Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Timothy 3:2

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

2. A bishop ] R.V. The bishop, as St Mar 4:3, ‘the sower’: so George Herbert, ‘ The country Parson’: ‘A bishop’ is however quite idiomatic too.

blameless ] R.V. without reproach; twice again, ch. 1Ti 5:7 and 1Ti 6:14, nowhere else in N. T.; ‘giving no handle’ is exact, though rather colloquial, implying in Greek and in R.V. the absence of definite acts or habits to give occasion for reproach. See note on 1Ti 3:7.

the husband of one wife ] A regulation apparently very simple, but one that has much exercised both ancient and modern commentators. We may pass by the view (1) ‘husband of a wife,’ i.e. ‘a married man,’ as ungrammatical; because the definite numeral has not lost its force ‘ one ’ in N.T.; in all the 36 or 37 passages where it might be thought to approach the sense of the indefinite article there is something in the context which draws attention to the singleness, the individuality of the person or thing named in a way which is lost by simply rendering ‘an’ or ‘a.’ This is virtually the view of the Greek Church, which requires all priests to be married, but forbids a second marriage, and requires the priest who has lost his wife to cease from exercising his functions.

We may pass by also view (2), that of the Mormons, though at least grammatical, ‘husband of one wife if not more.’

The weight of authority is divided between (3) ‘not a digamist’ and (4) ‘not a bigamist.’

Alford, Wordsworth and Ellicott adopt (3) and understand a second marriage after the loss of the first wife, however happening, to be forbidden, digamia; relying on ( a) the very early interpretation by many Greek and Latin Fathers, the action by many bishops and the enactment of some councils, ( b) the supposed propriety of greater strictness for officers of the Church.

But as to ( a), the more general interpretation by the prevailing ‘voice of the Church’ in the first and second centuries was for (4), and St Paul has express statements on this point, Rom 7:2; 1Co 7:39, countenancing second marriages; as to ( b), St Paul’s usage is not to make laws of a ‘higher life’ for ministers than for people, but to expect the same laws kept in a way to serve for ensample to the flock. We adopt (4) therefore which is the prima facie meaning, and was the view of the Antiochene fathers (though Chrysostom seems to have changed his mind when he came to annotate Tit 1:6), and was acted upon by some of the Eastern bishops. Many converts to Christianity would have more than one wife. They are nowhere commanded to put away all but one; but it was not seemly that a man in such a position should be a Christian minister, who ought in all respects to be an ensample to the flock. See further on Tit 1:6. The parallel passage in ch. 1Ti 5:10 need cause no difficulty: then as now many a woman would change her partner and with or without a so-called re-marriage feel no scruple so long as she was faithful to the new partner. The elementary principle of Christian relationship needed then to be taught in Christian Asia, and needs teaching now in many still half-heathen circles of Christian England.

vigilant, sober ] Rather sober, pure; the first word, from which nephalism comes, occurs only here and in 1Ti 3:11 of the ‘women deacons,’ and in Tit 2:2 of ‘the aged men,’ and is rendered by R.V. ‘temperate’; while the verb with which it is connected, occurring 1Th 5:6; 1Th 5:8, 2Ti 4:5, and 1Pe 1:13 ; 1Pe 4:7, is rendered ‘be sober.’ The second word here and usually in the Pastoral Epistles, where it and its connexions occur nine times, is rendered by R.V. ‘soberminded’: in the passage however where both the verbs occur, 1Pe 4:7, we have ‘be of sound (not sober) mind and be sober unto prayer.’

‘Sober,’ not indulging the desire of ‘winebibbings, revellings, carousings’; ‘pure,’ not indulging in the thought of ‘lasciviousness and lusts.’ See 1Pe 4:3 compared with 7. Cf. also 1Th 5:6, and Tit 2:2.

of good behaviour ] R.V. with Conybeare and Lewin orderly; the same word describes the ‘modest’ dress of the women above 1Ti 2:9, and occurs nowhere else in N. T. The root-idea of the word is the ‘beauty of order,’ such as made it an appropriate word to describe the world, ‘ kosmos,’ created out of bare blank chaos. Our word ‘decent’ had originally a somewhat similar force; see Prayer-Book rubrics in Communion Service, directing the alms to be received in a decent, i.e. fair and fitting bason, and the priest so to place the bread and wine that he may with the more readiness and decency, i.e. fair and holy order, break the bread.

Here the word expresses the character of the presbyter in his outward behaviour, ‘modest’ but not ‘shy,’ ‘genial’ but not ‘noisy’ that of a Christian gentleman.

given to hospitality ] The adjective occurs (excepting in the parallel account of the presbyter, Tit 1:8) only in 1Pe 4:9, the same passage from which we have just drawn two other of the characteristic words of the Pastoral Epistles. The subst. occurs however Rom 12:13 and Heb 13:2. ‘Brethren in their travels could not resort to the houses of the heathen, and would be subject to insult in the public deversoria.’ Alford.

apt to teach ] The only specially ministerial qualification, enlarged in Tit 1:9, ‘able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.’

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

A bishop – A minister of religion, according to the foregoing remarks, who has the charge or oversight of any Christian church. The reference here is doubtless to one who had the government of the church entrusted to him 1Ti 3:4-5, and who was also a preacher of the gospel.

Must be blameless – This is a different word ( anepilempton) from that rendered blameless in Luk 1:6; Phi 2:15; Phi 3:6 ( amemptos); compare however, Luk 1:6 note; Phi 3:6 note. The word here used does not mean that, as a necessary qualification for office, a bishop should be perfect; but that he should be a man against whom no charge of immorality, or of holding false doctrine, is alleged. His conduct should be irreprehensible or irreproachable. Undoubtedly it means that if any charge could be brought against him implying moral obliquity, he is not fit for the office. He should be a man of irreproachable character for truth, honesty, chastity, and general uprightness.

The husband of one wife – This need not be understood as requiring that a bishop should be a married man, as Vigilantius, a presbyter in the church at Barcelona in the fourth century, supposed, however desirable in general it may be that a minister of the gospel should be married. But, while this interpretation is manifestly to be excluded as false, there has been much difference of opinion on the question whether the passage means that a minister should not have more than one wife at the same time, or whether it prohibits the marriage of a second wife after the death of the first. On this question, the notes of Bloomfield, Doddridge, and Macknight, may be consulted. That the former is the correct opinion, seems to me to be evident from the following considerations:

(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language, and it would doubtless be thus understood by those to whom it was addressed. At a time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should have but one wife would be naturally understood as prohibiting polygamy.

(2) The marriage of a second wife, after the death of the first, is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as wrong. The marriage of a widow to a second husband is expressely declared to be proper 1Co 7:39; and it is not unfair to infer from that permission that it is equally lawful and proper for man to marry the second time. But if it is lawful for any man it is right for a minister of the gospel. No reason can he assigned against such marriages in his case, which would not be equally valid in any other. Marriage is as honorable for a minister of the gospel as for any other man (compare notes on Heb 13:4); and, as Doddridge has well remarked, Circumstances may be so adjusted that there may be as much reason for a second marriage as for the first, and as little inconvenience of any kind may attend it.

(3) There was a special propriety in the prohibition, if understood as prohibiting polygamy. It is known that it was extensively practiced, and was not regarded as unlawful. Yet one design of the gospel was to restore the marriage relation to its primitive condition; and though it might not have seemed absolutely necessary to require of every man who came into the church to divorce his wives, if he had more than one, yet, in order to fix a brand on this irregular practice, it might have been deemed desirable to require of the ministers of the gospel that they should have but one wife. Thus the practice of polygamy would gradually come to be regarded as dishonorable and improper, and the example and influence of the ministry would tend to introduce correct views in regard to the nature of this relation. One thing is clear from this passage, that the views of the Papists in regard to the celibacy of the clergy are directly at variance with the Bible. The declaration of Paul in Heb 13:4, is, that marriage is honorable in all; and here it is implied that it was proper that a minister should be married. If it were not, why did not Paul prohibit it altogether? Instead of saying that it was improper that a bishop should have more than one wife, why did he not say that it was improper that he should be married at all? Would not a Romanist say so now?

Vigilant – This word ( nephaleos) occurs only here and in 1Ti 3:11; Tit 2:2. It means, properly, sober, temperate, abstinent, especially in respect to wine; then sober-minded, watchful, circumspect. Robinson. A minister should have a watchful care over his own conduct. He should be on his gaurd against sin in any form.

Sober – sophrona Properly, a man of a sound mind; one who follows sound reason, and who is not under the control of passion. The idea is, that he should have his desires and passions well regulated. Perhaps the word prudent would come nearer to the meaning of the apostle than any single word which we have.

Of good behaviour – Margin, modest. Coverdale renders it, mannerly. The most correct rendering, according to the modern use of language, would be, that he should be a gentleman. He should not be slovenly in his appearance, or rough and boorish in his manners. He should not do violence to the usages of refined conversation, nor be unfit to appear respectable in the most refined circles of society. Inattention to personal neatness, and to the rules which regulate refined contact, is indicative neither of talent, learning, nor religion; and though they are occasionally – not often – connected with talent, learning, and religion, yet they are never the fruit of either, and are always a disgrace to those who exhibit such incivility and boorishness, for such men ought to know better. A minister of the gospel should be a finished gentleman in his manners, and there is no excuse for him if he is not. His religion, if he has any, is adapted to make him such. He has usually received such an education as ought to make him such, and in all cases ought to have had such a training. He is admitted into the best society, and has an opportunity of becoming familiar with the laws of refined conversation. He should be an example and a pattern in all that goes to promote the welfare of mankind, and there are few things so easily acquired that are suited to do this, as refinement and gentility of manners. No man can do good, on the whole, or in the long run, by disregarding the rules of refined contact; and, other things being equal, the refined, courteous, polite gentleman in the ministry, will always do more good than he who neglects the rules of goodbreeding.

Given to hospitality – This is often enjoined on all Christians as a duty of religion. For the reasons of this, and the nature of the duty, see the Rom 12:13 note; Heb 13:2 note. It was a special duty of the ministers of religion, as they were to be examples of every Christian virtue.

Apt to teach – Greek, Didactic; that is, capable of instructing, or qualified for the office of a teacher of religion. As the principal business of a preacher of the gospel is to teach, or to communicate to his fellow-men the knowledge of the truth, the necessity of this qualification is obvious. No one should be allowed to enter the ministry who is not qualified to impart instruction to others on the doctrines and duties of religion; and no one should feel that he ought to continue in the ministry, who has not industry, and self-denial, and the love of study enough to lead him constantly to endeavor to increase in knowledge, that he may be qualified to teach others. A man who would teach a people, must himself keep in advance of them on the subjects on which he would instruct them.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 2. A bishop then must be blameless] Our term bishop comes from the Anglo-Saxon [A.S.], which is a mere corruption of the Greek , and the Latin episcopus; the former being compounded of , over, and , to look or inspect, signifies one who has the inspection or oversight of a place, persons, or business; what we commonly term a superintendent. The New Testament writers have borrowed the term from the Septuagint, it being the word by which they translate the pakid of the Hebrew text, which signifies a visiter, one that personally inspects the people or business over which he presides. It is given by St. Paul to the elders at Ephesus, who had the oversight of Christ’s flock, Ac 20:28; and to such like persons in other places, Php 1:1; 1Ti 3:2, the place in question; and Tit 1:7.

Let us consider the qualifications of a Christian bishop, and then we shall soon discover who is fit for the office.

First. – This Christian bishop must be blameless; , a person against whom no evil can be proved; one who is everywhere invulnerable; for the word is a metaphor, taken from the case of an expert and skilful pugilist, who so defends every part of his body that it is impossible for his antagonist to give one hit. So this Christian bishop is one that has so conducted himself, as to put it out of the reach of any person to prove that he is either unsound in a single article of the Christian faith, or deficient in the fulfilment of any duty incumbent on a Christian. He must be irreprehensible; for how can he reprove that in others which they can reprove in him?

Second. – He must be the husband of one wife. He should be a married man, but he should be no polygamist; and have only one wife, i.e. one at a time. It does not mean that, if he has been married, and his wife die, he should never marry another. Some have most foolishly spiritualized this, and say, that by one wife the Church is intended! This silly quibbling needs no refutation. The apostle’s meaning appears to be this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not appear to have been any part of the apostle’s design to prohibit second marriages, of which some have made such a serious business. But it is natural for some men to tithe mint and cummin in religion, while they neglect the weightier matters of the law.

Third. – He must be vigilant; , from , not and , to drink. Watchful; for as one who drinks is apt to sleep, so he who abstains from it is more likely to keep awake, and attend to his work and charge. A bishop has to watch over the Church, and watch for it; and this will require all his care and circumspection. Instead of , many MSS. read . this may be the better orthography, but makes no alteration in the sense.

Fourth. – He must be sober; , prudent or, according to the etymology of the word, from , sound, and , mind, a man of a sound mind; having a good understanding, and the complete government of all his passions.

A bishop should be a man of learning, of an extensive and well cultivated mind, dispassionate, prudent, and sedate.

Fifth. – He must be of good behaviour; , orderly, decent, grave, and correct in the whole of his appearance, carriage, and conduct. The preceding term, , refers to the mind; this latter, , to the external manners. A clownish, rude, or boorish man should never have the rule of the Church of God; the sour, the sullen, and the boisterous should never be invested with a dignity which they would most infallibly disgrace.

Sixth. – He must be given to hospitality; , literally, a lover of strangers; one who is ready to receive into his house and relieve every necessitous stranger. Hospitality, in those primitive times, was a great and necessary virtue; then there were few inns, or places of public entertainment; to those who were noted for benevolence the necessitous stranger had recourse. A Christian bishop, professing love to God and all mankind, preaching a religion, one half of the morality of which was included in, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, would naturally be sought to by those who were in distress and destitute of friends. To enable them to entertain such, the Church over which they presided must have furnished them with the means. Such a bishop as St. Paul, who was often obliged to labour with his hands for his own support, could have little to give away. But there is a considerable difference between an apostolical bishop and an ecclesiastical bishop: the one was generally itinerant, the other comparatively local; the former had neither house nor home, the latter had both; the apostolical bishop had charge of the Church of Christ universally, the ecclesiastical bishop of the Churches in a particular district. Such should be addicted to hospitality, or works of charity; especially in these modern times, in which, besides the spiritualities, they possess the temporalities, of the Church.

Seventh. – He should be apt to teach; , one capable of teaching; not only wise himself, but ready to communicate his wisdom to others. One whose delight is, to instruct the ignorant and those who are out of the way. He must be a preacher; an able, zealous, fervent, and assiduous preacher.

He is no bishop who has health and strength, and yet seldom or never preaches; i.e. if he can preach – if he have the necessary gifts for the office.

In former times bishops wrote much and preached much; and their labours were greatly owned of God. No Church since the apostle’s days has been more honoured in this way than the British Church. And although bishops are here, as elsewhere, appointed by the state, yet we cannot help adoring the good providence of God, that, taken as a body, they have been an honour to their function; and that, since the reformation of religion in these lands, the bishops have in general been men of great learning and probity, and the ablest advocates of the Christian system, both as to its authenticity, and the purity and excellence of its doctrines and morality.

CHAUCER’S character of the Clerke of Oxenford is a good paraphrase on St. Paul’s character of a primitive bishop: –

Of studie tookin he moste cure and hede,

Nought oo word spak he more than there was nede,

And that was selde in forme and and reverence,

And short, and quick, and full of high sentence;

Sowning in moral vertue was speche,

And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teache.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

In the following description there is the complete character of an evangelical bishop, with respect to the virtues wherewith he must be adorned, and the vices from which he must be exempt, and as to the conduct of his person, and the government of his family, and his carriage to the church, and to those that are without.

A bishop, whoever hath the office of oversight in the church of God,

must be blameless, such a person as none can truly blame for any notorious or conspicuous errors in his life.

The husband of one wife; none who at the same time hath more wives than one, as many of the Jews had; nor was polygamy only common amongst the Jews, but amongst the other Eastern nations; but this was contrary to the institution of marriage. Some interpret this of successive marriage, as if it were a scandalous thing for a minister to marry a second time; but for this they have no pretence from holy writ, or reason, or the practice and custom of nations. Many persons lose their first wives so soon after marriage, that, were not second marriages lawful, all the ends of marriage must be frustrate as to them. The apostle commanding ministers to be the husbands but of one wife, doth not oblige them to marry, if God hath given them the gift of continency, but it establisheth the lawfulness of their marrying, against the doctrine of devils in this particular, which the Church of Rome teacheth.

Vigilant: the word here translated vigilant signifieth also sober, but for that is after used. He must be one that watcheth his flock, and is attentive to his work; one that will neither be long absent from his flock, nor vet sluggish while he is with them.

Sober; one that is prudent, modest, temperate, that can govern his affections and passions.

Of good behaviour; a man of a comely, decent behaviour, , no proud, supercilious man, that despiseth others, nor a morose man, who cannot accommodate himself to others.

Given to hospitality; one that loveth strangers, that is, who is ready to express his love to strangers (especially such as for the truth have left their country) by all courteous offices.

Apt to teach; one that is able to instruct others, and who hath a facility or aptness to it, neither an ignorant nor yet a lazy man.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2. The existence of Churchorganization and presbyters at Ephesus is presupposed (1Ti 5:17;1Ti 5:19). The institution ofChurch widows (1Ti 5:3-25)accords with this. The directions here to Timothy, the president orapostolic delegate, are as to filling up vacancies among thebishops and deacons, or adding to their number. New churchesin the neighborhood also would require presbyters and deacons.Episcopacy was adopted in apostolic times as the most expedient formof government, being most nearly in accordance with Jewishinstitutions, and so offering the less obstruction through Jewishprejudices to the progress of Christianity. The synagogue wasgoverned by presbyters, “elders” (Act 4:8;Act 24:1), called also bishopsor overseers. Three among them presided as “rulers of thesynagogue,” answering to “bishops” in the modern sense[LIGHTFOOT, Hebrew andTalmudic Exercitations], and one among them took the lead.AMBROSE (in The Dutiesof the Clergy [2.13], as also BINGHAM[Ecclesiastical Antiquities, 2.11]) says, “They who arenow called bishops were originally called apostles. But those whoruled the Church after the death of the apostles had not thetestimony of miracles, and were in many respects inferior. Thereforethey thought it not decent to assume to themselves the name ofapostles; but dividing the names, they left to presbyters the name ofthe presbytery, and they themselves were called bishops.“”Presbyter” refers to the rank; “bishop,”to the office or function. Timothy (though not having thename) exercised the power at Ephesus then, which bishops in themodern sense more recently exercised.

blameless“unexceptionable”;giving no just handle for blame.

husband of one wifeconfutingthe celibacy of Rome’s priesthood. Though the Jews practicedpolygamy, yet as he is writing as to a Gentile Church, and aspolygamy was never allowed among even laymen in the Church, theancient interpretation that the prohibition here is against polygamyin a candidate bishop is not correct. It must, therefore, mean that,though laymen might lawfully marry again, candidates for theepiscopate or presbytery were better to have been married only once.As in 1Ti 5:9, “wife of oneman,” implies a woman married but once; so “husband of onewife” here must mean the same. The feeling which prevailed amongthe Gentiles, as well as the Jews (compare as to Anna, Luk 2:36;Luk 2:37), against a secondmarriage would, on the ground of expediency and conciliation inmatters indifferent and not involving compromise of principle,account for Paul’s prohibition here in the case of one in soprominent a sphere as a bishop or a deacon. Hence the stress that islaid in the context on the repute in which the candidate fororders is held among those over whom he is to preside (Tit1:16). The Council of Laodicea and the apostolic canonsdiscountenanced second marriages, especially in the case ofcandidates for ordination. Of course second marriage being lawful,the undesirableness of it holds good only under specialcircumstances. It is implied here also, that he who has a wife andvirtuous family, is to be preferred to a bachelor; for he who ishimself bound to discharge the domestic duties mentioned here, islikely to be more attractive to those who have similar ties, for heteaches them not only by precept, but also by example (1Ti 3:4;1Ti 3:5). The Jews teach, apriest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he beunmerciful [BENGEL]. So inthe synagogue, “no one shall offer up prayer in public, unlesshe be married” [in Colbo, ch. 65; VITRINGA,Synagogue and Temple].

vigilantliterally,”sober”; ever on the watch, as sober men alone can be;keenly alive, so as to foresee what ought to be done (1Th5:6-8).

sobersober-minded.

of good behaviourGreek,“orderly.” “Sober” refers to the inwardmind; “orderly,” to the outward behavior,tone, look, gait, dress. The new man bears somewhat of a sacredfestival character, incompatible with all confusion, disorder,excess, violence, laxity, assumption, harshness, and meanness (Php4:8) [BENGEL].

apt to teach (2Ti2:24).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

A bishop then must be blameless,…. Or “an elder”, as the Syriac version renders it; not that it can be expected that such an one should be entirely free from sin, or be blameless in the sight of God; but that he should be one, who is so before men, and has not been guilty of any notorious and flagitious crime; and particularly, is not chargeable with the vices hereafter mentioned or hinted at. So the priests under the law were to be without blemish, even in their bodies, Le 21:17 to which the apostle may here allude.

The husband of one wife; which is not to be understood in a mystical and allegorical sense of his being the pastor of one church, since the apostle afterwards speaks of his house and children, that are to be ruled and kept in good order by him, in distinction from the church of God; but in a literal sense of his conjugal estate; though this rule does not make it necessary that he should have a wife; or that he should not marry, or not have married a second wife, after the death of the first; only if he marries or is married, that he should have but one wife at a time; so that this rule excludes all such persons from being elders, or pastors, or overseers of churches, that were “polygamists”; who had more wives than one at a time, or had divorced their wives, and not for adultery, and had married others. Now polygamy and divorces had very much obtained among the Jews; nor could the believing Jews be easily and at once brought off of them. And though they were not lawful nor to be allowed of in any; yet they were especially unbecoming and scandalous in officers of churches. So the high priest among the Jews, even when polygamy was in use, might not marry, or have two wives, at once; if he did, he could not minister in his office until he divorced one of them u. For it is written, Le 21:13, “he shall take a wife”, , “one, and not two” w. And the same that is said of the high priest, is said of all other priests; see Eze 44:22, likewise the Egyptian priests might not marry more wives than one, though others might have as many as they pleased x: and so the Flamines among the Romans y. An elder or pastor must also be one that is

vigilant; or wakeful and watchful, who is diligent in his business, and attends to his care and charge; is watchful over himself, his words, and actions; and watches for the souls of men, to do them all the good he can; and is sober in body, is temperate, and uses moderation in eating and drinking; and in mind, is modest, humble, and prudent; and so the Vulgate Latin Version renders the word “prudent”: and the Ethiopic version, “a wise man”, one of a sound judgment, a good understanding, and prudent conduct; is not wise above what is written, but thinks soberly of himself, as he ought. The Syriac and Arabic versions render it, “chaste”, as free from intemperance, so from uncleanness: and

of good behaviour: neat and decent in his apparel; modest in his whole deportment and conduct, and affable and courteous to all; beautiful in his life and conversation, being adorned with every thing that is graceful and comely:

given to hospitality: to the love of strangers, and to the entertainment of them; and especially the saints and fellow ministers, who are exiled, or are travelling for the sake of spreading the Gospel, or upon some lawful and laudable account. These he is to assist by his advice and counsel, and with the necessaries of life, according to his abilities. Abraham and Lot are noted instances of this virtue.

Apt to teach; who has a considerable store of knowledge; is capable of interpreting the Scripture to the edification of others; is able to explain, lay open, and illustrate the truths of the Gospel, and defend them, and refute error; and who is not only able, but ready and willing, to communicate to others what he knows; and who likewise has utterance of speech, the gift of elocution and can convey his ideas of things in plain and easy language, in apt and acceptable words; for otherwise it signifies not what a man knows, unless he has a faculty of communicating it to others, to their understanding and advantage.

u Maimon. lssurc Bia, c. 7. sect. 13. & Cele Hamikdash. c. 5. sect. 10. w T. Bab. Yebamot, fol. 59. 1. x Diodor. Sicul. l. 1. p. 51. vide Tertull. de monogamia, c. 17. & Exhort. castitat. c. 13. y Alex. ab. Alex. Genial Dier. l. 6. c. 12.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The bishop ( ). The overseer. Old word, in LXX, and inscriptions and papyri. Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 230f.) has shown it is applied to communal officials in Rhodes. See Ac 20:28 for its use for the elders (presbyters) in verse 17. So also in Titus 1:5; Titus 1:7. See Php 1:1. The word does not in the N.T. have the monarchical sense found in Ignatius of a bishop over elders.

Without reproach (). Accusative case of general reference with and . Old and common verbal ( privative and , not to be taken hold of), irreproachable. In N.T. only here, 1Tim 5:7; 1Tim 6:14.

Of one wife ( ). One at a time, clearly.

Temperate (). Old adjective. In N.T. only here, verse 1Tim 3:11; Titus 2:2. But see , to be sober in 1Thess 5:6; 1Thess 5:8.

Soberminded (). Another old adjective (from or , sound, , mind) in N.T. only here, Titus 1:8; Titus 2:2; Titus 2:5.

Orderly (). See on 2:9. Seemly, decent conduct.

Given to hospitality (). Old word (see in Ro 12:13), from and , in N.T. only here, Titus 1:8; 1Pet 4:9.

Apt to teach (). Late form for old , one qualified to teach. In Philo and N.T. only (1Tim 3:2; 2Tim 2:24).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Blameless [] . Or without reproach : one who cannot be laid hold of [] : who gives no ground for accusation. o P. Only in

1st Timothy.

The husband of one wife [ ] . Comp. ver. 12; Tit 1:6. Is the injunction aimed (a) at immoralities respecting marriage – concubinage, etc., or (b) at polygamy, or (c) at remarriage after death or divorce ?

The last is probably meant. Much of the difficulty arises from the assumption that the Pastorals were written by Paul. In that case his views seem to conflict. See Rom 7:2, 3; 1Co 7:39; 1Co 8:8, 9, where Paul declares that widows are free to marry again, and puts widows and virgins on the same level; and comp. 1Ti 5:9, according to which a widow is to be enrolled only on the condition of having been the wife of but one man. The Pauline view is modified in detail by the writer of the Pastorals. Paul, while asserting that marriage is right and honorable, regards celibacy as the higher state (1Co 7:1, 7, 26, 34, 37, 38). In this the Pastoral writer does not follow him (see 1Ti 2:15; 1Ti 3:4, 12; 1Ti 4:3; 1Ti 5:10, 14). The motive for marriage, namely, protection against incontinency, which is adduced by Paul in 1Co 7:2, 9, is given in 1Ti 5:11 – 14. As in Paul, the married state is honorable, for Bishops, Deacons, and Presbyters are married (1Ti 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6), and the honor of childbearing conferred upon the mother of our Lord is reflected in the Christian woman of later times (1Ti 2:15). While Paul advises against second marriages (1Co 7:8, 9, 27, 39, 40), in the Pastorals emphasis is laid only on the remarriage of church – officers and churchwidows. In the Pastorals we see a reflection of the conditions of the earlier post – apostolic age, when a non – Pauline asceticism was showing itself (see 1Ti 4:3, 4, 8; Tit 1:15). The opposition to second marriage became very strong in the latter part of the second century. It was elevated into an article of faith by the Montanists, and was emphasised by Tertullian, and by Athenagoras, who called second marriage “a specious adultery” [ ] . 102 Vigilant (nhfalion). Only in the Pastorals. See ver. 11, and Tit 2:2. o LXX The kindred verb nhfein means to be sober with reference to drink, and, in a metaphorical sense, to be sober and wary; cool and unimpassioned. Thus Epicharmus, nafe kai memnas ajpistein be wary and remember not to be credulous. See on 1Th 5:6. In N. T. the meaning of the verb is always metaphorical, to be calm, dispassionate, and circumspect. The A. V. vigilant is too limited. Wise caution may be included; but it is better to render sober, as A. V. in ver. 11 and Tit 2:2, in the metaphorical sense as opposed to youthful levity.

Of good behavior [] . o P. Only here and 1Ti 2:9, see note. Rend. orderly.

Given to hospitality [] . o P. Comp. Tit 1:8; 1Pe 4:9. See note on pursuing hospitality, Rom 12:13.

Apt to teach [] . o P. Only here and 2Ti 2:24. o LXX, o Class. In the Pastorals the function of teaching pertains to both Bishops and Elders (see 1Ti 5:17; Tit 1:9). It is at this point that the tendency to confound and identify the two reveals itself. Bishops and Presbyters are not identical. Earlier, the teaching function does not seem to have attached to the position of ejpiskopov. The office acquired a different character when it assumed that function, which is not assigned to it in Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians. In the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (about 100 A. D.) the ministry of teaching is to be assumed by the Bishops only in the absence of the Prophets and Teachers (xiii. xv).

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “A bishop then must be” (dei oun ton episkopon) “It behooves or becomes therefore the bishop,” One first, ordained, and second, placed in the pastoral oversight of the church.

a) “Blameless” (anepilempton einai) “to be without reproach,” one against whom no indictable charge can be laid, 2Ti 2:24.

b) “The husband of one wife” (mias gunaikos andra) or more definitively “a one-woman (kind of) man”, not a polygamist, not a promiscuous kind of man or not a woman chaser. This appears to be the more accurate translation and meaning. Polygamy, then prevalent among the Corinthians, Romans, and heathens, was specifically to be avoided by the minister to be ordained to become a pastor bishop or overseer of a flock. This type of conduct appears to be more likely the intent rather than a mandate to be married or not divorced.

c) “Vigilant, sober, of good behaviour,” (nephalion sophron kosnion) “Temperate, sensible, orderly in deportment.” Watchful over self and the flock, discreet, of good behaviour, modest but not shy, genial but not noisy, boisterous, or a showboy, but a gentlemen with excellent emotional, self-control. Act 20:29.

d) “Given to hospitality” (philoksenon) “hospitable,” kindness, heIpfuIness, a charitable disposition, big-hearted, so much prized in the Middle-East as a virtue of good people.

e) “Apt to teach” (didaktinon) “apt at teaching,” having teaching abilities and qualities, skilled or competent, one who could “rightly divide the Word of truth.” 2Ti 2:15. Except one have these evident qualities he should never be ordained and having the qualities he should sharpen, use, and improve them all his life; Paul did to the end. 2Ti 4:13; Joh 5:39; Act 17:11; 2Pe 3:18; Act 20:32; 2Ti 4:13.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

2 A bishop, therefore, must be blameless The particle therefore confirms the exposition which I have given; for, on account of the dignity of the office, he concludes that it is requisite that he be a man endowed with rare gifts, and not any person taken out of the crowd. (48) If the expression used had been “a good work,” as the ordinary translation has it, or “an honorable work,” ( honestam ,) as Erasmus has translated it, the inference would not have been suitable.

He wishes a bishop to be blameless, (49) instead of which, in the Epistle to Titus, He has used (Tit 1:7) the word ἀνέγκλητον, meaning by both words, that he must not be marked by any infamy that would lessen his authority. There will be no one found among men that is free from every vice; but it is one thing to be blemished with ordinary vices, which do not hurt the reputation, because they are found in men of the highest excellence, and another thing to have a disgraceful name, or to be stained with any baseness. In order, therefore, that a bishop may not be without authority, he enjoins that there shall be made a selection of one who has a good and honorable reputation, and not chargeable with any remarkable vice. Besides, he does not merely lay down a rule for Timothy what sort of person he must select, but likewise reminds every one of those who aspire to that rank, to institute a careful examination of himself and of his life.

The husband of one wife. It is a childish fancy to interpret this as meaning “the pastor of a single church.” Another other exposition has been more generally received, that the person set apart to that office must be one who has not been more than once married, that one wife being since dead, so that now he is not a married man. But both in this passage and in Tit 1:6, the words of the apostle are, “Who is,” and not “Who hath been;” and in this very Epistle, where he treats of widows, (1Ti 3:10,) he expressly makes use of the participle of the past tense. Besides, in this way he would contradict himself; because elsewhere he declares that he has no wish to lay a snare on the consciences.

The only true exposition, therefore, is that of Chrysostom, that in a bishop he expressly condemns polygamy, (50) which at that time the Jews almost reckoned to be lawful. This corruption was borrowed by them partly from sinful imitation of the Fathers, (for they who read that Abraham, Jacob, David, and others of the same class, were married to more wives than one at the same time, thought that it was lawful for them also to do the same) and partly from neighboring nations; for the inhabitants of the East never observed that conscientiousness and fidelity in marriage which was proper. However that might be, polygamy was exceedingly prevalent among them; (51) and therefore with great propriety does Paul enjoin that a bishop should be free from this stain.

And yet I do not disapprove of the opinion of those who think that the Holy Spirit intended to guard against the diabolical superstition which afterwards arose; as if he had said, “So far is it from being right and proper that celibacy should be enforced on bishops, that marriage is a state highly becoming in all believers.” In this way, he would not demand it as a thing necessary for them, but would only praise it as not inconsistent with the dignity of the office. Yet the view which I have already given is more simple and more solid, that Paul forbids polygamy in all who hold the office of a bishop, because it is a mark of an unchaste man, and of one who does not observe conjugal fidelity.

But there it might be objected, that what is sinful in all ought not to have been condemned or forbidden in bishops alone. The answer is easy. When it is expressly prohibited to bishops, it does not therefore follow that it is freely allowed to others. Beyond all doubt, Paul condemned universally what was contrary to an unrepealed law of God; for it is a settled enactment,

“

They shall be one flesh.” (Gen 2:24.)

But he might, to some extent, bear with that in others which, in a bishop, would have been excessively vile, and therefore not to be endured.

Nor is this a law laid down for the future, that no bishop, who already has one wife, shall marry a second or a third, while the first wife is still living; but Paul excludes from the office of a bishop any one who shall be guilty of such an enormity. Accordingly, what had been once done, and could not be corrected, he reluctantly endures, but only in the common people. For what was the remedy for those who, under Judaism, had fallen into the snare of polygamy? Should they have divorced their second and third wives? Such a divorce would not have been free from doing wrong. Since, therefore, the deed was done, and could not be undone, he left it untouched, but with this exception, that no bishop should be blemished by such a stain.

Sober, temperate, modest The word which we have translated sober, Erasmus has translated ( vigilantem) watchful. As the Greek word νηφάλεος (52) admits of either signification, the readers may make their own choice. I have preferred to translate σώφρονα, temperate, instead of sober, because σωφροσύνη has a more extensive meaning than sobriety. Modest means one who conducts himself with decency and propriety.

Hospitable (53) The “hospitality” here spoken of, is toward strangers, and this was very common among the ancients; for it would have been reckoned disgraceful for respectable persons, and especially for those who were well known, to lodge in taverns. In the present day, the state of matters is different; but this virtue is and always will be highly necessary in a bishop, for many reasons. Besides, during the cruel persecution of the godly, many persons must have been constrained frequently to change their habitation; and therefore it was necessary that the houses of bishops should be a retreat for the exiles. In those times hard necessity compelled the churches to afford mutual aid, so that they gave lodgings to one another. Now, if the bishops had not pointed out the path to others in this department of duty, the greater part, following their example, would have neglected the exercise of humanity, and thus the poor fugitives would have been greatly discouraged. (54)

Able to teach In the epistle to Titus, doctrine is expressly mentioned; here he only speaks briefly about skill in communicating instruction. It is not enough to have profound learning, if it be not accompanied by talent for teaching. There are many who, either because their utterance is defective, or because they have not good mental abilities, or because they do not employ that familiar language which is adapted to the common people, keep within their own minds the knowledge which they possess. Such persons, as the phrase is, ought to Sing to themselves and to the muses. (55) They who have the charge of governing the people, ought to be qualified for teaching. And here he does not demand volubility of tongue, for we see many persons whose fluent talk is not fitted for edification; but he rather commends wisdom in applying the word of God judiciously to the advantage of the people.

It is worth while to consider how the Papists hold that the injunctions which the apostle gives do not at all belong to them. I shall not enter into a minute explanation of all the details; but on this one point what sort of diligence do they observe? And, indeed, that gift would be superfluous; for they banish from themselves the ministry of teaching as low and groveling, although this belonged especially to a bishop. But everybody knows how far it is from observing Paul’s rule, to assume the title of bishop, and boast proudly of enacting a character without speaking, provided only that they make their appearance in a theatrical dress. As if a horned mitre, a ring richly set in jewels, or a silver cross, and other trifles, accompanied by idle display, constituted the spiritual government of a church, which can no more be separated from doctrine than any one of us can be separated from his own soul.

(48) “ Et non pas le premier qui se pourroit presenter.” — “And not the first that might offer himself.”

(49) ᾿Ανεπίληπτον — “This is properly an antagonistic term, signifying, ‘one who gives his adversary no hold upon him;’ but it is often (as here) applied metaphorically to one who gives others no cause justly to accuse him. So Thucydides, v. 17, τοῖς ἐχθροῖς ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι. “Such (says a celebrated writer) is the perfect purity of our religion, such the innocence and virtue which it exacts, that he must be a very good man indeed who lives up to it.” And when we consider the still greater requirements in a teacher of religion, (who is to be an example to others,) and reflect on the injury done to religion through the side of false professors, how much reason will there appear that such a one should be, as the apostle says, blameless.” — Broomfield.

(50) “ Qu’il condamne en l’Evesque d’avoir deux femmes ensemble vivantes.” — “That he condemns in a bishop the having two wives living at the same time.”

(51) “ La polygamie estoit une chose toute commune entre les Juifs.” — “Polygamy was a thing quite common among the Jews.”

(52) “ Νηφάλιον, ‘vigilant or circumspect.’ In which sense the word occurs in the later writers; as, for instance, Phavorinus. The force of the word is well expressed by the Pesch. Syr., ‘ mente sit vigilanti ’ Instead of νηφάλιον, (the reading of many of the best MSS. and all the early editions,) νηφάλεον was introduced by Beza, but without any sufficient reason; and the former has been rightly restored by Wetstein, Griesbach, Matthaei, Tittnhann, and Vater. Here, then, we have a quality suggested by the very term ἐπίσχοπος, which imports vigilant superintendence.” — Bloomfield.

(53) “ Recueillant volontiers les estrangers;” — “Willingly entertaining strangers.”

(54) “Let every one know that the virtues which are here required in all ministers of the word of God, are in order to give an example to the flock. It is highly proper for every one to know that, when it is said that ministers should be wise, temperate, and of good moral behavior, it is in order that others may be conformed to their example; for it is not for three or four only, but for all in general, that these things are said. This is the way in which the example of men must be profitable to us, so far as they shall conduct themselves properly, according to the will of God. And if they depart from that will ever so little, we must not yield to them such authority as to follow them on that account; but we must attend to what Paul says, that we ought to follow men so far as they are entirely conformed to the pure word of God, and are imitators of Jesus Christ, to lead us in the right way.” — Fr. Ser.

(55) “ Il faut que tels s’employent a autre chose.” — “Such persons ought to be employed in something else.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(2) A bishop then must be blameless.Now follow the various social and moral characteristics of the appointed and recognised officers of the Christian Churchthe presbyters or bishops, and the junior ministers, the deacons. The second chapter had treated of the duties of congregations collectively in the matter of public prayer; the third chapter speaks of the special character and qualities necessary for the rulers of these congregations. These elders must, in the first place, be men whose character is unimpeachablemen who stand high in public estimation, known for their pure life and spotless integrity. Not only must believers reverence the character of the superintending and ruling elders of their community, but even those outside the brotherhood of Christ must respect the life and conversation of these prominent and conspicuous members of a society which, from the nature of things, would be sure to provoke distrust and jealousy.

The husband of one wife.The general opinion of the most ancient writersthe decisions of Church councils when the question seems to have been placed before themthe custom of the great Greek Church, which, while permitting a single nuptial, still regarded the repetition of the marriage relation as a disqualification for the higher grade of the episcopatetell us in general terms that the opinion of the Church from the earliest times interprets this saying of St. Paul as a declaration against second marriages in the case of those seeking the office of presbyter or deacon. The Greek Church evidently accepts this interpretation, though it relaxes the rule in the case of the inferior orders.

There seems, however, good reason for doubting the accuracy of this popular interpretation, which appears, by thus casting a reproach upon second marriages, to urge a spirit of asceticism on all Christian society, very foreign to St. Pauls usual teaching, which was content with gently inculcating a higher and a purer life as alone in accordance with the mind of his pitiful and loving Master. It was only by slow degrees that he hoped to raise the tone of society and public opinion in this world.
Inspired Christian teaching was careful not to distract the everyday life of men and women by insisting on sudden and violent changes. The behaviour of the great Christian teachers in the matter of that terrible and universal practice of slavery should be especially noted.
When we ask, What then did St. Paul mean by these words? we must picture to ourselves the state of society in the empire at the time when the Apostle wrote to Timothy. An inundation of Eastern luxury and Eastern morals had submerged all the old Roman habits of austere simplicity. The long civil war and the subsequent license of the empire had degraded the character of the people. The period when St. Paul wrote was especially marked by an extreme depravity. A great and general indisposition towards marriage at all, and the orderly restraints of home and family life, had become so marked a feature in Roman society, that we find Augustus positively enacting laws against celibacy. Another cause which helped to undermine the stability of home life and those family ties which ought to be deemed so sacred, was the ease and frequency of divorce, which Seneca, who may be considered almost as the contemporary of St. Paul, alludes to as incidents no longer looked upon as shameful in Rome. He even, in his indignation at the laxity of the morals of his day, cites cases of women who reckoned their years rather by their husbands than by the consuls. Martial writes of a woman who had arrived at her tenth husband. Juvenal speaks of one who, in five years, had had eight husbands. Among the Jews we know polygamy was then prevalent. St. Paul, fully conscious of this low and debased moral tone which then pervaded all society in the empire, in these few words condemned all illicit relations between the sexes, and directed that in choosing persons to fill holy offices in the congregations of Christians, those should be selected who had married and remained faithful to the wife of their choice, whose life and practice would thus serve as an example to the flock, and to whose homes men might point as the pattern which Jesus loved, while the heathen world around them would see that the hated and despised Christians not only loved and honoured, but lived that pure home life their own great moralists pressed so earnestly upon them, but in vain. This direction, which requires that those to be selected to fill holy offices should be known for their purity in their family relations, of course does not excludeshould any such offer themselvesthose men who, while contracting no marriage ties, still were known to lead upright, moral lives.

Vigilant.The Greek word here is more accurately rendered sober. The presbyter or elder should be soberminded, self-restrained, temperate (not merely in wine, but in all things).

Sober.Better rendered, discreet.

Of good behaviour.Rather, orderly. This word refers to outward conduct, to behaviour in public.

The Christian office-bearer must not only be wise and self-restrained in himself, but his outward bearing must in all respects correspond to his inner life.

Given to hospitality.In the early days of Christianity, when Christians travelling from one place to another, were in the habit, when it was possible, of resorting to the houses of their brethren in the faith, to avoid consorting with idolaters in the public inns. It was of no slight importance that the presiding elders in a congregation should be men who loved to entertain strangers and others, from whom nothing could be expected in return.

Apt to teach.The elder should possess something more than a willingness, or glad readiness, to teach the less instructed the mysteries of the faith. He ought also to have the far rarer qualification of a power to impart knowledge to others. Zeal is not by any means the only, or even the principal, qualification to be sought for in a minister of the Word.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

2. Blameless Unimpeachable; one against whom no fair charge can be made.

Husband of one wife Upon these words, and the parallel in Tit 1:6, there have been three interpretations: as, 1, A requirement of marriage; 2, A prohibition of polygamy; and, 3, A prohibition of deuterogamy, or marriage of widower or widow.

Upon the first it may be fairly said, that though the apostle does not enjoin the marriage of an elder, he certainly assumes its probability. The text is, therefore, conclusive against enforced clerical celibacy.

That deuterogamy is forbidden, or at least for that age discouraged, is the interpretation of Alford, Huther, and Wordsworth. Fairbairn has a full dissertation ably maintaining that polygamy only is forbidden.

For applying it to deuterogamy it is urged that sacred professions, even among heathens, were often prohibited from deuterogamy, as by the Romans to their priestesses. Sicilian law forbade a man who gives a stepmother to his children to fill the judicial office. In an age when the female character is degraded such a law may have its reasons. Alford’s objection to applying the text to polygamy only is, that it makes Paul forbid to clergy alone what truly no Christian should, or in that age did, commit. Tertullian had used that argument long before him. “They say that the apostle permitted the repetition of marriage in such way as to forbid polygamy to the clergy alone.” But the apostle does not imply a permission to laity when he restricts the clergy, as, for instance, from the being a striker.

In favour of the application of the text to polygamy, and not deuterogamy, it may be urged, 1. That St. Paul, in Rom 7:1; Rom 7:3, and 1Co 7:8-9, decides that death dissolves the marriage tie, and permits new marriage to the survivor. He states it as marriage law without exception. The assumption of Alford, that St. Paul lays down a special ethics here for the clergy, cannot be admitted without some special proof.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2 . Polygamy, in St. Paul’s time, was usual with both Jews and Gentiles. It was demoralizing both races. Rabbies had four and five wives. Converts to Christianity involved in polygamy would often present themselves for admission to the Church, and the peculiarities of their case might be considered in the instance of private Christians; but Paul forbids any such entanglement for an elder. 3. Alford admits that the early commentators, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, each made the text forbid only polygamy. On the other hand, Fairbairn maintains, truly, that the earliest writers who made it condemn deuterogamy, as Hermas and Tertullian, were ascetically inclined. 4. The uniform shaping of the three expressions obviously applies to polgyamy only. A man whose single wife died, and who marries again a single wife only, is always the husband of one wife. See note on 1Ti 4:9.

Vigilant Wide awake, and alert for all opportunities for holy success. Sober Discreet, given to no undignified excitement or levities.

Good behaviour Orderly in external manners and conduct.

Hospitality In especial relation to entertaining Christian brethren; a duty very important in times when the present system of public accommodations but imperfectly existed. 1Pe 4:9; Heb 13:2; Rom 12:13.

Apt to teach Possessing full knowledge of Christian doctrine. and naturally gifted to deliver it. See note, Tit 1:9.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach, no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money, one who rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.’

Paul provides a formidable check list for one who would take up the important position of ‘overseer’ and shepherd (Act 20:28).

‘Without reproach.’ That is, ‘unexceptionable, irreproachable’. There must be no stain on their characters and be well thought of both inside and outside the church. This would not necessarily exclude those who (like Paul) had a shady past, but only once they had lived it down and proved that the change was permanent. The word signifies that they must be blameless, not just be seen as being.

‘The husband of one wife’. The stress on ‘one’ would suggest that the main aim of this injunction is to bar polygamists and divorcees on the grounds that they have disobeyed God’s requirement as found in Gen 2:24, and are therefore necessarily ‘living in sin’ and not above reproach. It may also, however, be intended to include a requirement that they are married. This prohibition would have startled the ancient world. Marriages came and went, and it was not unusual to marry a number of times. Until they became Christians and became aware of Jesus’ teaching they would simply have thought this idea a freak of Paul’s imagination, and in the Gentile world wives were expected to have love affairs, which undoubtedly Paul is also forbidding here.

‘Temperate, sober-minded, orderly.’ They are to be self-controlled, not given to excess, wise of behaviour, efficient and well balanced.

‘Given to hospitality.’ Hospitality was seen as an important virtue in the days of the early church when visitors to a city would require somewhere to stay. Inns were rare and usually not very respectable. One who saw his possessions as belonging to the Lord would necessarily welcome such visitors, especially when they were fellow-Christians.

‘Apt to teach.’ Compare 2Ti 2:24. The idea is that he should have the ability, required knowledge and willingness to teach, which was clearly seen as an important function of an episkopos.

‘No brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious.’ ‘No brawler.’ That is not one given to excess of wine resulting in becoming tipsy and rowdy, and therefore indicating one who is always no more than a moderate drinker. ‘No striker.’ Not volatile and likely to act in an uncontrolled way. ‘Gentle.’ Someone well controlled and affable, and so of gentlemanly behaviour, gracious and considerate, and even magnanimous. ‘Not contentious.’ Not someone who loves provoking an argument, but is placable and pacific. Someone able to take the sting out of a situation.

‘No lover of money.’ He must not be someone to whom money is obviously too important, or whose life is directed and controlled by the love of money.

‘One who rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.’ And the final test is whether he is able to control his own household and bring up his children properly. If he is seen to be lax with his household, he will probably be lax with the household of God. On the other hand if he is seen to be too harsh with his household, he will probably be too harsh for running the household of God. He will probably tend to treat others in the same way as he treats his own family.

It will be noted, then, that a bishop was to be a well rounded character of good reputation, kind and generous disposition, considerate and thoughtful, not gripped by worldliness and the desires of the flesh, and most importantly truly capable of teaching.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Ti 3:2. A bishop then must be blameless, With respect to his moral character. The priests under the law were to be without bodily infirmities, Lev 21:16; Lev 21:24. The bishops in the Christian church are to be of unblemished hearts and lives, Tit 1:6-7.the husband of one wife; that is, “one who has not causelessly divorced his wife, and married another;” much less ought he to have more than one wife at a time. See 1Ti 3:12. Some understand the apostle here as prohibiting second marriages in the clergy; but the interpretation above given appears the most just and reasonable.

Which way soever the sentence be interpreted, it plainly condemns the practice of the church of Rome, which allows not bishops or clergy to marry at all: surely that can never be consistent with a bishop’s being the husband of one wife.We have in the course of this commentary, frequently observed, that in the Eastern country there were few houses of public entertainment; and therefore, though hospitality is at all times highly commendable in all, and especially in bishops and ministers of the gospel, there was the more necessity that the houses of bishops should at that time be famed for it, and always open to such as travelled about in order to spread the gospel

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Ti 3:2 . . . .] , as a name for the superintendent of the congregation, only occurs in the Pastoral Epistles (here and at Tit 1:7 ), and in Act 20:28 ; Phi 1:1 (the verb is found in 1Pe 5:2 ). There can be no doubt that in the N. T. the and the denote the same persons. The question why these different names should be given to the same persons has been differently answered.

REMARK.

Baur supposes that every single town had originally one superintendent, who in his relation to the congregation was called , but that when several over single congregations were taken together, they were for the most part designated by the co-ordinate name of . He finds the chief support for his opinion in the passages, Tit 1:5 : , and Act 14:23 : ; but the form of expression here used does not necessarily imply that every single town (or congregation) received or was to receive only one presbyter. Since ( ) means: by cities, i.e. in every city, and the plural ( ) is herewith joined with it, it may be taken in Baur’s sense, but it may also be as well taken to mean that the plural refers to each single city. The passage in Act 15:21 , to which Baur appeals, proves nothing for his view, since it is well known that there were several synagogues in each city of the Jewish country.

According to the view of Kist (Illgen’s Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol. II. 2, pp. 47 ff.), the Christians in any one place formed originally several house-congregations, each of which had its particular superintendent. The college of presbyters then consisted of the superintendents of those house-congregations in one city, which, taken together, were regarded as a congregation. The passage in Epiphanius, Haer. lxix. 1, [114] shows that in later times such an arrangement did exist; but there is no passage in the N. T. to prove that that was the original arrangement. In the N. T. the presbyters are always named as the superintendents of one congregation, and there is nowhere any hint that each house-congregation had its special superintendent. Even when James (1Ti 5:14 ) enjoins that a sick man is to summon , and not the presbyter of the house-congregation of which he was a member, his words are clearly against Kist’s view.

The most probable theory is, that originally the superintendents of the single congregations according to the analogy of Jewish custom bore the name of , but that, in so far as they were in reference to the congregation, they were called ; comp. Act 20:17 ; Act 20:28 .

There are, however, two striking facts to be noticed. In the first place, Paul in his epistles (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) makes use of the word only in Phi 1:1 , and of the word not at all. Nay, he almost never mentions the superintendent of the congregation except in Eph 4:11 , where he calls them , and 1Th 5:12 , where he mentions them as (comp. also Rom 12:8 : ); comp., however, the passages quoted above from Acts. From this it is clear that at first his attention was directed to the congregation only in its indivisible unity, and only by degrees does he give more prominence to its leaders. We cannot, however, conclude from this, either that the congregations in the earlier period had no leaders, for it lay in the very-nature of a congregation to have some kind of leading; or that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, for why in the later period of his career should circumstances not so have shaped themselves that he thought it necessary to give the leaders more prominence?

The second striking fact is, that both in this passage and in Tit 1:7 the singular and not the plural is used, though in the latter passage the plural immediately precedes, and here at 1Ti 3:8 we have the plural (comp. also 1Ti 5:17 : ). Is there any reason for this in the nature of the episcopate? The fact certainly might be interpreted to favour Kist’s view; but it may more simply and naturally be thus explained. Both times a precedes, and this almost by necessity compels the use of the plural after it.

[114] , .

] is not simply a particle of transition. From the fact that the is a , the apostle deduces the necessity of a blameless character on the part of the ; Bengel: bonum negotium bonis committendum.

] In enumerating the qualities which an must possess, the apostle begins appropriately with a general idea; so also Tit 1:7 : , equivalent to , Schol. Thucyd. v. 17. It is important that they who stand at the head of the church should lead an irreproachable life in the opinion both of Christians and of non-Christians.

] This expression cannot here be properly referred to polygamy; for, although polygamy might at that time be still found among the civilised heathen, and even among the Jews (comp. Justin Martyr, Dialog. c. Tryph. ; Chrysostom on the passage; Josephus, Antiq. vii. 2), it was as a rare exception. Besides, there is an argument against such an interpretation in the phrase , 1Ti 5:9 ; for similarly such a phrase ought to refer to polyandry, which absolutely never occurred.

Most recent expositors (Leo, Mack, de Wette, Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt) take the expression as referring to a second marriage after the death of the first wife. Heydenreich quotes many testimonies from the earlier Fathers to justify this view. The results which these give are the following:

Firstly , Many held marriage after the death of the first wife to be something immoral. Athenagoras ( Leg. pro Christo , p. 37, edit. Colon.) calls second marriage a ; and Tertullian repudiates it utterly, as do the Montanists. Secondly , This was, however, by no means the view that generally prevailed. It had many decided opponents, but even opponents of the view regard [115] abstinence from a second marriage as something praiseworthy, nay, meritorious. Hermas ( Past. mandat. iv. chap. 4 : dic, Domine, si vir vel mulier alicujus discesserit et nupserit aliquis eorum, num quid peccat? Qui nubit, non peccat; sed si per se manserit, magnum sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum) and the later Fathers, as Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril, all write in this strain.

Clement of Alexandria ( Stromata , iii. p. 461) says, that he who marries a second time does not commit sin: . Thirdly , As to those who held office in the church, it was a general principle that they should not marry a second time. The proof of this is the objection which Tertullian puts in the mouth of his opponents against his condemnation of second marriages: adeo, inquiunt, permisit Apostolus iterare connubium, ut solos qui sunt in Clero, monogamiae jugo adstrinxerit ( de Monogamia , chap. 12). Origen’s words are in complete accordance with this: ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt; neque enim episcopus, nec presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse digami.

On the other hand, there is a weighty counter-argument in the fact that the earlier expositors of the Pastoral Epistles (Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Oecumenius) do not share in this view, [116] though the practice prevailing in their day must have made the interpretation to them an obvious one. Besides, nowhere else in the N. T. is there the slightest trace of any ordinance against second marriages; nay, in Rom 7:2-3 , and also in 1Co 7:39 , Paul declares widows to be perfectly free to marry again; in 1Co 7:8 , he even places widows and virgins on the same level; and in this epistle, 1Ti 5:14 , he says: ( ) . It would certainly be more than strange if the apostle should urge the younger widows to a step which would hinder them later in life from being received into the class of church-widows (see on chap. 1Ti 5:9 ).

Appeal has been made to the facts that the nuptiae secundae were held to be unseemly for women even among the heathen (comp. Rein, Das rmische Privatrecht , pp. 211, 212, and the Latin word univira ); but it is to be observed, on the other hand, that it was considered in no way objectionable for a man to marry again after the death of his wife , and that there exists no trace of the opposite principle. (There is no ground for Heydenreieh’s opinion, that the priests highest in rank, e.g. the Pontifex Maximus, could only be married once.) Hence, neither Christians nor non-Christians could be offended if the presbyters of the churches were married a second time, and Paul would have laid down a maxim which in his day had never been heard of. The undecided opposition to second marriages appeared among the Christians only in the post-apostolic age, when asceticism was already taking a non-Pauline direction, and was therefore inclined to give its own interpretation to the apostle’s words. Besides, the expression here, as also in Tit 1:6 , stands in the midst of others, which denote qualities to be possessed not only by the bishop, but also by every Christian as such. Accordingly, there is good ground for taking the disputed expression simply as opposed to an immoral life, especially to concubinage. What he says then is, that a bishop is to be a man who neither lives nor has lived in sexual intercourse with any other woman than the one to whom he is married (Matthies, Hofmann [117] ). Thus interpreted, the apostle’s injunction is amply justified, not only in itself, but also in regard to the extraordinary laxness of living in his day, and it is in full harmony with the other injunctions. The expression under discussion might also be possibly referred to successive polygamy, i.e. to the re-marriage of divorced persons, but its terms are too general to make such a reference certain. [118]

] only here and in 1Ti 3:11 (Tit 2:2 ). In its proper meaning it is equivalent to , 1Ti 3:8 ; but it is also used in a kindred sense (like the Latin sobrius ) to denote one who is not enchanted nor intoxicated by any fleshly passion. It is used, therefore, of sobriety of spirit. This is the meaning of the word here, where it is joined immediately with , and where the original sense follows in the word , 1Ti 3:3 . Even the root-word occurs in the N. T. only in the figurative sense, as in 1Th 5:6 ; 1Th 5:8 , where it is joined with , and stands in opposition to the spiritual and ; and in 1Pe 4:7 , where it is also connected with .

-G0- , -G0- ] see 1Ti 2:9 .

Bengel: quod est intus, id est extra. Theodoret: .

] in special reference to strangers who were Christian brethren; comp. 1Pe 4:9 ; Heb 13:2 ; Rom 12:13 .

] “able to teach” (Luther); “ good at teaching ” (van Oosterzee). is one who possesses everything that fits him for teaching, including also the inclination (Plitt: “inclined to teach”) or the “willingness” (Hofmann). Hofmann is wrong in specializing it into “a moral quality.” That is justified neither by the etymology of the word (comp. the similarly-formed , , etc.), nor by the position in which it stands here or in 2Ti 2:24 . The word is found elsewhere only in Philo, De Praem. et Virt. 4, not in classic Greek. Though the public address in the congregation (both that of the and that of the , 1 Corinthians 12-14.) was permitted to every one to whom the Holy Spirit had imparted the , still the in particular had to know how to handle doctrine, in instructing the catechumens, in building up the faith of the church, and in refuting heretics (see Tit 1:9 ); hence Paul, in Eph 4:11 , calls the of the church, .

[115] Still there are exceptions, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia, who shows his freedom of thought in arguing most decidedly against this view; see Theodori ep. Mops, in N. T. commentarium, quae reperiri potuerunt; ed. O. F. Fritzsche, pp. 150 152.

[116] Chrysostom places the two views together: , ( ) , , , .

[117] Hofmann ( Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 421) says: “The injunction is, that the husband have no other wives in addition to his own wife, and the widow (chap. 1Ti 5:9 ) no other husbands in addition to her own husband.” So also in his comment, on Tit 1:6 .

[118] As a matter of course, Paul did not, as Carlstadt thought, mean in these words to command the bishop to marry; but, on the other hand, there is at bottom a presupposition that it is better for a bishop to be married than to be unmarried (see vv. 4, 5). We should note also as an exegetical curiosity, that some Catholic expositors, in the interests of celibacy, have explained the word of the church. The strange opinion of Bretschneider, that is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant a bishop should be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is accorded to it by Winer, pp. 111 f. [E. T. p. 146].

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Ver. 2. A bishop then must be blameless ] That is, every faithful pastor must be such as against whom no just exception can be laid, no gross fault objected. Involuntary failings and unavoidable infirmities have a pardon, of course, both with God and all good men.

The husband of one wife ] sc. At once. The Egyptian priests were forbidden also polygamy.

Vigilant ] , pale and wan with watching, (Homer): a public person should not sleep a whole night together.

Sober ] , that can contain his passions and keep a mean.

Of good behaviour ] . a Compositus, modestus. Neat and handsome in his outward habit, venerable in all his behaviour.

Given to hospitality ] Quicquid habent clerici, pauperum est: the minister’s chest is the poor man’s box.

Apt to teach ] Not able only, as Dr Taylor, martyr, who preached not only every Lord’s day and holy day, but whensoever else he could get the people together. (Acts and Mon.) Praedicationis officium suscipit, quisquis ad sacerdotium accedit, saith Gregory. (Greg. Pastor.) He is no minister that is no preacher.

a Bene moratum. Hieron. ad Damasum.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1Ti 3:2 . With the qualifications of the episcopus as given here should be compared those of the deacons, 1Ti 3:8 sqq. , and those of the episcopus in Tit 1:6 sqq .

. The being essentially a good work, “ bonum negotium bonis committendum ” (Bengel). The episcopus is the persona of the Church. It is not enough for him to be not criminal; he must be one against whom it is impossible to bring any charge of wrong doing such as could stand impartial examination . (See Theodoret, cited by Alf.). He must be without reproach (R.V.), irreprehensible (Trench), a term which involves a less exacting test than blameless (A.V.); the deacon (and the Cretan episcopus) must be , one against whom no charge has, in point of fact, been brought .

No argument can be based on the singular , here or in Tit 1:7 , in favour either of the monarchical episcopate or as indications of the late date of the epistle; it is used generically as , ch. 1Ti 5:5 ; , 2Ti 2:24 .

The better to ensure that the episcopus be without reproach , his leading characteristic must be self-control. In the first place and this has special force in the East he must be a man who has natural or acquired a high conception of the relations of the sexes: a married man, who, if his wife dies, does not marry again. Men whose position is less open to criticism may do this without discredit, but the episcopus must hold up a high ideal. Second marriage, which is mentioned as a familiar practice (Rom 7:2-3 ), is expressly permitted to Christian women in 1Co 7:39 , and even recommended to, or rather enjoined upon, young widows in 1Ti 5:14 .

, of course, does not mean that the episcopus must be, or have been, married. What is here forbidden is digamy under any circumstances. This view is supported ( a ) by the general drift of the qualities required here in a bishop; self-control or temperance, in his use of food and drink, possessions, gifts, temper; ( b ) by the corresponding requirement in a church widow, 1Ti 5:9 , , and ( c ) by the practice of the early church (Apostolic Constitutions, vi. 17; Apostolic Canons, 16 (17); Tertullian, ad Uxorem , i. 7: de Monogam . 12; de Exhort. Castitatis , Son 7:13 ; Athenagoras, Legat . 33; Origen, in Lucam , xvii. p. 953, and the Canons of the councils, e.g. , Neocaesarea (A.D. 314) Song of Son 7 . Quinisext. Song of Son 3 ).

On the other hand, it must be conceded that the patristic commentators on the passage (with the partial exception of Chrysostom) Theodore Mops. Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Jerome suppose that it is bigamy or polygamy that is here forbidden. But commentators are prone to go too far in the emancipation of their judgments from the prejudices or convictions of their contemporaries. In some matters “the common sense of most” is a safer guide than the irresponsible conjectures of a conscientious student.

: temperate (R.V.). A.V. has vigilant here, following Chrys.; sober in 1Ti 3:11 , and Tit 2:2 , with vigilant in margin. As this quality is required also in women officials, 1Ti 3:11 , and in aged men, Tit 2:2 , it has in all probability a reference to moderate use of wine, etc., and so would be equivalent to the of the diaconal qualifications, 1Ti 3:8 . is the corresponding term in Tit 1:8 . The adj. only occurs in these three places; but the verb six times; in 1Th 5:6 ; 1Th 5:8 , and in 1Pe 4:7 , it is used of the moderate use of strong drink.

: soberminded (R.V.), serious, earnest . See note on 1Ti 2:9 . Vulg., prudentem here and in Tit 2:2 ; Tit 2:5 ; but sobrium in Tit 1:8 . Perhaps (1Ti 3:8 ) is the quality in deacons that corresponds to and in the episcopus.

: orderly (R.V.), perhaps dignified in the best sense of the term. ordinatum ( [264] 47 ). “Quod est intus, id est extra” (Bengel). The word is not found in Titus .

[264] Speculum

: This virtue is required in the episcopus also in Tit 1:8 , but not of the deacons, below; of Christians generally, 1Pe 4:9 , 1Ti 5:10 ( q.v .), Rom 12:13 , Heb 6:10 ; Heb 13:2 , 3Jn 1:5 . See Hermas, Sim . ix. 27 (“Bishops, hospitable persons ( ), who gladly received into their houses at all times the servants of God without hypocrisy”). This duty, in episcopi, “was closely connected with the maintenance of external relations,” which was their special function. See Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire , p. 368.

, as a moral quality would involve not merely the ability, but also the willingness, to teach, such as ought to characterise a servant of the Lord, 2Ti 2:24 . The notion is expanded in Tit 1:9 . The deacon’s relation to theology is passive, 1Ti 3:9

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

bishop. Greek. episkopos. See Act 20:28.

blameless. Greek. anepileptos. Only here, 1Ti 5:7; 1Ti 6:14.

husbandApp-123.

vigilant = sober. Greek. nephalcos. Here, 1Ti 3:1, 1Ti 2:2.

sober, Greek. sophron. Here, Tit 1:8; Tit 2:2, Tit 2:5. Compare 1Ti 2:9, 1Ti 2:15, 2Ti 1:7. Tit 2:4, Tit 2:6, Tit 2:12.

of good behaviour. Greek. kosmios. See 1Ti 2:9.

given to hospitality. Greek. philoxenos Here; Tit 1:8. 1Pe 4:9. Compare Rom 12:13.

apt to teach. Greek. didaktikos. Here and 2Ti 2:24.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1Ti 3:2. , must) Paul shows what Timothy ought to look to in the appointment of bishops, 1Ti 3:15; wherefore he so in particular describes the virtues as they meet the eye.-, therefore) A good office must be entrusted to good men.- , the bishop) Deacons are directly opposed to bishops, 1Ti 3:8; therefore the presbyter is included in the bishop; Act 20:28, note.-, blameless) without crime, bad report, and just suspicion; comp. Tit 1:6.-, be) not only during the time of discharging his duty, but at the time when he is being appointed: 1Ti 3:10. The order of the virtues, which follow, should be attended to.- , the husband of one wife) So 1Ti 3:12, ch. 1Ti 5:9; Tit 1:6. This element of the blameless mans character is put in the first place. It is the ancient nature of marriage, that one man should have one woman. The husband (man) of one wife (woman) is therefore a simple periphrasis of husband; ch. 1Ti 5:9, note. The opinion as to successive polygamy[20] being forbidden here to bishops, seems formerly to have been drawn from the Canons of the Apostles;[21] since the 17th Canon runs thus: Whosoever after baptism enters into a second marriage[22] or keeps a concubine, he is disqualified from being a bishop. Some have understood it, as if second marriages were forbidden, and certainly the old translation gives this meaning:[23]If any one after baptism is joined in wedlock for the second time, etc.; whence the unfavourable interpretation of the Canon was easily transferred to Paul. But of what importance is it, whether a man has for his help one woman during twenty years, for example, or two after a term of widowhood? But why does Paul, rather taking for granted than requiring that the bishop should have one wife, not add , or be unmarried? Unmarried persons were then rare, nor does he exclude the latter from the sacred office, but yet he assumes that the father of a family was somewhat better fitted for the discharge of these duties: and that, of two candidates, if they be equal in other respects, he who has a wife and virtuous family, is to be preferred to a bachelor, who has less testimony from actual practice (experience), 1Ti 3:4-5; for he who is himself bound to discharge the domestic duties, which are here so frequently mentioned, is likely to be more attractive to those who are in like manner attached by ties to the world, and is of advantage to the community by a more popular example: 1Ti 3:4. It is to be added to this, that indiscriminate celibacy has rendered many open to blame. The Jews also teach, that a priest should be neither unmarried nor childless, lest he should be unmerciful.-) vigilant in mind; so 1Ti 3:11 [, which Engl. Vers. renders sober]; Tit 2:2; for is to watch. See on Chrys. de Sacerd., p. 428. This is opposed to slumbering and sloth, which are sins in defect. , when it is used alone, denotes both watchfulness and sobriety, and by Metonymy the one is put for the other (comp. 1Th 5:8, Let us be sober, ); but when and are joined (as at 1Th 5:6), the latter verb has the strict signification, to be sober, and is opposed to , to be drunk. ) of sound mind [sober,] under self-control. It is opposed to vehemence (impetuosity) of mind, which sins in excess. The derivatives, , , …, have a consonant signification. Comp. Tit 1:7-8, where (which in Greek implies a bold and rash man, such as drunkards usually are) and are opposed to each other.-, decorous, orderly [of good behaviour]) What the is within, the is without. Hesychius defines as ; Plato, , men moderate and good-natured. The new man bears somewhat of a sacred-festival character, and is at variance with every species of pollution, confusion, disorder, excess, violence, laxity, assumption, harshness, depravity, mutilation, meanness; he sparingly and in private obeys the necessity of nature, and of the material food, which is put in motion by ingestion, digestion, and egestion, and keeps all the traces of the corruptible body concealed; Php 4:8.-, hospitable) to strangers, especially to the needy and exiles, whom many treat with disdain.-, apt to teach) See 2Ti 2:24, note.

[20] That is, the marrying a second time after the death of the first wife, which was forbidden by the subsequent canons of the Church in less pure ages.-ED.

[21] A work of later ages, wrongly so called.-ED.

[22] .

[23] Si quis post baptisma secundis fuerit nuptiis copulatus.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Ti 3:2

The bishop therefore must be without reproach,-The elders and deacons must be men whose character is unimpeachable, who stand high in public estimation, known for their pure life and spotless integrity. Not only must the believers reverence the character of the elders and deacons of a congregation, but those not members. In other words, they should be men of unimpeachable character.

the husband of one wife,-Paul, seemingly at least, required the bishop to have a wife. He at all events encouraged it. In later years the idea grew up that there was more holiness in celibacy, and the Roman Catholic Church forbids its bishops to marry. What Paul required they forbid. Nowhere do the Scriptures teach that there is more holiness in the unmarried state than in the married. [All the directions concerning marriage in the New Testament are based on the idea of the union of one man to one woman.]

temperate,-Watchful over himself in restraining the appetites and passions, using all in moderation so as to blend all the faculties to the highest degree of activity.

sober-minded,-Not excitable or passionate, but self-restrained. [Having or proceeding from a realization of the importance and earnestness of life; not flighty or flippant.]

orderly,-Of good behavior, kind, considerate, and orderly in deportment. [Not only must he be wise and self-restrained in himself, but his outward bearing must in all respects correspond to his inner life.]

given to hospitality,-Entertaining strangers is frequently impressed as a Christian virtue. The elder should possess all Christian virtues in a high degree so he will be an example to the flock-teach by example as well as by precept.

apt to teach;-His work is to teach and lead others in the right way. In order to do this he must know the truth, then by kind and faithful example lead the flock in the way the Lord would have it go. It is very important that elders should have aptitude for teaching privately as well as publicly. (2Ti 2:24-26.) It requires patience and perseverance in teaching others who are out of the way.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

bishop: Tit 1:6-9

blameless: 1Ti 3:10, Luk 1:6, Phi 2:15

the husband: 1Ti 4:3, 1Ti 5:9, Heb 3:14

vigilant: Isa 56:10, 1Pe 4:7, 1Pe 5:8

of good behaviour: or, modest

given: Rom 12:13, Tit 1:8, Heb 13:2, 1Pe 4:9

apt: 2Ti 2:24

Reciprocal: Lev 21:17 – blemish Lev 21:18 – a blind man 2Ch 15:3 – a teaching Ezr 7:10 – and to teach Eze 44:22 – a widow Mat 8:14 – wife’s Luk 14:13 – call Joh 10:2 – he that Act 20:28 – overseers Rom 12:7 – or he 1Co 9:5 – to lead Phi 1:1 – the bishops Col 1:28 – teaching 1Th 5:6 – sober 1Ti 3:11 – sober 1Ti 3:12 – General 1Ti 3:15 – know Tit 1:7 – a bishop Tit 2:2 – sober Heb 13:4 – Marriage

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Ti 3:2. Blameless. This word has been distorted out of its true meaning by saying it requires a bishop to be free from sin or any other defect. Such a definition would make it impossible to have scriptural elders, since the scripture clearly teaches that no man is perfect in that sense. The word is from ANEPILEPTOS which. Thayer defines as follows: “Not apprehended, that cannot be laid hold of; hence that cannot be reprehended, not open to censure, irreproachable.” It is plain that the word has reference to the standing a man has among men. That no one is able to make any specific accusation against his character or conduct. That is, no one must be able to make such accusation and support it with the truth. This item Is shown by the words in the lexicon definition, namely, “that cannot be laid hold of.” The foregoing is a general statement of the character required of a proposed candidate for the office, as it pertains to disqualifications. The particular items required, both positive and negative, will follow in this verse and extend through verse 7. But before considering the detailed list of qualifications, it should be remembered that all of them are preceded by the word must in the beginning of this verse. That term is from the Greek word DEI, which Thayer defines, “It is necessary, there is need of, it behooves, is right and proper.” Strong defines it, “It is (was, etc.) necessary (as binding).” Robinson defines it, “In N. T. it behooves, it is necessary, it must needs, one must or ought.” From these definitions it is clear that the requirements of qualifications for bishops (or elders) are positive, and that no man can be scripturally appointed to the office who lacks any one of them; the degree to which he must have them will be discussed when we come to Tit 1:9. Husband of one wife. Some people say this means that he has never been married but once, and that the word be in the beginning of the verse should be rendered “having been,” making the word include the past as well as the present tense. I have six translations and they all render it the same as the King James Version, namely, by the single word “be,” which restricts it to the present tense, at the time of appointment. Another theory is that it means “one wife only.” But the third word is added without any authority from the original, for there is no word in the Greek that justifies it. Besides, that doctrine would imply that the church had in its fellowship men who were polygamists, and such a character is not permitted in the church concerning any of the men. The necessary conclusion is, then, that a man who is appointed to the office of bishop must be a married man at the time of his appointment. Vigilant means he must be watchful for the spiritual safety of the flock; must “watch for their souls” (Heb 13:17). Sober is from SOPHRON which Thayer defines, “Curbing one’s desires and impulses, self-controlled, temperate.” A man lacking self-control would certainly be unfit to be placed in control of a congregation. Of good behavior. It would seem that many of the qualifications for a bishop already requires good behaviour in him, so why this phrase? It is a somewhat general expression, meaning that his life as a whole is orderly; one that is commendable in the eyes of his fellowmen. Given to hospitality. This does not require that an elder must keep “open house” constantly, so that he cannot have the satisfaction of home privacy, and that the general public may feel free to run in and out at will. Such a condition would often interfere with one of his own obligations about maintaining government over his household. But if the relations between him and the members of his flock are as they should be, they will wish to counsel with him over their troubles and trials in the Christian life. It should be understood that the home of the elder is one to which all worthy persons will be welcome. Apt to teach. Tit 1:9 requires that elders must he able to expose false teachers who have become unruly. This cannot be done privately in many cases, therefore an elder must be able to teach publicly.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Ti 3:2. A bishop most be blameless. Literally, giving no handle to reproach, unassailable.

The husband of one wife. The emphasis of the numerical adjective shows that the command is restrictive rather than injunctive, but both this verse and 1Ti 3:4 appear to take marriage for granted. It is obvious that in a community much exposed to the suspicions or the slanders of the heathen, this would be a safeguard against many of the perils to which a celibate clergy have always been exposed. What the nature of the restriction was is a more difficult question. Two, perhaps three, solutions present themselves:(1) That the bishop is not to have more than one wife at a time, and that the permission of polygamy by Jewish teachers (Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1, 2; Justin Mart. Tryph. p. 363 100) and among the Greeks made this restriction necessary, that the higher morality of the Christian society might not be impaired in its official representative. Against this is to be set the fact that polygamy was never recognised as permissible for any Christian disciple, and that it was therefore unnecessary to make it a special condition of any ministerial office. (2) That it forbids all second marriages. The prima facie meaning of the corresponding phrase in 1Ti 5:9, the wife of one husband, is in favour of this view, as is the fact that second marriages were regarded by Christians generally in the first two centuries as more or less disreputable, just short of actual sin, or as (e.g. Athenagoras) some did not shrink from saying, a decent adultery, and the traditional rule of the Eastern Church as to the unlawfulness of such marriages in the clergy. The bishop was not to be exposed to the stigma that attached to such unions, connected as they often might be with want of power to control sensuous desire, or with the schemes of the fortune-hunter. (3) A third explanation is, perhaps, more satisfactory. The most prominent fact in the social life both of Jews and Greeks at this period was the frequency of divorce. This, as we know, Jewish teachers, for the most part, sanctioned on even trifling grounds (Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-9). The apostle, taking up the law which Christ had laid down, infers that any breach of that law (even in the one case which made marriage after divorce just permissible) would at least so far diminish a mans claim to respect as to disqualify him for office. This case would, of course, be included in the more general rule of the second interpretation, but the phrase the husband of one wife has a more special emphasis thus applied. St. Paul would not recognise the repudiated wife as having forfeited her claim to that title, and some, at least, of its rights.

Vigilant. Sober in the narrower, modern sense of the word.

Sober. In the wider sense of the word, implying (as in 1Ti 3:15) what has been called self-reverence.

Of good behaviour. The outward expression of self-restraint, in grave and measured bearing.

Given to hospitality. The stress laid on this virtue here and in Tit 1:8, 1Pe 4:9, Rom 12:13, Heb 13:2, rested mainly on the special trials to which the state of society exposed the early converts. The houses of heathen friends were often shut against them; at inns they were exposed to ridicule and insult. It was the duty of all Christians, and especially of the bishop-elder, as representing the society, to be ready to receive even absolute strangers, supposing always that they brought sufficient credentials (the letters of commendation of 2Co 3:1) to show that they were neither spies nor heretics nor of disreputable life.

Apt to teach. In the older sense of the word, as implying special aptitude and gifts for the work.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Here we have St. Paul’s positive character of a bishop, and what he ought to be, who is admitted into that high and honourable office in the church of God: he ought to be

blameless, a person free from scandal, without any just ground of blame: the life of a bishop should shine so bright, that others may not only behold it, but admire it, and guide their lives by the example of it.

The husband of one wife; that is, one at a time; not guilty of the sin of having many wives, or of putting away the wife by divorce, as the Jews frequently did for frivolous causes.

Here note, 1. The apostle’s command (that the bishop be the husband of one wife) doth not oblige him to marry, but it establishes the lawfulness of his marriage, if he sees sufficient reason for it.

Nor, 2. Does the apostle here forbid successive marriages, as if when a bishop has married one wife, or more, he might not lawfully marry again; for this he elsewhere allows, 1Co 7:8.

From this it may not be in a man’s power to abstain: many lose their first, and sometimes their second wives, so soon, that were not after-marriages lawful, all the ends of marriage must be frustrate to them; yet may we suppose by these words, and many others, that St. Paul proposes a greater degree of chastity to church governors than to other persons.

Vigilant, very diligent and watchful in the performance of his whole duty, not long absent from his flock, nor negligent when he is among them:

sober, governing his passions and appetites, reducing those rebellious powers under the dominion of reason and religion:

of good behaviour, in his words, in habit and garb, in his deeds and actions, neither proud and supercilious, nor morose and sour, but affable and easy, kind and courteous, of a composed temper and grave behaviour:

given to hospitality, not to sensuality; it is not the keeping of a free table, and open house for all comers, which St. Paul points at; but charity in entertaining strangers, poor Christians that left their country by persecuton, or such as traveled upon their lawful affairs from place to place; the free relieving of such as are necessitous and exposed to want and hardship, is the hospitality pointed at by our apostle:

apt to teach, that is, both knowing and willing, able to teach, and forward to it, having both skill and will, ability and dexterity, for that part of his duty; one that is neither ignorant of his duty, nor negligent in the performance of it.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

1Ti 3:2-3. A bishop then Or an overseer of the flock of Christ, that he may be capable of such an office; must be blameless In every respect with regard to his moral character, since any thing which might be amiss in that would tend to bring a reproach upon his office, and greatly obstruct his usefulness; the husband of one wife This neither means that a bishop must be married, nor that he may not marry a second wife; which is just as lawful for him to do as to marry a first, and may, in some cases, be his bounden duty. But whereas polygamy and divorce, upon slight occasions, were both common among the Jews and heathen, it teaches us that ministers, of all others, ought to stand clear of those sins. Macknights reasoning on this subject is very conclusive. That the gospel allows women to marry a second time, is evident from 1Co 7:9; 1Co 7:39. By parity of reason it allows men to marry a second time likewise. Wherefore, when it is said here that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and (1Ti 5:9,) that the widow, who is employed by the church in teaching the young of her sex, must have been the wife of one husband, the apostle could not mean that persons who have married a second time are thereby disqualified for sacred offices. For in that case, a bishop whose wife dies while he is young, must lay down his office, unless he can live continently unmarried. The apostles meaning, therefore, in these canons, is, that such persons only were to be intrusted with sacred offices who in their married state had contented themselves with one wife, and with one husband at a time; because thereby they had showed themselves temperate in the use of sensual pleasures; through the immoderate love of which the Asiatic nations universally practised polygamy. In like manner because, according to our Lords determination, persons who divorced each other unjustly were guilty of adultery when they married themselves to others; also because such really had more wives and husbands than one at a time, as was the case with the woman of Samaria, (Joh 4:18,) the apostle, to restrain these licentious practices, which were common among the Greeks and Romans, as well as among the Jews, ordered that no widow should be chosen to instruct the younger women, but such as had been the wife of one husband only at a time. Vigilant Intent upon his duty, ready to resist temptation, and careful to preserve his flock from seduction; sober Greek, , prudent; or, as the word also implies, one who governs well his passions, and whose mind is well regulated. He must be lively and zealous, yet calm and wise; of good or comely behaviour As might be properly rendered; implying that his conduct, in all respects, must be such as becomes his office: his discourse, his dress, his visage, his gait, his manners being all suitable to the gravity of his functions. The former word respects the inward man, and this the outward. Given to hospitality Literally, a lover of strangers. As the primitive Christians took a particular charge of orphans, widows, sick people, and of such as were imprisoned for their religion, or spoiled of their goods, so also of strangers; to the care of whom they were led by the manners of the age, and the peculiar circumstances of the times. For many of the first converts, having devoted themselves to the preaching of the gospel, often travelled from one place to another; and as there were no inns in the eastern countries like those used now with us, it was customary for travellers to lodge with their acquaintance, or with such persons as they were recommended to. But all the disciples of Christ, considering themselves as brethren, and as engaged in one common cause for the benefit of the world, they made each other welcome, though unacquainted, to such food and lodging as they could afford. And therefore, when travellers were not acquainted with the brethren in any particular place, all they had to do was to make themselves known as Christians, by declaring their faith, (2Jn 1:10,) especially to the bishops, who had a liberal maintenance given them to enable them to be hospitable. Yet the bishops hospitality was not to be confined to the brethren: he was to extend it, on occasion at least, even to such heathen strangers as, agreeably to the manners of the times, came to him, drawn by his reputation for wisdom or beneficence. The reason was, by receiving such into his house, he would have an opportunity of recommending the true religion to them by his conversation and example. From this account it is evident, that the hospitality anciently required in a bishop was not what is now meant by that word, namely, the keeping a good table, and an open house for ones friends and others, who are able to make him a return in kind; but it consisted in entertaining strangers of the character just now described; the poor also, and the persecuted for the sake of religion. Apt, or fit, to teach By having a thorough knowledge of the things he is to teach, a clear manner of expressing his thoughts, and an earnest desire to instruct the ignorant; or one that is himself well instructed in the things of the kingdom of God, and is communicative of what he knows; is both able and willing to impart to others the knowledge which God hath given him. Not given to wine Or any other kind of strong liquor; no striker Not of such a hasty temper as to have so little government of himself as to be ready to strike those who provoke him; or one that is apt to use violence to any one, but who does every thing in a spirit of meekness, gentleness, long- suffering, and love. For the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle toward all men, 2Ti 2:24; not greedy Or desirous, rather, of filthy lucre That is, who does not make his ministry subservient to any secular design or interest; that uses no mean, base, sordid ways of getting money; who is dead to the wealth of this world, and makes it appear by his conduct that he is so, and that he lives above it. It is remarkable that the phrase , which is here used, and signifies a person attached to sordid gain, is seldom or never used in the New Testament to express any gain, but that which is made or procured by the covetousness of Christian ministers; and never surely, as Doddridge observes, does an eagerness in pursuit of money appear more dishonourable and sordid than in persons of that noble, but, alas! too often prostituted profession. But patient , gentle, yielding, or moderate; one that does not insist upon the extremity of his right, but is ready to give it up, in some degree, for the sake of peace; not a brawler A contentious person; not covetous , not a lover of money, or of riches, but who, having food and raiment for himself and those dependant upon him, is content therewith.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 2

The husband of one wife; chaste.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Just a side note before we begin the list, we might submit that all of the terms in this listing are masculine. The term overseer and all adjectives are in the masculine, which would be one proof that women are not in view when it comes to the office of elder. The husband of one wife also tends to exclude women from the office.

A bishop must be blameless.” What type of man are we talking about when we ask for blameless elders?

1. blameless: “above reproach” NASB. Kent suggests “irreproachable.”

Literally “not to be laid hold of” – not justly open to censure or criticism. Many pastors are beset by nasty rumors. A 50-year-old bald, overweight, and not very good-looking pastor resigned his church in Nebraska many years ago to start a new church elsewhere. The rumor was that he left because of a girlfriend up in the sand hills.

No matter the honest and uprightness of a man, there will be detractors that attempt to bring downfall. Those rumors however, when compared to his character should fall by the wayside. I asked a number of people if they had heard this story. All that knew the pastor laughed at the ridiculousness of the story.

Blameless should be not only in the church but with the lost as well. This may require some talking with neighbors and co-workers to find out how the man is viewed by the lost people that he associates with. This can be done by mail or in person. It should be a good indicator of the persons true spiritual walk.

Some have suggested that this means that the person must have had a blameless life from childhood. I asked one of these people if that meant that a converted drunk could not become an elder. He replied that this would be true.

To those I submit Gen 5:21-22 which tells that Enoch did not walk with God until he had his first son. This man was translated because of his walk with the Lord. “And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:”

We might suggest the apostle Paul as well – a murderer that became an apostle. I doubt that blameless means blameless for the entire life before the office.

He should have a very good testimony in the community. Someone that is respected. Someone that isn’t in trouble or behind on his bills.

2. husband of one wife: The experts say that this literally is a “one woman type man.” Now just what that means is left way out in left field most of the time.

Let’s consider some of the interpretations that have been suggested.

a. Married to the church (Roman Catholic). The Roman church believes that the priests and nuns are actually married to Christ. In fact it is my understanding that part of their vows include a wedding of sorts.

b. Prohibition of polygamy. This was held till 325 A.D. and is very much a part of the thought of the text.

c. One wife at a time, which to some allows for divorced and remarried elders.

The problem with allowing for divorced/remarried elders is the real question of whether they ruled their house well if the marriage was dissolved legally.

d. Prohibition of unmarried overseers: This isn’t a valid interpretation, though it is wise in many cases. It will eliminate rumors, trouble and possibilities of trouble. If there is a real desire on the part of a single man then steps should be taken to see if protections could be taken to avoid the problems mentioned.

e. Prohibition of divorced overseers. There is some discussion on this thought, and I think most conservative people hold to this being a prohibition of the divorcee due as well as the fact that he has not ruled his house well if he has failed in his marriage.

f. Prohibition of widowed elders remarrying: Some in the past have accepted this interpretation. A pastor in Texas had been quite successful in the pastorate, but when the Lord took his wife home, the pastor immediately resigned from the church. When he remarried, he reentered the pastorate.

Paul elsewhere indicates it is okay for the widower to remarry, but this is a general stipulation and some would reject it in relation to the holding of an office.

1Ti 4:3 mentions that some of the false teachers were suggesting celibacy as something to be desired. “Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”

Paul mentions that these are doctrines of devils.

A “one woman man” is the idea of this phrase. That is one for life at a time. If his first mate dies and he remarries he would be eligible – in my mind. I would also feel a widower would be free to serve, either single or remarried.

3. vigilant: Literally “unmixed with wine, wineless” according to Hiebert One that is an ABSTAINER.

Vine mentions that it has the idea of self-controlled. This would be in contrast to the thought of not controlled as one that is drunk. (The term is used in 1Ti 3:11 and Tit 2:2 as sober.)

The elder should be someone that is on the serious side about what he is doing. He should be in proper control at all times.

One that is of this nature will be open to see problems arising, to see trouble as well as see good things coming and good things to do.

Vinzant in his word studies mentions, “to be sober with reference to drink, and, in a metaphorical sense, to be sober and wary; cool and unimpassioned.”

In my first year of Bible college I went to talk to the acting president of the school. His office was always a mess. His office was a long narrow room with the door in the middle of the wall. He called to me to come in. I opened the door to a floor covered with stacks of papers and magazines. He told me that there was a path to the chair at the end of his office so I carefully negotiated my way to it. He was behind his desk which also was covered with stacks of who knows what. The floor from one end of the office to the other was covered with paper – except for this little path in and through the piles.

This was not an orderly man until that day when he evidently was attempting orderliness. I might add, that he was not a leader. He made no attempt to make himself a leader – he was a teacher.

Women can be a witness just by keeping their houses orderly. The home atmosphere reflects the home attitude. There are homes I have gone into that were the opposite of this and it is totally uncomfortable to be there.

4. sober: “prudent” is the word the NASB translators chose. It has the thought of fully rational or well balanced. This word also is translated discreet. Being careful how your mind, mouth and actions run might be the line of thought.

Vine mentions that this is a sound mind or self-controlled mind.

An elder with a messed up thought pattern will be leaving himself and his church open to problems. If he is constantly thinking of money or women, there will be an improper balance in most of what he does.

The elder is to be stable in mind. He is not easily swayed by error or false doctrine.

5. “of good behavior”: Respectable is another translation of the word. An elder that can’t keep his hands off the women is taboo.

We were in a church where one of the men was always hugging, patting women on the back and generally being touchy. Some of the women felt uncomfortable with the way he was. Some of the husbands also felt uncomfortable.

No matter how honest and innocent this man was, it would not have been fitting for him to be an elder.

Respectable. Do nothing to bring anything but respect. He must have a proper lifestyle before his fellow believers and the world.

6. “given to hospitality”: One that is willing to share his home with people.

In the New Testament there was a great need of this in the church. Visiting Christians would not want to stay in taverns and inns with all the brawling and drinking, so they would turn to the believers for housing.

Kent mentions that this might even spread to the thought of hospitality to the widows and orphans as needed in hard times. This could as well be a prime ministry of the church to her people.

Be friendly. A pastor in Colorado was called to pastor a small town church. The man viewed himself as a preacher and a preacher only. He was not called to visit or anything else – only preaching. He wouldn’t even go to coffee with the church people. The church floundered after he and a couple other oddballs had finished with it.

In another small church one couple had been in the church seven years and had never been in the pastor’s home. Pastors ought to have a desire to know their people and to share their homes with them.

Many pastors will not even offer to house and feed missionaries that are coming for meetings. I had only a handful of pastors offer housing when I was on the road.

The elders home should be open as much as possible to church members, visitors and the unsaved as well.

One pastor of a church where we had visited a time or two came running out after church to catch us before we drove away and invited us to dinner on a certain night. We were excited until we arrived and found that it was a demonstration dinner for cookware. We had to sit through the sales pitch and endure the atmosphere which we would not have chosen.

7. “apt to teach”: An elder should be willing and wanting to teach within his assembly, if there is time in his schedule. This is not only in Sunday School, but in Bible studies, pulpit, etc.

This is the only skill in the list. Preaching is not required, only teaching. This includes desire and ability. Note: The pastor teacher is not required to be a preacher. Only a teacher and shepherd.

It is not required that he keep his audience’s attention. I’ve seen excellent teachers – skill and content – with sleepers and non-listeners.

Effectiveness would be seen in the thought. Most likely the gift of teaching is quite evident. If a person desires the office, then they should be known for their ability to teach before hand. If a person cannot teach, don’t write them off, train them and see if the gift of teaching becomes evident.

Some in recent day try to redefine this to mean teachable. A man that will allow others to teach him and help him is the thought. The thought is not in the text, though the idea is not a bad one for the elder!

For the most part he should have little to be taught in the spiritual realm He should know it and practice it.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of {b} one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

(b) Therefore he that shuts out married men from the office of bishops, only because they are married, is antichrist.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Paul listed 15 characteristics here that should mark the life of a man who aspired to serve as an elder. [Note: See David A. Mappes, "Moral Virtues Associated with Eldership," Bibliotheca Sacra 160:638 (April-June 2003):202-18.]

1.    The description "above reproach" (irreproachable, Gr. anepilempton, 1Ti 3:2; cf. 1Ti 5:7; 1Ti 6:14; Tit 1:6) means that he should possess no observable flaw in his character or conduct. That is, there should be no cause for justifiable criticism now or in his past (cf. 1Ti 3:10) that anyone could use to discredit him and bring reproach on the name of Christ and the church. The Greek word means "not to be laid hold of." This is the main quality that the following ones make clearer or unpack. No one is perfect, but an elder should be a person that no one can legitimately criticize for the way he lives.

 

2.    There have been many interpretations of the phrase "husband of one wife" (Gr. mias gunaikos andra, 1Ti 3:2). There are four major views as to what Paul had in mind. First, the elder must be married. Second, he must be married only once. Third, he must be monogamous. Fourth, he must be a moral husband. All the other qualifications are character traits. This may be a clue how we should interpret this one too.

We need to answer three related questions before we can arrive at a proper interpretation of this qualification. First, was Paul looking at the potential elder in his present condition, since his conversion, or over his entire lifetime? What do the other qualifications suggest in this regard? It seems that the man’s present condition is in view primarily. [Note: See Jay E. Smith, "Can Fallen Leaders Be Restored to Leadership? Bibliotheca Sacra 151:604 (October-December 1994):461-65, 478.]

 

Second, what conditions, if any, result in the dissolution of the marriage relationship besides death (cf. Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:3-12; Mar 10:2-12; Luk 16:18; and 1Co 7:8-16; 1Co 7:25-28)? I believe remarriage after a divorce does.

Third, under what conditions, if any, does God permit Christians to remarry (cf. Mat 5:31-32; Mat 19:2-12; and 1Co 7:15; 1Co 7:25-28)? I believe God permits remarriage if the divorced person’s mate has died or has remarried someone else.

View 1: He must be married.

This view sees as disqualified all unmarried men. [Note: See Ironside, p. 78.]

PRO		CON
If a man is going to oversee a local church he must have successful experience overseeing a family household (1Ti 3:5).		The emphasis on "one" in the Greek text suggests a contrast between one or more wives rather than one or no wives.
		Paul could simply have said the elder needed to be married if that is what he meant.
		To be consistent 1Ti 3:4 would require that the elder have children (plural) too. [Note: See Knight, p. 157.]

View 2: He must be married only once.

This view sees as disqualified men who remarry for any reason such as widowers and divorcees. [Note: Kelly, pp. 75-76; King, p. 58; H. P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy, p. 26; Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 416, and You Mean . . ., p. 55; Kenneth Wuest, The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament, pp. 53-55; Litfin, pp. 736-77.]

PRO		CON
Paul urged the unmarried and widows to remain unmarried in 1Co 7:8.		Paul urged the younger widows to remarry (1Ti 5:14; cf. 1 Corinthians 7).
The early church looked down on remarriage for any reason. [Note: Kelly, p. 76; William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, p. 88.]		Remarrying did not disqualify widows from receiving regular support from the church (1Ti 5:9).
If a man does not remarry, he provides a better example for the church of what it means to be Spirit-controlled and totally dependent on God’s grace.		There is nothing essentially sinful about remarrying when the marriage bond has been broken (1Co 7:9; cf. Rom 7:2-3).
The phrase "wife of one man" (1Ti 5:9), which is identical to "husband of one wife" except for the switch in sexes, in its context seems to mean married only once.		Since this appears to be the only moral qualification for the elder office it is unlikely that Paul viewed remarriage as the worst possible moral offense that would disqualify a man.

A variation of this view that some interpreters prefer is that divorce and remarriage disqualify a man, but the death of a wife and remarriage do not. [Note: A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, pp. 75, 78; Wiersbe, 2:220.]

PRO		CON
There is nothing morally culpable about being a widower, but there is about being a divorcee.		Not every case of divorce renders a man morally culpable (blameworthy).

View 3: He must be monogamous.

This view sees as disqualified any man who is married to more than one woman at a time. This would include bigamists, polygamists, and perhaps remarried divorcees depending on the circumstances of their divorce. [Note: Hiebert, First Timothy, p. 65; Robertson, 4:572; Simpson, p. 50.]

PRO		CON
The emphasis on "one" wife in the Greek text contrasts with more than one wife.		To be consistent we would have to conclude that polyandry was also common (1Ti 5:9), but it was not. [Note: Knight, p. 158.]
Jewish, Greek, and Roman cultures practiced polygamy at this time. [Note: Barclay, pp. 87-90.]		If this is all Paul meant, he hardly needed to mention it since polygamy was inappropriate for all Christians, not just elders (cf. 1Co 7:2).

View 4: He must be a moral husband.

This view sees as disqualified any man who is or has been morally unfaithful to his wife (or wives if he is remarried). [Note: Towner, The Letters . . ., pp. 250-51.] Some interpreters view any divorce as infidelity, others only divorce in which the husband has been unfaithful.

PRO		CON
This is an idiomatic use of the phrase "husband of one wife." It means a "one-woman man."		Paul could have said "faithful to his wife" if that is all he meant.
Paul seems to use "wife of one man" in the same way in 1Ti 5:9 to describe a faithful wife.		Since God commanded all Christians to be morally pure Paul must have meant more than this here.
Since this is the only moral qualification for an elder we should probably interpret it broadly as forbidding immorality.

One variation of this view is that the man must be a faithful husband now even though he may have been unfaithful in the past (before and or after his conversion). [Note: Ibid.; Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 80; William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, p. 121; Lenski, pp. 580-82; Gene Getz, The Measure of a Man, pp. 28-31; Knight, p. 159; Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy . . ., p. 81.]

PRO		CON
This interpretation is consistent with the other qualifications for elders all of which deal with the man’s present condition.		All the other qualifications for elders view the man’s total record of behavior, not just his present condition.
God forgives all sin and so should the church.		A presently faithful husband may have established a record of previous unfaithfulness that would make him a bad example as an elder.
		The consequences of sin usually follow even though God does forgive the guilt of all sin. For this reason, immorality in marriage disqualifies a man.

A second variation of this view is that the man must have proved himself faithful in the past (either all his life or since his conversion) as well as in the present. [Note: See Homer A Kent Jr., The Pastoral Epistles, pp. 129-30, for the view that he has to have been faithful all his life, and Robert L. Saucy, "The Husband of One Wife," Bibliotheca Sacra 131:523 (July-September 1974):229-40, for the view that faithfulness since conversion is all Paul required.]

PRO		CON
Paul must have had the man’s record of behavior in view since the other qualifications require that we take the past into consideration.		The church should forgive all sin since God does.
If Paul had meant that God wipes away the consequences of sin as well as its guilt, he did not need to give any qualifications. Almost any Christian presently walking in fellowship with God could qualify.

The qualification "the husband of one wife" seem to preclude the possibility of women holding this office. Paul could have said "the partner or mate of one spouse." The fact that all the qualification words in 1Ti 3:2 through 7 are masculine in gender supports this conclusion.

3.    "Temperate" (Gr. nethalion, 1Ti 3:2) means sober, vigilant, clear-headed, and well-balanced (cf. 1Ti 3:11; Tit 2:3).

 

4.    "Prudent" (Gr. sothron, 1Ti 3:2; cf. Tit 2:5) means self-controlled (NIV), and the same Greek word reads "sensible" in Tit 1:8.

 

"Such a man, such a bishop, will not speak rashly, will be a person of sound judgment, will be master of himself, and of his situation." [Note: King, p. 59.]

 

5.    "Respectable" (Gr. kosmios, 1Ti 3:2) means orderly, of good behavior, dignified and decent in his conduct. Some translators rendered the same Greek word "modest" in 1Ti 2:9.

 

6.    "Hospitable" (Gr. philoxenos, 1Ti 3:2) means one who opens his home to others. This was an especially essential quality in the early church since there were few public accommodations for traveling ministers and much need to take in needy Christians temporarily (cf. Act 16:15; Act 16:40). Hospitality is also very important today (cf. Rom 12:13; Tit 1:8). The Greek word means "loving the stranger." An elder should be a person who reaches out to strangers, the unsaved as well as believers, and makes them feel at home in his house.

 

7.    The phrase "able to teach" (Gr. didaktikos, 1Ti 3:2) means apt, qualified, and competent to explain and defend the truth of God. This is the only qualification that involves ministry skill or gift. Some elders evidently gave more time to this ministry than others did (1Ti 5:17), but all had to be competent in the Scriptures (cf. Tit 1:9). The style of communication undoubtedly varied according to individual gifts (mass communication, small group teaching, personal instruction, etc.). Nevertheless all would have been expected to teach only after prayerful meditation on the Word and practical application of the Word to their own lives.

 

"The PE make it clear that the primary leadership is in the hands of the teachers. . . . Paul sees the church led by its teachers, those who can preach the truth and refute error; its primary leadership does not lie in the hands of administrators." [Note: Mounce, pp. 185-86.]

 

Neither does it lie in the hands of "worship leaders."

 

8.    "Not addicted to wine" or "not given to drunkenness" (NIV; Gr. me paroinon, 1Ti 3:3) means not a brawler, playboy, slave of drink, or drunkard (cf. Tit 1:7; 1Co 11:21). Paul evidently used "wine" to represent any enslaving beverage. We are probably correct in extending its meaning to include any destructive addiction (drugs, gambling, pornography, etc.).

 

The larger issue of the Christian’s drinking of wine and other intoxicating beverages has been the subject of extensive teaching. Most scholars have concluded that moderation rather than abstinence is what God commanded (cf. 1Ti 5:23). However some base a case for abstinence on the fact that in Bible times the alcoholic content of wine was much less than it is in modern times. Modern alcoholic beverages fall into the category of strong drink that the Scriptures forbid. [Note: See Robert Stein, "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times," Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11; and Norman Geisler, "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking," Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.]

 

9.    Not "pugnacious" or "violent" (NIV; Gr. me plekten, 1Ti 3:3; Tit 1:7; lit. a giver of blows) describes a striker. This is a person who resorts to physical or verbal violence to vent his anger and or to settle disputes.

 

10.    "Gentle" (Gr. epieikes, 1Ti 3:3) means patient and forbearing (Tit 3:2; 2Co 10:2).

 

11.    "Uncontentious" (Gr. amachos, 1Ti 3:3; Tit 1:7) describes a person who is not quarrelsome (NIV). He is not a fighter or a brawler (cf. Jas 3:7).

 

12.    The meaning of "free from the love of money" (Gr. aphilarguros, 1Ti 3:3) should be obvious (cf. Tit 1:7; 1Pe 5:2). Note that it is the love of money rather than the possession of it that is the disqualifying factor. Poor people as well as the rich may love money. Moreover not all rich people love it. The opposite attitude is contentment (cf. Php 4:11).

 

"This means the candidate’s attitude toward material wealth ought to be one of healthy detachment, but certainly not irresponsibility." [Note: Towner, 1-2 Timothy . . ., p. 87.]

 

"One who finds that he can make big money in part-time secular work is apt to be diverted from an effective ministry." [Note: Earle, p. 365.]

 

13.    "Manages his own household well" (Gr. tou idiou oikou kalos proistamenon, 1Ti 3:4; Tit 1:6) means that he has control of his family. Family members submit to his leadership out of respect for him (cf. Pro 24:3-4; Pro 27:23; Eph 6:4). The elder’s responsibilities in the church are quite parental, so he should have proved his ability in the home before he receives larger responsibility in the church (cf. Mat 25:14-30). The home is the proving ground for church leadership (1Ti 3:5). Again, Paul assumed children in the home but did not require them, I believe. [Note: Cf. Lea, p. 112; and Mounce, pp. 158, 177, 185.]

 

14.    "Not a new [recent, NIV] convert" (Gr. neophutos, 1Ti 3:6) also requires a judgment call. How new? There should be evidence that he can function as an elder (teaching, leading, defending the faith, etc.) without becoming conceited. Conceit is what put Satan where he is, so the church should guard new converts from it by keeping them back from premature appointment as elders. The elders Paul appointed soon after he planted churches probably had backgrounds in the Old Testament.

 

"The new believer is more likely to see such a position of leadership as an opportunity for personal advancement and to fail to understand the gravity of the task." [Note: Towner, 1-2 Timothy . . ., pp. 88-89.]

 

15.    "A good reputation outside the church" (Gr. marturian kalen echein apo ton exothen, 1Ti 3:7) with unbelievers is essential so that he will not bring reproach on the name of Christ and the church.

"Does he pay his bills? Does he have a good reputation among unsaved people with whom he does business? (See Col 4:5 and 1Th 4:12.)" [Note: Wiersbe, 2:221.]

As we study the qualifications of an elder it becomes clear that two things were important to Paul. The man could not be guilty of doing something seriously wrong, and other people had to perceive his conduct as proper for a Christian.

The elder was an "overseer." This implies he was over any other local church officials as well as other Christians in the church. There is no evidence in the New Testament that God intended overseers to govern groups of churches. A hierarchy did exist as long as the apostles were alive, but the New Testament reveals no provisions for the maintenance of such a hierarchy. However the absence of prohibitions concerning a hierarchy can also be an argument for it. I would conclude, therefore, that God neither condemned nor commanded organizations of local churches. It is a matter of choice whether churches want to band together in denominations or fellowships and submit themselves to overseeing officials.

Why should elders meet these qualifications? Why should churches not just appoint their best men as elders? The effective operation of each church depends on its leadership. The New Testament does not legislate the details of church operations. Therefore it is important that the men making these decisions be spiritual men who set a good example and have the respect and confidence of the other church members. [Note: See Mounce, p. lix; and especially Ed Glasscock, "The Biblical Concept of Elder," Bibliotheca Sacra 144:573 (March-May 1987):66-78, for a fine summary of this subject. One of the most comprehensive popular studies of eldership is Strauch’s Biblical Eldership.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 11

THE APOSTLES RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES; ITS MEANING AND PRESENT OBLIGATION. – 1Ti 3:2

THE Apostle here states, as one of the first qualifications to be looked for in a person who is to be ordained a bishop, that he must be “the husband of one wife.” The precise meaning of this phrase will probably never cease to be discussed. But, although it must be admitted that the phrase is capable of bearing several meanings, yet it cannot be fairly contended that the meaning is seriously doubtful. The balance of probability is so largely in favor of one of the meanings, that the remainder may be reasonably set aside as having no valid ground for being supported in competition with it.

Three passages in which the phrase occurs have to be considered together, and these have to be compared with a fourth.

(1) There is the passage before us about a bishop,

(2) another in ver. 12 (1Ti 3:12) about deacons, and

(3) another in Tit 1:6 about elders or presbyters, whom St. Paul afterwards mentions under the title of bishop.

In these three passages we have it plainly set forth that Timothy and Titus are to regard it as a necessary qualification in a bishop or elder or presbyter, and also in a deacon, that he should be a “man of one woman” or “husband of one wife” ( ). In the fourth passage {1Ti 3:2} he gives as a necessary qualification of one who is to be placed on the roll of Church widows, that she must be a “woman of one man” or “wife of one husband” (). This fourth passage is of much importance in determining the meaning of the converse expression in the other three passages.

There are four main interpretations of the expression in question.

1. That which the phrase at once suggests to a modern mind, -that the person to be ordained bishop or deacon must have only one wife and not more; that he must not be a polygamist. According to this interpretation, therefore, we are to understand the Apostle to mean, that a Jew or barbarian with more wives than one might be admitted to baptism and become a member of the congregation, but ought not to be admitted to the ministry. This explanation, which at first sight looks simple and plausible, will not bear inspection. It is quite true that polygamy in St. Pauls day still existed among the Jews. Justin Martyr, in the “Dialogue with Trypho,” says to the Jews, “It is better for you to follow God than your senseless and blind teachers, who even to this day allow you each to have four and five wives” (134). But polygamy in the Roman Empire must have been rare. It was forbidden by Roman law, which did not allow a man to have more than one lawful wife at a time, and treated every simultaneous second marriage, not only as null and void, but infamous. Where it was practiced it must have been practiced secretly. It is probable that, when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, not a single polygamist had been converted to the Christian faith. Polygamists were exceedingly rare inside the Empire, and the Church had not yet spread beyond it. Indeed, our utter ignorance as to the way in which the primitive Church dealt with polygamists who wished to become Christians amounts to something like proof that such cases were extremely uncommon. How improbable, therefore, that St. Paul should think it worth while to charge both Timothy and Titus that converted polygamists must not be admitted to the office of bishop, when there is no likelihood that a one of them knew of a single instance of a polygamist who had become a Christian! On these grounds alone this interpretation of the phrase might be safely rejected.

But these grounds do not stand alone. There is the convincing evidence of the converse phrase, “wife of one husband.” If men with more than one wife were very rare in the Roman Empire, what are we to think of women with more than one husband? Even among the barbarians outside the Empire, such a thing as a plurality of husbands was regarded as monstrous. It is incredible that St. Paul could have had any such case in his mind, when he mentioned the qualification “wife of one husband.” Moreover, as the question before him was one relating to widows, this “wife of one husband” must be a person who at the time had no husband. The phrase, therefore, can only mean a woman who after the death of her husband has not married again. Consequently the converse expression, “husband of one wife,” cannot have any reference to polygamy.

2. Far more worthy of consideration is the view that what is aimed at in both cases is not polygamy, but divorce. Divorce, as we know from abundant evidence, was very frequent both among the Jews and the Romans in the first century of the Christian era. Among the former it provoked the special condemnation of Christ; and one of the many influences which Christianity had upon Roman law was to diminish the facilities for divorce. According to Jewish practice the husband could obtain a divorce for very trivial reasons; and in the time of St. Paul Jewish women sometimes took the initiative. According to Roman practice either husband or wife could obtain a divorce very easily. Abundant instances are on record, and that in the case of people of high character, such as Cicero. After the divorce either of the parties could marry again; and often enough both of them did so; therefore in the Roman Empire in St. Pauls day there must have been plenty of persons of both sexes who had been divorced once or twice and had married again. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that quite a sufficient number of such persons had been converted to Christianity to make it worth while to legislate respecting them. They might be admitted to baptism; but they must not be admitted to an official position in the Church. A regulation of this kind might be all the more necessary, because in a wealthy capital like Ephesus it would probably be among the upper and more influential classes that divorces would be most frequent; and from precisely these classes, when any of them had become Christians, officials would be likely to be chosen. This explanation, therefore, of the phrases “husband of one wife” and “wife of one husband” cannot be condemned, like the first, as utterly incredible. It has a fair amount of probability: but it remains to be seen whether another explanation (which really includes this one) has not a far greater amount.

3. We may pass over without much discussion the view that the phrases are a vague way of indicating misconduct of any kind in reference to marriage. No doubt such misconduct was rife among the heathen, and the Christian Church by no means escaped the taint, as the scandals in the Church of Corinth and the frequent warnings of the Apostles against sins of this kind show. But when St. Paul has to speak of such things he is not afraid to do so in language that cannot be misunderstood. We have seen this already in the first chapter of this Epistle; and the fifth chapters of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians supply other examples. We may safely say that if St. Paul had meant to indicate persons who had entered into illicit unions before or after marriage, he would have used much less ambiguous language than the phrases under discussion.

4. There remains the view, which from the first has been the dominant one, that these passages all refer to second marriage after the first marriage has been dissolved by death. A widower who has married a second wife ought not to be admitted to the ministry; a widow who has married a second husband ought not to be placed on the roll of Church widows. This interpretation is reasonable in itself, is in harmony with the context and with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage, and is confirmed by the views taken of second marriages in the case of clergy by the early Church.

(a) The belief that St. Paul was opposed to the ordination of persons who had contracted a second marriage is reasonable in itself. A second marriage, although perfectly lawful and in some cases advisable, was so far a sign of weakness; and a double family would in many cases be a serious hindrance to work. The Church could not afford to enlist any but its strongest men among its officers; and its officers must not be hampered more than other men with domestic cares. Moreover, the heathen certainly felt a special respect for the univira, the woman who did not enter into a second marriage; and there is some reason for believing that second marriages were sometimes thought unfitting in the case of men, e.g., in the case of certain priests. Be that as it may, we may safely conclude that, both by Christians and heathen, persons who had abstained from marrying again would so far be more respected than those who had not abstained.

(b) This interpretation is in harmony with the context. In the passage before us the qualification which immediately precedes the expression, “husband of one wife,” is “without reproach”; in the Epistle to Titus it is “blameless.” In each case the meaning seems to be that there must be nothing in the past or present life of the candidate, which could afterwards with any show of reason be urged against him as inconsistent with his office. He must be above and not below the average of men; and therefore he must not have been twice married.

(c) This agrees with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage. His statements are clear and consistent, and it is a mistake to suppose that there is any want of harmony between what is said in this Epistle and what is said to the Corinthian Church on this subject. The Apostle strongly upholds the lawfulness of marriage for all. {1Co 7:28; 1Co 7:36; 1Ti 4:3} For those who are equal to it, whether single or widowed, he considers that their remaining as they are is the more blessed condition. {1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:7-8; 1Co 7:32; 1Co 7:34; 1Co 7:40; 1Ti 5:7} But so few persons are equal to this that it is prudent for those who desire to marry to do so, and for those who desire to marry again to do so. {1Co 7:2; 1Co 7:9; 1Co 7:39; 1Ti 5:14} These being his convictions is it not reasonable to suppose that in selecting ministers for the Church he would look for them in the class which had given proof of moral strength by remaining unmarried or by not marrying a second time? In an age of such boundless licentiousness continency won admiration and respect; and a person who had given clear evidence of such self-control would have his moral influence thereby increased. Few things impress barbarous and semi-barbarous people more than to see a man having full control over passions to which they themselves are slaves. In the terrific odds which the infant Church had to encounter, this was a point well worth turning to advantage.

And here we may note St. Pauls wisdom in giving no preference to those who had not married at all over those who had married only once. Had he done so, he would have played into the hands of those heretics who disparaged wedlock. And perhaps he had seen something of the evils which abounded among the celibate priests of heathenism. It is quite obvious that, although he in no way discourages celibacy among the clergy, yet he assumes that among them, as among the laity, marriage will be the rule and abstaining the exception; so much so, that he does not think of giving any special directions for the guidance of a celibate bishop or a celibate deacon.

5. Lastly, this interpretation of the phrases in question is strongly confirmed by the views of leading Christians on the subject in the first few centuries, and by the decrees of councils; these being largely influenced by St. Pauls language, and therefore being a guide as to what his words were then supposed to mean.

Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, of course Tertullian, and among later Fathers, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and Cyril, all write in disparagement of second marriages, not as sin, but as weakness. To marry again is to fall short of the high perfection set before us in the Gospel constitution. Athenagoras goes so far as to call a second marriage “respectable adultery,” and to say that one who thus severs himself from his dead wife is an “adulterer in disguise.” Respecting the clergy, Origen says plainly, “Neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, nor a widow, can be twice married.” The canons of councils are not less plain, either as to the discouragement of second marriages among the laity, or their incompatibility with what was then required of the clergy. The synods of Ancyra (Song of Solomon 19), of Neocaesarea (Son 3:1-11; Son 7:1-13), and of Laodicea (Son 1:1-17) subjected lay persons who married more than once to a penalty. This penalty seems to have varied in different Churches; but in some cases it involved excommunication for a time. The Council of Nicaea, on the other hand, makes it a condition that members of the Puritan sect of Cathari are not to be received into the Church unless they promise in writing to communicate with those who have married a second time (Son 8:1-14). The “Apostolic Constitutions” (6:17) and the so-called “Apostolic Canons” (17) absolutely forbid the promotion of one who has married twice, to be a bishop, presbyter, or deacon; and the “Apostolic Constitutions” forbid the marriage of one who is already in Holy Orders. He may marry once before he is ordained: but if he is single at his ordination he must remain so all his life. Of course, if his wife dies he is not to marry again. Even singers, readers, and door-keepers, although they may marry after they have been admitted to office, yet are in no case to marry a second time or to marry a widow. And the widow of a cleric was not allowed to marry a second time.

All these rigorous views and enactments leave little doubt as to how the early Church understood St. Pauls language: viz, that one who had exhibited the weakness of marrying a second time was not to be admitted to the ministry. From this they drew the inference that one who was already in orders must not be allowed to marry a second time. And from this they drew the further inference that entering into a marriage contract at all was inadmissible for one who was already a bishop, presbyter, or deacon. Marriage was not a bar to ordination, but ordination was a bar to marriage. Married men might become clergy, but the higher orders of clergy might not become married.

A little thought will show that neither of these inferences follows from St. Pauls rule; and we have good reason for doubting whether he would have sanctioned either of them. The Apostle rules that those who have shown want of moral strength in taking a second wife are not to be ordained deacons or presbyters. But he nowhere says or hints that, if they find in themselves a want of moral strength of this kind after their ordination, they are to be made to bear a burden to which they are unequal. On the contrary, the general principle, which he so clearly lays down, decides the case: “If they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” And if this holds good of clergy who have lost their first wives, it holds good at least as strongly of those who were unmarried at the time of their ordination. Those Churches, therefore, which, like our own, allow the clergy to marry, and even to marry a second time, after ordination, may rightly claim to have the Apostle on their side.

But there are Churches, and among them the Church of England, which disregard the Apostles directions, in admitting those who have been more than once married to the deaconate, and even to the episcopate. What defense is to be made of an apparent laxity, which seems to amount to lawlessness? The answer is that there is nothing to show that St. Paul is giving rules which are to bind the Church for all time. It is quite possible that his directions are given “by reason of the present distress.” We do not consider ourselves bound by the regulation, which has far higher authority than that of a single Apostle, respecting the eating of blood and of things strangled. The first council, at which most of the Apostles were present, forbade the eating of these things. It also forbade the eating of things offered to idols. St. Paul himself led the way in showing that this restriction is not always binding: and the whole Church has come to disregard the other. Why? Because in none of these case is the act sinful in itself. While the Jewish converts were likely to be scandalized by seeing their fellow-Christians eating blood, it was expedient to forbid it; and while heathen converts were likely to think lightly of idolatry, if they saw their fellow-Christians eating what had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, it was expedient to forbid it. When these dangers ceased, the reason for the enactment ceased; and the enactment was rightly disregarded. The same principle applies to the ordination of persons who have been twice married. Nowadays a man is not considered less strong than his fellows, because he has married a second time. To refuse to ordain such a person would be to lose a minister at a time when the need of additional ministers is great; and this loss would be without compensation.

And we have evidence that in the primitive Church the Apostles rule about bigamists was not considered absolute. In one of his Montanist treatises Tertullian taunts the Catholics in having even among their bishops men who had married twice, and who did not blush when the Pastoral Epistles were read; and Hippolytus, in his fierce attack on Callistus, Bishop of Rome, states that under him men who had been twice and thrice married were ordained bishops, priests, and deacons. And we know that a distinction was made in the Greek Church between those who had married twice as Christians, and those who had concluded the second marriage before baptism. The latter were not excluded from ordination. And some went so far as to say that if the first marriage took place before baptism, and the second afterwards, the man was to be considered as having been married only once. This freedom in interpreting the Apostles rule not unnaturally led to its being, in some branches of the Church, disregarded. St. Paul says, “Do not ordain a man who has married more than once.” If you may say, “This man, who has married more than once, shall be accounted as having married only once; you may equally well say, The Apostles rule was only a temporary one, and we have the right to judge of its suitableness to our times and to particular circumstances.” We may feel confidence that in such a matter it was not St. Pauls wish to deprive Churches throughout all time of their liberty of judgment, and the Church of England is thus justified.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary