Element of fire

[TimV]

Nor, in truth, was he ignorant of the fact, that the moon had not sufficient brightness to enlighten the earth, unless it borrowed from the sun; but he deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive, that the moon is a dispenser of light to us. That it is, as the astronomers assert, an opaque body, I allow to be true, while I deny it to be a dark body. For, first, since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body. Hence it follows, that it is also luminous; but seeing that it has not light sufficient to penetrate to us, it borrows what is wanting from the sun.

John Calvin's Bible Commentary

Opaque in English, French and Latin means something shady, that light can't penetrate, etc...I don't understand quite what Calvin means. Is he saying that the moon borrows all her light from the sun? Or as it seems, that the moon being placed above the element of fire must have some ability to dispense light itself in addition to light borrowed from the sun?

And what does "since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body" (rather than a dark body) mean?

Thanks

 

[LawrenceU]

I believe that dear Brother Calvin is referring to the ancient methods of viewing the creation. I am sure you have heard of the four elements: Earth, Air, Water, and Fire. Fire was seen to be the source of light as well as heat. Anything that caused light or heat was at least partially seen to be composed of Fire. It was 'placed' above the element of Fire; Fire was its, or one of its, foundational element.

When Calvin says that ' . . . it must of necessity be a fiery body.' He was most likely thinking in that vein. He probably saw the moon as opaque, yet somehow generating light of its own accord, just not enough to get to earth.

 

[TimV]

since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body

while I deny it to be a dark body

Would anyone here argue that Calvin's cosmology in this case is Reformed?

 

[LawrenceU]

Nope. Just ignorant.

 

[CharlieJ]

Tim, many types of ancient/medieval cosmology viewed the cosmos in concentric circles. It was very common to demarcate everything below the moon the sublunary sphere, in which the four elements mix. Everything from the moon up is made of "quintessence," the perfect fifth element, and moves in perfect concentric circles (the celestial spheres) through the "aether." Outside the celestial spheres was heaven, where God lived. Many people think that Copernicus and Galileo were rejected mostly for their heliocentrism, but equally if not more disturbing was the idea that the celestial bodies were not, in fact, made of quintessence. Bellarmine was outraged at Copernicus' theory that sunspots were actually changes of the sun (before they were explained by small bodies passing in front of the sun), because everyone knew that the sun couldn't change. Kepler's heresy was that the celestial bodies were subject to the same laws of motion as everything else. Cosmology was always in flux, though, and the during the Renaissance many variations on the ancient models proliferated.

All that to say, I'm not sure exactly what Calvin is referring to, but it seems that his cosmology included the idea that everything above the "fiery sphere" was itself a luminary, thus, the moon, assumed to be above the fiery, must be a luminary. In this, he was wrong.

 

[au5t1n]

I assumed Calvin was talking about the celestial spheres as well.

 

[sastark]

since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body

while I deny it to be a dark body

Would anyone here argue that Calvin's cosmology in this case is Reformed?

No. It is a Greek cosmology.

 

[Nate]

So.... is this an example of an esteemed Reformer accepting the science of the day? Or was there an underlying theology of the day that influenced this scientific theory to which Calvin held?