Names And Deeds And Gifts

Provoca nunc, ut soles, ad hanc Esaiae comparationem Christi, contendens illam in nullo convenire. Primo enim, inquis, Christus Esaiae Emmanuel vocari habebit, debinc virtutem sumere Damasci et spolia Samariae adversus regem Assyriorum. Porro iste, qui venit, neque sub eiusmodi nomine est editus neque ulla re bellica functus est.  At ego te admonebo, uti cohaerentia quoque utriusque capituli recognoscas. Subiuncta est enim et interpretatio Emmanuelis, Nobiscum Deus; uti non solum sonum nominis spectes, sed et sensum. Sonus enim Hebraicus, quod est Emmanuel, suae gentis est; sensus autem eius, quod est Deus nobiscum, ex interpretatione communis est. Quaere ergo an ista vox, Nobiscum deus, quod est Emmanuel, exinde quo Christus illuxit, agitetur in Christo. Et puto, non negabis, utpote qui et ipse dicas, Deus nobiscum dicitur, id est Emmanuel. Aut si tam vanus es, ut quia penes te Nobiscum deus dicitur, non Emmanuel, idcirco nolis venisse illum cuius proprium sit vocari Emmanuel, quasi non hoc sit et Deus nobiscum, invenies apud Hebraeos Christianos, immo et Marcionitas, Emmanuelem nominare, cum volunt dicere Nobiscum deus; sicut et omnis gens, quoquo sono dixerit Nobiscum deus, Emmanuelem pronuntiavit in sensu sonum expungens. Quodsi Emmanuel Nobiscum deus est, deus autem nobiscum Christus est, qui etiam in nobis est, quotquot enim in Christum tincti estis, Christum induistis, tam proprius est Christus in significatione nominis, quod est Nobiscum deus, quam in sono nominis, quod est Emmanuel. Atque ita constat venisse iam illum qui praedicabatur Emmanuel, quia quod significat Emmanuel venit, id est Nobiscum deus. Aeque et sono nominum duceris, cum virtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae et regem Assyriorum sic accipis quasi bellatorem portendant Christum creatoris, non animadvertens quid scriptura praemittat, quoniam priusquam cognoscat vocare patrem et matrem, accipiet virtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae adversus regem Assyriorum. Ante est enim inspicias aetatis demonstrationem, an hominem iam Christum exhibere possit, nedum imperatorem. Scilicet vagitu ad arma esset convocaturus infans, et signa belli non tuba sed crepitacillo daturus, nec ex equo vel de curru vel de muro, sed de nutricis aut gerulae suae collo sive dorso hostem destinaturus, atque ita Damascum et Samariam pro mammillis subacturus?  Aliud est si penes Ponticos barbariae gentis infantes in proelium erumpunt, credo ad solem uncti prius, dehinc pannis armati et butyro stipendiati, qui ante norint lanceare quam lancinare. Enimvero si nusquam hoc natura concedit, ante militare quam vivere, ante virtutem Damasci sumere quam patris et matris vocabulum nosse, sequitur ut figurata pronuntiatio videatur. Sed et virginem, inquit, parere natura non patitur, et tamen creditur prophetae. Et merito. Praestruxit enim fidem incredibili rei, rationem edendo, quod in signo esset futura. Propterea, inquit, dabit vobis dominus signum: Ecce virgo concipiet in utero et pariet filium. Signum autem a Deo, nisi novitas aliqua monstruosa, iam signum non fuisset. Denique et Iudaei, si quando ad nos deiciendos mentiri audent, quasi non virginem sed iuvenculam concepturam et parituram scriptura contineat, hinc revincuntur quod nihil signi videri possit res cotidiana, iuvenculae scilicet praegnatus et partus. In signum ergo disposita virgo et mater merito creditur, infans vero bellator non aeque. Non enim et hic signi ratio versatur. Sed signo nativitatis novae adscripto exinde post signum alius ordo iam infantis edicitur, mel et butyrum manducaturi.  Nec hoc utique in signum est, malitiae non assentaturi, et hoc enim infantiae est, sed accepturi virtutem Damasci et spolia Samariae adversus regem Assyriorum. Serva modum aetatis et quaere sensum praedicationis, immo redde evangelio veritatis quae posterior detraxisti, et tam intellegitur prophetia quam renuntiatur expuncta. Maneant autem orientales illi Magi in infantia Christum recentem auro et ture munerantes, et acceperit infans virtutem Damasci sine proelio et armis. Nam praeter quod omnibus notum est, orientis virtutem, id est vim et vires, auro et odoribus pollere solitam, certe est creatori virtutem ceterarum quoque gentium aurum constituere, sicut per Zachariam, Et Iudas praetendet apud Hierusalem et congregabit omnem valentiam populorum per circuitum, aurum et argentum. De illo autem tunc auri munere etiam David, Et dabitur illi ex auro Arabiae; et rursus, Reges Arabum et Saba munera offerent illi. Nam et Magos reges habuit fere oriens, et Damascus Arabiae retro deputabatur, antequam transcripta esset in Syrophoenicen ex distinctione Syriarum, cuius tunc virtutem Christus accepit, accipiendo insignia eius, aurum scilicet et odores; spolia autem Samariae ipsos Magos, qui cum illum cognovissent et muneribus honorassent et genu posito adorassent quasi Deum et regem sub testimonio indicis et ducis stellae. Tertullianus, Adversus Marcionem, Liber III, Caput XII  Migne PL 2 336-337

And you challenge us now, as is your custom, with Isaiah's description of Christ, contending that it is in no way suitable. For firstly you say that Isaiah's Christ will have to be called Emmanuel, 1 and then that He must take way the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of Assyria. 2 And yet the one who has come was neither born under this name, nor engaged in any warfare. But I admonish you that you should look into the meanings of both passages. For there is added the interpretation of Emmanuel, 'God with us;' so that you should not merely attend to the sound of the name, but also the sense. The speech is Hebrew, of his own people, that is, 'Emmanuel,' but the sense of it, 'God with us,' is by translation made common to all. Seek, then, whether this name, 'God with us,' which is 'Emmanuel,' since Christ enlightened, be not used for Christ. And I think you will not deny it, since you say He is called 'God with us,' that is, Emmanuel. Else if you are so vain, that, because with you He is called 'God with us', not Emmanuel, you therefore are unwilling to allow that He has come whose right it is to be called Emmanuel, as if this were not God with us, you will find among the Hebrew Christians, and even the Marcionites, that they name Him Emmanuel when they mean God with us, just indeed as every nation, by whatever sound they would use to say 'God with us', has called Him Emmanuel, with the meaning erasing the word. Now since Emmanuel is 'God with us', and 'God with us' is Christ, who is even in us, for 'as many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ' 3, so Christ is in the meaning of the name, which is 'God with us', as He is in the pronunciation of the name, which is Emmanuel. And thus it holds that He has already come who was foretold as Emmanuel, because that which Emmanuel signifies has come, that is to say, 'God with us'. And you are equally led away by the sound of names, when you so understand the power of Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, and the king of Assyria, as if they portended that the Creator's Christ would be a warrior, not attending to the prediction contained in the passage, 'For before the Child shall have knowledge to say father and mother, He shall take away the power of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria against the king of Assyria.' 2 You should first look to the description of age, whether it is able to show Christ as a man, much less a general. Although certainly by his cry the infant might be about to call to arms, he might be about to sound the alarm, not with a trumpet but with a little rattle, he might be about to seek the enemy, not on horseback, nor in chariot, nor from the wall, but from nurse's neck or maid's back, and so subjugate Damascus and Samaria from His mother's breasts. It is different, of course, when the babies of barbarian Pontus spring forth to battle. I believe they are anointed first in sunshine and then armed and rationed with bread and butter. 4 Now if it is allowed that nature nowhere grants that warfare be learned before life, to take the power of Damascus before he knows his father and mother's name, it follows that this is figurative speech. But, he may say, nature does not allow 'a virgin to conceive,' and yet the Prophet is believed. And with merit, for he has prepared beforehand trust in  the incredible thing, giving a reason for it, that it was to be a sign for the future. 'Therefore,' he says, 'the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.' 5 Now a sign from God, unless it were something novel and notable, would not have been a sign. And then some Jews, attempting to disconcert us with falsehoods, say that Scripture does not read that a virgin is to conceive and give birth but only a young woman, but they are refuted because nothing can be a sign that is a daily occurrence, that is, a young woman being pregnant and giving birth. As a sign, then, a virgin and mother is rightly adjudged, but a warlike infant is not like this, for in this the sense of the sign is not grasped. But after the sign of the strange and novel birth, afterwards is declared as another sign the course of the Infant, who was to eat butter and honey. Not that this indeed is as a sign, nor is His 'refusing the evil,' for this, too, is of infancy, but His taking of the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria against the king of Assyria is indeed a sign. Attend to the statement of the age, and seek the sense of the prophecy, and do give back to the truth of the Gospel what you later took from it, and so, renouncing its omissions, the prophecy is understood. Let those eastern Magi wait on the new born Christ, offering to Him in His infancy, their gifts of gold and frankincense, and surely an Infant shall receive the might of Damascus without a battle and unarmed. For besides what is known to all, that the might of the East, that is, its strength and resources, usually consist of gold and spices, it is certainly true of the Creator, that He makes gold the riches of the other nations also, as He says by Zechariah: 'And Judah shall also fight at Jerusalem and shall gather together all the wealth of the nations round about, gold and silver.' 6 And then concerning that gift of gold, David also says: 'And there shall be given to Him of the gold of Arabia,' 7 and again: 'The kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer to Him gifts.'  8 For the East generally regarded the Magi as kings, and Damascus in the past was deemed to belong to Arabia, before it was transferred to Syrophœnicia in the division of the Syria, which riches Christ then received, accepting its tokens, gold and spices, while the spoils of Samaria were the Magi themselves, who when they found Him and honoured Him with their gifts, on bended knee adored Him as God and King, by the witness of the star which led their way and guided them. Tertullian, from Against Marcion, Book 3, Chap 12 1 Is 7.14   2 Is 8.4 3Gal 3.27  4 Marcion was from Pontus 5 Is 7:14   6 Zech 14.14  7 Ps 71.15  8 Ps 71.10