Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 4 · Chapter 10

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 X.—Further Proofs of the Same Truth in the Same Chapter, from the Healing of the Paralytic, and from the Designation Son of Man Which Jesus Gives Himself. Tertullian Sustains His Argument by Several Quotations from the Prophets.

The sick of the palsy is healed,

‹ Book 4 · Chapter 9 Book 4 · Chapter 11 ›

and

that

in

public

,

in

the

sight

of

the

people

.

For

,

says

Isaiah

,

“

they

shall

see

the

glory

of

the

Lord

,

and

the

excellency

of

our

God

.

”

What

glory

,

and

what

excellency

?

“

Be

strong

,

ye

weak

hands

,

and

ye

feeble

knees

:

”

this

refers

to

the

palsy

.

“

Be

strong

;

fear

not

.

”

Be

strong

is

not

vainly

repeated

,

nor

is

fear

not

vainly

added

;

because

with

the

renewal

of

the

limbs

there

was

to

be

,

according

to

the

promise

,

a

restoration

also

of

bodily

energies

:

“

Arise

,

and

take

up

thy

couch

;

”

and

likewise

moral

courage

not

to

be

afraid

of

those

who

should

say

,

“

Who

can

forgive

sins

,

but

God

alone

?

”

So

that

you

have

here

not

only

the

fulfilment

of

the

prophecy

which

promised

a

particular

kind

of

healing

,

but

also

of

the

symptoms

which

followed

the

cure

.

In

like

manner

,

you

should

also

recognise

Christ

in

the

same

prophet

as

the

forgiver

of

sins

.

“

For

,

”

he

says

,

“

He

shall

remit

to

many

their

sins

,

and

shall

Himself

take

away

our

sins

.

”

For

in

an

earlier

passage

,

speaking

in

the

person

of

the

Lord

himself

,

he

had

said

:

“

Even

though

your

sins

be

as

scarlet

,

I

will

make

them

as

white

as

snow

;

even

though

they

be

like

crimson

,

I

will

whiten

them

as

wool

.

”

In

the

scarlet

colour

He

indicates

the

blood

of

the

prophets

;

in

the

crimson

,

that

of

the

Lord

,

as

the

brighter

.

Concerning

the

forgiveness

of

sins

,

Micah

also

says

:

“

Who

is

a

God

like

unto

Thee

?

pardoning

iniquity

,

and

passing

by

the

transgressions

of

the

remnant

of

Thine

heritage

.

He

retaineth

not

His

anger

as

a

testimony

against

them

,

because

He

delighteth

in

mercy

.

He

will

turn

again

,

and

will

have

compassion

upon

us

;

He

wipeth

away

our

iniquities

,

and

casteth

our

sins

into

the

depths

of

the

sea

.

”

Now

,

if

nothing

of

this

sort

had

been

predicted

of

Christ

,

I

should

find

in

the

Creator

examples

of

such

a

benignity

as

would

hold

out

to

me

the

promise

of

similar

affections

also

in

the

Son

of

whom

He

is

the

Father

.

I

see

how

the

Ninevites

obtained

forgiveness

of

their

sins

from

the

Creator

—

not

to

say

from

Christ

,

even

then

,

because

from

the

beginning

He

acted

in

the

Father’s

name

.

I

read

,

too

,

how

that

,

when

David

acknowledged

his

sin

against

Uriah

,

the

prophet

Nathan

said

unto

him

,

“

The

Lord

hath

cancelled

thy

sin

,

and

thou

shalt

not

die

;

”

how

king

Ahab

in

like

manner

,

the

husband

of

Jezebel

,

guilty

of

idolatry

and

of

the

blood

of

Naboth

,

obtained

pardon

because

of

his

repentance

;

and

how

Jonathan

the

son

of

Saul

blotted

out

by

his

deprecation

the

guilt

of

a

violated

fast

.

Why

should

I

recount

the

frequent

restoration

of

the

nation

itself

after

the

forgiveness

of

their

sins

?

—

by

that

God

,

indeed

,

who

will

have

mercy

rather

than

sacrifice

,

and

a

sinner’s

repentance

rather

than

his

death

.

You

will

first

have

to

deny

that

the

Creator

ever

forgave

sins

;

then

you

must

in

reason

show

that

He

never

ordained

any

such

prerogative

for

His

Christ

;

and

so

you

will

prove

how

novel

is

that

boasted

benevolence

of

the

,

of

course

,

novel

Christ

when

you

shall

have

proved

that

it

is

neither

compatible

with

the

Creator

nor

predicted

by

the

Creator

.

But

whether

to

remit

sins

can

appertain

to

one

who

is

said

to

be

unable

to

retain

them

,

and

whether

to

absolve

can

belong

to

him

who

is

incompetent

even

to

condemn

,

and

whether

to

forgive

is

suitable

to

him

against

whom

no

offence

can

be

committed

,

are

questions

which

we

have

encountered

elsewhere

,

when

we

preferred

to

drop

suggestions

rather

than

treat

them

anew

.

Concerning

the

Son

of

man

our

rule

is

a

twofold

one

:

that

Christ

cannot

lie

,

so

as

to

declare

Himself

the

Son

of

man

,

if

He

be

not

truly

so

;

nor

can

He

be

constituted

the

Son

of

man

,

unless

He

be

born

of

a

human

parent

,

either

father

or

mother

.

And

then

the

discussion

will

turn

on

the

point

,

of

which

human

parent

He

ought

to

be

accounted

the

son

—

of

the

father

or

the

mother

?

Since

He

is

(

begotten

)

of

God

the

Father

,

He

is

not

,

of

course

,

(

the

son

)

of

a

human

father

.

If

He

is

not

of

a

human

father

,

it

follows

that

He

must

be

(

the

son

)

of

a

human

mother

.

If

of

a

human

mother

,

it

is

evident

that

she

must

be

a

virgin

.

For

to

whom

a

human

father

is

not

ascribed

,

to

his

mother

a

husband

will

not

be

reckoned

;

and

then

to

what

mother

a

husband

is

not

reckoned

,

the

condition

of

virginity

belongs

.

But

if

His

mother

be

not

a

virgin

,

two

fathers

will

have

to

be

reckoned

to

Him

—

a

divine

and

a

human

one

.

For

she

must

have

a

husband

,

not

to

be

a

virgin

;

and

by

having

a

husband

,

she

would

cause

two

fathers

—

one

divine

,

the

other

human

—

to

accrue

to

Him

,

who

would

thus

be

Son

both

of

God

and

of

a

man

.

Such

a

nativity

(

if

one

may

call

it

so

)

the

mythic

stories

assign

to

Castor

or

to

Hercules

.

Now

,

if

this

distinction

be

observed

,

that

is

to

say

,

if

He

be

Son

of

man

as

born

of

His

mother

,

because

not

begotten

of

a

father

,

and

His

mother

be

a

virgin

,

because

His

father

is

not

human

—

He

will

be

that

Christ

whom

Isaiah

foretold

that

a

virgin

should

conceive

,

on

what

principle

you

,

Marcion

,

can

admit

Him

Son

of

man

,

I

cannot

possibly

see

.

If

through

a

human

father

,

then

you

deny

him

to

be

Son

of

God

;

if

through

a

divine

one

also

,

then

you

make

Christ

the

Hercules

of

fable

;

if

through

a

human

mother

only

,

then

you

concede

my

point

;

if

not

through

a

human

father

also

,

then

He

is

not

the

son

of

any

man

,

and

He

must

have

been

guilty

of

a

lie

for

having

declared

Himself

to

be

what

He

was

not

.

One

thing

alone

can

help

you

in

your

difficulty

:

boldness

on

your

part

either

to

surname

your

God

as

actually

the

human

father

of

Christ

,

as

Valentinus

did

with

his

Æon

;

or

else

to

deny

that

the

Virgin

was

human

,

which

even

Valentinus

did

not

do

.

What

now

,

if

Christ

be

described

in

Daniel

by

this

very

title

of

“

Son

of

man

?

”

Is

not

this

enough

to

prove

that

He

is

the

Christ

of

prophecy

?

For

if

He

gives

Himself

that

appellation

which

was

provided

in

the

prophecy

for

the

Christ

of

the

Creator

,

He

undoubtedly

offers

Himself

to

be

understood

as

Him

to

whom

(

the

appellation

)

was

assigned

by

the

prophet

.

But

perhaps

it

can

be

regarded

as

a

simple

identity

of

names

;

and

yet

we

have

maintained

that

neither

Christ

nor

Jesus

ought

to

have

been

called

by

these

names

,

if

they

possessed

any

condition

of

diversity

.

But

as

regards

the

appellation

“

Son

of

man

,

”

in

as

far

as

it

occurs

by

accident

,

in

so

far

there

is

a

difficulty

in

its

occurrence

along

with

a

casual

identity

of

names

.

For

it

is

of

pure

accident

,

especially

when

the

same

cause

does

not

appear

whereby

the

identity

may

be

occasioned

.

And

therefore

,

if

Marcion’s

Christ

be

also

said

to

be

born

of

man

,

then

he

too

would

receive

an

identical

appellation

,

and

there

would

be

two

Sons

of

man

,

as

also

two

Christs

and

two

Jesuses

.

Therefore

,

since

the

appellation

is

the

sole

right

of

Him

in

whom

it

has

a

suitable

reason

,

if

it

be

claimed

for

another

in

whom

there

is

an

identity

of

name

,

but

not

of

appellation

,

then

the

identity

of

name

even

looks

suspicious

in

him

for

whom

is

claimed

without

reason

the

identity

of

appellation

.

And

it

follows

that

He

must

be

believed

to

be

One

and

the

Same

,

who

is

found

to

be

the

more

fit

to

receive

both

the

name

and

the

appellation

;

while

the

other

is

excluded

,

who

has

no

right

to

the

appellation

,

because

he

has

no

reason

to

show

for

it

.

Nor

will

any

other

be

better

entitled

to

both

than

He

who

is

the

earlier

,

and

has

had

allotted

to

Him

the

name

of

Christ

and

the

appellation

of

Son

of

man

,

even

the

Jesus

of

the

Creator

.

It

was

He

who

was

seen

by

the

king

of

Babylon

in

the

furnace

with

His

martyrs

:

“

the

fourth

,

who

was

like

the

Son

of

man

.

”

He

also

was

revealed

to

Daniel

himself

expressly

as

“

the

Son

of

man

,

coming

in

the

clouds

of

heaven

”

as

a

Judge

,

as

also

the

Scripture

shows

.

What

I

have

advanced

might

have

been

sufficient

concerning

the

designation

in

prophecy

of

the

Son

of

man

.

But

the

Scripture

offers

me

further

information

,

even

in

the

interpretation

of

the

Lord

Himself

.

For

when

the

Jews

,

who

looked

at

Him

as

merely

man

,

and

were

not

yet

sure

that

He

was

God

also

,

as

being

likewise

the

Son

of

God

,

rightly

enough

said

that

a

man

could

not

forgive

sins

,

but

God

alone

,

why

did

He

not

,

following

up

their

point

about

man

,

answer

them

,

that

He

had

power

to

remit

sins

;

inasmuch

as

,

when

He

mentioned

the

Son

of

man

,

He

also

named

a

human

being

?

except

it

were

because

He

wanted

,

by

help

of

the

very

designation

“

Son

of

man

”

from

the

book

of

Daniel

,

so

to

induce

them

to

reflect

as

to

show

them

that

He

who

remitted

sins

was

God

and

man

—

that

only

Son

of

man

,

indeed

,

in

the

prophecy

of

Daniel

,

who

had

obtained

the

power

of

judging

,

and

thereby

,

of

course

,

of

forgiving

sins

likewise

(

for

He

who

judges

also

absolves

)

;

so

that

,

when

once

that

objection

of

theirs

was

shattered

to

pieces

by

their

recollection

of

Scripture

,

they

might

the

more

easily

acknowledge

Him

to

be

the

Son

of

man

Himself

by

His

own

actual

forgiveness

of

sins

.

I

make

one

more

observation

,

how

that

He

has

nowhere

as

yet

professed

Himself

to

be

the

Son

of

God

—

but

for

the

first

time

in

this

passage

,

in

which

for

the

first

time

He

has

remitted

sins

;

that

is

,

in

which

for

the

first

time

He

has

used

His

function

of

judgment

,

by

the

absolution

.

All

that

the

opposite

side

has

to

allege

in

argument

against

these

things

,

(

I

beg

you

)

carefully

weigh

what

it

amounts

to

.

For

it

must

needs

strain

itself

to

such

a

pitch

of

infatuation

as

,

on

the

one

hand

,

to

maintain

that

(

their

Christ

)

is

also

Son

of

man

,

in

order

to

save

Him

from

the

charge

of

falsehood

;

and

,

on

the

other

hand

,

to

deny

that

He

was

born

of

woman

,

lest

they

grant

that

He

was

the

Virgin’s

son

.

Since

,

however

,

the

divine

authority

and

the

nature

of

the

case

,

and

common

sense

,

do

not

admit

this

insane

position

of

the

heretics

,

we

have

here

the

opportunity

of

putting

in

a

veto

in

the

briefest

possible

terms

,

on

the

substance

of

Christ’s

body

,

against

Marcion’s

phantoms

.

Since

He

is

born

of

man

,

being

the

Son

of

man

.

He

is

body

derived

from

body

.

You

may

,

I

assure

you

,

more

easily

find

a

man

born

without

a

heart

or

without

brains

,

like

Marcion

himself

,

than

without

a

body

,

like

Marcion’s

Christ

.

And

let

this

be

the

limit

to

your

examination

of

the

heart

,

or

,

at

any

rate

,

the

brains

of

the

heretic

of

Pontus

.

Notes

1
Luke v. 16–26.
2
Isa. xxxv. 2.
3
Isa. xxxv. 3 in an altered form.
4
Isa. xxxv. 4.
5
Animi vigorem.
6
This seems to be Isa. liii. 12, last clause.
7
Isa. i. 18.
8
Mic. vii. 18, 19.
9
Jonah iii. 10.
10
Circumduxit.
11
2 Sam. xii. 13.
12
1 Kings xxi. 29.
13
Resignati jejunii. See 1 Sam. xiv. 43–45.
14
Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
15
Consequens est ut ostendas.
16
Istam.
17
Parem.
18
See book i. chap. xxvi.–xxviii.
19
Admonere.
20
Retractare: give a set treatise about them.
21
Præscriptio.
22
To secure terseness in the premisses, we are obliged to lengthen out the brief terms of the conclusion, virgo est.
23
Si forte.
24
Isa. vii. 14.
25
Si et Dei.
26
Si neque patris.
27
On Marcion’s principles, it must be remembered.
28
Compare T.’s treatise, Adversus Valentinianos, chap. xii.
29
Censentur.
30
Si forte.
31
Nominum communio simplex.
32
Defendimus. See above, book iii. chap. xv. xvi.
33
Ex accidenti obvenit.
34
Super.
35
Proprio.
36
Non convenit.
37
Causam.
38
The context explains the difference between nomen and appellatio. The former refers to the name Jesus or Christ, the latter to the designation Son of man.
39
Dan. iii. 25.
40
Dan. vii. 13.
41
Secundum intentionem eorum.
42
Eum: that is, man.
43
Repercutere.
44
Scandalo isto.
45
Denique.
46
Dispice.
47
Interpellandi.
48
Corpus ex corpore.
49
Plane: introducing the sharp irony.
50
This is perhaps the best sense of T.’s sarcasm: “Atque adeo (thus far) inspice cor Pontici aut (or else) cerebrum.”