PREACHING AND TEXTUAL VARIANTS
By Jared Ebert[1]
It is an undisputable historical fact that among the copies of the New Testament manuscripts there are differences. Though the vast majority of preachers will never lay eyes on or transcribe a manuscript, they are still indirectly affected by the variants among the copies. Preachers must answer questions like—what version of the Bible should I use? Should I acknowledge that pesky footnote that says, “some copies have. . .”? Should I say anything in my sermon that might undermine the confidence people have in their Bibles? These concerns and questions are not a new but have been on the mind of preachers since the early church.[2] In fact, even Spurgeon had to take the time to explain how his students ought to handle them in the pulpit.[3]
In this short article I would like to consider this subject by hearing the voice of a towering preacher in church history—John Calvin. I would like to survey how he deals with the textual variant at 1 Timothy 3:16. The article will unfold in four steps. First, I want to give you the data concerning the variant. Second, we will see what Calvin says about the variant in his commentary. Third, we can peer into Calvin’s methods for preaching through his sermons on 1 Timothy and the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Finally, we will make application for our own day.
The Textual Data at 1 Timothy 3:16
1 Tim. 3:16 contains a type of early Christian creed, which Paul introduces with, “and confessedly, the mystery of godliness is great (καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον).” The question at hand concerns the very first word in the first line of the creed which in the ESV reads: “He was manifested in the flesh (ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί).” The three different readings are: “God (θεός),” “He (ὅς),” and “which (ὅ).” The last option “which” is found only in the Latin translations and some Greek manuscripts which generally contain Latin readings (such as codex D/05). “He (ὅς)” is found in the oldest extant manuscripts which we now have, and it is printed in the Nestle-Aland editions and translations like the ESV, CSB, NIV, NET, and others.[4] “God (θεός)” is found in the modern edition of the Textus Receptus, in the majority of Greek manuscripts, and in translations like the KJV and NKJV.
In my own opinion, “He (ὅς)” is the correct reading, though the external evidence (again in my opinion) is not completely persuasive one way or another. The Latin reading is easy enough to explain. It seems that scribes, due to the grammatical challenge to find an antecedent, changed the reading by one letter in order to match the grammatical gender of μυστήριον. The reading “God (θεός)” could have arisen for two reasons. First, it could have been to make this into a more theologically robust creed, as it would make the divinity of Christ more explicit. Second, it is more likely that this was a slip of the eye. In majuscule script, the reading ΟϹ (He) could have easily been confused with ΘϹ (God), since the difference in the letters is only one stroke. Also, if the original reading was “God (θεός)” I do not know how we could explain how the reading that is found in the Latin manuscripts came into the copies. Thus, the reading that is both best supported and best explains the others is “He (ὅς).”
Calvin’s Thoughts in His Commentary
In his commentary Calvin, in his typical succinct manner, writes,
The Vulgate translator, by leaving out the name of God, refers what follows to ‘the mystery,’ but altogether unskillfully and inappropriately, as will clearly be seen on a bare perusal, though he has Erasmus on his side, who, however, destroys the authority of his own views, so that it is unnecessary for me to refute it. All the Greek copies undoubtedly agree in this rendering, ‘God manifested in the flesh.’ But granting that Paul did not express the name of God, still anyone who shall carefully examine the whole matter, will acknowledge that the name of Christ ought to be supplied. For my own part, I have no hesitation in following the reading which has been adopted in the Greek copies.[5]
In Calvin’s day there were only two variant readings known to them—“which (ὅ),” and “God (θεός).” Calvin first gives his reasons for rejecting the Latin “which (ὅ).” He agrees with my own analysis, that this reading probably came into the Vulgate tradition to agree with ‘the mystery.’ Calvin says that this change was done “unskillfully and inappropriately.”
Calvin’s mention of Erasmus in this comment is intriguing for two reasons. First, this confirms that Calvin is probably using Erasmus’ 4th edition (1527) as his primary Greek text at this point in his life. He had switched from using Colinaeus (1534) to Erasmus in 1548,[6] and his commentary on 1 Timothy was published in that same year.[7] Second, Calvin puts Erasmus on the side of the Vulgate, while noting that Erasmus “destroys the authority of his own views.”[8] Calvin is referencing the fact that Erasmus prints “God (θεός/deus)” in the text of every edition (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535), he rejects it in his Annotationes, saying that, “it seems right to me that Deum was added against the heretical Arians.”[9]
Calvin accepts “God (θεός)” as the original reading because it is found in “All the Greek copies.” Remember, the men in his day did not know about the reading now accepted by a majority of translators and scholars, therefore, it is impossible to know what Calvin would do with the third reading, supported by other Greek copies. Nevertheless, since it is found in the Greek copies, Calvin defends it. The question now is—how does he preach it?
How Does Calvin Preach This Text?
John Calvin believed that the Scriptures have been given for the church, therefore, he did not isolate himself into commentaries as a bare scholar or exegete, but he was a masterful preacher.[10] From 1554–1555 he preached through the Pastoral epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus), and those sermons are now published by Banner of Truth in three volumes.[11] The twenty seventh sermon on 1 Timothy is covers 3:16 titled “Faith’s Open Secret.”
What is slightly surprising is that he does not even mention the variant in his sermon, though he is rather animated in his commentary on the error of the Latin reading and the defense of the name of God. On the first page Calvin cries out, “Yet what a secret is this, and what an astonishing thing, that God should be made manifest in the flesh, and become man!”[12] He goes on to say, “Is this not news which so surpasses our understanding that when told of it we ought to stand amazed? Yet we have ample proof that Jesus Christ who became a mortal man is the true and living God who created the world!”[13] Clearly, once Calvin has made up his mind about what the original reading is, he simply and confidently preaches the text. He is not apologetically or half heartedly explaining the other readings or why he chose the one he did. Rather, he has done that work in his study, and now he gives the people the Bible, with confidence and clarity.
In his Institutes Calvin writes similarly. He uses 1 Tim. 3:16 several times as a proof text through books one, three, and four, never once mentioning a textual variant.[14] Now, the situation in the Institutes is slightly different than the sermons, because it could be that Calvin is assuming you will see his comment in his NT commentary on 1 Timothy alongside his proof text. In fact, he saw the Institutes as a type of theological handbook to be paired with the commentaries. Calvin himself, in his “Epistle to the Reader” attached to the 1559 edition says, “Having thus, as it were, paved the way, as it will be unnecessary, in any commentaries on Scripture which I may afterward publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrinal points, and enlarge on common-places, I will compress them into narrow compass.”[15] Calvin therefore sees his Institutes and commentaries as two sides to the same coin—one doctrinal and one exegetical. Nevertheless, he does not feel it necessary to mention the variant every time that he uses the text in his doctrinal points.
Applications for Our Modern Preaching
Having now considered Calvin’s commentaries in contrast to his sermons, we can make two applications. First, preachers need to do the exegetical work to resolve variants where necessary. This of course requires that, in the study, we are doing the slow and tedious work that the text requires of us. The benefit of this preparedness will show itself when a church member comes to you after the sermon and asks, “the scripture you read said ‘he’ but mine said ‘God.’ Why are they different? Did your translation take out the divinity of Christ?” If you do not do the work, you will be caught flat footed, with no answer and no way to give confidence back to that member, which is a situation Calvin would never find himself in.
Second, if we follow Calvin’s example, then we will do the hard work to resolve the difficulty, then once it is resolved, we ought to preach the text as it is. We should stand on the Scriptures as they were written by the authors. Our people need the Bible, so we must give it with boldness. Indeed, concerning this boldness Charles Bridges was correct when he said, “Christian boldness awes the haters of our message, and secures the confidence of the true flock of Christ, and the approbation of our conscience in the sight of God.”[16] We must give them the Scriptures, after doing the hard work in our studies.
[1] Jared Ebert is the Senior Pastor at Mt. Carmel Baptist Church in Williamstown, KY. He also serves as the Ministry Coordinator for Bible Translation at Disciple the Nations. He is graduating in May 2025 with a ThM from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary where he researched under Dr. Timothy Decker and wrote a thesis titled, Retrieving the Reformed Methods of New Testament Textual Criticism.
[2] For instance, as Jerome translated the Old Testament from Hebrew, Augustine noticed differences between his LXX text and Jerome’s new Latin and said, “But I beseech you not to devote your labour to the work of translating into Latin the sacred canonical books, unless you follow the method in which you have translated Job, viz. with the addition of notes, to let it be seen plainly what differences there are between this version of yours and that of the LXX., whose authority is worthy of highest esteem. . . To this more careful study that piety will move you, by which you discern that the authority of the divine Scriptures becomes unsettled (so that everyone may believe what he wishes, and reject what he does not wish) if this be once admitted.” Letters of Augustine Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 14 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), Letter XXVIII.ii–iii.5. Augustine clearly cared that his peoples confidence in the Bible would not be “unsettled” as they looked over differences.
[3] For an excellent evaluation of Spurgeon’s notes on textual criticism see, Elijah Hixson, “New Testament Textual Criticism in the Ministry of Charles Haddon Spurgeon,” JETS 57.3 (2014): 555–70.
[4] This is the reading preferred by commentators almost unanimously. Larry J. Perkins, The Pastoral Letters: A Handbook on the Greek Text, BHGNT (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017), 72; Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, PNTC (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 221n470; Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 45; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 2006), 278n34; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, ed. Bruce M. Metzger et al., WBC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 213–14; Epp and Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 206–7; I. Howard Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, ed. Philip H. Towner, ICC (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 505.
[5] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, ed. Henry Beveridge, trans. James Anderson et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2009), 21:92.
[6] John D. Currid, Calvin and the Biblical Languages (Glasgow: Christian Focus Publications, 2006), 42; T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 153. Parkers comments indicate that Calvin moved to Erasmus’ 4th edition. Parker considers this move to be a “retrograde.” Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 156.
[7] Jeffrey T. Riddle, “John Calvin and Textual Criticism,” PRJ 9.2 (2017): 133.
[8] Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, 21:92.
[9] Author’s translation. Erasmus’ Latin reads: “Mihi subolet, deum additu fuisse adversus haereticos Arianos.” Desiderius Erasmus, “Novum Testamentum Omne” (Basileae, 1522), 603.
[10] Joel Beeke summarizes Calvin’s view of Scripture and the church by saying, “The Word of God is central to the development of Christian piety in the believer. . . the preaching of the Word saves us and preserves us as the Spirit enables us to appropriate the blood of Christ and respond to Him with reverential love. . . the preached Word is used as an instrument to heal, cleanse, and make fruitful our disease-prone souls.” Joel R. Beeke, The Soul of Life: The Piety of John Calvin, Profiles in Reformed Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009), 37–39. On Calvin’s preaching you can see also Sinclair Ferguson, Some Pastors and Teachers: Reflecting a Biblical Vision of What Every Minister Is Called to Be (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 2018), 3–20.
[11] John Calvin, Sermons on First Timothy, trans. Robert White (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 2018), xiii–xiv.
[12] Calvin, Sermons on First Timothy, 403.
[13] Ibid., 403–4.
[14] For instance, in Book 1, chapter 13, paragraph 11, Calvin defends the divinity of Christ he writes, “Why should Paul have feared to place Christ on the judgement-seat of God (2 Cor. 5:10), after he had so openly proclaimed his divinity, when he said that he was God over all, blessed forever? And to show how consistent he is in this respect; he elsewhere says that ‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1 Tim. 3:16). If he is God blessed forever, he therefore it is to whom alone, as Paul affirms in another lace, all glory and honor is due.” It is also used as a reference at 3.11.8 and 4.14.2. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008).
[15] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, xxxvii.
[16] Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry, with An Inquiry into the Causes of Its Inefficiency (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2018), 299.
This blog post is authored by a student of Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary.
