John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 4

Now the Spirit plainly saith. Paul had diligently admonished Timothy about many things, and now he shows the necessity of this.

It is proper to prepare for the danger that the Holy Spirit forewarns is fast approaching: namely, that false teachers will come who will present trifles as the doctrine of faith and, by placing all holiness in outward exercises, will overshadow the spiritual worship of God, which alone is lawful.

And, indeed, God's servants have always had to contend against such persons as Paul here describes. Since humans are by nature inclined to hypocrisy, Satan easily persuades them that God is worshipped rightly by ceremonies and outward discipline; and, indeed, without a teacher, almost all have this conviction deeply rooted in their hearts.

To this is added Satan's craftiness, confirming the error. The consequence is that, in all ages, there have been impostors who recommended false worship, by which true godliness was buried.

Furthermore, this plague produces another: in matters indifferent, people are placed under restraint. For the world easily allows itself to be hindered from doing what God had declared lawful, so that they may have the power to transgress God's laws with impunity.

Here Paul, therefore, through Timothy, warns not only the Ephesians but all the churches throughout the world about hypocritical teachers who, by setting up false worship and by ensnaring consciences with new laws, adulterate the true worship of God and corrupt the pure doctrine of faith. This is the real purpose of the passage, which it is especially necessary to note.

Furthermore, so that all may hear with more earnest attention what he is going to say, he prefaces it by stating that this is an undoubted and very clear prophecy of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that he drew everything else from the same Spirit. But, although we should always listen to him as one communicating the will of Christ, yet in a matter of vast importance, he especially wished to testify that he said nothing except by the Spirit of prophecy.

Therefore, by a solemn announcement, he commends this prophecy to us; and, not satisfied with this, he adds that it is plain and free from all ambiguity.

In the latter times. At that time, it certainly could not have been expected that anyone would have revolted amidst such clear light of the gospel. But this is what Peter says: that as false teachers formerly troubled the people of Israel, so they will never cease to disturb the Christian Church (2 Peter 3:3). The meaning is the same as if he had said, “The doctrine of the gospel is now in a flourishing state, but Satan will not long refrain from laboring to choke the pure seed with tares” (Matthew 13:20, 38).

This warning was advantageous in the age of the Apostle Paul, so that both pastors and others might give earnest attention to pure doctrine and not allow themselves to be deceived. It is no less useful to us today, when we perceive that nothing has happened that was not foretold by an express prophecy of the Spirit.

Furthermore, we may note here the great care God exercises for His Church when He gives such early warning of dangers. Satan indeed has many arts for leading us into error and attacks us with astonishing stratagems; but, on the other hand, God fortifies us sufficiently, if we do not of our own accord choose to be deceived. Therefore, there is no reason to complain that darkness is more powerful than light, or that truth is vanquished by falsehood. On the contrary, we suffer the punishment for our carelessness and indolence when we are led astray from the right way of salvation.

But those who flatter themselves in their errors object that it is hardly possible to distinguish whom or what kind of persons Paul describes. It is as if the Spirit uttered this prophecy and published it so long beforehand for no reason; for if there were no certain mark, this entire warning would be superfluous and consequently absurd.

But far be it from us to think that the Spirit of God gives us unnecessary alarm or does not accompany the threat of danger by showing how we should guard against it! And that slander is sufficiently refuted by Paul's words, for he points out, as if with his finger, the evil that he warns us to avoid. He does not speak in general terms about false prophets but plainly describes the kind of false doctrine: namely, that which, by linking godliness with outward elements, perverts and profanes (as I have already said) the spiritual worship of God.

Some will revolt from the faith. It is uncertain whether he speaks of teachers or of hearers, but I am more inclined to refer it to the latter, for he afterwards calls teachers spirits that are impostors. This is more emphatic (ἐμφατικώτερον): not only will there be those who sow wicked doctrines and corrupt the purity of faith, but they will never lack disciples whom they can draw into their sect. And when a lie thus gains prevalence, greater trouble arises from it.

Furthermore, it is no slight vice that he describes, but a very heinous crime—apostasy from the faith; although, at first sight, the doctrine that he briefly mentions does not appear to contain so much evil. What is the case? Is faith completely overturned because of the prohibition of marriage or of certain kinds of food?

But we must consider a higher reason: that people pervert and invent at their pleasure the worship of God, that they assume dominion over consciences, and that they dare to forbid the use of good things that the Lord has permitted. As soon as the purity of God's worship is impaired, nothing perfect or sound remains, and faith itself is utterly ruined.

Accordingly, although Papists laugh at us when we censure their tyrannical laws about outward observances, we know that we are pleading a cause of the greatest weight and importance, because the doctrine of faith is destroyed as soon as God's worship is infected by such corruptions.

The controversy is not about flesh or fish, or about a black or ashy color, or about Friday or Wednesday, but about the mad superstitions of people who wish to appease God with such trifles and, by devising a carnal worship of Him, create for themselves an idol instead of God. Who will deny that this is revolting from the faith?

To deceiving spirits. He means prophets or teachers, to whom Paul gives this designation because they boast of the Spirit and, under this title, insinuate themselves into the people's favor. Indeed, this is true at all times: people, whoever they are, speak under the excitement of a spirit. But it is not the same spirit that excites them all, for sometimes Satan is a lying spirit in the mouths of false prophets to deceive unbelievers who deserve to be deceived (1 Kings 22:21–23).

On the other hand, everyone who renders due honor to Christ speaks by the Spirit of God, as Paul testifies (1 Corinthians 12:3).

Now, the mode of expression we are discussing originated from the circumstance that God's servants professed to receive everything they uttered in public from the Spirit's revelation. This was actually true, and thus they received the name of the Spirit, whose instruments they were. But Satan's ministers, by a false imitation, like apes, afterwards began to make the same boast and likewise falsely assumed the name. On the same grounds, John says:

Try the spirits, whether they are of God (1 John 4:1).

Moreover, Paul explains his meaning by adding, to doctrines of devils; this is as if he had said, 'Attending to false prophets and to their devilish doctrines.' Again, observe that it is not an error of small importance, nor one that ought to be concealed, when consciences are bound by human contrivances and, at the same time, God's worship is corrupted.

Speaking lies in hypocrisy: if these words refer to “demons,” then this phrase signifies men deceiving through the instigation of the devil. But we may also interpret it as referring to “men speaking.” He now turns to a particular instance, when he says that they speak lies in hypocrisy, and have their conscience seared with a hot iron.

And indeed, it should be known that these two are so closely joined together that the former springs from the latter. For consciences that are bad and seared with the hot iron of their crimes always flee to hypocrisy as a ready refuge. That is, they contrive hypocritical pretenses in order to dazzle the eyes of God. And what else is done by those who endeavor to appease God with the mask of outward observances?

The word hypocrisy must therefore be explained in accordance with the passage in which it now occurs. First, it must relate to doctrine. Next, it denotes that kind of doctrine which adulterates the spiritual worship of God by exchanging its genuine purity for bodily exercises. Thus, it includes all methods contrived by men for appeasing God or obtaining His favor. The meaning may be summarized as follows:

1. All who assume a pretended sanctimoniousness are led by the instigation of the devil, because God is never worshipped rightly by outward ceremonies; for true worshipers worship him in spirit and truth, (John 4:24).

2. This is a useless medicine by which hypocrites mitigate their pains, or rather a plaster by which bad consciences conceal their wounds, without any advantage, and to their utter destruction.

Forbidding to marry. Having described the class, he next mentions two instances: namely, the prohibition of marriage and of some kinds of food. These arise from that hypocrisy which, having forsaken true holiness, seeks something else for concealment and disguise. For those who do not refrain from ambition, covetousness, hatred, cruelty, and similar things, endeavor to obtain a righteousness by abstaining from those things which God has left to our freedom. Why are consciences burdened by these laws, but because perfection is sought in something different from the law of God? This is done only by hypocrites, who, so that they may transgress with impunity that righteousness of the heart which the law requires, endeavor to conceal their inward wickedness by those outward observances as veils with which they cover themselves.

This was a distinct threat of danger, so it was not difficult for people to guard against it, at least if they had listened to the Holy Spirit when He gave such an express warning. Yet we see that the darkness of Satan generally prevailed, so that the clear light of this striking and memorable prediction was of no avail.

Not long after the apostle's death, the Encratites (who took their name from continence), Tatianists, Catharists, Montanus with his sect, and eventually the Manichaeans arose. These groups had an extreme aversion to marriage and eating flesh, condemning them as profane things. Although they were disowned by the Church on account of their haughtiness in wishing to subject others to their opinions, it is evident that those who opposed them yielded to their error more than was proper. Those of whom I am now speaking did not intend to impose a law on Christians; yet they attached greater weight than they should have to superstitious observances, such as abstaining from marriage and not tasting flesh.

Such is the disposition of the world, always dreaming that God should be worshipped in a carnal manner, as if God were carnal. As matters gradually became worse, this tyranny was established: it was not lawful for priests or monks to enter into the married state, and no person was to dare to taste flesh on certain days. Not unjustly, therefore, do we maintain that this prediction was uttered against the Papists, since celibacy and abstinence from certain kinds of food are enjoined by them more strictly than any commandment of God.

They think they escape by an ingenious artifice when they torture Paul’s words to direct them against Tatianists or Manichaeans, or similar groups; as if the Tatianists did not have the same means of escape open to them by throwing back Paul’s censure on the Cataphrygians and on Montanus, the author of that sect; or as if the Cataphrygians did not have it in their power to bring forward the Encratites in their place as the guilty parties. But Paul does not speak here of persons, but of the thing itself. Therefore, even if a hundred different sects are brought forward, all of which are charged with the same hypocrisy in forbidding some kinds of food, they shall all incur the same condemnation.

It follows, therefore, that the Papists point to the ancient heretics to no avail, as if they alone were censured; we must always see if they themselves are not guilty in the same manner. They object that they do not resemble the Encratites and Manichaeans because they do not absolutely forbid the use of marriage and of flesh, but only on certain days compel abstinence from flesh, and make the vow of celibacy compulsory only on monks, priests, and nuns. But this excuse is also extremely frivolous, for:

1. They nevertheless make holiness consist in these things;
2. They set up a false and spurious worship of God; and
3. They bind consciences by a necessity from which they should have been free.

In the fifth book of Eusebius, there is a fragment taken from the writings of Apollonius, in which, among other things, he reproaches Montanus with being the first who dissolved marriage and laid down laws for fasting. He does not say that Montanus absolutely prohibited marriage or certain kinds of food. It is enough if he lays a religious obligation on consciences and commands people to worship God by observing these things.

For the prohibition of things that are indifferent, whether it is general or special, is always a diabolical tyranny. That this is true in regard to certain kinds of food will appear more clearly from the next clause.

Which God created. It is proper to observe the reason that, in the use of various kinds of food, we should be satisfied with the liberty which God has granted to us, because He created them for this purpose. It yields inconceivable joy to all the godly when they know that all the kinds of food they eat are put into their hands by the Lord, so that their use is pure and lawful. What insolence it is for humans to take away what God bestows! Did they create food? Can they make void the creation of God? Let it always be remembered by us that He who created the food also gave us the free use of it, which it is vain for humans to attempt to hinder.

To be received with thanksgiving. God created food to be received; that is, so that we may enjoy it. This purpose can never be set aside by human authority. He adds, with thanksgiving, because we can never render to God any recompense for His kindness but a testimony of gratitude. And thus he exposes to greater abhorrence those wicked lawgivers who, by new and hasty enactments, hinder the sacrifice of praise which God especially requires us to offer to Him. Now, there can be no thanksgiving without sobriety and temperance, for the kindness of God is not truly acknowledged by one who wickedly abuses it.

By believers. What then? Does not God make His sun rise daily on the good and the bad (Matthew 5:45)? Does not the earth, by His command, yield bread to the wicked? Are not the very worst of people fed by His blessing? When David says, He causes the herb to grow for the service of men, that he may bring forth food out of the earth (Psalms 104:14), the kindness which he describes is universal.

I reply, Paul speaks here of the lawful use, of which we are assured before God. Wicked people are in no degree partakers of it, on account of their impure conscience, which, as is said, defileth all things (Titus 1:15).

And indeed, properly speaking, God has appointed to His children alone the whole world and all that is in the world. For this reason, they are also called the heirs of the world. For at the beginning, Adam was appointed to be lord of all, on this condition: that he should continue in obedience to God. Accordingly, his rebellion against God deprived him of the right which had been bestowed on him, affecting not only himself but also his posterity. And since all things are subject to Christ, we are fully restored by His mediation, and that through faith. Therefore, all that unbelievers enjoy may be regarded as the property of others, which they rob or steal.

And by those that know the truth. In this clause, he defines who they are whom he calls 'believers': namely, those who have a knowledge of sound doctrine. For there is no faith except from the word of God, so that we may not falsely think, as the Papists imagine, that faith is a confused opinion.

For every creature of God is good. The use of food must be judged, partly from its substance, and partly from the person of the one who eats it. The Apostle therefore uses both arguments. So far as relates to food, he asserts that it is pure, because God has created it; and that its use is consecrated to us by faith and prayer.

The goodness of the creatures, which he mentions, relates to people, and that not with regard to the body or to health, but to their consciences. I make this remark so that no one may enter into curious speculations unconnected with the scope of the passage. For, in short, Paul means that those things which come from the hand of God, and are intended for our use, are not unclean or polluted before God, but that we may freely eat them with regard to conscience.

If it is objected that many animals were formerly pronounced unclean under the Law, and that fruit produced by the tree of knowledge of good and evil was destructive to humankind, the answer is, that creatures are not called pure merely because they are the works of God, but because, through His kindness, they have been given to us. For we must always look at the appointment of God, both what He commands and what He forbids.

For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. This is the confirmation of the preceding clause, if it is received with Thanksgiving. And it is an argument drawn from contrast, for “holy” and “profane” are things contrary to each other. Let us now see what is the sanctification of all good things, which belong to the sustenance of the present life. Paul testifies that it consists of “the word of God and prayer.” But it should be observed that this word must be embraced by faith, so that it may be advantageous; for, although God Himself sanctifies all things by the Spirit of His mouth, yet we do not obtain that benefit except by faith. To this is added “prayer;” for, on the one hand, we ask from God our daily bread, according to the commandment of Christ (Matthew 6:11), and on the other hand, we offer thanksgiving to Him for His goodness.

Now Paul’s doctrine proceeds on this principle: that there is no good thing, the possession of which is lawful, unless conscience testifies that it is lawfully our own. And which of us would venture to claim for himself a single grain of wheat, if he were not taught by the word of God that he is the heir of the world? Common sense, indeed, pronounces that the wealth of the world is naturally intended for our use; but, since dominion over the world was taken from us in Adam, everything that we touch of the gifts of God is defiled by our pollution; and, on the other hand, it is unclean to us, until God graciously comes to our aid, and by grafting us into His Son, constitutes us anew to be lords of the world, so that we may lawfully use as our own all the wealth with which He supplies us.

Justly, therefore, does Paul connect lawful enjoyment with “the word,” by which alone we regain what was lost in Adam; for we must acknowledge God as our Father, so that we may be His heirs, and Christ as our Head, so that those things which are His may become ours. Hence it should be inferred that the use of all the gifts of God is unclean, unless it is accompanied by true knowledge and calling on the name of God; and that it is a beastly way of eating when we sit down at table without any prayer, and, when we have eaten to the full, depart in utter forgetfulness of God.

And if such sanctification is demanded in regard to common food, which, together with the belly, is subject to corruption, what must we think about spiritual sacraments? If “the word” and calling on God through faith are not there, what remains that is not profane? Here we must attend to the distinction between the blessing of the sacramental table and the blessing of a common table; for, as to the food which we eat for the nourishment of our body, we bless it for this purpose, so that we may receive it in a pure and lawful manner; but we consecrate, in a more solemn manner, the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper, so that they may be pledges to us of the body and blood of Christ.