Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 4 · Chapter 20

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 XX.—Comparison of Christ’s Power Over Winds and Waves with Moses’ Command of the Waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan. Christ’s Power Over Unclean Spirits. The Case of the Legion. The Cure of the Issue of Blood. The Mosaic Uncleanness on This Point Explained.

But “what manner of man is this

‹ Book 4 · Chapter 19 Book 4 · Chapter 21 ›

?

for

He

commandeth

even

the

winds

and

water

!

”

Of

course

He

is

the

new

master

and

proprietor

of

the

elements

,

now

that

the

Creator

is

deposed

,

and

excluded

from

their

possession

!

Nothing

of

the

kind

.

But

the

elements

own

their

own

Maker

,

just

as

they

had

been

accustomed

to

obey

His

servants

also

.

Examine

well

the

Exodus

,

Marcion

;

look

at

the

rod

of

Moses

,

as

it

waves

His

command

to

the

Red

Sea

,

ampler

than

all

the

lakes

of

Judæa

.

How

the

sea

yawns

from

its

very

depths

,

then

fixes

itself

in

two

solidified

masses

,

and

so

,

out

of

the

interval

between

them

,

makes

a

way

for

the

people

to

pass

dry

-

shod

across

;

again

does

the

same

rod

vibrate

,

the

sea

returns

in

its

strength

,

and

in

the

concourse

of

its

waters

the

chivalry

of

Egypt

is

engulphed

!

To

that

consummation

the

very

winds

subserved

!

Read

,

too

,

how

that

the

Jordan

was

as

a

sword

,

to

hinder

the

emigrant

nation

in

their

passage

across

its

stream

;

how

that

its

waters

from

above

stood

still

,

and

its

current

below

wholly

ceased

to

run

at

the

bidding

of

Joshua

,

when

his

priests

began

to

pass

over

!

What

will

you

say

to

this

?

If

it

be

your

Christ

that

is

meant

above

,

he

will

not

be

more

potent

than

the

servants

of

the

Creator

.

But

I

should

have

been

content

with

the

examples

I

have

adduced

without

addition

,

if

a

prediction

of

His

present

passage

on

the

sea

had

not

preceded

Christ’s

coming

.

As

psalm

is

,

in

fact

,

accomplished

by

this

crossing

over

the

lake

.

“

The

Lord

,

”

says

the

psalmist

,

“

is

upon

many

waters

.

”

When

He

disperses

its

waves

,

Habakkuk’s

words

are

fulfilled

,

where

he

says

,

“

Scattering

the

waters

in

His

passage

.

”

When

at

His

rebuke

the

sea

is

calmed

,

Nahum

is

also

verified

:

He

rebuketh

the

sea

,

and

maketh

it

dry

,

”

including

the

winds

indeed

,

whereby

it

was

disquieted

.

With

what

evidence

would

you

have

my

Christ

vindicated

?

Shall

it

come

from

the

examples

,

or

from

the

prophecies

,

of

the

Creator

?

You

suppose

that

He

is

predicted

as

a

military

and

armed

warrior

,

instead

of

one

who

in

a

figurative

and

allegorical

sense

was

to

wage

a

spiritual

warfare

against

spiritual

enemies

,

in

spiritual

campaigns

,

and

with

spiritual

weapons

:

come

now

,

when

in

one

man

alone

you

discover

a

multitude

of

demons

calling

itself

Legion

,

of

course

comprised

of

spirits

,

you

should

learn

that

Christ

also

must

be

understood

to

be

an

exterminator

of

spiritual

foes

,

who

wields

spiritual

arms

and

fights

in

spiritual

strife

;

and

that

it

was

none

other

than

He

,

who

now

had

to

contend

with

even

a

legion

of

demons

.

Therefore

it

is

of

such

a

war

as

this

that

the

Psalm

may

evidently

have

spoken

:

“

The

Lord

is

strong

,

The

Lord

is

mighty

in

battle

.

”

For

with

the

last

enemy

death

did

He

fight

,

and

through

the

trophy

of

the

cross

He

triumphed

.

Now

of

what

God

did

the

Legion

testify

that

Jesus

was

the

Son

?

No

doubt

,

of

that

God

whose

torments

and

abyss

they

knew

and

dreaded

.

It

seems

impossible

for

them

to

have

remained

up

to

this

time

in

ignorance

of

what

the

power

of

the

recent

and

unknown

god

was

working

in

the

world

,

because

it

is

very

unlikely

that

the

Creator

was

ignorant

thereof

.

For

if

He

had

been

at

any

time

ignorant

that

there

was

another

god

above

Himself

,

He

had

by

this

time

at

all

events

discovered

that

there

was

one

at

work

below

His

heaven

.

Now

,

what

their

Lord

had

discovered

had

by

this

time

become

notorious

to

His

entire

family

within

the

same

world

and

the

same

circuit

of

heaven

,

in

which

the

strange

deity

dwelt

and

acted

.

As

therefore

both

the

Creator

and

His

creatures

must

have

had

knowledge

of

him

,

if

he

had

been

in

existence

,

so

,

inasmuch

as

he

had

no

existence

,

the

demons

really

knew

none

other

than

the

Christ

of

their

own

God

.

They

do

not

ask

of

the

strange

god

,

what

they

recollected

they

must

beg

of

the

Creator

—

not

to

be

plunged

into

the

Creator’s

abyss

.

They

at

last

had

their

request

granted

.

On

what

ground

?

Because

they

had

lied

?

Because

they

had

proclaimed

Him

to

be

the

Son

of

a

ruthless

God

?

And

what

sort

of

god

will

that

be

who

helped

the

lying

,

and

upheld

his

detractors

?

However

,

no

need

of

this

thought

,

for

,

inasmuch

as

they

had

not

lied

,

inasmuch

as

they

had

acknowledged

that

the

God

of

the

abyss

was

also

their

God

,

so

did

He

actually

Himself

affirm

that

He

was

the

same

whom

these

demons

acknowledged

—

Jesus

,

the

Judge

and

Son

of

the

avenging

God

.

Now

,

behold

an

inkling

of

the

Creator’s

failings

and

infirmities

in

Christ

;

for

I

on

my

side

mean

to

impute

to

Him

ignorance

.

Allow

me

some

indulgence

in

my

effort

against

the

heretic

.

Jesus

is

touched

by

the

woman

who

had

an

issue

of

blood

,

He

knew

not

by

whom

.

“

Who

touched

me

?

”

He

asks

,

when

His

disciples

alleged

an

excuse

.

He

even

persists

in

His

assertion

of

ignorance

:

“

Somebody

hath

touched

me

,

”

He

says

,

and

advances

some

proof

:

“

For

I

perceive

that

virtue

is

gone

out

of

me

.

”

What

says

our

heretic

?

Could

Christ

have

known

the

person

?

And

why

did

He

speak

as

if

He

were

ignorant

?

Why

?

Surely

it

was

to

challenge

her

faith

,

and

to

try

her

fear

.

Precisely

as

He

had

once

questioned

Adam

,

as

if

in

ignorance

:

Adam

,

where

art

thou

?

”

Thus

you

have

both

the

Creator

excused

in

the

same

way

as

Christ

,

and

Christ

acting

similarly

to

the

Creator

.

But

in

this

case

He

acted

as

an

adversary

of

the

law

;

and

therefore

,

as

the

law

forbids

contact

with

a

woman

with

an

issue

,

He

desired

not

only

that

this

woman

should

touch

Him

,

but

that

He

should

heal

her

.

Here

,

then

,

is

a

God

who

is

not

merciful

by

nature

,

but

in

hostility

!

Yet

,

if

we

find

that

such

was

the

merit

of

this

woman’s

faith

,

that

He

said

unto

her

,

Thy

faith

hath

saved

thee

,

”

what

are

you

,

that

you

should

detect

an

hostility

to

the

law

in

that

act

,

which

the

Lord

Himself

shows

us

to

have

been

done

as

a

reward

of

faith

?

But

will

you

have

it

that

this

faith

of

the

woman

consisted

in

the

contempt

which

she

had

acquired

for

the

law

?

Who

can

suppose

,

that

a

woman

who

had

been

.

hitherto

unconscious

of

any

God

,

uninitiated

as

yet

in

any

new

law

,

should

violently

infringe

that

law

by

which

she

was

up

to

this

time

bound

?

On

what

faith

,

indeed

,

was

such

an

infringement

hazarded

?

In

what

God

believing

?

Whom

despising

?

The

Creator

?

Her

touch

at

least

was

an

act

of

faith

.

And

if

of

faith

in

the

Creator

,

how

could

she

have

violated

His

law

,

when

she

was

ignorant

of

any

other

God

?

Whatever

her

infringement

of

the

law

amounted

to

,

it

proceeded

from

and

was

proportionate

to

her

faith

in

the

Creator

.

But

how

can

these

two

things

be

compatible

?

That

she

violated

the

law

,

and

violated

it

in

faith

,

which

ought

to

have

restrained

her

from

such

violation

?

I

will

tell

you

how

her

faith

was

this

above

all

:

it

made

her

believe

that

her

God

preferred

mercy

even

to

sacrifice

;

she

was

certain

that

her

God

was

working

in

Christ

;

she

touched

Him

,

therefore

,

nor

as

a

holy

man

simply

,

nor

as

a

prophet

,

whom

she

knew

to

be

capable

of

contamination

by

reason

of

his

human

nature

,

but

as

very

God

,

whom

she

assumed

to

be

beyond

all

possibility

of

pollution

by

any

uncleanness

.

She

therefore

,

not

without

reason

,

interpreted

for

herself

the

law

,

as

meaning

that

such

things

as

are

susceptible

of

defilement

become

defiled

,

but

not

so

God

,

whom

she

knew

for

certain

to

be

in

Christ

.

But

she

recollected

this

also

,

that

what

came

under

the

prohibition

of

the

law

was

that

ordinary

and

usual

issue

of

blood

which

proceeds

from

natural

functions

every

month

,

and

in

childbirth

,

not

that

which

was

the

result

of

disordered

health

.

Her

case

,

however

,

was

one

of

long

abounding

ill

health

,

for

which

she

knew

that

the

succour

of

God’s

mercy

was

needed

,

and

not

the

natural

relief

of

time

.

And

thus

she

may

evidently

be

regarded

as

having

discerned

the

law

,

instead

of

breaking

it

.

This

will

prove

to

be

the

faith

which

was

to

confer

intelligence

likewise

.

“

If

ye

will

not

believe

,

”

says

(

the

prophet

)

,

“

ye

shall

not

understand

.

”

When

Christ

approved

of

the

faith

of

this

woman

,

which

simply

rested

in

the

Creator

,

He

declared

by

His

answer

to

her

,

that

He

was

Himself

the

divine

object

of

the

faith

of

which

He

approved

.

Nor

can

I

overlook

the

fact

that

His

garment

,

by

being

touched

,

demonstrated

also

the

truth

of

His

body

;

for

of

course

”

it

was

a

body

,

and

not

a

phantom

,

which

the

garment

clothed

.

This

indeed

is

not

our

point

now

;

but

the

remark

has

a

natural

bearing

on

the

question

we

are

discussing

.

For

if

it

were

not

a

veritable

body

,

but

only

a

fantastic

one

,

it

could

not

for

certain

have

received

contamination

,

as

being

an

unsubstantial

thing

.

He

therefore

,

who

,

by

reason

of

this

vacuity

of

his

substance

,

was

incapable

of

contamination

,

how

could

he

possibly

have

desired

this

touch

?

As

an

adversary

of

the

law

,

his

conduct

was

deceitful

,

for

he

was

not

susceptible

of

a

real

pollution

.

Notes

1
Luke viii. 25.
2
Agnorant.
3
Et pari utrinque stupore discriminis fixum.
4
Josh. iii. 9–17.
5
This obscure passage is thus read by Oehler, from whom we have translated: “Lege extorri familiæ dirimendæ in transitu ejus Jordanis machæram fuisse, cujus impetum atque decursum plane et Jesus docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare.” The machæram (“sword”) is a metaphor for the river. Rigaltius refers to Virgil’s figure, Æneid, viii. 62, 64, for a justification of the simile. Oehler has altered the reading from the “ex sortefamilæ,” etc., of the mss. to “extorrifamiliæ,” etc. The former reading would mean probably: “Read out of the story of the nation how that Jordan was as a sword to hinder their passage across its stream.” The sorte (or, as yet another variation has it, “et sortes,” “the accounts”) meant the national record, as we have it in the beginning of the book of Joshua. But the passage is almost hopelessly obscure.
6
Solis.
7
Istius.
8
Ps. xxix. 3.
9
Hab. iii. 10, according to the Septuagint.
10
Nah. i. 4.
11
See above, book iii. chap. xiii.
12
Luke viii. 30.
13
Atque ita ipsum esse.
14
Ps. xxiv. 8.
15
Luke viii. 28.
16
Agentem.
17
Conversaretur.
18
Substantiæ: including these demons.
19
Sed enim: the ἀλλὰ γὰρ of the Greek.
20
Aliquid.
21
Pusillitatibus.
22
Ego.
23
Luke viii. 43–46.
24
See above, book iii. chap. xxv.
25
Adæquatum: on a par with.
26
Lev. xv. 19.
27
A Marcionite hypothesis.
28
Luke viii. 48.
29
Ecquomodo legem ejus irrupit.
30
Primo.
31
Spurcitia.
32
Non temere.
33
In lege taxari.
34
Illa autem redundavit.
35
Distinxisse.
36
Isa. vii. 9.
37
Luke viii. 48.
38
Utique.
39
Epiphanius, in Hæres. xlii. Refut. 14, has the same remark.
40
Qua res vacua.
41
In allusion to the Marcionite hypothesis mentioned above.