1 Timothy 3:2

The best MSS. (אAD2GH) have ἀνεπίλημπτον (which should also be read in 1 Timothy 5:7 and 1 Timothy 6:14); the received spelling ἀνεπίληπτον has the support of KL and most cursives.

2. δεῖ οὖν. Therefore is it necessary &c. The ἔργον is καλόν, and demands therefore men of high moral character no less than of ability in affairs. Bonum negotium bonis committendum says Bengel.

τὸν ἐπίσκοπον. Stress is perhaps not to be laid on the singular number (see Introd. p. lxxii.), since it may be used generically. Yet it is remarkable that both here and at Titus 1:7 the singular is found, while the διάκονοι are mentioned (1 Timothy 3:8) in the plural[523]. And the presence of the definite article, which is so sparingly used in the Pastorals, seems to be significant.

[523] Yet the same thing occurs in 1 Timothy 5:1-2 where πρεσβυτέρῳ is singular and νεωτέρους plural, but there we find no definite article.

ἀνεπίλημπτον. The bishop must be without reproach. This is a classical word, not found outside this Epistle (cp. 1 Timothy 5:7; 1 Timothy 6:14) in N.T. or LXX.; it is stronger than ἄμεμπτος or ἀνέγκλητος, for it implies not only that the man is of good report, but that he deserves it: μὴ παρέχων κατηγορίας� is the Scholiast’s comment on the word, Thuc. v. 17. “The rule that a defectus bonae famae is a canonical impediment to Ordination is based upon this, although the Apostolic language is in reality more exacting.… The si quis before Ordination, and the confirmation before Episcopal Consecration, at the present day, are designed to secure what this word prescribes.” Liddon in loc.)

The qualifications now given are not, it will be observed, descriptive of the actual functions of Church officers; they have reference to spiritual and moral, not to official, requirements, and are not to be regarded as exhaustive. The list of a bishop’s qualifications in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 should be compared with that in the parallel passage Titus 1:6-9. There are some differences, although on the whole there is a marked similarity. Here e.g. we have κόσμιον, ἐπιεικῆ, ἄμαχον (but see Titus 3:2), μὴ νεόφυτον, and δεῖ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν�, which are not found in Titus; while μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, φιλάγαθον, δίκαιον, ὅσιον, ἐγκρατῆ, ἀντεχόμενον τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου of the later Epistle have no place here. It is not necessary to invent a theory (such as that each list was drawn up in view of the needs of the local Church) to account for these differences. They are neither more nor greater than might be expected in two letters written during the same period by the same man to two friends under somewhat similar circumstances. Neither list, as has been said, can be regarded as exhaustive.

μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα. The sense is fixed by the parallel clause in ch. 1 Timothy 5:9 (see note) ἑνὸς� which cannot possibly mean anything but a woman who has not re-married after the death or divorce of her husband. It excludes from ecclesiastical position those who have been married more than once. For ordinary Christians second marriages are not forbidden: see esp. Romans 7:3; 1 Corinthians 7:9; 1 Corinthians 7:39; and 1 Timothy 5:14. But they are forbidden to the ἐπίσκοπος, to the διάκονοι (1 Timothy 3:12), and to the χήραι who are put on the Church’s list, inasmuch as it is all important that they should be ἀνεπίλημπτοι[524]. For these persons is prescribed περὶ τὸν ἔνα γάμον σεμνότης (Clem. Alex. Strom. III. 1). Clement (l.c.) goes on to explain that second marriages, though not forbidden by the law, are a breaking in upon the Christian ideal of faithful union between one man and one woman. But, whatever truth there be in this view (see Matthew 19:4; Ephesians 5:32) it is not expressed here by St Paul, whose injunction μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα is directly suggested by the statement that the bishop is to be ἀνεπίλημ πτος. The point is that he must not lay himself open to charges like that of ἀκρατεία.

[524] Under the Pentateuchal law, the regulations about marriage were in like manner stricter for the priests than for the people; the priest was forbidden to marry a widow or a divorced woman (Leviticus 21:14).

How far such a prohibition is binding in the present condition of the world and of the Church is another question. It must be remembered that St Paul is not enumerating here the essential characteristics of a bishop; he is dwelling upon certain moral and personal qualities which, in the Church of that day, it was desirable that he should possess. And it has been argued with considerable force that regulations of this sort cannot be regarded as of universal and permanent obligation, for circumstances may so change as to render them unwise or unnecessary. The Roman, the Greek, and the Anglican Communions have, as a matter of history, all departed from the letter of this rule; the Roman in forbidding the marriage of the clergy in general; the Greek in requiring celibacy of bishops; and the Anglican in permitting their re-marriage. The sense of the Church plainly is that this regulation, at least, may be modified by circumstances. See below on διδακτικός.

Other interpretations of these disputed words are (a) that they forbid polygamy. But, although polygamy is said to have been not unknown among the Jews of the Apostolic age (Joseph. Antt. xvii. 12; Just. Mart. Trypho 134), it was quite an exceptional thing; and it was never countenanced by Christians. Polygamy would not have been lawful for any Christian convert, whether from Judaism or from heathendom; and therefore the special prohibition in the case of a bishop would have been without point. Such an interpretation is indeed absolutely excluded by the parallel clause ἑνὸς� of ch. 1 Timothy 5:9. (b) That they forbid any deviation from the ordinary laws of Christian purity of life. But this is not a satisfactory or precise interpretation of the words. (c) That the ἐπίσκοπος must be a married man, not a celibate. This would not only be inconsistent with 1 Corinthians 7:17, but does not represent the force of μιᾶς, the emphatic word in the sentence. No explanation is adequate save that which lies on the surface, viz. the ἐπίσκοπος must be married only once, if at all.

νηφάλιον. The word does not occur in the Greek Bible outside the Pastoral Epp.; but νήφειν is a Pauline word (see 1 These. 1 Timothy 5:6 &c.). Primarily having reference to sobriety in the case of wine, it has here the more extended sense of temperate.

σώφρονα. see on 1 Timothy 2:9 above, σώφρων is a word of higher meaning and wider use than νηφάλιος. Compare the juxtaposition in 1 Peter 4:7 : σωφρονήσατε οὗν καὶ νήψατε.

κόσμιον, orderly. This expresses the outward manifestation of the spirit of σωφροσύνη. The ‘wise man’ of the Stoics was to be κόσμιος (Stob. II. 240); and the idea is also found, though in an absurd and exaggerated form, in Aristotle’s description of the μεγαλόψυχος: καὶ κίνησις δὲ βραδεῖα τοῦ μεγαλοψύχου δοκεῖ εἷναι, καὶ φωνὴ βαρεῖα, καὶ λέξις στάσιμος• οὐ γὰρ σπευστικὸς ὁ περὶ ὀλίγα σπουδάζων κ.τ.λ. (Nic. Eth. IV. iii. 34). The ἐπίσκοπος, at least, must be vir compositus et ordinatus (Seneca, de vita beata 8).

φιλόξενον. The duty of hospitality was especially incumbent on the ἐπίσκοπος as the persona ecclesiae; but it is also recommended to widows (ch. 1 Timothy 5:10), and to all Christians (Romans 12:13; Hebrews 13:2; 1 Peter 4:9; 3 John 1:5). The duty was of even greater moment in the Apostolic age than now; a Christian e.g. might readily find cause of offence in the meat set before him in any heathen household (see 1 Corinthians 10:28 &c.), and it was therefore specially incumbent on Christians to minister hospitality to their brethren.

διδακτικόν. So 2 Timothy 2:24 and Titus 1:9, where this qualification is more fully expressed. Cp. also Ephesians 4:11. This was, perhaps, not part of the formal duty of the ἐπίσκοπος (see Introd. p. lxxii.); it was a desirable qualification in view of the special circumstances of Ephesus and Crete. That it should be mentioned at all as pertaining to the ἐπίσκοπος is an argument in favour of the comparatively early date of the Pastoral Epistles.