Day 84 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §10

Yesterday the Son was proved to bear God's names. Today he is proved to have appeared — and to have been worshipped. That is the step up, and you must see why it is a step up or the section will read like more of the same. A name can be delegated. An ambassador speaks in the king's name; a prophet says thus saith the Lord; Moses was a God to Pharaoh. So the Jewish reader has one last move left after §9: the Angel bore the name in virtue of his office. Calvin lets that move be made — S3, Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of the office which he bears — and then answers it with something that cannot be delegated: sacrifice. No servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing sacrifice to be offered to himself. (S4) A servant may carry the king's name; no servant may take the king's worship. The Angel of Judges 13 does exactly that — and the whole first half of the section (S1–S10) is that one syllogism worked out on Manoah's altar. Learn the syllogism and you have the section.

Then a name appears that has been waiting since §4: Servetus — Hence the impiety of Servetus was the more detestable (S11). ⚠️ This is the first time Calvin names him in the body of the Institutes. The synopsis mentioned him; §4 alluded to we of the present day; today he is on the page. And what Servetus said tells you what the Angel argument is for: God was never manifested to Abraham and the Patriarchs, but … an angel was worshipped in his stead (S11); God personated an angel (S16). If the Old Testament theophanies were creatures playing God, then there is no pre-existent Son to be found in them. So the second half of the section (S11–S19) argues the positive thesis of the orthodox doctors: the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator (S12). ⚠️⚠️ Read the hedges. as it were. by anticipation. as in an intermediate form. not clothed with flesh. a type of the office. Calvin is walking a line: the Angel is truly Jehovah (against the Jews and Servetus) and is not yet the incarnate Mediator (against anyone who would put the incarnation under the Law). The examiner's overreach option lives in that gap. Then a coda (S20–S26): Zechariah's angel who is also the Lord of hosts; and two texts Calvin says he is passing over — Isaiah 25:9 and Malachi 3:1 — because they may not have much weight with the Jews (S21). ⚠️ That is a rhetorical figure, paralipsis: "I omit X — for instance, X." The two texts he "omits" are the two he closes on.

Grammatically, today is the day of conditions and concessions. Three forms of the conditional in one section: the inverted **Should** it be alleged … (S3), the present-subjunctive **if** … **be** candidly considered (S20), and — inside a quotation — the past counterfactual **If** Jehovah **had wished** to slay us, he **would not have received** the sacrifice (S9). Four concessions: **though** he **were** not clothed with flesh, **yet** … (S13), **still, however** (S14), **Although** … had not yet arrived (S19), **though** they **may not** have much weight (S21) — and a the + comparative that hangs on a when-clause (S11). And three sentences with no main verb or with the verb before the subject: **Hence** Manoah's exclamation, … (S8), **Hence also** Paul's statement, **that** … (S18), **Still clearer and stronger is** the passage of Malachi (S24).

One warning about the page. The section straddles a page-break, and the seam falls inside S3 — between by no and means solved, where a margin number 118, the page number 122, and the running header are all dropped. A second margin number, 119, sits inside S24 after in. And the source has three punctuation oddities you must not "fix" in your head as misprints of sense: the reference in S1 ends &c). with the full stop after the bracket; S20 has two full stops in the middle of the sentence — (ver. 9, &c). and the second (ver. 3, &c). be candidly considered — the period of the abbreviation &c. having slipped outside each bracket; and S18's parenthesis contains an editor's cross-reference (See also Calvin on Acts 7:30, and infra, chap. 14, s. 9) that is Beveridge's, not Calvin's. Details in the text note. The quotation reproduces the file.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Three conditionals, three forms — the inverted Should, the subjunctive be, and the past counterfactual. **Should it be alleged** that this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved. (S3) ⚠️⚠️ No if. The auxiliary should is fronted and the subject follows it — Should it be alleged = If it should be alleged = Suppose someone objects that …. You met this on Day 12. It is not the should of obligation; it marks a hypothetical the speaker is entertaining in order to dismiss it, and by no means solved dismisses it. Then S20: if the first chapter of Zechariah … and the second … **be** candidly considered, it will be seen that … ⚠️ be, not is — the present subjunctive in an open condition, formal period English. Do not "correct" it. And S9, inside Manoah's wife's mouth: **If** Jehovah **had wished** to slay us, he **would not have received** the sacrifice at our hand — the standard past counterfactual, and ⚠️ it is an argument: the sacrifice was received, therefore he did not wish to slay them — modus tollens in a peasant woman's sentence. Three shapes, one section. Formula 1.
2. Concession stacked four ways, plus the more … when …. For **though** he **were** not clothed with flesh, **yet** he descended as in an intermediate form, **that** he **might** have more familiar access to the faithful. (S13) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Three things. though … yet — the correlative pair you met at §9 S1, yet = nevertheless, not still now. he **were** — the subjunctive after though: a concession Calvin is treating as counter-to-expectation (though he was not, as one might suppose he had to be, clothed with flesh); it is not a past-plural error. And the tail **that** he **might** have = purpose, in order that he might (§7 S9's unless that … might). Then S14 doubles the adverb — **still, however**, he retained the character — S19 opens **Although** the time of humiliation **had not yet** arrived, S21 concedes **though** they **may not** have much weight with the Jews. ⚠️ And S11 gives you **the more** detestable, **when** he maintained … = all the more detestable, given that he maintained — the + comparative with the measure supplied by the when-clause — the old instrumental the (by that much more), the same the as in the more, the merrier, with its second half replaced by a when. Concession is the grammar of a man drawing a line: this much I grant, and no more. Formula 2.
3. Sentences without a verb, and a verb before its subject. **Hence** Manoah's exclamation, “We shall die; for we have seen the Lord.” (S8) **Hence also** Paul's statement, **that** Christ led the people in the wilderness (S18). ⚠️⚠️ Neither sentence has a finite verb. Hence + NP = from this comes / hence arises — the verb is elided, and the noun phrase (exclamation, statement) carries the quotation or the that-clause as its content. Restore: Hence [arises] Manoah's exclamation. Then S24: **Still clearer and stronger is** the passage of Malachi — the comparative predicate is fronted, so the subject comes after is. ⚠️ Agreement follows the subject that follows the verb: is because the passage is singular. And S1's I **know not what** cavils will enable them to evade — the do-less negative on an ordinary verb (§9 S15 sees not) with an embedded question as its object; ⚠️ it is a rhetorical certainty — there are no cavils that will. When the verb is missing, restore it; when the verb is first, find the subject behind it. Formula 3.

Trap words I will test. cavils (S1) ⚠️⚠️ = captious, frivolous objections (Lat. cavillari, to jeer, to quibble) — the noun cousin of yesterday's verb quibble; what cavils will enable them to evade = what quibbles will let them dodge. in respect of (S3) = with regard to, on account of — in respect of the office which he bears = because of the office he holds. Not "respect." bears (S3) = holds, carries — of an office: bear office. by no means (S3) = not at all — a whole-clause negation, not "by no method." rob X of Y (S4) = deprive X of Y — Day 82's rob him of his eternity, back again with honour. sacrifice (S4, S5, S9) = the burnt offering of Judges 13:16–20 — a cultic act reserved to God; that reservation is the whole argument. infer from the sign (S7) = conclude from the miracle — sign = the angel ascending in the flame. previously (S9) ⚠️ = earlier in the narrative — he who is previously called an angel = the one the text has been calling an angel until now. Not "formerly in time." impiety (S11) = ungodliness, sacrilege (in- + pius) — Calvin's heaviest noun for Servetus. maintained (S11) ⚠️ = asserted, held as a position — not "kept up." manifested (S11) = shown, made visible — Day 81/82's word (not yet manifested). in his stead (S11) = in his place, instead of him. doctors (S12) ⚠️⚠️ = teachers (Lat. doctor < docere) — the orthodox doctors of the Church = the orthodox teachers, the Fathers. No physicians. expounded (S12) = explained, set forth as an interpretation. by anticipation (S12) ⚠️ = ahead of the appointed time, as a foretaste — the office was previewed, not begun in full. intermediate form (S13) = a form between — between pure Godhead and flesh; note as in. familiar access (S13) = closer, more intimate approach — familiar = intimate, not "well-known." intercourse (S14) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = dealings, communication, converse (inter- + currere, to run between) — this closer intercourse = this closer communication with men. The period sense; the modern narrowing is nowhere in view. procured for him (S14) = obtained for him, won him — procured for him the name of the Angel = earned him the title "Angel". character (S14) ⚠️⚠️ = distinctive nature, stamp (Gk χαρακτήρ, an engraved mark — Hebrews 1:3) — the character which justly belonged to him—that of the God of ineffable glory = the nature that was rightly his, namely that of the God of unspeakable glory. Not "personality." ineffable (S14) = unspeakable — yesterday it was the name; today it is the glory. intimated (S15) = hinted, signified — Day 82's verb. memorial (S15) ⚠️⚠️ = the name by which one is remembered (Heb. zeker, Exod 3:15) — the Lord is his memorial = YHWH is the name he is remembered by. Not a monument. insinuates (S16) = slips in the suggestion, hints underhandedly (in- + sinus, a fold) — Calvin's verb for Servetus's method. personated (S16) ⚠️⚠️ = played the part of, impersonated (persona, a mask — §6's word, now as a verb) — God personated an angel = God put on an angel as a mask. That is Servetus's claim, and Calvin's noun person is being turned against him. confession (S17) = declaration, avowal — Jacob's I have seen God; not a confession of sin. fulness of the Godhead (S17) = the whole of deity (Col 2:9). type (S19) ⚠️⚠️ = a prefiguration, a foreshadowing pattern (Gk τύπος, the impress of a stamp) — exhibited a type of the office = displayed a foreshadowing of the office. Not "kind." was to fulfil (S19) = was destined to fulfil — be to + infinitive of destiny. candidly (S20) ⚠️ = fairly, without prejudice (candidus, white) — be candidly considered = be read in good faith. Not "frankly." ascribed to him (S20) = attributed to him. numberless (S21) = countless. rests secure (S21) = stands on safe ground. have much weight with X (S21) = carry much force in X's eyes. precludes the idea that (S23) = rules out the possibility that (prae- + claudere, to shut beforehand). emphatic (S23) = stressed, marked — the emphatic description, twice repeated = the pointed wording, said twice. claims it for Christ (S25) = assigns it to Christ as his.

10. 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 (Judges 6:7; 13:16-23, &c). This Angel claims for himself the name of the Eternal God. Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved. No servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing sacrifice to be offered to himself. But the Angel, by refusing to eat bread, orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him. Thus the fact itself proves that he was truly Jehovah. Accordingly, Manoah and his wife infer from the sign, that they had seen not only an angel, but God. Hence Manoah’s exclamation, “We shall die; for we have seen the Lord.” When the woman replies, “If Jehovah had wished to slay us, he would not have received the sacrifice at our hand,” she acknowledges that he who is previously called an angel was certainly God. We may add, that the angel’s own reply removes all doubt, “Why do ye ask my name, which is wonderful?” Hence the impiety of Servetus was the more detestable, when he maintained that God was never manifested to Abraham and the Patriarchs, but that an angel was worshipped in his stead. The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. This closer intercourse procured for him the name of the Angel; still, however, he retained the character which justly belonged to him—that of the God of ineffable glory. The same thing is intimated by Hosea, who, after mentioning the wrestling of Jacob with the angel, says, “Even the Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial,” (Hosea 12:5). Servetus again insinuates that God personated an angel; as if the prophet did not confirm what had been said by Moses, “Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?” (Gen. 32:29, 30). And the confession of the holy Patriarch sufficiently declares that he was not a created angel, but one in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt, when he says, “I have seen God face to face.” Hence also Paul’s statement, that Christ led the people in the wilderness (1 Cor. 10:4. See also Calvin on Acts 7:30, and infra, chap. 14, s. 9). Although the time of humiliation had not yet arrived, the eternal Word exhibited a type of the office which he was to fulfil. Again, if the first chapter of Zechariah (ver. 9, &c). and the second (ver. 3, &c). be candidly considered, it will be seen that the angel who sends the other angel is immediately after declared to be the Lord of hosts, and that supreme power is ascribed to him. I omit numberless passages in which our faith rests secure, though they may not have much weight with the Jews. For when it is said in Isaiah, “Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is the Lord: we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation,” (Isa. 25:9), even the blind may see that the God referred to is he who again rises up for the deliverance of his people. And the emphatic description, twice repeated, precludes the idea that reference is made to any other than to Christ. Still clearer and stronger is the passage of Malachi, in which a promise is made that the messenger who was then expected would come to his own temple (Mal. 3:1). The temple certainly was dedicated to Almighty God only, and yet the prophet claims it for Christ. Hence it follows, that he is the God who was always worshipped by the Jews.

Sentence count: 26 (S1–S26). One paragraph, four movements: the Angel who is worshipped — Manoah's altar as the proof that a name can be delegated but a sacrifice cannot (S1–S10) · Servetus named, and the orthodox thesis: the Word as the supreme angel, Mediator by anticipation, not yet in flesh (S11–S14) · the Hosea–Genesis witness (Jacob at Peniel), Servetus again, Paul on the wilderness, and the "type of the office" (S15–S19) · Zechariah's sending angel, and two texts "passed over" — Isaiah 25:9 and Malachi 3:1 — closing on the God the Jews always worshipped (S20–S26).

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Seven features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) The page-break seam falls inside S3, between by no and means solved. A margin number 118 at the end of the line, the page number 122, and the running header (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN…) are dropped there; the sentence is joined silently. (ii) A second margin number 119 sits inside S24 after in (the passage of Malachi, in [119] which a promise is made). Dropped. One line-break hyphen is joined: inter-|course (S14) → intercourse. (iii) ⚠️ S1's reference prints (Judges 6:7; 13:16-23, &c). — the full stop stands after the closing bracket, and Judges 6:7 is left as printed. Gideon's meeting with the Angel of the Lord is Judges 6:11–24; verse 7 is Israel's cry to the Lord. Whether the slip is the editor's or the printer's, the file says 6:7 and the quotation keeps it; read 6:11ff. (iv) ⚠️⚠️ S20 contains two full stops mid-sentence: if the first chapter of Zechariah (ver. 9, &c). and the second (ver. 3, &c). be candidly considered. The period that belongs to the abbreviation &c. has been set outside each bracket. These are not sentence boundaries — the sentence runs from Again to ascribed to him. and is counted as one (S20). Reproduced as found. (v) S18's parenthesis is composite: (1 Cor. 10:4. See also Calvin on Acts 7:30, and infra, chap. 14, s. 9). 1 Cor. 10:4 is Calvin's reference; See also Calvin on Acts 7:30, and infra, chap. 14, s. 9 is the editor's cross-reference to Calvin's Acts commentary and to §14.9 of this Book. It is inside the sentence on the page and is kept inside the quotation; do not read it as Calvin's prose. (vi) Typography kept: curly quotation marks and apostrophes (Manoah’s, angel’s, Paul’s); the em dash in S14 (him—that of the God); the KJV-style second person in the quotations (ye, thou dost); the comma-before-reference pattern ,” (Hosea 12:5), ,” (Isa. 25:9). (vii) Capitalisation of Angel is uneven and meaningful. Capital Angel in S1, S2, S5, S14 — where it is the title of the one who appears (the name of the Angel). Lower-case angel in S7, S9, S10, S11, S12, S15, S16, S17, S20 — where it is the category (not only an angel, but God; a created angel; the supreme angel). The capital letter is doing the theology: the Angel is a person; an angel is a class. Reproduce as printed.

[OPENING]        S1    "if this does not satisfy the Jews, I KNOW NOT WHAT CAVILS will enable them to evade"
                       the passages where JEHOVAH APPEARED IN THE FORM OF AN ANGEL (Judg 6; 13; &c)
[CLAIM]          S2    this Angel CLAIMS FOR HIMSELF the NAME of the Eternal God        ← §9's premise (name = essence)
[OBJECTION]      S3    SHOULD IT BE ALLEGED — "in respect of the OFFICE which he bears"  → "BY NO MEANS solved"
                 ─── THE SYLLOGISM OF MANOAH'S ALTAR ───
[MAJOR]          S4    NO SERVANT would rob God of his honour by allowing SACRIFICE to be offered to HIMSELF
[MINOR]          S5    BUT the Angel (refusing bread) ORDERS the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to HIM(self)
[CONCLUSION]     S6    "the FACT ITSELF proves that he was TRULY JEHOVAH"
[WITNESSES]      S7–S10  Manoah + wife INFER "not only an angel, but GOD" · "We shall DIE; for we have SEEN the Lord"
                       · wife: "IF Jehovah HAD WISHED to slay us, he WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED the sacrifice"
                       · the angel's own reply: "my NAME, which is WONDERFUL"
                 ─── SERVETUS, AND THE ORTHODOX THESIS ───
[SERVETUS 1]     S11   "God was NEVER MANIFESTED to Abraham … but an angel was worshipped IN HIS STEAD" → THE MORE detestable
[THESIS]         S12   the orthodox doctors: the WORD was the SUPREME ANGEL, who began — AS IT WERE BY ANTICIPATION —
                       to perform the office of MEDIATOR
[HEDGE]          S13   THOUGH he WERE NOT clothed with flesh, YET he descended AS IN an INTERMEDIATE FORM, THAT he MIGHT …
[BALANCE]        S14   the name "Angel" ← closer intercourse; STILL, HOWEVER, he retained his CHARACTER — GOD of ineffable glory
                 ─── PENIEL, SERVETUS AGAIN, PAUL ───
[HOSEA]          S15   Jacob wrestled with the angel — "the LORD is his MEMORIAL" (Hos 12:5)
[SERVETUS 2]     S16   "God PERSONATED an angel" — AS IF the prophet did NOT confirm Moses: "Wherefore … ask after my name?"
[CONFESSION]     S17   Jacob: "I have seen GOD face to face" ⇒ not a CREATED angel, but one in whom the FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD dwelt
[PAUL]           S18   HENCE ALSO Paul: CHRIST led the people in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4)
[LINE DRAWN]     S19   ALTHOUGH the time of humiliation had NOT YET arrived — a TYPE of the office he WAS TO fulfil
                 ─── CODA: ZECHARIAH, AND TWO TEXTS "OMITTED" ───
[ZECHARIAH]      S20   IF ch. 1 and ch. 2 BE candidly considered: the angel WHO SENDS the other angel = the LORD OF HOSTS
[PARALIPSIS]     S21   "I OMIT numberless passages in which OUR FAITH rests secure, THOUGH they MAY NOT have much weight with the JEWS"
[ISAIAH]         S22–S23  "this is our God; WE HAVE WAITED for him … this is the Lord; WE HAVE WAITED for him" — TWICE REPEATED ⇒ Christ
[MALACHI]        S24–S25  STILL CLEARER AND STRONGER IS the passage — the messenger comes to HIS OWN TEMPLE; the temple is GOD'S ONLY
[CONCLUSION]     S26   ⇒ "he is the God who was ALWAYS WORSHIPPED by the Jews"

Examiner's Eye. Five traps, and four of them are about how much Calvin is claiming. - Trap 1 — him in S5. orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to **him**. ⚠️⚠️ Who is him? If you read it as Jehovah (a third party), S5 merely says the Angel told Manoah to sacrifice to God — which any servant could say, and S4's principle would be irrelevant. him = the Angel himself. S4 sets the rule (no servant lets sacrifice be offered to himself); S5 reports the breach (this Angel orders it offered to himself); S6 draws the conclusion (so he was Jehovah). The narrative confirms it — the Angel receives the offering by ascending in the flame of the altar (Judges 13:20). An option that says the Angel directed the sacrifice away from himself to Jehovah has inverted the argument. - Trap 2 — the hedges in S12–S13, S19. **as it were** by anticipation · **as in** an intermediate form · **not clothed with flesh** · a **type** of the office which he **was to** fulfil. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Calvin does not say the Son was incarnate under the Law, nor that the Mediator's office was already in force. He says the Word previewed it, in a form between Godhead and flesh. An option that puts the incarnation in Judges 13 is the overreach option — and it is the one Book 2 will explicitly forbid. - Trap 3 — the two audiences in S21. I omit numberless passages in which **our faith** rests secure, though they **may not have much weight with the Jews**. ⚠️⚠️ Isaiah 25:9 and Malachi 3:1 are offered as examples of the class he is passing over — texts that secure Christian faith but that a Jewish reader will not grant. An option that says Calvin presents Isaiah 25:9 as the text most likely to convince the Jews has flipped S21. even the blind may see (S22) is Calvin's confidence, not a claim about Jewish assent. - Trap 4 — what Servetus actually said (S11, S16). God was **never manifested** to Abraham and the Patriarchs, but … **an angel** was worshipped **in his stead**; God **personated** an angel. ⚠️ Servetus does not deny that the patriarchs saw something or worshipped someone; he denies that what they saw was God. An option that has Servetus denying the theophanies altogether, or denying that an angel was worshipped, misreports him. - Trap 5 — always in S26. he is the God who was **always** worshipped by the Jews. ⚠️ The conclusion is continuity, not novelty: Christ is not a second God introduced alongside the God of Israel; he is the God of Israel. An option that has Calvin concluding that Christ is a God distinct from the one Israel worshipped has reversed the last sentence.

Formula 1 — The conditional family: inverted Should, subjunctive be, past counterfactual

INVERTED         SHOULD  S  V …,  MAIN                = if S should V … (a supposition raised to be answered)   (S3)
                 Should it be alleged that …, the difficulty is by no means solved
SUBJUNCTIVE      IF  S  BE  V-ed …,  S  WILL  V       = if S is V-ed (open condition, formal)                  (S20)
                 if the first chapter … and the second … BE candidly considered, it WILL be seen that …
COUNTERFACTUAL   IF  S  HAD  V-ed …,  S  WOULD HAVE V-ed   = past unreal                                       (S9)
                 If Jehovah HAD WISHED to slay us, he WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED the sacrifice
⚠️ "Should + S" has no "if"; the subject comes AFTER should — it is not the should of duty
⚠️ "be considered" is a subjunctive, not an error for "is/are considered" — do not correct it
⚠️ S9 is an ARGUMENT: the sacrifice WAS received ⇒ he did NOT wish to slay (modus tollens)
cousin:          AS IF  S  DID NOT V   = as though S did not V (when in fact S does)                          (S16)

Drill. 만일 그 천사가 다만 그 직분 때문에 그 이름을 지녔다고 주장된다면, 그 반론은 결코 제거되지 않는다. 그 본문이 공정하게 고려된다면, 그 천사가 곧바로 여호와라 불림이 보일 것이다. → Should it be alleged that the Angel bore that name merely in respect of his office, the objection is by no means removed. If the passage be candidly considered, it will be seen that the Angel is immediately called Jehovah.

Formula 2 — Concession stacked, and the + comparative … when …

SUBJUNCTIVE      THOUGH  S  WERE …,  YET  S  V-ed       = although S was … (against expectation), nevertheless   (S13)
                 though he WERE not clothed with flesh, YET he descended as in an intermediate form
DOUBLED          … ;  STILL, HOWEVER,  S  V-ed          = nevertheless (two adverbs, one job)                     (S14)
PLUPERFECT       ALTHOUGH  S  HAD NOT YET  V-ed,  S  V-ed                                                        (S19)
MODAL            … , THOUGH  S  MAY NOT  V              = even if S does not (conceded possibility)               (S21)
COMPARATIVE      … WAS  THE MORE  ADJ ,  WHEN  S  V-ed  = was all the more ADJ, given that S V-ed                 (S11)
                 the impiety of Servetus was THE MORE detestable, WHEN he maintained that …
⚠️ "the more" ≠ "the most": the THE is instrumental (by so much), and the WHEN-clause supplies the reason
⚠️ "were" after "though" is concessive subjunctive — not plural, not past narrative
⚠️ the hedges ride on the concessions: AS IT WERE (S12), AS IN (S13), A TYPE OF (S19) — read them, do not skip them

Drill. 비록 그가 육신을 입지 않았으나, 그럼에도 그는 신자들에게 더 친숙하게 다가가려고 중간 형태로 내려오셨다. 그러므로 그 오류는 더욱 가증한 것이었다 — 그가 하나님이 결코 나타나신 적이 없다고 주장했을 때에. → Though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. Hence the error was the more detestable, when he maintained that God was never manifested.

Formula 3 — The missing verb and the verb before its subject

VERBLESS         HENCE  [arises]  NP ,  "…"               = from this comes NP                                    (S8)
                 Hence Manoah's exclamation, "We shall die; for we have seen the Lord."
                 HENCE ALSO  [arises]  NP ,  THAT …                                                              (S18)
                 Hence also Paul's statement, that Christ led the people in the wilderness
FRONTED PRED.    STILL CLEARER (AND STRONGER)  IS  THE PASSAGE …   = the passage is even clearer                (S24)
⚠️ agreement follows the subject that comes AFTER the verb: IS the passage / ARE the passages
DO-LESS NEG.     I KNOW NOT  WHAT  X  WILL  V              = I do not know what X will V (= no X will)           (S1)
                 I know not what cavils will enable them to evade …
⚠️ "I know not what …" is rhetorical certainty, not doubt — the brother of "who sees not that …?" (§9 S15)

Drill. 그러므로 마노아의 아내의 대답이 나온다. 말라기의 구절은 더욱 분명하고 강력하다. 나는 어떤 궤변이 그들로 이 본문을 피하게 할지 알지 못한다. → Hence the reply of Manoah's wife. Still clearer and stronger is the passage of Malachi. I know not what cavils will enable them to evade this passage.

Where §10 sits. The synopsis reads: The angel who appeared to the fathers under the Law asserts that he is Jehovah. That angel was the Λόγος of the Eternal Father. The Son being that Λόγος is Eternal God. Impiety of Servetus refuted. Why the Son appeared in the form of an angel. ⚠️ Five clauses, and they map the section: the Angel asserts he is Jehovah (S1–S10, Manoah) — that Angel was the Word (S12, the orthodox doctors; S18, Paul) — so the Son is eternal God (S26) — Servetus refuted (S11, S16) — why the form of an angel (S13–S14, more familiar access). The proof-block of the chapter now stands: §§7–8 the Word's eternity, §9 the divine names, §10 the theophanies, §§11–13 the New Testament. Today is the last Old Testament section, and the first in which a living opponent is named.

The Angel of the LORD, and the "interchange." The Old Testament has a recurring figure, mal'ak YHWH, who appears to Hagar (Gen 16), Abraham (Gen 22), Jacob (Gen 31–32), Moses (Exod 3), Gideon and Manoah (Judg 6; 13). ⚠️ The textual fact Calvin builds on is real and undisputed: in these narratives the text slides between the angel and the LORD without warning — the angel of the LORD appeared … and the LORD said (Judg 6:12, 14); Hagar names the angel Thou God seest me (Gen 16:13). Scholars call it the interchange. What is disputed is what it means. Calvin's reading — the Angel is the pre-incarnate Word — is the ante-Nicene consensus: Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho (chs. 56–62) argued exactly this to a Jewish interlocutor, from exactly these texts (Genesis 18–19, 32; Exodus 3); Irenaeus, Tertullian (Against Praxeas 16), Novatian, and Hilary followed. Calvin's orthodox doctors of the Church (S12) are these men, and his rhetorical situation — arguing with the Jews — is Justin's.

Augustine's reversal — the guardrail Calvin does not name. ⚠️⚠️ The reading Calvin endorses is not Augustine's. In De Trinitate II–III Augustine argued that the theophanies were produced through created means (angels, or shaped creatures) and could not be assigned to the Son as such — any person of the Trinity might be signified, and none was seen in his own nature. His reason was Arian misuse: if the Son is the visible God who appears and the Father the invisible God who does not, the Son looks lesser and mutable. Calvin knows the danger and answers it by hedging, not by abandoning the old reading: as in an intermediate form (S13), as it were by anticipation (S12), a type of the office (S19), and above all S14 — he retained the character which justly belonged to him—that of the God of ineffable glory. The Angel is not a lesser, visible deity; he is the God of glory condescending. That sentence is Calvin's Augustinian insurance on a pre-Augustinian thesis. ⚠️ Do not write Calvin follows Augustine here. He follows Justin and Tertullian, with Augustine's worry in view.

Servetus. Michael Servetus (1511–1553), Spanish physician and theologian, author of De Trinitatis erroribus (1531) and Christianismi restitutio (1553), burned at Geneva in October 1553 after a trial in which Calvin was the principal accuser. ⚠️ The 1559 Institutes is thick with anti-Servetus material added after the trial; §22 of this chapter is devoted to him. His position, as Calvin reports it here: the Son had no personal pre-existence, so the Old Testament theophanies could not be the Son; they were God personating (S16) an angel, or an angel worshipped in God's stead (S11). Guardrail: Calvin's summary is polemical and compressed; Servetus's own Christology (a divine mode of self-disclosure that becomes a man, not a subsisting second person) is harder to state than S11 suggests. But S11's charge is fair on its own terms: on Servetus's account the patriarchs worshipped a creature, and Scripture approved. That is why the word is impiety.

The office-objection is not a straw man. S3's in respect of the office which he bears is the standard Jewish answer, and it has a legal form: the rabbinic principle that a man's agent is as himself (shaliach) — the envoy speaks and is addressed as the sender. ⚠️ Calvin does not deny the principle; he finds its limit. An agent may bear the name; an agent may not receive the worship. That is why the section's evidence is not a saying but a sacrifice (S4–S6), not a title but a confession by those who met him (S9, S17). The method of §9 — argue from what the opponent grants — continues: the Jew grants that sacrifice belongs to God alone.

Later reception, in three lines. Reformed orthodoxy (Turretin, Owen) kept the Christophany reading as standard. Modern critical study of the Old Testament reads the mal'ak YHWH as a literary mode of God's self-presence — the interchange is granted; the identification with a second divine person is not. And study of Second Temple Judaism (the "two powers in heaven" debates of the rabbis) shows that Jewish readers themselves found the interchange troubling enough to legislate against binitarian readings — which is indirect evidence that the texts read the way Calvin says they read. ⚠️ Over-reading guardrail: §10 proves from the texts that the Angel is Jehovah; it identifies the Angel with the Word on the authority of the Church's exposition (S12) and Paul (S18). Two steps; do not collapse them, and do not claim Judges 13 alone names the Son.

1. Judges 6:11–24 (printed Judges 6:7) — cited at S1; Gideon. And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him … And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might (6:12, 14). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: as the first file in the numerous passages — the interchange in its plainest form, the angel in v. 12 and the LORD in v. 14 speaking the same speech; Gideon's offering consumed by fire (6:21) and his fear of death (6:22–23) match Manoah's. Text note (iii): read 6:11ff for the printed 6:7.

2. Judges 13:16–23 — worked at S4–S10; Manoah. 13:16, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD (S5, by refusing to eat bread, orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah); 13:19–20, the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar (the sign of S7, and the receiving of the sacrifice S5 presupposes); 13:18, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret? — Heb. פֶּלִאי (pilʾî), wonderful, the root of Isa 9:6's פֶּלֶא (S10; Calvin follows the Hebrew against the KJV's secret); 13:22, We shall surely die, because we have seen God — Heb. אֱלֹהִים רָאִינוּ (S8; Beveridge the Lord); 13:23, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands (S9). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: the whole first half of the section is this one narrative, read as a syllogism — the rule about servants (S4) is Calvin's, the breach (S5) and the witnesses (S7–S10) are the text's.

3. Exodus 3:2, 6, 14–15 — behind S2 (the name of the Eternal God) and S15 (memorial). The angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush … I am the God of Abraham … I AM THAT I AM (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה); 3:15, this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial (זִכְרִי) unto all generations. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: silently, under &c — the Angel in the bush is the clearest case of the Angel claiming for himself the Name; and 3:15's memorial is the key to Hosea's the Lord is his memorial (S15): memorial = name. Acts 7:30, 38 (Stephen: an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush) is where the editor's cross-reference in S18 points.

4. Hosea 12:3–5 (MT 12:4–6) — quoted at S15. He had power with God: yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed … he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; Even the LORD God of hosts; the LORD is his memorial (יְהוָה זִכְרוֹ). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: as a prophet's reading of Genesis 32 — Hosea moves from God to the angel to the LORD God of hosts in three verses, of one wrestler, and then gives him the Name. A second witness that the interchange is meant, not accidental.

5. Genesis 32:24–30 — quoted at S16–S17; Peniel. 32:29, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? (S16) — the same refusal as Judges 13:18 (S10); 32:30, I have seen God face to face (פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים), and my life is preserved (S17). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: the participant's confession outranks the narrator's label — Jacob says God, so the wrestler was not a created angel. And the two refusals to be named, set side by side without comment, are Calvin's quiet argument that the two theophanies are one person.

6. Colossians 2:9 — echoed at S17, uncited. In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: as the contrary of a created angel — one in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt. The first New Testament echo of the section, one sentence before the first New Testament citation. Note θεότης (Godhead, deity itself), not θειότης (divine quality, Rom 1:20) — Paul's strong word, and Calvin's Godhead matches it.

7. 1 Corinthians 10:4 (with 10:9) — cited at S18. They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ (ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός); 10:9, Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: as the apostolic warrant for S12's identification — Paul puts Christ in the wilderness, where Exodus 23:20 put an Angel before thee. Christ led the people is Calvin's reading of followed them plus 10:9. The New Testament may enter here because the addressee has shifted from the Jews (S1–S10) to Servetus and the Church (S11 onward).

8. Zechariah 1:9–13; 2:3–11 (MT 2:7–15) — cited at S20. 1:9, the angel that talked with me; 1:12, the angel of the LORD answered and said, O LORD of hosts; 2:3, the angel that talked with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him; 2:8–9, 11, thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations … and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: for the angel who sends the other angel is immediately after declared to be the Lord of hosts — the speaker is sent by the LORD of hosts and is the LORD of hosts. Two who bear the Name, one sending the other — the §6 grammar in a vision. supreme power is ascribed to him = 2:8–9's I will shake mine hand upon them.

9. Isaiah 25:9 (with 25:8) — quoted at S22–S23. Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him (קִוִּינוּ לוֹ), and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: the doubled we have waited for him (the emphatic description, twice repeated) marks the God who is expected — the Messianic posture (Gen 49:18; Luke 2:25) — hence any other than … Christ. 25:8, He will swallow up death in victory, is quoted of the resurrection in 1 Cor 15:54 and stands behind again rises up; Calvin does not press it. Cited under paralipsis (S21): weight for us, not for the Jews.

10. Malachi 3:1 — cited at S24–S25. Behold, I will send my messenger (מַלְאָכִי), and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord (הָאָדוֹן), whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple (אֶל־הֵיכָלוֹ), even the messenger of the covenant (מַלְאַךְ הַבְּרִית), whom ye delight in. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: the second messenger, the messenger who was then expected, comes to his own temple; the temple is God's alone (S25); therefore the messenger is God (S26). Matthew 11:10 and Mark 1:2 apply the first messenger to John — Calvin means the second. And mal'ak = Angel: the section that opened with Jehovah in the form of an Angel closes with the Angel of the covenant entering his own house.

11. Revelation 19:10; 22:8–9; Acts 14:14–15 — behind S4, uncited. See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant … worship God; Paul and Barnabas tearing their clothes at Lystra. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: as the unstated model of No servant would rob God of his honour — every genuine creature-envoy in Scripture refuses worship. The Angel of Judges 13 does the opposite.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

ⓐ Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved. ⓑ For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. ⓒ Again, if the first chapter of Zechariah and the second be candidly considered, it will be seen that the angel who sends the other angel is immediately after declared to be the Lord of hosts. ⓓ Still clearer and stronger are the passage of Malachi, in which a promise is made that the messenger who was then expected would come to his own temple.

Answer: ⓓ.

출제 의도. Formula 3: inversion after a fronted comparative predicate, and agreement. In the original, Still clearer and stronger **is** the passage of Malachi — the predicate adjectives are fronted, the copula follows, and the subject (the passage, singular) comes after the verb. ⓓ has changed the verb to **are**, as if the fronted adjectives or an implied plural (the passages) governed it. ⚠️ The bait is the distance: with the subject at the end, the eye looks for agreement nearby and finds nothing to check against. Rule: find the subject behind the verb, then agree with it. The three correct options are today's other formulas left intact — ⓐ the inverted Should conditional (no if, subject after should); ⓑ the concessive subjunctive though he were … yet — not an error for was, a trap in the opposite direction (a student who "corrects" ⓑ has fallen for Formula 2's warning); ⓒ the present subjunctive be … considered in an open condition — likewise not an error for are considered. Two of the four look wrong and are right; one looks right and is wrong. That is the design.

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

ⓐ Calvin holds that the Angel who appeared to Manoah was the Son of God already clothed with flesh, so that the office of Mediator was in full force under the Law. ⓑ Calvin lets the objection stand that the Angel might bear the divine name in virtue of his office, and answers it not from the name but from the sacrifice: no servant would allow the worship due to God to be offered to himself, yet this Angel ordered it — and so the deed itself proves him to be Jehovah. ⓒ Calvin presents Isaiah 25:9 and Malachi 3:1 as the passages most likely to convince the Jews, since even the blind may see their meaning. ⓓ Calvin concludes that the patriarchs worshipped a created angel in God's place, as Servetus taught, but that Christ later fulfilled the office which that angel had foreshadowed.

Answer: ⓑ. (S3 Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved; S4 No servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing sacrifice to be offered to himself; S5 the Angel … orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him; S6 Thus the fact itself proves that he was truly Jehovah.)

출제 의도. Four options, four failure modes. - ⓐ is the overreach — Trap 2. S13 says though he were **not** clothed with flesh; S12 says the Word **began**, **as it were by anticipation**, to perform the office of Mediator; S19 says the time of humiliation had **not yet** arrived and the Word exhibited a **type** of the office which he **was to** fulfil. ⚠️ Four hedges, all deleted in ⓐ. The bait is that Calvin does call the Angel the Word and does speak of the office of Mediator — ⓐ keeps the nouns and drops the qualifiers. Anyone who reads §10 as the incarnation under the Law will be contradicted by Book 2. - ⓑ is true, and note that it takes four sentences: S3 states the objection and refuses it (by no means solved); S4 the rule; S5 the breach (with him read reflexively — Trap 1); S6 the conclusion (the fact itself). An option that said Calvin proves the Angel is Jehovah from the name he claims would be incomplete and, given S3, misleading: the name is what the objection explains away; the sacrifice is what it cannot. - ⓒ is the audience-flip — Trap 3. S21: I omit numberless passages in which **our faith** rests secure, though they **may not have much weight with the Jews**. Isaiah and Malachi are offered as examples of what he is passing over — passages for Christian confirmation, not Jewish persuasion. ⚠️ ⓒ is built from S22's even the blind may see with S21's disclaimer deleted. Quote S22 without S21 and you have reversed the addressee. - ⓓ is the Servetus-flip — Trap 4. S11 calls Servetus's an angel was worshipped in his stead an impiety … the more detestable; S17 says the wrestler was **not** a created angel, but one in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt. ⓓ attributes Servetus's position to Calvin and then bolts S19's type onto it. ⚠️ The bait is the word foreshadowed — Calvin does say a type of the office — but the one who exhibited the type is the eternal Word, not a creature.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

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

"만일 그 천사가 다만 그 직분 때문에 그 이름을 지녔다고 주장된다면, 그 난점은 결코 해결되지 않는다. 그는 비록 육신을 입지 않았으나, 그럼에도 여호와께 마땅한 제사를 자기에게 드리게 했다. 그러므로 야곱의 고백이 나온다. '내가 하나님을 대면하여 보았다.' 스가랴의 구절은 더욱 분명하다. 그 본문이 공정하게 고려된다면, 보내는 천사가 곧바로 만군의 여호와라 불림이 보일 것이다."

Model answer:

Should it be alleged that the Angel bore that name merely in respect of his office, the difficulty is by no means solved. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he ordered the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to himself. Hence the confession of Jacob, “I have seen God face to face.” Still clearer is the passage of Zechariah. If the passage be candidly considered, it will be seen that the angel who sends is immediately declared to be the Lord of hosts.

출제 의도 및 채점 기준. Six things are being checked. 1. Formula 1, the inverted Should. **Should it be alleged** that …, the difficulty is by no means solved. ⚠️ Three checks: no if; should before the subject it; the passive be alleged with the extraposed that-clause. If it is alleged that … is correct English and loses the Beveridge shape, which is what is being tested. And by no means solved — the clause-level negator, not not solved. 2. Formula 2, the concessive subjunctive with yet. For **though he were** not clothed with flesh, **yet** he ordered … ⚠️ Three checks: were (not was) after though; yet retained as the correlative; clothed with flesh (not in flesh, not incarnate — the target is Beveridge's phrase). And the reflexive **to himself** — the composition prompt says 자기에게, and here the modern reflexive is required, because without S4's parallel the plain him of S5 would be ambiguous. 3. Formula 3(a), the verbless Hence. **Hence the confession of Jacob**, “…” ⚠️ Two checks: no finite verb (Hence comes the confession is grammatical and loses the shape); the quotation in apposition. Writing Therefore Jacob confesses forfeits the point. 4. Formula 3(b), the fronted comparative. **Still clearer is the passage** of Zechariah. ⚠️ Two checks: adjective first, then is, then the subject; is (singular agreement with the passage). The passage of Zechariah is still clearer is correct and not the target. 5. Formula 1, second form — the subjunctive conditional. **If the passage be** candidly considered, **it will be seen that** … ⚠️ Three checks: be (not is); candidly (S20's adverb, = fairly); it will be seen that (the dummy-passive with extraposed that). And the angel who sends is immediately declared to be the Lord of hosts — declared to be, not called alone. 6. Vocabulary and argumentative accuracy — heaviest. in respect of his office (S3, exact), by no means solved (S3, exact), the sacrifice due to Jehovah (S5, exact), ordered … to be offered (S5's construction), the confession of Jacob (modelled on S17's the confession of the holy Patriarch), I have seen God face to face (S17, exact), candidly considered (S20), the Lord of hosts (S20). ⚠️ And the sequence must hold — objection, refusal, rule-breach, witness, escalation — because that is the section's own order. A rendering that puts Zechariah before Jacob has lost Calvin's Still clearer.

One-line summary. Yesterday the Son was proved to bear God's names; today he is proved to have appeared and been worshipped — and the step from name to worship is the step the office-objection cannot follow: Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved. **No servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing sacrifice to be offered to himself.** But the Angel, by refusing to eat bread, orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him. Thus the fact itself proves that he was truly Jehovah (S3–S6); the witnesses are the couple who met him (We shall die; for we have seen the Lord, S8; If Jehovah had wished to slay us, he would not have received the sacrifice, S9) and the Angel's own wonderful name (S10). Then Servetus, named for the first time — God was never manifested … but … an angel was worshipped in his stead (S11), God personated an angel (S16) — and against him the orthodox thesis with its hedges intact: the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, **as it were by anticipation**, to perform the office of Mediator (S12), though he were **not clothed with flesh**, yet he descended **as in** an intermediate form (S13), a **type** of the office which he was to fulfil (S19), while he retained the character … of the God of ineffable glory (S14). Jacob (I have seen God face to face, S17) and Hosea (the Lord is his memorial, S15) and Paul (Christ led the people in the wilderness, S18) and Zechariah (the angel who sends the other angel is … the Lord of hosts, S20) confirm it; Isaiah 25:9 and Malachi 3:1 are cited under a disclaimer (I omit numberless passages … though they may not have much weight with the Jews, S21); and the conclusion is continuity — he is the God who was **always** worshipped by the Jews (S26).

And the three grammar points, once more. ① The conditional family — **Should** it be alleged … (S3, inverted, no if, a supposition raised to be dismissed), **if** … **be** candidly considered (S20, present subjunctive, open condition — not an error), **If** Jehovah **had wished** …, he **would not have received** … (S9, past counterfactual used as modus tollens). ② Concession stacked — **though** he **were** …, **yet** … (S13, concessive subjunctive + correlative), **still, however** (S14), **Although** … had not yet (S19), **though** they **may not** (S21), and **the more** detestable, **when** … (S11: instrumental the, reason in the when). ③ The missing verb and the verb before its subject — **Hence** Manoah's exclamation, “…” (S8), **Hence also** Paul's statement, **that** … (S18): restore arises; **Still clearer and stronger is** the passage (S24): the subject follows the verb and governs its number; **I know not what** cavils … (S1): do-less negation, rhetorical certainty.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S3–S6 and lay them out as a syllogism on four lines: L1 the objection (S3) with its inverted Should marked and the verdict by no means solved underlined; L2 the major premise (S4) — circle No servant and to himself; L3 the minor premise (S5) — circle the Angel and to him, and write = himself beside it; L4 the conclusion (S6). Then take S20 and rewrite it with the two stray full stops removed and the compound subject bracketed: [the first chapter … and the second] be candidly considered — circle be and write subjunctive, not an error beside it. Finally take S24 and write it twice: as printed (inverted) and un-inverted (The passage of Malachi is still clearer and stronger); mark the subject in both.
2. Composition. One short paragraph, English, containing (a) an inverted Should conditional answered by by no means, (b) a though … were …, yet … concession, and (c) one verbless Hence + NP sentence followed by a fronted comparative (Still clearer is …). 만일 그 이름이 다만 직분 때문에 주어졌다고 주장된다면, 그 반론은 결코 제거되지 않는다. 그 천사는 비록 피조물의 형태로 나타났으나, 그럼에도 하나님께만 마땅한 예배를 받았다. 그러므로 마노아의 두려움이 나온다. 말라기의 증언은 더욱 분명하다. Target: Should it be alleged that the name was given merely in respect of the office, the objection is by no means removed. For though the Angel appeared in the form of a creature, yet he received the worship due to God alone. Hence the fear of Manoah. Still clearer is the testimony of Malachi.
3. Preview — §11, one line. Tomorrow the addressee changes and the Testament changes with him: The New Testament teems with innumerable passages, and our object must therefore be, the selection of a few, rather than an accumulation of the whole. ⚠️ Watch three things. (i) The method statement — selection, not accumulation — and the disclaimer that follows it: though the Apostles spoke of him after his appearance in the flesh as Mediator, every passage which I adduce will be sufficient to prove his eternal Godhead (the Book 2 deferral, again, from the other side). (ii) The first device: predictions concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ, as either already fulfilled in him, or to be fulfilled at some future period — Isaiah 8:14's stone of stumbling → Romans 9:33; watch as either … or and the passive are applied. (iii) The grammar to expect: our object must therefore be, the selection of a few (a comma before a predicate noun), In like manner, and the KJV quotations with saith and every knee shall bow. Today the Old Testament closed with the God Israel always worshipped; tomorrow the apostles say who he is.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §10 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §11.