Opening the library…

Search the Bible

On the Flesh of Christ

Tertullian

Chapter 7

About this work

Author: Tertullian

Chapter VII.—Explanation of the Lord’s Question About His Mother and His Brethren. Answer to the Cavils of Apelles and Marcion, Who Support Their Denial of Christ’s Nativity by It.

But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who

‹ Chapter 6 Chapter 8 ›

reject

it

as

creating

a

presumption

in

favour

of

the

reality

of

Christ’s

flesh

,

wilfully

deny

that

God

Himself

was

born

,

on

the

ground

that

He

asked

,

“

Who

is

my

mother

,

and

who

are

my

brethren

?

”

Let

,

therefore

,

Apelles

hear

what

was

our

answer

to

Marcion

in

that

little

work

,

in

which

we

challenged

his

own

(

favourite

)

gospel

to

the

proof

,

even

that

the

material

circumstances

of

that

remark

(

of

the

Lord’s

)

should

be

considered

.

First

of

all

,

nobody

would

have

told

Him

that

His

mother

and

brethren

were

standing

outside

,

if

he

were

not

certain

both

that

He

had

a

mother

and

brethren

,

and

that

they

were

the

very

persons

whom

he

was

then

announcing

,

—

who

had

either

been

known

to

him

before

,

or

were

then

and

there

discovered

by

him

;

although

heretics

have

removed

this

passage

from

the

gospel

,

because

those

who

were

admiring

His

doctrine

said

that

His

supposed

father

,

Joseph

the

carpenter

,

and

His

mother

Mary

,

and

His

brethren

,

and

His

sisters

,

were

very

well

known

to

them

.

But

it

was

with

the

view

of

tempting

Him

,

that

they

had

mentioned

to

Him

a

mother

and

brethren

which

He

did

not

possess

.

The

Scripture

says

nothing

of

this

,

although

it

is

not

in

other

instances

silent

when

anything

was

done

against

Him

by

way

of

temptation

.

“

Behold

,

”

it

says

,

“

a

certain

lawyer

stood

up

,

and

tempted

Him

.

”

And

in

another

passage

:

“

The

Pharisees

also

came

unto

Him

,

tempting

Him

.

”

Who

was

to

prevent

its

being

in

this

place

also

indicated

that

this

was

done

with

the

view

of

tempting

Him

?

I

do

not

admit

what

you

advance

of

your

own

apart

from

Scripture

.

Then

there

ought

to

be

suggested

some

occasion

for

the

temptation

.

What

could

they

have

thought

to

be

in

Him

which

required

temptation

?

The

question

,

to

be

sure

,

whether

He

had

been

born

or

not

?

For

if

this

point

were

denied

in

His

answer

,

it

might

come

out

on

the

announcement

of

a

temptation

.

And

yet

no

temptation

,

when

aiming

at

the

discovery

of

the

point

which

prompts

the

temptation

by

its

doubtfulness

,

falls

upon

one

so

abruptly

,

as

not

to

be

preceded

by

the

question

which

compels

the

temptation

whilst

raising

the

doubt

.

Now

,

since

the

nativity

of

Christ

had

never

come

into

question

,

how

can

you

contend

that

they

meant

by

their

temptation

to

inquire

about

a

point

on

which

they

had

never

raised

a

doubt

?

Besides

,

if

He

had

to

be

tempted

about

His

birth

,

this

of

course

was

not

the

proper

way

of

doing

it

,

—

by

announcing

those

persons

who

,

even

on

the

supposition

of

His

birth

,

might

possibly

not

have

been

in

existence

.

We

have

all

been

born

,

and

yet

all

of

us

have

not

either

brothers

or

mother

.

He

might

with

more

probability

have

had

even

a

father

than

a

mother

,

and

uncles

more

likely

than

brothers

.

Thus

is

the

temptation

about

His

birth

unsuitable

,

for

it

might

have

been

contrived

without

any

mention

of

either

His

mother

or

His

brethren

.

It

is

clearly

more

credible

that

,

being

certain

that

He

had

both

a

mother

and

brothers

,

they

tested

His

divinity

rather

than

His

nativity

,

whether

,

when

within

,

He

knew

what

was

without

;

being

tried

by

the

untrue

announcement

of

the

presence

of

persons

who

were

not

present

.

But

the

artifice

of

a

temptation

might

have

been

thwarted

thus

:

it

might

have

happened

that

He

knew

that

those

whom

they

were

announcing

to

be

“

standing

without

,

”

were

in

fact

absent

by

the

stress

either

of

sickness

,

or

of

business

,

or

a

journey

which

He

was

at

the

time

aware

of

.

No

one

tempts

(

another

)

in

a

way

in

which

he

knows

that

he

may

have

himself

to

bear

the

shame

of

the

temptation

.

There

being

,

then

,

no

suitable

occasion

for

a

temptation

,

the

announcement

that

His

mother

and

His

brethren

had

actually

turned

up

recovers

its

naturalness

.

But

there

is

some

ground

for

thinking

that

Christ’s

answer

denies

His

mother

and

brethren

for

the

present

,

as

even

Apelles

might

learn

.

“

The

Lord’s

brethren

had

not

yet

believed

in

Him

.

”

So

is

it

contained

in

the

Gospel

which

was

published

before

Marcion’s

time

;

whilst

there

is

at

the

same

time

a

want

of

evidence

of

His

mother’s

adherence

to

Him

,

although

the

Marthas

and

the

other

Marys

were

in

constant

attendance

on

Him

.

In

this

very

passage

indeed

,

their

unbelief

is

evident

.

Jesus

was

teaching

the

way

of

life

,

preaching

the

kingdom

of

God

and

actively

engaged

in

healing

infirmities

of

body

and

soul

;

but

all

the

while

,

whilst

strangers

were

intent

on

Him

,

His

very

nearest

relatives

were

absent

.

By

and

by

they

turn

up

,

and

keep

outside

;

but

they

do

not

go

in

,

because

,

forsooth

,

they

set

small

store

on

that

which

was

doing

within

;

nor

do

they

even

wait

,

as

if

they

had

something

which

they

could

contribute

more

necessary

than

that

which

He

was

so

earnestly

doing

;

but

they

prefer

to

interrupt

Him

,

and

wish

to

call

Him

away

from

His

great

work

.

Now

,

I

ask

you

,

Apelles

,

or

will

you

Marcion

,

please

(

to

tell

me

)

,

if

you

happened

to

be

at

a

stage

play

,

or

had

laid

a

wager

on

a

foot

race

or

a

chariot

race

,

and

were

called

away

by

such

a

message

,

would

you

not

have

exclaimed

,

“

What

are

mother

and

brothers

to

me

?

”

And

did

not

Christ

,

whilst

preaching

and

manifesting

God

,

fulfilling

the

law

and

the

prophets

,

and

scattering

the

darkness

of

the

long

preceding

age

,

justly

employ

this

same

form

of

words

,

in

order

to

strike

the

unbelief

of

those

who

stood

outside

,

or

to

shake

off

the

importunity

of

those

who

would

call

Him

away

from

His

work

?

If

,

however

,

He

had

meant

to

deny

His

own

nativity

,

He

would

have

found

place

,

time

,

and

means

for

expressing

Himself

very

differently

,

and

not

in

words

which

might

be

uttered

by

one

who

had

both

a

mother

and

brothers

.

When

denying

one’s

parents

in

indignation

,

one

does

not

deny

their

existence

,

but

censures

their

faults

.

Besides

,

He

gave

others

the

preference

;

and

since

He

shows

their

title

to

this

favour

—

even

because

they

listened

to

the

word

(

of

God

)

—

He

points

out

in

what

sense

He

denied

His

mother

and

His

brethren

.

For

in

whatever

sense

He

adopted

as

His

own

those

who

adhered

to

Him

,

in

that

did

He

deny

as

His

those

who

kept

aloof

from

Him

.

Christ

also

is

wont

to

do

to

the

utmost

that

which

He

enjoins

on

others

.

How

strange

,

then

,

would

it

certainly

have

been

,

if

,

while

he

was

teaching

others

not

to

esteem

mother

,

or

father

,

or

brothers

,

as

highly

as

the

word

of

God

,

He

were

Himself

to

leave

the

word

of

God

as

soon

as

His

mother

and

brethren

were

announced

to

Him

!

He

denied

His

parents

,

then

,

in

the

sense

in

which

He

has

taught

us

to

deny

ours

—

for

God’s

work

.

But

there

is

also

another

view

of

the

case

:

in

the

abjured

mother

there

is

a

figure

of

the

synagogue

,

as

well

as

of

the

Jews

in

the

unbelieving

brethren

.

In

their

person

Israel

remained

outside

,

whilst

the

new

disciples

who

kept

close

to

Christ

within

,

hearing

and

believing

,

represented

the

Church

,

which

He

called

mother

in

a

preferable

sense

and

a

worthier

brotherhood

,

with

the

repudiation

of

the

carnal

relationship

.

It

was

in

just

the

same

sense

,

indeed

,

that

He

also

replied

to

that

exclamation

(

of

a

certain

woman

)

,

not

denying

His

mother’s

“

womb

and

paps

,

”

but

designating

those

as

more

“

blessed

who

hear

the

word

of

God

.

”

Notes

1
Matt. xii. 48; Luke viii. 20, 21.
2
See our Anti-Marcion, iv. 19.
3
Literally, “heresies.”
4
Luke x. 25.
5
Literally, “nobody prevented its being, etc.”
6
Subesse.
7
Materia.
8
Eo adicimus etiam.
9
Supervenissent.
10
John vii. 5.
11
Non computantes scilicet.
12
Nec sustinent saltem.
13
Contendens: “videlicet sponsionibus” (Oehler)
14
Literally, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”—Christ’s own words.
15
The alius is a genitive, and must be taken with sermonis.
16
Abnegavit: “repudiated.”
17
Force of the indicative quale erat.
18
Luke xi. 27, 28. See also our Anti-Marcion, p. 292, Edin.