Tertullian & Punctuation of John 1:3-4
I will be referencing Tertullian’s interpretation of John 1:1-4 in order to demonstrate that this outstanding African apologist clearly taught that the Person of Christ is an uncreated, divine Person who came forth from within God prior to the creation of all things. In these references, the readers will see Tertullian citing a plethora of biblical texts to prove the Trinity and/or that Christ is an uncreated Person. Tertullian emphatically testifies to Jesus being fully God in substance who also became truly Man and attributes to him verses such as Genesis 1:3, 26-27; Pss. 45; 110; Isaiah 45:24 Romans 9:5, etc.
All emphasis will be mine.
Chapter 19. The Epistle to the Colossians. Time the Criterion of Truth and Heresy. Application of the Canon. The Image of the Invisible God Explained. Pre-Existence of Our Christ in the Creator’s Ancient Dispensations. What is Included in the Fulness of Christ. The Epicurean Character of Marcion’s God. The Catholic Truth in Opposition Thereto. The Law is to Christ What the Shadow is to the Substance.
I am accustomed in my prescription against all heresies, to fix my compendious criterion (of truth) in the testimony of time; claiming priority therein as our rule, and alleging lateness to be the characteristic of every heresy. This shall now be proved even by the apostle, when he says: For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which has come unto you, as it is unto all the world.
Colossians 1:5-6 For if, even at that time, the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how much more now! Now, if it is our gospel which has spread everywhere, rather than any heretical gospel, much less Marcion’s, which only dates from the reign of Antoninus, then ours will be the gospel of the apostles. But should Marcion’s gospel succeed in filling the whole world, it would not even in that case be entitled to the character of apostolic. For this quality, it will be evident, can only belong to that gospel which was the first to fill the world; in other words, to the gospel of that God who of old declared this of its promulgation: Their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world
. He calls Christ the image of the invisible God.
Colossians 1:15 We in like manner say that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that it was the Son WHO WAS SEEN IN ANCIENT (whenever any appearance was vouchsafed to men in the name of God) as the image of (the Father) Himself. He must not be regarded, however, as making any difference between a visible and an invisible God; because long before he wrote this we find a description of our God to this effect: No man can see the Lord, and live.
Exodus 33:20 If Christ is not the first-begotten before every creature,
as that Word of God
by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; John 1:3 if all things were
not in Him created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers;
if all things were
not created by Him and for Him
(for these truths Marcion ought not to allow concerning Him), then the apostle could not have so positively laid it down, THAT HE IS BEFORE ALL. For how is He before all, if He is not before all things? How, again, is He before all things, if He is not the first-born of every creature
— if He is not the Word of the Creator? Now how will he be proved to have been before all things, who appeared after all things? Who can tell whether he had a prior existence, when he has found no proof that he had any existence at all? In what way also could it have pleased (the Father) that in Him should all fullness dwell
? Colossians 1:19 For, to begin with, what fullness is that which is not comprised of the constituents which Marcion has removed from it — even those that were created in Christ, whether in heaven or on earth,
whether angels or men? Which is not made of the things that are visible and invisible? Which consists not of thrones and dominions and principalities and powers? If, on the other hand, our false apostles and Judaizing gospellers have introduced all these things out of their own stores, and Marcion has applied them to constitute the fullness of his own god, (this hypothesis, absurd though it be, alone would justify him;) for how, on any other supposition, could the rival and the destroyer of the Creator have been willing that His fullness should dwell in his Christ? To whom, again, does He reconcile all things by Himself, making peace by the blood of His cross,
Colossians 1:20 but to Him whom those very things had altogether offended, against whom they had rebelled by transgression, (but) to whom they had at last returned? Conciliated they might have been to a strange god; but reconciled they could not possibly have been to any other than their own God. Accordingly, ourselves who were sometime alienated and enemies in our mind by wicked works
Colossians 1:21 does He reconcile to the Creator, against whom we had committed offense — worshipping the creature to the prejudice of the Creator. As, however, he says elsewhere, Ephesians 1:23 that the Church is the body of Christ, so here also (the apostle) declares that he fills up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh for His body’s sake, which is the Church.
Colossians 1:24
But you must not on this account suppose that on every mention of His body the term is only a metaphor, instead of meaning real flesh. For he says above that we are reconciled in His body through death;
Colossians 1:22 meaning, of course, that He died in that body wherein death was possible through the flesh: (therefore he adds,) not through the Church (per ecclesiam), but expressly for the sake of the Church (proper ecclesiam), exchanging body for body — one of flesh for a spiritual one. When, again, he warns them to beware of subtle words and philosophy,
as being a vain deceit,
such as is after the rudiments of the world
(not understanding thereby the mundane fabric of sky and earth, but worldly learning, and the tradition of men,
subtle in their speech and their philosophy), Colossians 2:8 it would be tedious, and the proper subject of a separate work, to show how in this sentence (of the apostle’s) all heresies are condemned, on the ground of their consisting of the resources of subtle speech and the rules of philosophy. But (once for all) let Marcion know that the principle term of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus, implying that the Lord is stupid and indifferent; wherefore he refuses to say that He is an object to be feared. Moreover, from the porch of the Stoics he brings out matter, and places it on a par with the Divine Creator. He also denies the resurrection of the flesh — a truth which none of the schools of philosophy agreed together to hold. But how remote is our (Catholic) verity from the artifices of this heretic, when it dreads to arouse the anger of God, and firmly believes that He produced all things out of nothing, and promises to us a restoration from the grave of the same flesh (that died) and holds without a blush that Christ was born of the virgin’s womb! At this, philosophers, and heretics, and the very heathen, laugh and jeer. For God
has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise 1 Corinthians 1:27 — that God, no doubt, who in reference to this very dispensation of His threatened long before that He would destroy the wisdom of the wise.
Thanks to this simplicity of truth, so opposed to the subtlety and vain deceit of philosophy, we cannot possibly have any relish for such perverse opinions. Then, if God quickens us together with Christ, forgiving us our trespasses,
Colossians 2:13 we cannot suppose that sins are forgiven by Him against whom, as having been all along unknown, they could not have been committed. Now tell me, Marcion, what is your opinion of the apostle’s language, when he says, Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath, which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ
? Colossians 2:16-17 We do not now treat of the law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance — that is, from figurative types to the reality, which is Christ. The shadow, therefore, is His to whom belongs the body also; in other words, the law is His, and so is Christ. If you separate the law and Christ, assigning one to one god and the other to another, it is the same as if you were to attempt to separate the shadow from the body of which it is the shadow. Manifestly Christ has relation to the law, if the body has to its shadow. But when he blames those who alleged visions of angels as their authority for saying that men must abstain from meats — you must not touch, you must not taste
— in a voluntary humility, (at the same time) vainly puffed up in the fleshly mind, and not holding the Head,
(the apostle) does not in these terms attack the law or Moses, as if it was at the suggestion of superstitious angels that he had enacted his prohibition of sundry aliments. For Moses had evidently received the law from God. When, therefore, he speaks of their following the commandments and doctrines of men,
Colossians 2:22 he refers to the conduct of those persons who held not the Head,
even Him in whom all things are gathered together; for they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in Him as their initiating principle — even the meats and drinks which were indifferent in their nature. All the rest of his precepts, as we have shown sufficiently, when treating of them as they occurred in another epistle, emanated from the Creator, who, while predicting that old things were to pass away,
and that He would make all things new,
commanded men to break up fresh ground for themselves,
and thereby taught them even then to put off the old man and put on the new. (Against Marcion, Book V)
Chapter 20. Meaning of the Phrase — In the Beginning. Tertullian Connects It with the Wisdom of God, and Elicits from It the Truth that the Creation Was Not Out of Pre-Existent Matter
But in proof that the Greek word means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense than the initial one, we have that (Being) even acknowledging such a beginning, who says: The Lord possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works.
Proverbs 8:22 For since all things were made by the Wisdom of God, it follows that, when God made both the heaven and the earth in principio— that is to say, in the beginning — He made them in His Wisdom. If, indeed, beginning had a material signification, the Scripture would not have informed us that God made so and so in principio, at the beginning, but rather ex principio, of the beginning; for He would not have created in, but of, matter. When Wisdom, however, was referred to, it was quite right to say, in the beginning. For it was in Wisdom that He made all things at first, because by meditating and arranging His plans therein, He had in fact already done (the work of creation); and if He had even intended to create out of matter, He would yet have effected His creation when He previously meditated on it and arranged it in His Wisdom, since It was in fact the beginning of His ways: this meditation and arrangement being the primal operation of Wisdom, opening as it does the way to the works by the act of meditation and thought. This authority of Scripture I claim for myself even from this circumstance, that while it shows me the God who created, and the works He created, it does not in like manner reveal to me the source from which He created. For since in every operation there are three principal things, He who makes, and that which is made, and that of which it is made, there must be three names mentioned in a correct narrative of the operation — the person of the maker the sort of thing which is made, and the material of which it is formed. If the material is not mentioned, while the work and the maker of the work are both mentioned, it is manifest that He made the work out of nothing. For if He had had anything to operate upon, it would have been mentioned as well as (the other two particulars). In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony to the Old Testament. Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1 — that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth Genesis 1:1 — and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made.
John 1:1-3 Now, since we have here clearly told us who the Maker was, that is, God, and what He made, even all things, and through whom He made them, even His Word, would not the order of the narrative have required that the source out of which all things were made by God through the Word should likewise be declared, if they had been in fact made out of anything? What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it…
Chapter 22. This Conclusion Confirmed by the Usage of Holy Scripture in Its History of the Creation. Hermogenes in Danger of the Woe Pronounced Against Adding to Scripture
And to such a degree has the Holy Ghost made this the rule of His Scripture, that whenever anything is made out of anything, He mentions both the thing that is made and the thing of which it is made. Let the earth
, says He, bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself, after its kind. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind.
Genesis 1:11-12 And again: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that may fly above the earth through the firmament of heaven. And it was so. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind.
Genesis 1:20-21 Again afterwards: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beasts of the earth after their kind.
If therefore God, when producing other things out of things which had been already made, indicates them by the prophet, and tells us what He has produced from such and such a source (although we might ourselves suppose them to be derived from some source or other, short of nothing; since there had already been created certain things, from which they might easily seem to have been made); if the Holy Ghost took upon Himself so great a concern for our instruction, that we might know from what everything was produced, would He not in like manner have kept us well informed about both the heaven and the earth, by indicating to us what it was that He made them of, if their original consisted of any material substance, so that the more He seemed to have made them of nothing, the less in fact was there as yet made, from which He could appear to have made them? Therefore, just as He shows us the original out of which He drew such things as were derived from a given source, so also with regard to those things of which He does not point out whence He produced them, He confirms (by that silence our assertion) that they were produced out of nothing. In the beginning
, then, God
made the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 I revere the fullness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. John 1:3 But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word. Revelation 22:18-19…
Chapter 45. Conclusion. Contrast Between the Statements of Hermogenes and the Testimony of Holy Scripture Respecting the Creation. Creation Out of Nothing, Not Out of Matter
But it is not thus that the prophets and the apostles have told us that the world was made by God merely appearing and approaching Matter. They did not even mention any Matter, but (said) that Wisdom was first set up, the beginning of His ways, for His works. Proverbs 8:22-23 Then that the Word was produced, through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.
John 1:3 Indeed, by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their hosts by the breath of His mouth.
He is the Lord’s right hand, Isaiah 48:13 indeed His two hands, by which He worked and constructed the universe. For
, says He, the heavens are the works of Your hands,
wherewith He has meted out the heaven, and the earth with a span
. Do not be willing so to cover God with flattery, as to contend that He produced by His mere appearance and simple approach so many vast substances, instead of rather forming them by His own energies. For this is proved by Jeremiah when he says, God
has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out the heaven by His understanding. Jeremiah 51:15 These are the energies by the stress of which He made this universe. His glory is greater if He laboured. At length on the seventh day He rested from His works. Both one and the other were after His manner. If, on the contrary, He made this world simply by appearing and approaching it, did He, on the completion of His work, cease to appear and approach it any more. Nay rather, God began to appear more conspicuously and to be everywhere accessible from the time when the world was made. You see, therefore, how all things consist by the operation of that God who made the earth by His power, who established the world by His wisdom, and stretched out the heaven by His understanding;
not appearing merely, nor approaching, but applying the almighty efforts of His mind, His wisdom, His power, His understanding, His word, His Spirit, His might. Now these things were not necessary to Him, if He had been perfect by simply appearing and approaching. They are, however, His invisible things,
which, according to the apostle, are from the creation of the world clearly seen by the things that are made;
Romans 1:20 they are no parts of a nondescript Matter, but they are the sensible evidences of Himself. For who has known the mind of the Lord,
Romans 11:34 of which (the apostle) exclaims: O the depth of the riches both of His wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!
Now what clearer truth do these words indicate, than that all things were made out of nothing? They are incapable of being found out or investigated, except by God alone. Otherwise, if they were traceable or discoverable in Matter, they would be capable of investigation. Therefore, in as far as it has become evident that Matter had no prior existence (even from this circumstance, that it is impossible for it to have had such an existence as is assigned to it), in so far is it proved that all things were made by God out of nothing. It must be admitted, however, that Hermogenes, by describing for Matter a condition like his own — irregular, confused, turbulent, of a doubtful and precipate and fervid impulse — has displayed a specimen of his own art, and painted his own portrait. (Against Hermogenes)
Chapter 7. The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Attribute. He is Shown to Be a Personal Being
Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, Let there be light.
Genesis 1:3 This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth FROM GOD — formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom — The Lord created
or formed me as the beginning of His ways; Proverbs 8:22 then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect — When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.
Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding FROM HIMSELF He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten BEFORE ALL THINGS; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART— even as the Father Himself testifies: My heart
, says He, has emitted my most excellent Word.
The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: You are my Son, today have I begotten You;
even before the morning star did I beget You. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me
. For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made;
John 1:3 as, again, in another place (it is said), By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit
— that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God Proverbs 8:22 which strengthened the heavens;
by which all things were made,
John 1:3 and without which nothing was made.
John 1:3 Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth FROM HIM. Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1 It is written, You shall not take God’s name in vain.
Exodus 20:7 This for certain is He who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
Philippians 2:6 In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although God
is a Spirit? John 4:24 For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.
Chapter 8. Though the Son or Word of God Emanates from the Father, He is Not, Like the Emanations of Valentinus, Separable from the Father. Nor is the Holy Ghost Separable from Either. Illustrations from Nature
If any man from this shall think that I am introducing some προβολή — that is to say, some prolation of one thing out of another, as Valentinus does when he sets forth Æon from Æon, one after another — then this is my first reply to you: Truth must not therefore refrain from the use of such a term, and its reality and meaning, because heresy also employs it. The fact is, heresy has rather taken it from Truth, in order to mould it into its own counterfeit. Was the Word of God put forth or not? Here take your stand with me, and flinch not. If He was put forth, then acknowledge that the true doctrine has a prolation; and never mind heresy, when in any point it mimics the truth. The question now is, in what sense each side uses a given thing and the word which expresses it. Valentinus divides and separates his prolations from their Author, and places them at so great a distance from Him, that the Æon does not know the Father: he longs, indeed, to know Him, but cannot; nay, he is almost swallowed up and dissolved into the rest of matter. With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, Matthew 11:27 and has Himself unfolded the Father’s bosom.
John 1:18 He has also heard and seen all things with the Father; and what He has been commanded by the Father, that also does He speak. John 8:26 And it is not His own will, but the Father’s, which He has accomplished, John 6:38 which He had known most intimately, even from the beginning. For what man knows the things which be in God, but the Spirit which is in Him
? 1 Corinthians 2:11 But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, I am in the Father;
John 14:11 and is always with God, according to what is written, And the Word was with God;
John 1:1 and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since I and the Father are one.
John 10:30 This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are προβολαί, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word — the Father and His Son — two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated. Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, while it at the same time guards the state of the Economy…
Chapter 12. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead
If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness;
Genesis 1:26 whereas He ought to have said, Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness
, as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, Behold the man has become as one of us,
Genesis 3:22 He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, Let us make;
and, in
our image; and, become as one of
us. For with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. In the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons: So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him.
Genesis 1:27 Why say image of God?
Why not His own image
merely, if He was only one who was the Maker, and if there was not also One in whose image He made man? But there was One in whose image God was making man, that is to say, Christ’s image, who, being one day about to become Man (more surely and more truly so), had already caused the man to be called His image, who was then going to be formed of clay — the image and similitude of the true and perfect Man. But in respect of the previous works of the world what says the Scripture? Its first statement indeed is made, when the Son has not yet appeared: And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
Genesis 1:3 Immediately there appears the Word, that true light, which lights man on his coming into the world,
John 1:9 and through Him also came light upon the world. From that moment God willed creation to be effected IN THE WORD, Christ being present and ministering unto Him: and so God created. And God said, Let there be a firmament,…and God made the firmament;
Genesis 1:6-7 and God also said, Let there be lights (in the firmament); and
so God made a greater and a lesser light. But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones — I mean the Word of God, through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made
. John 1:3 Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says,) The Word was God,
John 1:1 then you have two Beings — One that commands that the thing be made, and the Other that executes the order and creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, NOT OF SUBSTANCE — in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance IN THREE coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it. For, indeed, He would not be issuing a command if He were all the while doing the work Himself, while ordering it to be done by the second. But still He did issue the command, although He would not have intended to command Himself if He were only one; or else He must have worked without any command, because He would not have waited to command Himself…
Chapter 15. New Testament Passages Quoted. They Attest the Same Truth of the Son’s Visibility Contrasted with the Father’s Invisibility
If I fail in resolving this article (of our faith) by passages which may admit of dispute out of the Old Testament, I will take out of the New Testament a confirmation of our view, that you may not straightway attribute to the Father every possible (relation and condition) which I ascribe to the Son. Behold, then, I find both in the Gospels and in the (writings of the) apostles a visible and an invisible God (revealed to us), under a manifest and personal distinction in the condition of both. There is a certain emphatic saying by John: No man has seen God at any time;
John 1:18 meaning, of course, at any previous time. But he has indeed taken away all question of time, by saying that God had never been seen. The apostle confirms this statement; for, speaking of God, he says, Whom no man has seen, nor can see;
1 Timothy 6:16 because the man indeed would die who should see Him. But the very same apostles testify that they had both seen and handled
Christ. 1 John 1:1 Now, if Christ is Himself both the Father and the Son, how can He be both the Visible and the Invisible? In order, however, to reconcile this diversity between the Visible and the Invisible, will not some one on the other side argue that the two statements are quite correct: that He was visible indeed in the flesh, but was invisible before His appearance in the flesh; so that He who as the Father was invisible before the flesh, is the same as the Son who was visible in the flesh? If, however, He is the same who was invisible before the incarnation, how comes it that He was actually seen in ancient times before (coming in) the flesh? And by parity of reasoning, if He is the same who was visible after (coming in) the flesh, how happens it that He is now declared to be invisible by the apostles? How, I repeat, can all this be, unless it be that He is one, who anciently was visible only in mystery and enigma, and became more clearly visible by His incarnation, even the Word who was also made flesh; while He is another whom no man has seen at any time, being none else than the Father, even Him to whom the Word belongs? Let us, in short, examine who it is whom the apostles saw. That
, says John, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.
1 John 1:1 Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the Word in the beginning with God
the Father, John 1:1-2 and not the Father with the Word. For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father. And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;
John 1:14 that is, of course, (the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the invisible Father.
And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as it were: No man has seen God at any time.
1 John 4:12 What God does he mean? The Word? But he has already said: Him we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.
Well, (I must again ask,) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him. John 1:18 He was both heard and seen and, that He might not be supposed to be a phantom, was actually handled. Him, too, did Paul behold; but yet he saw not the Father. Have I not,
he says, seen Jesus
Christ our Lord? 1 Corinthians 9:1 Moreover, he expressly called Christ God, saying: Of whom are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever.
Romans 9:5 He shows us also that the Son of God, which is the Word of God, is visible, because He who became flesh was called Christ. Of the Father, however, he says to Timothy: Whom none among men has seen, nor indeed can see;
and he accumulates the description in still ampler terms: Who only has immortality, and dwells in the light which no man can approach unto.
1 Timothy 6:16 It was of Him, too, that he had said in a previous passage: Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to the only God;
1 Timothy 1:17 so that we might apply even the contrary qualities to the Son Himself — mortality, accessibility — of whom the apostle testifies that He died according to the Scriptures,
1 Corinthians 15:3 and that He was seen by himself last of all,
— by means, of course, of the light which was accessible, although it was not without imperilling his sight that he experienced that light. Acts 22:11 A like danger to which also befell Peter, and John, and James, (who confronted not the same light) without risking the loss of their reason and mind; and if they, who were unable to endure the glory of the Son, had only seen the Father, they must have died then and there: For no man shall see God, and live.
Exodus 33:20 This being the case, it is evident that He was always seen from the beginning, who became visible in the end; and that He, (on the contrary,) was not seen in the end who had never been visible from the beginning; and that accordingly there are two — the Visible and the Invisible. It was the Son, therefore, who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men, and the Son who has always worked by the authority and will of the Father; because the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do
John 5:19 — do
that is, in His mind and thought. For the Father acts by mind and thought; while the Son, who is IN the Father’s mind and thought, gives effect and form to what He sees. Thus all things were made by the Son, and without Him was not anything made. John 1:3…
Chapter 19. The Son in Union with the Father in the Creation of All Things. This Union of the Two in Co-Operation is Not Opposed to the True Unity of God. It is Opposed Only to Praxeas’ Identification Theory
But this very declaration of His they will hastily pervert into an argument of His singleness. I have,
says He, stretched out the heaven alone.
Undoubtedly alone as regards all other powers; and He thus gives a premonitory evidence against the conjectures of the heretics, who maintain that the world was constructed by various angels and powers, who also make the Creator Himself to have been either an angel or some subordinate agent sent to form external things, such as the constituent parts of the world, but who was at the same time ignorant of the divine purpose. If, now, it is in this sense that He stretches out the heavens alone, how is it that these heretics assume their position so perversely, as to render inadmissible the singleness of that Wisdom which says, When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him?
Proverbs 8:27 — even though the apostle asks, Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counsellor?
Romans 11:34 meaning, of course, to except that wisdom which was present with Him. Proverbs 8:30 In Him, at any rate, and with Him, did (Wisdom) construct the universe, He not being ignorant of what she was making. Except Wisdom,
however, is a phrase of the same sense exactly as except the Son,
who is Christ, the Wisdom and Power of God,
1 Corinthians 1:24 according to the apostle, who only knows the mind of the Father. For who knows the things that be in God, except the Spirit which is in Him?
1 Corinthians 2:11 Not, observe, without Him. There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except alone
from all other gods. But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected, because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made. John 1:3 And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in which it is written: By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit
. Now this Word, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, must be the very Son of God. So that, if (He did) all things by the Son, He must have stretched out the heavens by the Son, and so not have stretched them out alone, except in the sense in which He is alone
(and apart) from all other gods. Accordingly He says, concerning the Son, immediately afterwards: Who else is it that frustrates the tokens of the liars, and makes diviners mad, turning wise men backward, and making their knowledge foolish, and confirming the words
Isaiah 44:25 of His Son? — as, for instance, when He said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him.
Matthew 3:17 By thus attaching the Son to Himself, He becomes His own interpreter in what sense He stretched out the heavens alone, meaning alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son. The utterance, therefore, will be in like manner the Son’s, I have stretched out the heavens alone,
Isaiah 44:24 because by the Word were the heavens established. Inasmuch, then, as the heaven was prepared when Wisdom was present in the Word, and since all things were made by the Word, it is quite correct to say that even the Son stretched out the heaven alone, because He alone ministered to the Father’s work. It must also be He who says, I am the First, and to all futurity I AM.
The Word, no doubt, was BEFORE ALL THINGS. In the beginning was the Word;
John 1:1 and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father. The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank. Therefore, if they have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and the same, for the express purpose of vindicating the unity of God, that unity of His is preserved intact; for He is one, and yet He has a Son, who is equally with Himself comprehended in the same Scriptures. Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above that Two are actually described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from the Father — distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one; and that from the very circumstance that He is entitled to be called God, from His union with the Father.
Chapter 20. The Scriptures Relied on by Praxeas to Support His Heresy But Few. They are Mentioned by Tertullian
But I must take some further pains to rebut their arguments, when they make selections from the Scriptures in support of their opinion, and refuse to consider the other points, which obviously maintain the rule of faith without any infraction of the unity of the Godhead, and with the full admission of the Monarchy. For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, I am God, and beside me there is no God;
Isaiah 45:5 so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord’s answer to Philip, I and my Father are one;
John 10:30 and, He that has seen me has seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me.
John 14:9-10 They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against the earlier. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer.
Chapter 21. In This and the Four Following Chapters It is Shown, by a Minute Analysis of St. John’s Gospel, that the Father and Son are Constantly Spoken of as Distinct Persons
Consider, therefore, how many passages present their prescriptive authority to you in this very Gospel before this inquiry of Philip, and previous to any discussion on your part. And first of all there comes at once to hand the preamble of John to his Gospel, which shows us what He previously was who had to become flesh. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.
John 1:1-3 Now, since these words may not be taken otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt shown to be One who was from the beginning, and also One with whom He always was: one the Word of God, the other God (although the Word is also God, but God regarded as the Son of God, not as the Father); One through whom were all things, Another by whom were all things. But in what sense we call Him Another we have already often described. In that we called Him Another, we must needs imply that He is not identical — not identical indeed, yet not as if separate; Other by dispensation, not by division. He, therefore, who became flesh was not the very same as He from whom the Word came. His glory was beheld — the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;
John 1:14 not, (observe,) as of the Father. He declared
(what was in) the bosom of the Father alone;
the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded by another statement: No man has seen God at any time
. Then, again, when He is designated by John (the Baptist) as the Lamb of God,
John 1:29 He is not described as Himself the same with Him of whom He is the beloved Son. He is, no doubt, ever the Son of God, but yet not He Himself of whom He is the Son. This (divine relationship) Nathanæl at once recognised in Him, John 1:49 even as Peter did on another occasion: You are the Son of God.
Matthew 16:16 And He affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions; for He answered Nathanæl: Because I said, I saw you under the fig-tree, therefore do you believe?
John 1:50 And in the same manner He pronounced Peter to be blessed,
inasmuch as flesh and blood had not revealed it to him
— that he had perceived the Father — but the Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 16:17 By asserting all this, He determined the distinction which is between the two Persons: that is, the Son then on earth, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; and the Father in heaven, who had revealed to Peter the discovery which he had made, that Christ was the Son of God. When He entered the temple, He called it His Father’s house,
John 2:16 speaking as the Son. In His address to Nicodemus He says: So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 And again: For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believes in Him is not condemned; but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.
John 3:17-18 Moreover, when John (the Baptist) was asked what he happened to know of Jesus, he said: The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He that believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he that believes not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
John 3:35-36 Whom, indeed, did He reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not the Messias which is called Christ
? John 4:25 And so He showed, of course, that He was not the Father, but the Son; and elsewhere He is expressly called the Christ, the Son of God,
John 20:31 and not the Father.
He says, therefore, My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work; John 4:34 while to the Jews He remarks respecting the cure of the impotent man, My Father works hitherto, and I work.
John 5:17 My Father and I
— these are the Son’s words. And it was on this very account that the Jews sought the more intently to kill Him, not only because He broke the Sabbath, but also because He said that God was His Father, thus making Himself equal with God. Then indeed did He answer and say unto them, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever things He does these also does the Son likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will also show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son also quickens whom He will. For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honours not the Son, honours not the Father, who has sent the Son. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. Verily I say unto you, that the hour is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and when they have heard it, they shall live. For as the Father has eternal life in Himself, so also has He given to the Son to have eternal life in Himself; and He has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man
John 5:19-27 — that is, according to the flesh, even as He is also the Son of God through His Spirit. Afterwards He goes on to say: But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father has given me to finish — those very works bear witness of me that the Father has sent me. And the Father Himself, which has sent me, has also borne witness of me.
John 5:36-37 But He at once adds, You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape;
thus affirming that in former times it was not the Father, but the Son, who used to be seen and heard. Then He says at last: I have come in my Father’s name, and you have not received me
. It was therefore always the Son (of whom we read) under the designation of the Almighty and Most High God, and King, and Lord. To those also who inquired what they should do to work the works of God,
John 6:29 He answered, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.
He also declares Himself to be the bread which the Father sent from heaven;
and adds, that all that the Father gave Him should come to Him, and that He Himself would not reject them, because He had come down from heaven not to do His own will, but the will of the Father; and that the will of the Father was that every one who saw the Son, and believed on Him, should obtain the life (everlasting,) and the resurrection at the last day. No man indeed was able to come to Him, except the Father attracted him; whereas every one who had heard and learned of the Father came to Him.
John 6:37-45 He goes on then expressly to say, Not that any man has seen the Father
; thus showing us that it was through the Word of the Father that men were instructed and taught. Then, when many departed from Him, and He turned to the apostles with the inquiry whether they also would go away,
what was Simon Peter’s answer? To whom shall we go? You have the words of
eternal life, and we believe that You are the Christ. (Tell me now, did they believe) Him to be the Father, or the Christ of the Father? (Against Praxeas)
Chapter 5. Some Considerations in Reply Eulogistic of the Flesh. It Was Created by God. The Body of Man Was, in Fact, Previous to His Soul.
Inasmuch as all uneducated men, therefore, still form their opinions after these common-sense views, and as the falterers and the weak-minded have a renewal of their perplexities occasioned by the selfsame views; and as the first battering-ram which is directed against ourselves is that which shatters the condition of the flesh, we must on our side necessarily so manage our defences, as to guard, first of all, the condition of the flesh, their disparagement of it being repulsed by our own eulogy. The heretics, therefore, challenged us to use our rhetoric no less than our philosophy. Respecting, then, this frail and poor, worthless body, which they do not indeed hesitate to call evil, even if it had been the work of angels, as Menander and Marcus are pleased to think, or the formation of some fiery being, an angel, as Apelles teaches, it would be quite enough for securing respect for the body, that it had the support and protection of even a secondary deity. The angels, we know, rank next to God. Now, whatever be the supreme God of each heretic, I should not unfairly derive the dignity of the flesh likewise from Him to whom was present the will for its production. For, of course, if He had not willed its production, He would have prohibited it, when He knew it was in progress. It follows, then, that even on their principle the flesh is equally the work of God. There is no work but belongs to Him who has permitted it to exist. It is indeed a happy circumstance, that most of their doctrines, including even the harshest, accord to our God the entire formation of man. How mighty He is, you know full well who believe that He is the only God. Let, then, the flesh begin to give you pleasure, since the Creator thereof is so great. But, you say, even the world is the work of God, and yet the fashion of this world passes away,
1 Corinthians 7:31 as the apostle himself testifies; nor must it be predetermined that the world will be restored, simply because it is the work of God. And surely if the universe, after its ruin, is not to be formed again, why should a portion of it be? You are right, if a portion is on an equality with the whole. But we maintain that there is a difference. In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made. John 1:3 Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle, that here should be nothing without that Word. Let us make man
, Genesis 1:26 said He, before He created him, and added, with our hand
, for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation. And God
, says (the Scripture), formed man.
Genesis 1:27 There is undoubtedly a great difference in the procedure, springing of course from the nature of the case. For the creatures which were made were inferior to him for whom they were made; and they were made for man, to whom they were afterwards made subject by God. Rightly, therefore, had the creatures which were thus intended for subjection, come forth into being at the bidding and command and sole power of the divine voice; while man, on the contrary, destined to be their lord, was formed by God Himself, to the intent that he might be able to exercise his mastery, being created by the Master the Lord Himself. Remember, too, that man is properly called flesh, which had a prior occupation in man’s designation: And God formed man the clay of the ground.
He now became man, who was hitherto clay. And He breathed upon his face the breath of life, and man (that is, the clay) became a living soul; and God placed the man whom He had formed in the garden.
Genesis 2:7-8 So that man was clay at first, and only afterwards man entire. I wish to impress this on your attention, with a view to your knowing, that whatever God has at all purposed or promised to man, is due not to the soul simply, but to the flesh also; if not arising out of any community in their origin, yet at all events by the privilege possessed by the latter in its name.
Chapter 6. Not the Lowliness of the Material, But the Dignity and Skill of the Maker, Must Be Remembered, in Gauging the Excellence of the Flesh. Christ Partook of Our Flesh.
Let me therefore pursue the subject before me — if I can but succeed in vindicating for the flesh as much as was conferred on it by Him who made it, glorying as it even then was, because that poor paltry material, clay, found its way into the hands of God, whatever these were, happy enough at merely being touched by them. But why this glorying? Was it that, without any further labour, the clay had instantly assumed its form at the touch of God? The truth is, a great matter was in progress, out of which the creature under consideration was being fashioned. So often then does it receive honour, as often as it experiences the hands of God, when it is touched by them, and pulled, and drawn out, and moulded into shape. Imagine God wholly employed and absorbed in it — in His hand, His eye, His labour, His purpose, His wisdom, His providence, and above all, in His love, which was dictating the lineaments (of this creature). For, whatever was the form and expression which was then given to the clay (by the Creator) Christ was in His thoughts as one day to become man, because the Word, too, was to be both clay and flesh, even as the earth was then. For so did the Father previously say to the Son: Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness.
Genesis 1:26 And God made man, that is to say, the creature which He moulded and fashioned; after the image of God (in other words, of Christ) did He make him. And the Word was God also, who being in the image of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God.
Philippians 2:6 Thus, that clay which was even then putting on the image of Christ, who was to come in the flesh, was not only the work, but also the pledge and surety, of God. To what purpose is it to bandy about the name earth, as that of a sordid and grovelling element, with the view of tarnishing the origin of the flesh, when, even if any other material had been available for forming man, it would be requisite that the dignity of the Maker should be taken into consideration, who even by His selection of His material deemed it, and by His management made it, worthy? The hand of Phidias forms the Olympian Jupiter of ivory; worship is given to the statue, and it is no longer regarded as a god formed out of a most silly animal, but as the world’s supreme Deity — not because of the bulk of the elephant, but on account of the renown of Phidias. Could not therefore the living God, the true God, purge away by His own operation whatever vileness might have accrued to His material, and heal it of all infirmity? Or must this remain to show how much more nobly man could fabricate a god, than God could form a man? Now, although the clay is offensive (for its poorness), it is now something else. What I possess is flesh, not earth, even although of the flesh it is said: Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return.
In these words there is the mention of the origin, not a recalling of the substance. The privilege has been granted to the flesh to be nobler than its origin, and to have happiness aggrandized by the change wrought in it. Now, even gold is earth, because of the earth; but it remains earth no longer after it becomes gold, but is a far different substance, more splendid and more noble, though coming from a source which is comparatively faded and obscure. In like manner, it was quite allowable for God that He should clear the gold of our flesh from all the taints, as you deem them, of its native clay, by purging the original substance of its dross. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh)
Further Reading
Early Church & the Punctuation of John 1:3-4
Origen & the Punctuation of John 1:3-4
Novatian & the Punctuation of John 1:3-4
Tertullian: Trinity is the Faith of the Ancient Church
DID TERTULLIAN DENY THE ETERNAL NATURE OF CHRIST?