Marcion’s Antitheses, and the Problem of Evil

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

The Antitheses of Marcion

  1. The Creator was known to Adam and to the following generations, but the Father of Christ is unknown, as Christ himself said of him in these words: ”No one has seen the father except the Son” [Luke 10: 22]

  2. The Creator did not even know where Adam was., so he cried, “ Where are you?” The Christ knew even the thoughts of men [cf. Luke 5:22; 6:8; 9:47].

  3. Joshua conquered the land with violence and terror; but Christ forbade all violence and preached mercy and peace.

  4. The God of Creation did not restore the sight of the blinded Isaac, but our Lord because he is good, opened the eyes of many blind men [Luke 7:21]

  5. Moses intervened unbidden in the in the brothers’ quarrel, chiding the offender, “Why do you strike your neighbor?” But he was rejected by him with the words, “Who made you master or judge over us?” Christ, on the contrary, when someone asked him to settle a question of inheritance between him and his brother, refused to settle a question of inheritance between him and his brother, refused his assistance even in so honest a cause —-because he is the Christ of the Good, not of the Just God—and said, “Who made me a judge over you?”

[Luke 12:13 f.]

  1. At the time of the Exodus from Egypt, the God of Creation commanded Moses, “Be ready, your loins girded, your feet shod, staffs in your hands, knapsacks on your shoulders, and carry off gold and silver and everything that belongs to the Egyptians” [cf. Exodus 3:22; 11:2; 12:35]. But our Lord, the good, said to his disciples as he sent them into the world: Have no sandals on your feet, nor knapsack, nor tunics, nor coppers in your belts” [cf. Luke 9:3].

  2. The prophet of the God of Creation, when the people was(sic) engaged in battle, climbed to the mountain peak and extended his hands to God, imploring that he kill as many as possible in the battle [cf. Exod. 17:8 ff.] But our Lord, the good, extended his hands [on the cross] not to kill men, but to save them.

  3. In the Law it is said, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” [Exod. 21:24; Deut. 19:21] But the Lord, being good, says in the Gospel: “If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other as well.” [cf. Luke 6:29].

  4. In the Law it is said, “A coat for a coat.” [Where?] But the good Lord says, “If anyone takes your coat, give him your tunic as well.” [Luke 6:29]

  5. The prophet of the God of Creation, in order to kill as many as possible in battle, kept the sun from going down until he finished annihilating those who made war on the people [Josh. 10:12 ff.] But the Lord, being good, says: “Let not the sun go down on your anger” [Eph. 4:26].

  6. David, when he besieged Zion, was opposed by the blind who sought to prevent his entry, and he had them killed. But Christ came freely to help the blind.

  7. The Creator, at the request of Elijah, sent the plague of fire [2 Kings 1:9-12]; Christ however forbids the disciples to beseech fire from heaven [Luke 9:51 ff.] .

  8. The prophet of the God of Creation commanded bears to come from the thicket and devour the children who had opposed him [2 Kings 2:14]; the good Lord, however, says, “Let the children come to me and do not forbid them, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven” [Luke 18:16].

  9. Elisha, prophet of the Creator, healed only one of many Israelite lepers, and that a Syrian, Naaman. But Christ, though himself “the alien” healed an Israelite, whose own Lord did not want him healed. Elisha used material for the healing, namely water, and seven times; but Christ healed through a single, bare word. Elisha healed only one leper; Christ healed ten, and this contrary to the Law…

  10. The prophet of the Creator says: “My bow is strung and my arrows are sharp against them” [Isa. 5:28], the Apostle says: “Put on the armor of God, that you may quench the fiery arrows of the Evil One” [Eph. 6:11,16].

  11. The Creator says, “Hear and hear, but do not understand” [Isa. 6:9]; Christ on the contrary says, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” [Luke 8:8, etc.]

  12. The Creator says, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on the tree” [Deut. 21:23], but Christ suffered the death of the cross [cf. Gal. 3:13 f.].

  13. The Jewish Christ was designated by the Creator solely to restore the Jewish people from the Diaspora; but our Christ was commissioned by the good God to liberate all mankind.

  14. The Good is good toward all men; the Creator, however, promises salvation only to those who are obedient to him. The Good redeems those who believe in him, but he does not judge those who are disobedient to him; the Creator, however, redeems his faithful and judges and punishes the sinners.

  15. Cursing characterizes the Law; blessing, the faith.

  16. The Creator commands to give to one’s brothers; Christ, however, to all who ask [Luke 6:30].

  17. In the Law the Creator said, “I make rich and poor [cf. Prov. 22.2] Jesus calls the poor blessed [Luke 6:20].

  18. In the Law of the Just [God] fortune is given To the rich and misfortune to the poor; but Christ calls [only] the poor blessed.

  19. In the Law God says, “Love him who loves you and hate your enemy [cf.Lv. 19:18 and Matt. 5:43]; our Lord, the good, says: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” [cf. Luke 6:1 ff] .

  20. The Creator established the Sabbath; Christ abolishes it [cf. Luke 6:1 ff.].

  21. The Creator rejects the tax collectors as non-Jews and profane men; Christ accepts tax collectors Luke 5:27 FF.]

  22. The Law forbids touching a woman with a flow of blood ; Christ not only touches her, but heals her [Luke 8:45].

  23. Moses permits divorce [Deut. 24:1], Christ forbids it Luke 16:18; I Cor. 7:10].

  24. The Christ [of the Old Testament] promises to the Jews the restoration of their former condition by return of their land and, after death, a refuge in Abraham’s bosom in the underworld. Our Christ will establish the Kingdom of God, an eternal and heavenly possession.

  25. Both the place of punishment and that of refuge of the Creator are placed in the underworld for those who obey the Law and the prophets. But Christ and the God who belongs to him have a heavenly place of rest and a haven, of which the Creator never spoke.

Marcion of Pontus, who lived from about 85 to 160 CE was the earliest known author to extensively contrast the stories and theologies of the Jewish Bible from what became known as the New Testament. Marcion was convinced that salvation by Grace alone was the purest essence of the Christian gospel. He believed that the God of grace manifested in Jesus Christ was distinct from the God of the Old Testament. The creation and the law were products of the God of justice, but humanities hope lay in the God of pure love, unknown before Christ and totally unrelated to this world. Catholic Christianity insistence on the identity of the two Gods was in Marcion’s eyes a mixture of opposites, the result of a Judaism conspiracy in which all apostles, except Paul had engaged. Marcion was the first to produce a New Testament, which consisted of one gospel and ten of Paul’s letters. To it, he added his single original writing, the Antitheses, a portion of which is reproduced above. Marcion was expelled from the church in Rome, but his success was so great that his churches were serious contenders for dominance over the catholics in many parts of the empire for two centuries. since no connected work by Marcion survived the suppression by the catholic church, the above reproduction of the antithesis had to be reconstructed based on quotations of the work by his catholic opponents.

Marcion’s Christianity was significantly motivated by concerns about the problem of evil. Specifically, Marcion’s theological system provided a solution to the perceived contradiction between the goodness of God and the existence of evil in the world. He achieved this by introducing a dualistic theology that distinguished between two deities:

  1. A lesser, malevolent creator god (Demiurge): This deity was responsible for the creation of the material world, which Marcion considered intrinsically evil and corrupt. This Demiurge was also associated with the vengeful and legalistic God of the Old Testament.
  2. A higher, good god of love and mercy: This deity, revealed by Jesus in the New Testament, was completely separate from the creator god and had no involvement in the creation of the material world.

This dualistic view allowed Marcion to reconcile the apparent contradictions between the suffering and perceived injustices in the world with the concept of a loving and merciful God by attributing these negatives to the actions of the lesser, evil creator god. This explanation for the problem of evil was appealing to many who were struggling with these questions, contributing to the rapid spread of Marcionism across the Roman Empire.

In essence, Marcion’s approach offered a clear and straightforward explanation for evil that absolved the higher, benevolent god of any responsibility for the suffering in the world.

Both Marcion’s conception of God and those of Plato and Aristotle share some similarities, particularly through the concept of the Demiurge or a similar concept. It is crucial to remember that while the term “Demiurge” appears in all three contexts, its characteristics and relationship to the supreme God differ significantly across these philosophical and religious systems.

Here are some ways in which their conceptions of God exhibit resemblances:

  1. Distinction between a superior, transcendent God and a creator deity
  • Marcion: Marcion famously proposed the existence of two distinct Gods:
    • The “Good God”: The transcendent, benevolent God revealed through Jesus Christ, who is loving, merciful, and forgiving.
    • The Demiurge (God of the Old Testament): An inferior, wrathful, and just God who created the material world, gave the Mosaic Law to the Jews, and is seen as fundamentally opposed to the “Good God”.
  • Plato: In his dialogue Timaeus, Plato introduces the Demiurge, a divine craftsman who shapes and orders the pre-existing chaotic matter into the cosmos. While the Demiurge is responsible for the physical world, Plato’s concept of “the Good” often represents the ultimate source of existence and intelligibility, standing above the Demiurge and the material world.
  • Aristotle: Aristotle’s philosophy culminates in the concept of a Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover, a pure form of existence that is the ultimate cause of all motion and change in the universe. While this Unmoved Mover sets the universe in motion, it does so through an attraction that all things seek, rather than direct creation or intervention, suggesting a distinction between this ultimate principle and any direct “creator” in the ordinary sense. Aristotle’s theology is set out in books VII and VIII of the Physics and Book XII of the Metaphysics.
  1. Association of a creator figure with the material world
  • Marcion: The Demiurge, the God of the Old Testament, is directly responsible for creating the material world, which Marcion considered inherently evil or flawed.
  • Plato: The Demiurge in Plato’s philosophy is the one who fashions and shapes the physical universe, using the eternal Forms as models.
  • Aristotle: While the Unmoved Mover is the ultimate cause of motion, Aristotle focuses on the material world as the realm where form and potentiality are actualized, implying a direct relationship between the material world and the process of striving toward the divine.
  1. The concept of an abstract or perfect ideal
  • Marcion: While not directly referring to the concept of “the Good” as a Platonic Form, Marcion’s “Good God” embodies ultimate perfection and benevolence, representing a spiritual ideal superior to the perceived shortcomings of the Old Testament God.
  • Plato: Plato’s Forms, especially “the Good,” represent eternal, perfect, and unchanging ideals that exist independently of the material world and serve as blueprints for the Demiurge.
  • Aristotle: Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover embodies pure actuality and perfection, serving as the ultimate goal or ideal that everything in the universe strives to emulate through motion and change.

In essence, while Marcion’s theology diverges from traditional Christianity and draws on certain aspects of Hellenistic philosophy, it echoes the ancient philosophical debate about the relationship between a supreme, perfect deity and a more hands-on creator figure. Marcion’s dualism is a radicalized version of the distinction between an ultimate transcendent principle and a shaping force in the universe, a distinction also present in different ways in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle.

While there are some notable differences, there are also significant similarities, between Marcion’s conception of Christ’s God and the Brahman of Vedanta, particularly when compared to certain schools of thought within Vedanta like Advaita Vedanta.

Similarities

  • Rejection of the “Demiurge” / Lesser God: Marcion strongly rejected the God of the Old Testament (the Demiurge), considering him a wrathful, inferior deity focused on law and judgment. In some interpretations, Advaita Vedanta also posits a creator god (Brahma) as subordinate to the singular, attributeless Brahman, who transcends the world of names and forms.
  • Emphasis on a higher, benevolent God: Marcion believed in a higher, unknown God, the God of love and mercy, revealed through Jesus Christ. While Brahman in Advaita Vedanta is attributeless (nirguna), it can be conceived as the Saguna Brahman, or Ishvara, who embodies love.
  • Transcendent and Immanent aspects: Both Marcion’s Christ’s God and the Brahman are depicted with qualities of transcendence (beyond the world) and immanence (present within the world). Brahman is described as both transcending all attributes and being the source and sustainer of all existence.
  • Importance of spiritual liberation: Both Marcionism and Vedanta emphasize liberation or salvation. For Marcionites, salvation involved escaping the influence of the Demiurge and the material world through faith in the loving God of Jesus. In Advaita Vedanta, the aim is moksha, or liberation from the cycle of rebirth and suffering by realizing the true nature of the self as identical with Brahman.

However, there are significant differences that preclude a full identification between Marcion’s Christ’s God and the Brahman of Vedanta.

Differences

  • Dualism vs. Non-dualism: Marcion’s theology was fundamentally dualistic, positing two distinct gods with opposing characteristics. Advaita Vedanta, in contrast, is characterized by non-dualism (Advaita), asserting the ultimate oneness of all reality in Brahman.
  • Rejection/Acceptance of Creation and Materiality: Marcion rejected the creation of the world by the Old Testament God and viewed the material realm as inherently evil. Advaita Vedanta sees the world (Maya) as an illusory appearance superimposed upon Brahman, but not necessarily inherently evil.
  • Role of Law and Grace: Marcion rejected the Old Testament Law and emphasized salvation solely through the grace of the higher God. While Vedanta encompasses various paths to spiritual realization, including devotion and self-inquiry, it also incorporates the concept of Karma, a law of cause and effect impacting individuals’ experiences.

In summary, there is a significant parallel between Marcion’s Christ’s God and the Brahman of Vedanta, particularly concerning their emphasis on transcendence and a higher spiritual reality. How similar are their underlying metaphysical frameworks? On a superficial level Marcion’s dualistic system contrasts sharply with the non-dualistic nature of Advaita Vedanta’s Brahman. Is enough known about Marcion’s theology to conclude that Marcion lacked a non-dual vision of ultimate reality?

It is possible that there is not enough information to definitively conclude whether Marcion had a non-dualistic vision of ultimate reality. Here’s why:

  1. Limited and Biased Sources: All surviving information about Marcion and his theology comes from his opponents, such as Tertullian and Irenaeus. They condemned his teachings as heresy and presented them negatively. Marcion’s own writings have been lost, making it difficult to reconstruct his beliefs accurately without these potentially biased accounts.
  2. Focus on Dualism: What is known about Marcion’s theology strongly suggests a dualistic worldview. He believed in two Gods: the wrathful God of the Old Testament (the Demiurge, or creator deity) and a separate, benevolent God of the New Testament revealed by Jesus. This distinction between two deities runs counter to non-dualism, which emphasizes the unity of ultimate reality.
  3. Scholarly Debates: Despite the indications of dualism, there are ongoing scholarly discussions about the nuances of Marcion’s theology and his connections to other early Christian movements like Gnosticism. Some aspects of his thinking might resonate with themes that could be interpreted as pointing towards a deeper understanding of ultimate reality, but the prevailing view emphasizes his dualistic framework.

However:

  • Even if Marcion’s theology is fundamentally dualistic, the absence of his own writings means a complete picture of his philosophical underpinnings may not exist.
  • The concept of “non-dualism” itself can be interpreted in various ways. Depending on the definition, some might argue for interpretations of Marcion that lean towards a more unified view of the divine, despite the distinction between the two Gods.

In Summary

While the existing evidence strongly points to a dualistic view in Marcion’s theology, the limitations of the sources prevent definitively ruling out the possibility that he held a more nuanced or non-dualistic vision of ultimate reality. The full scope of his own thoughts and writings are missing, relying instead on interpretations by those who opposed his teachings.

The philosophies of Marcion, Plato, Aristotle and Vedanta differ from the traditional origin story of Judeo-Christian tradition in ways that imply differing conceptions of God and the problem of evil to be explored on this thread.