Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 4 · Chapter 41

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 XLI.—The Woe Pronounced on the Traitor a Judicial Act, Which Disproves Christ to Be Such as Marcion Would Have Him to Be. Christ’s Conduct Before the Council Explained. Christ Even Then Directs the Minds of His Judges to the Prophetic Evidences of His Own Mission. The Moral Responsibility of These Men Asserted.

“Woe,” says He, “

‹ Book 4 · Chapter 40 Book 4 · Chapter 42 ›

to

that

man

by

whom

the

Son

of

man

is

betrayed

!

”

Now

it

is

certain

that

in

this

woe

must

be

understood

the

imprecation

and

threat

of

an

angry

and

incensed

Master

,

unless

Judas

was

to

escape

with

impunity

after

so

vast

a

sin

.

If

he

were

meant

to

escape

with

impunity

,

the

“

woe

”

was

an

idle

word

;

if

not

,

he

was

of

course

to

be

punished

by

Him

against

whom

he

had

committed

the

sin

of

treachery

.

Now

,

if

He

knowingly

permitted

the

man

,

whom

He

deliberately

elected

to

be

one

of

His

companions

,

to

plunge

into

so

great

a

crime

,

you

must

no

longer

use

an

argument

against

the

Creator

in

Adam’s

case

,

which

may

now

recoil

on

your

own

God

:

either

that

he

was

ignorant

,

and

had

no

foresight

to

hinder

the

future

sinner

;

or

that

he

was

unable

to

hinder

him

,

even

if

he

was

ignorant

;

or

else

that

he

was

unwilling

,

even

if

he

had

the

foreknowledge

and

the

ability

;

and

so

deserved

the

stigma

of

maliciousness

,

in

having

permitted

the

man

of

his

own

choice

to

perish

in

his

sin

.

I

advise

you

therefore

(

willingly

)

to

acknowledge

the

Creator

in

that

god

of

yours

,

rather

than

against

your

will

to

be

assimilating

your

excellent

god

to

Him

.

For

in

the

case

of

Peter

,

too

,

he

gives

you

proof

that

he

is

a

jealous

God

,

when

he

destined

the

apostle

,

after

his

presumptuous

protestations

of

zeal

,

to

a

flat

denial

of

him

,

rather

than

prevent

his

fall

.

The

Christ

of

the

prophets

was

destined

,

moreover

,

to

be

betrayed

with

a

kiss

,

for

He

was

the

Son

indeed

of

Him

who

was

“

honoured

with

the

lips

”

by

the

people

.

When

led

before

the

council

,

He

is

asked

whether

He

is

the

Christ

.

Of

what

Christ

could

the

Jews

have

inquired

but

their

own

?

Why

,

therefore

,

did

He

not

,

even

at

that

moment

,

declare

to

them

the

rival

(

Christ

)

?

You

reply

,

In

order

that

He

might

be

able

to

suffer

.

In

other

words

,

that

this

most

excellent

god

might

plunge

men

into

crime

,

whom

he

was

still

keeping

in

ignorance

.

But

even

if

he

had

told

them

,

he

would

yet

have

to

suffer

.

For

he

said

,

“

If

I

tell

you

,

ye

will

not

believe

.

”

And

refusing

to

believe

,

they

would

have

continued

to

insist

on

his

death

.

And

would

he

not

even

more

probably

still

have

had

to

suffer

,

if

had

announced

himself

as

sent

by

the

rival

god

,

and

as

being

,

therefore

,

the

enemy

of

the

Creator

?

It

was

not

,

then

,

in

order

that

He

might

suffer

,

that

He

at

that

critical

moment

refrained

from

proclaiming

Himself

the

other

Christ

,

but

because

they

wanted

to

extort

a

confession

from

His

mouth

,

which

they

did

not

mean

to

believe

even

if

He

had

given

it

to

them

,

whereas

it

was

their

bounden

duty

to

have

acknowledged

Him

in

consequence

of

His

works

,

which

were

fulfilling

their

Scriptures

.

It

was

thus

plainly

His

course

to

keep

Himself

at

that

moment

unrevealed

,

because

a

spontaneous

recognition

was

due

to

Him

.

But

yet

for

all

this

,

He

with

a

solemn

gesture

says

,

“

Hereafter

shall

the

Son

of

man

sit

on

the

right

hand

of

the

power

of

God

.

”

For

it

was

on

the

authority

of

the

prophecy

of

Daniel

that

He

intimated

to

them

that

He

was

“

the

Son

of

man

,

”

and

of

David’s

Psalm

,

that

He

would

“

sit

at

the

right

hand

of

God

.

”

Accordingly

,

after

He

had

said

this

,

and

so

suggested

a

comparison

of

the

Scripture

,

a

ray

of

light

did

seem

to

show

them

whom

He

would

have

them

understand

Him

to

be

;

for

they

say

:

“

Art

thou

then

the

Son

of

God

?

”

Of

what

God

,

but

of

Him

whom

alone

they

knew

?

Of

what

God

but

of

Him

whom

they

remembered

in

the

Psalm

as

having

said

to

His

Son

,

“

Sit

Thou

on

my

right

hand

?

”

Then

He

answered

,

“

Ye

say

that

I

am

;

”

as

if

He

meant

:

It

is

ye

who

say

this

—

not

I

.

But

at

the

same

time

He

allowed

Himself

to

be

all

that

they

had

said

,

in

this

their

second

question

.

By

what

means

,

however

,

are

you

going

to

prove

to

us

that

they

pronounced

the

sentence

“

Ergo

tu

filius

Dei

es

”

interrogatively

,

and

not

affirmatively

?

Just

as

,

(

on

the

one

hand

,

)

because

He

had

shown

them

in

an

indirect

manner

,

by

passages

of

Scripture

,

that

they

ought

to

regard

Him

as

the

Son

of

God

,

they

therefore

meant

their

own

words

,

“

Thou

art

then

the

Son

of

God

,

”

to

be

taken

in

a

like

(

indirect

)

sense

,

as

much

as

to

say

,

“

You

do

not

wish

to

say

this

of

yourself

plainly

,

”

so

,

(

on

the

other

hand

,

)

He

likewise

answered

them

,

“

Ye

say

that

I

am

,

”

in

a

sense

equally

free

from

doubt

,

even

affirmatively

;

and

so

completely

was

His

statement

to

this

effect

,

that

they

insisted

on

accepting

that

sense

which

His

statement

indicated

.

Notes

1
Luke xxii. 22.
2
Ipse.
3
This is an argumentum ad hominem against Marcion for his cavil, which was considered above in book ii. chap. v.–viii. p. 300.
4
Obstitit peccaturo.
5
Si ignorabat. One would have expected “si non ignorabat,” like the “si sciebat” of the next step in the argument.
6
The original of this not very clear sentence is: “Nam et Petrum præsumptorie aliquid elocutum negationi potius destinando zeloten deum tibi ostendit.”
7
Luke xxii. 34 and 54–62.
8
Luke xxii. 47–49.
9
Isa. xxix. 13.
10
Luke xxii. 66, 67.
11
Oehler’s admirable edition is also carefully printed for the most part, but surely his quæsisset must here be quæsissent.
12
Luke xxii. 67.
13
Supersedit ostendere.
14
i.e., not to answer that question of theirs. This seems to be the force of the perfect tense, “occultasse se.”
15
He makes Jesus stretch forth His hand, porrigens manum inquit.
16
Luke xxii. 69.
17
Dan. vii. 13.
18
Ps. cx. 1.
19
Luke xxii. 70.
20
Luke xxii. 70.
21
Or does he suppose that they repeated this same question twice? His words are, “dum rursus interrogant.”
22
Either, “Art thou,” or, “Thou art, then, the Son of God.”
23
Oblique.
24
Ut, quia…sic senserunt.
25
Aperte.
26
Æque ita et ille confirmative respondit.
27
Ut perseveraverint in eo quod pronuntiatio sapiebat.…See Luke xxii. 71.