Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 2 · Chapter 24

About this work

A sustained refutation of Marcion’s theology and edited Scriptures, defending the unity of the Creator and Christ’s Father and reading the Gospel and Pauline letters against Marcionite claims.

Author: Tertullian
Date: Early 3rd century
Origin: Carthage, North Africa
Genre: Heresiology

Chapter XXIV.—Instances of God’s Repentance, and Notably in the Case of the Ninevites, Accounted for and Vindicated.

Furthermore, with respect to the repentance which

‹ Book 2 · Chapter 23 Book 2 · Chapter 25 ›

occurs

in

His

conduct

,

you

interpret

it

with

similar

perverseness

just

as

if

it

were

with

fickleness

and

improvidence

that

He

repented

,

or

on

the

recollection

of

some

wrong

-

doing

;

because

He

actually

said

,

“

It

repenteth

me

that

I

have

set

up

Saul

to

be

king

,

”

very

much

as

if

He

meant

that

His

repentance

savoured

of

an

acknowledgment

of

some

evil

work

or

error

.

Well

,

this

is

not

always

implied

.

For

there

occurs

even

in

good

works

a

confession

of

repentance

,

as

a

reproach

and

condemnation

of

the

man

who

has

proved

himself

unthankful

for

a

benefit

.

For

instance

,

in

this

case

of

Saul

,

the

Creator

,

who

had

made

no

mistake

in

selecting

him

for

the

kingdom

,

and

endowing

him

with

His

Holy

Spirit

,

makes

a

statement

respecting

the

goodliness

of

his

person

,

how

that

He

had

most

fitly

chosen

him

as

being

at

that

moment

the

choicest

man

,

so

that

(

as

He

says

)

there

was

not

his

fellow

among

the

children

of

Israel

.

Neither

was

He

ignorant

how

he

would

afterwards

turn

out

.

For

no

one

would

bear

you

out

in

imputing

lack

of

foresight

to

that

God

whom

,

since

you

do

not

deny

Him

to

be

divine

,

you

allow

to

be

also

foreseeing

;

for

this

proper

attribute

of

divinity

exists

in

Him

.

However

,

He

did

,

as

I

have

said

,

burden

the

guilt

of

Saul

with

the

confession

of

His

own

repentance

;

but

as

there

is

an

absence

of

all

error

and

wrong

in

His

choice

of

Saul

,

it

follows

that

this

repentance

is

to

be

understood

as

upbraiding

another

rather

than

as

self

-

incriminating

.

Look

here

then

,

say

you

:

I

discover

a

self

-

incriminating

case

in

the

matter

of

the

Ninevites

,

when

the

book

of

Jonah

declares

,

“

And

God

repented

of

the

evil

that

He

had

said

that

He

would

do

unto

them

;

and

He

did

it

not

.

”

In

accordance

with

which

Jonah

himself

says

unto

the

Lord

,

“

Therefore

I

fled

before

unto

Tarshish

;

for

I

knew

that

Thou

art

a

gracious

God

and

merciful

,

slow

to

anger

,

and

of

great

kindness

,

and

repentest

Thee

of

the

evil

.

”

It

is

well

,

therefore

,

that

he

premised

the

attribute

of

the

most

good

God

as

most

patient

over

the

wicked

,

and

most

abundant

in

mercy

and

kindness

over

such

as

acknowledged

and

bewailed

their

sins

,

as

the

Ninevites

were

then

doing

.

For

if

He

who

has

this

attribute

is

the

Most

Good

,

you

will

have

first

to

relinquish

that

position

of

yours

,

that

the

very

contact

with

evil

is

incompatible

with

such

a

Being

,

that

is

,

with

the

most

good

God

.

And

because

Marcion

,

too

,

maintains

that

a

good

tree

ought

not

to

produce

bad

fruit

;

but

yet

he

has

mentioned

“

evil

”

(

in

the

passage

under

discussion

)

,

which

the

most

good

God

is

incapable

of

,

is

there

forthcoming

any

explanation

of

these

“

evils

,

”

which

may

render

them

compatible

with

even

the

most

Good

?

There

is

.

We

say

,

in

short

,

that

evil

in

the

present

case

means

,

not

what

may

be

attributed

to

the

Creator’s

nature

as

an

evil

being

,

but

what

may

be

attributed

to

His

power

as

a

judge

.

In

accordance

with

which

He

declared

,

“

I

create

evil

,

”

and

,

“

I

frame

evil

against

you

;

”

meaning

not

to

sinful

evils

,

but

avenging

ones

.

What

sort

of

stigma

pertains

to

these

,

congruous

as

they

are

with

God’s

judicial

character

,

we

have

sufficiently

explained

.

Now

although

these

are

called

“

evils

,

”

they

are

yet

not

reprehensible

in

a

judge

;

nor

because

of

this

their

name

do

they

show

that

the

judge

is

evil

:

so

in

like

manner

will

this

particular

evil

be

understood

to

be

one

of

this

class

of

judiciary

evils

,

and

along

with

them

to

be

compatible

with

(

God

as

)

a

judge

.

The

Greeks

also

sometimes

use

the

word

“

evils

”

for

troubles

and

injuries

(

not

malignant

ones

)

,

as

in

this

passage

of

yours

is

also

meant

.

Therefore

,

if

the

Creator

repented

of

such

evil

as

this

,

as

showing

that

the

creature

deserve

decondemnation

,

and

ought

to

be

punished

for

his

sin

,

then

,

in

the

present

instance

no

fault

of

a

criminating

nature

will

be

imputed

to

the

Creator

,

for

having

deservedly

and

worthily

decreed

the

destruction

of

a

city

so

full

of

iniquity

.

What

therefore

He

had

justly

decreed

,

having

no

evil

purpose

in

His

decree

,

He

decreed

from

the

principle

of

justice

,

not

from

malevolence

.

Yet

He

gave

it

the

name

of

“

evil

,

”

because

of

the

evil

and

desert

involved

in

the

very

suffering

itself

.

Then

,

you

will

say

,

if

you

excuse

the

evil

under

name

of

justice

,

on

the

ground

that

He

had

justly

determined

destruction

against

the

people

of

Nineveh

,

He

must

even

on

this

argument

be

blameworthy

,

for

having

repented

of

an

act

of

justice

,

which

surely

should

not

be

repented

of

.

Certainly

not

,

my

reply

is

;

God

will

never

repent

of

an

act

of

justice

.

And

it

now

remains

that

we

should

understand

what

God’s

repentance

means

.

For

although

man

repents

most

frequently

on

the

recollection

of

a

sin

,

and

occasionally

even

from

the

unpleasantness

of

some

good

action

,

this

is

never

the

case

with

God

.

For

,

inasmuch

as

God

neither

commits

sin

nor

condemns

a

good

action

,

in

so

far

is

there

no

room

in

Him

for

repentance

of

either

a

good

or

an

evil

deed

.

Now

this

point

is

determined

for

you

even

in

the

scripture

which

we

have

quoted

.

Samuel

says

to

Saul

,

“

The

Lord

hath

rent

the

kingdom

of

Israel

from

thee

this

day

,

and

hath

given

it

to

a

neighbour

of

thine

that

is

better

than

thou

;

”

and

into

two

parts

shall

Israel

be

divided

:

“

for

He

will

not

turn

Himself

,

nor

repent

;

for

He

does

not

repent

as

a

man

does

.

”

According

,

therefore

,

to

this

definition

,

the

divine

repentance

takes

in

all

cases

a

different

form

from

that

of

man

,

in

that

it

is

never

regarded

as

the

result

of

improvidence

or

of

fickleness

,

or

of

any

condemnation

of

a

good

or

an

evil

work

.

What

,

then

,

will

be

the

mode

of

God’s

repentance

?

It

is

already

quite

clear

,

if

you

avoid

referring

it

to

human

conditions

.

For

it

will

have

no

other

meaning

than

a

simple

change

of

a

prior

purpose

;

and

this

is

admissible

without

any

blame

even

in

a

man

,

much

more

in

God

,

whose

every

purpose

is

faultless

.

Now

in

Greek

the

word

for

repentance

(

μετάνοια

)

is

formed

,

not

from

the

confession

of

a

sin

,

but

from

a

change

of

mind

,

which

in

God

we

have

shown

to

be

regulated

by

the

occurrence

of

varying

circumstances

.

Notes

1
Apud illum.
2
1 Sam. xv. 11.
3
Porro.
4
1 Sam. ix. 2.
5
Onerabat.
6
Invidiosam.
7
Criminosam.
8
Jonah iii. 10.
9
Jonah iv. 2.
10
Titulum.
11
Malitiæ concursum.
12
Non capit.
13
Nunc.
14
Isa. xlv. 7.
15
Jer. xviii. 11.
16
Infamiam.
17
See above, chap. xiv. [p. 308, supra.]
18
Malitia, i.e., “the evil” mentioned in the cited Jonah iii. 10.
19
Thus, according to St. Jerome, in Matt. vi. 34, κακία means κάκωσις . “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof”—the occurent adversities.
20
In isto articulo.
21
Atqui hic.
22
Or, “in his capacity as Judge,” ex justitia.
23
Immo.
24
Ingratia.
25
1 Sam. xv. 28.
26
Ver. 29, but inexactly quoted.
27
Relucet.
28
Nedum.