I timothy 3 commentary

I TIMOTHY 3 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires
to be an overseer desires a noble task.
BAR ES, "This is a trite saying - Greek, “Faithful is the word” - the very phrase
which is used in 1Ti_1:15; see the notes on that verse. The idea here is, that it was worthy
of credence; it was not to be doubted.
If a man desire - Implying that there would be those who would wish to be put into
the ministry. The Lord, undoubtedly, by his Spirit, often excites an earnest and
irrepressible desire to preach the gospel - a desire so strong, that he in whom it exists
can be satisfied in no other calling. In such a case, it should be regarded as one evidence
of a call to this work. The apostle, however, by the statements which follow, intimates
that wherever this desire exists, it is of the utmost importance to have just views of the
nature of the office, and that there should be other qualifications for the ministry than a
mere desire to preach the gospel. He proceeds, therefore, to state those qualifications,
and no one who “desires” the office of the ministry should conclude that he is called to it,
unless these qualifications substantially are found in him. The word rendered “desire”
here (ᆆρέγω oregō), denotes properly, “to reach” or “stretch out” - and hence to reach
after anything, to long after, to try to obtain; Heb_11:16.
The office of a bishop - The Greek here is a single word - ᅚπισκοπᇿς episkopēs. The
word ᅚπισκοπή episkopē - “Episcope” - whence the word “Episcopal” is derived - occurs
but four times in the New Testament. It is translated “visitation” in Luk_19:44, and in
1Pe_2:12; “bishoprick,” Acts . Act_1:20; and in this place “office of a bishop.” The verb
from which it is derived (ᅚπισκοπέω episkopeō), occurs but twice, In Heb_12:15, it is
rendered “looking diligently,” and in 1Pe_5:2, “taking the oversight.” The noun rendered
bishop occurs in Act_20:28; Phi_1:1; 1Ti_3:2; Tit_1:7; 1Pe_2:25. The verb means,
properly, to look upon, behold; to inspect, to look after, see to, take care of; and the noun
denotes the office of overseeing, inspecting, or looking to. It is used to denote the care of
the sick, Xeno. Oec. 15, 9; compare “Passow;” and is of so general a character that it may
denote any office of overseeing, or attending to. There is nothing in the word itself which
would limit it to any class or grade of the ministry, and it is, in fact, applied to nearly all
the officers of the church in the New Testament, and, indeed, to Christians who did not

sustain “any” office. Thus it is applied:
(a) To believers in general, directing them to “look diligently, lest anyone should fail of
the grace of God,” Heb_12:15;
(b) To the elders of the church at Ephesus, “over the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers,” Act_20:28;
(c) To the elders or presbyters of the church in 1Pe_5:2, “Feed the flock of God, taking
the oversight thereof;
(d) To the officers of the church in Philippi, mentioned in connection with deacons as
the only officers of the church there, “to the saints at Philippi, with the bishops
and deacons,” Phi_1:1;
(e) To Judas, the apostate. Act_1:20; and,
(f) To the great Head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ, 1Pe_2:25, “the Shepherd
and Bishop of your souls.”
From this use of the term it follows:
(1) That the word is never used to designate the “uniqueness” of the apostolic office, or
so as to have any special applicability to the apostles. Indeed, the term “bishop” is
“never” applied to any of them in the New Testament; nor is the word in any of its
forms ever used with reference to them, except in the single case of “Judas,” Act_
1:20.
(2) It is never employed in the New Testament to designate an order of men superior
to presbyters, regarded as having any other functions than presbyters, or being in
any sense “successors” to the apostles. It is so used now by the advocates of
prelacy; but this is a use wholly unknown to the New Testament. It is so
undeniable that the name is never given in the New Testament to those who are
now called “bishops,” that even Episcopalians concede it. Thus, Dr. Onderdonk
(Tract on Episcopacy, p. 12) says, “All that we read in the New Testament
concerning ‘bishops’ is to be regarded as pertaining to the ‘middle grade;’ that is,
to those who are now regarded as ‘priests.’” This is not strictly correct, as is clear
from the remarks above respecting what is called the “middle grade;” but it is
strictly correct, so far as it affirms that it is “never” applied to prelates.
(3) It is used in the New Testament to denote ministers of the gospel who had the care
or oversight of the churches, without any regard to grade or rank.
(4) It has now, as used by Episcopalians, a sense which is wholly unauthorized by the
New Testament, and which, indeed, is entirely at variance with the usage there. To
apply the term to a pretended superior order of clergy, as designating their special
office, is wholly to depart from the use of the word as it occurs in the Bible.
(5) As it is never used in the Scriptures with reference to “prelates,” it “should” be used
with reference to the pastors, or other officers of the church; and to be a “pastor,”
or “overseer” of the flock of Christ, should be regarded as being a scriptural
bishop.
He desireth a good work - An honorable office; an office which it is right for a man
to desire. There are some stations in life which ought never to be desired; it is proper for
anyone to desire the office of a bishop who has the proper qualifications; compare notes
on Rom_11:13.
CLARKE, "This is a true saying - Πιστος ᆇ λογος· This is a true doctrine. These

words are joined to the last verse of the preceding chapter by several of the Greek
fathers, and by them referred to the doctrine there stated.
The office of a bishop - Επισκοπης· The episcopacy, overseership or
superintendency. The word ορεγεται, which we translate desire, signifies earnest, eager,
passionate desire; and επιθυµει, which we translate desire, also signifies earnestly to
desire or covet. It is strange that the episcopacy, in those times, should have been an
object of intense desire to any man; when it was a place of danger, awl exposure to
severe labor, want, persecution, and death, without any secular emolument whatsoever.
On this ground I am led to think that the Spirit of God designed these words more for
the ages that were to come, than for those which were then; and in reference to after ages
the whole of what follows is chiefly to be understood.
A good work - A work it then was; heavy, incessant, and painful. There were no
unpreaching prelates in those days, and should be none now. Episcopacy in the Church
of God is of Divine appointment, and should be maintained and respected. Under God,
there should be supreme governors in the Church as well as in the state. The state has its
monarch, the Church has its bishop; one should govern according to the laws of the
land, the other according to the word of God.
What a constitutional king should be, the principles of the constitution declare; what a
bishop should be, the following verses particularly show.
GILL, "This is a true saying,.... Some think this clause belongs to the last verse of the
preceding chapter; and then the sense is, this is a doctrine that is true, and to be
believed, that there is salvation through the birth of a Son, or through the incarnate Son
of God, for men and women that believe in him, and continue in the faith of him, and
love to him, joined with works of righteousness and holiness. And so the same phrase
seems to belong to what goes before in 1Ti_4:8. Though it regards what follows in 1Ti_
1:15 and so it seems that it should be considered here; and is used to excite attention,
and suggests that what was about to be said was of moment and importance, and what
was without controversy, and unquestionably true. The apostle, having denied to women
the work and office of teaching, proceeds to observe, that though this belonged to men,
yet not to every man; and therefore he gives the qualifications of such; which might
serve as a direction to churches, in the choice of them; as well as be a means of stirring
up persons in such an office, to a proper regard to themselves and their work:
if a man desire the office of a bishop; which is the same with that of a pastor or
elder; and so here the Syriac version renders it, "if a man desires presbytery, or
eldership"; and it lies in preaching the word, administering the ordinances of the Gospel,
and taking care of the discipline of the church, and in the visiting, inspection, and
oversight of it; as the word επισκοπη, "episcopacy", here used, signifies; and this work
and office may be lawfully and laudably desired, with a view to the glory of God, and the
good of immortal souls. Nor should any undertake it, but such who find in themselves an
hearty desire, and inclination to it, on such principles, and a real delight and pleasure in
it; and such an one
he desireth a good work: the office of a bishop, elder, or pastor of a church, "is a
work", and a very laborious one; wherefore such are called labourers in the word and
doctrine: it is not a mere title of honour, and a place of profit, but it is a business of

labour and care; yet a good one, a famous and excellent one; it being an employment in
things of the greatest excellency in themselves, and of the greatest usefulness for the
good of men, and the honour of God; as the doctrines, ordinances, and discipline of the
Gospel; and so must be excellently, honestly, pleasantly, and profitably a good work.
HE RY, 1-7, "The two epistles to Timothy, and that to Titus, contain a scripture-
plan of church-government, or a direction to ministers. Timothy, we suppose, was an
evangelist who was left at Ephesus, to take care of those whom the Holy Ghost had made
bishops there, that is, the presbyters, as appears by Act_20:28, where the care of the
church was committed to the presbyters, and they were called bishops. It seems they
were very loth to part with Paul, especially because he told them they should see his face
no more (Act_20:38); for their church was but newly planted, they were afraid of
undertaking the care of it, and therefore Paul left Timothy with them to set them in
order. And here we have the character of a gospel minister, whose office it is, as a
bishop, to preside in a particular congregation of Christians: If a man desires the office
of a bishop, he desires a good work, 1Ti_3:1. Observe,
I. The ministry is a work. However the office of a bishop may be now thought a good
preferment, then it was thought a good work. 1. The office of a scripture-bishop is an
office of divine appointment, and not of human invention. The ministry is not a creature
of the state, and it is a pity that the minister should be at any time the tool of the state.
The office of the ministry was in the church before the magistrate countenanced
Christianity, for this office is one of the great gifts Christ has bestowed on the church,
Eph_4:8-11. 2. This office of a Christian bishop is a work, which requires diligence and
application: the apostle represents it under the notion and character of a work; not of
great honour and advantage, for ministers should always look more to their work than to
the honour and advantage of their office. 3. It is a good work, a work of the greatest
importance, and designed for the greatest good: the ministry is conversant about no
lower concerns than the life and happiness of immortal souls; it is a good work, because
designed to illustrate the divine perfections in bringing many sons to glory; the ministry
is appointed to open men's eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God, etc., Act_26:18. 4. There ought to be an earnest desire of the
office in those who would be put into it; if a man desire, he should earnestly desire it for
the prospect he has of bringing greater glory to God, and of doing the greatest good to
the souls of men by this means. This is the question proposed to those who offer
themselves to the ministry of the church of England: “Do you think you are moved by the
Holy Ghost to take upon you this office?”
II. In order to the discharge of this office, the doing of this work, the workman must be
qualified. 1. A minister must be blameless, he must not lie under any scandal; he must
give as little occasion for blame as can be, because this would be a prejudice to his
ministry and would reflect reproach upon his office. 2. He must be the husband of one
wife; not having given a bill of divorce to one, and then taken another, or not having
many wives at once, as at that time was too common both among Jews and Gentiles,
especially among the Gentiles. 3. He must be vigilant and watchful against Satan, that
subtle enemy; he must watch over himself, and the souls of those who are committed to
his charge, of whom having taken the oversight, he must improve all opportunities of
doing them good. A minister ought to be vigilant, because our adversary the devil goes
about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour, 1Pe_5:8. 4. He must be sober,
temperate, moderate in all his actions, and in the use of all creature-comforts. Sobriety
and watchfulness are often in scripture put together, because they mutually befriend one
another: Be sober, be vigilant. 5. He must be of good behaviour, composed and solid,

and not light, vain, and frothy. 6. He must be given to hospitality, open-handed to
strangers, and ready to entertain them according to his ability, as one who does not set
his heart upon the wealth of the world and who is a true lover of his brethren. 7. Apt to
teach. Therefore this is a preaching bishop whom Paul describes, one who is both able
and willing to communicate to others the knowledge which God has given him, one who
is fit to teach and ready to take all opportunities of giving instructions, who is himself
well instructed in the things of the kingdom of heaven, and is communicative of what he
knows to others. 8. No drunkard: Not given to wine. The priests were not to drink wine
when they went in to minister (Lev_10:8, Lev_10:9), lest they should drink and pervert
the law. 9. No striker; one who is not quarrelsome, nor apt to use violence to any, but
does every thing with mildness, love, and gentleness. The servant of the Lord must not
strive, but be gentle towards all, etc., 2Ti_2:24. 10. One who is not greedy of filthy lucre,
who does not make his ministry to truckle to any secular design or interest, who uses no
mean, base, sordid ways of getting money, who is dead to the wealth of this world, lives
above it, and makes it appear he is so. 11. He must be patient, and not a brawler, of a
mild disposition. Christ, the great Shepherd and Bishop of souls, is so. Not apt to be
angry or quarrelsome; as not a striker with his hands, so not a brawler with his tongue;
for how shall men teach others to govern their tongues who do not make conscience of
keeping them under good government themselves? 12. Not covetous. Covetousness is
bad in any, but it is worst in a minister, whose calling leads him to converse so much
with another world. 13. He must be one who keeps his family in good order: That rules
well his own house, that he may set a good example to other masters of families to do so
too, and that he may thereby give a proof of his ability to take care of the church of God:
For, if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church
of God. Observe, The families of ministers ought to be examples of good to all others
families. Ministers must have their children in subjection; then it is the duty of
ministers' children to submit to the instructions that are given them. - With all gravity.
The best way to keep inferiors in subjection, is to be grave with them. Not having his
children in subjection with all austerity, but with all gravity. 14. He must not be a novice,
not one newly brought to the Christian religion, or not one who is but meanly instructed
in it, who knows no more of religion than the surface of it, for such a one is apt to be
lifted up with pride: the more ignorant men are the more proud they are: Lest, being
lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil. The devils fell through
pride, which is a good reason why we should take heed of pride, because it is a sin that
turned angels into devils. 15. He must be of good reputation among his neighbours, and
under no reproach from former conversation; for the devil will make use of that to
ensnare others, and work in them an aversion to the doctrine of Christ preached by
those who have not had a good report.
III. Upon the whole, having briefly gone through the qualifications of a gospel-bishop,
we may infer, 1. What great reason we have to cry out, as Paul does, Who is sufficient for
these things? 2Co_2:16. Hic labor, hoc opus - This is a work indeed. What piety, what
prudence, what zeal, what courage, what faithfulness, what watchfulness over ourselves,
our lusts, appetites, and passions, and over those under our charge; I say, what holy
watchfulness is necessary in this work! 2. Have not the best qualified and the most
faithful and conscientious ministers just reason to complain against themselves, that so
much is requisite by way of qualification, and so much work is necessary to be done?
And, alas! how far short do the best come of what they should be and what they should
do! 3. Yet let those bless God, and be thankful, whom the Lord has enabled, and counted
faithful, putting them into the ministry: if God is pleased to make any in some degree
able and faithful, let him have the praise and glory of it. 4. For the encouragement of all
faithful ministers, we have Christ's gracious word of promise, Lo, I am with you always,

even unto the end of the world, Mat_28:20. And, if he be with us, he will fit us for our
work in some measure, will carry us through the difficulties of it with comfort, graciously
pardon our imperfections, and reward our faithfulness with a crown of glory that fadeth
not away, 1Pe_5:4.
JAMISO , "1Ti_3:1-16. Rules as to Bishops (Overseers) and Deacons. The church,
and the Gospel mystery now revealed to it, are the end of all such rules.
Translate as Greek, “Faithful is the saying.” A needful preface to what follows: for the
office of a bishop or overseer in Paul’s day, attended as it was with hardship and often
persecution, would not seem to the world generally a desirable and “good work.”
desire — literally, “stretch one’s self forward to grasp”; “aim at”: a distinct Greek verb
from that for “desireth.” What one does voluntarily is more esteemed than what he does
when asked (1Co_16:15). This is utterly distinct from ambitious desires after office in the
Church. (Jam_3:1).
bishop — overseer: as yet identical with “presbyter” (Act_20:17, Act_20:28; Tit_1:5-
7).
good work — literally, “honorable work.” Not the honor associated with it, but the
work, is the prominent thought (Act_15:38; Phi_2:30; compare 2Ti_4:5). He who aims
at the office must remember the high qualifications needed for the due discharge of its
functions.
RWP, "Faithful is the saying (pistos ho logos). Here the phrase points to the
preceding words (not like 1Ti_1:15) and should close the preceding paragraph.
If a man seeketh (ei tis oregetai). Condition of first class, assumed as true. Present
middle indicative of oregō, old verb to reach out after something, governing the genitive.
In N.T. only here, 1Ti_6:10; Heb_11:16.
The office of a bishop (episkopēs). Genitive case after oregetai. Late and rare word
outside of lxx and N.T. (in a Lycaonian inscription). From episkopeō and means “over-
seership” as in Act_1:20.
CALVI , "1It is a true saying Chrysostom thinks, that this is the conclusion of the
preceding doctrine. But I do not approve of the opinion; for Paul commonly makes
use of this form of expression as a prelude to what he is about to introduce, Besides,
in the former discourse there was no need of so strong an affirmation; but what he
is now about to say, is somewhat more weighty. Let these words, therefore, be
received as a preface intended to point out the importance of the subject; for Paul
now begins a new discourse about ordaining pastors, and appointing the
government of the Church.
If any one desireth the office of a bishop (46) Having forbidden women to teach, he
now takes occasion to speak of the office of a bishop. First, that it may be more
clearly seen that it was not without reason that he refused to allow women to
undertake so arduous a work; secondly, that it might not be thought that, by

excluding women only, he admitted all men indiscriminately; and, thirdly, because it
was highly proper that Timothy and others should be reminded what conscientious
watchfulness ought to be used in the election of bishops. Thus the context, in my
opinion, is as if Paul had said, that so far are women from being fit for undertaking
so excellent an office, that not even men ought to be admitted into it without
distinction.
He desireth an excellent work The Apostle affirms that this is no inconsiderable
work, such as any man might venture to undertake. When he says that it is καλός I
have no doubt that he alludes to the ancient Greek proverb, often quoted by Plato ,
δύσκολα τὰ καλά which means that “ things which are excellent, are also arduous
and difficult;” and thus he unites difficulty with excellence, or rather he argues
thus, that it does not belong to every person to discharge the office of a bishop,
because it is a thing of great value.
I think that Paul’ meaning is now sufficiently clear; though none of the
commentators, so far as I perceive, have understood it. The general meaning is, that
a selection ought to be made in admitting bishops, because it is a laborious and
difficult charge; and that they who aim at it should carefully consider with
themselves, whether or not they were able to bear so heavy a burden. Ignorance is
always rash; and a mature knowledge of things makes a man modest. How comes it
that they who have neither ability nor wisdom often aspire so confidently to hold the
reins of government, but because they rush forward with their eyes shut? On this
subject Quintilian remarked, that the ignorant speak boldly, while the greatest
orators tremble.
For the purpose of restraining such rashness in desiring the office of a bishop, Paul
states, first, that this is not an indolent rank, but a work; and next, that it is not any
kind of work, but excellent, and therefore toilsome and full of difficulty, as it
actually is. It is no light matter to be a representative of the Son of God, in
discharging an office of such magnitude, the object of which is to erect and extend
the kingdom of God, to procure the salvation of souls which the Lord himself hath
purchased with his own blood, and to govern the Church, which is God’ inheritance.
But it is not my intention at present to make a sermon, and Paul will again glance at
this subject in the next chapter.
Here a question arises: “ it lawful, in any way, to desire the office of a bishop?” On
the one hand, it appears to be highly improper for any one to anticipate, by his wish,
the calling of God, and yet Paul, while he censures a rash desire, seems to permit it
to be desired with prudence and modesty. I reply, if ambition is condemned in other
matters, much more severely ought it to be condemned in “ office of a bishop.” But
Paul speaks of a godly desire, by which holy men wish to employ that knowledge of
doctrine which they possess for the edification of the Church. For, if it were
altogether unlawful to desire the office of a teacher, why should they who spend all
their youth in reading the Holy Scriptures prepare themselves by learning? What
are the theological schools but nurseries of pastors?

Accordingly, they who have been thus instructed not only may lawfully devote
themselves and their labors to God by a voluntary offering, but even ought to do so,
and that too, before they have been admitted unto the office; provided that,
nevertheless, they do not thrust themselves forward, and do not, even by their own
wish, make themselves bishops, but are only ready to discharge the office, if their
labors shall be required. And if it turn out that, according to the lawful order; they
are not called, let them know that such was the will of God, and let them not take it
in that others have been preferred to them. But they who, without any selfish
motive, shall have no other wish than to serve God and the Church, will be affected
in this manner; and, at the same time, will have such modesty that they will not be at
all envious, if others be preferred to them as being more worthy.
If any one object, that the government of the Church is a matter of so great
difficulty, that it ought rather to strike terror into the minds of persons of sound
judgment than to excite them to desire it. I reply, that the desire of great men does
not rest on confidence of their own industry or virtue, but on the assistance of
“ from whom is our sufficiency,”
as Paul says elsewhere. (2Co_3:5.) At the same time, it is necessary to observe what
it is that Paul calls “ office of a bishop;” and so much the more, because the ancients
were led away, by the custom of their times, from the true meaning; for, while Paul
includes generally all pastors, they understand a bishop to be one who was elected
out of each college to preside over his brethren. Let us remember, therefore, that
this word is of the same import as if he had called them ministers, or pastors, or
presbyters. (47)
(46) “Ou, Si aucun a affection d’ evesque.” — “ If any one hath a desire to be a
bishop.”
(47) “ us know that the Holy Spirit, speaking of those who are ordained ministers of
the word of God, and who are elected to govern the Church, calls them Pastors. And
why? Because God wishes us to be a flock of sheep, to be guided by him, hearing his
voice, following his guidance, and living peaceably. Since, therefore the Church is
compared to a flock, they who have the charge of guiding the Church by the word of
God are called Pastors. And next, the word Pastor means Elder not by age, but by of
office: as, at all times, they who govern have been called Elders, even among
heathen nations. ow the Holy Spirit has retained this metaphor, giving the name
Elder to those who are chosen to proclaim the word of God. He likewise calls them
Bishops, that is persons who watch over the flock to show that it is not a rank
unaccompanied by active exertion, when a man is called to that office, and that he
must not make an idol of it, but must know that he is sent to obtain the salvation of
souls, and must be employed, and watch, and labor, for that purpose. We see then
the reason of these words; and since the Holy Spirit hath given them to us, we must
retain them, provided that they be applied to a good and holy use.” — Fr. Ser.

BURKITT, "Observe here, 1. Our apostle acquaints Timothy with the dignity,
honour, and excellency of the sacred function: He that desireth the office of a
bishop, that is, to rule and teach in the church of God, he desireth a good work, that
is, honourable employment.
As if our apostle had said, "Know, O Timothy, that as to the office of a bishop,
whoever desireth it, doth desire a very great and excellent work; it is not a bare
name, title, dignity, a place of honour and command; but a work, a work of vast
importance, labour, and difficulty: take heed therefore whom thou dost admit, and
of those that are also admitted into the sacred function, to consider the great weight
of that important service, to enterprize it with extraordinary dread and caution,
looking upon their office not with aspiring but tremendous thoughts:--for who is
sufficient for these things?
ISBET, "‘The office of a bishop.’
1Ti_3:1
There are, and have been from the earliest times, three Orders in the ministry. St.
Paul in this chapter describes the qualifications for the office first of a bishop, and
then of the general body of the clergy, for the reference in 1Ti_3:8 must be taken in
its wider aspect and applied to priests as well as to deacons. A few thoughts on the
episcopal office as we understand it to-day.
I. The antiquity of the episcopal office.—It is apostolic, and in the Church of
England we trace our succession right back to apostolic times.
II. The making of a modern bishop.—The greatest care is taken. The Prime
Minister (representing the laity) nominates a qualified clergyman to the Crown; the
Crown nominates that clergyman to the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral
(representing the clergy) for election; if he is elected, the election has to be
‘confirmed’ in a public court at which objectors may appear. In recent years there
has been much dispute as to what are valid grounds of objection, and attempts have
been made—but most wisely overruled—to object to bishops-elect on ritual
grounds. It is not necessary to discuss what might be grounds of objection; these
must be left to the proper authority to decide. But the point to bear in mind is the
care with which the Church guards the office of a bishop, as shown in the successive
steps from the time of nomination to consecration.
III. Consecration to the episcopal office.—When the election of a bishop-elect is
confirmed, but not till then, the archbishop proceeds to the consecration. Very
solemn is the service; the act of consecration is performed by the laying-on of hands,
the bishop-elect kneeling before the archbishop, and the archbishop and the bishops
assisting—sometimes a dozen in number—all laying their hands upon the head of

the bishop-elect as the archbishop recites the solemn words, ‘Receive the Holy Ghost
for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of God,’ etc. What that work is is
shown in the questions put to the bishop-elect before the act of consecration. [Refer
to Consecration Service, and explain in detail the questions put in the examination
by the archbishop.]
PULPIT, "Faithful is the saying for this is a true saying, A.V.; seeketh for desire,
A.V. Faithful is the saying (see above, 1Ti_1:15, note). This manifestly refers to what
follows, not, as Chrysostom and others, and margin of the R.V., to the saying which
precedes, in 1Ti_2:15. Seeketh ( ὀρέγεται ); literally, stretches out his hands after. It
is peculiar in the ew Testament to the pastoral Epistles and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, though common in classical Greek (see 1Ti_6:10; Heb_11:16). The noun
ὔρεξις , appetite, desire (which is found several times in the LXX.), is used once by
St. Paul (Rom_1:27). The office of a bishop; meaning here, as everywhere else in
Scripture, that of a presbyter, or priest. Ἐπισκοπή , in the sense of "the episcopate,"
occurs only here and Act_1:20, where it is rendered "bishopric" in the A.V., and
"overseer-ship" in the margin of the R.V., being the translation in the LXX. of Psa_
108:1-13. (109., A.V.) of the Hebrew åÉúãÈ÷ËóÀ , "his office." Elsewhere (Luk_
19:44; 1Pe_2:12; 1Pe_5:6) it means "visitation." But ἐπίσκοπος , "bishop" (Psa_
108:2)—except in 1Pe_2:25, where it is applied to Christ—always means the
overseer of the particular flock,—the presbyter (Act_20:28; Php_1:1; Tit_1:7); and
ἐπισκοπεῖν the functions of such ἐπίσκοπος (1Pe_5:2 compared with 1). It was not
till the sub-apostolic age that the name of ἐπίσκοπος was confined to the chief
overseer who had "priests and deacons" under him, as Timothy and Titus had.
Possibly this application of the word arose from the visits of the apostles, and
afterwards of men sent by the apostles, as Timothy and Titus, Tychicus and
Artemas, were, to visit the Churches, being occasional and temporary only, as those
of Visitors. For such occasional visitation is implied in the verb ἐπισκέπτεσθαι
(Mat_25:36, Mat_25:43; Luk_1:68, Luk_1:78; Act_7:23; Act_15:36; Jas_1:27).
Afterwards, when the wants of the Churches required permanent oversight, the
name ἐπίσκοπος —vescovo (It.), eueque (Fr.), bischof (Get.), bisceop (A.S.),
aipiskaupus (Moeso-Goth.), etc.—became universal for the chief overseer of the
Church. A good work ( καλοῦ ἔργου , not ἀγαθοῦ , as verse 10). Καλού means
"honourable," "becoming," "beneficial," and the like.
BI 1-7, "The office of a bishop.
The office of a bishop a good work
If a man desire the office of a bishop from right principles, he desireth.
not a secular dignity--not a good benefice--not a post of honour or profit--not an
easy idle life--but he desireth a work; a good work indeed it is: but still it is a work.

I. It may properly be called a work, if we consider the duties of the office, which
require the utmost assiduity, and some of which are peculiarly painful and
laborious.
II. It is a good work, whether you consider, for whom, with whom, or for what you
work. The ministers of the gospel work for God, who is carrying on the grand
scheme of salvation in our world. His immediate service is the peculiar business of
their lives. Ministers also work for Jesus Christ. It was He that originally gave them
their commission; it was He that assigned them their work; it is He that is interested
in their success. Again, the ministers of the gospel work for the souls of men. To do
good to mankind is the great purpose of their office. Let us next consider with whom
the ministers of the gospel work; and we shall see how good their employment is.
“They are workers together with God.” (2Co_6:1). They are also co-workers with
Jesus Christ, promoting the same cause for which He became man; for which He
lived the life of a servant, and died the death of a malefactor and a slave. They may
also be called fellow-workers with the Holy Spirit, whose great office it is to sanctify
depraved creatures, and prepare them for the refined happiness of heaven. They
also act in concert with angels; for what are these glorious creatures but
“ministering spirits sent forth to minister to them that shall be heirs of salvation”?
(Heb_1:14). An angel once condescended to call a minister of the gospel his fellow-
servant (Rev_19:10). Ministers also are engaged in that work in which the apostles
went before them. The office of a bishop will farther appear a good work, if it be
considered for what it is that ministers work. They do not indeed work for a reward
upon the footing of personal merit; but they hope for it on the plan of the gospel,
through Jesus Christ. In this view, like Moses, they have “a respect to the
recompense of reward” (Heb_11:26). And thus it appears, their laborious and
painful work is good--good in itself, good for the world, and good for themselves. (S.
Davies, M. A.)
The ideal minister
The apostle who most boldly maintained the brotherhood of believers clearly
recognized the necessity for order and office in Christian communities.
I. The moral characteristics of the ideal pastor are strongly insisted upon. Strangely
enough, nothing is said about his piety, his love to God, his communion with Him,
his delight in Him, his devotion to Him; but this is naturally presupposed as the
basis of the rest. It is not alluded to here, partly because Timothy did not require to

be reminded that personal religion is the first essential in all spiritual work, and
partly because he was less able to judge of inward piety in others than of the
qualities mentioned here.
1. Self-rule is one of the principal of these, and it is to display itself in all directions.
The bishop is to be sober, exercising habitual self-restraint, not only in respect of
intoxicating drinks, but also in respect of indulgence in pleasures of all kinds, setting
an example of dominion over the carnal and sensuous. But temper is to be as much
under control as other passions, for the Christian teacher must be no “brawler,” no
striker, “but patient.”
2. Again, sound judgment is a qualification much needed by every pastor and
teacher. This is no doubt one reason of Paul’s for urging on Timothy, as he does in
the sixth verse, that a pastor in the Church should not be a “novice,” i.e., a recent
convert. If the young life of a plant be exposed to the glare of the sunshine, death
will supervene. And in the life of every creature--insect, and bird, and beast, and
most of all in the life of man--the period of development must precede the period of
manifestation.
3. Another characteristic of the ideal minister should be open-heartedness and open-
handedness. The phrase “given to hospitality” in Authorized Version, or more
correctly “a lover of strangers,” denotes what was relatively more important then
than now.
II. The relations of the minister to those around him, his right relation with God
being pre-supposed.
1. He is to be the husband of one wife.
2. Then allusion is made to the pastor’s own house as distinguished from God’s
house. So it is urged that any leader in the Church should rule well his own house,
having his children in subjection with all gravity. On which Dr. Reynolds has
beautifully said, “The child-life of the pastor’s home should suggest the sacred ness
of a temple and the order of a palace.” And is not this true for us all? Is it not in the
home that we are the most tested, and is it not there we can best glorify God?
3. The relation the pastor should hold towards the world. Much stress is laid in this
passage on being “blameless,” and having “a good report of them that are
without”--those, namely, who are outside the kingdom of Christ. We cannot afford,
as Christ’s representatives, to defy the world’s opinion about us so far as moral
reputation is concerned. The world is a poor judge of doctrine, of motive, and of
religious hopes and thoughts; but it is a keen and on the whole an accurate judge of
character; and when the members and leaders of the Church are recognized by the
world as honest, sincere, trusty, pure men and women, Christ will win the day
against His foes. (A. Rowland, LL. B.)

Preference for the ministry
A remarkable avowal of the late Senator John A. Logan is reported by a clergyman
in a letter to us. He says that in talking with the senator not long before his death,
Logan said: “I have often thought that I would like to be in the ministry.” I replied:
“To have done that, general, you must have surrendered many ambitions.” “That,”
was his noble reply--“that would be nothing. The end will soon come, and these
things will then be seen to be worthless.” I was convinced of his transparent honesty
when he uttered these words, and am of opinion that he simply spoke as he believed
and felt. (Philadelphia Press.)
The dignity of the Christian ministry
Moreover, if we weigh all things in the balances of justice, we shall see that there is
no king, whatever may be the pomp that surrounds him, who as a king is not in
dignity below, I will not say a bishop only, but even a simple village pastor, regarded
as a pastor. We have only, in order to realize the fact, to cast our eyes on the
functions of the pastor and of the king respectively. What do the labours of princes
regard? Is it not that evil-doers may be kept down by the vigilance of the law, and
that the good may not be disturbed? That is to say, so to act that the persons and
property of the citizens of the state shall be in safety? But how much more excellent
is the aim of the minister of the gospel, who desires to establish in each individual
soul the serenest tranquility by quieting and subduing the lusts of the world! The
king’s labours are intended to secure that the state shall live at peace with its
neighbours; the priest’s aim is that every one may be at peace with God, that each
may possess peace within, and that no one may have it in his heart to injure another.
The prince designs to protect the house, lands, and cattle of particular persons from
the violence of depredators. But what does the priest design? To defend the
property of the souls entrusted to him, their faith, their charity, their temperance,
their purity against the assaults of the devil; property which confers happiness on
those who possess it, and the loss of which plunges them into the direst misfortune...
In one word, all that comes under the management of the prince is earthly and
transient; but that which occupies the pastor is divine, celestial, eternal. And,
therefore, as much difference as there is between the heaven and the earth, between
the body and the soul, between temporal goods and eternal possessions, so much
difference is there between the functions committed to the king and the trust
devolved on the priest. (Erasmus.)
A well-governed family

When there is to be a real order and law in the house, it will come of no hard and
boisterous or fretful and termagant way of command. Gentleness will speak the
word of firmness, and firmness will be clothed in the airs of true gentleness. How
many do we see who fairly rave in authority, and keep the tempest up from morning
till night, who never stop to see whether anything they forbid or command is in fact
observed! Indeed, they really forget what they have commanded. Their mandates
follow so thickly as to crowd one another, and even to successively thrust one
another out of remembrance. The result is, that by this cannonading of pop-guns,
the successive pellets of command ment are in turn all blown away. If anything is fit
to be forbidden or commanded, it is fit to be watched and held in faithful account.
On this it is that the real emphasis of authority depends, not on the windstress of the
utterance. Let there be only such and so many things commanded as can be
faithfully attended to; these in a gentle and film voice, as if their title to obedience
lay in their own merit; and then let the child be held to a perfectly inevitable and
faithful account; and by that time it will be seen that order and law have a stress of
their own, and a power to rule in their own divine right. The beauty of a well-
governed family will be seen in this manner to be a kind of silent, natural-looking
power, as if it were a matter only of growth, and could never have been otherwise.
(Horace Bushnell.)
Luther and his children
Luther used to teach his children to read the Bible in the following way. First, to
read through one book carefully, then to study chapter by chapter, and then verse
by verse, and lastly word by word, for, he said, “It is like a person shaking a fruit
tree. First shaking the tree and gathering up the fruit which falls to the ground, and
then shaking each branch and afterwards each twig of the branch, and last of all
looking carefully under each leaf to see that no fruit remains. In this way, and in no
other, shall we also find the hidden treasures that are in the Bible.” (J. Stewart.)
A minister above the love of money
A little while ago, in Calcutta, a native, a Christian merchant, was deeply interested
in a community of “outcasts,” and he made an offer of £60 a-year to any native
Christian who would go and live among these people, and teach them the Word of
Life. The offer had no sooner been made than a candidate for the office appeared.
Who was he? As humble and devoted and consistent a Christian as you ever met. He
was a professor in a missionary college, M.A. and LL.B. of the Calcutta University,
and drawing a salary of £200 a year. Such was the candidate for this office of £60 a
year! (Christian Herald.)

A liberal bishop
Bishop Baring’s generosity and munificence were unbounded. One instance may be
given out of many. He was spending the Sunday with a vicar blessed with very
moderate means and a large family. His lordship noticed the pale faces of the
children, and said to their mother, “You must take these little ones to the seaside,
and their father, too, must have a complete rest. I will provide his duty for six
weeks.” The good lady wondered where she was to find the wherewithal to carry out
this excel lent scheme. As the bishop, however, shook hands with her on leaving he
put a £50 note into her hand in the kindest way, and solved the difficulty. It is not,
however, every one who has such hereditary wealth as the late Bishop of Durham.
(Christian Herald.)
Ministers not contentious
(Revised Version):--How a soft answer can turn away wrath, as well as
dissatisfaction, is illustrated in the following anecdote of the late President Wayland.
Deacon Moses Pond went to Dr. Wayland once with the complaint that the
preaching did not edify him. “I’m sorry,” said the pastor; “I know they are poor
sermons. I wish I could make them better. Come, let us pray that I may be able to do
so.” The deacon, telling the story, used to say, “Dr. Wayland prayed and I prayed;
he cried and I cried. But I have thought a hundred times that it was strange that he
did not turn me out of the house. I tell you there never was a better man nor a
greater preacher than Dr. Wayland.” (W. Baxendale.)
Apt to teach.--
The pulpit a light and Tower
These three words are but one in the Greek. Ignorance is the inheritance of our fall
in Eden. The grand work of the ministry of Christ is to illuminate the darkened
mind. There is a fire that does not give light, and a cold phosphorescent flame that
yields no heat. Our teaching, while it dispels the darkness of sin, must shed its
beams to warm the frozen virtues into life.
1. To meet the claims of a good teacher one must he willing to learn. The apostles,
dropping their nets and other worldly craft, went to a school of the prophets, such
as never before or since existed on earth. Its sole instructor was the Great Teacher,
the Creator of all things. They learned wisdom without a book from the source of all
knowledge.
2. If we would be apt to teach, we must have a lesson to impart.

3. To be apt to teach, one must be master of the lesson he would impart.
4. To be apt to teach, a sacred enthusiasm is indispensable.
5. To be apt to teach under the wings of the Eternal Spirit, Holy Dove, we must
gather strength and success by prayer.
6. Apt to teach, finally, has the element of faith. (W. H. Van Doren.)
Take care of the Church of God.
Pastoral care
Observe the sacred charge committed to God’s appointed bishops, or shepherds, or
pastors. I should, first of all, insist that Christ’s pastors, who take care of the
Church committed to their charge are to take care of their food--that they shall have
nothing to eat but what is pure and wholesome. That in the care which God’s
servants have to take of the Church committed to their charge, they have to nourish
three descriptions of character, or three classes of the family specified in Scripture--
as babes, young men, and fathers. This care taken of the Church must be with all
tenderness, but with all firmness, and under the consciousness of responsibility. It
must be with all tenderness. We must be gentle, as the apostle says, “even as a nurse
cherisheth her children; and because we were desirous of your welfare, we were
ready to impart unto you our own souls, because ye were dear to our souls.” But we
are not only to use tenderness--“in meekness instructing those that oppose
themselves”--towards the lambs, the weak lings, the little ones; but we must use all
firmness. Moreover, if we would fake care of the Church of God, it must be by
keeping our hearts and thoughts fixed on our responsibility. (J. Irons.)
ot a novice.--
Vanity in preachers
I. Young preachers are especially subject to such vanity. It is the novice that is liable
to be “lifted up with pride.”
1. The young are naturally disposed to over-rate their abilities.
2. They are peculiarly susceptible to adulation. The more unenlightened and
unreflective men are, the more they are given to flattery.

II. The devil’s destiny must follow such vanity. “Fall into the condemnation of the
devil.” (The Homilist.)
Ministerial pride rebuked
An aged Scotch divine had occasionally to avail himself of the assistance of
probationers. One day, a young man, very vain of his accomplishments as a
preacher, officiated, and on descending from the desk, was met by the old gentleman
with extended hands, and expecting high praise, he said, “ o compliments, I pray.”
“ a, na, ha, my young friend,” said the parson, “nowadays I’m glad o’ onybody.”
Rowland Hill on ministerial work:-- o man ever had stronger views than Mr.
Rowland Hill of the true nature of the ministerial work, and of the necessity of a
humble dependence on the Lord’s assistance for a blessing in it. One of his remarks
was, “If favoured at any time with what is called a good opportunity, I am too apt to
find myself saying, ‘Well done!,’ when I should lie in the dust, and give God all the
glory.” Another was, “Lord, make me distrustful of myself, that I may confide in
Thee alone; self dependence is the Pharisee’s high road to destruction.” He was
accustomed strongly to urge on all who entered the sacred office the necessity of
maintaining Christian and heavenly tempers among their people. “Some folks,” he
would say, “appear as if they had been bathed in crab verjuice in their infancy,
which penetrated through their skins, and has made them sour-blooded ever since;
but this will not do for a messenger of the gospel; as he bears a message, so he must
manifest a spirit of love.” He used to like Dr. Ryland’s advice to his young
academicians--“Mind, no sermon is of any value, or likely to be useful, which has
not the three R’s in it,--Ruin by the Fall, Redemption by Christ, Regeneration by the
Holy Spirit.” Of himself he remarked, “My aim in every sermon is a stout and lusty
call to sinners, to quicken the saints, and to be made a universal blessing to all.” It
was a favourite saying with him, “The nearer we live to God, the better we are
enabled to serve Him. Oh how I hate my own noise, when I have nothing to make a
noise about! Heavenly wisdom creates heavenly utterance.” In a letter to Mr. Jones,
he observes, “There is something in preaching the gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent
down from heaven, I long to get at. At times I think I feel somewhat like it, and then
I bawl almost as bad as the Welshman. If we deal with Divine realities, we ought to
feel them such, and the people will in general feel with us, and acknowledge the
power that does wonders on the earth; while dry, formal, discussional preaching
leaves the hearers just where it found them. Still, they who are thus favoured had
need to be favoured with a deal of humility. We are too apt to be proud of that
which is not our own. Oh humility, humility, humility!” It is no wonder, with such
impressions as to the nature of his work, and the state of his mind, that Mr.
Rowland Hill’s preaching was so honoured and blessed of God. “Lord, help!” was
his constant and earnest prayer, and it was heard. (Scottish Christian Herald.)

Humility in ministers
The Rev. George Gilfillan, who died in 1877, was not only an author of some
distinction, but a wit. A congregation to whom he had been preaching presented
him, when a probationer, with a suit of clothes; and after he had put them on, the
old ones were tied up in a bundle. “Where shall I send them?” said the tailor. “I will
take them myself,” said Mr. Gilfillan; “I have carried them too long upon my back
to be ashamed of carrying them under my arm.” There was no false pride about
him. He gave due honour to old friends. (Christian Herald.)
Ministerial pride rebuked
The American religious journal, the Independent, relates the following story of
rebuked vanity, which was told recently in a gathering of ministers, by the Rev. Dr.
Gould, of Worcester. “A certain Rev. Samuel Smith had been discoursing very
learnedly and loftily, and was now walking home with his brother, eagerly waiting
for some word of commendation. ot finding it forthcoming, he dropped a slender
oblique hint, to see what could be drawn out. He was somewhat startled and
shocked by the outburst: “I tell you, Sam, what it is. Instead of preaching “Jesus
Christ and Him crucified,” you seem to have been preaching Samuel Smith and him
dignified.” How necessary it is for preachers of the gospel to hide themselves in the
shadow of Christ’s Cross, and to forget themselves in the majesty of the message
which they deliver.
I. A minister of good report:--About thirty years ago the present Bishop of
Minnesota went to Chicago, and built a church near the business centre of the city.
In those days there were no street cars, and it happened that the reverend
gentleman took up his residence in West Chicago, convenient to an omnibus line. It
frequently occurred that the omnibus would be crowded, and many obliged to take
“deck passage.” The writer was riding on the seat with the driver one Saturday
night, when the conversation turned upon Sunday labour and the consistency of
professed Christians, the driver thinking it rather hard that he should be obliged to
labour on Sunday, while others should take their rest. It appeared from his
conversation that his faith in Christianity was rather weak; but turning to me he
said, with considerable emphasis, “There is one clergyman whom I respect and
believe to be a consistent Christian.” Being a little curious to know who the
clergyman was, and upon what evidence he had based his opinion, I asked him for
an explanation. “Well,” said he, “there is the Rev. Mr. Whipple, who built that
church down town; he has a free pass over this line, but walks down and back on
Sundays rather than compromise his Christianity; that proves to me that he is a
consistent Christian.” It sometimes occurs that a clergyman’s most eloquent sermon
is being preached when he least expects it; and any private Christian may preach

the same kind of sermon. (Christian Age.)
The causes and remedies of pride
You can hardly fail to perceive that this reasoning of St. Paul’s proceeds on the
supposition that they who know but little are most in danger of pride. It is just
because man is a novice that he is likely to be lifted up. Is it not a confessed and
well-known fact that the arrogant and conceited person is ordinarily the superficial
and the ignorant? You will hardly ever find the man of real power and great
acquirement other than a simple and unaffected man. It would scarcely ever lead
you to a false estimate of persons, were you to take it as a rule, that where there is
the manifestation of conceit, there is shallowness of intellect. And why is this, but
because he who knows most is most conscious how little he knows? Can he be vain
of his mental power who, having applied it to the investigation of truth, has
discovered little more than that truth would exhaust power a thousand-fold greater?
Can he be proud of his scientific progress who, having laboured long and hard,
finds himself only a beginner, so vast are the spreadings which lie dimly beyond?
Oh! it is not, and it never will be, the man of experience who shows himself haughty
and conceited. We have thus taken the case generally of a novice in knowledge, as it
helps to place under a clearer point of view the gist of St. Paul’s argument--namely,
that ignorance is the great parent of pride. But we will now confine ourselves to
such particular branches of life as must have been referred to by the apostle, when
he penned the direction for the exclusion of a novice; and forasmuch as it is the
novice in Christian doctrine of which he speaks, we shall perhaps thoroughly
compass his argument if we give our attention to knowledge of ourselves, in the two
grand respects of our state by nature and our state by grace. Of all knowledge there
is confessedly none which is either more valuable in itself, or more difficult of
attainment, than self-knowledge; none more valuable, for a man has an
immeasurably greater interest or deeper stake in himself than in the whole
surrounding universe; none more difficult of attainment, for we have it on the
authority of the Bible itself, that none but a Divine Being can search the human
heart. And if we were not able to show of all knowledge whatsoever that it is a
corrective of pride, or at least reads such lessons to each, as to his incompetence and
insignificance, as leaves him inexcusable if he be not humble, we should have no
difficulty in doing this in regard to self-knowledge. Let it be, if you will, that the
study of stars in their courses might tend to give a man high thoughts of himself;
for, indeed, till you look closely into the matter, there is something ennobling--
something that seems to excuse, if not to form, a lofty estimate of power--when, with
daring tread, the astronomer pursues the heavenly bodies into untravelled regions,
tracking their wanderings and counting their revolutions; but in regard, at all
events, of self-knowledge, there can be no difficulty in showing to any one who will
hearken that pride can subsist only where this knowledge is deficient. If we consider
man in his natural condition, how could any one be proud who thoroughly knew
that condition? Self-knowledge--knowledge of the body--as appointed to all the
disorders of the grave, would be the most effectual corrective to the self-

complacency, of which beauty is the food. Who, again, could be proud of rank,
puffed up because of some petty elevation above his fellow-men, who was deeply
aware of his own position as an accountable creature? Who, once more, could be
proud of his intellectual strength, of his wit, his wisdom, his elocution, who knew the
height from which he had fallen--and saw in himself but the fragments--we had
almost said the rubbish--of what God designed and created him to be? Indeed, you
have here in the general the grand corrective to pride. Men have but to know
themselves as fallen and depraved creatures, and we might almost venture to say
that they could not be proud. But we have spoken of self-knowledge as though it
were knowledge of man in regard only of his natural condition. We must, however,
consider him as a redeemed being, and not merely as a fallen; for possibly, though
knowledge of him in his ruined state be the corrective of pride, it may not be the
same with knowledge of him in his restored state. Yes, a slight knowledge of the
gospel, so far from generating humility, may even tend to the fostering pride. There
is such an opposition between man ruined and man redeemed, if in the one state he
may be exhibited as loathsome and worthless, in the other he may be thought of
some such importance as ransomed by Christ whilst angels were left to perish, that
it is hard to avoid on first hearing of the gospel, feeling that, after all, our
degradation must have been exaggerated and our insignificance overdrawn. Thus
the novice is once more in danger of being lifted up with pride. As the novice in that
knowledge which has to do with man fallen, so the novice in that knowledge which
has to do with man redeemed, is liable, through his knowing but little, to the
thinking more highly of himself than he ought. And will not the danger diminish as
the gospel is more thoroughly studied and understood? Yes, indeed; for what were it
but the worst libel on the system of Christianity to suppose it not adapted to the
producing humility? And if to this argument for humility, which is interwoven with
the whole texture of the gospel, you add the constant denunciations of that gospel
against pride--its solemn demands of lowliness of mind as essential to all who would
inherit the kingdom of God--you will readily see that the further a man goes in
acquaintance with the gospel, the more motives will he have to the abasing himself
before God. Redemption as a scheme of wonders into which the very angels desire to
look, may kindle in him a dream of his importance; but redemption as emanating
from free grace, will convict him of his nothingness; and redemption as requiring
from him the mind which was also in Christ, will cover him with confusion. And
thus we reach the same conclusion, when we examine self-knowledge in regard to
our condition as redeemed, as we reach when we examine it in regard of our
condition as fallen. It is the novice who is in most danger of pride; it is his being a
novice which exposes him to danger. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
EXPOSITORS BIBLE 1-10, "ORIGI OF THE CHRISTIA MI ISTRY;
VARIOUS CERTAI TIES A D PROBABILITIES DISTI GUISHED. - 1Ti_3:1-
10
THIS passage is one of the most important in the ew Testament respecting the

Christian ministry; and in the Pastoral Epistles it does not stand alone. Of the two
classes of ministers mentioned here, one is again touched upon in the Epistle to
Titus, {Tit_1:5-9} and the qualifications for this office, which is evidently the
superior of the two, are stated in terms not very different from those which are used
in the passage before us. Therefore a series of expositions upon the Pastoral Epistles
would be culpably incomplete which did not attempt to arrive at some conclusions
respecting the question of the primitive Christian ministry; a question which at the
present time is being investigated with immense industry and interest, and with
some clear and substantial results. The time is probably far distant when the last
word will have been said upon the subject; for it is one on which considerable
difference of opinion is not only possible but reasonable: and those persons would
seem to be least worthy of consideration, who are most confident that they are in
possession of the whole truth on the subject. One of the first requisites in the
examination of questions of fact is a power of accurately distinguishing what is
certain from what is not certain: and the person who is confident that he has
attained to certainty, when the evidence in his possession does not at all warrant
certainty, is not a trustworthy guide.
It would be impossible in a discussion of moderate length to touch upon all the
points which have been raised in connection with this problem; but some service will
have been rendered if a few of the more important features of the question are
pointed out and classified under the two heads just indicated, as certain or not
certain. In any scientific enquiry, whether historical or experimental, this
classification is a useful one, and very often leads to the enlargement of the class of
certainties. When the group of certainties has been properly investigated, and when
the various items have been placed in their proper relations to one another and to
the whole of which they are only constituent parts, the result is likely to be a
transfer of other items from the domain of what is only probable or possible to the
domain of what is certain.
At the outset it is necessary to place a word of caution as to what is meant, in a
question of this kind, by certainty. There are no limits to skepticism, as the history
of speculative philosophy has abundantly shown. It is possible to question one’s own
existence, and still more possible to question the irresistible evidence of one’s senses
or the irresistible conclusions of one’s reason. A fortiori it is possible to throw doubt
upon any historical fact. We can, if we like, classify the assassinations of Julius
Caesar and of Cicero, and the genuineness of the Aeneid and of the Epistles to the
Corinthians, among things that are not certain. They cannot be demonstrated like a
proposition in Euclid or an experiment in chemistry or physics. But a skeptical
criticism of this kind makes history impossible; for it demands as a condition of
certainty a kind of evidence, and an amount of evidence, which from the nature of
the case is unattainable. Juries are directed by the courts to treat evidence as
adequate, which they would he willing to recognize as such in matters of very

serious moment to themselves. There is a certain amount of evidence which to a
person of trained and well-balanced mind makes a thing "practically certain": i.e.,
with this amount of evidence before him he would confidently act on the assumption
that the thing was true.
In the question before us there are four or five things which may with great reason
be treated as practically certain.
1. The solution of the question as to the origin of the Christian ministry has no
practical bearing upon the lives of Christians. For us the problem is one of historical
interest without moral import. As students of Church History we are bound to
investigate the origins of the ministry which has been one of the chief factors in that
history: but our loyalty as members of the Church will not be affected by the result
of our investigations. Our duty towards the constitution consisting of bishops,
priests, and deacons, which existed unchallenged from the close of the second
century to the close of the Middle Ages, and which has existed down to the present
day in all the three great branches of the Catholic Church, Roman, Oriental, and
Anglican, is no way affected by the question whether the constitution of the Church
during the century which separates the writings of St. John from the writings of his
disciple’s disciple, Irenaeus, was as a rule Episcopal, collegiate, or Presbyterian. For
a churchman who accepts the Episcopal form of government as essential to the well-
being of a Church, the enormous prescription which that form has acquired during
at least seventeen centuries, is such ample justification, that he can afford to be
serene as to the outcome of enquiries respecting the constitution of the
2. various infant Churches from A.D. 85 to A.D. 185. It makes no practical
difference either to add, or not to add, to an authority which is already ample. To
prove that the Episcopal form of government was founded by the Apostles may have
been a matter of great practical importance in the middle of the second century.
But, before that century had closed, the practical question, if there ever was one,
had settled itself. God’s providence ordained that the universal form of Church
government should be the Episcopal form and should continue to be such; and for
us it adds little to its authority to know that the way in which it became universal
was through the instrumentality and influence of Apostles. On the other hand, to
prove that episcopacy was established independently of Apostolic influence would
detract very little from its accumulated authority.
A second point, which may be regarded as certain with regard to this question, is,
that for the period which joins the age of Irenaeus to the age of St. John, we have

not sufficient evidence to arrive at anything like proof. The evidence has received
important additions during the present century, and still more important additions
are by no means impossible; but at present our materials are still inadequate. And
the evidence is insufficient in two ways. First, although surprisingly large as
compared with what might have been reasonably expected, yet in itself, the
literature of this period is fragmentary and scanty. Secondly, the dates of some of
the most important witnesses cannot as yet be accurately determined. In many cases
to be able to fix the date of a document within twenty or thirty years is quite
sufficient: but this is a case in which the difference of twenty years is a really serious
difference; and there is fully that amount of uncertainty as to the date of some of the
writings which are our principal sources of information; e.g., the "Doctrine of the
Twelve Apostles," the Epistles of Ignatius, the "Shepherd of Hermas," and the
"Clementines." Here also our position may improve. Further research may enable
us to date some of these documents accurately. But, for the present, uncertainty
about precise dates and general scantiness of evidence compel us to admit that with
regard to many of the points connected with this question nothing that can fairly be
called proof is possible respecting the interval which separates the last quarter of
the first century from the last quarter of the second.
This feature of the problem is sometimes represented by the useful metaphor that
the history of the Church just at this period "passes through a tunnel" or "runs
underground." We are in the light of day during most of the time covered by the
ew Testament; and we are again in the light of day directly we reach the time
covered by the abundant writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
and others. But during the intervening period we are, not indeed in total darkness,
but in a passage the obscurity of which is only slightly relieved by an occasional
lamp or light-hole. Leaving this tantalizing interval, about which the one thing that
is certain is that many certainties are not likely to be found in it, we pass on to look
for our two next certainties in the periods which precede and follow it.
3. In the period covered by the ew Testament it is certain that the Church had
officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not discharged by ordinary
Christians; in other words a distinction was made from the first between clergy and
laity. Of this fact the Pastoral Epistles contain abundant evidence; and further
evidence is scattered up and down the ew Testament, from the earliest document
in the volume to the last. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is certainly
the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us, we find St. Paul beseeching
the Church of the Thessalonians "to know them that labor among you, and are over
you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for
their work’s sake" (1Th_5:12-13). The three functions here enumerated are
evidently functions to be exercised by a few with regard to the many: they are not
duties which every one is to discharge towards every one. In the Third Epistle of St.
John, which is certainly one of the latest, and perhaps the very latest, of the writings

contained in the ew Testament, the incident about Diotrephes seems to show that
not only ecclesiastical government, but ecclesiastical government by a single official,
was already in existence in the Church in which Diotrephes "loved to have the
preeminence" (3Jn_1:9-10). In between these two we have the exhortation in the
Epistle to the Hebrews: "Obey them that have the rule over you and submit to
them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account". {Heb_
13:17} And directly we go outside the ew Testament and look at the Epistle of the
Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, commonly called the First Epistle of
Clement, we find the same distinction between clergy and laity observed. In this
letter, which almost certainly was written during the lifetime of St. John, we read
that the Apostles, "preaching everywhere in country and town, appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto
them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been
written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the
Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their
deacons in faith"-the last words being an inaccurate quotation of the LXX of Isa_
60:17.
And a little further on Clement writes: "Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus
Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause,
therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid
persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall
asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore
who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent
of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in
lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a
good report with all-these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their
ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have
offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily. Blessed are those
presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe,
for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place.
For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living
honorably, from the ministration which they had kept blamelessly" (42., 44.).
Three things come out very clearly from this passage, confirming what has been
found in the ew Testament.
(1) There is a clear distinction made between clergy and laity.

(2) This distinction is not a temporary arrangement, but is the basis of a permanent
organization.
(3) A person who has been duly promoted to the ranks of the clergy as a presbyter
or bishop (the two titles being here synonymous, as in the Epistle to Titus) holds that
position for life. Unless he is guilty of some serious offence, to depose him is no light
sin.
one of these passages, either in the ew Testament or in Clement, tells us very
clearly the precise nature of the functions which the clergy, as distinct from the
laity, were to discharge; yet they indicate that these functions were of a spiritual
rather than of a secular character, that they concerned men’s souls rather than their
bodies, and that they were connected with religious service ( ëåéôïõñãéá ). But the
one thing which is quite clear is this, -that the Church had, and was always intended
to have, a body of officers distinct from the congregations to which they ministered
and over which they ruled.
4. For our fourth certainty we resort to the time when the history of the Church
returns once more to the full light of day, in the last quarter of the second century.
Then we find two things quite clearly established, which have continued in
Christendom from that day to this. We find a regularly organized clergy, not only
distinctly marked off from the laity, but distinctly marked off among themselves by
well-defined gradations of rank. And, secondly, we find that each local Church is
constitutionally governed by one chief officer, whose powers are large and seldom
resisted, and who universally receives the title of bishop. To these two points we may
add a third. There is no trace of any belief, or even suspicion, that the constitution of
these local Churches had ever been anything else. On the contrary, the evidence
(and it is considerable) points to the conclusion that Christians in the latter part of
the second century-say A.D. 180 to 200-were fully persuaded that the Episcopal
form of government had prevailed in the different Churches from the Apostles’ time
to their own. Just as in the case of the Gospels, "Irenaeus and his contemporaries"
not only do not know of either more or less than the four which have come down to
us, but cannot conceive of there ever being either more or less, than these four: so in
the case of Church Government, they not only represent episcopacy as everywhere
prevalent in their time, but they have no idea that at any previous time any other
form of government prevailed. And although Irenaeus, like St. Paul and Clement of
Rome, sometimes speaks of bishops under the title of presbyter, yet it is quite clear
that there were at that time presbyters who were not bishops and who did not
possess Episcopal authority. Irenaeus himself was such a presbyter, until the
martyrdom of Pothinus in the persecution of A.D. 177 created a vacancy in the see
of Lyons, which Irenaeus was then called upon to fill; he held the see for upwards of

twenty years, from about A.D. 180 to 202. From Irenaeus and from his
contemporary Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, we learn not only the fact that
episcopacy prevailed everywhere, but, in not a few cases, the name of the existing
bishop; and in some cases the names of their predecessors are given up to the time of
the Apostles. Thus, in the case of the Church of Rome, Linus the first bishop is
connected with the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and, in the case of
Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite is said to have been appointed first bishop of that
Church by the Apostle Paul. This may or may not be correct: but at least it shows
that in the time of Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth episcopacy was not only
recognized as the universal form of Church government, but was also believed to
have prevailed in the principal Churches from the very earliest times.
5. If we narrow our field and look, not at the whole Church, but at the Churches of
Asia Minor and Syria, we may obtain yet another certainty from the obscure period
which lies between the age of the Apostles and that of Dionysius and Irenaeus. The
investigations of Lightfoot, Zahn, and Harnack have placed the genuineness of the
short Greek form of the Epistles of Ignatius beyond reasonable dispute. Their exact
date cannot as yet be determined. The evidence is strong that Ignatius was martyred
in the reign of Trajan: and, if that is accepted, the letters cannot be later than A.D.
117. But even if this evidence be rejected as not conclusive, and the letters be dated
ten or twelve years later, their testimony will still be of the utmost importance. They
prove that long before A.D. 150 episcopacy was the recognized form of government
throughout the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria; and, as Ignatius speaks of "the
bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth ( êáôá ôáñáôá ïñéóèåíôåò )"
they prove that, according to his belief, episcopacy was the recognized form
everywhere. {Eph_3:1-21} This evidence is not a little strengthened by the fact that,
as all sound critics on both sides are now agreed, the Epistles of Ignatius were
evidently not written in order to magnify the Episcopal office, or to preach up the
Episcopal system. The writer’s main object is to deprecate schism and all that might
tend to schism. And in his opinion the best way to avoid schism is to keep closely
united to the bishop. Thus, the magnifying of the Episcopal office comes about
incidentally; because Ignatius takes for granted that everywhere there is a bishop in
each Church, who is the duly appointed ruler of it, loyalty to whom will be a
security against all schismatical tendencies.
These four or five points being regarded as established to an extent which may
reasonably be called certainty, there remain certain other points about which
certainty is not yet possible, some of which admit of a probable solution, while for
others there is so little evidence that we have to fall back upon mere conjecture.
Among these would be the distinctions of office, or gradations of rank, among the
clergy in the first century or century and a half after the Ascension, the precise
functions assigned to each office, and the manner of appointment. With regard to
these questions three positions may be assumed with a considerable amount of

probability.
1. There was a distinction made between itinerant or missionary clergy and
stationary or localized clergy. Among the former we find apostles (who are a much
larger body than the Twelve), prophets, and evangelists. Among the latter we have
two orders, spoken of as bishops and deacons, as here and in the Epistle to the
Philippians (1) as well as in the Doctrine of the
2. Twelve Apostles, presbyter or elder being sometimes used as synonymous with
bishop. This distinction between an itinerant and a stationary ministry appears in
the First Epistle to the Corinthians, {1Co_12:28} in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
{Eph_4:11} and perhaps also in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St.
John. In the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" it is clearly marked.
There seems to have been a further distinction between those who did, and those
who did not, possess supernatural prophetical gifts. The title of prophet was
commonly, but perhaps not exclusively, given to those who possessed this gift: and
the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" shows a great respect for prophets. But the
distinction naturally died out when these supernatural gifts ceased to be manifested.
During the process of extinction serious difficulty arose as to the test of a genuine
prophet. Some fanatical persons believed themselves to be prophets, and some
dishonest persons pretended to be prophets when they were not such. The office
appears to have been extinct when Ignatius wrote: by prophets he always means the
prophets of the Old Testament. Montanism was probably a forlorn attempt to revive
this much desired office after the Church as a whole had decided against it. Further
discussion of the gift of prophecy in the ew Testament will be found in a previous
chapter (6).
1. The clergy were not elected by the congregation as its delegates or
representatives, deputed to perform functions which originally could be discharged
by any Christian. They were appointed by the Apostles and their successors or
substitutes. Where the congregation selected or recommended candidates, as in the
case of the Seven Deacons, {Act_6:4-6} they did not themselves lay hands on them.
The typical act of laying on of hands was always performed by those who were
already ministers, whether apostles, prophets, or elders. Whatever else was still
open to the laity, this act of ordaining was not. And there is good reason for
believing that the celebration of the Eucharist also was from the first reserved to the
clergy, and that all ministers, excepting prophets, were expected to use a prescribed
form of words in celebrating it.

But, although much still remains untouched, this discussion must draw to a close. In
the ideal Church there is no Lord’s Day or holy seasons, for all days are the Lord’s,
and all seasons are holy; there are no places especially dedicated to God’s worship,
for the whole universe is His temple; there are no persons especially ordained to be
His ministers, for all His people are priests and prophets. But in the Church as it
exists in a sinful world, the attempt to make all times and all places holy ends in the
desecration of all alike; and the theory that all Christians are priests becomes
indistinguishable from the theory that none is such. In this matter let us not try to
be wiser than God, Whose will may be discerned in His providential guiding of His
Church throughout so many centuries. The attempt to reproduce Paradise or to
anticipate heaven in a state of society which does not possess the conditions of
Paradise or heaven, can end in nothing but disastrous confusion.
In conclusion the following weighty words are gratefully quoted. They come with
special force from one who does not himself belong to an Episcopalian Church.
"By our reception or denial of priesthood in the Church, our entire view of what the
Church is must be affected and molded. We shall either accept the idea of a visible
and organized body, within which Christ rules by means of a ministry, sacraments,
and ordinances to which He has attached a blessing, the fullness of which we have
no right to look for except through the channels He has ordained (and it ought to be
needless to say that this is the Presbyterian idea), or we shall rest satisfied with the
thought of the Church as consisting of multitudes of individual souls known to God
alone, as invisible, unorganized, with ordinances blessed because of the memories
which they awaken, but to which no promise of present grace is tied, with, in short,
no thought of a Body of Christ in the world, but only of a spiritual and heavenly
principle ruling in the hearts and regulating the lives of men. Conceptions of the
Church so widely different from each other cannot fail to affect in the most vital
manner the Church’s life, and relation to those around her. Yet both conceptions
are the logical and necessary result of the acceptance or denial of the idea of a
divinely appointed and still living priesthood among men."
2 ow the overseer is to be above reproach,

faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled,
respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
BAR ES, "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 (ᅊνεπίληµπτον anepilēmpton) from that
rendered “blameless” in Luk_1:6; Phi_2:15; Phi_3:6 (ᅎµεµπτος 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 (νηφάλεος nēphaleos) 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 - σώφρονα sōphrona 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.
CLARKE, "A bishop then must be blameless - Our term bishop comes from the
Anglo-Saxon, which is a mere corruption of the Greek επισκοπος, and the Latin
episcopus; the former being compounded of επι, over, and σκεπτοµαι, 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 ‫פקיד‬ 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, Act_20:28; and to such like persons in other places, Phi_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 - is Christian bishop must be blameless; ανεπιληπτον, 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 skillful 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 fulfillment 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 - 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 - must be vigilant; νηφαλεον, from νη, not and πιω, 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
νηφαλεον, many MSS. read νηφαλιον· this may be the better orthography, but
makes no alteration in the sense.
Fourth - must be sober; σωφρονα, prudent or, according to the etymology of the

word, from σως, sound, and φρην, 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 - must be of good behavior; κοσµιον, orderly, decent, grave, and correct in the
whole of his appearance, carriage, and conduct. The preceding term, σωφρονα,
refers to the mind; this latter, κοσµιον, 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 - must be given to hospitality; φιλοξενον, 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 neighbor 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 labor 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 - should be apt to teach; διδακτικον, 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 labors were
greatly owned of God. No Church since the apostle’s days has been more honored 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 honor 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,

I timothy 3 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to I timothy 3 commentary

Similar to I timothy 3 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

I timothy 3 commentary