The God Of Love And Weakness: Calvin’s Understanding Of God’s Accommodating Relationship With His People

by Jon Balserak

Jon Balserak is a Ph.D. student in historical theology at New College, Edinburgh.

Ford Lewis Battles’ influential article, “God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity”[1] has largely governed our conception of Calvin’s thoughts on accommodation since its appearance in 1977, with numerous authors citing it as the standard work. Though apparently unaware of doing so, Battles follows the main lines drawn earlier by Edward Dowey,[2] E. David Willis and one or two others.[3] Making much of its supposed rhetorical roots, Battles argues that God’s accommodation functions in the realm of speech; that God, like a good teacher or orator—indeed, more recent authors have spoken of Calvin’s God as the “Grand Orator”[4] —adjusts and simplifies the knowledge of himself and divine realities to the weak capacities of those whom he is instructing.[5] Hence, all knowledge of God revealed to us is accommodated knowledge.

The lone critique of Battles’ views and of the general trend of study in this area has come from David F. Wright in a series of essays published between 1986 and 1998.[6] By drawing attention to a previously unknown aspect of accommodation in Calvin (namely, God’s tempering of his laws to the barbarity of his Old Testament people) and by striving to re-evaluate the phenomenon in the reformer, Wright not only offers a formidable challenge to contemporary understandings of accommodation[7] but also demonstrates that we have a long way to go before we understand the place it holds in Calvin’s theology.[8]

Wright’s reflections are the impetus for the study that follows. It is the contention here that accommodation pervades Calvin’s thinking to a degree that has yet to be realized within the scholarly community. More particularly, I have become convinced that accommodation is not restricted to God’s revealing of himself, but rather encompasses a broad range of divine activities and characterizes many aspects of the relationship God has with his people. God not only speaks but behaves in an accommodated manner towards his church. Thus, a glimpse of Calvin’s views on the subject may be obtained from a statement such as the one we find in his commentary on Isaiah 40:11 (“he carries them close to his heart”):

These words describe God’s wonderful condescension, for not only is he led by a general feeling of love for his whole flock, but, in proportion to the weakness of any one sheep, he shows his carefulness in watching, his gentleness in handling, and his patience in leading it. Here he leaves out nothing that belongs to the office of a good shepherd. For the shepherd ought to observe each of his sheep, in order that he may treat it according to its capacity; and especially they ought to be supported, if they are exceedingly weak. In a word, God will be mild, kind, gentle, and compassionate, so that he will not drive the weak harder than they are able to bear.[9]

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that Calvin’s conception of accommodation includes a behavioral aspect according to which God “treats each of his sheep according to its capacity.” This aim will be accomplished by examining various aspects of this activity. It is not possible in a short essay such as this one to canvass the subject exhaustively. Because this study must be selective it should be regarded as a beginning step, but certainly an important one toward understanding this accommodated relationship.

To this end, I have chosen to explore several themes associated with God’s daily interactions with his children—believer’s oaths, vows, and prayers, his or her performance of good works and endurance of chastening, and the Lord’s guidance and providential oversight of his people. In these areas, according to Calvin, God tempers his dealings with his children according to their capacity. I will take up each of these themes in turn, but by way of introduction will briefly outline Calvin’s thoughts on the character of the believer’s life and prayers. By mapping Calvin’s sense of how the Lord expected his people to conduct themselves, it will be easier to see the accommodation present in God’s treatment of them.

I. The Believer’s Life and Prayers

One of the best approaches for addressing the Lord’s expectations briefly is to survey Calvin’s discussion of the believer’s life as it is found in his Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.6-10 and prayer in Institutes 3.20. Respecting the first of these, Calvin begins by writing:

The object of regeneration, as we have said, is to manifest in the life of believers a harmony and agreement between God’s righteousness and their obedience, and thus to confirm the adoption that they have received as sons.[10]

This harmony has numerous elements to it. A zeal for obedience and good works is certainly a key component. For this reason, the invaluable instruction provided by the Law is mentioned by Calvin in the next sentence and the example of Christ follows quickly thereafter. Love of neighbor is also basic to this life as is an earnest desire to be led by God in every area and to renounce human wisdom and desires.

Indeed, this last element, self-denial, is clearly of supreme importance to Calvin. One need only look at his chapter titles to see this.[11] Though he does not neglect the Lord’s tender affection for his flock and the reciprocal love God’s people ought to demonstrate, yet he seems to have his eyes resolutely focused upon the harsh reality of our desperate sinfulness. Accordingly, he highlights the crucial importance of the heart,[12] proper motives,[13] holiness,[14] and the denial of the believer’s own reason and will.[15] Further more, Calvin seems particularly fond of the notions of contentment, frugality, propriety and moderation[16] for describing the carriage of the believer in all the providential circumstances she or he encounters during this fleeting life,[17] and correspondingly of the utter necessity of meditation on the future life.[18]

Several of these emphases also find expression in Calvin’s discussion of prayer. In particular, his stress on holiness (in the form of reverence) and sobriety is of central importance here. Believers are to approach prayer in a way “that befits those who enter conversation with God,”[19] Calvin says in his first rule on the subject. On this basis, he castigates any who would dare to entreat the almighty as if prayer were a “discourse … between us and an ordinary man.”[20] Appended to this is a warning that we ask for nothing except what God allows. For, although God “bids us pour out our hearts before him, he still does not indiscriminately slacken the reins” to our “wicked emotions,” and while he “promises that he will act according to the will of the godly,” this does not mean “he yields to their willfulness.[21]

II. The Saints and their Indulgent God

Outside the Institutes Calvin sounds these same notes. Yet, when we come to Calvin’s commentaries and sermons the terrain upon which the reformer treads is not as smooth and manageable as it was in the previously-mentioned chapters. The vastness and honesty of the biblical record require him to deal with eccentricities which can easily be excised from a treatise or other general work. For clearly the saints whose lives are recorded in the Bible are often far from being paragons of the virtues that Calvin set forth.

One of the byproducts of this (perhaps surprisingly) is that in Calvin’s exegesis of the Bible, most notably on OT books, God is often gentle and helpful; God is extremely cooperative, indeed, at times almost obsequious; God accommodates himself to his people’s weaknesses in ways that are quite extraordinary. Though God says he requires self-denial and moderation from his creatures, he frequently waives these requirements and allows his people to cry and complain in a very immoderate way. Though in the aforementioned treatment of the believer’s life Calvin could teach that God is not a helper of those who sin—“[w]ho can hope for the help of a divine blessing amidst frauds, robberies, and other wicked arts?”[22] —yet when he comes to the OT, Calvin acknowledges that God is one who regularly dispenses such help even in the face of his children’s offenses and improprieties. Though the Lord demands holiness from them, he rewards their tarnished deeds as if they were pure. Though he threatens judgment upon them, he often stays his hand. In numerous ways God, recalling his children’s frailties, shows himself ready to indulge them.

1. Oaths, Vows, and Prayers

This accommodated behavior appears in a number of different ways and with a variety of nuances. A fairly tame example of it occurs in the Lord’s willingness to grant to believers the use of oaths, a point on which Calvin comments in his lectures on Zephaniah. Noting their connection to divine worship and helpfulness “when a matter requires proof,”[23] Calvin lays down stipulations concerning oaths’ proper use so as not to be taken up frivolously. But this prompts him to reflect upon the privilege the Lord has granted to his children in this practice.

For it is a singular indulgence on the part of God that he allows us to take up his name when there is any controversy among us, … it is surely a great favor, for how great is the sanctity of that name though it also serves even earthly concerns? Nevertheless, God accommodates himself so far to us, that it is lawful for us to swear by his name.[24]

Here Calvin uses accommodo[25] to describe God’s concessive conduct. He con ceives of accommodation simply as an allowance, an acquiescence, a concession. Thus, we find Calvin discussing accommodation in a behavioral context and in a way significantly broader than Battles and others envisaged as part of the Calvinian repertoire.

Ps 116:14, “I will pay my vows to the Lord,” evokes a similar response from Calvin. He insists that vows are not intended to procure approval from God through flattery. Rather, the Lord gives the practice of vowing to his children “in their infirmity”[26] as an aid to them. “[F]or by this means their most merciful father condescends to allow them to enter into familiar converse with him.”[27] God wishes his people to be strengthened with confidence through this means. Thus, again the infirmity of God’s people moves God to condescend to grant to them something that will help them: he treats them according to their capacity.

When Calvin treats prayer, the instances are not only more numerous but often bear a more lenient, indulgent, almost fawning, quality. God consents to allow believers to narrate to him at length matters concerning which he is already aware, to pour out before him their cares and sorrows, to make foolish requests, and even to place him in the dock. Like infants, his children cry to him. Like adolescents, they speak disrespectfully to him. And, like a parent, God often hearkens even to their silly desires. It should be noted again that Calvin knew that God declared these things to be most inappropriate. Yet, in the Lord’s daily engagements with his children, his principles are relaxed and at times nearly discarded in order that he may have intimate fellowship with them.

Despite his insistence upon reverence, Calvin notes how God permits his children to deal familiarly with him.[28] Hezekiah’s prayer in Isaiah 37 offers a superb example of this. When war is threatened upon him via messengers carrying letters from the Assyrians, Hezekiah resorts to prayer and spreads the letters out before the Lord. Calvin observes, “he does not do this as if the Lord did not know what was contained in the letters, but God allows us to act in this manner towards him in accommodation to our weakness.”[29]

Not surprisingly, then, Calvin occasionally describes prayer as stammering. This is how he describes the abrupt language David uses in his prayer in Ps 5:4, “You are not a God who takes pleasure in evil.” He adds, “but this stammering is more acceptable to God than all the figures of rhetoric.”[30] Calvin also acknowledges that “God allows the saints to plead with him in [a] babbling manner”[31] when in their prayers they plead with him to arise or to awake up. Further, we find this in God’s interaction with Jacob in Genesis 35. The patriarch had been commanded to go to Beth-el and build an altar to God who had appeared to him when he was fleeing from Esau. However, having done so, Jacob renames the place “El-beth-el” (Gen 35:7), as a result of which some commentators accused him of being inappropri ately familiar.[32] While the event itself is not explicitly about prayer, Calvin’s response seems to encompass it:

And as when God descends to us, he, in a certain sense, abases himself, and stammers with us, so he wants us to stammer with him. And this is to be truly wise, when we embrace God in the manner in which he accommodates Himself to our measure. For in this way, Jacob does not keenly dispute concerning the essence of God, but renders God familiar to himself by the oracle which he has received. And because he applies his senses to the revelation, this stammering and simplicity (as I have said) is acceptable to God.[33]

So, in these ways Calvin notes God’s willingness to lower himself to the simplicity of his children.

Also, Calvin discerns God’s accommodating behavior in the Lord’s bending of his ear to the peculiar and offensive requests of his people. Looking at God’s encounter with Abram in Genesis 15, when the patriarch is specifically promised that it would not be Eliezer but a son yet to be born to him that would be his heir, Abram responds by asking God how he could know that God’s promise would come true. Calvin admits that Abram seems to be contesting the veracity of God’s word, but explains “the Lord sometimes concedes to his children, that they may freely express any objection which comes into their mind.”[34] Taking it further, Calvin even asserts that God does not deal “so strictly” with his people “as not to suffer himself to be questioned.”[35]

When David asks the Lord not to gather his soul with wicked men (Ps 26:9), Calvin observes that this is of course a strange plea—as if God could not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. Yet he explains, “God, with paternal indulgence, allows this freedom in prayer, that his people may themselves in this way correct their anxieties.”[36] And when believers urge the Lord to “make haste [and] answer me” (Ps 102:2), Calvin acknowledges that the Lord “bears with our foolishness” very patiently, and “deals in a very tender way with us.”[37] Calvin draws this conclusion on the grounds that “to pour out our complaints before him after the manner of little children would certainly be to treat his majesty with very little reverence, were it not that he has been pleased to allow us such freedom.”[38] The same kind of impatient prayer in Ps 83:1, evokes from Calvin a similar response: it is our duty to wait patiently on God, “but, in condescension to our infirmity, he permits us to supplicate him to make haste.”[39] In all these examples, the Lord descends to listen to his children’s requests and bears with their pettiness, impatience and impertinence.

In another set of material concerning prayer, Calvin identifies God’s accommodation in the way he answers his children. As God, because of “the insensibility and dullness of our natures,” often delivers us from danger even while we “sleep and are ignorant of it,”[40] so he also seems remarkably generous and compliant with respect to the things his children ask from him. An excellent example may be found in Lot’s dickering with the angel concerning the city to which he will be sent. When he is granted his request, some folk infer that the request was pleasing to God. But to Calvin this is an erroneous conclusion. It is not a new thing, he says, “for the Lord sometimes to grant, as an indulgence, what he, nevertheless, does not approve.”[41] For God, Calvin asserts, “kindly and gently bears with even the evil wishes of his own people.”[42]

God’s lavish kindness is also displayed in the speed with which he answers the prayer of Abraham’s servant. The text in question states that “before he had finished speaking” he was answered (Gen 24:15). Such a remarkably quick response, states Calvin, manifests “the extraordinary indulgence of God, who does not suffer the man to be long harassed by anxiety.”[43]

But perhaps the most impressive instances of this kind of accommodation are those occasions on which God seems to capitulate to the terms laid down by his children. We find one such instance in Calvin’s remarks on Ps 145:19, “he will perform the desires of those who fear him.” Calvin asks who man is that God ”should show compliance”[44] to his will, yet the reformer contends, he “voluntarily condescends to these terms, that he may yield to our desires.”[45] And we witness the same behavior in God’s dealings with Ezekiel. For when the prophet vehemently entreats God to answer him respecting whether he would destroy even the remnant of Israel (Ezekiel 9:9), Calvin declares that God granted this to him in order to set his mind at rest.

Hence, we also may learn of God’s inestimable indulgence toward his people, because he so condescends to give an account of himself as if he wished to satisfy them. Surely people are carried forward into excessive rashness whenever they interrogate God. For who dares to oppose his judgments? … But, in his amazing goodness, God descends so far as to give an account of his deeds to his servants to settle their minds, as I have said.[46]

So, although Calvin declared otherwise in his discussion of prayer in the Institutes, here he acknowledges God’s willingness to “yield to [his children’s] willfulness.”[47]

In Calvin’s judgement, then, God adjusts himself to his children’s frail capacity by the way he behaves towards them in the areas of oaths, vows, and prayers. It is interesting to note how sensitive Calvin is to what we might call the social proprieties of divine-and-human engagements. In almost all of the examples cited, Calvin’s concerns do not arise naturally from the text itself, but appear to be matters about which he is especially worried. He adheres firmly to the necessity of treating God with respect; thus reaffirming the emphasis upon sober reverence found elsewhere in his treatment of prayer in the Institutes. Nevertheless Calvin frequently draws attention to those occasions on which God seems to drop this requirement in order to condescend to the weakness and even the sinfulness of his children.

2. Good Works and Providential Chastenings

God also accommodates himself with respect to the way he rewards good works and chastens sin. This accommodation exhibits itself against the backdrop of God’s desire for a harmony between his own righteousness and his children’s obedience. The two subjects will be covered in the order just mentioned.

Calvin declares that God acts very tenderly towards believers’ sluggishness by appending promises to his commands in order to prompt us to obey them more eagerly. Thus Calvin frequently remarks, especially in his exposition of the law, on God’s habit of “allur[ing] … his people to obedience by the hope of his blessing.”[48] “In order,” Calvin explains, “that Israel may be more disposed to obedience, he gently attracts them by subjoining the promise.”[49] Calvin’s treatment of biblical history demonstrates the same phenomenon. When God commands Isaac not to go down to Egypt despite the famine that has come upon his own land, God promises Isaac his presence and blessing. Calvin asserts that this was intended to “render Isaac more prompt to obey.”[50] Further, Calvin says the Lord does this in order to awaken his servants from their indolence.[51] God does not purchase our services, but rather “he so condescends to our capacity that he invites and encourages us by the prospect of reward.”[52]

So it is not surprising that Calvin also notes how God rewards his children’s good deeds by honoring their obedience to his commands though it is far from his standard of perfection and, in fact, is corrupted by sin. This observation finds ample testimony in Calvin’s treatment of law, where he explains “[o]ur services only please God insofar as in his paternal indulgence he deigns to award to them the value of which they are by no means worthy.”[53] Such statements are quite common. They can also be found in the reformer’s exposition of OT history. Surely, the most impressive instances of this are those occasions when a believer clearly breaks God’s law in the midst of his or her service to God and in spite of it the work is honored. Two clear examples of this involve lying women, the first Rahab’s falsehood, the second the lie told by the two midwives.[54]

In his commentary on Josh 2:4–6, Calvin declares unequivocally that Rahab lied and that it was a sin. Arguing against the casuist’s notion of a “dutiful lie,”[55] the reformer avers that those who hold such a position “do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God.”[56] Yet, placing Rebecca’s deception in Genesis 27 alongside Rahab’s to help him make his point, Calvin explains that, with respect to both women, the kindness of God causes the fault of the lie to be buried such that it is “not taken into account.”[57] Thus, “the fault does not wholly deprive the deed of the merit of holy zeal.”[58] Again then, we find that Calvin rests his case on the indulgence of God. Even though Rahab’s words were an outright fabrication, God passes over them, receives her service, and commends her for it. The customary mention of human infirmity is missing but the sense is still the same.

In treating the midwives’ deceiving of Pharaoh at the time of Moses’ birth, Calvin again refutes the idea of a dutiful lie, and declares the act to have been wrong. “They sinned,”[59] he says. When the women are praised for their fear of God, Calvin declares that there is no contradiction in this: “because in [God’s] paternal indulgence of his children he still values their good works as if they were pure, notwithstanding the fact that they may be defiled by some mixture of impurity.”[60] He explains that there is no work so pure that it is absolutely free from stain. He mentions Rebecca again (though curiously calling her Rachel),[61] and adds that Scripture is full of instances which show that our actions are tainted by sin. Yet, Calvin says, we should not wonder that God “in his mercy should pardon” these defects or that he “should honor with reward those works which are unworthy of praise.”[62] Thus, though the women did not behave flawlessly, because they acted “shrewdly and courageously,” God “endured in them the sin which he could have deservedly condemned.”[63] Further, Calvin urges this doctrine upon us as a spur to our obedience, “since God is so graciously forbearing with respect to our infirmities”[64] —here his attention to our weakness is explicit.

But Calvin argues that God not only accommodates himself with respect to his forbearance, but also displays his moderation in the way he chastens his children for their sins. “[W]hen,” says Calvin, “God sees that we are not submissive, and that we do not willingly come to him when he calls us, he strengthens his instruction by chastisements. He allures us at first to himself, he employs kind and gentle invitations; but when he sees us delaying, or even going back, he begins to treat us more roughly and more severely.”[65] However, even on these occasions Calvin’s God is considerate and tender and alters his ways with his children to suit their weak capacity.

This is amply testified to in several places. In Calvin’s sermons on Job, he comments on the fact that although God seems to afflict everyone without exception, he actually distinguishes between his own and the reprobate.[66] In this regard, God is careful with his children, seeking their good in afflicting them but also trying not to be too rough with them.[67] Thus, Calvin states, we have reason to give thanks that God regards our infirmity and scourges us according to what we are able to endure.[68] In a later sermon, Calvin notes that although chastisements are profitable for us, still God also spares us when he afflicts us, for he does not look to what our sins deserve, but to what we are able to bear.[69] God, says Calvin, tempers his scolding of believers and supports them because of the pity he has for their feebleness.[70] God knows what we are able to bear, and because of this he knows how to moderate our afflictions.[71] In fact, God knows our infirmities better than we do,[72] but, Calvin urges, if we find ourselves feeling weak under God’s chastening, we should pray as Job did.[73] The reader of Calvin’s 159 sermons on this enigmatic book will find the themes of affliction and God’s care for believer’s frailties discussed on numerous occasions.

In his comments on Ps 125:3, Calvin approaches this matter from a slightly different vantage. This verse addresses the temptation to the righteous to turn to sin when they see the wicked prospering. Calvin interprets the text to mean that “God, from his willingness to bear with our weakness, moderates our adversities.”[74] But this time the reasoning is rather complicated. God’s tempering of his scolding is due to the fact that his children may be moved to forsake the way of righteousness if they are continually subjected to such harsh discipline. Calvin notes that God’s behavior as explained here teaches that he will take care of us such that, no matter how weak, he will not allow us to forsake him. Calvin does go on to mention the benefits that may be accrued from God’s reproofs, but reiterates again that the Lord “sets limits to our temptation, because he knows that we are too feeble to withstand them.”[75] Nor is this merely the case for the “weak” but it is also true of the “just who serve God in truth.”[76] No one possesses strength sufficient for enduring until the end “unless the Lord had a regard to our infirmity.”[77]

What is especially clear in this example, and what has been present in varying degrees in all of the instances cited thus far, is Calvin’s teaching that God appears to be one who has chosen to subject himself in an almost unbelievably radical way to the same constraints as his creatures such that he seems trapped by these constraints. So, when God would chasten his people, he is limited by numerous factors including the possibility that they may leave him if he scolds them too harshly. One may ponder how this could be a hindrance for a God who, if he wished, could secretly empower his children to endure his corrections, yet such a question does not seem to enter the equation. For, though elsewhere Calvin repeatedly celebrates God’s freedom from all impediments and his supreme power, here the reformer leaves this image of the surprisingly human God who must grapple with and adjust himself to his children’s frailties untouched.

This is a common theme in Calvin’s statements on accommodation. Calvin regularly describes God as one who must take certain factors into account before he acts and as one who, were he to decide not to accommodate himself to his children’s debilities, would (it seems) be impeded in the pursuit of his desired outcome. Indeed, God’s accommodation is directly related to God’s interest in a certain outcome. Accordingly, God adjusts himself and his dealings with his people in order to bring said outcome to pass. In this way, it becomes increasingly more apparent that, for Calvin, not only does accommodation characterize God’s relationship with his children but that, in a rather inexplicable way, it has to characterize this relationship. For, though God rules the heavens and earth he is simultaneously one who must adjust himself to his children’s capacity to achieve his desired ends.[78]

God’s accommodation of his discipline is discussed in many other places in Calvin’s writings. In his commentary on Isa 57:16, Calvin rejects two possible interpretations and declares “for my own part, I think the prophet rises higher; for he shows that the Lord deals so gently and kindly with us, because he perceives how weak and feeble we are.”[79] In his lectures on Zephaniah, Calvin observes, “we know, that God had always so moderated the punishment he inflicted on his people as not to render void his covenant, nor abolish the memory of Abraham’s race.”[80] And in his commentary on 1 Cor 10:13, the reformer asserts that God “regulates our temptations to the measure of our power.”[81] Thus, in many places Calvin highlights God’s accommodating stance.

3. The Shepherd who Leads and Guides

Raising the notions of God’s rewarding and providential chastising also involves the more general matter of God’s governing and guiding of his people. Here, accommodation has primarily to do with God’s willingness to lessen the presence or severity of the various trials encountered by his people. Hence, though self-denial is supposed to be the sum of the believer’s life, God accommodates his providence to the capacity of his people, making their way easier to trod.

Of course, God guides and instructs his flock by means of teachers, and in this Calvin finds evidence of accommodation. So he declares in his Mosaic Harmony commentary that it was “no common act of his indulgence” that God provided prophets from among the Israelite people themselves, “so that they do not need to run around … in search of revelations, and at the same time that they might be taught familiarly according to their capacity.”[82]

But, Calvin also perceives God’s accommodating grace in the Lord’s providential oversight of his people. An example of this can be found in the Lord’s moving of his people from Marah to Elim following their murmuring against the bitterness of the water in Marah. Calvin explains that the move “was a concession to their infirmity, because they had borne their thirst so impatiently.”[83] Instances such as this one can be found in Calvin’s comments on historical books, but nowhere are they more frequent than in his remarks on Joshua.[84]

Calvin notes the Lord’s indulgence following the report of the spies who brought back news about the promised land. The simple promise should have been sufficient. But “the Lord is so very indulgent to their weakness, that, for the sake of removing all doubt, he confirms what he had promised by experience.”[85] Furthermore, when the Lord causes the kings of the Amorites and Canaanites to be terrified by Israel, Calvin declares that this was done so that victory might be easier for his people. “Thus God spared their weakness, as if he had opened up the way by removing obstacles, since in other respects they had already proven themselves to be far too sluggish and cowardly.”[86] The same kind of care is observed in the fact that God sends such a large number of people to fight against Ai; for by so doing, “God had regard for their weakness by laying no greater burden on them than they were able to bear.”[87] Additionally, when, after hearing what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai, and a large number of kings combined to fight against Israel, Calvin wonders why these kings waited so long to form this alliance. Yet, he notes that “in this way God spared the weakness of his people, to whom the combined forces of so many nations would have caused no small fear.”[88] And when a new league against Israel was formed, Calvin reflects on the Lord’s kindness by remarking that while it would have been easy for the Lord to destroy the entire opposing army at once, “yet he did not want to bear down excessively upon his own people, who were feeble in any case, lest the excessive numbers of the enemy should strike them with terror, and drive them to despair.”[89] In these ways then the Lord shows himself sensitive to his children’s fears and frailties and out of consideration for them he chooses to lighten their load. Thus, as Calvin notes in his commentary on the Psalms, although a “continual warfare” of cross-bearing is enjoined upon us by divine appointment, nevertheless “some times, it is true, a truce or respite is granted to us, because God has compassion upon our infirmity.”[90]

III. Concluding Remarks

On the basis of this study, according to Calvin, God alters his conduct in relation to his children’s frailties. To be sure, Calvin rarely uses accommodo or attempero to refer to this behavior. Yet, he clearly has in mind the idea of accommodation as his constant references to human infirmity indicate. While it remains to sound out these rather cursory findings, the goal of this essay was simply to demonstrate the existence of a behavioral aspect to Calvin’s notion of accommodation.

Given the limited scope of this study, a number of other topics need further investigation. God’s work of creation and employment of angels immediately come to mind.[91] Furthermore, much more work needs to be done on providence. Worthy of mention here is Calvin’s occasional tendency to describe God as one who “ non gravatur ”—does not disdain, begrudge, mind, or resent—the care he bestows upon his flock.[92] This implies, of course, that he might have minded; that God might have withheld this care from his children, and thus that there is a kind of accommodation to be noted in these instances. And finally, in a more thematic vein, I will suggest that the fatherhood of God,[93] a motif to which I have alluded throughout this article, deserves more careful consideration in relation to accommodation. Many of Calvin’s remarks on God’s motives in accommodating point to the Lord’s paternal love for his children, indicating that this may very well be fertile ground for digging.

Of course, this article may have raised questions that it fails to answer. For example, given our broadening of Calvin’s concept of accommodation, the question of definition is surely one with which we will have to deal at some point. This is plainly a complex subject and demands further attention. However, the breadth of accommodation is an issue that arises from the Calvinian corpus itself, as we have attempted to demonstrate in this essay. Thus, as a problem, it is one with respect to which all interpretations of accommodation in Calvin will have to come to terms.

Despite the other lines of investigation, this study demonstrates that Calvin repeatedly paints God as a father who interacts with his children in a very intimate way and who, like a human parent, seems to indulge them. God not only condescendingly provides the use of his holy name to his sons and daughters when it is for their good, but also lets his children be quite bold, almost strident, in their approach to him, accepting their foolish and crude expressions as familiar babbling. He not only allows his people to cast their troubles on his breast, but hastens to answer his children quickly when they call, grants to them what he knows are foolish requests, permits them to decry his inactivity, and even allows them to call him to account when he behaves in a puzzling way. God does not only instruct his flock in what is right, but labors to encourage them to do good, even offering them promises—treats (as it were)—to stimulate them, and then willingly accepts and rewards their works even though blemished by manifest sin. Even when he threatens to punish the rebellious daughter or son, he often lessens or withholds that punishment because his fatherly love moves him toward tenderness. Furthermore, he strives in numerous ways to lighten the burden his people have to bear. By acting in these ways, God submits himself to the timidity, sluggishness, stupidity and arrogance of his church even when it is to his own embarrassment in order that he may care for them, guide them and, ultimately, have a relationship with them.

The picture that Calvin paints also involves a God who seems less than omnipotent in practice. In this strand of Calvin’s thought, God does not wield his absolute power to bring about the outcomes he desires, but instead labors under and allows his actions to be influenced by many of the same conditions and constraints to which his creatures are subject. Thus, it appears that he must accommodate himself to his children. Just as a father uses different approaches with each of his children, adjusting himself according to what works and what does not, so God seems to have subjected himself to the same limitations.

Though this is not a typical rendering of Calvin’s theology, it is no doubt an intriguing one that is not entirely lacking in biblical justification, when the reader considers the peculiarities (which seem at times to be more the rule than the exception) that may be observed in God’s interactions with his people throughout Old Testament history. But, to be sure, it is a portrait that needs further elucidation. What we have provided is only a glimpse of the matter. Nevertheless, in this sketch, Calvin’s accommodating God appears not so much as a Grand Orator but as a Grand Shepherd (or even a Grand Parent), one who, with respect to each of his own, “treats it according to its capacity.”[94]

Notes

1. Ford Lewis Battles, “God Was Accommodating Himself to Human Capacity,” Interpretation 31 (1977) 19-38.
2. Though accommodation is mentioned in the modern period as early as 1849 by Thomas Myers (John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Twenty Chapters of the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, trans. Thomas Myers [1849-50; repr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981], vol. 2, 448–51. (Henceforth, CTS). Edward Dowey’s fourteen-page treatment, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), 3–17, is the first extended discussion. Whether he should be credited with the discovery of accommodation in Calvin is a trickier puzzle to solve. Both Ford Lewis Battles and Richard Stauffer in 1977 and 1978 respectively seem to claim this honor for themselves. To be sure, Battles does not explicitly claim the discovery, but his footnote at the beginning of the paper certainly leans in this direction; see Battles, “God Was Accommodating,” 19 n. 1. Further, note Stauffer’s words, “Cf. l’excellent article de Ford Lewis Battles … qui, en même temps que nous, décourvre l’importance de la notion d’accommodation dans la théologie de Calvin” (Richard A. Stauffer, Dieu, la Création et la Providence dans le Prédication de Calvin, Basler und Berner Studien zur historischen und systematischen Theologie, 33 [Berne: Peter Lang, 1978], 36, n. 31). The truth is, the tribute could go to several authors. See Paul Lobstein, “La Connaissance religieuse d’aprs Calvin. Étude d’Histoire et de Dogmatique,” Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 42 (1909) 53-110; Rev. A. Mitchell Hunter, The Teaching of Calvin; A Modern Interpretation (Glascow: Maclehose, Jackson and Co., 1920), 48, n. 2; and Arnold Williams, The Common Expositor; An Account of the Commentaries on Genesis, 1527–1633 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1948), 176–177.
3. H. Jackson Forstman, Word and Spirit; Calvin’s Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962), 13f., 16, 55, 60, 107, 114–115; E. David Willis, “Rhetoric and Responsibility in Calvin’s Theology,” in The Context of Contemporary Theology. Essays in Honor of Paul Lehmann (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1974), 43–63; and Clinton Ashley, “John Calvin’s Utilization of the Principle of Accommodation and its continuing Significance for an Understanding of biblical Language” (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas, 1972). A work that appeared near the same time as Battles’ piece is Garret Wilterdink, “The Fatherhood of God in Calvin’s Thought,” in Reformed Review 30 (1976-1977) 9-22.
4. See, for example, Serene Jones Calvin and the Rhetoric of Piety (Columbia Series in Reformed Theology; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995).
5. Following Battles’ article, accommodation began to spread within Calvin studies. On Calvin’s intellectual background, see Suzanne Selinger, Calvin Against Himself; An Inquiry in Intellectual History (Hampden, CT: Archon Book, 1984), 66, 69, 83–84, 115, 179, 213; William Bouwsma, John Calvin; A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 105, 124, 125; idem, “Calvin as Theologia Rhetorica,” in Wilhelm Wuellner, ed., Calvinism as Theologia Rhetorica (Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, 1986), 10–11; idem, “Calvin and the Renaissance Crisis of Knowing,” Calvin Theological Journal 36 (1982) 207; idem, “Calvinism as Renaissance Artifact,” in Timothy George, ed., John Calvin & the Church: A Prism of Reform (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1990), 38; Alister McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 130–32, 263 (Appendix I); Jones, Calvin and the Rhetoric, 28, 32–34, 61, 77, 108, 133–134, 187–188, 202. On Calvin’s exegesis and view of Scripture, see Donald McKim and Jack Rogers, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 89–116; Richard Muller, “The Foundation of Calvin’s Theology: Scripture as Revealing God’s Word,” Duke Divinity School Review 44 (1979) 17-18, 22; idem, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics; Volume 1: Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 125; idem, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 192–93, 319–20; Dirk Jellema, “God’s ‘Baby Talk’: Calvin and the ‘Errors of the Bible’,” Reformed Journal 30 (1980) 25-47; Brian Gerrish, The Old Protestant and the New; Essays on the Reformed Heritage (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,1982), 6, 175–76, 178, 364, n. 95; David Steinmetz, “John Calvin on Isaiah 6: A Problem in the History of Exegesis,” Interpretation 36 (1982) 164; T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 98–102; Jane Dempsey Douglass, “Calvin’s Use of Metaphorical Language of God: God as Enemy and God as Mother,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 8 (1987) 19-32, esp. 19–22; A. Baxter, “John Calvin’s Use and Hermeneutics of the Old Testament,” (unpublished Ph.D. diss., University of Sheffield, 1987); Richard Gamble, “Calvin as Theologian and Exegete: Is There Anything New?,” Calvin Theological Journal 23 (1988) 182-83, 185; Susan Schreiner, “Exegesis and Double Justice in Calvin’s Sermons on Job,” Church History 58 (1989) 332; Roland Frye, “Calvin’s Theological Use of Figurative Language” in George, ed., John Calvin & the Church, 172–94; David Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament (Columbia Series in Reformed Theology; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995), 11, 40, 43, 51 n.110, 80 n. 106, 112–114. On Calvin’s theology, see Richard Muller, Christ and the Decree (Durham: Labyrinth Press, 1986), 17–38; Philip Butin, Revelation, Redemption and Response: Calvin’s Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 12–21; and Paul Helm, “God in Dialogue,” in A. N. S. Lane, ed., Interpreting the Bible; Historical and Theological Studies in Honour of David F. Wright, (Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1997), 223–40; esp. 231–38. Near the end of the 1980s scholars began to devote more particular attention to the study of accommodation in Calvin. Apart from the essays by David F. Wright cited below, see, A. Baxter, “What Did Calvin Teach about Accommodation?” Evangel 6:1 (Spring, 1988) 20-22; Michael Keefer, “Accommodation and Synecdoche: Calvin’s God in King Lear,” Shakespeare Studies 20 (1988) 147-68; Jacobus de Jong, Accommodatio Dei. A Theme in K. Schilder’s Theology of Revelation (Kampen: Kok, 1990), 35–43; Martin Klauber and Glenn Sunshine, “Jean-Alphonse Turrettini on Biblical Accommodation: Calvinist or Socinian?,” CTJ 25 (1990) 9–12; Martin Klauber, “Francis Turretin on Biblical Accommodation: Loyal Calvinist or Reformed Scholastic?” WTJ 55 (1993) 73-86; Stephen Benin, The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought (New York: State University of New York Press, 1993), 187–192; and Randall Zachman, “Calvin as Analogical Theologian” STJ 51 (1998) 162-87. Though Millet’s recent tome covers more than accommodation, he makes an important contribution to that subject, Olivier Millet, Calvin et la dynamique de la parole. Étude de rhétorique réformée, Bibliotheque litteraire de la Renaissance, série 3, Tome 28 (Geneva: Slatkine, 1992), 247–55.
6. David F. Wright, “Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism: Equity, Hardness of Heart, and Divine Accommodation in the Mosaic Harmony Commentary,” CTJ 21 (1986) 33-50; idem, “Accommodation and Barbarity in John Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries,” in A. Graeme Auld, ed., Understanding Poets and Prophets. Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, 152; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Series, 1993), 413–427; idem, “Calvin’s ‘Accommodation’ Revisited,” in Peter De Klerk, ed., Calvin as Exegete: Papers and Responses Presented at the Ninth Colloquium on Calvin and Calvin Studies (Grand Rapids: Calvin Studies Society, 1995), 171–90, and idem, “Calvin’s Accommodating God,” in Wilhelm Neuser and Brian Armstrong, eds., Calvinus Sincerioris Religionis Vindex, (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal, 1997), 3–19. Some criticism of contemporary views of accommodation is also offered in, idem, “Was John Calvin a ‘Rhetorical Theologian’?,” in John Leith and Robert Johnson, eds., Calvin Studies IX; Papers Presented at the ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies (Davidson, NC: Calvin Studies Society, 1998), 46–69, esp. 59–63.
7. Richard Muller, “Directions in Current Calvin Research,” in Calvin Studies IX; Papers Presented at the Ninth Colloquium on Calvin Studies, 84, notes the problem, uncovered by Wright’s efforts, of “dogmatic” readings in the earlier works of folk such as Dowey and Battles.
8. “We are still, I would claim, at the stage of uncovering the shape of the animal” (Wright, “Calvin’s ‘Accommodation’ Revisited,” 172).
9. “His verbis exprimitur singularis Dei indulgentia, quia non modo in totum gregem communi amoris affectu ducitur, sed prout quaeque ovis imbecilla fuerit, … enim … pastori inspiciendae … ut illis pro cuiusque captu consulat …” (John Calvin, Ioannis Calvini Commentarii in Isaiam Prophetam, in Ioannis Calvini Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia, 59 tomi, ed., Wilhelm Baum, Eduard Cunitz and Eduard Reuss, Corpus Reformatorum 29–87, [Brunswick: C. A. Schwetsche, 1863–1900], 37 [1888] 15 [hereafter CO]). CTS, Isaiah, 3, 216; slightly altered.
10. CO 2:501. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. by Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), book 3, chapter 6, section 1 (hereafter Inst.).
11. The title of Inst. 3.7 is “The Sum of the Christian Life: the Denial of Ourselves (ubi de abnegatione nostri)” (CO 2:505) and the title of the next chapter is “Bearing the Cross, a Part of Self-denial (quae pars est abnegationis)” (CO 2:515). For more on self-denial and a number of the themes I will mention, see, John Leith, John Calvin’s Doctrine of the Christian Life (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1989), 38–45, 74–82.
12. See CO 2:504–5 (Inst. 3.6.4–5), CO 2:505–32 (Inst. 3.7-10) (in chapters 7–10 there are many references to the heart; these references are too numerous to be mentioned individually). By referring to the heart I do not mean exclusively the heart (cor) in distinction from the mind (mens), but the soul (anima)—intellect (intellectus) and will (voluntas), or the whole person (totus homo), in distinction from that lifeless embracing of Christianity that ever remains on the top of the brain, as Calvin was accustomed to say. This seems to be what the reformer had in mind, in an early portion of his treatment of the Christian life, when he called the gospel “a doctrine not of the tongue but of life (Non … linguae est doctrina, sed vitae)” (CO 2:504; Inst. 3.6.4). Thus, Calvin emphasized the indispensable place held by the inward affections and the necessity for Christian truth to be embraced by both intellect and will. For Calvin’s view of the human soul and the importance of the totus homo, see Richard Muller, “Fides and Cognitio in Relation to the Problem of Intellect and Will in the Theology of John Calvin,” CTJ 25 (1990) 207-224; esp. 212–16.
13. In this classification I also include intentions as well as the insufficiency of mere outward performance. See CO 2:501–5 (Inst. 3.6); CO 2:507–8, 510–12, 513 (Inst. 7.3, 6–7, 9); CO 2:525 (Inst. 3.9.3); and CO 2:528–32 (Inst. 3.10.1–5).
14. See CO 2:502–3, 504–5 ( Inst. 3.6.2–3, 5); CO 2:506–8, 511–13 ( Inst. 3.7.2–4, 7–9); CO 2:515, 517–19, 522–23 ( Inst. 3.8.1, 4–7, 11); CO 2:523–24, 527–28 ( Inst. 3.9.1, 6); and CO 2:528–29, 530–32 ( Inst. 3.10.1, 3–5).
15. See CO 2:505–14 (Inst. 3.7); CO 2:515–23 (Inst. 3.8); CO 2:523–24, 525–27 (Inst. 3.9.1, 4–5); and CO 2:528–32 (Inst. 3.10).
16. Bouwsma, John Calvin, 86ff. discusses the importance of moderation from antiquity to the sixteenth century and in Calvin.
17. See CO 2:507–8, 512–14 (Inst. 3.7.3, 8–10); CO 2:518, 519–23 (Inst. 3.8.5, 7–11); CO 2:523–28 (Inst. 3.9); and CO 2:528–32 (Inst. 3.10).
18. Meditation on the future life is the subject of chap. 9; see CO 2:523–28 (Inst. 3.9).
19. CO 2:627; Inst. 3.20.4.
20. CO 2:628; Inst. 3.20.5.
21. “eorum arbitrio se submittat” (CO 2:628; Inst. 3.20.5).
22. CO 2:513; Inst. 3.7.9.
23. CO 44:11; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 198.
24. “Nam haec singularis Dei indulgentia est, quod nobis concedit nomen suum accipere … Deus tamen huc usque se nobis accommodat, ut liceat nobis iurare per eius nomen” (CO 44:11; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 198, slightly altered).
25. Issue needs to be taken with a statement made by Battles. He declares that “at least in the Institutes of the Christian Religion and presumably elsewhere, [Calvin] never uses the noun accommodatio, but always either the verb accommodare or attemperare when he has recourse to this principle” (Battles, “God Was Accommodating,” 19). This is simply not the case; the verdict is not even one to which Battles himself adheres. For he refers at the end of his paper to an excerpt where Calvin speaks of God’s accommodation by means of the verb submitto and also by the phrase “se … parvum facit” (Battles, “God Was Accommodating,” 38). A thorough inquiry into the language used by Calvin in reference to accommodation would be a welcome addition to Calvin research.
26. CO 32:199; CTS Psalms, 4, 371.
27. “… quia hoc modo ad eos descendit indulgentissimus Pater, ac secum permittit familiariter agi” (ibid.).
28. Calvin often uses this phrase, “familiariter secum agere.” For a sampling, see CO 31:640, 826; CO 43:496; slightly different constructions: CO 32:62, 239; CO 36:651; and CO 31:116.
29. “… sed ita secum agi Deus permittit pro modulo nostrae infirmitatis” (CO 36:625; CTS Isaiah, 3, 119).
30. “haec balbuties” (CO 31:67; CTS Psalms, 1, 55).
31. “… autem hanc balbutiem Deus in sanctorum precibus tolerat” (CO 31:447–48; CTS Psalms, 2, 171).
32. “nimis crassum” (CO 23:469).
33. “Sicuti autem ad nos descendit, quodammodo se extenuat et balbutit nobiscum, ita etiam nos secum balbutire vult. … Iacob … familiarem sibi Deum facit. Quia autem sensus suos ad revelationem dirigit, grata (ut dixi) balbuties haec, et simplicitas Deo est” (CO 23:469; CTS Genesis, 2, 238; slightly altered).
34. “Dominum hoc interdum concedere filiis suis, ut libere obiiciant quae veniunt in mentem” (CO 23:215; CTS Genesis, 1, 411).
35. “Neque enim adeo praecise cum ipsis agit, quin patiatur se rogari” (Ibid., 411).
36. “Deus pro paterna indulgentia tam liberas expostulationes suis permittit, ut precando suas ipsi anxietates corrigant” (CO 31:269; CTS Psalms, 1, 447).
37. “ineptias nostras sustinet, … indulgenter nobiscum agere” (CO 32:62; CTS Psalms, 4, 98).
38. “… nisi hanc licentiam ultro concederet” (ibid.).
39. “… infirmitati tamen nostrae concedit festinationem hanc optare” (CO 31:773; CTS Psalms, 3, 338).
40. CO 31:347; CTS Psalms, 1, 577. In the same way, Calvin explains (concerning the signs that the Lord gives his people) that, “signs being generally intended to aid our weakness, God does not for the most part wait till we have prayed for them” (CO 36:652; CTS Isaiah, 3, 161).
41. “Neque enim novum est, concedi interdum per indulgentiam a Domino, quod tamen illi non probatur” (CO 23:276; CTS Genesis, 1, 511).
42. … benigne et comiter pravis suorum votis morem gerat” (Ibid.).
43. … raram Dei indulgentiam ostendit, quod non patitur Deus diu cum anxietate luctari” (CO 23:334; CTS Genesis, 2, 19).
44. “se morigerum praebeat” (CO 32: 419; CTS Psalms, 5, 282).
45. “… se demittit ut nostris desideriis obtemperet” (Ibid.; slightly altered).
46. “Hinc etiam colligitur inaestimabilis Dei indulgentia erga suos, quod ita rationem dignatur reddere, ac si illis satisfacere vellet…. Sed Deus pro immensa sua bonitate huc usque descendit, ut rationem reddat factorum servis suis ad sedandas ipsorum mentes” (CO 40:204; CTS Ezekiel, 1, 315; slightly altered).
47. CO 2:628; Inst. 3.20.5.
48. “Deus … spe suae benedictionis … allicit” (CO 24:241; CTS Pentateuch Harmony, 1, 388).
49. “… quo sint magis proclives ad parendum, adiuncta promissione blande eos allicit” (CO 24:214; CTS Pentateuch Harmony, 1, 345).
50. “ad parendum alacrior reddatur Isaac” (CO 23:358; CTS Genesis, 2, 59).
51. Ibid., 60.
52. “… eo tamen usque se demittit ad captum nostrum, ut ostenso praemio nos invitet atque hortetur” (Ibid.).
53. “non aliter placent Deo nostra officia, nisi quatenus, pro paterna sua indulgentia, pretium quo minime digna sunt tribuere dignatur” (CO 24:541; CTS Pentateuch Harmony 2, 381). Calvin also comments on this matter in several places in his sermons on Job; see, for example, CO 33:491–506.
54. Interestingly, the majority of instances of this sort of accommodation that this author has found involve women. Calvin seems to conceive of Rebecca’s deception in Genesis 27 as a virtual paradigm for understanding the phenomenon, at least with respect to lying (as the reader will see in the next two paragraphs); though Calvin does not specifically mention accommodation in his treatment of the text in his commentary, see CO 23:374–75; CTS Genesis 2, 84–87. Furthermore, Calvin mentions God’s willingness to receive imperfect service in the strange case of Zipporah’s circumcising of her son with a sharp stone; see CO 24:65–66; CTS Pentateuch Harmony 1, 107–8.
55. “mendacium officiosum” (CO 25:440; CTS Joshua, 47). Concerning views on dissimulation in the sixteenth century and Calvin’s view specifically, see Perez Zagorin, Ways of Lying: Dissimulation, Persecution, and Conformity in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1990) 63-82.
56. CO 25:440; CTS Joshua, 47.
57. “ne in rationem veniat” (Ibid.).
58. “Neque … vitium gratiam prorsus abrogat sancto eius studio” (Ibid., 48).
59. “… duas mulieres … peccasse” (CO 24:19; CTS Pentateuch Harmony, 1, 35).
60. “… Deus, ut paterne indulget filiis suis eorum virtutes, quamvis aliqua sordium mixtura inquinatas, in pretio nihilominus habet ac si purae essent” (Ibid.; slightly altered).
61. Strangely, the translator of the CTS edition of the commentary does not seem to be aware of the mistake, but simply translates Rachel as Rachel and offers no comment regarding the inaccuracy. The editors of the CO note it by placing an asterisk next to her name.
62. “… Deum pro sua indulgentia ignoscere … mercede ornare quae laude atque etiam favore indigna erant opera” (CO 24:19; CTS Pentateuch Harmony, 1, 35).
63. “… mulieres, quia … cordate et viriliter egerant, vitium quod merito damnasset, in illis toleravit Deus” (Ibid.; altered).
64. “… quando tam benigne infirmitatibus nostris Deus parcit” (Ibid.; altered).
65. CO 44:47; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 262–63.
66. CO 33:260.
67. CO 33:263–64.
68. “… Dieu … regard àga nostre infirmité, quand il nous afflige selon ce qu’il voit que nous le pouvons souffrir” (CO 33:118).
69. “… toutesfois qu’il nous espargne, et ne regarde point à ce que nos pechez requierent, mais ce que nous pouvons porter” (CO 33:268).
70. “il [leurs afflictions] attrempe avec telle mesure, que nous ne sommes point du tout opprimez, pource qu’il nous supporte ayant pitié de la foiblesse qui est en nous” (CO 33:270).
71. “… cognoit nostre portee … moderer la pesanteur des afflictions qu’il nous envoye” (CO 33:337).
72. “… il cognoist nos infirmitez mieux que nous” (CO 34:614).
73. CO 34:613.
74. “Nam hinc colligimus ideo temperari a Deo res adversas, quia infirmitati nostrae parcere vult” (CO 32:315; CTS Psalms, 5, 92).
75. “… quia videt nos impares esse ad resistendum” (Ibid., 93).
76. “infirmi … iusti” (Ibid.).
77. “… nisi Dominus infirmitatis nostrae rationem habeat” (Ibid.).
78. We thought this insight was an original one until I reread David Wright’s essay on Calvin’s Mosaic Harmony Commentary. He makes the same observation near the end of the paper. See, Wright, “Calvin’s Pentateuchal Criticism,” 49.
79. “Docent enim Dominum tam clementer atque indulgenter nobiscum agere, quod perspectum habeat quam debiles atque infirmi simus” (CO 37:318; CTS Isaiah, 4, 215; slightly altered).
80. “Scimus enim Deum ita semper temperasse poenas, …” (CO 44:35; CTS Minor Prophets, 4, 240).
81. This is my summary translation; the full statement is: “Novit enim facultatis nostrae quam ipse contulit modum; ad quem tentationes attemperat” (CO 49:463).
82. “… ut familiariter pro suo modulo docerentur” (CO 24:273; CTS Pentateuch Harmony, 1, 436; slightly altered). See also his sermon on Ephesians 4:11–14 (CO 51:565–67; Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, trans. Arthur Golding, revised by the Banner of Truth Trust, [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1973], 376–77).
83. “Hoc autem illius infirmitati fuisse concessum …” (CO 24:164; CTS Pentateuch Harmony, 1, 267).
84. The fact that this was the last book on which Calvin commented raises interesting questions about the chronological development of this aspect of accommodation, but we will not be able to sound these out at this time.
85. “eo tamen usque indulget Deus suorum infirmitati, …” (CO 25:445; CTS Joshua, 55). Calvin makes a similar point in a sermon on Deut 1:22–28 where he refers to God’s bearing with the people by appointing spies to be sent out, and then applies the lesson to his hearers. He suggests that if God bears with us by giving us means according to our infirmity, (qu’il nous donne des moyens convenables àga nostre infirmite), we should stir ourselves up to obey him (CO 25: 663–64).
86. “atque ita eorum infirmitati pepercit Deus, … quia plus satis alioqui timidi et pigri erant” (CO 25:458; CTS Joshua, 77; altered).
87. “… eorum infirmitati consuluit Deus ne plus iniungeret oneris, quam essent ferendo …” (CO 25: 122; slightly altered).
88. “Verum hoc modo pepercit Deus suorum infirmitati, …” (CO 25:490, CO 25:136).
89. “… noluit tamen praeter modum suos alioqui debiles premere, …” (CO 25:507; altered).
90. “Verum quidem est, interdum inducias vel relaxationem dari, quia infirmitati nostrae Deus parcit” (CO 31:447; CTS Psalms, 2, 170; slightly altered).
91. These topics come to mind in part because instances concerning both of them are raised by Dowey and Battles, in their writings on the subject. Both topics have to do with behavioral accommodation, but this is not acknowledged by either of these authors. Dowey cites Calvin’s commentary on Gen 1:5 with reference to God’s work of creation (Dowey, The Knowledge of God, 9; see CO 23:18; CTS Genesis, 1, 78); and Battles mentions God’s use of angels in his providential care for us as Calvin discusses it in Institutes 1.14.11 (Battles, “God Was Accommodating,” 26; see CO 2:125; Inst. 1.14.11). In neither case does Calvin mention God’s accommodating of knowledge. In fact, Calvin specifically denies this in the Gen 1:5 quotation—in a portion not quoted by Dowey. Further, regarding the Lord’s employment of angels, Calvin notes this on a number of other occasions, and does not mention God’s accommodation of knowledge but of his governing of the world. See, for example, “The power of God alone would indeed be sufficient of itself to perform this; but in mercy to our infirmity he vouchsafes to employ angels as his ministers” (sed ut nostrae infirmitati indulgeat, angelos adhibere ministros dignatur) (CO 31:339; CTS Psalms, 1, 562–63). “… God, although he cannot stand in need of auxiliaries, has seen fit, in accommodation to our infirmity, to employ a multitude of them in the accomplishment of our salvation (infirmitatis tamen nostrae causa multis adiutoribus ad salutem nostram utatur)” (CO 31:542; CTS Psalms, 2, 340). “But it contributes much to aid our weak ness that he has appointed ( constituerit) heavenly messengers to be our defenders and guardians” (CO 36:642; CTS Isaiah, 3, 145–6).
92. I have not investigated the occurrence of this phrase sufficiently. I have come across it a number of times in my reading and think it is worthy of further investigation. The CTS occasionally translates it as “condescends” which seems a slightly unhelpful rendering or at least one that removes from it part, if not all, of the sense of inconvenience inherent in it. (I wish to thank professor David Wright for his helpful input on this question as well as for his suggestive comments concerning this article.) “[God] did not disdain to humble (descendere gravatus non) himself” (CO 31:738; CTS Psalms, 3, 265). “It may be more important to notice, that God’s fatherly care of his people is celebrated on the account that he condescends to attend (prospicere non gravatur) to even the smallest matter which concerns their advantage” (CO 32:411; CTS Psalms, 5, 269–70).
93. I am indebted to Timothy Trumper at Westminster Theological Seminary for pointing out to me how important the theme of fatherhood is in Calvin’s thought.
94. CO 37:15; CTS Isaiah, 3, 216.