Tertullian Mentions "holy Garments"

[Zakuska]

Chapter I. ----Introduction. Modesty in Apparel Becoming to Women, in Memory of the Introduction of Sin into the World Through a Woman.

[1] If there dwelt upon earth a faith as great as is the reward of faith which is expected in the heavens, no one of you at all, best beloved sisters, from the time that she had first "known the Lord,"1 and learned (the truth) concerning her own (that is, woman's) condition, would have desired too gladsome (not to say too ostentatious) a style of dress; so as not rather to go about in humble garb, and rather to affect meanness of appearance, walking about as Eve mourning and repentant, in order that by every garb of penitence2 she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve,----the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her as the cause) of human perdition. "In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination, and he lords It over thee."3 And do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? [2] The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age:4 the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer5 of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded6 him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert----that is, death----even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?7 [3] Come, now; if from the beginning of the world8 the Milesians sheared sheep, and the Serians9 spun trees, and the Tyrians dyed, and the Phrygians embroidered with the needle, and the Babylonians with the loom, and pearls gleamed, and onyx-stones flashed; if gold itself also had already issued, with the cupidity (which accompanies it), from the ground; if the mirror, too, already had licence to lie so largely, Eve, expelled from paradise, (Eve) already dead, would also have coveted these things, I imagine! No more, then, ought she now to crave, or be acquainted with (if she desires to live again), what, when she was living, she had neither had nor known. Accordingly these things are all the baggage of woman in her condemned and dead state, instituted as if to swell the pomp of her funeral.

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/anf04-06.htm#3_1

The foot note is:

Gen 3

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

[Sargon]

Great find Zak, I wish I had time to sit and read Tertullian.

I found this one today, it's not as cool as yours, but I liked it:

1Cr 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

Paul then dives into a explanation of head coverings used during worship.

Sargon

[Zakuska]

I also like these...

Ex. 28: 42

42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Ex. 39: 28

28 And a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen,

Lev. 6: 10

10 And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh, and take up the ashes which the fire hath consumed with the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar.

Lev. 16: 4

4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen amitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.

Ezek. 44: 18

18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen bbreeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat.

[Chris Smith]

Tertullian is telling women to dress humbly, i.e. in tunics of skins. In doing so they allegedly expiate the sin and curse they have inherited from their mother, Eve. There is no mention of temple (linen) garments here.

[Zakuska]

The footnotes disagrees with you... The temple garment represents the gament (tunic of Skin) God made in the Garden. Why cotton (Linen) garments do you ask?

[livy111us]

Here is one I like:

â??And I saw seven men in white clothing, who were saying to me, "Arise, put on the vestments of the

priesthood, the crown of righteousness, the oracle of understanding, the robe of truth, the breastplate

of faith, the miter for the head, and the apron for prophetic power." Each carried one of these and

put them on me and said, "From now on be a priest, you and all your posterity." The first anointed me

with holy oil and gave me a staff. The second washed me with pure water, fed me by hand with

bread and holy wine, and put on me a holy and glorious vestment. The third put on me something

made of linen, like an ephod. The fourth placed . . . around me a girdle which was like purple. The

fifth gave me a branch of rich olive wood. The sixth placed a wreath on my head. The seventh

placed the priestly diadem on me and filled my hands with incense, in order that I might serve as

priest for the Lord God.â? (Testament of Levi 8:2-10)

[rhinomelon]

The footnotes disagrees with you... The temple garment represents the gament (tunic of Skin) God made in the Garden.

You are assuming that Tertullian is also operating from that same LDS interpretation, that God made the first temple garments for Adam and Eve. That understanding is utterly absent from this passage. CaliforniaKid is correct on this one. Tertullian is making comparisons between the garments made by God (which he seems to assume were humble and unadorned), and the finery and ostentatious dress preferred by some women of his own time. Temple worship or anything of that sort is not even mentioned.

Simply because "garments" are mentioned in various passages, biblical or ECF, certainly does not mean that temple garments are what are being referenced in each case.

Take care, everyone

[Sargon]

I could be wrong, but the phrase:

And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins?

does seem to suggest that the Christian women were tempted to dress in ways that were not reflective of the humble "tunics of skin" that they already possessed, and which represents their covenants with the Lord. It does say your tunics of skin.

On a side note, I also found this tidbit from the same passage noteworthy:

You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer5 of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded6 him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man.

Apparently Tertullian believed that man is in God's image. The question is, did she destroy God's image, or did she destroy man? It seems to suggest that God's image was not destroyed, but that man was destroyed.

Sargon

[rhinomelon]

Also, Zak, where does Tertullian say anything about "holy" garments?

Apparently Tertullian believed that man is in God's image. The question is, did she destroy God's image, or did she destroy man? It seems to suggest that God's image was not destroyed, but that man was destroyed.

Excellent question! That would be a fascinating study, I think. The "imago dei" was a concept that carried a great deal of weight with the ECF.

Take care, everyone

[Sargon]

Also, Zak, where does Tertullian say anything about "holy" garments?

Does it need to say "holy garments" for it to be speaking of the same thing?? Holy garments is most likely a modern word for a very old concept.

Sargon

[soren]

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/anf04-06.htm#3_1

The foot note is:

Gen 3

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Being a Catholic and therefore a sacramentalist, I have no objection to holy garments, but I fail to see the point of this citation. Do you mean the "garb of penitence"? I would think that was something like sack-cloth. I think the quote is quite interesting, but you gave no interpretation for me to see what you intend.

[Homestar Runner]

I think we're all missing the point here. The main point is that christianity is untrue, because past church leaders were mysogynistic sexist slimeballs.

The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert----that is, death----even the Son of God had to die.

I mean really, blaming all females for Christ's death? What's next - opinining about blacks and the priesthood?

Oh, wait a minute. The "he was a product of his times" defence is only invalid when a mormon uses it.

Sorry folks - carry on.

HSR

[rhinomelon]

I think we're all missing the point here. The main point is that christianity is untrue, because past church leaders were mysogynistic sexist slimeballs.

Tertullian never claimed to be the mouthpiece of God But that quote is a classic. I remember bringing that one up in mock-piety in college, when my female friends were overstepping their bounds...

Does it need to say "holy garments" for it to be speaking of the same thing?? Holy garments is most likely a modern word for a very old concept.

Zak put the phrase in quotes, which led me to believe that Tertullian indeed said just that. Unfortunately, the context of the quote is throwing monkey wrenches in his interpretation.

Take care, everyone

[soren]

Apparently Tertullian believed that man is in God's image. The question is, did she destroy God's image, or did she destroy man? It seems to suggest that God's image was not destroyed, but that man was destroyed.

Sargon

Tertullian certainly believed that man is the image of God, but he did not believe the divine image to be a physical resemblance, but a spiritual, moral image. Tertullian spoke of this using two terms: As the image of God man has a spiritual nature; as the likeness of God man lives a spiritual life befitting the image. (Sometimes Tertullian uses these terms interchangeably.) According to Tertullian, man lost his â??likenessâ? to God when Adam sinned, but remains in Godâ??s â??image.â? Thus, speaking of the effects of Baptism he writes in On Baptism, Chap 5:

Thus man will be restored for God to His â??likeness,â? who in days bygone had been conformed to â??the imageâ? of God; (the â??imageâ? is counted (to be) in his form: the â??likenessâ? in his eternity:) for he receives again that Spirit of God which he had then first received from His afflatus [having been breathed], but had afterward lost through sin.

Judging from my recollection of Tertullian, â??destroying Godâ??s image, manâ? probably does not mean utterly destroying but doing serious damage by removing the â??likeness.â?

[Severian]

Are garments made of skins a 'special order' item from the Church catalog?

[No Touch]

If you disagree with this as a reference to the garments, that's fine.

But all that "spiritual image" stuff is nonsense, no matter how many people believed in it. Spirit (by your own definition as being what God is) has no image, no likeness. It is the ever-present invisible nothingness around us. Beyond that, all the characteristics attributed to the spirit of this God bear no resemblance to the spirit of man.

[Sentinus]

Tertullian never claimed to be the mouthpiece of God But that quote is a classic. I remember bringing that one up in mock-piety in college, when my female friends were overstepping their bounds...

Zak put the phrase in quotes, which led me to believe that Tertullian indeed said just that. Unfortunately, the context of the quote is throwing monkey wrenches in his interpretation.

Take care, everyone

Rhino said:

"Tertullian never claimed to be the mouthpiece of God "

Agreed, The key here (imo) is that when a man regardless of religious affiliation (including Mormons) speaks as a man, it is not for God but only an interpretation. When a man who claims to be a prophet speaks then it is COMPLETELY different.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Sargon]

Rhino said:

"Tertullian never claimed to be the mouthpiece of God "

Agreed, The key here (imo) is that when a man regardless of religious affiliation (including Mormons) speaks as a man, it is not for God but only an interpretation. When a man who claims to be a prophet speaks then it is COMPLETELY different.

Regards,

Sentinus

I don't know that anyone, including Zak, would consider Tertullian's words as scripture. To my meager knowledge, Tertullian has never been thought to be a prophet.

The quote though is useful for identifying the existence of a more ancient understanding of the skins placed on Adam and Eve. We just don't see an emphasis placed on it by anyone in today's world, except of course for the LDS. It is one of many hints that the strange LDS temple teachings are not really all that strange. This quote is comparable to the known jewish traditions involving the tunics of skin given to Adam and Eve, and their representation of covenants.

Sargon

[rhinomelon]

But all that "spiritual image" stuff is nonsense, no matter how many people believed in it. Spirit (by your own definition as being what God is) has no image, no likeness. It is the ever-present invisible nothingness around us. Beyond that, all the characteristics attributed to the spirit of this God bear no resemblance to the spirit of man.

Where did you get that definition of "spirit"?

But anyway, I'm still not seeing how anyone could see this passage as referencing holy garments, when the emphasis is obviously on clothing and modesty, not any religious rites or rituals. I think Zakuska just jumped the gun, seeing "garment" in the text and immediately imbuing that term with a specifically modern LDS meaning.

Take care, everyone

[Kevin Christensen]

With respect to ancient temple traditions, Blake Ostler wrote an excellent essay called "Clothed Upon" for BYU Studies many years ago, I think in the early 80s on the topic (I have the issue, and it is available on the InfoBase CDs that have BYU Studies collections), and Hugh Nibley has an essay called "Sacred Vestiments in the Temple and Cosmos volume of the Collected Works.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Homestar Runner]

Tertullian never claimed to be the mouthpiece of God

True. And Governor Young wasn't making that claim either, as he addressed the Utah legislature. Yet Tertulian gets a pass, and Brother Brigham gets hammered. Or, more to the point, today's Christians bring up Tertulian's quote as a way to share a giggle, and LDS critics bring up Brigham's quotes as evidence that the church is not true.

HSR

[No Touch]

But anyway, I'm still not seeing how anyone could see this passage as referencing holy garments, when the emphasis is obviously on clothing and modesty, not any religious rites or rituals. I think Zakuska just jumped the gun, seeing "garment" in the text and immediately imbuing that term with a specifically modern LDS meaning.

It's simple - just connect the dots:

He references, not simply their clothing, but he uses (seemingly deliberately) the term "coat of skins", which seems an obvious reference to those given to Adam & Eve. Now while I am no expert on Tertullian's historical context, the term seems out of place there. And I do not believe "coat of skins" would serve as an accurate description of the standard clothing of the era, even among the righteous & humble.

Also is the fact that he refers to "your coat of skins", being very deliberate again, seeming to in fitting fashion be referring to that which was given to them, in a similar fashion to how they were given to Adam & Eve.

The garment is meant to represent the coat of skins, and as I do not think the term would accurately reflect common clothing, nor would it be a common term in Tertullian's time, I think it is both easy and reasonable to conceive that this is what he was speaking about. Not that we can say so with absolute certainty at all, but it could fit the bill.

[soren]

If you disagree with this as a reference to the garments, that's fine.

But all that "spiritual image" stuff is nonsense, no matter how many people believed in it. Spirit (by your own definition as being what God is) has no image, no likeness. It is the ever-present invisible nothingness around us.

I was only attempting to explain Tertullian's position, not defend it. I was answering a good question about what he meant by an ambiguous phrase. But since you raise the issue:

I do not define "spirit" as "being what God is." I define it as "that which properly possesses the living operations of knowledge, love, and power." There is absolutely no sense in which spirit is a "nothingness"; indeed, to think of God as a nothingness is a blasphemy second only to calling him evil, in no way accepted by Catholic teaching and the Christian tradition.

Beyond that, all the characteristics attributed to the spirit of this God bear no resemblance to the spirit of man.

That is correct. Man resembles God only. Since the spirit of man has knowledge, love, and power, man is like God. The difference is that although man possess attributes like God's, he does not have them in the same way in which God does. That is part of why the likeness is not a two-way street.

And of course the image of God is a spiritual likeness because our likeness to God is what separates us from the animals and gives man rule over them.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Gen 1:26-28)

What gives man the right to rule creation? The shape of his body or the character of his soul?

[No Touch]

I do not define "spirit" as "being what God is." I define it as "that which properly possesses the living operations of knowledge, love, and power." There is absolutely no sense in which spirit is a "nothingness"; indeed, to think of God as a nothingness is a blasphemy second only to calling him evil, in no way accepted by Catholic teaching and the Christian tradition.

Lets call it a physical nothingness then if you want to split hairs. The point is that you do not believe that God is a physical being with an image that is actually a visual image, the only sort of image there is. When not given another adjective to suggest something like spiritual, it is what this word means. If it had only said likeness, you would have a case. But an image is a vision of a physical thing. And to say that God has an image and that man resembles is clear reference to a physical resemblance, even if people have been denying it for over 1700 years.

And of course the image of God is a spiritual likeness because our likeness to God is what separates us from the animals and gives man rule over them.

What gives man the right to rule creation? The shape of his body or the character of his soul?

Why is it either/or? It is a flat-out deception to say that it can only be one. It is both. Man would not be man in the body of a deer, even possessing the same soul. A soul like unto God's can only dwell in a body like unto God's.

[BCSpace]

The footnotes disagrees with you... The temple garment represents the gament (tunic of Skin) God made in the Garden.

You are assuming that Tertullian is also operating from that same LDS interpretation, that God made the first temple garments for Adam and Eve. That understanding is utterly absent from this passage. CaliforniaKid is correct on this one.

Tertullian would have rejected today's notion of the trinity so he is certainly not operating from the standpoint of 'traditional' Christianity (which is not as old as Biblical LDS doctrine). It's obvious that he gives special consideration for these tunics that today's nonLDS christians do not. Therefore, we see yet again that the closer one gets to NT times, the more LDS the Church looks.