My reading of Mike Ratliff’s post this morning triggered a more extensive look at his discussion of the Geneva Bible notes….If you have never read or even heard about that Bible dated before the KJV you might find my own notes below interesting. Sorry it’s a bit long and the AI part is a bit redundant.
As a side note I’ve noticed ChatGPT has stopped giving me its shallow introductory complements, it would say things like: “Ron that’s a very perceptive question….” Before giving me its answer! I’m glad that is go. I also noticed that ChatGPT is more “Chatty” and doesn’t normally give me the extensive online references that some of the other AI services document. If I just want text it’s great and I don’t need to delete the detail references which can get quite lengthy. But always, be cautious, with AI, it’s a great research tool but I have seen it make errors.
Getting into the discussion, Mike wrote:
“What this tells us is that by the Word and the Spirit, genuine believers are able to know the thoughts of their Lord (cf. Luke 24:45). This is not accomplished through some mystical exercise. Christians do not have to attain to a higher level of spiritual consciousness in order to “attain” to this. No, this is promised to all believers who do what?
Get into the Word of God and ask God to change you through it as you mediate. He will transform you I promise. The mind of Christ you already have will become sharp, focused, and ready for use.”
The Chapter I am reading in “It is Written”, mentioned Calvin’s commentary on the need for the Holy Spirit to open our eyes to reading the Scriptures. I will repeat those quotes here:
John Calvin said this repeatedly in slightly different forms. One of his most famous statements is from the opening book of his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
“The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts in order to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded.”
(Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 7, Section 4)
That is one of Calvin’s clearest statements that Scripture is only rightly understood and embraced through the inward work of the Holy Spirit.
Another very relevant quote:
“Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit.”
(Institutes 1.7.5)
Years ago back in the mid to late 80’s and 90’s I was fairly into the Spiritual Formation World of Foster and Willard, attending their conferences even teaching some of the Foster materials at church.
At some point I was asked to make a Bookmark with the emphasis on The Heart ❤️ and the practices of Lectio (Mystical Roman Catholic Practice) as bullet points for some women in the Church. What troubled me was that it seems to me that it was too “emotional” and focused on the Heart only. Later I learned a lot more about the concerns others had about Spiritual Formation, ancient mystical and Eastern meditation and modern New Age and the Roman Catholic , Jesuit and Quaker connections.
It was also becoming clear that the emphasis should be on the Mind, which explained below in my research summary.
Research Summary…
1 Corinthians 2:16
Geneva Bibles
1560
16 *For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he might instruct him? But we have the pmind of Christ.
16 p That is, Christ’s Spirit, John 16.13, Rom. 8.9.
1599
2:16 {16} For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may {t} instruct him? But we have {u} the mind of Christ.
(16) A reason from the former saying: for he is called spiritual, who has learned that by the power of the Spirit, which Christ has taught us. Now if that which we have learned from that Master could be reproved by any man, he must be wiser than God: whereupon it follows that they are not only foolish, but also wicked, who think that they can devise something that is either more perfect, or that they can teach the wisdom of God a better way than those knew or taught who were undoubtedly endued with God’s Spirit.
(t) Lay his head to his, and teach him what he should do.
(u) We are endued with the Spirit of Christ, who opens to us those secrets which by all other means are unsearchable, and also any truth at all.
KJV
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
John Gill Commentary…
1 Corinthians 2:16
For who hath known the mind of the Lord,…. The deep counsels of his heart, the scheme of salvation by Jesus Christ, as drawn in his eternal mind, the sense of the Spirit of God in the writings of the Old Testament, the things of the Spirit of God, or the doctrines of grace more clearly revealed under the Gospel dispensation; not any natural man, by the light of truth and strength of reason, has known any of these things. The apostle either cites or alludes to Isa 40:13
that he may instruct him? not the Lord, who needs no instruction from any, nor can any teach and instruct him, nor would any be so bold and insolent as to attempt it nor does the knowledge of the mind of the Lord qualify any for such a work; since if he knows ever so much of it, he cannot know more than the Lord himself: but the spiritual man, whom a natural man, being ignorant of the mind of the Lord, cannot instruct; and so the words give a very proper and sufficient reason why the spiritual man is not discerned, judged, convinced, and instructed by the natural man:
but we have the mind of Christ; the same with “the mind of the Lord” which proves that Christ is the Lord, or Jehovah, and so truly and properly God; and which is to be understood, not only of the apostles and ministers of the Gospel, but of all true believers; and therefore want no instruction, as they can have none from the natural man; though chiefly of the former, whereby they were abundantly qualified for the further instruction even of spiritual men.
ChatGPT Research Project about this change. And a Calvin quote I read last night in the book It is Written.
Yes. The notes in the Geneva Bible were expanded, revised, and in some cases replaced between the original 1560 edition and the commonly reprinted 1599 editions. What you are noticing at 1 Corinthians 2:16 is part of a broader development in the Geneva tradition rather than a simple reprint of the same notes.
A major turning point came with the New Testament revision associated with Laurence Tomson in 1576/1587. His revision incorporated much of Theodore Beza’s scholarship and commentary, especially from Beza’s Latin New Testament annotations. From 1587 onward, many Geneva Bibles used “Tomson’s New Testament,” which substantially changed and expanded the marginal notes.
Later, Franciscus Junius’ notes on Revelation were added in editions after 1599, replacing earlier notes there.
So the “1599 Geneva Bible” people commonly refer to is really the culmination of decades of editorial development:
- Original 1560 Geneva translation and notes
- Later revisions and enlargements
- Tomson/Beza New Testament annotations
- Additional scholarly and doctrinal refinements
The basis for these changes was mainly:
- Advancing Reformation scholarship
The Geneva translators and editors were deeply connected to Reformed scholarship in Geneva under figures like John Calvin and Theodore Beza. As Beza produced more detailed Greek New Testament work and theological commentary, later Geneva editors incorporated it. - Doctrinal clarification
The notes became increasingly explicit in Reformed theology:- predestination
- covenant theology
- anti-Roman Catholic polemics
- the work of the Holy Spirit
- church discipline and civil government
- Explanatory expansion
The later notes were designed more overtly as a study system. By 1599 the notes had become extensive theological commentary — almost a Reformation study Bible.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 2:16 specifically, the later Geneva annotations increasingly emphasized the Reformed understanding of spiritual discernment and the Spirit’s illumination of believers. The notes around 1 Corinthians 2:15–16 in the later Geneva tradition strongly stress that spiritual understanding comes from the Spirit of God rather than fallen human wisdom.
As for who changed the notes:
The original 1560 Geneva Bible team included men such as:
- William Whittingham
- Anthony Gilby
- Miles Coverdale
Later revisions involved:
- Laurence Tomson
- heavy influence from Theodore Beza
- later additions from Franciscus Junius
So there was no single editor who “rewrote” the notes in 1599. Rather, the Geneva Bible tradition accumulated layers of Reformed scholarship over roughly forty years.
Yes — John Calvin said this repeatedly in slightly different forms. One of his most famous statements is from the opening book of his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
“The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts in order to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded.”
(Institutes, Book 1, Chapter 7, Section 4)
That is one of Calvin’s clearest statements that Scripture is only rightly understood and embraced through the inward work of the Holy Spirit.
Another very relevant quote:
“Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit.”
(Institutes 1.7.5)
And even closer to the wording you mentioned, Calvin wrote in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 2:14:
“The human mind, however much it may be elevated, cannot of itself understand the mysteries of God unless it is enlightened by the Spirit of God.”
This theme runs throughout Calvin’s theology:
- Scripture is objectively God’s Word.
- Human reason is darkened by sin.
- The Holy Spirit must illumine the mind and heart for true understanding and faith.
This doctrine is often called the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit (testimonium internum Spiritus Sancti).
It strongly influenced later Reformed confessions, including:
- Westminster Assembly in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.5
- Synod of Dort
- the broader continental Reformed tradition including churches like the United Reformed Churches in North America
You can especially see the connection to 1 Corinthians 2:14–16, where Paul says the “natural man” does not receive the things of the Spirit because they are spiritually discerned. Calvin repeatedly appealed to that passage when discussing illumination by the Spirit.
Understanding the connection of the Heart and Mind, from the Hebrew perspective.
Yes — in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word usually translated “heart” often includes what modern English speakers would separate into mind, will, understanding, reasoning, and inner disposition, not merely emotions.
The main Hebrew word is Deuteronomy lēb (לֵב) or lēbāb (לֵבָב). In ancient Hebrew thought, the “heart” was the center of the whole inner person:
- thinking
- understanding
- decision-making
- moral reflection
- memory
- intention
- desires and affections
So the Hebrew concept is broader than our modern emotional-only use of “heart.”
For example, in the OT people:
- “say in their heart” = think internally
- have a “wise heart” = discernment/intelligence
- have a “hard heart” = stubbornness of will and understanding
- “set the heart” on something = apply the mind attentively
A few examples:
- Solomon asks for an “understanding heart” to judge the people (1 Kings 3:9).
- Pharaoh’s heart is “hardened” — not primarily emotional, but resistant in will and understanding.
- Proverbs repeatedly links the heart with wisdom and knowledge.
So when Deuteronomy 6:5 says:
“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart…”
the Hebrew listener would naturally hear:
- your inner reasoning,
- will,
- loyalty,
- thought life,
- and affections together.
Not merely feelings.
Then when Jesus quotes the Shema in Mark 12:30 and Luke 10:27, Greek becomes important. Greek culture more sharply distinguished categories like:
- heart (kardia)
- soul (psychē)
- mind (dianoia)
- strength (ischys)
So the Gospels expand or unpack the Hebrew totality into more explicit categories understandable to Greek-speaking audiences.
For example:
- Hebrew “heart” already included intellectual activity.
- Greek “mind” (dianoia) makes that intellectual dimension explicit.
This is why many scholars say Jesus is not changing the meaning of the Shema, but interpreting its fullness in Greek terms.
An important observation:
In some Gospel parallels the wording varies slightly:
- Mark includes “mind” and “strength”
- Matthew has a slightly different arrangement
- Luke combines them differently
That flexibility itself suggests the categories overlap rather than describe rigid compartments of human psychology.
So your instinct is substantially correct:
In Hebrew biblical thought, “heart” is much closer to “the center of conscious inner life,” including the exercise of understanding and thought, than to modern Western ideas of mere emotion.
Additional commentary:
I will let you judge whether this is correct.
BTW As to Mike’s comment about Dr. Albert Mohler, I did a bit of research and as you can read, this is a controversial topic….Relevant since the SBC, is the largest Protestant denomination in the USA by far. My earlier research:
Showed that the SBC is at around 16 million whereas the Reformed Denomination the Church I’m visiting regularly is 25,000-30,000 members.
This gets into a very debated and emotionally charged issue within the Southern Baptist Convention, so it helps to distinguish between:
- what Albert Mohler has publicly taught,
- what critics accuse him of enabling,
- and what can actually be documented versus inferred.
The short answer is:
- It is probably not accurate to call Mohler “liberal” in the historic theological sense.
- But it is true that many conservative SBC pastors and ministries believe he helped create an environment in which “social justice” language and some CRT-related analytical ideas gained influence in the SBC during the late 2010s.
- At the same time, Mohler later became one of the most visible SBC leaders publicly rejecting Critical Race Theory as incompatible with biblical theology.
So both sides point to real evidence — but they interpret it very differently.
Here are the major pieces behind the controversy.
1. Mohler’s actual theology remained conservative
Historically, Mohler has been identified with:
- biblical inerrancy,
- Reformed soteriology,
- complementarianism,
- opposition to same-sex marriage,
- conservative sexual ethics,
- and the original SBC “Conservative Resurgence.”
That is why many conservatives still strongly defend him. He is not viewed as liberal in the way mainline Protestant theology is liberal.
2. Why some conservatives became suspicious
The controversy largely developed around:
- Resolution 9 (2019 SBC resolution on CRT/intersectionality),
- racial reconciliation language,
- “systemic racism,”
- abuse investigations,
- and the influence of figures such as Russell Moore.
Resolution 9 described CRT and intersectionality as potentially useful “analytical tools” if subordinate to Scripture. Many conservatives believed this opened the door to importing secular ideology into the church.
Critics argued that:
- SBC seminaries,
- The Gospel Coalition circles,
- and leaders influenced by Mohler
were normalizing social-justice categories borrowed from secular academia.
That criticism intensified because many of the figures associated with these discussions were connected to Mohler’s seminary or leadership network.
3. But Mohler later publicly opposed CRT
This is where the story becomes complicated.
By 2020, Mohler and the SBC seminary presidents formally stated that CRT and intersectionality were incompatible with the SBC’s doctrinal confession.
Mohler also publicly described CRT as:
- “antithetical to the Gospel”
- and insufficient as a worldview.
So critics on the right often respond:
“He opposed CRT only after helping create the environment for it.”
Whereas defenders say:
“He was trying to address real racial issues biblically without surrendering to secular ideology.”
4. Russell Moore is a major flashpoint
Russell Moore was indeed mentored and promoted by Mohler. Moore later became one of the most polarizing figures in SBC life because of:
- his criticism of Trump,
- abuse reform advocacy,
- immigration comments,
- racial issues,
- and broader evangelical political concerns.
Some conservatives viewed Moore as prophetic and principled.
Others viewed him as importing progressive political assumptions into evangelicalism.
Because Moore rose through Mohler’s institutional orbit, critics often connect the two.
5. A balanced assessment
A fair historical assessment is probably something like this:
- Mohler never became a theological liberal.
- He did try to engage cultural and racial issues more than some conservatives were comfortable with.
- Some of the people around him clearly embraced broader “social justice” frameworks.
- Critics are not inventing the controversy out of nowhere.
- But some online accusations also become exaggerated, treating any discussion of racism or institutional sin as equivalent to Marxism or apostasy.
A lot of the strongest accusations against Mohler come from highly polemical watchdog sites or activist ministries, and they often interpret ambiguous actions in the harshest possible way.
At the same time, the internal SBC debate over:
- CRT,
- systemic racism,
- abuse investigations,
- political alignment,
- and evangelical public witness
was absolutely real and deeply divisive.
If you want, I can also explain:
- what “Resolution 9” actually said,
- why conservatives objected to the phrase “analytical tool,”
- how the Founders Ministries movement viewed Mohler,
- or how the debate differed between older confessional Baptists and younger evangelical leaders.
Rainbow Trout 