9. Tertullian And Christians
9
TERTULLIAN AND CHRISTIANS
Here, as I examine relationships and attitudes among Christians themselves, I can consider only the issues of Christian women, marriage and the forgiveness of sins. Many scholars have been content to take his statement that a woman is the ‘gateway of the devil’ because of Eve’s responsibility in introducing sin into the world (On the Apparel of Women 1.1.2) as sufficient evidence that Tertullian was a misogynist. Yet, as Church points out, in every other instance when Tertullian commented on the Fall, the blame for it was placed equally on both Adam and Eve (Church 1975:86–8). It cannot be denied that Tertullian had some harsh things to say about Christian women, but it should not be forgotten that he had harsh things to say about Christian men as well. Just as in this treatise he commented upon women’s appearance, in On the Pallium he commented upon men’s appearance. His attitude towards women was determined in part by how he reconciled what he read in the Scriptures with what Montanists did in practice. Indeed, Hoffman (1995:214) recently has gone as far as to suggest that Tertullian was ‘exceptionally positive toward women’.
On the Apparel of Women urges women to dress simply, without the ostentation of ornamentation. It was modesty that would lead to salvation (On the Apparel of Women 2.1.1) and women (and men for that matter, On the Apparel of Women 2.8) must not only be modest but must also appear to be so. Women who took too much interest in their appearance invited the lust of men. There is a degree of pessimism here in Tertullian. Fear is what leads to salvation and the thought that one could fail was more appropriate than the idea that one could not (On the Apparel of Women 2.2.2–3), so one should err on the side of caution in appearance. Rather than suggest that men needed to do something to bring their lust under control, the only solution that was offered was for women to conceal and neglect themselves (On the Apparel of Women 2.2.5). Furthermore, to beautify the body was to seek praise, which was vain (On the Apparel of Women 2.3). Yet, there were limits. Squalor was not the object (On the Apparel of Women 2.5.1), nor was disfiguring what God had created through the use of dyes and cosmetics (On the Apparel of Women 2.6). The Christian woman was seen in public less than her pagan counterpart and therefore had little need for dressing up as much (On the Apparel of Women 2.11.1).
Despite his claims that women ought to be modest and almost invisible, it was obvious that a number were not. On the Veiling of Virgins was addressed to those unmarried women who dedicated themselves to Christ as virgins (mostly adolescent girls really) who, in an effort to distinguish themselves from married women, did not wear the standard head-covering when gathered together in the Christian assembly, presumably at liturgy. Unwittingly, perhaps, Tertullian lets us into some of the problems of the local Christian community: tensions between those who veiled and those who did not (On the Veiling of Virgins 3.4); pregnancies among the virgins (On the Veiling of Virgins 14.2); and married women also flouting the conventions of veil-wearing (On the Veiling of Virgins 16.3; 17.1).
Although virgins were considered to be married to Christ (On the Veiling of Virgins 16.4), Tertullian had little interest in those who were married only to other people, apart from the question of second marriages. In the earliest of his treatises on marriage, To his Wife, Tertullian advised his own wife that, in the event of his death, although he recognized her right to remarry (To his Wife 1.7.3), she ought not to remarry. Tertullian manages to tangle himself with his arguments: on the one hand marriage is good (To his Wife 1.3.2), whereas on the other Paul preferred abstinence (1 Cor 7:1) (To his Wife 1.3.2–3, 5), which could well be directed as much against first marriages as against second. So too with regard to his idea that people who marry a second time need only display greater strength of spirit to overcome their excuses that they were too weak to resist the sexual urges or wanted to improve their social position through marriage or wanted children (To his Wife 1.4.1–1.5.3), it can be replied that this is as much an argument against any marriage at all and not only second marriages. For Tertullian, to be a widow meant that one ought to be independent of the need to rely on a man (To his Wife 1.4.3; 1.7.2). Yet, he accepted that his wife, like other Christian women who found themselves without a husband after divorce or death, might well remarry (given that womanly weakness made it difficult for them to be heroic enough to remain a widow— To his Wife 2.1.2), so he commanded her (as Paul commanded) at least to marry another Christian (To his Wife 2.1.3–4). On a very positive note, Tertullian ended the treatise with a rousing encomium on the positive dimensions of marriage (To his Wife 2.8.6–9).
Some years later Tertullian wrote to a widower and repeated the arguments he had used already, except without the indulgence he showed his wife. Although he still recognized that second marriage was lawful (On Exhortation to Chastity 8.1), he was more insistent that it should not be taken up. To those men who said they needed a second wife to manage their households, Tertullian replied that they should take in widows as spiritual wives (something akin to housekeepers) (On Exhortation to Chastity 12.2).
At the end of his literary career, On Monogamy is a more hard-line exposition of the same subject. He claimed that the once-only marriage policy had been revealed apart from the Scriptures by the Paraclete (On Monogamy 2), although without offering any kind of proof that the Spirit had revealed some further teaching on this, except that it was consistent with a strict interpretation of what is found in Paul.
The last issue that can be considered in this introduction is Tertullian’s attitude towards the forgiveness of sins. Again, his attitude became less tolerant as he became older. Having repented once thorough baptism, a Christian was not to sin again (On Repentance 5.1). Yet the reality of Christian backsliding vexed the Christian community. Catechumens put off baptism in the realization that they would continue to sin even after it, which cheapened their desire and commitment to repentance (On Repentance 6.3). To know that repentance is required is to be obliged to it. With regard to the baptized, Tertullian was reluctant to even discuss the possibility of a second divine forgiveness in case it encouraged people to think that sinning after baptism was not unacceptable (On Repentance 7.1–3). Yet a second, and only a second, forgiveness was granted by God (On Repentance 7.10–11), after a lengthy and onerous period of public acknowledgement and restitution for sin (On Repentance 9–12).
Later, in his Montanist On Modesty, in response to an episcopal decree that adultery and fornication could be forgiven after repentance (On Modesty 1.6), Tertullian insisted that, just as people could only marry once, they could only be forgiven sins like adultery and fornication once (On Modesty 1.20–21). God’s goodness is balanced by justice. Some sins could be forgiven after correction, others could not (On Modesty 2.12) and the two sins under consideration in this treatise fell into the latter category, as most of the treatise sought to justify. Such a rigid system could lead to the conclusion that one may as well leave the church if they sinned after baptism, for entering a process of repentance without the prospect of forgiveness seemed pointless (On Modesty 3). Tertullian’s answer was that although such a person would have to be excluded from the church, this did not mean that God would not forgive them. Indeed, while it was possible for the Spirit to forgive, it was not possible for a bishop to do so (On Modesty 21.17). The attitude of the rest of the church, whom he called sensualists, was too lax and indulgent for Tertullian.