John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 1

Paul an apostle. If he had written to Timothy alone, it would have been unnecessary to claim this designation and to maintain it in the manner that he does. Timothy would undoubtedly have been satisfied with merely the name; for he knew that Paul was an Apostle of Christ and had no need of proof to convince him of it, being perfectly willing and having been long accustomed to acknowledge it. He has his eye, therefore, chiefly on others who were not so ready to listen to him or did not so easily believe his words. For the sake of such persons, that they may not treat lightly what he writes, he affirms that he is “an Apostle of Christ.”

According to the Appointment of God our Savior, and of the Lord Jesus Christ. He confirms his apostleship by the appointment or command of God; for no man can make himself an apostle, but he whom God has appointed is a true apostle and worthy of the honor. Nor does he merely say that he owes his apostleship to God the Father, but ascribes it to Christ also; and indeed, in the government of the Church, the Father does nothing except through the Son, and therefore they both act together.

He calls God the Savior, a title which he is more frequently accustomed to assign to the Son; but it belongs to the Father also, because it is he who gave the Son to us. Justly, therefore, is the glory of our salvation ascribed to him. For how is it that we are saved? It is because the Father loved us in such a manner that he determined to redeem and save us through the Son. He calls Christ our hope; and this appellation is strictly applicable to him, for then we begin to have good hope when we look to Christ, since in him alone dwells all that on which our salvation rests.

To Timothy my own son This commendation expresses no small praise. Paul means by it that he acknowledges Timothy to be a true and not an illegitimate son, and wishes that others would acknowledge him as such; and he even applauds Timothy in the same manner as if he were another Paul. But how does this agree with the injunction given by Christ, Call no man your father on the earth? (Matthew 23:9).

Or how does it agree with the declaration of the Apostle:

Though ye have many fathers according to the flesh, yet there is but One who is the Father of spirits (1 Corinthians 4:15; Hebrews 12:9).

I reply, while Paul claims for himself the title of father, he does it in such a way as not to take away or diminish the smallest portion of the honor that is due to God (Hebrews 12:9). It is a common proverb, "That which is placed below another is not at variance with it." The name father, applied to Paul with reference to God, belongs to this class.

God alone is the Father of all in faith, because He regenerates us all by His word and by the power of His Spirit, and because He alone bestows faith. But those whom He is graciously pleased to employ as His ministers for that purpose are also allowed to share with Him in His honor, while, at the same time, He parts with nothing that belongs to Himself.

Thus God, and God alone, strictly speaking, was Timothy’s spiritual Father; but Paul, who was God’s minister in begetting Timothy, lays claim to this title by what may be called a subordinate right.

Grace, mercy, peace. So far as relates to the word mercy, he has departed from his ordinary custom in introducing it, moved, perhaps, by his extraordinary affection for Timothy. Besides, he does not observe the exact order, for he places first what ought to have been last, namely, the grace which flows from mercy. For the reason why God at first receives us into favor, and why He loves us, is that He is merciful. But it is not unusual to mention the cause after the effect for the sake of explanation. As to the words grace and peace, we have spoken on other occasions.

As I urged you—Either the syntax is elliptical, or the particle ἵνα is redundant; and in both cases, the meaning will be obvious. First, he reminds Timothy why he was urged to remain at Ephesus. It was with great reluctance and through hard necessity that he parted with such a dearly beloved and faithful companion, so that Timothy might laboriously fill the role of his deputy, a role no other man was competent to fill. Therefore, Timothy must have been powerfully motivated by this consideration, not only to avoid wasting his time, but also to conduct himself in an excellent and distinguished manner.

I wish that you should forbid any.—Thus, by way of inference, he exhorts Timothy to oppose the false teachers who corrupted pure doctrine. In the injunction given to Timothy, to occupy his place at Ephesus, we should observe the holy concern of the Apostle; for while he labored so much to establish many churches, he did not leave the existing churches without a pastor. And indeed, as an ancient writer remarks, “To keep what has been gained is not a smaller virtue than to make new acquisitions.” The word forbid denotes power; for Paul wishes to arm Timothy with power to restrain others.

Not to teach differently—The Greek word (ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν) that Paul uses is a compound and, therefore, may be translated either ‘to teach differently,’ or ‘after a new method,’ or ‘to teach a different doctrine.’ The translation given by Erasmus (sectari), ‘to follow,’ does not satisfy me, because it could be understood to apply to the hearers. Now Paul means those who, for the sake of ambition, introduced a new doctrine.

If we read it as ‘to teach differently,’ the meaning will be more extensive, for by this expression he will forbid Timothy to permit any new forms of teaching to be introduced that do not agree with the true and pure doctrine he had taught. Thus, in the Second Epistle, he recommends ὑποτύπωσις, that is, a lively picture of his doctrine (2 Timothy 1:13). For, as the truth of God is one, so there is only one plain manner of teaching it, which is free from false adornment and partakes more of the majesty of the Spirit than of the display of human eloquence. Whoever departs from that, disfigures and corrupts the doctrine itself; and, therefore, ‘to teach differently,’ must relate to the form.

If we read it as ‘to teach something different,’ it will relate to the matter. Yet it is worthy of observation that we give the name ‘another doctrine’ not only to that which is openly at variance with the pure doctrine of the gospel, but to everything that either corrupts the pure gospel by new and borrowed inventions or obscures it by ungodly speculations. For all human inventions are so many corruptions of the gospel; and those who make sport of the Scriptures—as ungodly people are accustomed to do, so as to turn Christianity into an act of display—darken the gospel. This manner of teaching, therefore, is entirely opposed to the word of God and to that purity of doctrine in which Paul enjoins the Ephesians to continue.

And not to give heed to fables. He applies the term “fables,” in my opinion, not only to contrived falsehoods but also to trifles or foolishness that have no substance. It is possible for something that is not false to still be fabulous.

In this sense, Suetonius speaks of fabulous history, and Livy uses the word fabulari, “to relate fables,” to mean useless and foolish talk. And, undoubtedly, the word μῦθος (which Paul uses here) is equivalent to the Greek word φλυαρία, that is, “trifles.”

Moreover, by presenting one category as an example, he has removed all doubt. Disputes about genealogies are listed by him among fables, not because everything that can be said about them is fictitious, but because it is useless and unprofitable.

This passage, therefore, can be explained as follows: “Let them not give heed to fables of the kind to which genealogies belong.” This is indeed the “fabulous history” Suetonius mentions, which even grammarians of sound judgment have always justly ridiculed.

For it was impossible not to regard as ridiculous that curiosity which, neglecting useful knowledge, spent a whole life examining the genealogy of Achilles and Ajax, and wasted its powers reckoning up the sons of Priam. If this is not tolerated even in childish learning, where there is room for things that bring pleasure, how much more intolerable is it in heavenly wisdom?

And to genealogies haste have end. He calls them endless, because vain curiosity has no limit but continually falls from labyrinth to labyrinth.

Which produce questions. He judges doctrine by its fruit; for everything that does not edify should be rejected, even if it has no other fault. Everything that serves only to stir up contentions should be doubly condemned. Such are all the subtle questions on which ambitious men exercise their faculties. Let us, therefore, remember that all doctrines must be tried by this rule: those that contribute to edification should be approved, and those that give rise to unprofitable disputes should be rejected as unworthy of the Church of God.

If this test had been applied for several centuries, even though religion had been stained by many errors, at least that diabolical art of disputing, which acquired the name of Scholastic Theology, would not have prevailed so greatly.

For what does that theology contain but contentions or idle speculations from which no benefit is derived? Accordingly, the more learned a man is in it, the more wretched we should consider him.

I am aware of the plausible excuses by which it is defended, but they will never prove Paul wrong for condemning everything of this kind.

Rather than the edification of God. Such subtleties build up pride and vanity, but not the edification that is of God. He calls it “the edification of God,” either because God approves of it, or because it is consistent with God’s nature.

Which consist in faith. He next shows that this edification consists in faith. By this term, he does not exclude the love of our neighbor, or the fear of God, or repentance; for what are all these but fruits of faith, which always produces the fear of God? Knowing that all the worship of God is founded on faith alone, he therefore considered it sufficient to mention faith, on which all the rest depend.

Those unprincipled men with whom Timothy had to deal boasted of having the law on their side, which led Paul to anticipate this, showing that the law gave them no support but was even opposed to them, and that it agreed perfectly with the gospel he had taught.

The defense they set up was not unlike that pleaded by those today who subject the word of God to torture. They tell us that we aim at nothing else than to destroy sacred theology, as if they alone cherished it.

They spoke of the law in such a manner as to portray Paul in an odious light. And what is his reply? To scatter those clouds of smoke, he frankly addresses this beforehand, proving that his doctrine is in perfect harmony with the law, and that the law is utterly abused by those who employ it for any other purpose.

Similarly, when we now define what is meant by true theology, it is clearly evident that we desire the restoration of that which has been wretchedly torn and disfigured by those triflers who, puffed up by the empty title of theologians, are acquainted with nothing but vapid and unmeaning trifles.

Commandment is here used for the law, by taking a part for the whole.

Love out of a pure heart. If the law must be directed to this object, that we may be instructed in love, which proceeds from faith and a good conscience, it follows, on the other hand, that those who turn its teaching into curious questions are wicked expounders of the law.

Besides, it is of no great importance whether the word love is regarded in this passage as relating to both tables of the law, or only to the second table. We are commanded to love God with our whole heart, and our neighbors as ourselves; but when love is spoken of in Scripture, it is more frequently limited to the second part.

In this instance, I would not hesitate to understand by it the love of both God and our neighbor, if Paul had used the word love alone. But when he adds, “faith, and a good conscience, and a pure heart,” the interpretation I am about to give will not conflict with his intention and will align well with the scope of the passage.

The sum of the law is this: that we may worship God with true faith and a pure conscience, and that we may love one another. Whoever turns aside from this corrupts the law of God by twisting it to a different purpose.

But here a doubt arises: that Paul appears to prefer “love” to “faith.” I reply, those who hold that opinion reason in an excessively childish manner. For, if love is mentioned first, it does not therefore hold the highest rank of honor, since Paul also shows that it springs from faith.

For the cause undoubtedly precedes its effect. And if we carefully weigh the whole context, what Paul says means the same as if he had said, “The law was given to us for this purpose, that it might instruct us in faith, which is the mother of a good conscience and of love.” Thus, we must begin with faith, and not with love.

“A pure heart” and “a good conscience” do not greatly differ from each other. Both proceed from faith.

For, regarding a pure heart, it is said that God purifieth hearts by faith (Acts 15:9). Regarding a good conscience, Peter declares that it is founded on the resurrection of Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

From this passage we also learn that there is no true love without the fear of God and uprightness of conscience.

It is also noteworthy that he adds an epithet to each of them. For, as nothing is more common, so nothing is easier, than to boast of faith and a good conscience.

But how few there are who prove by their actions that they are free from all hypocrisy! It is especially proper to observe the epithet which he bestows on “faith,” when he calls it faith unfeigned.

By this he means that the profession of faith is insincere when we do not observe a good conscience, and when love is not demonstrated.

Since the salvation of people rests on faith, and since the perfect worship of God rests on faith, a good conscience, and love, it is no wonder if Paul makes the sum of the law consist of them.

From which some having gone astray. He continues to pursue the metaphor of an object or end; for the verb ἀστοχεῖν, the participle of which is here given, signifies to err or go aside from a mark.

Have turned aside to idle talking. This is a remarkable passage, in which he condemns as “idle talking” all doctrines that do not aim at this single end. At the same time, he points out that the views and thoughts of all who aim at any other object vanish.

It is indeed possible that useless trifles may be regarded by many people with admiration. But the statement of Paul remains unshaken: that everything that does not edify in godliness is ματαιολογία, “idle talking.”

We ought, therefore, to take the greatest possible care not to seek anything in the holy and sacred word of God but solid edification, lest he otherwise inflict severe punishment on us for abusing it.