6. Theology And Tertullian
6
THEOLOGY AND TERTULLIAN
Many readers who pick up this volume would expect this section to be the most important part of this introduction. Although his theology is important, there are many dimensions to Tertullian’s writings in addition to the theological. In recent years in the field of Patristics, there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of cultural, historical, sociological, psychological, literary and pastoral aspects. The writings of early Christians are pieces of literature even before they are statements of theology. That some researchers describe the field now as early Christian literature or, even more broadly, early Christian studies, rather than simply as Patristics, may be an indication of this awareness and shift.
Those who expect to find theology and little else discussed in this book may be disappointed not to find more. Until we know how to read Tertullian as literature, we shall fail to interpret his theology accurately and thoroughly. The form is important for understanding the content. This is why Tertullian the orator, Tertullian the philosopher and Tertullian the writer come before Tertullian the theologian. In this section, all I can hope to achieve is to sketch some of the areas of systematic theology about which Tertullian had something to say, even though it must be borne in mind that Tertullian was not a systematic theologian. If anything, he was an occasional or polemical one, in the sense that he wrote to correct erroneous opinions, not to offer a thorough exposition of a topic.
We shall begin with God and the question of the Trinity. Reference has already been made in the section of this introduction on Scripture to Marcion (and there will be further discussions in the section on Christians and Jews, below). He presented a particular challenge. There was not one God but two: the first, revealed in the Old Testament, who is the creator and who is responsible for evil in the world, and the second, revealed in the New Testament, who is the Father of Jesus and who is compassionate and kind. Tertullian’s response was to assert the oneness of God. If God is supreme, eternal, unbegotten, unmade, without beginning or end, then there must only be one (Against Marcion 1.3.2). Another opponent, this time one who had moved to Carthage and was a contemporary, Hermogenes, argued that God must have created the universe out of preexistent matter for otherwise God would have created evil, which Hermogenes could not accept (Against Hermogenes 2.2–4). Tertullian responded that if God is one then the quality of eternity could be possessed only by one (Against Hermogenes 4.1–3) and that God was responsible for the creation of evil things (Against Hermogenes 16.3–4). Valentinus was a Gnostic heretic whose followers had developed a variety of opinions about a hierarchical Pleroma of divine emanations (aeons) from God (Against the Valentinians 7–8). So bizarre are these systems that Tertullian spent most of his time satirizing rather than refuting them.
Yet, his belief in the oneness of God was not the same as that held by Praxeas, which may well be a pseudonym for a Roman figure who advocated monarchianism (modalism or patripassianism), the doctrine that so insisted on the oneness of God that it blurred any distinction between Father, Son and Spirit because each was just God in a particular guise, such that, as Tertullian claimed, it was the Father who was crucified (Against Praxeas 1.1, 5). Tertullian countered that the way in which God has operated in human history, as recorded in the rule of faith preserved in the Scriptures, has been as Father, Son and Spirit (who are distinct not identical), which he calls the economy (Against Praxeas 2.1). The oneness of God is on the level of substance (substantia), whereas the distinctions are on the level of degree, form and aspect because the economy of God is a trinity (trinitas), a term we first find in Against Praxeas 2.4. Later, Tertullian would use the word person (persona) to describe the level on which Father and Son (Against Praxeas 7.9) and Spirit (Against Praxeas 11.7, 10) were distinct but not separate (Against Praxeas 9.1). Unaware of later controversies, Tertullian stated that the Father is the whole substance, whereas the Son is a derived and inferior portion of the whole (Against Praxeas 9.2).
From this trinitarian position flows Tertullian’s Christology, for the Monarchians had asserted that the term ‘Son’ could be understood as the flesh who is the human Jesus, whereas the term Father’ could be understood as the spirit who is the divine Christ (that is, God) (Against Praxeas 27.1). As far as Tertullian was concerned, this made Father and Son into two. Instead, he argued that the divine Word, without a transfiguration or change of substance, became incarnate and was clothed with flesh (Against Praxeas 27.6–7). The incarnate Jesus is not a mixture of flesh and divine spirit such that he is neither completely human nor completely divine (Against Praxeas 27.8). Indeed, he is one person in whom are conjoined two substances (Against Praxeas 27.11). What it means to be conjoined in one person was not something that was investigated here any further.
Some opponents (and Marcion was singled out for mention) appear to have held a Docetic position with regard to Christology, in that they rejected the idea that the flesh of the Christ was real (On the Flesh of Christ 1.2). What lay behind this was their denigration of the material world (On the Flesh of Christ 4.1–2). Tertullian pushed the idea that the flesh of Christ, which experienced death and resurrection, was real and that human flesh too will share in this resurrection. It was an occasion to stress the ‘two substances’ understanding of Christ (On the Flesh of Christ 5.7); both born and unborn, both fleshy and spiritual, both weak and strong, both living and dying.
Against Hermogenes, Tertullian argued that the human soul was not derived from preexistent matter but from the breath of God (On the Soul 3.4). In this work, the whole range of philosophical opinion about theological anthropology came under fire. Against the Platonic idea of the eternal pre-existence of the soul, Tertullian reaffirmed Christian belief that it was created by God (On the Soul 4). Following the Stoics, however, he accepted that the soul had corporeal substance (On the Soul 5.2). He went on to explain that by corporeal he meant that it was real although spiritual, for something incorporeal could not give life to the corporeal body the way the soul does, and the Scripture records that souls can experience torment and, as the ultimate argument, this has been revealed in the vision of a Montanist woman (On the Soul 5.3–9.8). The mind is a faculty of the soul (On the Soul 12.1). In chapter 22, he summarized what he accepted to be Christian teaching. Much of the rest of the treatise examines the question of the union of body and soul. The idea that the soul is added to the fully formed body at the moment of birth is rejected in favour of the idea that both are formed together at the same time (On the Soul 25–27). The soul does not transmigrate but is transmitted from one’s father (On the Soul 27.7–33.11). An embryo becomes human in the womb at the moment when its form is completed (On the Soul 37.2). Ultimately all souls were contained potentially in Adam and were thus unclean until born again in Christ (On the Soul 40.1). After death it would seem that the soul is sent to Hades unless it were the soul of a martyr or the soul of one already dead at the time of Christ’s death, which would gain access to paradise, which is not heaven, for heaven will only be opened when the world passes away (On the Soul 45).
The human person has free will to do what God commands or not and hence one cannot blame either God or the devil for human choices (On Exhortation to Chastity 2.3– 5). Ethics were extremely important for Tertullian and the source for ethical life was found in the pages of the New Testament. A person’s conduct was a sign of their faith (On the Prescription of Heretics 43.2) and the kind of conduct Tertullian demanded, exemplified by fasting, modesty, chastity and martyrdom, needed the purest and most resolute kind of faith.
In Apology 39, Tertullian offers a description of the life of the church for the pagan reader. He described the communal liturgical life of the community, the appointment of tested elders, the collections for the poor and needy, and the moral character of its members. We see in a late work, On Modesty, Tertullian’s understanding of the perfection of the church, which he described as a virgin free from all stain (On Modesty 1.8). Tertullian was concerned that too great an emphasis on God’s mercy would undermine the concept of divine justice (On Modesty 2). Rankin (1995:94–5) argues that Tertullian’s perfectionist streak did not emerge only after his Montanist conversion; it is evident throughout his literary corpus. The forgiveness of sins was a theological issue about which Tertullian had much to say and which will be examined in the last section of this introduction but, in essence, we can say that for him membership of the church was a clear-cut issue; only those who were faithful and pure were Christian.
The rule of faith was transmitted to the church by the apostles (On the Prescriptions of Heresies 20.5–9). The validity of anything purporting to be Christian teaching must be measured against what is found in apostolic churches (On the Prescriptions of Heresies 21.4) because of the apostolic succession of bishops (On the Prescriptions of Heresies 32.1). Rome was such a church (On the Prescriptions of Heresies 32.2; 36.2–3), yet Tertullian did not have a sense of Roman primacy (Dunn 200 la: 407–8; Dunn 2003a:13– 15). Although Tertullian accepted that clerics were of a higher status than lay people (On Baptism 17.2; On Flight in Time of Persecution 11.1) and that bishops had the responsibility for celebrating or authorizing others to celebrate sacramental liturgies (On Baptism 17.1), he was not reluctant to criticize bishops who rested their authority upon their claim to apostolic succession instead of upon their spiritual obedience (On Modesty 21.17).