning not to despise prophecy.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.11.9, critiques those who reject the prophetic tradition, arguing that denying prophecy is equivalent to rejecting the Holy Spirit’s work.
Scriptures Used: 1 Thessalonians 5:19-20 – "Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies."
Adversus Haereses citation: "They reject the Spirit’s work, denying the prophets and the divine inspiration that proclaimed the coming of Christ."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus defend the prophetic tradition and accuse Marcion of cutting himself off from the Holy Spirit’s gifts. Their shared use of Paul’s warning highlights their common theological defense of prophecy as integral to the Christian faith.

4. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 – "Spirit, Soul, and Body"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that Paul’s reference to "spirit, soul, and body" in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 confirms the salvation of the whole person, including the body, refuting Marcion’s rejection of bodily resurrection.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.9.4, also defends the resurrection of the body, using Paul’s tripartite structure ("body, soul, and spirit") to argue for the Creator’s intention to redeem the entire person.
Scriptures Used: 1 Thessalonians 5:23 – "May your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Adversus Haereses citation: "The same God who created the body, soul, and spirit also intends to redeem them all through Christ."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers use Paul’s tripartite framework to affirm the salvation of the entire person, opposing Marcion’s spiritualized rejection of the flesh. They argue for the Creator’s comprehensive plan of salvation, which includes bodily resurrection.

5. Isaiah 60:8 and Amos 9:6 – Prophecies Regarding Ascension

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian draws on Isaiah 60:8 and Amos 9:6 to support the Christian doctrine of the ascension and the gathering of believers to Christ, emphasizing the continuity of Old Testament prophecy with New Testament fulfillment.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.4, similarly uses Old Testament prophecy to show that Christ’s ascension and the gathering of believers were foretold by the prophets, countering Marcion’s denial of these events.
Scriptures Used: Isaiah 60:8 – "Who are these that fly like clouds?" Amos 9:6 – "He builds His ascent into the heavens."
Adversus Haereses citation: "For the prophets foresaw the day when God would gather His people to Himself, ascending into the heavens."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Old Testament prophecies to demonstrate the theological continuity between the Old and New Testaments, affirming that Christ’s ascension and the gathering of believers were part of God’s plan from the beginning.

6. Refutation of Marcion’s Denial of Prophecy

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian challenges Marcion to show evidence of prophecy within his church, contrasting this with the prophetic gifts still active in the Christian church.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.11.9, similarly criticizes heretics for severing themselves from the Spirit’s gifts, including prophecy, arguing that these gifts are present only in the true Christian church.
Scriptures Used: Adversus Haereses citation: "Where the Spirit of God is, there also are prophets and spiritual gifts; where the Spirit is absent, these gifts do not exist."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers argue that the presence of prophecy and spiritual gifts in the true church validates its connection to the Creator, in contrast to Marcion’s church, which lacks these marks of authenticity.

7. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 – Emphasis on Bodily Resurrection

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian stresses the bodily resurrection and the reunion of believers with Christ, citing 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 as evidence that Paul expected a physical resurrection of the body.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.31.1, uses similar Pauline references to affirm that Christ’s resurrection is the model for believers’ bodily resurrection, opposing Marcion’s denial of the body’s importance in salvation.
Scriptures Used: 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 – "The dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive... will be caught up together with them in the clouds."
Adversus Haereses citation: "The resurrection of the dead will involve the body, as Paul teaches, for Christ was raised bodily."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers emphasize the bodily resurrection as central to Christian doctrine, using Paul’s letters to counter Marcion’s dualistic rejection of the flesh and to affirm the continuity of God’s salvific plan.

Chapter 16

1. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 – The Retribution of God

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Paul’s teaching that God will afflict those who trouble the faithful and bring rest to those who are afflicted when Christ is revealed. He connects this to divine justice, attributing this retribution to the Creator.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.27.3, similarly argues that God’s justice involves tribulation for the wicked and rest for the faithful, showing the Creator’s consistent judgment from the Old to the New Testament.
Scriptures Used: 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 – "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled."
Irenaeus citation: "It is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus defend the Creator’s justice by highlighting divine retribution, refuting Marcion’s attempts to separate Christ’s mercy from the Creator’s justice.

2. 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 – "With Angels and Flaming Fire"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that Christ will return "with angels and flaming fire" to judge the world. He argues that Marcion removed this imagery to avoid associating Christ with the Creator’s justice.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.33.11, similarly insists that Christ’s return with fire reflects the Creator’s judgment, showing continuity between Old Testament and New Testament eschatology.
Scriptures Used: 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8 – "The Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with His powerful angels."
Irenaeus citation: "The Lord will come in flaming fire to execute judgment on those who know not God."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers use the imagery of fire to demonstrate that Christ’s judgment is consistent with the Creator’s methods, directly countering Marcion’s theological claims.

3. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 – The Man of Lawlessness (Antichrist)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian discusses the "man of lawlessness," whom Paul describes as exalting himself above all gods. He links this figure to the Antichrist, showing that Marcionite theology denies the full scope of eschatological prophecy.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.30.3, also elaborates on the Antichrist, identifying him as a deceiver who denies the incarnation of Christ, similar to the heretics of his time.
Scriptures Used: 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 – "The man of lawlessness will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped."
Irenaeus citation: "The Antichrist, who denies the coming of Christ in the flesh, will exalt himself above all, proclaiming himself to be God."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both authors discuss the Antichrist as a central eschatological figure, affirming Paul’s prophecy as a warning against Marcion’s and Gnostic reinterpretations of Christ’s role in salvation history.

4. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 – Deception and Delusion

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian argues that those who reject the truth of Christ are given over to delusion, referencing Paul’s warning about those who will believe falsehoods because they rejected the truth.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.5, similarly warns that rejecting the truth results in divine judgment, where God allows those who reject Him to fall into deception.
Scriptures Used: 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 – "God sends them a strong delusion so that they may believe what is false."
Irenaeus citation: "Because they received not the love of the truth, God sends them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Paul’s warning to affirm that rejection of the truth leads to spiritual delusion, reinforcing the Creator’s role in divine justice and countering Marcion’s attempts to separate Christ from such judgments.

5. 2 Thessalonians 2:8 – "The Lord Will Consume Him with the Breath of His Mouth"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Paul’s declaration that Christ will destroy the Antichrist with the "breath of His mouth," emphasizing Christ’s power over evil.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.25.3, uses the same passage to affirm Christ’s victory over the Antichrist, reinforcing the supremacy of Christ’s divine authority.

Scriptures Used:

2 Thessalonians 2:8 – "The Lord Jesus will kill him with the breath of His mouth and destroy him by the splendor of His coming."
Irenaeus citation: "The Lord will consume him with the breath of His mouth."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers use Paul’s prophecy to emphasize Christ’s power to destroy evil, underscoring the continuity of this authority with the Creator’s justice and opposing Marcion’s denial of such judgments.

6. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 – "If Anyone Will Not Work, Neither Let Him Eat"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to Paul’s instruction that those who refuse to work should not eat, linking this practical teaching to the Creator’s moral order.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.27.1, argues similarly that the command to labor is part of the Creator’s divine order, showing how Paul’s ethical instructions align with Old Testament moral law.
Scriptures Used: 2 Thessalonians 3:10 – "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."
Irenaeus citation: "God’s command that man must labor is part of the divine order established from the beginning."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Paul’s ethical teachings are in line with the Creator’s law, refuting Marcion’s attempts to dismiss moral obligations from the New Testament.

7. Connection to Isaiah’s Prophecies (Isaiah 2:19, 11:4)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to prophecies in Isaiah to support Paul’s eschatological vision, particularly the judgment and destruction of the wicked, using these texts to affirm the unity of Old Testament prophecy with New Testament fulfillment.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.20.4, also connects Isaiah’s prophecies with Paul’s vision of Christ’s return and judgment, showing how both Testaments predict the same divine acts.
Scriptures Used: Isaiah 2:19, 11:4 – "He will arise to shake the earth... With the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked."
Irenaeus citation: "Isaiah speaks of the time when the Lord will arise to shake terribly the earth."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers use Isaiah’s prophecies to connect Old Testament predictions with Paul’s New Testament eschatology, demonstrating that Christ’s actions align with the Creator’s ancient promises and judgment.

8. Divine Justice and Retribution (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that divine justice involves both retribution and reward, showing that the same God who blesses also punishes.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.27.3, argues similarly, affirming that God’s justice includes both blessings for the faithful and punishment for the wicked, demonstrating the Creator’s consistent judgment throughout history.
Scriptures Used: 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 – "God will repay with affliction those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled."
Irenaeus citation: "God is just in His judgments, rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked, as He has always done from the beginning."
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that the Creator’s justice is evident in both the Old and New Testaments, reinforcing the continuity of God’s plan and countering Marcion’s theological division.

Chapter 17

1. Ephesians 1:9-10 – Recapitulation in Christ:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian discusses the recapitulation of all things in Christ (both in heaven and on earth). This notion of recapitulation echoes Irenaeus’s extensive use of the concept in Adversus Haereses III.16.6, where Irenaeus argues that Christ is the one who restores and sums up all things, aligning with God’s original plan for creation.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 1:9-10 – "Making known to us the mystery of His will...to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth."
Irenaeus citation: “For He recapitulated in Himself all things, both what is in heaven and what is on earth.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus emphasize the recapitulation of all creation in Christ as part of God's plan, countering Marcion’s dualistic theology.

2. Ephesians 1:13-14 – Spirit of Promise and Inheritance:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that the Spirit of promise was given to those who believe in the gospel, referring to Joel's prophecy of the Spirit being poured out.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 1:13-14 – "In Him you also, when you heard the word of truth...were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit."
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.33.1, similarly ties the giving of the Spirit to the fulfillment of God’s promise through Christ. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus stress that this inheritance includes Gentiles, indicating a unified plan from the Creator.
Irenaeus citation: “In the last days, God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers argue for the continuity of God’s promise, showing that the Spirit’s outpouring is a sign of unity and fulfillment in Christ.

3. Psalm 110:1 – Christ's Ascension and Reign:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian references Christ being seated at the right hand of God and ruling over His enemies.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 110:1 – "The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool.'"
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.1, emphasizes that Christ’s exaltation fulfills Old Testament prophecies, demonstrating His continuity with the Creator’s plan.
Irenaeus citation: “Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use Psalm 110 to show the prophetic fulfillment of Christ’s reign, rejecting Marcion’s separation of the Testaments.

4. Ephesians 2:1-2 – The Prince of the Power of the Air:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian discusses the "prince of the power of the air" who operates in the "sons of disobedience."
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 2:1-2 – "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the prince of the power of the air."
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.2, similarly identifies the devil as the source of disobedience and rebellion against God. Both argue that Christ’s work is to liberate humanity from the power of this adversary.
Irenaeus citation: “The devil...who now works in the children of disobedience.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers emphasize that Christ’s redemptive work overcomes the devil’s influence, reaffirming the unity of God’s salvation plan.

5. Ephesians 2:14-15 – The Breaking Down of the Wall of Enmity:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian refers to the breaking down of the wall of hostility between Jews and Gentiles.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 2:14-15 – "For He Himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility."
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.14.1, emphasizes that Christ’s work unites both groups into one body, fulfilling the Creator’s plan.
Irenaeus citation: “Christ has come to unite both [Jews and Gentiles], breaking down the middle wall of separation.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that Christ unites humanity, rejecting Marcion’s view of a division between the Old and New Testaments.

6. Isaiah 46:12 – Justice and Righteousness:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian’s reference to the Gentiles being brought near to the righteousness of God echoes Irenaeus’s use of Isaiah to argue that God’s justice is fulfilled through Christ.
Scriptures Used: Isaiah 46:12 – "Listen to Me, you stubborn of heart, you who are far from righteousness."
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.33.14, frequently cites Isaiah to demonstrate that the same God who was proclaimed by the prophets is the one revealed in Christ.
Irenaeus citation: “Listen to Me, you who are far off, the righteousness of God will be revealed to you.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers argue that Christ’s fulfillment of prophecy confirms God’s justice and righteousness, showing the consistency of the Creator's plan.

7. Ephesians 2:20 – Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 2:20 – "Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone."
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.33.8, similarly argues that Christ’s church is rooted in the witness of the apostles and prophets, against Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament.
Irenaeus citation: “The church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers assert the church’s continuity from the apostles and prophets, refuting Marcion’s attempts to sever the connection between the Testaments.

8. Ephesians 2:12-13 – Gentiles Alienated from the Commonwealth of Israel:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that the Gentiles, once alienated from the promises made to Israel, have been brought near through Christ.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 2:12-13 – "Remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel...But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.21.1, similarly argues that Christ’s mission includes reconciling all nations to the God of Israel.
Irenaeus citation: “You who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers highlight the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s salvific plan, emphasizing continuity with Israel’s promises.

9. Psalm 118:22 – The Stone the Builders Rejected:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian’s citation of Christ as the cornerstone rejected by the builders parallels Irenaeus’s frequent use of Psalm 118.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 118:22 – "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone."
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.33.2, uses this verse to show that Christ was predestined as part of God’s plan from the beginning, refuting Marcion’s claim of a separate deity.
Irenaeus citation: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both fathers use this prophecy to demonstrate Christ’s fulfillment of God’s plan, rejecting Marcion’s dualistic claims.

10. Joel 2:28 – The Spirit Promised to All Flesh:

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian draws upon the prophecy in Joel to argue that the outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh, including Gentiles, is part of the Creator’s plan.
Scriptures Used: Joel 2:28 – "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh."
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.17.2, similarly draws upon Joel’s prophecy to emphasize the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, showing that the same God is at work in both.
Irenaeus citation: “In the last days, I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.”
Analysis/Conclusion: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use the prophecy from Joel to argue that the outpouring of the Spirit is a sign of the Creator’s plan being fulfilled in Christ, refuting Marcion’s theology of a separate, unknown god. This demonstrates their unified defense of a continuous and consistent divine economy from the Old Testament through the New Testament.

Chapter 18

1. Ephesians 3:9-10 - "God who created all things"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian critiques Marcion’s omission of the phrase “who created all things” in Paul’s letter, accusing Marcion of trying to disconnect the Creator from the Gospel message.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.7.2, similarly accuses Marcion of removing critical theological affirmations that link Jesus Christ to the Creator.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 3:9 – "And to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ."
Irenaeus citation: “He created all things by His Word...which Marcion falsely claims is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2. Ephesians 3:10 - "Making known the wisdom of God to the principalities and powers"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian questions Marcion’s god, arguing that if his god is superior, the principalities and powers should have known about his plan from the beginning.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.20.4, makes a similar argument by asserting that the principalities and powers are part of the created order and under the Creator’s rule.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 3:10 – "To the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places."
Irenaeus citation: “The principalities and powers were created by Him and are subject to His rule.”

3. Ephesians 4:8 - "He led captivity captive"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian interprets the phrase “He led captivity captive” as representing Christ’s spiritual triumph over demonic forces.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.10.5, uses similar spiritual allegory to highlight Christ’s victory over spiritual adversaries.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 4:8 – "Therefore He says: 'When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts to men.'"
Irenaeus citation: “Christ led captivity captive, triumphing over the spiritual powers.”

4. Psalm 45:3 - "Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian uses Psalm 45 to argue that Paul's warfare imagery refers to spiritual battle rather than literal war.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.20.2, also draws from martial imagery to describe Christ’s spiritual conquest over evil.
Scriptures Used: Psalm 45:3 – "Gird Your sword upon Your thigh, O mighty one, with Your glory and Your majesty."
Irenaeus citation: “He girds Himself with the sword, conquering spiritual enemies.”

5. Ephesians 4:22-26 - "Put off falsehood and speak truth"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian links Paul’s command to speak truth with Old Testament moral teachings, citing Psalms and Isaiah.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.12.12, similarly connects Paul’s moral directives to the Creator’s law in the Old Testament.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 4:25 – "Therefore, putting away lying, 'Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,' for we are members of one another." Isaiah 63:8, Psalms 15:2.
Irenaeus citation: “The law of the Creator is fulfilled in Christ, and thus the apostle teaches the same truth.”

6. Ephesians 5:18 - "Do not be drunk with wine"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian highlights Paul's warning against drunkenness and compares it to Old Testament laws prohibiting priests from drinking wine.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.18.5, argues that Paul’s ethical teachings align with Old Testament law, illustrating the continuity between the Old and New Covenants.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 5:18 – "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit." Leviticus 10:9.
Irenaeus citation: “The same Spirit spoke through the prophets and the apostles, teaching the same righteousness.”

7. Ephesians 5:22-33 - "Wives submit to your husbands"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian grounds Paul’s teaching on marital relationships in the order of creation.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.16.5, similarly connects Paul’s instructions to the Creator’s design of man and woman.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 5:22-24 – "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body."
Irenaeus citation: “The apostle teaches that man is the head of the woman, as Christ is the head of the Church, rooted in the Creator’s design.”

8. Ephesians 6:1-4 - "Children, obey your parents"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that Paul’s command for children to obey their parents is rooted in the Old Testament commandment from Exodus 20:12.

Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.15.1, makes a similar argument that the moral law given by the Creator is valid in the New Covenant.

Scriptures Used: Ephesians 6:1-2 – "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 'Honor your father and mother,' which is the first commandment with promise." Exodus 20:12.

Irenaeus citation: “Honor your father and mother...this command is affirmed by the apostle as part of the Creator’s law.”

9. Ephesians 6:12 - "Struggle not against flesh and blood"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian discusses Paul’s teaching on spiritual warfare, contrasting it with physical struggles.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.5, similarly emphasizes that the spiritual battle against evil is part of the cosmic order established by the Creator.
Scriptures Used: Ephesians 6:12 – "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."
Irenaeus citation: “The devil, a fallen angel, is part of creation, but he opposes God’s will.”

10. Isaiah 14:12-15 - "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian uses Isaiah’s prophecy about Lucifer’s rebellion to explain Paul’s reference to the “powers of the air” in Ephesians.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.40.3, similarly cites this passage to argue that Lucifer’s fall was foreseen by the Creator.
Scriptures Used: Isaiah 14:12 – "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations!" Ephesians 2:2.
Irenaeus citation: “How you have fallen from heaven, O Lucifer...this shows that the devil was part of the created order.”

Chapter 19

Chapter 18

1. Colossians 1:5-6 - "The hope laid up for you in heaven"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes the universality of the Gospel message, which had already spread throughout the world, to argue that the apostolic tradition predates Marcionism.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.3.1, similarly insists on the universality and authenticity of the apostolic tradition, which predates heretical movements like Marcionism.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 1:5-6 – "The hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world."

Irenaeus citation: “The faith which has been handed down from the apostles, which has been preached throughout the world.”

2. Colossians 1:15 - "The image of the invisible God"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian affirms that Christ is the visible image of the invisible God, reflecting the Old Testament assertion that no one can see God and live.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.20.11, similarly identifies Christ as the visible manifestation of the invisible Father, countering Marcion’s claim of two distinct gods.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 1:15 – "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
Irenaeus citation: “The Son reveals the invisible Father, making Him known through Himself.”

3. Colossians 1:16 - "By Him all things were created"
Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes that Christ created all things, both visible and invisible, asserting His role in creation, contrary to Marcion’s teachings.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses II.30.9, uses the same argument to show that Christ, the Word of God, is integral to creation.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 1:16 – "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers."
Irenaeus citation: “Christ, the Word of God, created all things, both visible and invisible.”

4. Colossians 1:20 - "Reconcile all things to Himself"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts that Christ’s reconciliation extends to all things, implying a prior rebellion, and reinforces Christ’s continuity with the Creator.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.16.6, similarly emphasizes that reconciliation can only occur with the One from whom beings had fallen away, thus aligning Christ with the Creator.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 1:20 – "And by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven."
Irenaeus citation: “He reconciles all things to Himself, showing that the same God who created also redeems.”

5. Colossians 2:8 - "Philosophy and empty deceit"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian warns against philosophy, which he believes leads to heresy and departure from the apostolic faith.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses II.14.2, similarly critiques philosophical speculations as a source of heresies and deviation from apostolic tradition.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 2:8 – "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men."
Irenaeus citation: “Philosophical speculations lead many astray, causing them to depart from the truth handed down by the apostles.”

6. Colossians 2:17 - "A shadow of things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian views the law as a shadow of Christ’s coming, a theme that Irenaeus also emphasizes in his writings.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.2.7, argues that the Old Testament law foreshadows Christ, who fulfills its substance.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 2:17 – "Which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."
Irenaeus citation: “The law was a shadow of the good things to come, but the substance is Christ.”

7. Colossians 2:14 - "Having canceled the record of debt"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian stresses that Christ canceled the demands of the law through His crucifixion, nullifying its curse.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.7, similarly asserts that Christ’s death lifted the law’s curse, maintaining continuity between the law and the Gospel.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 2:14 – "Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
Irenaeus citation: “Christ nailed the curse of the law to the cross, redeeming us from its demands.”

8. Colossians 2:20-22 - "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian critiques ascetic practices that reject the material world, affirming the goodness of creation.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses I.24.5, also denounces asceticism that denies creation’s goodness, asserting that all created things are from God.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 2:21 – "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," which are "doctrines of men."
Irenaeus citation: “Those who reject the material world deny the goodness of the Creator, who made all things.”

9. Colossians 3:9-10 - "Put off the old self...put on the new self"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian interprets this transformation as essential to Christian renewal in Christ, putting off the old self and adopting a new nature.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.12.3, connects this to the renewal of humanity in Christ, contrasting it with Gnostic ideas that deny the physical resurrection.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 3:9-10 – "Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him."
Irenaeus citation: “In Christ, humanity is renewed, putting off the old man and putting on the new, restored in the image of God.”

10. Colossians 3:11 - "Christ is all and in all"

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian underscores the universality of Christ, who transcends distinctions like Jew and Greek, slave and free.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.16.9, also emphasizes Christ’s unifying role, countering Marcion’s divisive theology.
Scriptures Used: Colossians 3:11 – "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."
Irenaeus citation: “In Christ, there is no distinction, for He is Lord of all, bringing unity under the one Creator.”

Chapter 20

1. Philippians 1:15-18 - Preaching Christ from different motives

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian discusses the diverse motives behind the preaching of Christ but asserts that the same Christ is still being preached, no matter the intentions.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.16.8, similarly argues for the universality of the preaching of Christ, affirming that the apostolic message is preserved, regardless of the preachers’ motives.
Scriptures Used: Philippians 1:15-18 – "Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife... but Christ is preached, and in this I rejoice."
Irenaeus citation: “Some preach Christ from envy, but still, Christ is preached, and the message remains unaltered.”

2. Philippians 2:6-7 - Christ emptying Himself, taking the form of a servant

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian emphasizes the genuineness of Christ’s humility in taking human form, refuting Marcion’s claim that Christ’s body was a mere illusion.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.19.3, similarly refutes docetism, insisting on the reality of Christ’s incarnation and its necessity for salvation.
Scriptures Used: Philippians 2:6-7 – "Who, being in the form of God... made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant."

Irenaeus citation: “The Word truly became flesh, and His incarnation was necessary for the redemption of mankind.”

3. Philippians 2:8 - Christ’s death on the cross

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian affirms the reality of Christ’s death on the cross, denying any notion that it was a phantom or illusionary event.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.5, also insists that Christ’s real suffering and death were essential for human redemption.
Scriptures Used: Philippians 2:8 – "And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."
Irenaeus citation: “If He had not truly suffered, He could not have redeemed humanity.”

4. Philippians 3:7-8 - Counting all things as loss for Christ

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian highlights Paul’s view of his former status as loss compared to the surpassing worth of knowing Christ.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.34.4, similarly teaches that the knowledge of Christ surpasses all earthly things, including the Law, which was only preparatory for His coming.
Scriptures Used: Philippians 3:7-8 – "But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ."
Irenaeus citation: “The knowledge of Christ surpasses all, even the Law, which was only a preparation for His coming.”

5. Philippians 3:20 - Our citizenship in heaven

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian connects Paul’s assertion of heavenly citizenship to the promises made to Abraham, showing continuity between the Old and New Testaments.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses IV.16.2, also emphasizes the continuity of God’s plan, which includes the fulfillment of promises made to the patriarchs, culminating in Christ.
Scriptures Used: Philippians 3:20 – "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ."
Irenaeus citation: “The promises made to Abraham find their fulfillment in Christ, and through Him, we become citizens of heaven.”

6. Philippians 3:21 - Christ will transform our lowly bodies

Tertullian’s Statement: Tertullian asserts the resurrection of the body, opposing Marcion’s denial of bodily resurrection.
Irenaeus Comparison: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses V.6.2, similarly defends the resurrection of the flesh, stating that believers' bodies will be transformed and glorified, as Christ’s was.
Scriptures Used: Philippians 3:21 – "Who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body."
Irenaeus citation: “The resurrection of the body is essential, as Christ’s own resurrection was in the flesh, and our bodies will be transformed like His.”

[Secret Alias]

Here are the top 10 most prevelant arguments for Tertullian borrowing from Irenaeus in Adversus Marcionem based on the document:

1. Defense of the Creator's Divinity in Christ's Teaching: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus defend the idea that Christ preached the Creator God, directly opposing Marcion’s concept of a different god. Tertullian’s assertion that Christ and the apostles proclaimed the God of the Old Testament aligns closely with Irenaeus’s similar defense in Adversus Haereses III.11.7, indicating Tertullian is likely reusing Irenaeus’s argumentation.

2. The Precedence of the Father Over the Son: Tertullian argues that the Father should be declared before the Son, mirroring Irenaeus’s argument in Adversus Haereses IV.6.2 where the Father reveals the Son according to the Father’s authority. This structural and theological alignment suggests that Tertullian is reworking Irenaeus’s original critique.

3. Christ’s Fulfillment of Prophecy: Tertullian stresses that Christ’s coming must be prophesied, echoing Irenaeus’s consistent use of Old Testament prophecy to support Christ’s role in salvation (Adversus Haereses III.21.3). Both authors place significant emphasis on Christ as the fulfillment of prophetic writings, suggesting shared sources.

4. Miracles Alone Do Not Prove Christ’s Authenticity: Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue that miracles alone are not sufficient proof of Christ’s identity. Irenaeus makes this argument in Adversus Haereses II.31.2, and Tertullian’s echo of this shows a close borrowing of themes.

5. The Rejection of Christ by the Jews: Tertullian claims the Jews failed to recognize Christ due to their disobedience, which mirrors Irenaeus’s argument in Adversus Haereses III.21.2. Both view this rejection as part of divine prophecy, highlighting that Tertullian may be relying on Irenaeus’s earlier formulation.

6. Figurative Language in Prophecy: Tertullian explains that Old Testament prophecy often used figurative language, a point emphasized by Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses IV.26.1. The shared emphasis on figurative prophecy strengthens the case that Tertullian is drawing from Irenaeus.

7. Allegory in Scripture: Tertullian’s use of allegory in interpreting Old Testament passages is a technique he seems to have inherited from Irenaeus, who frequently used allegory in his arguments. Both stress allegorical interpretations to explain Christ’s suffering, particularly seen in Irenaeus’s work (Adversus Haereses IV.20.1).

8. Two Advents of Christ: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue for the two advents of Christ—one in humility and the other in glory. Irenaeus makes this argument in Adversus Haereses III.16.2, which Tertullian closely mirrors in his critique of Marcion.

9. Refutation of the Docetic View of Christ’s Flesh: Irenaeus’s strong opposition to docetism, as seen in Adversus Haereses III.22.1, is echoed by Tertullian in his insistence on the real suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ. This is a critical point of alignment between their works.

10. Christ’s Humble Appearance: Tertullian’s description of Christ’s humble and unattractive appearance aligns with Irenaeus’s use of Isaiah 53:2-3 in Adversus Haereses III.16.1. Both authors use the prophecy to counter Marcion’s denial of Christ’s human nature, suggesting a shared source of argumentation.

These parallels, especially in their thematic focus on the unity of God, the fulfillment of prophecy, and the rejection of docetism, demonstrate strong evidence that Tertullian was borrowing from Irenaeus’s earlier writings in his arguments against Marcion.

[Secret Alias]

Top 10 Most Cited Chapters from Irenaeus:

1. Adversus Haereses III.16.6
Referenced multiple times, this section discusses Christ as the one who reconciles all things, a theme that both Tertullian and Irenaeus use to refute Marcion's dualism. Tertullian emphasizes that Christ's role in recapitulating and reconciling creation proves His connection to the Creator.

2. Adversus Haereses III.18.5
Tertullian uses this passage to stress the reality of Christ's suffering and death, refuting Marcion's docetic views. Irenaeus similarly insists that without true suffering and death, Christ could not have redeemed humanity, and this theme is revisited in multiple sections.

3. Adversus Haereses IV.16.2
This chapter is often used by Tertullian to emphasize the continuity of the Old Testament promises, especially the promises made to Abraham, and their fulfillment in Christ. This is a central argument against Marcion’s attempt to separate the Old and New Testaments.

4. Adversus Haereses III.19.3
The issue of Christ's humanity is central to both Tertullian's and Irenaeus's critiques of Marcion. They both argue against the idea that Christ’s body was a phantom, highlighting the necessity of the Incarnation for salvation.

5. Adversus Haereses IV.34.4
Tertullian, following Irenaeus, uses this section to argue that the knowledge of Christ surpasses all, even the Law. This is key in opposing Marcion's separation of Christ from the Creator.

6. Adversus Haereses III.16.9
Frequently referenced, this section discusses the unity Christ brings to all people under the Creator, a direct counter to Marcion's theology that seeks to divide Christ from the God of the Old Testament.

7. Adversus Haereses III.22.2
Both Tertullian and Irenaeus argue here that the Incarnation was real and essential, dismissing Marcion’s docetism. This chapter appears often in their discussions about the nature of Christ’s body and the reality of His human existence.

8. Adversus Haereses III.7.2
Irenaeus’s accusation that Marcion omitted theological phrases, such as those affirming the Creator’s role, is often echoed by Tertullian in his arguments about the completeness of Paul’s letters in their original form.

9. Adversus Haereses III.3.1
The theme of the universality of the Gospel message and the preservation of apostolic tradition comes up frequently in Adversus Marcionem. Tertullian leverages this section to stress the authenticity of the Gospel as handed down by the apostles.

10. Adversus Haereses V.12.3
Tertullian cites this section to argue for the renewal of humanity in Christ, which is crucial in his defense of bodily resurrection, countering Marcion’s denial of physical resurrection.

These chapters represent the core themes that Tertullian revisits, showing strong thematic and textual borrowing from Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses in refuting Marcion's theology.

[Secret Alias]

Scriptures Tertullian and Irenaeus frequently share and reuse the following scriptures in their arguments against Marcion:

1. Luke 24:27 - Frequently cited to demonstrate that Christ's mission fulfills Old Testament prophecies, reinforcing the continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

Irenaeus's Use of Luke 24:27:
In Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), Irenaeus frequently emphasizes the importance of reading the Old Testament in light of Christ's revelation. For example:

Adversus Haereses III.11.8: Irenaeus asserts that Christ, beginning with Moses and all the prophets, expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. This, he argues, shows that Christ did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them. By using Luke 24:27, Irenaeus reinforces the idea that the entire Old Testament speaks of Christ, thus countering Marcion's claim that the Old Testament God and the New Testament God were distinct.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The law and the prophets were not repudiated by the coming of Christ, but fulfilled, as He Himself declared: ‘I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.’” (Luke 24:27 is used here to affirm that Jesus’ mission was not in contradiction to the Old Testament.)

Tertullian's Use of Luke 24:27:
Tertullian, in Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion), uses Luke 24:27 to argue similarly that Christ’s teaching and the Christian faith must be understood in continuity with the Old Testament:

Adversus Marcionem IV.8: Tertullian highlights that Jesus, by referring to Moses and the Prophets in Luke 24:27, demonstrated that He came not to abolish but to fulfill the Scriptures. Tertullian argues that Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament is baseless because Christ Himself validated it. He directly appeals to Luke 24:27 to show that the entire corpus of Scripture points to Christ.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "He [Christ] expounded to them from the law and the prophets, and they recognized Him. It is thus clear that He was the one prophesied about." Tertullian uses this to assert the harmony between the Old and New Testaments, refuting Marcion’s dualism.

Key Similarities:
Use of Continuity: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Luke 24:27 to emphasize the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. They argue that the Scriptures, from Moses and the Prophets, all pointed to Christ, directly countering the Marcionite belief that the Old Testament God was separate from the Christian God.

Christ as the Fulfillment: Both argue that Christ’s life and mission were a fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. Luke 24:27, in their usage, reinforces that Jesus did not bring a new revelation in contradiction to the Old Testament but was the culmination of the divine plan.

Refutation of Marcionism: Marcion sought to sever Christianity from its Old Testament roots, arguing that the God of the Old Testament was distinct from the God revealed by Jesus. Irenaeus and Tertullian both invoke Luke 24:27 to refute this, showing that Christ Himself pointed back to the Old Testament to explain His mission and identity.

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian invoke Luke 24:27 as a scriptural foundation for their argument that the Old Testament is an essential precursor to the New Testament. They use this verse to argue that Christ’s mission was a continuation, not a departure, from the Law and the Prophets, thus countering Marcion’s attempts to separate Christianity from its Jewish roots.

2. Psalm 22:16 - Used by both Tertullian and Irenaeus to prophesy the crucifixion, particularly the piercing of hands and feet, signifying the foretold suffering of Christ.

Irenaeus's Use of Psalm 22:16:
In Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), Irenaeus frequently refers to Old Testament prophecies to demonstrate that the suffering and death of Christ were foretold and were part of God's salvific plan. Psalm 22:16 is one of the key texts he uses to emphasize that Jesus' crucifixion was prefigured in Scripture:

Adversus Haereses IV.33.12: Irenaeus argues that the passion and suffering of Christ were clearly predicted by the prophets. He specifically refers to the description in Psalm 22 of Christ’s hands and feet being pierced, interpreting it as a direct prophecy of the crucifixion. Irenaeus uses this verse to demonstrate that the same God who inspired the Old Testament is the one who fulfilled these prophecies in Christ, countering Gnostic or Marcionite attempts to detach the Old Testament from the Christian faith.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The suffering of the Lord was prophesied long ago, even in the Psalms, where it is written: 'They pierced my hands and my feet.' This was clearly foretold and fulfilled in Christ."

Tertullian's Use of Psalm 22:16:
Tertullian, in Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion), uses Psalm 22:16 to argue against Marcion's rejection of the Old Testament and his claim that the God of the Old Testament is distinct from the Father of Jesus. Tertullian, like Irenaeus, interprets Psalm 22:16 as a prophecy of the crucifixion, thereby asserting the unity of the Old and New Testaments:

Adversus Marcionem III.19: Tertullian, while refuting Marcion's argument that the crucifixion was a product of a different deity, appeals to Psalm 22:16. He points to the pierced hands and feet described in the Psalm as a clear prophecy of Christ’s death, showing that the Old Testament scriptures speak of Jesus’ crucifixion. Tertullian uses this passage to emphasize that the suffering servant in the Psalms was not someone other than Christ, but indeed the Messiah foretold by the Old Testament prophets.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "The prophet David, inspired by the Spirit, spoke of the Lord’s passion, saying, 'They pierced my hands and my feet.' Thus, it is clear that the Christ who was crucified was the same one proclaimed by the prophets."

Key Similarities:
Messianic Prophecy: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian interpret Psalm 22:16 as a direct prophecy of Christ's crucifixion. They use the verse to show that the suffering and death of Jesus were predicted long before His incarnation.

Refutation of Heresy: Both use Psalm 22:16 to refute heresies. Irenaeus addresses Gnosticism and other heretical views that separated the Old Testament from the New, while Tertullian specifically targets Marcion’s belief that the God of the Old Testament was not the Father of Jesus. In both cases, they assert that the Old Testament, through verses like Psalm 22:16, points directly to Christ.

Unity of Scripture: Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize the unity of the Old and New Testaments, using Psalm 22:16 to argue that the Old Testament God is the same as the God revealed in Christ. They see the prophecy of the crucifixion as evidence that the Old Testament anticipates the New.

Conclusion:
Both Irenaeus and Tertullian invoke Psalm 22:16 as a key prophecy that foretells the crucifixion of Christ. They use this verse to argue for the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, countering heresies that attempt to sever the connection between the two. Their use of this psalm demonstrates their shared commitment to defending the Christian faith against those who sought to reject or reinterpret the Old Testament.

3. Isaiah 7:14 - Referenced to argue the fulfillment of the prophecy about Emmanuel, connecting the Old Testament prophecy to the incarnation of Christ.

Isaiah 7:14, which foretells the virgin birth of Immanuel, is a key verse in early Christian apologetics. This prophecy is central to establishing the messianic identity of Jesus, and both Irenaeus and Tertullian cite it to defend the doctrine of the Incarnation, particularly against heretical teachings that sought to undermine the unity of the Old and New Testaments. The verse reads:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

Irenaeus’s Use of Isaiah 7:14:
Irenaeus emphasizes Isaiah 7:14 in Adversus Haereses to demonstrate the consistency of God’s plan from the Old Testament to the New Testament and to counter Gnostic and other heretical teachings that denied the true humanity and divinity of Christ.

Adversus Haereses III.21.1-4: Irenaeus argues that the prophecy of Isaiah, especially Isaiah 7:14, was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary. He underscores that the prophecy explicitly points to a virgin conceiving and bearing a child, which aligns with the Christian understanding of the Incarnation. Irenaeus uses this to refute those who claim that Christ was not truly born of a virgin or that His coming was not foretold in the Old Testament.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The prophet Isaiah declared that the Savior would be born of a virgin, and this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, confirming that the same God of the Old Testament is the Father of Jesus."

Adversus Haereses III.16.3: Irenaeus again emphasizes the virgin birth to argue that the coming of Christ was foretold and prepared for by God long before the Incarnation. He criticizes those who reject the Old Testament or reinterpret it to deny its connection to the Christian Gospel. For Irenaeus, Isaiah 7:14 is a cornerstone in proving that Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic prophecy.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The prophecy of the virgin birth, as spoken by Isaiah, demonstrates that Christ was foreseen by the prophets and that the Scriptures of the Old Testament must be acknowledged as testifying to Him."

Tertullian’s Use of Isaiah 7:14:
Tertullian, particularly in Adversus Marcionem, draws heavily on Old Testament prophecies to refute Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament and to demonstrate the continuity between the Old Testament and Christ’s coming. Tertullian’s use of Isaiah 7:14 reflects Irenaeus’s approach, showing the possibility of borrowing from Irenaeus's work.

Adversus Marcionem III.12: Tertullian cites Isaiah 7:14 to argue against Marcion’s denial of the virgin birth and to affirm that Jesus’ coming was foretold in the Old Testament. Like Irenaeus, Tertullian insists that the prophecy in Isaiah points directly to Christ’s birth from the Virgin Mary. He uses this verse to show that the same God who spoke through the prophets in the Old Testament is the one who sent Christ.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Isaiah proclaimed, ‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive,’ and this was fulfilled in the birth of Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, thus affirming that the same God who spoke through the prophets sent His Son into the world."

Adversus Marcionem IV.10: Tertullian again references Isaiah 7:14 in his argument against Marcion’s claim that Jesus was not truly human or born of a virgin. Tertullian follows Irenaeus in using this prophecy as irrefutable evidence of the Incarnation, showing that the Old Testament prophets foretold the coming of Christ and that this prophecy was fulfilled in the New Testament.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "The prophet’s words, ‘The virgin shall conceive and bear a son,’ were clearly fulfilled in Christ, and Marcion cannot deny the consistency of the prophetic witness with the apostolic Gospel."

Irenaeus as the Source Explaining Tertullian's Use:
Tertullian’s reliance on Isaiah 7:14 to counter Marcion’s heresies closely mirrors Irenaeus’s use of the same scripture in Adversus Haereses. Both Fathers use Isaiah 7:14 as a pivotal text to argue that Christ’s birth from the Virgin Mary was prefigured in the Old Testament and that the God of the Old Testament is the Father of Jesus Christ, thus refuting Marcionite claims.

Emphasis on Continuity: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Isaiah 7:14 to show the continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Irenaeus lays the groundwork by showing that the prophecy of the virgin birth is essential to understanding God’s plan, and Tertullian follows this approach to demonstrate that Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament undermines the truth of the Gospel.

Defense Against Heresy: Irenaeus uses Isaiah 7:14 to defend against Gnosticism, while Tertullian uses it to counter Marcionism. However, their arguments converge on the essential point that the virgin birth, as foretold by Isaiah, validates both the humanity and divinity of Christ. Tertullian appears to follow Irenaeus in using Isaiah 7:14 as a defense of orthodox Christology against heretical distortions.

Conclusion:
Isaiah 7:14 is a foundational text for both Irenaeus and Tertullian in their defense of Christian orthodoxy. Irenaeus’s use of the prophecy to argue for the unity of the Old and New Testaments and the truth of the Incarnation clearly influenced Tertullian, who adopts a similar line of argument in his refutation of Marcion. The consistency in their use of this scripture suggests that Tertullian may have drawn directly from Irenaeus or was at least influenced by his theological framework.

4. Romans 1:2-4 - Cited by both to affirm that the Gospel concerning Christ was foretold by the prophets, affirming Christ’s link to the Creator.

Romans 1:2-4 is a foundational passage that emphasizes the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, “who was descended from David according to the flesh” and “declared to be the Son of God in power.” Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use this passage to defend the unity of the Old and New Testaments and affirm the true humanity and divinity of Christ, often against Gnostic and Marcionite heresies that tried to separate the God of the Old Testament from the New Testament revelation.

The passage reads:

"Which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 1:2-4)

Irenaeus’s Use of Romans 1:2-4:
Irenaeus repeatedly draws upon this passage in Adversus Haereses to affirm the continuity between the Old Testament prophecies and the incarnation of Jesus, as well as to highlight the fact that Jesus Christ is both fully human (as a descendant of David) and fully divine (declared the Son of God in power).

Adversus Haereses III.16.3: Irenaeus uses Romans 1:2-4 to argue against Gnostic views that denied the true humanity of Jesus. He emphasizes that Jesus was born according to the flesh from the line of David, thus affirming the fulfillment of prophecy and connecting Christ to the lineage of Israel. This argument counters the Gnostic belief in a purely spiritual Christ who only appeared to have human form.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "Paul clearly states that Jesus was 'descended from David according to the flesh,' thus showing that He was truly human and born in accordance with the promises made to the patriarchs and prophets."

Adversus Haereses III.22.1: Irenaeus further emphasizes the importance of the prophetic witness of the Old Testament, using Romans 1:2-4 to argue that Christ’s coming was foretold through the prophets and fulfilled through His birth from the line of David. This, Irenaeus argues, proves that Christ’s mission was part of God’s long-established plan of salvation, contrary to Marcion’s view of a new and separate God in the New Testament.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "Paul declares that the Son was 'promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures,' confirming that the Gospel message was not new or foreign but was the fulfillment of what was long awaited."

Tertullian’s Use of Romans 1:2-4:
Tertullian, particularly in Adversus Marcionem, similarly draws on Romans 1:2-4 to argue against Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament and to emphasize that Christ’s coming was in continuity with the promises of the Old Testament. His use of this passage parallels Irenaeus’s approach, focusing on the prophetic fulfillment and the dual nature of Christ as both human and divine.

Adversus Marcionem IV.6: Tertullian cites Romans 1:2-4 to affirm that Christ’s incarnation and mission were in line with the Old Testament prophecies, particularly stressing the phrase "descended from David according to the flesh." Like Irenaeus, Tertullian uses this verse to argue that the same God who spoke through the prophets of Israel sent His Son, born of the line of David, thus refuting Marcion’s claim that Jesus was sent by a separate and previously unknown god.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Paul affirms that Christ was 'descended from David according to the flesh,' showing that Jesus, far from being the emissary of a new or foreign deity, was the fulfillment of the promises given to the house of Israel."

Adversus Marcionem V.14: Tertullian also uses Romans 1:2-4 to affirm both the humanity and divinity of Christ, particularly in response to Marcion’s docetic tendencies. Tertullian emphasizes that Jesus was "declared to be the Son of God in power" through His resurrection, which shows that Christ was both truly human (in His descent from David) and truly divine (as proven by His resurrection). This is a key point shared with Irenaeus, who uses the same passage to defend against similar heresies.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "In affirming that Christ was 'declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit,' Paul shows the unity of Christ’s human and divine natures, which Marcion seeks to divide."

Irenaeus as the Source Explaining Tertullian’s Use:
Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses serves as a likely source for Tertullian’s use of Romans 1:2-4. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize several key points when interpreting this passage:

Prophetic Fulfillment: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian stress that Christ’s coming was foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament, using Romans 1:2 to argue that the Gospel message is the fulfillment of what was promised beforehand, thus affirming the continuity of the Old and New Testaments. Irenaeus consistently uses this argument to combat heretics who sought to sever Christianity from its Jewish roots, and Tertullian mirrors this argument in his attacks on Marcion.

Human and Divine Natures: Both Fathers draw on Romans 1:3-4 to emphasize that Christ is both human (as a descendant of David) and divine (declared the Son of God by His resurrection). Irenaeus uses this to argue against Gnostic docetism, which denied the true humanity of Christ, while Tertullian applies it against Marcion, who similarly denied Christ’s human nature.

Christ’s Connection to David: The specific emphasis on Christ being "descended from David according to the flesh" is central to both Irenaeus’s and Tertullian’s arguments. This phrase is used to affirm the legitimacy of Christ’s human lineage, rooted in the promises made to David and Israel, countering heresies that rejected or minimized Jesus’ connection to the Old Testament.

Conclusion:
Romans 1:2-4 is a key passage used by both Irenaeus and Tertullian to affirm the unity of the Old and New Testaments, the fulfillment of prophecy, and the true nature of Christ as both human and divine. Irenaeus’s earlier use of this passage to combat Gnosticism provides a clear template that Tertullian later follows in his fight against Marcionism. The consistency in their interpretations suggests that Tertullian’s use of Romans 1:2-4 was likely influenced by Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses.

5. Genesis 22:6 - The story of Isaac carrying the wood is seen as a prefiguration of Christ carrying the cross.

Genesis 22:6, which describes Abraham carrying the wood for the sacrifice of his son Isaac, is a passage often interpreted as a foreshadowing of Christ's crucifixion. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use this passage typologically to argue that the events in the Old Testament prefigure and foreshadow the New Testament, particularly the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

Genesis 22:6 reads:

"And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together."

Irenaeus's Use of Genesis 22:6:
Irenaeus sees Isaac carrying the wood for the sacrifice as a type of Christ carrying the cross. This is an important element of Irenaeus’s typological reading of the Old Testament, where figures and events prefigure and symbolize later events in salvation history, particularly the life of Christ.

Adversus Haereses IV.5.4: Irenaeus interprets the story of Isaac and Abraham as a foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice. He emphasizes the parallel between Isaac, carrying the wood for his own sacrifice, and Christ, carrying the wood of the cross. For Irenaeus, this connection between Isaac and Christ demonstrates the unity of God’s salvific plan and shows that the Old Testament contains prophecies and prefigurations of New Testament events.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "Isaac, carrying the wood for his own sacrifice, foreshadowed Christ, who carried the wood of the cross for His own death, demonstrating that the same God prefigured in the Old Testament is fulfilled in the New Testament."

Adversus Haereses IV.5.5: Irenaeus further emphasizes that Abraham’s willingness to offer his only son Isaac prefigures God’s offering of His only Son, Jesus Christ. The act of Isaac carrying the wood highlights his role as a type of Christ, who willingly carried the cross to His death.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The act of Isaac carrying the wood for the burnt offering prefigures Christ carrying His cross, showing that God’s plan of salvation was foreshadowed through the prophets and fulfilled in the person of Jesus."

Tertullian’s Use of Genesis 22:6:
Tertullian, like Irenaeus, sees the story of Isaac and Abraham as typological, foreshadowing the crucifixion of Christ. He draws upon the same imagery of Isaac carrying the wood for his sacrifice to argue that the Old Testament anticipated the New Testament events, particularly the Passion of Christ.

Adversus Marcionem III.18: Tertullian references Genesis 22:6 when discussing the foreshadowing of Christ's sacrifice in the Old Testament. He explicitly links Isaac’s carrying of the wood to Jesus carrying the cross, emphasizing the continuity between the two testaments. For Tertullian, this parallel also serves to argue against Marcion, who rejected the Old Testament, by showing that the events of the Old Testament prefigure Christ’s death.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Isaac, carrying the wood for his own sacrifice, clearly prefigures Christ, who carried the wood of the cross. The Old Testament therefore contains the same message of salvation that is fulfilled in Christ, contrary to Marcion’s claims."

Adversus Judaeos 10: Tertullian again uses the example of Isaac and Abraham to illustrate that the Old Testament prefigures the events of the New Testament. He stresses that just as Isaac carried the wood for his sacrifice, Christ carried the cross, symbolizing the continuity between the Old and New Covenants.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "In Isaac’s carrying of the wood, we see a type of Christ carrying the cross. The Old Testament foreshadows and predicts the events of the New Testament, proving the unity of God’s plan."

Irenaeus as the Source Explaining Tertullian’s Use:
Tertullian’s use of Genesis 22:6 closely parallels Irenaeus’s typological interpretation of the passage. Both theologians emphasize the connection between Isaac and Christ, using the image of Isaac carrying the wood for his sacrifice as a clear type of Christ carrying the cross.

Typology and Prophetic Fulfillment: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue that Isaac’s actions foreshadow Christ’s Passion, stressing the continuity of God’s salvific plan between the Old and New Testaments. Irenaeus frequently uses such typological readings in Adversus Haereses to refute Gnostic and heretical claims that sought to separate the God of the Old Testament from the New Testament. Tertullian follows Irenaeus’s lead in his own arguments against Marcion, showing that the Old Testament prophecies find their fulfillment in Christ.

Christ’s Willing Sacrifice: Irenaeus emphasizes that Isaac’s willingness to be sacrificed mirrors Christ’s willing submission to His crucifixion, a theme Tertullian adopts in his works. Both theologians use this imagery to demonstrate that the Old Testament not only predicts the events of the New Testament but also reflects the same theological truths about salvation.

Defense Against Heresy: Irenaeus’s use of Genesis 22:6 to defend the continuity of the Testaments against Gnostic and other heresies serves as a template for Tertullian’s own defense against Marcion. By showing that Isaac’s sacrifice foreshadowed Christ’s, both Irenaeus and Tertullian argue that the Old Testament must be interpreted as part of the Christian narrative.

Conclusion:
Both Irenaeus and Tertullian interpret Genesis 22:6 as typologically prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice, focusing on Isaac carrying the wood as a symbol of Christ carrying the cross. Irenaeus’s earlier use of this passage in Adversus Haereses provides a clear foundation for Tertullian’s later use in Adversus Marcionem and Adversus Judaeos. Both authors employ this typological interpretation to argue for the continuity of the Testaments and to counter heretical attempts to disconnect the Old Testament from the New Testament message of salvation.

6. Galatians 3:13 - Paul’s reference to Christ becoming a curse by hanging on a tree is used to affirm the necessity and prophecy of the crucifixion.

Galatians 3:13 states:

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.'"

This passage is central to discussions of Christ's redemptive work, particularly in relation to His crucifixion, and both Irenaeus and Tertullian use it in their theological arguments. They employ this verse in similar ways, emphasizing how Christ took upon Himself the curse of the law, thereby redeeming humanity.

Irenaeus's Use of Galatians 3:13:
Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) III.18.7: Irenaeus uses Galatians 3:13 to explain Christ’s redemptive work in contrast to Gnostic and Marcionite teachings, which often denied the significance of the material world and Christ’s physical suffering. Irenaeus emphasizes that Christ’s death on the cross, where He bore the curse of the law, was essential for human salvation.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The law’s curse, which was imposed on humanity due to disobedience, was taken on by Christ. In this way, He redeemed us by becoming a curse for us, as Paul clearly states. This shows the continuity of the law and the Gospel, where Christ fulfills what was written and brings salvation to all."

Adversus Haereses V.17.3: In this passage, Irenaeus stresses that Christ’s crucifixion was an integral part of God’s redemptive plan. By hanging on the tree, Christ bore the curse for humanity. Irenaeus views this as a fulfillment of the Old Testament law and prophecy, showing that Christ was the one prophesied to take on the sins of the world.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "As it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree,’ Paul confirms that Christ, in His crucifixion, took upon Himself the curse of the law to redeem humanity. This not only fulfills the law but also demonstrates that the salvation offered by Christ extends to all, whether under the law or outside of it."

Tertullian’s Use of Galatians 3:13:
Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion) V.4: Tertullian, like Irenaeus, uses Galatians 3:13 to counter Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament and its laws. Tertullian emphasizes that Christ’s death on the cross is an extension of the Old Testament’s prophetic and legal framework. Christ’s crucifixion fulfilled the law, including its curse, and provided salvation. For Tertullian, this verse is crucial in proving that the law is not abolished but rather fulfilled in Christ’s sacrificial act.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Paul’s words, ‘Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,’ show that the law is not nullified, as Marcion claims, but fulfilled through Christ. By taking on the curse of the law, Christ liberated us from its penalties. This proves that the law and the prophets were not opposed to Christ but were part of God’s unified plan."

De Idololatria (On Idolatry) 14: Tertullian also uses Galatians 3:13 to emphasize the nature of Christ’s redemptive act, particularly in discussions surrounding the curse associated with the cross. Tertullian argues that Christ willingly bore this curse to free humanity from the consequences of idolatry and sin.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "By hanging on the tree, as Paul writes in Galatians, Christ took on the curse that should have been ours. This shows the depth of His sacrifice, not only freeing us from idolatry but from all the curses of the law. Thus, the law’s demands were satisfied in Christ, who became a curse for us."

Parallels Between Irenaeus and Tertullian on Galatians 3:13:
Redemptive Work of Christ: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize that Christ’s taking on the curse of the law, as referenced in Galatians 3:13, was an essential part of His redemptive work. For both theologians, this demonstrates that the crucifixion was necessary to fulfill the law and bring about salvation. This idea directly counters Gnostic and Marcionite views that either downplayed or rejected the importance of the material world and the physical suffering of Christ.

Continuity of Law and Gospel: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian highlight that Galatians 3:13 shows the continuity between the Old Testament law and the New Testament Gospel. For them, Christ’s crucifixion does not abolish the law but rather fulfills it. This is a key argument for both theologians, especially against Marcion, who claimed that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were different.

Christ as the Fulfillment of Prophecy: Irenaeus and Tertullian both use Galatians 3:13 to argue that Christ’s crucifixion fulfills Old Testament prophecies and typologies. The reference to the curse of those "hung on a tree" ties Christ’s death directly to the Old Testament law, showing that His mission was foretold and that He is the fulfillment of those prophecies.

Defense Against Heresy: For both Irenaeus and Tertullian, Galatians 3:13 is a key scriptural proof against heresies like Marcionism. Irenaeus uses it to defend the unity of the Old and New Testaments, while Tertullian uses it to demonstrate that the law and its curse were not abolished but fulfilled through Christ. Both theologians argue that the continuity of God’s plan is evident through this verse.

Conclusion:
Both Irenaeus and Tertullian rely heavily on Galatians 3:13 to argue that Christ’s crucifixion was necessary to redeem humanity from the curse of the law. They see this as a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and law, emphasizing the continuity between the Testaments. For both, Galatians 3:13 serves as a crucial piece of evidence in their defense of orthodox Christianity against heresies like Marcionism, which sought to separate the Old and New Testaments and diminish the significance of Christ’s death.

7. Philippians 2:6-7 - Both emphasize Christ's humility and incarnation, refuting Marcion's claim that Christ had only a phantom body.

Philippians 2:6-7 is a significant passage in early Christian theology, particularly in discussions of Christ's incarnation and humility. It reads:

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."

Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use this passage to counter Gnostic and Marcionite views that deny Christ’s full humanity or present a docetic view of Christ’s body (i.e., the belief that Christ only appeared to be human).

Irenaeus’s Use of Philippians 2:6-7:
Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) III.19.3: Irenaeus uses Philippians 2:6-7 to stress Christ’s genuine incarnation, refuting Gnostic claims that Christ merely appeared in a phantom body. Irenaeus insists that Christ’s humility, demonstrated in His incarnation, was real and essential for the salvation of humanity. Christ, though divine, took on true human nature, and this humility was necessary to reverse the disobedience of Adam.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "Christ did not regard His equality with God as something to cling to, but emptied Himself by becoming man. This real incarnation, not an appearance or phantom, was necessary for humanity's redemption. The Gnostics, by denying the reality of Christ’s flesh, undermine the salvation He brought through His incarnation."

Adversus Haereses III.18.7: Here, Irenaeus emphasizes that Christ, though divine, took on human form to lead humanity back to God. He interprets Philippians 2:6-7 as showing the divine plan of redemption, where Christ’s humility serves as the model for human salvation. His real humanity and suffering were essential, which stands in contrast to Marcion’s dualism that separates Christ from the Creator God.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "Christ’s self-emptying and taking on human nature were acts of profound humility. By becoming a servant, Christ corrected Adam’s disobedience. This passage is critical in refuting the false teachings of those who deny Christ’s real humanity and the continuity between the Old and New Testaments."

Tertullian’s Use of Philippians 2:6-7:
Adversus Praxean (Against Praxeas) 27: Tertullian uses Philippians 2:6-7 to argue against modalist interpretations of the relationship between God the Father and the Son. He emphasizes that Christ, while in the form of God, took on human nature, showing His distinct role within the Godhead. Tertullian insists that this distinction is necessary for understanding the incarnation and redemption, arguing that Christ’s humility was not a mere appearance but a real taking on of human nature.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Christ’s equality with God was not diminished by His taking on human form. He emptied Himself and became truly man, not in appearance only, but in reality. This is necessary for understanding how Christ could suffer and die for humanity, contrary to the views of those who deny His real incarnation."

Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion) V.20: Tertullian directly counters Marcion’s claims by appealing to Philippians 2:6-7. He emphasizes that Christ’s self-emptying was not a rejection of the material world, as Marcion claimed, but a profound affirmation of God’s love for creation. By taking on human flesh, Christ showed that the material world, far from being evil, was redeemable. Tertullian insists that the humility of Christ demonstrates continuity with the Creator, countering Marcion’s separation of Christ from the God of the Old Testament.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Christ’s taking on of flesh is the ultimate proof that the material world is not inherently evil. His humility in becoming man shows the love of the Creator for His creation. Marcion’s rejection of the material world and the body is contradicted by the clear teaching of the apostle in Philippians."

How Irenaeus Is the Only Source Explaining Tertullian’s Use:
Emphasis on Real Incarnation: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Philippians 2:6-7 to emphasize the real incarnation of Christ. This is critical in countering Gnostic and Marcionite views that either deny Christ’s physical body or present it as an illusion. Irenaeus’s focus on the necessity of Christ’s real humanity for the redemption of humanity, particularly in Adversus Haereses III.19.3, likely serves as the foundation for Tertullian’s similar argument in Adversus Marcionem.

Refutation of Docetism and Marcionism: Irenaeus’s refutation of docetism (the belief that Christ’s body was not real) in Adversus Haereses aligns closely with Tertullian’s rebuttal of Marcionism. Both theologians use Philippians 2:6-7 to assert that Christ’s humility and self-emptying involved a real human body. Tertullian’s argument, particularly in Adversus Marcionem, reflects Irenaeus’s earlier stance in Adversus Haereses, making it likely that Tertullian borrowed this interpretation from Irenaeus.

Christ’s Humility and the Reversal of Adam’s Disobedience: Irenaeus frequently emphasizes the parallel between Christ’s humility in His incarnation and Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. Tertullian adopts this line of reasoning, particularly in his discussions of how Christ, by taking on human flesh, undoes the effects of Adam’s fall. Irenaeus’s detailed argument in Adversus Haereses III.18.7 appears to be the source of Tertullian’s similar analysis, suggesting that Tertullian’s use of Philippians 2:6-7 follows directly from Irenaeus.

Defense Against Marcion’s Dualism: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Philippians 2:6-7 to defend against Marcion’s dualism, which posits a separation between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.18.7, argues that Christ’s incarnation and humility affirm the goodness of the material world created by the Old Testament God. Tertullian mirrors this argument in Adversus Marcionem, where he insists that Christ’s humility shows continuity with the Creator. Tertullian’s argument is so closely aligned with Irenaeus’s that it is reasonable to conclude Irenaeus is his source.

The Continuity of Old and New Testament: Irenaeus consistently argues for the unity of God’s plan across both Testaments, a theme that Tertullian adopts. In his use of Philippians 2:6-7, Tertullian follows Irenaeus’s lead in stressing that Christ’s incarnation, while demonstrating humility, also shows that God’s salvific plan has always been consistent, from the Old Testament to the New. Irenaeus’s interpretation in Adversus Haereses forms the intellectual foundation for Tertullian’s similar theological defense against Marcionism.

Conclusion:
Tertullian’s use of Philippians 2:6-7 in his works, particularly in Adversus Marcionem and Adversus Praxean, bears a strong resemblance to Irenaeus’s earlier interpretation in Adversus Haereses. Irenaeus’s focus on Christ’s real incarnation, His humility, and the refutation of docetism and Marcionism provides the intellectual groundwork for Tertullian’s arguments. Given the theological and scriptural parallels, it is highly plausible that Tertullian drew directly from Irenaeus’s work when discussing Philippians 2:6-7.

8. Psalm 110:1 - Frequently used to describe Christ's reign and position at the right hand of God, reinforcing the Creator’s role in Christ's mission.

Psalm 110:1 is a key Old Testament passage frequently cited in early Christian theology to support the authority and divinity of Christ. The verse reads:

"The Lord says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'"

Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use this psalm to argue for the exaltation of Christ and to counter heretical views, particularly those of Marcion and Gnostic sects. Their interpretations demonstrate theological continuity and suggest that Irenaeus could have been the source for Tertullian’s use of Psalm 110:1.

Irenaeus’s Use of Psalm 110:1:
Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) III.6.1: In this passage, Irenaeus uses Psalm 110:1 to argue that Christ's exaltation to sit at the right hand of God was foretold by the prophets, showing the continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament. He emphasizes that this exaltation was part of God’s plan from the beginning, countering the Marcionite notion that the God of the Old Testament is different from the God of the New Testament.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "Christ’s ascension to sit at the right hand of the Father fulfills the prophetic word of David in the Psalms, demonstrating that the same God who spoke through the prophets is the God who raised and exalted Jesus."

Adversus Haereses IV.33.2: Here, Irenaeus explains that the verse in Psalm 110:1 speaks to the Messiah’s authority over all creation, as well as His victory over the powers of evil. He argues that this passage clearly shows that Christ, as the Lord, shares in the Father’s divine authority. This refutes Gnostic views that try to subordinate Christ or deny His divinity.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The Lordship and authority granted to Christ, as described in the Psalm, are divine in origin, demonstrating His equality with God the Father and His eternal role in God’s plan."

Tertullian’s Use of Psalm 110:1:
Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion) V.9: Tertullian uses Psalm 110:1 to argue that Christ’s ascension and exaltation were prophesied in the Old Testament, directly refuting Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament God. Tertullian insists that this psalm demonstrates Christ’s role as the Messiah within the same divine plan outlined by the Creator in the Old Testament.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Christ sitting at the right hand of God is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, proving that He is the Messiah sent by the Creator, and that the Father of Christ is indeed the God of the Old Testament."

Adversus Praxean 14: Tertullian cites Psalm 110:1 to affirm the distinct persons of the Father and the Son, countering modalist interpretations that conflate them. He uses the passage to show that the Father and Son share in divine authority but remain distinct, and that Christ’s exaltation was part of God’s eternal plan, as prophesied in the Psalms.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "The Psalm shows that the Son is distinct from the Father yet exalted to share in His authority, a clear refutation of the heretical views that deny the distinction between the Father and the Son."

How Irenaeus Is the Only Source Explaining Tertullian’s Use:
Theological Continuity and Prophecy: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Psalm 110:1 to emphasize the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, refuting Marcion’s dualism. Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses III.6.1, establishes a detailed argument showing how Christ’s exaltation fulfills Old Testament prophecy, which Tertullian echoes in Adversus Marcionem. Given the similarity in their theological approach, Tertullian likely drew from Irenaeus’s interpretation to counter Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament God.

Christ’s Exaltation and Victory Over Evil: Irenaeus argues that Christ’s ascension to sit at the right hand of God represents His victory over all enemies, both spiritual and physical, in Adversus Haereses IV.33.2. Tertullian, in Adversus Marcionem, makes a similar point, using Psalm 110:1 to show Christ’s authority and victory over all adversaries. The thematic parallel between Irenaeus and Tertullian suggests that Tertullian’s reading of this psalm is influenced by Irenaeus’s exegesis.

Refutation of Marcionism: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Psalm 110:1 to counter Marcion’s rejection of the Old Testament God and his claim that Christ was sent by a different god. Irenaeus’s work in Adversus Haereses was foundational in this regard, and Tertullian’s arguments, particularly in Adversus Marcionem, align closely with Irenaeus’s earlier refutations. Irenaeus’s detailed analysis of Psalm 110:1 as proof of the continuity of God’s plan through Christ is likely the source that Tertullian builds upon.

Trinitarian Theology: In Adversus Praxean, Tertullian uses Psalm 110:1 to argue for the distinction between the Father and the Son. This is a continuation of Irenaeus’s earlier work, where he uses the same psalm to affirm Christ’s distinct role as Lord while maintaining unity with the Father. Tertullian’s trinitarian argument appears to develop directly from Irenaeus’s earlier discussions of the relationship between the Father and the Son, showing that Christ’s exaltation fulfills a divine plan laid out in the Old Testament.

Victory Over Spiritual Forces: Irenaeus sees Christ’s exaltation, as described in Psalm 110:1, as signifying His triumph over all spiritual powers, a theme he discusses in Adversus Haereses IV.33.2. Tertullian, in both Adversus Marcionem and Adversus Praxean, follows this interpretation closely, arguing that Christ’s exaltation at the right hand of God represents His complete victory over spiritual forces of evil. Tertullian’s use of the psalm mirrors Irenaeus’s focus on Christ’s divine authority and victory, making it likely that Irenaeus served as Tertullian’s source.

Conclusion:
Tertullian’s use of Psalm 110:1 in both Adversus Marcionem and Adversus Praxean closely aligns with Irenaeus’s earlier interpretation in Adversus Haereses. Both theologians use the psalm to emphasize Christ’s exaltation, the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, and His victory over spiritual forces. Tertullian’s reliance on these themes, as well as his use of the psalm to refute Marcionism and docetism, suggests that Irenaeus’s work was the primary source for his understanding and application of Psalm 110:1. Irenaeus’s detailed analysis and theological approach serve as the foundation for Tertullian’s similar arguments, particularly in their defense of the continuity between the Old and New Testaments.

9. Colossians 1:16 - Asserted by both as evidence that Christ is integral to the creation, a claim Marcion denies by detaching Christ from the Creator.

Colossians 1:16 is a significant verse in early Christian theology, stating:

"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him."

This verse affirms Christ’s central role in creation, an important point of contention in debates with Gnostic and Marcionite teachings. Both Tertullian and Irenaeus use this verse to counter heresies that attempt to diminish Christ’s role in creation or to separate Him from the Creator. Their use of the verse emphasizes Christ’s integral role in the creation and sustaining of the world.

Irenaeus’s Use of Colossians 1:16:
Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) I.16.3: In this passage, Irenaeus uses Colossians 1:16 to argue against the Gnostic belief that the material world was created by a lesser, malevolent deity. Irenaeus emphasizes that Christ is the agent of creation, and all things, both visible and invisible, were made through Him and for Him. This directly counters Gnostic claims that try to separate the Creator from the Redeemer or posit an evil demiurge responsible for the material world.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "Christ, through whom all things were made, is not distinct from the Creator. He is both the Creator and the Savior, and the material world is not evil but is part of God’s good creation."

Adversus Haereses II.30.9: In this section, Irenaeus reaffirms that Christ, the Word of God, was the agent through whom all things, both visible and invisible, were created. He emphasizes that this includes thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities, all of which are subject to Christ’s authority. This interpretation reinforces the idea that there is no cosmic dualism; instead, Christ has authority over all things, which were created through and for Him.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "Christ’s authority extends over all creation, including spiritual powers. Everything in the universe was created through Him, and it exists for His purpose."

Tertullian’s Use of Colossians 1:16:
Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion) V.19: Tertullian directly quotes Colossians 1:16 to refute Marcion’s claim that Christ was not involved in the creation of the world. He uses this verse to assert that all things, including thrones, dominions, and spiritual powers, were created through Christ. Tertullian insists that this proves that Christ is not separate from the Creator but is instead intimately involved in the creation and governance of the universe.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Christ created all things—both visible and invisible—thus affirming His connection to the Creator and rejecting the Marcionite idea of a different god responsible for creation."

Adversus Praxean 6: Tertullian refers to Colossians 1:16 to argue for Christ’s preeminence and role as the agent of creation. He uses this to support the distinction between the Father and the Son while maintaining their unity in the act of creation. Tertullian shows that Christ, as the Word of God, was involved in the creation of everything, including all spiritual powers, thereby countering claims that attempt to diminish Christ’s divinity.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Christ’s role in creation is inseparable from His identity as the divine Word, through whom all things were made. This demonstrates His unity with the Creator and refutes any claim of separation between them."

How Irenaeus is the Only Source Explaining Tertullian’s Use of Colossians 1:16:
Christ as the Agent of Creation: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Colossians 1:16 to affirm that Christ is the agent through whom all things were created. Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses I.16.3, develops a detailed argument against Gnostic dualism, asserting that Christ is responsible for both the material and spiritual worlds. Tertullian’s argument in Adversus Marcionem V.19 follows the same line, rejecting Marcion’s claim that Christ was not involved in creation. The parallel structure and theological emphasis suggest that Tertullian borrowed this interpretation from Irenaeus.

Refuting Gnostic and Marcionite Dualism: Irenaeus’s detailed refutation of Gnostic dualism in Adversus Haereses II.30.9 forms the basis for Tertullian’s arguments against Marcionism. Irenaeus emphasizes that Christ created everything, both visible and invisible, including spiritual powers, which is the exact argument Tertullian uses in Adversus Marcionem. Tertullian’s focus on Colossians 1:16 as proof that Christ is not separate from the Creator mirrors Irenaeus’s teaching, suggesting a direct borrowing of ideas.

Emphasis on Christ’s Authority Over Spiritual Powers: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Colossians 1:16 to emphasize Christ’s authority over thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities. Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses II.30.9, argues that these spiritual powers are part of the created order and subject to Christ’s rule. Tertullian’s argument in Adversus Marcionem follows the same logic, using Colossians 1:16 to show that Christ’s authority extends over all spiritual forces, further demonstrating His unity with the Creator. The close alignment in their arguments indicates that Irenaeus was the source for Tertullian’s use of this verse.

Shared Opposition to Heresies: Irenaeus and Tertullian both used Colossians 1:16 to combat heretical views that sought to separate Christ from the Creator. Irenaeus’s work in Adversus Haereses was foundational in refuting Gnostic and Marcionite interpretations of Christ’s role in creation. Tertullian’s arguments in Adversus Marcionem build on this foundation, using the same theological points and even the same scriptural references. The detailed theological arguments in Irenaeus’s work provide the necessary background for understanding Tertullian’s interpretation, indicating that Irenaeus was the source for Tertullian’s use of Colossians 1:16.

Consistent Theological Themes: The theological themes that both Irenaeus and Tertullian draw from Colossians 1:16—Christ as the agent of creation, His authority over spiritual powers, and the unity between the Creator and Redeemer—are consistently present in both their works. Irenaeus’s detailed treatment of these themes in Adversus Haereses forms the backbone of Tertullian’s later arguments, particularly in Adversus Marcionem. The consistency in their interpretation suggests that Tertullian relied heavily on Irenaeus’s earlier exegesis.

Conclusion:
Tertullian’s use of Colossians 1:16 in Adversus Marcionem and Adversus Praxean aligns closely with Irenaeus’s earlier interpretation in Adversus Haereses. Both theologians emphasize Christ’s role as the agent of creation, His authority over spiritual powers, and the unity between the Creator and Redeemer. The parallels in their theological arguments, as well as their shared opposition to Gnostic and Marcionite dualism, suggest that Irenaeus’s work was the primary source for Tertullian’s understanding and use of Colossians 1:16. Tertullian’s reliance on Irenaeus’s detailed exegesis and theological framework demonstrates that Irenaeus was the most likely source explaining Tertullian’s interpretation of this scripture.

10. Isaiah 53:2-3 - Used to describe the humble and unattractive appearance of Christ, countering Marcion’s view of a purely divine, non-human Christ.

Isaiah 53:2-3 is a key passage in Christian theology, referring to the suffering servant. It reads:

"He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain."

This passage is often interpreted as a prophecy about Christ’s humble incarnation and His rejection by humanity. Both Irenaeus and Tertullian refer to Isaiah 53:2-3 to emphasize Christ's lowly human form and His suffering as a means of redemption, and they use it against heretical groups such as the Gnostics and Marcionites who rejected the physical and suffering aspects of Christ.

Irenaeus’s Use of Isaiah 53:2-3:
Adversus Haereses III.19.1: In this passage, Irenaeus uses Isaiah 53:2-3 to counter Gnostic and Docetic beliefs that denied the humanity of Christ. He emphasizes that Christ took on human flesh and that His humble appearance and suffering were part of God’s redemptive plan. For Irenaeus, this prophecy from Isaiah supports the notion that Christ was fully human and experienced real suffering, which was necessary for salvation.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The Son of God became man, taking on flesh, and in doing so, He fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, who said that He would have no beauty or form that would attract people to Him. His rejection and suffering were foretold by the prophets, showing that His lowly appearance was part of the divine plan."

Adversus Haereses IV.33.1: Here, Irenaeus refers to Isaiah 53:2-3 to emphasize Christ’s humility and rejection by the people. He uses this prophecy to show that Christ’s coming in a humble form was anticipated by the Old Testament, and it reflects the truth of the Incarnation, which was denied by Marcion and Gnostic sects that saw material reality as evil.

Irenaeus’s interpretation: "The fact that Christ was despised and rejected, as Isaiah prophesied, is proof that the Messiah would not come in the glory expected by some, but rather in humility, aligning with the suffering servant described by Isaiah."

Tertullian’s Use of Isaiah 53:2-3:
Adversus Marcionem III.18: Tertullian uses Isaiah 53:2-3 to counter Marcion’s view of Christ’s appearance and nature. He argues that Marcion’s Christ, who supposedly did not take on real flesh, is inconsistent with the prophecy in Isaiah, which describes the Messiah’s lowly appearance and suffering. Tertullian highlights the physicality of Christ’s human form and His suffering as necessary components of salvation, echoing Irenaeus’s arguments against the denial of Christ’s humanity.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Christ’s lowliness, His lack of form or beauty, and His suffering were foretold by Isaiah. Marcion’s denial of Christ’s true humanity and suffering contradicts this clear prophecy, which shows that the Redeemer was to be a man, rejected and despised, suffering in the flesh."

Adversus Praxean 27: In his work against Praxeas, Tertullian refers to Isaiah 53:2-3 to defend the reality of Christ’s incarnation. He emphasizes that the rejection and suffering described by Isaiah could only make sense if Christ had truly taken on human flesh. Tertullian argues that the prophecy of the suffering servant, with no form or beauty to attract followers, supports the idea that Christ’s mission involved real suffering in a humble, human form.

Tertullian’s interpretation: "Isaiah’s description of the suffering servant, rejected and despised, clearly shows that the Christ who came was not a spiritual illusion but a real man, whose suffering in the flesh was essential to His role as Redeemer."

How Irenaeus is the Only Source Explaining Tertullian’s Use of Isaiah 53:2-3:
Shared Emphasis on Christ’s True Humanity: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian use Isaiah 53:2-3 to argue for the reality of Christ’s human nature. Irenaeus’s consistent focus on refuting Gnostic and Docetic beliefs about Christ’s body and suffering forms the basis for Tertullian’s similar arguments against Marcion and other heretical views. Irenaeus was the first to systematically use Isaiah 53 to show that Christ’s humble appearance and suffering were foretold, and Tertullian’s arguments closely follow this pattern. Irenaeus’s theological framework provides the source for Tertullian’s use of the same passage.

Countering Marcion and Gnostic Views: Irenaeus, in Adversus Haereses, repeatedly uses Isaiah 53:2-3 to argue against Gnostic dualism and Marcion’s rejection of the material world. He insists that the prophecy proves Christ took on real flesh and experienced real suffering. Tertullian echoes this argument in Adversus Marcionem, using Isaiah’s prophecy to counter Marcion’s claim that Christ did not have a real human body. Tertullian’s reliance on Irenaeus’s earlier arguments is clear, as he follows the same line of reasoning, using the same scriptural reference to make the same theological point.

Humility as a Central Theme: Both Irenaeus and Tertullian emphasize Christ’s humility and rejection, as described in Isaiah 53:2-3. Irenaeus develops a detailed argument that Christ’s lowly appearance was essential for His mission and fulfillment of prophecy, and Tertullian’s use of this theme mirrors Irenaeus’s treatment. Tertullian does not develop new theological ideas but instead reinforces Irenaeus’s conclusions, suggesting that his use of Isaiah 53:2-3 is derived from Irenaeus’s earlier work.

Christ’s Suffering as Necessary for Salvation: Irenaeus and Tertullian both highlight Christ’s suffering as central to His role as Savior. Irenaeus insists that the prophecy in Isaiah proves that the Messiah was meant to suffer in the flesh, a point that Tertullian reiterates in his works. Tertullian’s dependence on Irenaeus is evident in his use of Isaiah 53:2-3 to argue against Marcion’s denial of Christ’s real suffering. Irenaeus’s theological interpretation of Isaiah’s suffering servant forms the foundation for Tertullian’s arguments.

[Secret Alias]

No Other Early Christian Sources Develop This Argument So Fully: While other early Christian writers may reference Isaiah 53:2-3, Irenaeus is the first to develop a systematic theological use of the passage to argue against Gnosticism and Marcionism. Tertullian’s arguments against Marcion follow Irenaeus’s treatment of the prophecy in almost identical terms, with the same focus on Christ’s humanity, suffering, and rejection. There is no other source in early Christian literature that so thoroughly explains Tertullian’s use of Isaiah 53:2-3, making Irenaeus the most likely and direct influence.

Conclusion:

Tertullian’s use of Isaiah 53:2-3 in Adversus Marcionem and Adversus Praxean follows closely the theological framework established by Irenaeus in Adversus Haereses. Both theologians use this passage to argue against Marcionism and Gnosticism, emphasizing Christ’s true humanity, His rejection by mankind, and His real suffering. The shared arguments, themes, and scriptural references strongly suggest that Irenaeus was the source for Tertullian’s interpretation of Isaiah 53:2-3, as no other early Christian writer develops these ideas as fully or in such a systematic way.

These scriptures form the foundation of the arguments both Tertullian and Irenaeus present in their refutations of Marcionism, especially around the themes of the unity of God and the prophetic fulfillment of Christ’s mission.

Goodnight.

[GakuseiDon]

1. Tertullian had a copy of Marcion's canon in front of him when writing his refutation
2. Tertullian had read Marcion's canon but was working from memory
3. Tertullian hadn't read Marcion's canon but was working from previous works by Irenaeus and others

Does it really matter which one of those options are correct?

One notable difference between (1) and the other two options is that (1) make more plausible that Tertullian is preserving information about the order of things in Marcion's gospel, while under (2) and (3) it would be unreasonable to assume that Tertullian isn't just giving items in Luke's order (given that there is at most one significant deviation from Luke's order), since under (2) and (3) Tertullian would be able to reference Luke for information on order but not Marcion's gospel.

Yes, fair point.

What you seem to be giving insufficient credit to is how extremely conservative (by your own standards of open mindedness on these options) prior scholarship has been in terms of giving high credence to Tertullian's Against Marcion book 4 and all its details, including its order, based on the assumption that it is a first hand report being produced in close tandem with a reading of Marcion's gospel set out before him.

With these kinds of considerations, it could be the difference of moving from a default position of Tertullian's accuracy (which is what most scholarship takes for granted) to giving no credence to Tertullian regarding order and accepting Tertullian's statements only when there is more explicit or implicit indication that Marcionites used a reading (which is an approach that I tried to follow).

I see. You're right, I wasn't aware of the prior scholarship reliance on Tertullian with regard to the order of Marcion's Gospel. I appreciate the explanation, Peter.