| Argumentative function (PRIMARY). | Gospel citation in Latin + identification. | Old Testament scripture in Latin + reference. |
|---|---|---|
| Distinctively Lukan-dependent argument | "Non potestis deo servire et mammonae" [Gospel: Luke]; "facite vobis amicos de mammona iniustitiae" [Gospel: Luke]; "Si in mammona iniusto fideles non extitistis, quod verum est quis vobis credet?" [Gospel: Luke]; "Et si in alieno fideles inventi non estis, meum quis dabit vobis?" [Gospel: Luke] | (—) (implicit typology) “mammona iniustitiae” as “nummus” saeculi |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) polemical inference: “duos dominos… deum et mammonam, creatorem et nummum,” excluding a “tertius deus” |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Miser homo, qui spem habet in homine" (Jer 17:5); "scrutantem renes et corda" (Jer 17:10; 20:12); (implicit typology) “lucernam… scrutantem” as divine scrutiny |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | "Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem, ex quo regnum dei annuntiatur" [Gospel: Luke]; "Transeat igitur caelum et terra… quam unus apex verborum domini" [Gospel: Luke/harmonized/uncertain]; "Verbum… dei nostri manet in aevum" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | "Dies enim domini sabaoth… et humiliabuntur" (Isa 2:12); "Verbum enim… dei nostri manet in aevum" (Isa 40:8); "vocem clamantis in deserto… Parate viam domini" (Isa 40:3 LXX / implicit typology: Isaianic “vox clamantis”) |
The chapter is anchored in distinctively Lukan diction and sequence—“mammonas,” “mammona iniustitiae,” the paired aphorisms on fidelity in “iniustum” and “alienum,” and the temporal hinge “Lex et prophetae usque ad Ioannem.” Yet Tertullian’s governing logic is not a close reading of Lukan wording as such but a transferable exegetical move that treats the logion as a metaphysical inventory: if only two “domini” are named (“deus” and “mammonas”), then the conceptual space for a third divine lord is foreclosed. The polemical edge (“si ipse alium se ageret… tres demonstrasset”) reads like secondary “Luke-text” encoding layered onto an older logia-exegetical habit of counting and delimiting the agents presumed by a saying.
The mammon section also presupposes a harmonized moral tradition rather than a strictly textual one. The identification of mammon with “nummus” as “iniustitiae auctor et dominator totius saeculi” is not derived from any single gospel phrase but from a broader catechetical commonplace that aligns “saecularia” with a quasi-personal domination. The parable of the steward appears only in an allusive shorthand (“secundum servi illius exemplum… dominicos debitores… deminutis cautionibus”), sufficient to locate the unit in the Lukan narrative but not dependent on distinctive narrative wording. The “alienum/meum” contrast likewise becomes a doctrinal lever: what is “iniustum” must be “alienum a servis dei,” and that alienness is then used to prevent the logion from being redirected against the creator.
Prophetic fulfillment and prophetic characterization operate as the interpretive engine in the second half. The critique of pharisaic self-justification is keyed by Jeremiah’s “Miser homo, qui spem habet in homine,” and divine omniscience is supported by the prophetic motif of the God who “scrutatur renes et corda,” while the humiliation of the “elatum” is read through Isaiah’s “Dies domini sabaoth… in omnem… elatum, et humiliabuntur.” These scriptural lines function not as decorative prooftexts but as the prior semantic field in which the gospel rebukes are intelligible, thereby making the gospel unit appear as the continuation of an already-scripted divine pedagogy.
The Ioannes hinge is treated less as an argument for Luke as a fixed textual authority and more as a dispositio claim about salvation-history: a “limes” where “veter[a]” yield to “nov[a]” without requiring a new divine “virtus.” Isaiah’s enduring “Verbum… manet in aevum” and the Isaianic “vox clamantis… Parate viam domini” are recruited to guarantee that the transition “usque ad Ioannem” is itself prophetically pre-authored “per adimpletionem non per destructionem.” Even the maxim about heaven and earth passing before a “unus apex verborum” is pressed into this prophetic logic of permanence: the stability of the divine word validates the Ioannes-boundary as fulfillment rather than rupture.
Detached from Luke as a fixed text, the argument largely survives because its operative mechanisms are (a) logia-based delimitation (“duo domini”) and (b) prophetic characterization of God’s scrutiny, anti-superbia judgment, and the pre-announced transition to “regnum dei.” Luke supplies the narrative staging and the convenient formulation of the hinge at John; the underlying exegetical structure is a harmony/logia-compatible claim that the gospel sayings simply unfold what Jeremiah and Isaiah already rendered axiomatic about the one God’s economy.
