John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 1:6

"from which things some having swerved have turned aside unto vain talking;" — 1 Timothy 1:6 (ASV)

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.