# Rom 12:11 "Serving The Time"



## KMK (Jul 9, 2008)

In the days of the Reformation there appears to have been some controversy over the translation of Rom 12:11 that has now been largely resolved.

From Calvin's Commentary:



> To the same purpose is the third particular, serving the _time_: for as the course of our life is short, the opportunity of doing good soon passes away; it hence becomes us to show more alacrity in the performance of our duty. So Paul bids us in another place to redeem the time, because the days are evil. The meaning may also be, that we ought to know how to accommodate ourselves to the time, which is a matter of great importance. But Paul seems to me to set in opposition to idleness what he commands as to the serving of time. *But as kurio, the Lord, is read in many old copies, though it may seem at first sight foreign to this passage, I yet dare not wholly to reject this reading. And if it be approved, Paul, I have no doubt, meant to refer the duties to be performed towards brethren, and whatever served to cherish love, to a service done to God, that he might add greater encouragement to the faithful.*



In the Editor's note by John Owen:



> The balance of evidence, according to Griesbach, is in favor, of to kairo, “time,” though there is much, too, which countenances the other reading. Luther, Erasmus, and Hammond prefer the former, while Beza, Piscator, Pareus, and most of the moderns, the latter. *The most suitable to the context is the former.*



Tyndale translation:



> Let not yt busynes which ye have in honde be tedious to you. Be fervet in ye sprete. Applye youre selves to ye _tyme_.



But all of the translations from the Geneva until now seem to have 'serving the Lord'.

Does anyone one know the history of this controversy and what happened to resolve the issue during the Reformation?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 10, 2008)

Hi Ken!

The best I can make of this comes from F.H.A. Scrivener, in his, _A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament_ Vol. 1, pp. 15, 16. He says,

Not a few variant readings may be imputed to the peculiarities of the style of writing adopted in the oldest manuscripts.....The habitual abridgment of such words as [size=+1]Qeoj[/size] or [size=+1]Kurioj[/size] [_God_ or _Lord_] sometimes leads to a corruption of the text. Hence possibly comes the grave variation of [_who_ for _God_ in] 1 Tim. 3:16, and the singular reading [size=+1]tw kairw douleuontej[/size] [_the time serving_ in] Rom. 12:11, where the true word [size=+1]kuriw[/size] [_Lord_] was first shortened into [size=+1]Krw[/size], and then read...[with] [size=+1]K[/size] being employed to indicate [size=+1]KAI[/size] in very early times.​
Thus we get [size=+1]tw kairw douleuontej[/size] “the time serving” instead of [size=+1]tw kuriw douleuontej[/size] “the Lord serving”.

Metzger, in his, _A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament_, says “The reading [size=+1]kairw[/size], supported chiefly by Western witnesses (D* F G 5 itd Origen Cyprian Ambrosiaster Jerome _al_) probably arose from a confusion [when the sacred name was customarily contracted and misinterpreted to read “time” instead of “Lord” –SMR]. (p. 466)

This variant was present among the Textus Receptus mss, as it is the reading of Stephen’s 1550 edition, with “Lord” in the margin, along with the mss it appears in. This is in accord with John Owen’s view that the minute variants in the TR mss were allowed there so the Lord’s people would exercise their discernment and ferret out the true reading.

Ken, I believe you realize the editor cited was not John Owen himself, as the dates for Griesbach were 1745 – 1812 and 1616 – 1683 for Owen. I think Owen would have chosen “Lord” as by his time the text was providentially settled in the King James Bible, and in 1646 the WCF 1:8 declared concerning the extant Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, which would have adhered to Beza and the Elzevir edition – which essentially were the Greek under the KJB NT. The Dutch Reformation Bible, the Staten Vertaling (1619), reads _Heere_ – Lord, or mister – in 12:11.

I have noted elsewhere that the editor of Owen's works presumptuously contradicts Owen and adds his own views, as though we would listen to his far more liberal exegetical and text-critical opinions!

John Gill (1697 – 1771) says of it, “...as the reading our version follows is confirmed by authentic copies, and by the Syriac, and other Oriental versions, ’tis best to adhere to it...” He also agrees the variant likely entered through the abbreviating noted above.

I don’t know any more than this the particulars of how it was settled, but it was. Hope this helps (and is clear!).

Steve


----------



## KMK (Jul 10, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Ken, I believe you realize the editor cited was not John Owen himself, as the dates for Griesbach were 1745 – 1812 and 1616 – 1683 for Owen. I think Owen would have chosen “Lord” as by his time the text was providentially settled in the King James Bible, and in 1646 the WCF 1:8 declared concerning the extant Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, which would have adhered to Beza and the Elzevir edition – which essentially were the Greek under the KJB NT. The Dutch Reformation Bible, the Staten Vertaling, reads _Heere_ – Lord, or mister – in 12:11.



Thanks for clearing that up for me, Mr. Rafalsky. I was using the online version of Calvin @ ccel.org and just went with what was on the title page. Could the 'John Owen' be 'John J. Owen' (1803-1869) who wrote commentaries on the 4 Gospels?



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I have noted elsewhere that the editor of Owen's works presumptuously contradicts Owen and adds his own views, as though we would listen to his far more liberal exegetical and text-critical opinions!



Thank you for confirming what I have long suspected! The editor's views often seem quite arbitrary. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> John Gill (1697 – 1771) says of it, “...as the reading our version follows is confirmed by authentic copies, and by the Syriac, and other Oriental versions, *’tis best to adhere to it*...”



Apparently the modern translators agree.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jul 10, 2008)

Well, Ken, you're right. In part, anyway. It was not John J. Owen of the Commentary on the Gospels, but another, "the Vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire and a translator of many works of John Calvin." John J. was a Presbyterian.

I stand corrected!

I once (in my ignorance!) thought I had a rare find, a set of John Owen on the Gospels. But to my dismay it was John J. and not THE John Owen!

Steve


----------

