John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 5:12

"having condemnation, because they have rejected their first pledge." — 1 Timothy 5:12 (ASV)

Having condemnation, because they have renounced their first faith. "To have condemnation" is interpreted by some as meaning "to deserve reproof." But I understand it as a statement of greater severity, that Paul terrifies them with the damnation of eternal death, as if he reproved them by saying that that excellent order, which should rather have united them to Christ, was the very basis of their condemnation. And the reason is added: that they entirely “revolt from the faith” of baptism and from Christianity. I am aware that there are some who interpret it differently—namely, that they break the pledge they gave to the Church by marrying, having previously promised that they would live unmarried until death. This is extremely absurd. Besides, why would he call it their first faith?

Accordingly, Paul becomes more vehement against them and magnifies the enormity of the offense by saying that not only would they bring disgrace on Christ and His Church by departing from the condition to which they had agreed, but they also broke their “first faith” by wicked revolt. Thus it usually happens that whoever has once transgressed the bounds of modesty gives himself up to all impudence. It grieved him that the frivolity of those women was a reproach to the godly, and that their lustfulness was reproved, or at least, was liable to reproof. This led them to proceed to greater and greater degrees of licentiousness, until they renounced Christianity. That amplification is extremely appropriate; for is there anything more absurd than that they should, through a desire to promote the advantage of persons, open the door to the denial of Christ?

The attempt of the Papists to support a vow of perpetual celibacy by means of this passage is absurd. Even if we grant that it was customary to exact an engagement in express terms from the widows, they would still gain nothing by this admission. First, we must consider the purpose. The reason why widows previously promised to remain unmarried was not that they might lead a holier life than in a state of marriage, but because they could not, at the same time, be devoted to husbands and to the Church. But in Popery, they make a vow of continence as if it were a virtue acceptable to God on its own account.

Secondly, in that age, they renounced the liberty of marrying at the time when they were no longer of marriageable age; for they must have been at least sixty years old and, by being content with being married only once, must have already given proof of their chastity. But now, among the Papists, vows are made to renounce marriage either before the appropriate age or in the midst of the ardor of youthful years.

Now we disapprove of the tyrannical law about celibacy, chiefly for two reasons:

1. They pretend that it is meritorious worship before God.
2. By rashness in vowing, they plunge souls into destruction.

Neither of these was to be found in the ancient institution. They did not make a direct vow of continence, as if the married life were less acceptable to God. Instead, only insofar as it was made necessary by the office to which they were elected, did they promise to refrain from the tie of marriage for their whole life. Nor did they deprive themselves of the liberty of marrying until the time when, even if they had been completely free, it would have been foolish and unreasonable for them to marry.

In short, those widows differed as much from the nuns as Anna the prophetess differed from Claude the Vestal.