Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Flesh of Christ

Tertullian

Chapter 1

About this work

Author: Tertullian

V. On the Flesh of Christ.

This was written by our author in confutation of certain heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s flesh, or at least its identity with human flesh—fearing that, if they admitted the reality of Christ’s flesh, they must also admit his resurrection in the flesh; and, consequently, the resurrection of the human body after death.

[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]

Chapter I.—The General Purport of This Work. The Heretics, Marcion, Apelles, and Valentinus, Wishing to Impugn the Doctrine of the Resurrection, Deprive Christ of All Capacity for Such a Change by Denying His Flesh.

They who are so anxious to shake

Chapter 2 ›

that

belief

in

the

resurrection

which

was

firmly

settled

before

the

appearance

of

our

modern

Sadducees

,

as

even

to

deny

that

the

expectation

thereof

has

any

relation

whatever

to

the

flesh

,

have

great

cause

for

besetting

the

flesh

of

Christ

also

with

doubtful

questions

,

as

if

it

either

had

no

existence

at

all

,

or

possessed

a

nature

altogether

different

from

human

flesh

.

For

they

cannot

but

be

apprehensive

that

,

if

it

be

once

determined

that

Christ’s

flesh

was

human

,

a

presumption

would

immediately

arise

in

opposition

to

them

,

that

flesh

must

by

all

means

rise

again

,

which

has

already

risen

in

Christ

.

Therefore

we

shall

have

to

guard

our

belief

in

the

resurrection

from

the

same

armoury

,

whence

they

get

their

weapons

of

destruction

.

Let

us

examine

our

Lord’s

bodily

substance

,

for

about

His

spiritual

nature

all

are

agreed

.

It

is

His

flesh

that

is

in

question

.

Its

verity

and

quality

are

the

points

in

dispute

.

Did

it

ever

exist

?

whence

was

it

derived

?

and

of

what

kind

was

it

?

If

we

succeed

in

demonstrating

it

,

we

shall

lay

down

a

law

for

our

own

resurrection

.

Marcion

,

in

order

that

he

might

deny

the

flesh

of

Christ

,

denied

also

His

nativity

,

or

else

he

denied

His

flesh

in

order

that

he

might

deny

His

nativity

;

because

,

of

course

,

he

was

afraid

that

His

nativity

and

His

flesh

bore

mutual

testimony

to

each

other’s

reality

,

since

there

is

no

nativity

without

flesh

,

and

no

flesh

without

nativity

.

As

if

indeed

,

under

the

prompting

of

that

licence

which

is

ever

the

same

in

all

heresy

,

he

too

might

not

very

well

have

either

denied

the

nativity

,

although

admitting

the

flesh

,

—

like

Apelles

,

who

was

first

a

disciple

of

his

,

and

afterwards

an

apostate

,

—

or

,

while

admitting

both

the

flesh

and

the

nativity

,

have

interpreted

them

in

a

different

sense

,

as

did

Valentinus

,

who

resembled

Apelles

both

in

his

discipleship

and

desertion

of

Marcion

.

At

all

events

,

he

who

represented

the

flesh

of

Christ

to

be

imaginary

was

equally

able

to

pass

off

His

nativity

as

a

phantom

;

so

that

the

virgin’s

conception

,

and

pregnancy

,

and

child

-

bearing

,

and

then

the

whole

course

of

her

infant

too

,

would

have

to

be

regarded

as

putative

.

These

facts

pertaining

to

the

nativity

of

Christ

would

escape

the

notice

of

the

same

eyes

and

the

same

senses

as

failed

to

grasp

the

full

idea

of

His

flesh

.

Notes

2
Moratam.
3
The allusion is to Matt. xxii. 23; comp. De Præscr. Hæret. 33 (Fr. Junius).
4
Tertullian’s phrase is “carnis vota”—the future prospects of the flesh.
5
Certum est.
6
Ordo.
7
Τῷ δοκεῖν haberentur. This term gave name to the Docetic errors.
8
Opinio.