Day 128 — Book 1, Chapter 15, §3

Yesterday: the soul is an immortal essence. Today: the image of God lives there — and Calvin spends most of the hour knocking down Andreas Osiander. Look at the shape of the paragraph. S1–S4: a clean thesis (image → soul, with a fair nod to the upright body). S5–S15: a prosecution. S16–S20: a quick grammar lesson in Hebrew. S21–S24: Osiander's last objection, answered. S25–S29: the positive definition. If you only remember one sentence, remember S2: the proper seat of the image is in the soul.

Why examiners love it. Concession-then-rebuttal everywhere (For though…, it cannot be doubted, S2; I deny not… nor will I…, S3; although… though, S24). Absolute constructions with the subject written in front (man being called…, S17; God having determined…, S19). Litotes and cleft sentences (it is not without good cause that…, S29; no small discussion, S16). And a full shelf of words that look modern but are not: proper, peculiar, figment, lineaments, conformable.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Concession + rebuttal frames — S2 For though A, it cannot be doubted that B; S3 I deny not… nor will I…; S24 although… there is no absurdity… though I retain…. Formula 1.
2. Absolute constructions and fronted-subject participles — S17 man being called the image of God because of his likeness to God; S19 God having determined to create man…; S25 series his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated…. Formula 2.
3. Litotes, cleft sentences and negative inversion — S29 it is not without good cause that…; S3 nor will I; S15 not even for this is there; S26 no part… did not shine. Formula 3.

Text traps. ⚠️ proper (S2) = own, belonging to. ⚠️ peculiar (S29) = special. ⚠️ figment (S13) = invention. ⚠️ lineaments (S11, S27) = traces. ⚠️ conformable (S15) = similar in form. ⚠️ in respect of (S24) = with regard to. ⚠️ interpret that (S15) = explain that. ⚠️ entire (S6) = unfallen, intact. ⚠️ this terms (S19) = misprint.

A strong proof of this point may be gathered from its being said, that man was created in the image of God. For though the divine glory is displayed in man’s outward appearance, it cannot be doubted that the proper seat of the image is in the soul. I deny not, indeed, that external shape, in so far as it distinguishes and separates us from the lower animals, brings us nearer to God; nor will I vehemently oppose any who may choose to include under the image of God that “While the mute creation downward bend Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend, Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes, Beholds his own hereditary skies.” Only let it be understood, that the image of God which is beheld or made conspicuous by these external marks, is spiritual. For Osiander (whose writings exhibit a perverse ingenuity in futile devices), extending the image of God indiscriminately as well to the body as to the soul, confounds heaven with earth. He says, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, placed their image in man, because, even though Adam had stood entire, Christ would still have become man. Thus, according to him, the body which was destined for Christ was a model and type of that corporeal figure which was then formed. But where does he find that Christ is an image of the Spirit? I admit, indeed, that in the person of the Mediator, the glory of the whole Godhead is displayed: but how can the eternal Word, who in order precedes the Spirit, be called his image? In short, the distinction between the Son and the Spirit is destroyed when the former is represented as the image of the latter. Moreover, I should like to know in what respect Christ in the flesh in which he was clothed resembles the Holy Spirit, and by what marks, or lineaments, the likeness is expressed. And since the expression, “Let us make man in our own image,” is used in the person of the Son also, it follows that he is the image of himself—a thing utterly absurd. Add that, according to the figment of Osiander, Adam was formed after the model or type of the man Christ. Hence Christ, in as much as he was to be clothed with flesh, was the idea according to which Adam was formed, whereas the Scriptures teach very differently—viz. that he was formed in the image of God. There is more plausibility in the imagination of those who interpret that Adam was created in the image of God, because it was conformable to Christ, who is the only image of God; but not even for this is there any solid foundation. The “image” and “likeness” has given rise to no small discussion; interpreters searching without cause for a difference between the two terms, since “likeness” is merely added by way of exposition. First, we know that repetitions are common in Hebrew, which often gives two words for one thing; And, secondly, there is no ambiguity in the thing itself, man being called the image of God because of his likeness to God. Hence there is an obvious absurdity in those who indulge in philosophical speculation as to these names, placing the Zelem, that is the image, in the substance of the soul, and the Demuth, that is the likeness, in its qualities, and so forth. God having determined to create man in his own image, to remove the obscurity which was in this terms adds, by way of explanation, in his likeness, as if he had said, that he would make man, in whom he would, as it were, image himself by means of the marks of resemblance impressed upon him. Accordingly, Moses, shortly after repeating the account, puts down the image of God twice, and makes no mention of the likeness. Osiander frivolously objects that it is not a part of the man, or the soul with its faculties, which is called the image of God, but the whole Adam, who received his name from the dust out of which he was taken. I call the objection frivolous, as all sound readers will judge. For though the whole man is called mortal, the soul is not therefore liable to death, nor when he is called a rational animal is reason or intelligence thereby attributed to the body. Hence, although the soul is not the man, there is no absurdity in holding that he is called the image of God in respect of the soul; though I retain the principle which I lately laid down, that the image of God extends to everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals. Accordingly, by this term is denoted the integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excellence to the admirable gifts of his Maker. And though the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its powers, there was no part even of the body in which some rays of glory did not shine. It is certain that in every part of the world some lineaments of divine glory are beheld and hence we may infer, that when his image is placed in man, there is a kind of tacit antithesis, as it were, setting man apart from the crowd, and exalting him above all the other creatures. But it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares (Mt. 22:30), our highest perfection will consist in being like them. But it is not without good cause that Moses commends the favour of God towards us by giving us this peculiar title, the more especially that he was only comparing man with the visible creation.

[THESIS]       S1–S2     Image of God → strong proof of immortality; proper seat = the soul
[CONCESSION]   S3–S4     Upright body may count (Ovid) — but the image shown there is spiritual
[ATTACK 1]     S5–S7     Osiander: image in body AND soul; Christ's future flesh as model for Adam
[REDUCTIO]     S8–S12    Christ = image of the Spirit? → Son/Spirit blurred; "Let us" → image of himself
[ATTACK 2]     S13–S15   Adam formed after Christ's flesh? Scripture says: in God's image; weaker view also unfounded
[PHILOLOGY]    S16–S20   "image" vs "likeness": Hebrew repetition; Zelem/Demuth split rejected; Moses omits "likeness"
[ATTACK 3]     S21–S24   Osiander: "whole Adam" is the image → answered by whole/part logic; seat = soul, extent = all that surpasses animals
[DEFINITION]   S25–S29   Integrity of Adam's whole nature; primary seat mind/heart, rays in body; tacit contrast with creation; angels also likenesses

Examiner's Eye. - ⚠️ Scope trap (S2/S26): the image's proper/primary seat is the soul — but S26 says rays of glory shine in the body too. "The body has no part in the image" is overreach; "the body is the image" is a flip. - ⚠️ Concession trap (S3): Calvin does not oppose counting the upright posture, provided the image is understood as spiritual (S4). - ⚠️ Who says what (S6–S7, S13–S14): these are Osiander's views reported by Calvin; "Calvin teaches Adam was modelled on Christ's flesh" is a direction-flip. - ⚠️ Image ≠ likeness (S16–S20): Calvin holds the two words are one thing, not two components. - ⚠️ Angels trap (S28–S29): angels are also made in God's likeness; the contrast of S27 is with the visible creation.

Formula 1 — Concession + rebuttal (though… , it cannot be doubted that…; I deny not… nor will I…)

For though A, it cannot be doubted that B                  = Although A, B is beyond doubt          (S2)
I deny not that A; nor will I V                            = I do not deny A, and I will not V      (S3)
although A, there is no absurdity in V-ing; though C       = A is granted; B holds; C still stands  (S24)
⚠️ The concession (`though`) is the SOFT part; the main clause is the claim. Ask: which half does the author defend?
⚠️ `I deny not` = `I do not deny` (no do-support in older English). It GRANTS the point (litotes).
⚠️ `nor will I` = `and I will not`: the negative `nor` pulls the auxiliary in front of the subject.
⚠️ `though` can stand at the END (S24) and then GUARDS the main claim instead of conceding it.

Drill: Although the body shows God's glory, the image's seat is the soul. → For though God's glory is displayed in the body, it cannot be doubted that the image's seat is the soul. Now: I do not deny that the body reflects God, and I will not oppose those who say so. → I deny not that the body reflects God; nor will I oppose those who say so.

Formula 2 — Absolute construction / participle with the subject in front

S1 being p.p. ..., S2 V                                    = Since S1 is p.p., S2 V                 (S17 man being called the image of God…)
God having p.p. …, [God] V                                 = Having p.p. …, God V                   (S19 — same subject: ordinary participle)
when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated…  = series sharing one `was/were`          (S25 ellipsis)
⚠️ Different subject from the main clause → absolute (S17 `man` vs `there`). Same subject → ordinary participle (S19 `God`).
⚠️ A series of nouns + p.p. after ONE `was` (S25) = ellipsis of repeated verbs: `his affections [were] subordinated`.
⚠️ `viz.` = namely; `i.e.` = that is; both mark an appositive/expansion.

Drill: Man being the image of God, he is above the beasts. → Adam having been created upright, his senses were duly regulated.

Formula 3 — Litotes, cleft sentences, negative inversion

It is not without good cause that S V                      = S has good reason to V                  (S29)
no S… did not V                                            = every S V-ed                            (S26 no part… did not shine)
not even for this is there any N                           = there is no N even for this              (S15)
the more especially that …                                 = all the more because …                  (S29)
⚠️ `not without` = with (double negative = affirmation).
⚠️ A fronted negative phrase (`not even for this`, `nor`) triggers inversion: `is there`, `will I`.
⚠️ `that` after `the more especially` = because (archaic), not a relative pronoun.

Drill: It is with good cause that Moses praises God's kindness. → It is not without good cause that Moses praises God's kindness. Now: There is no ground even for this view. → Not even for this view is there any ground.

The doctrine at stake. Printed §3 is Calvin's first explicit answer to the question, "Where is the image of God?" His answer has a center and an extent. Center: the soul — mind and heart (S2, S26). Extent: "everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals" (S24), including sparks in the body (S26). That double answer is why Calvin can honor the upright body (S3) without making it the image.

Osiander. Andreas Osiander (1498–1552), the Nuremberg Lutheran reformer, taught that Christ would have become incarnate even without the Fall, and that Adam was therefore formed after Christ's future human form. In Ch. 15 Calvin calls this a figment; in Book 2.12.5–7 and in the later Institutes he treats it at length (and as the root of Osiander's "essential righteousness" doctrine, 3.11). Beveridge's note 69 sends readers to 2.12.5. As far as I know, the Incarnation-without-the-Fall question remained a live debate (Scotus tended to affirm it; Aquinas and most Reformed writers said the Incarnation answered sin).

Image and likeness. The Latin tradition (Irenaeus, Augustine, Lombard) often read imago and similitudo as two things: nature/rational faculties vs. added supernatural grace. Calvin (S16–S20) rejects the split, appealing to Hebrew parallelism (Gen 1:26; 5:1). This matters for later Reformed anthropology: it keeps "image" holistic. Roman Catholic theology (Trent, Bellarmine) kept a form of the distinction.

Later reception. Reformed writers after Calvin spoke of the image in a wide and narrow sense: wide = human nature as such; narrow = original righteousness. Barth, who read the image relationally (male and female, Gen 1:27), parts company with Calvin's soul-centered view; the Brunner–Barth debate on the imago turned on exactly this ground. Treat that as later reception, not as Calvin's own formulation.

Over-reading guardrails. ⚠️ S3 is not Calvin endorsing a body-based image: the verse is quoted only as a courtesy, with the proviso of S4. ⚠️ S26 rays of glory in the body ≠ the body bears the image in the primary sense. ⚠️ S28 grants that the angels are God's likeness too: do not read S27 as man outranking angels. ⚠️ Zelem/Demuth are Hebrew tselem/demut; Calvin's point is philological, not a denial that the image has structure.

1. S1 — Gen 1:26–27. "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The text under discussion for the whole section; S12 quotes Let us make man in our own image.
2. S3 — Ovid, Metamorphoses I.84–86 (Dryden). Not Scripture; a classical echo of Eccl 7:29/Ps 8:5–6 (man crowned with glory). Calvin allows it only if the image is spiritual (S4).
3. S8–S10 — Col 1:15; Heb 1:3. The Son as eikon (image) of the invisible God and charakter of the Father's being. Calvin's rebuttal: Scripture never calls the Son the Spirit's image.
4. S9 — Col 2:9; 1 Tim 2:5. "In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"; Christ the Mediator.
5. S12 — Gen 1:26 plural. Calvin reads Let us as including the Son (a Trinitarian reading).
6. S14 — Gen 1:27; 9:6. "In the image of God created he him."
7. S17 — Hebrew parallelism. Gen 1:26 has b'tsalmenu k'dmutenu; Gen 1:27 and 9:6 only b'tsalmo / b'tselem.
8. S18–S19 — Gen 1:26 (tselem/demut). Zelem = image; Demuth = likeness.
9. S20 — Gen 1:27; 9:6. Moses repeats image and omits likeness.
10. S21 — Gen 2:7. adam from adamah (ground); Osiander's "whole Adam".
11. S25 — Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. Renewal after the image — knowledge, righteousness, holiness (Calvin develops it in 1.15.4).
12. S28 — Mt 22:30. "They are as the angels of God in heaven."
13. S29 — Gen 1:26 (dominion over the visible creation). Moses compares man with fish, birds and beasts.

How Calvin uses Scripture here. Largely as language: he reads the Hebrew words (Zelem, Demuth) and the text's repetition, argues from what Moses does and does not say (S20), and applies the Trinitarian grammar of Let us (S12). Scripture refutes Osiander by its silence as well as its statements.

① Grammar — which one is ungrammatical?

(A) I deny not that external shape brings us nearer to God; nor will I oppose those who include it in the image. (B) Man being called the image of God because of his likeness to God, there is no ambiguity in the thing itself. (C) It is not without good cause that Moses commends the favour of God towards us. (D) Not even for this is there not any solid foundation.

Answer: (D). Rationale: Formula 3 — a fronted negative (Not even for this) already carries the negation; adding not any makes a double negative that cancels it. The correct form (S15) is Not even for this is there any solid foundation. (A) is S3 (Formula 1), (B) is S17 (absolute, Formula 2), (C) is S29 (litotes).

② Comprehension — which statement is consistent with §3?

(A) Calvin says that the image of God is found only in the soul and in no way touches the body. (B) Calvin says that the image's primary seat is the soul, yet some rays of divine glory shone even in Adam's body. (C) Calvin says that Adam was formed after the pattern of Christ's future flesh. (D) Calvin says that "image" and "likeness" name two distinct components of the soul, substance and qualities.

Answer: (B). Rationale: (A) scope overreach — S26: no part even of the body in which some rays of glory did not shine. (C) direction flip — that is Osiander's view (S13–S14), which Calvin rejects. (D) direction flip — S18 calls that speculation an obvious absurdity; S17 and S19 say the words are one thing. (B) restates S2 + S26.

③ Composition — apply Formula 1 and 3:

Combine into one sentence with a concession: The body shows God's glory. The image's seat is the soul. Then rewrite It was for good cause that Moses used this title with litotes.

Model answer: For though the body displays God's glory, it cannot be doubted that the proper seat of the image is in the soul. And: It was not without good cause that Moses used this title. Rationale: though A, it cannot be doubted that B (S2); not without good cause (S29).

One-line summary: The image of God has its proper seat in the soul (S2) though rays of glory shine even in the body (S26); Calvin refutes Osiander's body-plus-Christ-as-model scheme (S5–S15, S21–S24), treats "image" and "likeness" as one thing in Hebrew parallelism (S16–S20), and defines the image as Adam's integrity, with a tacit contrast between man and the visible creation (S25–S29) — in concession-rebuttal frames (For though…, it cannot be doubted…), absolute constructions (man being called…, God having determined…) and litotes (not without good cause).

Homework (10 min).

1. Structure restoration. Restore S17's second half: there is no ambiguity in the thing itself, man being called the image of God because of his likeness to God → there is no ambiguity in the thing itself, since man is called the image of God because he is like God. Then restore S25's ellipsis: his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated → his affections were subordinated…, all his senses were duly regulated.
2. Composition. Write one I deny not… nor will I… sentence about a point you grant to an opponent, and one it is not without good cause that… sentence.
3. Preview (tomorrow). Printed §4 begins But our definition of the image seems not to be complete until it appears more clearly what the faculties are in which man excels… — watch the jump from the definition to the remedy: Calvin says the image is best known from how Christ restores it (the second Adam).

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 15, §3 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 15, §4.