Day 83 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §9

Two days ago the Word was proved God. Yesterday the Word was proved beginningless. Today Calvin changes the method, and you must feel the gear-shift or you will read the section as a heap of verses. §§7–8 were argument: a premise, an inference, a proof-text. §9 is a catena — a chain of Old Testament texts, each with a Jewish counter-reading attached, each counter-reading refuted on the spot. Three links: Psalm 45:6 (Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever), Isaiah 9:6 (the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace), Jeremiah 23:6 (THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS). And a fourth movement that is not a new text but a defence of the third against two evasions (the altar of Exodus 17, the city of Ezekiel 48) and one genuinely hard case (Jeremiah 33:16, where the city gets the same name as the Messiah). The argument does not climb; it marches. Text — quibble — reply. Text — inversion — reply. Text — evasion — reply. Learn the rhythm and the section reads itself.

But look at how he opens, because the first sentence is a disclaimer, and it is the most Calvin sentence of the day: But though I am not now treating of the office of the Mediator, having deferred it till the subject of redemption is considered, yet because it ought to be clear and incontrovertible to all, that Christ is that Word become incarnate, this seems the most appropriate place… ⚠️ Underline having deferred. §7 S2 said Thereafter; yesterday I told you Calvin is constantly telling you what he is not doing yet. Here it is again — the Mediator is Book 2's business — and yet he must say one thing now: the Word of §§7–8 is the incarnate Christ. Without that bridge, not one Old Testament divine name could be applied to Jesus. S1 is the hinge on which the whole catena hangs. Everything after it assumes it.

And notice the opponent has changed. §§7–8 fought certain men — anti-Trinitarians inside Christendom. §9 fights the Jews — five times by name — and that changes the rules of evidence. ⚠️ Calvin will not cite a single New Testament verse today. Not Hebrews 1:8, which quotes Psalm 45 of the Son; not Matthew 1:23 on Emmanuel. He argues from the Old Testament alone, on Jewish premises — and at S13 he actually turns a rabbinic doctrine into his own premise: **as the Jews themselves teach** that the other names of God are mere epithets, whereas this, which they call the ineffable name, is substantive, and expresses his essence. He borrows their axiom about the Tetragrammaton and draws his conclusion from it. That is the section's cleverest move, and it is Exam Problem ②'s territory.

Grammatically, today is the day of rhetoric that wears the grammar of a question. Two rhetorical questions carry the two hardest refutations: **why should** so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father, **seeing** the prophet's design is…? (S10) and **who sees not that** the altar was erected as a memorial…? (S15). ⚠️ Neither is asking anything. The first means there is no reason; the second means everyone sees. And the climax is a fronted-so far inversion that flips a threat into a support: **so far is this passage from being adverse** to the truth which we defend, **that** it rather supports it (S19). Add a subjunctive were that looks like a plain past (S7), and a participle that looks like an absolute construction and is not (S20), and you have the day.

One warning about the page. This section straddles a page-break — the seam falls inside S3, between where and an eternal throne, and the running header plus page number 121 are dropped there. A superscript footnote marker 117 sits after divine in S7. And ⚠️⚠️ there are two genuine misprints in the source file, both in S8 — both **us** God (for as) and a missing comma after supreme powers. Details in the text note. The quotation reproduces the file. Read it with the corrections in your head.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. The fronted so far … from V-ing … that … — inversion, and an idiom that reverses direction. **But so far is this passage from being adverse** to the truth which we defend, **that** it rather supports it. (S19) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Three things stacked. (i) The idiom: **X is far from V-ing** = X does not V at all — this passage is far from being adverse = it is not adverse in the least. Day 9 gave you so far is it from; Day 11 gave you be far from V-ing. (ii) The intensifier **so** far … **that** … turns the idiom into a result construction: so far from being adverse that it actually supports. (iii) And because so far is fronted, the subject and verb invert: so far **is this passage** from…, not so far this passage is from. Restore: This passage is so far from being adverse to our position that it actually supports it. ⚠️ The trap is direction. A hurried reader sees adverse and truth which we defend and files the sentence as this passage is against us. It says the exact opposite. Formula 1.
2. Rhetorical questions that are assertions in disguise — and seeing as a conjunction. **But why should** so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father, **seeing** the prophet's design is to present the Messiah with certain distinguished properties…? (S10) ⚠️⚠️ why should … ? = there is no reason why … should — a question form carrying a negative assertion. And **seeing** (that) S V = since, given that — a conjunction, not a participle; nobody is doing any seeing. Then the mirror image at S15: **But who sees not that** the altar was erected as a memorial…? ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Negative question = strong positive. Who does not see? = Everyone sees. And sees not is the period negative without do — you met dare not yesterday; sees not is the same syntax on an ordinary verb. ⚠️ Beveridge uses the two questions at the two points where the refutation is most exposed — rhetoric covers where argument is thinnest. Watch for that. Formula 2.
3. The participle that looks like an absolute — and is not. **The prophet having formerly declared** that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, **now declares** that the Church would be made **so sensible of this as to be able to** glory in assuming his very name. (S20) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Your eye sees noun + participle, comma and shouts nominative absolute (justice being…, Day 12). Check the main clause first. The finite verb is **now declares**, and its subject is … The prophet. The same noun. So having formerly declared is not an absolute (which needs its own subject) but an ordinary participial modifier of the main subject: The prophet, having formerly declared X, now declares Y. Absolute = two subjects. Modifier = one. ⚠️ That is the test, and it is Exam Problem ①. Then the tail: **so** sensible of this **as to be able to** glory = the so … as to result you met on Day 10 — so aware of this that it can boast. Bonus: the bare subjunctive in S7, this meaning here **were** harsh and forced = would be — not a past tense. Formula 3.

Trap words I will test. quibble (S2) ⚠️⚠️ = to evade by a verbal trick, to cavil — the Jews quibble that… = they wriggle out by objecting that…. Not "argue"; the word is already a verdict. sovereign powers (S2) = rulers, magistrates (Lat. potestates) — human authorities, not abstract powers. insipid (S6) ⚠️⚠️ = flat, tasteless, lifeless (in- + sapidus, having flavour) — of an interpretation: this is too insipid = this reading is too flat to be believed. Calvin's standard sneer for a lifeless exegesis. singular (S7) ⚠️ = exceptional, outstanding — singular excellence = extraordinary excellence. Not "one" and not "odd". harsh and forced (S7) = strained, unnatural — of a reading that must be forced onto the text. perverseness (S8) = obstinate wrong-headedness (per- + vertere, turned the wrong way). obscurity (S8) ⚠️ = unclearness — there is no obscurity in Isaiah = Isaiah is perfectly clear. peculiar (S8) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = belonging exclusively to (peculium, private property) — one of the peculiar attributes of God = an attribute that is God's alone. Never "strange." This is the whole argument of S8 in one adjective. epithet (S10, S13) ⚠️⚠️ = a descriptive title, a name added to a name (Gk ἐπίθετον, put-on) — Beveridge's word for the rabbinic kinnuy. Not an insult. accumulated (S10) = heaped up (cumulus, a heap). induce (S10) = lead to, move to (in- + ducere). substantive (S13) ⚠️⚠️ = denoting the substance itself, a proper name of the essence — opposed to epithet; this is a grammatical term (nomen substantivum) borrowed for theology. ineffable (S13) = not to be uttered (in- + effabilis < effari, to speak out) — the Tetragrammaton, which Jews do not pronounce. evade (S14) = slip away from (e- + vadere, to go). exalter (S15) ⚠️ = one who lifts up — an agent noun Beveridge coins to match Jehovah my exaltation (S17). testify (S15) = bear witness to — here transitive, to testify the Divine presence. keenly (S18) = sharply, hotly — still more keenly disputed = even more fiercely contested. adverse (S19) = turned against (ad- + vertere) — hostile to. sensible of (S20) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = aware of, conscious of — so sensible of this = so keenly aware of this. Not "reasonable." The classic period reversal. glory in (S20) ⚠️ = boast of, exult in (Lat. gloriari) — a verb, and a Pauline one (καυχάομαι). assuming (S20) = taking on (ad- + sumere) — assuming his very name = taking his own name upon herself. Not "supposing." set down (S21) = stated, laid down in writing.

9. But though I am not now treating of the office of the Mediator, having deferred it till the subject of redemption is considered, yet because it ought to be clear and incontrovertible to all, that Christ is that Word become incarnate, this seems the most appropriate place to introduce those passages which assert the Divinity of Christ. When it is said in the forty-fifth Psalm, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” the Jews quibble that the name Elohim is applied to angels and sovereign powers. But no passage is to be found in Scripture, where an eternal throne is set up for a creature. For he is not called God simply, but also the eternal Ruler. Besides, the title is not conferred on any man, without some addition, as when it is said that Moses would be a God to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1). Some read as if it were in the genitive case, but this is too insipid. I admit, that anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine, but it is clear from the context, that this meaning here were harsh and forced, and totally inapplicable. But if their perverseness still refuses to yield, surely there is no obscurity in Isaiah, where Christ is introduced both us God, and as possessed of supreme powers one of the peculiar attributes of God, “His name shall be called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,” (Isa. 9:6). Here, too, the Jews object, and invert the passage thus, This is the name by which the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, will call him; so that all which they leave to the Son is, “ Prince of Peace.” But why should so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father, seeing the prophet’s design is to present the Messiah with certain distinguished properties which may induce us to put our faith in him? There can be no doubt, therefore, that he who a little before was called Emmanuel, is here called the Mighty God. Moreover, there can be nothing clearer than the words of Jeremiah, “This is the name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,” (Jer. 23:6). For as the Jews themselves teach that the other names of God are mere epithets, whereas this, which they call the ineffable name, is substantive, and expresses his essence, we infer, that the only begotten Son is the eternal God, who elsewhere declares, “My glory will I not give to another,” (Isa. 42:8). An attempt is made to evade this from the fact, that this name is given by Moses to the altar which he built, and by Ezekiel to the New Jerusalem. But who sees not that the altar was erected as a memorial to show that God was the exalter of Moses, and that the name of God was applied to Jerusalem, merely to testify the Divine presence? For thus the prophet speaks, “The name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there,” (Ezek. 48:35). In the same way, “Moses built an altar, and called the name of it JEHOVAH-nissi,” (Jehovah my exaltation). But it would seem the point is still more keenly disputed as to another passage in Jeremiah, where the same title is applied to Jerusalem in these words, “In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.” But so far is this passage from being adverse to the truth which we defend, that it rather supports it. The prophet having formerly declared that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, now declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be able to glory in assuming his very name. In the former passage, therefore, the fountain and cause of righteousness is set down, in the latter, the effect is described.

Sentence count: 21 (S1–S21). One paragraph, five moves: the bridge — the Word is Christ, so the divine names are his (S1) · link 1, Psalm 45:6, with the Elohim quibble and the genitive reading (S2–S7) · link 2, Isaiah 9:6, with the inverted-syntax objection (S8–S11) · link 3, Jeremiah 23:6, with the rabbinic axiom about the ineffable name (S12–S13) · the defence of link 3 against the altar, the city, and Jeremiah 33:16 (S14–S21).

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Six features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) The page-break seam falls inside S3, between where and an eternal throne. The running header (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN…) and the page number 121 are dropped at that seam; the sentence is joined silently. (ii) A footnote marker 117 sits after divine in S7 (is often called divine 117). Stripped, as the rule requires. Three line-break hyphens are also joined: forty-|fifth (a real hyphen, kept as forty-fifth), RIGHTEOUS-|NESS (S12, joined to RIGHTEOUSNESS), right-|eousness (S20, joined to righteousness). (iii) ⚠️⚠️ S8 prints where Christ is introduced both us God, and as possessed of supreme powers. us is a misprint for as — the correlative is both **as** God, and **as** possessed of…. The quotation above keeps us because that is what the file says; read as. No other reading makes sense: both us is not English. (iv) ⚠️ S8 also lacks a comma after supreme powers: as possessed of supreme powers one of the peculiar attributes of God. one of the peculiar attributes of God is an appositive to supreme powers and should be set off — possessed of supreme power, one of the attributes peculiar to God. Read the comma in; the file does not have it. (v) S9 prints “ Prince of Peace.” with a space after the opening quotation mark. A typesetting slip, reproduced as found. (vi) Capitalisation is uneven and meaningful. S12's Jeremiah quotation is in small capitals: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS — the KJV convention for the Tetragrammaton (LORD = YHWH). S18's second Jeremiah quotation is in ordinary case: The Lord our Righteousness. S17's JEHOVAH-nissi mixes capitals and lower case as the KJV prints it. S8's the Mighty God versus S9's the mighty God — the second is the Jewish reading, lowered. Reproduce as printed; the typography is doing theological work.

[THE BRIDGE]     S1    though NOT treating of the Mediator (DEFERRED to Book 2), YET
                       "Christ is that Word BECOME INCARNATE" ⇒ so the OT divine names are HIS
                 ─── LINK 1 · PSALM 45:6 "Thy throne, O GOD, is FOR EVER AND EVER" ───
[QUIBBLE]        S2    "Elohim" is used of ANGELS and RULERS too
[REPLY a]        S3–S4 no ETERNAL THRONE for a creature — "not called God SIMPLY, but also the eternal Ruler"
[REPLY b]        S5    the title never given to a man WITHOUT SOME ADDITION (Moses "a God TO PHARAOH")
[REPLY c]        S6–S7 the GENITIVE reading ("thy throne of God") = "too INSIPID"; "divine" = "harsh and forced"
                 ─── LINK 2 · ISAIAH 9:6 "the MIGHTY GOD, the EVERLASTING FATHER, the Prince of Peace" ───
[TEXT]           S8    Christ introduced "both [as] GOD, and as possessed of SUPREME POWERS" — PECULIAR to God
[INVERSION]      S9    the Jews flip the syntax: the Mighty God … CALLS him "Prince of Peace"
[REPLY]          S10   WHY SHOULD so many epithets be heaped on the FATHER, SEEING the design is the MESSIAH?
                 S11   ⇒ "he who a little before was called EMMANUEL, is here called the MIGHTY GOD"
                 ─── LINK 3 · JEREMIAH 23:6 "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" ───
[TEXT]           S12   "nothing CLEARER"
[THEIR AXIOM → OUR INFERENCE]
                 S13   AS the Jews themselves teach: other names = EPITHETS, this one = SUBSTANTIVE, his ESSENCE
                       ⇒ "we infer, that the only begotten Son is the ETERNAL GOD" + Isa 42:8 "MY GLORY … NOT … TO ANOTHER"
                 ─── DEFENCE OF LINK 3 ───
[EVASION 1]      S14   but the name is given to an ALTAR (Moses) and to a CITY (Ezekiel)
[REPLY]          S15–S17  WHO SEES NOT — altar = MEMORIAL ("God the EXALTER of Moses"); city = testifies PRESENCE
                       "The Lord IS THERE" (Ezek 48:35) · "JEHOVAH-nissi" (Exod 17:15)
[HARD CASE]      S18   Jer 33:16 — the SAME title given to JERUSALEM: "The Lord our Righteousness"
[REVERSAL]       S19   ⚡ "SO FAR is this passage FROM being adverse … THAT it rather SUPPORTS it"
[RESOLUTION]     S20–S21  23:6 = Christ the TRUE JEHOVAH, FOUNTAIN of righteousness (CAUSE)
                          33:16 = the Church SO SENSIBLE of this AS TO glory in ASSUMING his name (EFFECT)

Examiner's Eye. Four traps, and they are all about who says what. - Trap 1 — the concession in S7. **I admit**, that anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine. ⚠️ Calvin grants that divine is used loosely of excellent things. An option that says Calvin denies that anything but God is ever called divine is false; an option that says Calvin therefore allows the Psalm's "God" to mean merely "excellent" is also false (this meaning here were harsh and forced, and totally inapplicable). He grants the general usage and refuses its application here. Same shape as yesterday's S4. - Trap 2 — ownership of the inverted reading in S9. This is the name by which the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, will call him is the Jews' reading, not Calvin's, not Isaiah's. ⚠️ It is not in quotation marks, and it is grammatically a complete sentence — the examiner will lift it and attribute it to Calvin. invert the passage thus introduces it; the verb belongs to the Jews. - Trap 3 — the rabbinic axiom in S13 is used, not rejected. **as the Jews themselves teach** that the other names of God are mere epithets, whereas this … is substantive. ⚠️ Calvin agrees with this teaching — it is his premise. An option that says Calvin rejects the Jewish distinction between the Tetragrammaton and the other names reverses the argument. - Trap 4 — the direction of S19. so far is this passage **from being adverse** … **that it rather supports it**. The Jeremiah 33:16 passage supports Calvin. ⚠️ An option built from the words adverse to the truth which we defend alone is the direction-flip bait. And note the sequencing: S18 concedes the difficulty (still more keenly disputed), S19 reverses it. Quote S18 without S19 and you have misrepresented the section.

Formula 1 — The fronted so far … from V-ing … that … (inversion + idiom + result)

IDIOM        X  IS FAR FROM  V-ing              = X does not V at all
RESULT       X  IS SO FAR FROM V-ing  THAT  Y   = far from V-ing, X actually Y-s
FRONTED      SO FAR  IS  X  FROM V-ing , THAT Y                                (S19)
             so far IS THIS PASSAGE from being adverse …, THAT it rather supports it
⚠️ fronted "so + adverb" ⇒ subject–verb INVERSION (so far IS this passage, never *so far this passage is)
⚠️ "adverse" is INSIDE the negation — the sentence asserts the OPPOSITE of "adverse"
⚠️ "rather" = on the contrary (the pivot), not "somewhat"
family:      so far IS IT from V-ing that …    (Day 9)   ·   be far from V-ing   (Day 11)

Drill. 이 구절은 우리가 변호하는 교리에 반대되기는커녕, 오히려 그것을 확증한다. → So far is this passage from being adverse to the doctrine which we defend, that it rather confirms it.

Formula 2 — Rhetorical questions as assertions, and seeing as a conjunction

NEGATIVE-FORCE   WHY SHOULD  S  V … ?              = there is NO reason for S to V        (S10)
                 why should so many epithets be accumulated on the Father …?
POSITIVE-FORCE   WHO  V-s NOT  THAT … ?            = EVERYONE sees that …                 (S15)
                 who sees not that the altar was erected as a memorial …?
⚠️ neither asks anything — restore each as a STATEMENT before you translate
⚠️ "sees not" = period negation WITHOUT do-support on an ordinary verb (modern: does not see)
CONJUNCTION      … , SEEING (THAT)  S  V           = since / given that S V               (S10)
⚠️ "seeing" has NO subject — it is a conjunction, like "considering (that)", "provided (that)"

Drill. 예언자의 의도가 메시아를 우리 앞에 세우는 것이라면, 왜 그토록 많은 칭호가 성부께 쌓여야 하는가? 그 이름이 임재를 증거하려고 그 성읍에 적용되었음을 누가 보지 못하겠는가? → Why should so many titles be heaped on the Father, seeing the prophet's design is to set the Messiah before us? Who sees not that the name was applied to the city to testify the Divine presence?

Formula 3 — Participial modifier vs. nominative absolute, and so … as to

TEST             find the MAIN VERB → find its SUBJECT → compare with the participle's noun
MODIFIER         [S  (having V-ed …)] ,  S  V-s                    ONE subject          (S20)
                 The prophet (having formerly declared …), now declares …
ABSOLUTE         [N  V-ing …] ,  S  V-s                            TWO subjects        (Day 12–13)
                 justice being an essential attribute, they …
⚠️ same surface shape (noun + participle + comma) — the main clause decides
RESULT           SO + ADJ + AS TO + V                                                    (S20)
                 so sensible of this AS TO be able to glory …    = so aware that she can boast
SUBJUNCTIVE      this meaning here WERE harsh and forced          = WOULD BE            (S7)
⚠️ "were" with a singular subject = hypothetical, not past; do NOT "correct" to "was"

Drill. 사도가 앞서 그리스도가 우리의 의라고 선언한 후, 이제 교회가 그의 이름을 지니는 것을 자랑할 수 있을 만큼 이것을 깊이 의식하게 되리라고 선언한다. → The apostle having formerly declared that Christ is our righteousness, now declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be able to glory in bearing his name.

Where §9 sits. The chapter's synopsis reads: The Son called God and Jehovah. Other names of the Eternal Father applied to him in the Old Testament. He is, therefore, the Eternal God. Another objection refuted. Case of the Jews explained. ⚠️ Five clauses, and they map the section: God (Ps 45, Isa 9) — Jehovah (Jer 23) — therefore eternal God (S13) — objection (altar, city, Jer 33) — case of the Jews explained (S13's use of their own axiom). The proof-block of the chapter now runs: §§7–8 the Word's eternity, §9 the divine names, §10 the angel of the Lord, §§11–13 the New Testament testimonies. Today is the first section in which the opponent is "the Jews" rather than Christian heretics — and that changes the evidence Calvin allows himself.

Why no New Testament. Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6 of the Son outright; Matthew 1:23 applies Emmanuel to Jesus. Calvin uses neither. ⚠️ Not an oversight: a method. Against a Jewish reader, a New Testament citation is not evidence but the thing in dispute. So he argues from the Old Testament, on Old Testament terms, and — at S13 — on rabbinic terms. The one New Testament phrase he admits, the only begotten Son, appears in his conclusion, not his premises. This is the same discipline you saw in §3 (Cicero as hostile witness) — argue from what the opponent grants.

The three texts in their own history. Psalm 45:6 was the Church's text for the deity of the Messiah from Hebrews onward; the vocative reading (O God) is the LXX's (ὁ θεός as vocative) and the KJV's. The genitive reading Calvin calls too insipid — thy throne of God, i.e. thy divine throne — was defended by medieval Jewish commentators and, ⚠️ guardrail, was adopted by the RSV in 1952 (Your divine throne endures for ever) before being abandoned again by most modern versions. Calvin is not fighting a straw man; he is fighting a reading that would still be on the table four hundred years later. Isaiah 9:6: the inverted reading (the mighty God … will call him Prince of Peace) is Rashi's and the Targum's — mainstream rabbinic exegesis, exactly as Calvin reports it. His reply is not that the Hebrew forbids it (it does not) but that the oracle's purpose makes it pointless — and that El gibbor is used of YHWH himself in Isaiah 10:21, though he does not cite that verse here. Jeremiah 23:6: the Messianic Branch (צֶמַח) is given the Tetragrammaton — and the rabbinic doctrine Calvin invokes at S13 is real: Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed I.61, teaches that all the divine names are derived from God's actions except the Tetragrammaton, which is the Shem ha-Meforash and indicates his essence. Calvin's which they call the ineffable name … substantive, and expresses his essence is an accurate summary. He knew the Jewish sources; he used them fairly; and he used them against their owners.

The hard case and the Reformation answer. Jeremiah 33:16 was the standard Jewish rejoinder to the Christian use of 23:6: the city gets the same name — so the name proves nothing. Calvin's fountain and cause … effect distinction is the classic Reformed reply, and it is doctrinally loaded: the Church bears the name YHWH our righteousness because her righteousness is received, not possessed. ⚠️ That is imputation, in embryo, inside a Trinitarian proof. Book 3, chapter 11 will spell it out; today it appears as an exegetical move. Watch how often Calvin's doctrine of justification shows up as a reading strategy before it shows up as a doctrine.

The altar and the banner — a guardrail. JEHOVAH-nissi (Exod 17:15) is glossed Jehovah my exaltation. The standard lexical rendering is YHWH is my banner (נֵס, a standard, a pole); Calvin's exaltation derives the word from the root to lift up, which the older lexica allowed. ⚠️ Do not over-read the gloss. Calvin's argument does not depend on it — either way the altar's name commemorates what God did, and that is all S15 needs. If you quote this section to argue Hebrew etymology, you are using it for something it was not built for.

Edition and reception. The catena of divine names is a standard piece of patristic and medieval apologetic against Jewish readings (Justin's Dialogue with Trypho already argues from Psalm 45 and Isaiah 9), and Calvin's version of it grows across the editions of the Institutes; the 1559 text is what you are reading. In reception, the fountain / effect reading of Jer 23:6 and 33:16 became a fixture of Reformed commentary, and the refusal to cite the New Testament against Jewish readers was picked up as a rule of apologetic method. ⚠️ Over-reading guardrail: Calvin does not claim the Hebrew syntax of Isaiah 9:6 or Psalm 45:6 excludes the Jewish readings. He claims context and purpose do. Do not make him say the grammar settles it; he says the sense does.

1. Psalm 45:6 (MT 45:7) — quoted at S2; the first witness. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever (כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד; LXX 44:7 ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: for the predicate, not the vocative — for ever and ever (ʿolam va-ʿed) is what no creature receives (S3). And the context he appeals to at S7 is the very next verse, 45:7: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee — the addressee is God and yet has a God: two who are God, one anointing the other. Hebrews 1:8–9 will quote both verses of the Son; Calvin leaves that to the reader.

2. Exodus 7:1 — quoted at S5; the counter-example that is really a rule. See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh (רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: as the model of the addition — elohim to Pharaoh, relative, bounded. Compare Exod 4:16 (thou shalt be to him instead of God). The Psalm's O God has no such to-phrase. A human "god" in Scripture is always a god to someone.

3. Psalm 82:1, 6 / Psalm 8:5 — behind the quibble at S2. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods (אֱלֹהִים, 82:1); I have said, **Ye are gods (82:6); thou hast made him a little lower than the angels (8:5, MT אֱלֹהִים, LXX ἀγγέλους). ⚠️ Calvin does not cite these, but they are the Jewish evidence — Elohim of judges and of heavenly beings — and he concedes the usage** (I admit, S7). John 10:34 will quote Ps 82:6 in a related argument; Calvin keeps it out today.

4. Isaiah 9:6 (MT 9:5) — quoted at S8; the second witness. His name shall be called … the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace (אֵל גִּבּוֹר אֲבִיעַד שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: for El gibbor above all — possessed of supreme powers, one of the peculiar attributes of God. The verse omits the first title, Wonderful, Counsellor (פֶּלֶא יוֹעֵץ). Isaiah 10:21 uses אֵל גִּבּוֹר of YHWH himself (the remnant shall return … unto the mighty God) — the verse that closes the Jewish reading, and Calvin's commentary on Isaiah uses it; here he relies on the oracle's purpose (S10) instead.

5. Isaiah 7:14 / 8:8 — behind a little before was called Emmanuel at S11. Behold, a virgin shall conceive … and shall call his name Immanuel (עִמָּנוּ אֵל). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: to read Isaiah 7–9 as one Messianic movement — the child of 7:14 is the child of 9:6. God-with-us in ch. 7, Mighty God in ch. 9: the second name unfolds the first. Matthew 1:23 is the obvious New Testament link; Calvin does not use it.

6. Jeremiah 23:5–6 — quoted at S12; the third and clearest witness. I will raise unto David a righteous Branch … and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (וְזֶה־שְּׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרְאוֹ יְהוָה צִדְקֵנוּ). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: for the Tetragrammaton — not a title but the proper name. צֶמַח, the Branch, is the Messianic figure of Zech 3:8 and 6:12 too. The whole force of S13 rests on יְהוָה being the substantive name.

7. Isaiah 42:8 — quoted at S13; the clause that closes the syllogism. I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another (אֲנִי יְהוָה הוּא שְׁמִי וּכְבוֹדִי לְאַחֵר לֹא־אֶתֵּן). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: the half he does not quote is the premise — I am YHWH, that is my name — and the half he quotes is the exclusion. If YHWH shares his name-glory with no other, then the Branch who bears it is not an other.** Compare Isa 48:11.

8. Exodus 17:15 and Ezekiel 48:35 — quoted at S17 and S16; the two evasions. Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi (יְהוָה נִסִּי); the name of the city from that day shall be, **The LORD is there (יְהוָה שָׁמָּה). ⚠️ How Calvin uses them: both names are sentences — YHWH-my-banner/exaltation, YHWH-is-there — statements about YHWH's act or presence, attached to a thing. A name that is a sentence about God is not a claim that the thing is God. That is the whole of S15.

9. Jeremiah 33:16 — quoted at S18; the hard case. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness (וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא־לָהּ יְהוָה צִדְקֵנוּ). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: identical Hebrew to 23:6, and he does not pretend otherwise (the same title, S18). The answer is not in the words but in the relation — 23:6 the fountain, 33:16 the effect. Underneath is 1 Corinthians 1:30 (Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us … righteousness) and 2 Corinthians 5:21 (that we might be made the righteousness of God in him) — the New Testament grammar of a righteousness that is his and becomes ours. Calvin does not cite them today; but S21's fountain and cause … effect is their Old Testament shape.**

10. John 1:14 — behind that Word become incarnate at S1. And the Word was made flesh (ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: as the unspoken bridge — become incarnate is σὰρξ ἐγένετο in Latin dress (incarnatus). The Word of §§7–8 (John 1:1) and the Christ of the catena are the same because of this verse. The one verse the whole section assumes is the one it does not quote.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

ⓐ But so far is this passage from being adverse to the truth which we defend, that it rather supports it. ⓑ But why should so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father, seeing the prophet's design is to present the Messiah with certain distinguished properties? ⓒ The prophet having formerly declared that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, it now declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be able to glory in assuming his very name. ⓓ I admit, that anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine, but it is clear from the context, that this meaning here were harsh and forced.

Answer: ⓒ.

출제 의도. Formula 3: participial modifier versus absolute. In the original, The prophet having formerly declared … is a participial phrase modifying the subject of the main clause, and that subject is The prophet itself: The prophet …, **now declares**. ⓒ has replaced the main subject with a dummy **it** — it now declares — which leaves The prophet having formerly declared stranded: it is no longer a modifier (the main subject is now it, a different noun) and it cannot be an absolute in any sensible reading (it has no antecedent that could be doing the declaring). ⚠️ The bait is that the shape of ⓒ looks like the absolutes you learned on Days 12–13 (justice being …, they …) — but an absolute needs a real second subject, and it here is an empty one. Test: find the main verb, find its subject, compare. Original: declares ← The prophet = the participle's noun ✓. ⓒ: declares ← it ≠ The prophet ✗. Now check why the others stand. ⓐ is Formula 1: fronted so far forces the inversion so far **is this passage**; the uninverted so far this passage is would be the error, and from being is the gerund the idiom requires. ⓑ is Formula 2: seeing is a conjunction (since), with that optionally dropped and no subject of its own; seeing that the prophet's design is is equally correct, and neither needs a subject for seeing. ⓓ is the subjunctive were after it is clear … that in a hypothetical sense (this meaning would be harsh); "correcting" to was is the classic wrong instinct, exactly as at §7.

② Comprehension — which statement is TRUE according to the passage?

ⓐ Calvin denies that the word "divine" is ever applied in ordinary usage to anything but God, and on that ground insists the Psalm's "O God" must refer to Christ. ⓑ Calvin rejects the Jewish distinction between the ineffable name and the other names of God, arguing that all the divine names equally express his essence. ⓒ Calvin concedes that the application of "The Lord our Righteousness" to Jerusalem in Jeremiah 33 is adverse to his position, and rests his case on Jeremiah 23 alone. ⓓ Calvin argues that the same title bears a different relation in the two Jeremiah passages: in the first it names the source of righteousness, in the second it describes its effect in the Church, which glories in bearing the name of the one from whom her righteousness comes.

Answer: ⓓ. (S19 so far is this passage from being adverse … that it rather supports it; S20 the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be able to glory in assuming his very name; S21 In the former passage … the fountain and cause of righteousness is set down, in the latter, the effect is described.)

출제 의도. Four options, four failure modes. - ⓐ is the inverted concession — Trap 1. S7 opens **I admit**, that anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine. Calvin grants the loose usage; what he denies is its application here (this meaning here were harsh and forced, and totally inapplicable). ⚠️ The bait is that the sentence ends in a denial, so the eye carries the no backwards into the concession. Grant the usage, refuse the application — same shape as yesterday's S4. - ⓑ is the reversed premise — Trap 3. S13: **as the Jews themselves teach** that the other names of God are mere epithets, whereas this … is substantive, and expresses his essence, **we infer** …. Calvin uses the rabbinic distinction as his major premise; he does not reject it. ⚠️ An option that has him flattening all the names into essence-names destroys his own syllogism — if every name expressed the essence, Elohim on the Psalm would already have settled everything, and S2–S7 would be pointless. - ⓒ is the direction-flip — Trap 4. Built entirely from S18's still more keenly disputed and S19's phrase adverse to the truth which we defend, with S19's so far … from and rather supports deleted. ⚠️ S18 concedes the objection is hard; S19 says the passage supports him; S20–S21 show how. Quoting S18 without S19 is the examiner's favourite half-truth. And rests his case on Jeremiah 23 alone contradicts the whole of S19–S21, where 33:16 is folded into the argument. - ⓓ is true, and note it needs three sentences: S19 gives the reversal, S20 the two declarations (the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows / glory in assuming his very name), S21 the formula (fountain and cause / effect). An option stopping at S19 would be incomplete but not false; ⓓ carries it through.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

Render into Beveridge-style English, using all three of today's formulas:

"이 구절은 우리가 변호하는 교리에 반대되기는커녕, 오히려 그것을 확증한다. 사도의 의도가 그리스도를 우리 앞에 세우는 것이라면, 왜 그토록 많은 칭호가 성부께 쌓여야 하겠는가? 그 이름이 다만 하나님의 임재를 증거하려고 그 성읍에 적용되었음을 누가 보지 못하겠는가? 예언자는 앞서 그리스도가 의의 원천이라고 선언한 후, 이제 교회가 그의 이름을 지니는 것을 자랑할 수 있을 만큼 이것을 깊이 의식하게 되리라고 선언한다."

Model answer:

So far is this passage from being adverse to the doctrine which we defend, that it rather confirms it. Why should so many titles be here accumulated on the Father, seeing the apostle's design is to present Christ before us? Who sees not that the name was applied to the city merely to testify the Divine presence? The prophet having formerly declared that Christ is the fountain of righteousness, now declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be able to glory in bearing his name.

출제 의도 및 채점 기준. Six things are being checked. 1. Formula 1, the fronted so far … from … that. **So far is** this passage **from being** adverse …, **that** it rather confirms it. ⚠️ Three checks: the inversion after fronted so far (is this passage, not this passage is); the gerund after from (from being, not from to be); and the that result clause with rather retained. Writing This passage is not adverse but rather confirms is correct English and loses the Beveridge shape, which is what is being tested. 2. Formula 2(a), the negative-force rhetorical question with seeing. **Why should** so many titles be here accumulated on the Father, **seeing** the apostle's design is …? ⚠️ Three checks: why should (not why are); seeing as a bare conjunction (or seeing that), with no subject of its own; and the question mark — it is still a question in form. Converting it to There is no reason why … gets the sense and forfeits the point. 3. Formula 2(b), the positive-force rhetorical question. **Who sees not that** the name was applied to the city …? ⚠️ Two checks: sees not (period negation, no do) — Who does not see is grammatical modern English and loses the shape; and that retained. Not Everyone sees that — the assertion must wear the question. 4. Formula 3, the participial modifier with one subject. **The prophet having formerly declared** that …, **now declares** that … ⚠️ Three checks: the participle's noun (The prophet) must be the subject of now declares — no it, no he, no second subject; having … declared (perfect participle — the earlier declaration precedes the later); and formerly … now kept as the pair. 5. Formula 3, the so … as to result. so sensible of this **as to be able to** glory in bearing his name ⚠️ Two checks: so + adjective + as to + verb (not so … that she can, which is correct but not the target); and sensible of — aware of — not sensitive to, not reasonable about. 6. Vocabulary and argumentative accuracy — heaviest. adverse to (S19), the doctrine which we defend (modelled on S19), rather (S19, = on the contrary), accumulated on (S10), design (S10, = intention), present X before us (modelled on S10), merely to testify the Divine presence (S15, exact), the fountain of righteousness (S21), glory in (S20), sensible of (S20). ⚠️ And the last sentence must keep the sequence — formerly the source, now the Church's awareness. Reverse them and you have reversed S21's former … latter, which is the whole resolution.

One-line summary. Yesterday the Word was proved beginningless; today the incarnate Word is proved to bear God's own names, on Jewish premises, with no New Testament cited — after the bridge that carries everything: **though** I am not now treating of the office of the Mediator, **having deferred it** till the subject of redemption is considered, **yet** because it ought to be clear and incontrovertible to all, **that Christ is that Word become incarnate**, this seems the most appropriate place to introduce those passages which assert the Divinity of Christ (S1). Link 1, Psalm 45:6: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever — the Jews **quibble** that the name Elohim is applied to angels and sovereign powers (S2); reply (a) no passage is to be found in Scripture, where **an eternal throne** is set up for a creature (S3), he is **not** called God **simply**, **but also** the eternal Ruler (S4); reply (b) the title is **not** conferred on any man, **without some addition**, as when it is said that Moses would be a God **to Pharaoh** (S5); reply (c) the genitive reading is **too insipid** (S6), and — **I admit**, that anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine, **but** … this meaning here **were** harsh and forced, and totally inapplicable (S7). Link 2, Isaiah 9:6: there is **no obscurity** in Isaiah, where Christ is introduced both [as] God, and as possessed of supreme powers **one of the peculiar attributes of God** (S8); the Jews **invert** the passage thus, This is the name by which the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, will call him (S9) — **why should** so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father, **seeing** the prophet's design is to present the Messiah with certain distinguished properties …? (S10); he who a little before was called **Emmanuel**, is here called **the Mighty God** (S11). Link 3, Jeremiah 23:6: **nothing clearer** … THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS (S12) — **as the Jews themselves teach** that the other names of God are **mere epithets**, whereas this, which they call **the ineffable name**, is **substantive**, and expresses his essence, **we infer**, that the only begotten Son is the eternal God, who elsewhere declares, "My glory will I not give to another" (S13). The defence: the altar and the city (S14) — **who sees not** that the altar was erected **as a memorial** …, and that the name of God was applied to Jerusalem, **merely to testify the Divine presence**? (S15), The Lord **is there** (S16), JEHOVAH-nissi (S17); the hard case, Jer 33:16, **still more keenly disputed** (S18) — **so far is this passage from being adverse** to the truth which we defend, **that it rather supports it** (S19): The prophet **having formerly declared** that Christ is **the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows**, **now declares** that the Church would be made **so sensible of this as to be able to glory in assuming his very name** (S20); In the former passage … **the fountain and cause** of righteousness is set down, in the latter, **the effect** is described (S21). The Branch is called YHWH because he is; the city is called YHWH because she receives.

And the three grammar points, once more. ① The fronted so far … from V-ing … that … — **so far is** this passage **from being** adverse …, **that** it rather supports it (S19): idiom (far from V-ing = not V-ing at all) + intensifier (so … that = result) + inversion forced by the fronted so far. ⚠️ adverse is inside the negation; the sentence asserts support. ② Rhetorical questions as assertions, and seeing — **why should** … be accumulated …, **seeing** the prophet's design is …? (S10) = there is no reason, since …; **who sees not that** …? (S15) = everyone sees that …; seeing a subjectless conjunction, sees not the period negative without do. ③ Participial modifier versus absolute, and so … as to — **The prophet having formerly declared** …, **now declares** (S20): one subject, so a modifier, not an absolute — find the main verb first; so sensible of this **as to be able to** glory = result; and this meaning here **were** harsh (S7) = would be. And five things to keep: peculiar = belonging exclusively (not strange), sensible of = aware of (not reasonable), insipid = flat (of a reading), epithet vs substantive = title vs essence-name, quibble = a verdict disguised as a verb; the concession in S7 (Trap 1); the ownership of S9's inverted reading (Trap 2); the rabbinic axiom used, not rejected, in S13 (Trap 3); and the direction of S19 (Trap 4).

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S1 and lay it out on four lines: L1 the though-clause with its participle (having deferred …), L2 the yet because-clause with its extraposed that-clause on its own indented line, L3 the main clause (subject + verb: this seems), L4 the infinitive tail with its relative. Circle the main verb. (Target: seems.) Then take S20 and write two versions side by side: the original (one subject — mark The prophet as both the participle's noun and the main subject) and a rewritten absolute version with a genuine second subject (e.g. The prophet having formerly declared …, the Church now hears …). Label which is which and say why. Finally, lay out the catena as a three-column table: Text | Jewish reading | Calvin's reply, one row each for Ps 45:6, Isa 9:6, Jer 23:6, and a fourth row for Jer 33:16 with the reply fountain / effect.
2. Composition. One short paragraph, English, containing (a) a fronted so far … from V-ing … that …, (b) one negative-force rhetorical question with seeing and one who … not that …?, and (c) a participial modifier sharing the main subject. 이 이름이 성읍에 적용되었다는 사실은 우리의 교리에 반대되기는커녕 오히려 그것을 확증한다. 그 예언자의 의도가 메시아를 묘사하는 것이라면, 왜 그 칭호들이 성부께 돌려져야 하겠는가? 그 성읍이 다만 그 원천에서 의를 받기 때문에 그 이름을 지님을 누가 보지 못하겠는가? 사도는 앞서 그리스도가 우리의 의라고 선언한 후, 이제 교회가 그 이름을 자랑한다고 선언한다. (Target shape: So far is the application of this name to the city from being adverse to our doctrine, that it rather confirms it. Why should those titles be ascribed to the Father, seeing the prophet's design is to describe the Messiah? Who sees not that the city bears the name merely because she receives righteousness from its fountain? The apostle having formerly declared that Christ is our righteousness, now declares that the Church glories in that name.)
3. Preview — §10, one line. Tomorrow the catena continues with a new kind of witness — not a name but a person who appears: But if this does not satisfy the Jews, I know not what cavils will enable them to evade the numerous passages in which Jehovah is said to have appeared in the form of an Angel. ⚠️ Watch three things. (i) The Angel of the Lord — Calvin will argue that the Angel who speaks to the patriarchs and to Manoah claims the name Jehovah and is worshipped, and that this Angel is the pre-incarnate Christ (the argument heading: The angel who appeared to the fathers under the Law asserts that he is Jehovah). (ii) The opening formula **I know not what** cavils will enable them to evade — know not is today's sees not again, and I know not what X = I cannot imagine what X: a rhetorical shrug that is really a verdict. (iii) And the opponent is still the Jews — so still no New Testament until the case is closed. Today he proved the Son bears God's names. Tomorrow he shows the Son wearing God's face.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §9 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §10.