Day 64 — Book 1, Chapter 11, §9

Yesterday the mind was a forge. Today the forge ships its product — and the product walks straight to the altar. Look at the very first word of §9: "After." Calvin is doing chronology on purpose. Making, then worshipping. And between those two he puts one adverb that carries the whole section: forthwith. Not "eventually." Not "in some cases." Immediately. The gap the whole medieval defence needs — "we make images but we do not worship them" — Calvin closes it in the first eleven words.

Then he does the thing that makes this section a masterclass. He grants his opponents their best sentence. S12: "It is said that the images are not accounted gods." Fine. Granted. Nobody in Israel thought a lump of gold created the world (S13). Nobody in Athens thought Zeus was the marble (S15). Augustine's own parishioners had the sophisticated answer ready (S18–S19) — we worship not the image but the Deity in it; and the classy ones said not even that: the image is a symbol pointing beyond itself. Calvin writes all of it down without flinching. And then he says: yes — and that is exactly what idolatry is. S3 pre-loaded the trap two hundred words earlier: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them. The refined defence is the diagnosis. He didn't refute the excuse. He anticipated it and printed it as Exhibit A.

Grammatically this is the section where early modern subjunctives come out to play — whether it be, be the colour what it may — and where Calvin fires off three consecutive fronting inversions (So stupid are men, Nor were the Jews, Nor are the heathen). If a test is written on Book 1 Ch. 11, it is written on this paragraph.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. The concessive subjunctive — be + S + what/where it may (S9), whether it be A or B (S4). This is not "be" the imperative. It is the present subjunctive with inversion, and it means "no matter what / whichever it is." be the colour what it may = whatever the pretext may be. Miss the subjunctive and you translate an order where Calvin wrote a concession. Exam setters live here.
2. Fronting inversion, three flavours in one paragraph. So stupid are men, that… (degree-word fronting: So + adj + BE + S) in S8; Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless… (S13) and Nor are the heathen to be deemed… (S15) (negative-adverb fronting: Nor + aux/BE + S). Every one of them re-orders subject and verb. Restore the base pattern first, then translate.
3. The nominative absolute. S2 their eyes and minds becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began… and S14 Aaron saying, that these were the gods…, they intimated…. A participle with its own subject, hanging off the main clause. The classic student error in S14 is to make Aaron the subject of intimated — he is not; they is. Get this wrong and you have Aaron confessing instead of the nation.

Trap words I will test: titles (S5) — not honorifics; Beveridge's rendering of the memorial pillars of Lev. 26:1 (Latin titulus = an inscribed standing stone). description (S3) = kind, type — "some idea of a grosser description" = a coarser sort of idea. colour (S9) = pretext, pretence (cf. under colour of law). The vulgar (S18) = the common people, no insult intended. actuated (S21) = moved, driven (not "activated" in the machine sense, though the root is the same). accounted (S12) = reckoned, considered. preposterous (S23) — do not read "silly": prae + posterus, back-to-front, the cart before the horse — which is Calvin's entire thesis about image-worship.

9. After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues: for when once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also worshipped him as being there. At length their eyes and minds becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began to grow more and more brutish, gazing and wondering as if some divinity were actually before them. It hence appears that men do not fall away to the worship of images until they have imbibed some idea of a grosser description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them. Therefore, whether it be God or a creature that is imaged, the moment you fall prostrate before it in veneration, you are so far fascinated by superstition. For this reason, the Lord not only forbade the erection of statues to himself, but also the consecration of titles and stones which might be set up for adoration. For the same reason, also, the second commandment has an additional part concerning adoration. For as soon as a visible form is given to God, his power also is supposed to be annexed to it. So stupid are men, that wherever they figure God, there they fix him, and by necessary consequence proceed to adore him. It makes no difference whether they worship the idol simply, or God in the idol; it is always idolatry when divine honours are paid to an idol, be the colour what it may. And because God wills not to be worshipped superstitiously whatever is bestowed upon idols is so much robbed from him. Let those attend to this who set about hunting for miserable pretexts in defence of the execrable idolatry in which for many past ages true religion has been buried and sunk. It is said that the images are not accounted gods. Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to remember that there was a God whose hand led them out of Egypt before they made the calf. Indeed, Aaron saying, that these were the gods which had brought them out of Egypt, they intimated, in no ambiguous terms, that they wished to retain God, their deliverer, provided they saw him going before them in the calf. Nor are the heathen to be deemed to have been so stupid as not to understand that God was something else than wood and stone. For they changed the images at pleasure, but always retained the same gods in their minds; besides, they daily consecrated new images without thinking they were making new gods. Read the excuses which Augustine tells us were employed by the idolaters of his time (August. in Ps. 113). The vulgar, when accused, replied that they did not worship the visible object, but the Deity which dwelt in it invisibly. Those, again, who had what he calls a more refined religion, said, that they neither worshipped the image, nor any inhabiting Deity, but by means of the corporeal image beheld a symbol of that which it was their duty to worship. What then? All idolaters whether Jewish or Gentile, were actuated in the very way which has been described. Not contented with spiritual understanding, they thought that images would give them a surer and nearer impression. When once this preposterous representation of God was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded every now and then by new impostures, they came to think that God exerted his power in images. Still the Jews were persuaded, that under such images they worshipped the eternal God, the one true Lord of heaven and earth; and the Gentiles, also, in worshipping their own false gods, supposed them to dwell in heaven.

Sentence count: 24 (S1–S24). One paragraph.

[THESIS]      S1–S2    figment formed → adoration FORTHWITH → eyes engrossed → men grow brutish
[DIAGNOSIS]   S3       the mechanism is NOT "this is a god" but "divinity's POWER resides here"
[RULE]        S4       therefore: God imaged or creature imaged — prostration = superstition
[PROOF/LAW]   S5–S7    hence 2nd commandment has TWO parts: no making + no bowing
                       (form given → power presumed annexed)
[AXIOM]       S8–S10   So stupid are men: where they figure God, there they FIX him
                       → idol simply or God-in-idol = same idolatry, whatever the pretext
[TURN]        S11–S12  now to the excuse-hunters: "but the images are not accounted gods"
[CONCESSION]  S13–S19  granted — Jews knew (calf = YHWH-with-us), heathen knew (not wood/stone),
                       Augustine's vulgar ("the Deity in it") and refined ("only a symbol")
[VERDICT]     S20–S24  What then? — ALL of them, Jew and Gentile, acted the same way:
                       not content with spiritual understanding, they wanted a surer, nearer
                       impression → no limit → God exerts his power in images

Examiner's Eye. Three traps are already loaded.

(1) The reversal trap. "Calvin argues that idolaters mistake the image itself for a god." Wrong — and it is the exact opposite of S3. not that they actually believe them to be gods, but that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them. Students skim not that… but that… and keep only the first half. Calvin's whole case depends on the second half.

(2) The concession trap. "Calvin denies that the Israelites remembered the true God." No: S13 says Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to remember that there was a God… — a double negative = they did remember. Same for the heathen in S15. He concedes their knowledge in order to convict their instinct.

(3) The scope trap. "Calvin here condemns all visible representations." Not yet, and not here. §9 is about adoration. The qualification arrives in §12 (I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful). Do not let §9 be quoted past its own scope.

Formula 1 — The concessive subjunctive (Big Point 1)

BE + S + what / who / where / as + it may           →  "no matter what/who/where S is"
whether it BE  A  or  B                             →  "no matter whether it is A or B"

  be the colour what it may       = whatever the pretext may be
  be that as it may               = nevertheless
  come what may                   = no matter what happens
  whether it be God or a creature = no matter which of the two is imaged

⚠️ TRAP: `be` here is the PRESENT SUBJUNCTIVE, inverted before its subject.
   It is NOT the imperative. "be the colour what it may" ≠ "Be the colour!"
⚠️ TRAP: the clause is ALWAYS concessive — it grants the variable and denies
   that the variable matters. Translate with "whatever / no matter."

Transformation drill. Turn "It does not matter what the excuse is; the act is idolatry" into the Calvin register. → The act is idolatry, be the excuse what it may. And once more with the disjunction: "whether the object is the true God or a mere creature, the prostration condemns you" → Whether it be the true God or a mere creature, the prostration condemns you.

Formula 2 — Fronting inversion, three shapes (Big Point 2)

So   + ADJ  + BE  + S ,  that …      ←  S is so ADJ that …
Nor  + BE/AUX + S  …                 ←  S is/does not … either
Such + BE  + S                       ←  S is such

  So stupid are men, that wherever they figure God, there they fix him.  (S8)
  Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to remember …          (S13)
  Nor are the heathen to be deemed to have been so stupid …              (S15)

⚠️ TRAP 1: inversion is OBLIGATORY after a fronted `so + adj` or a clause-initial
   negative adverb (nor, never, little, not only, only then, hardly).
⚠️ TRAP 2: `so … as not to V` inside a `Nor` clause = DOUBLE NEGATIVE = positive.
   `Nor were the Jews so thoughtless as not to remember` → THEY DID REMEMBER.
⚠️ TRAP 3: restore the base pattern BEFORE translating. Always.

Transformation drill. Rewrite "The heathen were not so ignorant that they failed to see the difference" with fronting. → Nor were the heathen so ignorant as not to see the difference. And: "Men are so blind that they worship what their own hands have made." → So blind are men, that they worship what their own hands have made.

Formula 3 — The nominative absolute (Big Point 3)

S′ + V-ing (+ complements) ,  S + V …
      ↑ the participle has ITS OWN subject — it is NOT the main subject

  their eyes and minds becoming wholly engrossed, they began to grow brutish  (S2)
  Aaron saying that these were the gods …, they intimated …                   (S14)

  Expand with a conjunction to check:
     → As their eyes and minds became engrossed, they began …
     → When Aaron said that these were the gods, they intimated …

⚠️ TRAP: if the absolute begins with a PROPER NAME (`Aaron saying…`), students
   promote that name to subject of the main verb. It is not. Find the finite verb
   and read its own subject.
⚠️ Contrast with the ordinary participial phrase, which shares the main subject:
     `gazing and wondering as if some divinity were before them`  (S2, subject = they)
     `Not contented with spiritual understanding, they thought …` (S22, subject = they)

Transformation drill. Combine, using an absolute: "The image was consecrated. The people at once fell down before it." → The image being consecrated, the people at once fell down before it. And with a named subject: "Aaron built the altar. The nation kept its feast." → Aaron building the altar, the nation kept its feast.

The doctrine at stake: what exactly is idolatry? The standard defence Calvin faces is not stupid, and he does not pretend it is. It runs: worship terminates on the prototype, not on the image; the image is a channel, a book for the unlettered, a relative honour. Calvin answers on a different axis entirely. He does not argue about where worship terminates. He argues about what the human mind actually does with a form — S7: give God a shape, and power is presumed annexed to the shape; S8: where they figure him, there they fix him. Idolatry, for Calvin, is a doctrine of the localisation of divine power, not a doctrine about the ontology of statues. Which is why S3 is the load-bearing sentence and why the opponents' own best defence (S18–S19) turns out to be its confirmation.

The two-part commandment (S6). Calvin reads Exod. 20:4–6 as a single second commandment with two limbs: do not make (v. 4) and do not bow down (v. 5). The Reformed numbering makes this its own commandment; the Roman and Lutheran numbering folds it into the first and splits the tenth to keep ten. Calvin is not inventing his numbering — it is the numbering of Philo, Josephus, and the Greek fathers — but do notice that his exegetical argument in S5–S7 works even for a reader who numbers differently, because the point is the conjunction of making and bowing, not the counting.

The lineage. S17's citation is real work, not ornament. Augustine's Enarratio in Psalmum 113 (= our Ps. 115) contains exactly the two defences Calvin reports — the popular ("we worship the God in it") and the educated ("the image is only a sign"). Calvin's move is to take Augustine's reportage and turn it into a diagnosis, which Augustine himself half does. Behind both stands the Ps. 115:8 logic — makers become like what they make — which is S2's brutish.

Where this is going. §10 will say: and this is precisely what is done in our day. §11 will take on the technical distinction between δουλεία (douleia, service) and λατρεία (latreia, worship) — the distinction that the Second Council of Nicaea (787) used to license the veneration of icons and that John of Damascus had defended against the iconoclasts. Note that Calvin's word idolatry in S9 is itself εἴδωλον + λατρεία; he is already standing on the ground where that battle will be fought.

Reception. Calvin's image-argument became the theological engine of the Reformed Bildersturm — the Beeldenstorm of 1566 in the Low Countries, the Scottish purgings — and it is fair to say that Calvin's own qualifications travelled less well than his conclusions. In the twentieth century Barth read the Bildverbot as an epistemological rule about revelation rather than a rule about church furniture, which is arguably closer to §9's own logic than the stripped walls were.

⚠️ The over-reading guardrail — two lines you must not cross. First: §9 is about adoration, and Calvin himself blocks the extension three sections later (§12: I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful). Do not quote §9 as a verdict on painting, sculpture, or narrative art. Second: Calvin is not claiming that idolaters are metaphysically confused about wood — S3, S13, S15 and S18–S19 all say the opposite, explicitly and four times. Anyone who summarises this section as "Calvin thought pagans mistook statues for gods" has read the objection and missed the argument.

1. Exod. 20:4–6 — S5, S6, S7. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image… Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. This is the text S6 calls a commandment with an additional part concerning adoration. How Calvin uses it: not as a proof-text dropped at the end, but as the structure of his argument — two prohibitions because there are two acts, making and bowing, and S1's forthwith explains why the second had to be written down.

2. Lev. 26:1 — S5. Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image (מַצֵּבָה, maṣṣēḇāh), neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it. This, with Deut. 16:22, is what Beveridge's titles and stones renders. How Calvin uses it: to prove that even an aniconic marker — a plain pillar, no likeness at all — falls under the ban. That destroys any defence resting on resemblance, and it is why he can then pivot to adoration as the real issue.

3. Exod. 32:1, 4 — S13, S14. Up, make us gods, which shall go before us … These be thy gods (אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, ’ēlleh ’ĕlōhêḵā), O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. How Calvin uses it: the plural ’ĕlōhîm is the ordinary Hebrew word for the God of Israel, and v. 5 has Aaron proclaim a feast to the LORD (לַיהוָה, la-YHWH). So the calf was YHWH-worship with a visible aid — which is exactly the provided they saw him going before them of S14. The strongest possible case for Calvin, taken from the strongest possible text.

4. Exod. 13:21 — S14. And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way. How Calvin uses it: silently. going before them in the calf is the pillar's own verb. The calf is not a rival to YHWH; it is a replacement pillar — a self-issued guarantee of presence.

5. Ps. 115:4–8 (= LXX/Vulgate Ps. 113) — S2, S17. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands… They that make them are like unto them. How Calvin uses it: twice over. The psalm's verdict is compressed into S2's brutish (makers become like what they make), and the psalm is also the site of Augustine's Enarratio, cited by number in S17. Note the numbering system — Ps. 113 there is Ps. 115 in your English Bible.

6. Deut. 4:28; Jer. 2:27 — S15. gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone / Saying to a stock, Thou art my father. How Calvin uses it: as the objection to himself. Scripture's own polemic sounds as if idolaters worship timber; Calvin concedes they did not, and relocates the sin — which makes his reading harder on the practice, not softer.

7. Rom. 1:23, 25 — S4. changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man … served the creature more than the Creator. How Calvin uses it: S4's whether it be God or a creature that is imaged refuses to let the Creator/creature distinction function as an escape. Paul's exchange becomes Calvin's posture.

8. Acts 17:29 — S15. we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. How Calvin uses it: Paul at the Areopagus grants the Athenians a great deal before he denies them anything — the same concessive strategy Calvin runs in S13–S19.

9. Gal. 3:1 — S4. O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched (ἐβάσκανεν, *ebaskanen*) you? How Calvin uses it: fascinated by superstition is the Latin equivalent (fascinare renders baskainein). The vocabulary of enchantment applied to a liturgical act — a deliberate and startling transfer.

10. 2 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:1 — S22. we walk by faith, not by sight. How Calvin uses it: S22's craving for a surer and nearer impression is the exact inverse. Calvin's diagnosis of idolatry is, structurally, a diagnosis of the refusal of faith's mode of knowing — and that is why he calls the alternative spiritual understanding, not "no images."

11. Rom. 3:9; 6:15 — S20. τί οὖν; (ti oun?) = What then? How Calvin uses it: a Pauline diatribe hinge, borrowed whole. Two words that turn concession into verdict.

① Grammar — one underline is wrong

ⓐ Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to remember that there was a God. ⓑ So stupid are men, that wherever they figure God, there they fix him. ⓒ It is always idolatry when divine honours are paid to an idol, be the colour what it may. ⓓ Aaron saying that these were the gods, he intimated that Aaron wished to retain God.

Answer: ⓓ.

Exam-setter rationale. ⓐ and ⓑ are the obligatory inversions of Formula 2 — both correct, and both are there to tempt you, because inverted word order looks wrong. ⓒ is the concessive subjunctive of Formula 1: be before its subject, correct as printed. The fault is in ⓓ, and it is a content fault expressed as a grammar fault: Aaron saying… is a nominative absolute, so Aaron is the subject of the participle only; the main clause in Calvin is **they** intimated… that **they** wished to retain God — the nation's intent, not Aaron's. Substituting Aaron for they misreads the absolute and reverses the theology of the sentence. (Note also that ⓓ's he intimated leaves the absolute's subject and the main subject identical, which is precisely what an absolute forbids — an absolute exists because the two subjects differ.)

② Comprehension — which is consistent with §9?

ⓐ Calvin argues that idolaters, both Jewish and Gentile, mistakenly believed the images themselves were gods. ⓑ Calvin holds that the prohibition covers even plain memorial stones with no likeness, because the offence lies in adoration rather than in resemblance. ⓒ Calvin concedes that where an image is treated only as a symbol pointing beyond itself, the practice escapes the charge of idolatry. ⓓ Calvin argues that the distinction between worshipping the idol and worshipping God in the idol is logically self-contradictory.

Answer: ⓑ.

Exam-setter rationale. ⓐ is the direction-flip, and it is refuted twice over: S3 (not that they actually believe them to be gods, but that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them) and the whole concession of S13–S19. This is the option most students choose. ⓑ is right, and you get it from S5 (titles and stones, i.e. pillars without likeness) read with S4 and S9 — the offence is the prostration, be the colour what it may. ⓒ is the scope-overreach: Calvin records the refined symbol-defence at full strength (S19) but does not concede it — S21 sweeps All idolaters whether Jewish or Gentile into the very way which has been described. ⓓ is a subtle substitution: Calvin's refutation in S23 is historical, not logical — there was no limit until… they came to think that God exerted his power in images. He says the distinction never holds, not that it cannot be stated.

③ Composition — apply today's formulas

Render into Calvin's register, using Formula 1 (concessive subjunctive) and Formula 2 (fronted-negative inversion) in a single sentence: "It does not matter what name the honour is given; and the fathers were not so careless that they failed to condemn the practice."

Model answer: Be the name of the honour what it may, nor were the fathers so careless as not to condemn the practice.

Exam-setter rationale. Three things are being marked. (1) The subjunctive be must be inverted before its subject and the clause must read concessively — whatever the name may be; a candidate who writes Being the name whatever has produced a participle and lost the construction. (2) nor at the head of the second clause must trigger inversion (were the fathers, not the fathers were). (3) so… as not to V after nor must be recognised as a double negative, so that the sentence asserts that the fathers did condemn it — a candidate who writes nor were the fathers so careless as to condemn has inverted the meaning and lost the whole item. All three are drawn verbatim from S9 and S13.

One-line summary: The figment made, adoration follows forthwith (S1), because the mind that gives God a form presumes his power annexed to the form (S7) — where they figure him, there they fix him (S8) — so the sin is never the crude belief that wood is God (S3, S13, S15, S18–S19: everyone knew better) but the demand for a surer and nearer impression (S22) on condition of visibility (S14), and it is idolatry be the colour what it may (S9); grammar: the concessive subjunctive (be the colour what it may, whether it be), the three fronting inversions (So stupid are men, Nor were the Jews, Nor are the heathen — and remember so… as not to = they DID), and the nominative absolute with its own subject (their eyes and minds becoming…, Aaron saying…, they intimated).

Homework (10 min):

1. Structure restoration: take S14 and write out its skeleton in four slots — [ABSOLUTE: ___ + V-ing + that-clause], [MAIN S] + [MAIN V] + [that-clause], [provided-clause] — then say in one line whose intention the sentence reports, and how you know.
2. Composition: using Formula 1 and Formula 3 together, write one sentence beginning "The image being consecrated, …" and ending "…, be the pretext what it may."
3. Preview: tomorrow, §10 — Calvin stops describing the ancient world and points at his own. First words: "It is an impudent falsehood to deny that the thing which was thus anciently done is also done in our day." Watch for the two questions he fires in a row (For why do men prostrate themselves before images? Why, when in the act of praying, do they turn towards them as to the ears of God?) and for Augustine on Ps. 113 returning as a hostile witness.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 11, §9 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 11, §10 (Day 65) — the ancient practice is our practice: the Papists' evasion.