Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Flesh of Christ

Tertullian

Chapter 18

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter XVIII.—The Mystery of the Assumption of Our Perfect Human Nature by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He is Here Called, as Often Elsewhere, the Spirit.

Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it

‹ Chapter 17 Chapter 19 ›

was

not

fit

that

the

Son

of

God

should

be

born

of

a

human

father’s

seed

,

lest

,

if

He

were

wholly

the

Son

of

a

man

,

He

should

fail

to

be

also

the

Son

of

God

,

and

have

nothing

more

than

“

a

Solomon

”

or

“

a

Jonas

,

”

—

as

Ebion

thought

we

ought

to

believe

concerning

Him

.

In

order

,

therefore

,

that

He

who

was

already

the

Son

of

God

—

of

God

the

Father’s

seed

,

that

is

to

say

,

the

Spirit

—

might

also

be

the

Son

of

man

,

He

only

wanted

to

assume

flesh

,

of

the

flesh

of

man

without

the

seed

of

a

man

;

for

the

seed

of

a

man

was

unnecessary

for

One

who

had

the

seed

of

God

.

As

,

then

,

before

His

birth

of

the

virgin

,

He

was

able

to

have

God

for

His

Father

without

a

human

mother

,

so

likewise

,

after

He

was

born

of

the

virgin

,

He

was

able

to

have

a

woman

for

His

mother

without

a

human

father

.

He

is

thus

man

with

God

,

in

short

,

since

He

is

man’s

flesh

with

God’s

Spirit

—

flesh

(

I

say

)

without

seed

from

man

,

Spirit

with

seed

from

God

.

For

as

much

,

then

,

as

the

dispensation

of

God’s

purpose

concerning

His

Son

required

that

He

should

be

born

of

a

virgin

,

why

should

He

not

have

received

of

the

virgin

the

body

which

He

bore

from

the

virgin

?

Because

,

(

forsooth

)

it

is

something

else

which

He

took

from

God

,

for

“

the

Word

”

say

they

,

“

was

made

flesh

.

”

Now

this

very

statement

plainly

shows

what

it

was

that

was

made

flesh

;

nor

can

it

possibly

be

that

anything

else

than

the

Word

was

made

flesh

.

Now

,

whether

it

was

of

the

flesh

that

the

Word

was

made

flesh

,

or

whether

it

was

so

made

of

the

(

divine

)

seed

itself

,

the

Scripture

must

tell

us

.

As

,

however

,

the

Scripture

is

silent

about

everything

except

what

it

was

that

was

made

(

flesh

)

,

and

says

nothing

of

that

from

which

it

was

so

made

,

it

must

be

held

to

suggest

that

from

something

else

,

and

not

from

itself

,

was

the

Word

made

flesh

.

And

if

not

from

itself

,

but

from

something

else

,

from

what

can

we

more

suitably

suppose

that

the

Word

became

flesh

than

from

that

flesh

in

which

it

submitted

to

the

dispensation

?

And

(

we

have

a

proof

of

the

same

conclusion

in

the

fact

)

that

the

Lord

Himself

sententiously

and

distinctly

pronounced

,

“

that

which

is

born

of

the

flesh

is

flesh

,

”

even

because

it

is

born

of

the

flesh

.

But

if

He

here

spoke

of

a

human

being

simply

,

and

not

of

Himself

,

(

as

you

maintain

)

then

you

must

deny

absolutely

that

Christ

is

man

,

and

must

maintain

that

human

nature

was

not

suitable

to

Him

.

And

then

He

adds

,

“

That

which

is

born

of

the

Spirit

is

spirit

,

”

because

God

is

a

Spirit

,

and

He

was

born

of

God

.

Now

this

description

is

certainly

even

more

applicable

to

Him

than

it

is

to

those

who

believe

in

Him

.

But

if

this

passage

indeed

apply

to

Him

,

then

why

does

not

the

preceding

one

also

?

For

you

cannot

divide

their

relation

,

and

adapt

this

to

Him

,

and

the

to

all

other

men

,

especially

as

you

do

not

deny

that

Christ

possesses

the

two

substances

,

both

of

the

flesh

and

of

the

Spirit

.

Besides

,

as

He

was

in

possession

both

of

flesh

and

of

Spirit

,

He

cannot

possibly

,

when

speaking

of

the

condition

of

the

two

substances

which

He

Himself

bears

,

be

supposed

to

have

determined

that

the

Spirit

indeed

was

His

own

,

but

that

the

flesh

was

not

His

own

.

Forasmuch

,

therefore

,

as

He

is

of

the

Spirit

He

is

God

the

Spirit

,

and

is

born

of

God

;

just

as

He

is

also

born

of

the

flesh

of

man

,

being

generated

in

the

flesh

as

man

.

Notes

1
Matt. xii. 41, 42.
2
De Hebionis opinione.
3
Hominis.
4
Viri.
5
Vacabat.
6
As we have often observed, the term Spiritus is used by Tertullian to express the Divine Nature in Christ. Anti-Marcion, p. 375, note 13.
7
Dispositio rationis.
8
Proferendum.
9
John i. 14.
10
Nec periclitatus quasi.
11
Literally, “in which it became flesh.”
12
John iii. 6.
13
John iii. 6.
14
[A very perspicuous statement of the Incarnation is set forth in this chapter.]