Day 103 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §29

Yesterday: the "hallucination" of essence-slicing was cleaned up. Today the opponents fire their best shot at the other end: "If the Son is properly God, then calling him Son is improper." Calvin answers with one idea — order — and then fights through three hard texts: John 17:3, John 14:28, 1 Cor 15:24–28. Same subject all the way: what does "God" mean when Father and Son stand side by side?

Look at S1: one monster sentence, a chain of that-clauses nested like Russian dolls. Learn to peel it, and the rest of the section is easy.

Second — as if again. S7 (as if in regard to eternal essence he were inferior) and S15 (as if there could be any true God but the one God, or as if transfused divinity were not a mere modern fiction). as if = a picture Calvin REJECTS. Don't quote it as his view.

Third — the Mediator's two registers. S3–S8. Same speaker, two vantage points: in the person of the Mediator vs. eternal essence. Drop the qualifier and you get Arius.

Fourth — text traps. ⚠️ The line-end hyphen in erro-neous is joined; the page number, running header and margin line number that fall inside S7–S8 are not part of the text. (emptied) in S4 is Beveridge's own gloss, printed in the text. godhead in S15 is lower-case in the source — quote it so. The printed section is one paragraph of 15 sentences.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Nested that-clauses and the restrictive appositive: it has been already answered, that when one person is compared with another, the name God is not used indefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, regarded as the beginning of the Godhead, not by essentiating … but in respect of order (S1). ⚠️ Peel from the outside: main clause → that → when → not … but … , not … but …. Formula 1.
2. as if + subjunctive (rejected picture) and the not … but / but pivot: S7, S15 · and the concessive though + archaic negative hesitates not to V (S5). ⚠️ as if clause = the opponents' picture; the but-clause = Calvin's. Formula 2.
3. Conjunction phrases that carry the argument: yet so that (S3), as often as (S6), inasmuch as (S8, S12), so as to (S13), and Nothing can be more X than to V (S10). ⚠️ Each one has a precise logical job — result, frequency, ground, purpose/consequence, superlative denial. Formula 3.

To the objection, that if Christ be properly God, he is improperly called the Son of God, it has been already answered, that when one person is compared with another, the name God is not used indefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, regarded as the beginning of the Godhead, not by essentiating, as fanatics absurdly express it, but in respect of order. In this sense are to be understood the words which Christ addressed to the Father, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” (John 17:3). For speaking in the person of the Mediator, he holds a middle place between God and man; yet so that his majesty is not diminished thereby. For though he humbled (emptied) himself, he did not lose the glory which he had with the Father, though it was concealed from the world. So in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:10; 2:9), though the apostle confesses that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, he at the same time hesitates not to assert that he is the eternal God who founded the earth. We must hold, therefore, that as often as Christ, in the character of Mediator, addresses the Father, he, under the term God, includes his own divinity also. Thus, when he says to the apostles, “It is expedient for you that I go away,” “My Father is greater than I,” he does not attribute to himself a secondary divinity merely, as if in regard to eternal essence he were inferior to the Father; but having obtained celestial glory, he gathers together the faithful to share it with him. He places the Father in the higher degree, inasmuch as the full perfection of brightness conspicuous in heaven, differs from that measure of glory which he himself displayed when clothed in flesh. For the same reason Paul says, that Christ will restore “the kingdom to God, even the Father,” “that God may be all in all,” (1 Cor. 15:24, 28). Nothing can be more absurd than to deny the perpetuity of Christ’s divinity. But if he will never cease to be the Son of God, but will ever remain the same that he was from the beginning, it follows that under the name of Father the one divine essence common to both is comprehended. And assuredly Christ descended to us for the very purpose of raising us to the Father, and thereby, at the same time, raising us to himself, inasmuch as he is one with the Father. It is therefore erroneous and impious to confine the name of God to the Father, so as to deny it to the Son. Accordingly, John, declaring that he is the true God, has no idea of placing him beneath the Father in a subordinate rank of divinity. I wonder what these fabricators of new gods mean, when they confess that Christ is truly God, and yet exclude him from the godhead of the Father, as if there could be any true God but the one God, or as if transfused divinity were not a mere modern fiction.

              ─── I. THE OBJECTION ANSWERED BY ORDER (S1–S2) ───
[OBJECTION]   S1     "properly God" ⇒ "improperly Son"?
[ANSWER]      S1     "God" restricted to the Father (the beginning of the Godhead)
                     NOT by essentiating, BUT in respect of order
[TEXT 1]      S2     John 17:3 read in this sense
              ─── II. THE MEDIATOR SPEAKS (S3–S9) ───
[POSITION]    S3-4   Mediator = middle place; majesty not diminished; glory concealed, not lost
[PROOF]       S5     Heb 1:10 + 2:9: lower than angels AND eternal God who founded the earth
[RULE]        S6     as often as Christ-as-Mediator addresses the Father, "God" includes his own divinity
[TEXT 2]      S7-8   "expedient … I go away" / "My Father is greater than I" = glory in flesh
                     vs. glory in heaven — NOT a secondary divinity
[TEXT 3]      S9     1 Cor 15:24, 28 — the kingdom restored to God, even the Father
              ─── III. THE CONCLUSIONS (S10–S15) ───
[PERPETUITY]  S10-11 Christ's divinity never ceases ⇒ "Father" comprehends the one essence common to both
[PURPOSE]     S12    he descended to raise us to the Father — and so to himself
[VERDICT]     S13-14 to confine "God" to the Father = erroneous and impious; John's "true God"
                     is no subordinate rank
[THRUST]      S15    "fabricators of new gods": Christ truly God, yet excluded from the Father's godhead

Examiner's Eye.

① ⚠️ Direction-flip trap. "Calvin says the name God is restricted to the Father in essence." ✗ S1: restricted in respect of order, not by essentiating.

② ⚠️ Whose picture? "Calvin says Christ attributes to himself a lesser divinity." ✗ S7: he does not attribute to himself a secondary divinity merely, as if … he were inferior — the as if is rejected.

③ ⚠️ Dropped-qualifier trap. "The Father is greater than the Son." True in S8 only as glory displayed in flesh vs. brightness conspicuous in heaven — not essence.

④ ⚠️ Scope-overreach. "1 Cor 15:24 shows Christ's divinity ends." ✗ S10: Nothing can be more absurd than to deny the perpetuity of Christ's divinity.

Formula 1 — The nested that-clause with when-condition and the double not … but.

It has been answered, that [when X is compared with Y,] the name N is not V-ed indefinitely,
     but is restricted to Z, (regarded as W,) not by A-ing, but in respect of B      (S1)
he does not attribute to himself A; but (having V-pp B,) he gathers …               (S7)

⚠️ Traps. (a) Peel from the outside: main clause → that → when → not … but → second not … but. (b) regarded as W is an inserted viewpoint, not a new clause. (c) Each not … but pairs a denial with its replacement — the replacement is Calvin's. (d) having obtained … = a perfect participle, after he has obtained. Drill: "아버지에게 '하나님'이 한정되는 것은 본질을 주어서가 아니라 순서 때문이다." → The name God is restricted to the Father, not by his giving essence, but in respect of order.

Formula 2 — as if + subjunctive (rejected picture) and concessive though with archaic negation.

S does not V X, as if in regard to Y he were Z; but …            (S7)
… as if there could be A but B, or as if C were not D            (S15)
though S1 V1, S2 (at the same time) hesitates not to V2          (S5)

⚠️ Traps. (a) as if = as though; the clause after it is NOT held. (b) as if … were not is sarcasm — of course it is. (c) hesitates not to V = does not hesitate to V (no do-support in older English). (d) but (preposition) = except: any true God but the one God. Drill: "그들은 마치 그리스도께서 본질상 아버지보다 열등하신 듯이 말한다." → They speak as if in regard to essence Christ were inferior to the Father.

Formula 3 — Logical conjunction phrases.

yet so that S V                (S3)   = but in such a way that            (result/limit)
as often as S V, S V           (S6)   = whenever                          (frequency)
inasmuch as S V                (S8, S12) = because, in so far as          (ground)
V-ing … so as to V             (S13)  = with the result of V-ing          (consequence)
Nothing can be more A than to V (S10) = the most A thing is to V          (superlative denial)

⚠️ Traps. (a) inasmuch as is not temporal. (b) as often as ≠ as many times as. (c) so as to can be consequence (S13) as well as purpose — read the context. (d) Nothing can be more A than … is a superlative in disguise. Drill: "그리스도의 신성이 끝난다고 하는 것보다 더 부조리한 것은 없다." → Nothing can be more absurd than to say that Christ's divinity comes to an end.

What is at stake. The Trinitarian controversies of the 1550s–60s pressed Calvin from two sides: Servetus (condemned 1553) denied eternal Sonship and the distinction of Persons; later anti-Trinitarians in the Reformed world (the Italian circle around Gentile and Blandrata) charged that "the Father alone is the one true God" and that the Son's deity is derived by transfusion. The 1559 Institutes answers both. ⚠️ Calvin names no individuals in this section — read it as an answer to a doctrine, not a person.

The "greater than I" tradition. Reading "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) by form of a servant versus form of God is old: Augustine (De Trinitate 1) and the Nicene fathers use the same distinction. Calvin's version (S7–S8) — glory displayed in flesh vs. brightness in heaven — keeps the same two-register logic. ⚠️ Do not call this "Calvin's invention."

"Father" as a name of order (S1). The Western line from Augustine and Aquinas holds that the Father is source of the Persons without being the source of the essence. Calvin's in respect of order, not by essentiating stays within it — and is the same grammar as Day 102 (principle and fountain, S2).

1 Cor 15:24–28 (S9). Subordinationists use the handing over of the kingdom to prove the Son's eventual subjection. Calvin (and Augustine before him) reads it as the Mediator's office concluding in the Father's all-in-all, not the Son's divinity ending — hence S10 (Nothing can be more absurd than to deny the perpetuity of Christ's divinity).

Reception. The Reformed confessions keep the shape: WCF 8.2 (the Son of God "being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father") and Belgic Confession art. 10–11. Barth, in the Church Dogmatics I/1, §9–11, defends the Nicene homoousion in a different idiom; the lineage is kin, not copy.

⚠️ Over-reading guardrails (4). (1) S1's improperly called the Son is the objection, not Calvin's claim. (2) S7's as if … he were inferior is a rejected picture. (3) S8's the Father in the higher degree is about glory displayed, not essence. (4) S15's sarcasm on transfused divinity is not an assertion that Calvin denies the Father's order as source (S1).

1. John 17:3 — S2. the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent — Calvin takes the only true God as the Father in order, not as excluding the Son from the one God.
2. Phil 2:6–8 — S3–S4. he humbled (emptied) himself — Gk ekenōsen; the glory concealed, not lost. Calvin's Mediator keeps his majesty.
3. Heb 2:9 / Heb 1:10 (Ps 102:25) — S5. made a little lower than the angels / the eternal God who founded the earth — two registers in one letter.
4. John 16:7 — S7. It is expedient for you that I go away — departure benefits the church; no loss of essence.
5. John 14:28 — S7–S8. My Father is greater than I — read by glory in flesh vs. glory in heaven.
6. 1 Cor 15:24, 28 — S9–S10. the kingdom to God, even the Father / God … all in all — the Mediator's office completed, divinity perpetual.
7. John 1:1–2 — S11–S12. the Word was with God, and the Word was God — one essence, two Persons; the logic behind common to both.
8. 1 John 5:20 — S14. This is the true God, and eternal life — John calls him the true God, no subordinate rank.
9. Deut 6:4 — S15. the one God — the base of any true God but the one God.

Calvin's method: here Scripture is a set of hard cases — he walks through the texts opponents bring, assigns each to the right register (Mediator vs. eternal Son), and lets S10's perpetuity rule control the reading.

① Grammar. Choose the INCORRECT sentence (in Calvin's English).

① The apostle at the same time hesitates not to assert that Christ is the eternal God. ② Nothing can be more absurd than to denying the perpetuity of Christ's divinity. ③ They speak as if in regard to essence the Son were inferior to the Father. ④ It is erroneous to confine the name of God to the Father, so as to deny it to the Son.

Answer: ②. than to denying → than to deny (the infinitive to takes the bare verb). ① archaic negative hesitates not to V; ③ as if … were; ④ so as to deny. Examiner's intent: Formulas 2–3; ② hides a gerund/infinitive slip inside a superlative-denial frame.

② Comprehension. Which best states Calvin's reading of "My Father is greater than I" (S7–S8)?

① The Son confesses that his essence is inferior to the Father's. ② Speaking as Mediator, the Son measures the glory he displayed in flesh against the full brightness of heaven; he does not claim a secondary divinity. ③ The saying proves that Christ was never truly Mediator. ④ The saying shows Christ's divinity ends when he restores the kingdom to the Father.

Answer: ②. ① opposite (S7: as if … inferior is rejected). ③ scope-overreach — S3–S6 make Mediator the very frame. ④ direction-flip (S10: the perpetuity of Christ's divinity). Examiner's intent: S7's not … as if …; but + S8's glory-in-flesh contrast.

③ Composition. Using Formula 2, render into Calvin's English: "그들은 그리스도가 참 하나님이라고 고백하면서도, 마치 본질에서 아버지보다 열등하기라도 한 듯이 말한다."

Model answer: They confess that Christ is truly God, and yet speak as if in regard to essence he were inferior to the Father. Examiner's intent: as if + were with a rejected picture; and yet for tension.

One-line summary. When Father and Son are compared, "God" is restricted to the Father by order (not by essentiating); as Mediator Christ includes his own divinity under "God," "greater than I" measures glory in flesh against glory in heaven, and since his divinity is perpetual, "Father" comprehends the one essence common to both — so to confine "God" to the Father is erroneous and impious. Grammar: nested that-clause with double not … but (S1) · as if + subjunctive = rejected picture (S7, S15) · conjunction phrases yet so that / as often as / inasmuch as / so as to (S3, S6, S8, S12, S13).

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Peel S1 into six layers (main clause → that → when → not … but → not … but) and write each as its own sentence.
2. Composition. Render: "그리스도께서 중보자로서 아버지께 말씀하실 때마다, 그는 '하나님'이라는 이름 안에 자기 자신의 신성도 포함시키신다." (Use as often as + inserted phrase.)
3. Preview. Tomorrow: Day 104 — Book 1, Chapter 14, §1 — a new chapter: Calvin turns from the Trinity to the doctrine of creation. Watch the opening.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §29 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 14, §1.