'As regards Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV, 34,' it seems 'very probable that Marcion, when dealing with Lk. 16:18, also considered and rejected Matt. 19:3- 8.' Here Harnack calls on the support of Zahn, op. cit. I, p. 670. [Formation of the Christian Canon p. 159]
David Inglis, "Tertullian either refers to or quotes from all these verses. He agrees with Epiphanius regarding the beginning of v. 18:18, reading “a certain man” (or just “one”) instead of “a certain ruler,” although neither recognizes this as a difference, indicating that this was what they saw in Lk. This matches the parallels in Mt and Mk, as noted in the NET: Only Luke states this man is a ruler (cf. the parallels in Matt 19:16-22 and Mark 10:17-22, where the questioner is described only as “someone”). In v. 18:20b Tertullian gives the order of commandments as: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother." This is not the order found in either v. 18:20 or the parallel in Mk 10:19, but that found only in Mt 19:18. It seems very unlikely that Marcion would change the order found in Lk to that found in Mt, but a plausible explanation is that Mcg pre-dates Mt, and aMt used the order he saw in Mcg. A second point from the same verse suggesting that Mcg pre-dates Mt is raised by Klinghardt, who comments on v. 18:20 when discussing the fact that Mt 19:19b: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself is unique to Mt: … Like Luke 18:20, Mcn contained only the selection of Decalogue commandments but not the additional love commandment as Matt. 19:19 has it. As in previous examples, Klinghardt is using this as evidence that Lk did not have this text because Mcg (which does not have it either) predates Mt.
Marcion refers to additional passages: Mt. 19:12ff.—cited by Origen, Comm. on Matt. XV.1 on 19:12; Mt. 1:23 etc.—discussed by Tertullian, Adv. Marc.III.12f.; Mt. 19:3-8 discussed by Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV.34.1f.] and Blackman (Marcion, 48f.; he refers to further passages: Mt. 5:17 revised: Οὐκ ἤλθον πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἀλλὰ καταλῦσαι (Adamantius, Dialogue 2:15); Mt. 20:20ff. (or Mk. 10:35ff.) alluded to (Origen reports that theMarcionites believed that Paul sat on the right hand of God and Marcionon the left Comm. on Luke 25); Mt. 23:8 (according to Ephraem, Song 24)]. [Peter Head The Foreign God p. 317]The passage in Matthew:
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.Heschel notes that this passage can be demonstrated to be associated with the 'two powers' and 'heavenly Torah' controversies in the second century as attested by early rabbinic literature. Here is the passage in Tertullian Against Marcion 4:34 cited by Head:
Christ forbids divorce: his words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth one that is sent away by her husband, is no less an adulterer. So as to forbid divorce on this side as well, he makes unlawful the marriage of a divorced woman. Moses however permits divorce, in Deuteronomy: If any man hath taken a wife, and hath dwelt with her, and it come to pass that she find not favour with him because some unseemly thing hath been found in her, he shall write a bill of divorcement and give it into her hand and send her away from his house.a You notice the contrast between law and gospel, between Moses and Christ? To be sure I do. For you have not accepted that other gospel, of equal truth, and of the same Christ, in which while forbidding divorce he answers a particular question concerning it: Moses because of the hardness of your heart commanded to give a bill of divorcement, but from the beginning it was not so—because in fact he who made them male and female had said The two of them shall become one flesh.c What therefore God has joined together shall a man presume to put asunder? So by this answer he did two things: he set a guard upon Moses' regulation, as his own, and set in its proper context the Creator's ordinance, being the Creator's Christ. But seeing I have undertaken to confute you from those documents which you have accepted, I will meet you on this ground, as though
Christ were mine. When he forbids divorce, while yet claiming as his father him who has joined together the male and the female, must he not rather have defended than abolished Moses' regulation? But now, let us suppose that this Christ is yours, giving opposite teaching to Moses and the Creator—provided that if I prove it was not opposite, I may claim him as mine. I maintain that he has here issued his prohibition of divorce under a certain condition—if any man sends away his wife with the intention of taking another. His words are, Whosoever sendeth away his wife and marrieth another hath committed adultery, and whosoever marrieth one sent away by her husband is no less an adulterer— a woman sent away for the same reason for which her husband is not allowed to send her away, so that another may be taken: marrying a woman unlawfully sent away is like marrying one not sent away, and the man who does this is an adulterer. So the marriage not properly dissolved remains a marriage: and for her to marry while the marriage remains, is adultery. Thus if it was under these conditions that he prohibited sending away a wife, this was not a total prohibition: and this that he has not totally prohibited he has permitted under other conditions, where the reason for the prohibition is absent. Thus his teaching is not in opposition to Moses, for he in some form retains his regulation—I do not yet say he confirms it. If however you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how comes it that you yourself make separation between married people? For you neither allow the conjunction of male and female, nor do you admit to the sacrament of baptism and the eucharist persons married elsewhere, unless they have made conspiracy between themselves against the fruit of matrimony, and so against the Creator himself. In any case, what in your view does a husband do if his wife has committed adultery? Will he keep her? But, you know, your own apostle does not permit the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.d It appears then that divorce, when justified, has Christ's authority.
Tertullien refuse d'accepter contre Marcion ce qui est une évidence, ressortant de Mt 19, 3-12 : l'attitude de Jésus envers la répudiation est différente de celle que Moïse a concédée à la dureté de cœur du peuple ancien. L'opiniâtreté du docteur africain à soutenir une thèse impossible n'aboutit qu'à obscurcir le raisonnement et semble prêter à Tertullien une thèse opposée à celle qu'il professe partout ailleurs. [Henri Crouzel L'Église primitive face au divorce p. 104]