John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 4:3

"forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by them that believe and know the truth." — 1 Timothy 4:3 (ASV)

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.