# Calvin's Doctrine of Accommodation



## py3ak

These are the referenced from Calvin's commentaries to the doctrine of accommodation that I was able to find. Does anyone have any additional references where Calvin speaks about this?

Genesis 2:8. And the Lord God planted. Moses now adds the condition and rule of living which were given to man. And, first, he narrates in what part of the world he was placed, and what a happy and pleasant habitation was allotted to him. Moses says, that God had planted accommodating himself, by a simple and uncultivated style, to the capacity of the vulgar. For since the majesty of God, as it really is, cannot be expressed, the Scripture is wont to describe it according to the manner of men.

Genesis 2:14 Moses divides the one river which flowed by the garden into four heads. Yet it appears, that the fountains of the Euphrates and the Tigris were far distant from each other. From this difficulty, some would free themselves by saying, that the surface of the globe may have been changed by the deluge; and, therefore, they imagine it might have happened that the courses of the rivers were disturbed and changed, and their springs transferred elsewhere; a solution which appears to me by no means to be accepted. For although I acknowledge that the earth, from the time that it was accursed, became reduced from its native beauty to a state of wretched defilement, and to a garb of mourning, and afterwards was further laid waste in many places by the deluge; still, I assert, it was the same earth which had been created in the beginning. Add to this, that Moses (in my judgment) accommodated his topography to the capacity of his age. Yet nothing is accomplished, unless we find that place where the Tigris and Euphrates proceed from one river. Observe,
first, that no mention is made of a spring or fountain, but only that it is said, there was one river. But the four heads I understand to mean, both the beginnings from which the rivers are produced, and the mouths by which they discharge themselves into the sea. Now the Euphrates was formerly so joined by confluence with the Tigris, that it might justly be said, one river was divided into four heads; especially if what is manifest to all be conceded, that Moses does not speak acutely, nor in a philosophical manner, but popularly, so that every one least informed may understand him. Thus, in the first chapter, he called the sun and moon two great luminaries; not because the moon exceeded other planets in magnitude, but because, to common observation, it seemed greater. Add further, that he seems to remove all doubt when he says, that the river had four heads, because it was divided from that place. What does this mean, except that the channels were divided, out of one confluent stream, either above or below Paradise?

Genesis 11:5 And the Lord came down. The remaining part of the history now follows, in which Moses teaches us with what ease the Lord could overturn their insane attempts, and scatter abroad all their preparations. There is no doubt that they strenuously set about what they had presumptuously devised. But Moses first intimates that God, for a little while, seemed to take no notice of them, in order that suddenly breaking off their work at its commencement, by the confusion of their tongues, he might give the more decisive evidence of his judgment. For he frequently bears with the wicked, to such an extent, that he not only suffers them to contrive many nefarious things, as if he were unconcerned, or were taking repose; but even further, their impious and perverse designs with animating success, in order that he may at length cast them down to a lower depth. The descent of God, which Moses here records, is spoken of in reference to men rather than to God; who, as we know, does not move from place to place. But he intimates that God gradually and as with a tardy step, appeared in the character of an Avenger. The Lord therefore descended that he might see; that is, he evidently showed that he was not ignorant of the attempt which the Babylonians were making.

Psalm 72:8 He shall have dominion from sea to sea. As the Lord, when he promised his people the land of Canaan for an inheritance, assigned to it these four boundaries, (Genesis 15:18,) David intimates, that so long as the kingdom shall continue to exist, the possession of the promised land will be entire, to teach the faithful that the blessing of God cannot be fully realised, except whilst this kingdom shall flourish. He therefore declares that he will exercise dominion from the Red Sea, or from that arm of the Egyptian sea to the sea of Syria, which is called the Sea of the Philistines, and also from the river Euphrates to the great wilderness. If it is objected that such narrow bounds do not correspond with the kingdom of Christ, which was to be extended from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof, we reply, that David obviously accommodates his language to his own time, the amplitude of the kingdom of Christ not having been, as yet, fully unfolded. He has therefore begun his description in phraseology well known, and in familiar use under the law and the prophets; and even Christ himself commenced his reign within the limits here marked out before he penetrated to the uttermost boundaries of the earth; as it is said in Psalm 110:2,
"œThe Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion."
But, soon after, the Psalmist proceeds to speak of the enlarged extent of the empire of this king, declaring that the kings beyond the sea shall also be tributaries to him; and also that the inhabitants of the desert shall receive his yoke.

Jeremiah 10:2 After having given them a general command not to turn aside from the plain doctrine of the law, he specifies one thing in particular, Be not terrified by celestial signs, that is, "œDo not suppose that prosperity or adversity depends on the position or aspect of the stars." There seems, however, to be here some inconsistency, for he mentions the stars as signs; it hence follows that something is intimated by their position; and Moses also says, that the sun and moon, and all the stars, (and especially the planets,) would be for signs. There are, at the same time, in the firmament, twelve signs by which astrologers especially make their calculations. Since then God has, from the beginning of the creation, appointed what they call the fixed stars in the firmament, as well as the planets, to be for signs, the Prophet seems not to have done right in forbidding the Jews to fear such signs; for these signs in the heavens are not the vain fictions of men, but what God has created and appointed; and we have already stated that the stars are not called signs through the foolish conceit of men, but this character was given them by God himself when they were first created; and if the stars presage to us either prosperity or adversity, it follows that they ought to be dreaded by us.
But the Prophet here does not use the word signs in its proper meaning; for he refers not to its true origin, but accommodates himself to the notions which then prevailed; and we must bear in mind what I have already said, that the Egyptians and Chaldeans were much given to that astrology, which is called at this day judiciary. The word itself may be allowed; but it has been long ago profaned by wicked and unprincipled men, whose object has been to make gain by mere falsehoods. There is no doubt but that the Egyptians and the Chaldeans were true astrologers, and understood the art, which in itself is praiseworthy; for to observe the stars, what else is it, but to contemplate that wonderful workmanship, in which the power, as well as the wisdom and goodness of God, shines forth? And, indeed, astrology may justly be called the alphabet of theology; for no one can with a right mind come to the contemplation of the celestial framework, without being enraptured with admiration at the display of God´s wisdom, as well as of his power and goodness. I have no doubt, then, but that the Chaldeans and the Egyptians had learned that art, which in itself is not only to be approved, but is also most useful, and contains not only the most delightful speculations, but ought also to contribute much towards exciting in the hearts of men a high reverence for God. Hence Moses was instructed from his childhood in that art, and also Daniel among the Chaldeans (Acts 7:22; Daniel 1:17, 20). Moses learned astrology as understood by the Egyptians, and Daniel as known by the Chaldeans; but the art among them was at that time much adulterated; for they had mingled, as I have already said, foolish divinations with the true and genuine science.

John 17:12 But the son of perdition. Judas is excepted, and not without reason; for, though he was not one of the elect and of the true flock of God, yet the dignity of his office gave him the appearance of it; and, indeed, no one would have formed a different opinion of him, so long as he held that exalted rank. Tried by the rules of grammar, the exception is incorrect; but if we examine the matter narrowly, it was necessary that Christ should speak thus, in accommodation to the ordinary opinion of men. But, that no one might think that the eternal election of God was overturned by the damnation of Judas, he immediately added, that he was the son of perdition. By these words Christ means that his ruin, which took place suddenly before the eyes of men, had been known to God long before; for the son of perdition, according to the Hebrew idiom, denotes a man who is ruined, or devoted to destruction.
That the Scripture might be fulfilled. This relates to the former clause. Judas fell, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But it would be a most unfounded argument, if any one were to infer from this, that the revolt of Judas ought to be ascribed to God rather than to himself; because the prediction laid him under a necessity. For the course of events ought not to be ascribed to prophecies, because it was predicted in them; and, indeed, the prophets threaten nothing but what would have happened, though they had not spoken of it. It is not in the prophecies, therefore, that we must go to seek the cause of events. I acknowledge, indeed, that nothing happens but what has been appointed by God; but the only question now is, Do those things which it has foretold, or predicted, lay men under a necessity? which I have already demonstrated to be false.
Nor was it the design of Christ to transfer to Scripture the cause of the ruin of Judas, but he only intended to take away the occasion of stumbling, which might shake weak minds. Now the method of removing it is, by showing that the Spirit of God had long ago testified that such an event would happen; for we commonly startle at what is new and sudden. This is a highly useful admonition, and admits of extensive application. For how comes it that in our own day, the greater part of men give way on account of offences, but because they do not remember the testimonies of Scripture, by which God has abundantly fortified his people, having foretold early all the evils and distresses which would come before their eyes?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

In Institutes 1.13.1 he said, "œwho has so little intellect who does not to understand that God, in a certain sense, speaks baby-talk (balbutire) with us as nurses do with infants?" "œQuis enim vel parum ingeniosus non intelligit Deum ita nobiscum, ceu nutrices solent cum infantibus, quodammodo balbutire?" OS 3.109.13-15. 

Following Augustine's commentary on Genesis, he argued that, Scripture "œproceeds at the pace of a mother stooping to her child, so to speak, so as not to leave us behind in our weakness" (Institutes 3.21.4) "œquae velut materno incessu submissius graditur, ne infirmitatem nostram deserat." OS 4.373.22-25.

In his account of the creation of angels, "œMoses was accommodating himself to the roughness of the common people.""œMoses vulgi ruditati se accommodans"¦". Institutes 1.14.3; OS 1.154.28-29.

In describing the beginning and ending of each creation day (Genesis 1.5) Moses did not intend to establish a rule for the ways all days are measured. Rather, he "œaccommodated his language (as was already said) to the received custom." "œ"¦receptae consuetudini (ut iam dictum est) accommodavit sermonem suum." Ioannis Calvini, Opera quae supersunt omnia (Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke and Sons, 1882), 23.17 (Corpus Reformatorum, 51).

For Calvin, it is not that Scripture presents an artificial account of what really happened. Rather, the entirety of the creative act itself must be regarded as an artifice (temperaret) wrought by God for the sake of human weakness. 
"œQuin potius Deus ipse, ut opera sua ad hominem captum temperaret, sex dierum spatium sibi sumpsit "CO, 23.18.

He read Scripture this way because he was zealous, on the one hand, to maintain the truth of what Scripture says, but on the other hand, to recognize that when, e.g., Hebrew idiom says that God´s "œnose" gets "œhot" as it does in Lamentations 2.3, we neither think that God, in himself, has a nose or that it actually changes temperature. When Genesis 6.6 says that God "œrepents," we are to understand that "œthe repentance which is attributed belongs not properly in himself, but is referred to our understanding." "œPoenitentia quae tribuitur Deo non proprie in ipsum competit, sed ad sensus nostrum refertur." CO 23.118.

Because of the nature of divine-human relations, because God is so utterly transcendent in himself, so other, it is not possible for us to comprehend even what sort (qualis) he is, it is necessary (necesse est), in a sense transform (transfiguret) himself for our sake (nostra causa).

Using Hebrew idiom and familiar speech, Scripture means to say is that God is morally displeased and to help us understand this truth, it uses colloquial speech. To read too much or too little into the form of expression is to actually misunderstand the teaching of Holy Scripture.

Sometimes this accommodation is intensified by the use of anthropomorphism (the application of human behavior to God) or anthropopathism (the application of human emotion to God). Thus, in Scripture, God is sometimes said to have eyes (Zechariah 2.8) or to travel (Genesis 20.3) or to repent (Gen 6.6-7). In each of these cases, rather than reading these passages woodenly to say that God really, in himself has eyeballs or that he literally changes location or that he changes his mind from moment to moment, following Calvin, we understand such passages to teach us something about God´s disposition toward us, that he is aware of us, that he is immanent, and that he is morally outraged with sin. This way of reading Scripture does not downplay the image because, as Open Theists charge, we are too deeply influenced by Greek notions of God, but rather, understanding the revealed intention of such language we may be, as Van Til said, "œfearlessly anthropomorphic." Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1947), 73.

See also Ford Lewis Battles, "œGod Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity," Interpretation 31 (1977), 19-38.

rsc


----------



## Saiph

> For Calvin, it is not that Scripture presents an artificial account of what really happened. Rather, the entirety of the creative act itself must be regarded as an artifice (temperaret) wrought by God for the sake of human weakness.




???

The gist of those quotes is well taken, but I fear they take it too far in diminishing the glorious dignity of man. We are His image-bearers.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> For Calvin, it is not that Scripture presents an artificial account of what really happened. Rather, the entirety of the creative act itself must be regarded as an artifice (temperaret) wrought by God for the sake of human weakness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> The gist of those quotes is well taken, but I fear they take it too far in diminishing the glorious dignity of man. We are His image-bearers.
Click to expand...


Well, we did a pretty good job of diminishing that dignity when we ate the fruit, don't you think? 

Theologically, we express this doctrine by speaking of archetypal theology (as God knows it) and ectypal theology (as he reveals it to us). 

Calvin is merely expressing the Creator/creature distinction. 

In the nature of divine-human relations, God must accommodate himself to his creatures. He has natural, intuitive knowledge and free knowledge and all omniscient. He couldn't begin to communicate that to us, as it really is, without destroying us, any more than a parent can explain the mysteries of procreation or divorce to a 3 year old without destroying him. 

_Finitum non capax infiniti._

rsc


----------



## Saiph

> Well, we did a pretty good job of diminishing that dignity when we ate the fruit, don't you think?



I am not so sure our dignity is diminished by the fall. God seems to command that we retain dignity towards others quite often.

Jam 3:7-9 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. *With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. *

The dignity remains even in judgment and sin. The dignity of being an image-bearer is what deepens the shame of sin.

Rom 1:18-23 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Mark - 

Don't miss the fact that God still talks to us as IF we are not fallen. In other words - the righteous demands of Law must be met. They are God's character given in accommodated form. We, then, must imitate that perfectly. We cannot. God continues to speak to us and desires from us everything that a perfect being should demonstrate. 

Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Impossible)

Jeremiah 4:4 "Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, And take away the foreskins of your hearts." (Impossible)

Joel 2:13 So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the LORD your God, For He is gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He relents from doing harm. (Impossible)

Throughout the Scriptures, He continually speaks to us in a manner that demonstrates are lack of dignity to do the most basic commands.

The image is intact, but it is fully distorted and twisted in every facet and area.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we did a pretty good job of diminishing that dignity when we ate the fruit, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not so sure our dignity is diminished by the fall. God seems to command that we retain dignity towards others quite often.
> 
> Jam 3:7-9 For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. *With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. *
> 
> The dignity remains even in judgment and sin. The dignity of being an image-bearer is what deepens the shame of sin.
> 
> Rom 1:18-23 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Click to expand...


I guess we're using "dignity" differently. Definitons are important. By dignity I thought you meant "intrinsic worth before God." 

There is no question that we, as Matt indicates, remain image-bearers after the fall. The image is said to been tarnished, even "obliterated" (Calvin, lit. "painted over") but never entirely removed. 

We want to avoid the Pelagian conclusion, however, that there is no damage to the image as such -- a conclusion drawn remarkably by N. Shepherd in his ThM thesis (ca. 1959).

As image-bearers, humans have intrinsic worth, as Luther would say, _coram hominibus_ (before men), in the civil realm. We owe each other charity etc.

Dignity before God (_coram Deo_) is another thing.

That was lost in the rebellion of the first Adam and is only restored by the imputed righteousness received through faith in the second Adam.

rsc


----------

