Tertullian · a new plain-English translation from the original language
[1] That rich women clung to Christ, and even ministered to him out of their own means — among them she who was wife to the king's household steward — this too fulfills prophecy. For it was such women whom he called through Isaiah: "Rich women, arise and hear my voice": so as to show them first as disciples, then as workers and ministers: "Daughters, hear my words in hope: remember the day of the year, with labor, in hope" — for it was with labor that they followed him, and it was for hope that they ministered. [2] As for the parables, let it suffice once for all that this manner of speech was proved to have been promised by the Creator. But now that other pronouncement of his to the people too — "By hearing you shall hear and not hear" — gave Christ occasion to hammer home again and again, "He who has ears, let him hear": not as though Christ were granting a hearing which the Creator had taken away, out of some opposing intent, but because the exhortation followed on the threat. First: "By hearing you shall hear and not hear"; then: "He who has ears, let him hear." [3] For those who had ears were not hearing of their own accord; he was showing that ears of the heart were needed — the very ears the Creator had said they would not hear with. And so, through Christ, he adds: "Take heed how you hear, and not-hear" — meaning, not hearing with the heart but only with the ear. If you fit a sense worthy of the pronouncement to the intent of the one who was rousing them to listen, then even in saying "Take heed how you hear" he was threatening those who would not hear. And yet that gentlest of gods threatens — he who neither judges nor grows angry! [4] The sense that follows proves this too. "To him who has, it shall be given; but from him who has not, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away." What shall be given? An increase of faith, or of understanding, or salvation itself. What shall be taken away? Precisely what will be given. By whom is it given and taken away? If it is taken away by the Creator, it is also given by him. If it is given by Marcion's god, it is also taken away by him. [5] Whatever name you put on the threat of taking-away, it will not belong to a god who cannot threaten, since he does not know how to be angry. And I marvel that he denies a lamp is ever hidden — he who had hidden himself, a light so much greater and more necessary, for so long an age — he who promises that all things hidden shall be brought out into the open, and yet even now keeps his own god in the shadows, waiting, I suppose, for Marcion to be born! [6] We come now to the most persistent argument of all those who dispute the Lord's birth. He himself, they say, testifies that he was not born, by saying, "Who is my mother, or who are my brothers?" This is always the way of heretics: either they seize on bare, unqualified sayings and drag them by conjecture wherever they please, or else they dissolve conditional and reasoned statements out of the very condition that gives them their simplicity — as here. [7] We reply, on the contrary, first, that it could not have been announced to him that his mother and brothers were standing outside seeking to see him, if he had had no mother and no brothers at all — since the one who brought the news obviously knew them, either from before or from having just then learned of them there, while they were desiring to see him or sending in word to him. To this first point of ours the usual answer from the other side is: What if it was announced to him merely to test him? But Scripture does not say this — and Scripture, which is accustomed to signal so plainly when something is done by way of testing ("Behold, a teacher of the law rose up, tempting him"; and concerning the question of tribute, "And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him") — Scripture, precisely because it makes no mention of testing here, does not allow the interpretation of testing to be smuggled in. [8] And yet, out of sheer generosity, let me press the question of motive: for what purpose would they have tested him by naming his mother and brothers? If it was to establish whether or not he had come into the world by birth — at what point was that ever in dispute, such that they needed this so-called test to settle it? [9] Who, indeed, could doubt he had been born, when they saw a man, when they had heard him profess himself Son of Man — men who, from the plain sight of every human trait, doubted whether to believe him God or Son of God, judging it easier to suppose him some prophet, however great, but in any case born? Even if he had needed to be tested on the question of his birth, any other proof would have suited the test better than mentioning persons whom, even if born, he might not have had. [10] Tell me — does every man who is born have a living mother? Are brothers born to every man who is born? Might one not rather have a father, or sisters, or indeed no one at all? Besides, it is well established that a census was carried out under Augustus, then in Judea, through Sentius Saturninus — a record in which they could have looked up his lineage. So there is no way this pretext of testing holds together, and truly his mother and brothers were standing outside. It remains to examine the sense of the one who was not simply declaring, "Who is my mother, or my brothers?" as though he were denying kinship and birth altogether, but speaking out of the necessity and reasoned circumstance of the moment. [11] For it was because those closest to him by blood were standing outside while strangers sat fixed within, hanging on his words, and were further trying to call him away from his solemn work, that he took rightful offense. He did not so much deny them as disown them for the moment. And indeed, having said first, "Who is my mother, or who are my brothers?" he goes on to add, "except those who hear my words and do them" — thereby transferring the names of blood-kinship to others, whom he judged nearer to him by reason of faith. [12] But no one transfers something unless he actually possesses the thing he transfers. If, then, he made those his mother and brothers who were not, how could he have denied those who were? Clearly it was on the ground of merit, not by denying the kinship itself — teaching, in his own person, that whoever puts father or mother or brothers ahead of the word of God is not a worthy disciple. In fact, by this very act he was confirming, all the more, that they were his mother and brothers — precisely because he was refusing, for the moment, to acknowledge them. [13] By adopting others, he was confirming those he had, out of momentary displeasure, disowned — substituting the newcomers not as truer kin but as worthier ones. In short, it is no great thing if he ranked faith above blood-kinship — kinship he did in fact possess.
20.