Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Timothy 3

First Timothy Chapter 3

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

The object of this chapter is to give directions concerning the qualifications and duties of the officers of the Christian church. Since it is evident that Timothy was to be partly employed in the appointment of suitable officers for the church at Ephesus, and since the kinds of officers here referred to were to be permanent in the church, it was important that a full statement should be put on record, under the influence of inspiration, concerning their qualifications and duties. The chapter embraces the following subjects:

1. The qualifications of a bishop (1 Timothy 3:1–7). The enumeration of his qualifications is preceded by a general statement that the office was an honorable one, and that he who aspired to it sought an employment that was, in itself, to be regarded as desirable (1 Timothy 3:1). The qualifications specified for this office are the following:

   1. He must be a man of good private character, possessing and illustrating the Christian virtues—or, as we would say now, an upright man and a Christian gentleman (1 Timothy 3:2–3).

   2. He must be a man who ruled his own house well and who thus showed that he was qualified to preside as the first officer in the church of God (1 Timothy 3:4–5).

   3. He must be a man of suitable age and experience—one who would not be likely to fall into the temptations that are laid for the young (1 Timothy 3:6).

   4. He must have a fair reputation among those who were not Christians—as it is intended that the influence of his ministry will reach them, and as it is impossible to do them good unless he is believed to be a man of integrity (1 Timothy 3:7).

2. The qualifications of deacons (1 Timothy 3:8–10, 12-13). They must be:

   1. Men of fair character—serious, temperate, candid (1 Timothy 3:8).

   2. Men who hold to the doctrines of the gospel with a pure conscience (1 Timothy 3:9).

   3. Men who have been proven, and who have shown that they are qualified to serve the church (1 Timothy 3:10).

   4. Men whose wives are of such a character that their example will contribute to the promotion of the common cause (1 Timothy 3:11).

   5. Men not living in polygamy, and who exercise exemplary family government (1 Timothy 3:12–13).

3. The reason why Paul gave these instructions to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:14–15). It was so that he might know how he ought to conduct himself in the important station which he was called to occupy. Paul hoped to be able to come to him before long and to complete the work which he had commenced at Ephesus; but, in the meantime, he gave him these written instructions, so that he might understand particularly the duty which was required of him.

4. The chapter closes with a statement which seems to have been intended to impress Timothy's mind with the importance of the duties in which he was engaged (1 Timothy 3:15–16). The statement is that the church is the great defender of the truth in the world (1 Timothy 3:15), and that the truth which the church is to maintain is of the greatest importance.

   This truth relates to the incarnation of the Son of God and to the work which He accomplished on earth—a work which excited the deepest interest in heaven, and the true doctrine concerning which it was of the utmost importance to maintain among men (1 Timothy 3:16).

   This reason is further urged in the following chapter by showing that the time would come when, under the influence of Satan, these great doctrines would be denied, and the truth be corrupted and perverted.

This is a true saying. Greek: Faithful is the word—the very phrase which is used in 1 Timothy 1:15. (See Barnes on 1 Timothy 1:15).

The idea here is that it was worthy of credence; it was not to be doubted.

If a man desire. This implies 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 the one 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 that 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 are substantially found in him. The word rendered desire here (orego) properly denotes to reach or stretch out—and hence to reach after anything, to long after, to try to obtain (Hebrews 11:16).

The office of a bishop. The Greek here is a single word—episkophv. The word episkoph—episcoe—from which the word Episcopal is derived—occurs only four times in the New Testament. It is translated visitation in Luke 19:44 and 1 Peter 2:12; bishoprick in Acts 1:20; and, in this place, office of a bishop. The verb from which it is derived (episkopew) occurs only twice. In Hebrews 12:15, it is rendered looking diligently; and in 1 Peter 5:2, taking the oversight. The noun rendered bishop occurs in Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 2:25.

The verb properly means 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 (Xenophon, Oeconomicus, 15, 9; compare Passow) and is of such a general character that it may denote any office of overseeing or attending to. There is nothing in the word itself that 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:

• To believers in general, directing them to look diligently, lest any one should fail of the grace of God, (Hebrews 12:15);

• To the elders of the church at Ephesus, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, (Acts 20:28);

• To the elders or presbyters of the church in 1 Peter 5:2, Feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof;

• 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, (Philippians 1:1);

• To Judas, the apostate (Acts 1:20); and

• To the great Head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 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 peculiarity 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 (Acts 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 concerning 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 that is wholly unauthorized by the New Testament, and that, indeed, is entirely at variance with the usage there. To apply the term to a pretended superior Order of clergy, as designating their peculiar 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 that it is right for a man to desire. There are some stations in life that ought never to be desired; it is proper for anyone to desire the office of a bishop who has the proper qualifications. (Compare to Barnes on Romans 11:13).

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

Must be blameless. This is a different word (anepilēptos) from that rendered blameless in Luke 1:6, Philippians 2:15, and Philippians 3:6 (amemptos). Compare Luke 1:6 and Philippians 3:6.

The word used here 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 does not need to 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 it may generally 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 of 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. That the former is the correct opinion seems evident to me from the following considerations:

1. It is the most obvious meaning of the language, and it would undoubtedly 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 expressly declared to be proper (1 Corinthians 7:39), and it is not unfair to infer from that permission that it is equally lawful and proper for a man to marry a second time. But if it is lawful for any man, it is right for a minister of the gospel. No reason can be assigned against such marriages in his case which would not be equally valid in any other. Marriage is as honourable for a minister of the gospel as for any other man ; 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 polygamy was extensively practised 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 every man who came into the church to divorce his wives if he had more than one, yet, to stigmatize 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 dishonourable and improper, and the example and influence of the ministry would tend to introduce correct views regarding the nature of this relation. One thing is clear from this passage: the views of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the celibacy of the clergy are directly at variance with the Bible.

   The declaration of Paul in Hebrews 13:4 is that marriage is honourable in all; and here it is implied that it was proper that a minister should be married. If it were not, why did Paul not 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 Roman Catholic say so now?

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

Sober (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 closer to the apostle's meaning than any single word we have.

Of good behaviour. The marginal reading is modest. Coverdale renders it “mannerly.” The most correct rendering, according to modern 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 violate the customs of polite society, nor be unfit to appear respectably in the most refined social circles.

Inattention to personal neatness and to the rules that govern polite interaction is indicative neither of talent, learning, nor religion. And though such inattention is occasionally—not often—connected with talent, learning, and religion, it is never the fruit of any of them and is 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 polished gentleman in his manners, and there is no excuse for him if he is not. His religion, if he has any, is suited to make him so. He has usually received an education that ought to make him so, and in all cases ought to have had such training.

He is admitted into the best society and has an opportunity to become familiar with the norms of polite interaction. He should be an example and a model in all that promotes the welfare of humankind. Few things so easily acquired are as suited to this purpose as refinement and gentility of manners. No man can do good, on the whole, or in the “long run,” by disregarding the rules of polite interaction. Other things being equal, the refined, courteous, polite gentleman in the ministry will always do more good than one who neglects the rules of good-breeding.

Given to hospitality. This is often enjoined on all Christians as a religious duty. For the reasons for this, and the nature of the duty, see Romans 12:3 and Hebrews 13:2.

It was a special duty of 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 others 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. Moreover, no one should feel that he ought to continue in the ministry if he does not have the industry, self-denial, and love of study sufficient to lead him constantly to endeavor to increase in knowledge, so 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.

Not given to wine. The marginal note says, "Not ready to quarrel and offer wrong, as one in wine." The Greek word (paroinos) occurs in the New Testament only here and in Titus 1:7. It means, properly, by wine; that is, spoken of what takes place by or over wine, such as revelry, drinking songs, and similar things.

Then it denotes, as it does here, one who sits by wine—that is, one who is in the habit of drinking it. It cannot be inferred from the use of the word here that wine was absolutely and entirely prohibited, for the word does not properly express that idea. It means that one who is in the habit of drinking wine, or who is accustomed to sit with those who indulge in it, should not be admitted to the ministry.

The way in which the apostle mentions the subject here would lead us fairly to suppose that he did not mean to commend its use in any sense; that he regarded its use as dangerous and that he would wish the ministers of religion to avoid it altogether. Regarding its use at all, except at the communion or as a medicine, it may be remarked that a minister will do no injury to himself or others by letting it entirely alone; he may do injury by indulging in it. No one is under any obligation of courtesy or Christian duty to use it; thousands of ministers of the gospel have brought ruin on themselves, and disgrace on the ministry, by its use. See Barnes' notes on Matthew 11:19 and 1 Timothy 5:23.

No striker; he must be a peaceable, not a quarrelsome man. This is connected with the caution about the use of wine, probably because that is commonly found to produce a spirit of contention and strife.

Not greedy of filthy lucre. This means not contentious or avaricious. The Greek means, "Not desirous of base gain." The desire for this is condemned everywhere in the New Testament, but it is especially the duty of a minister of the gospel to be free from it. He has a right to support (see Barnes' notes on 1 Corinthians 9:1 and following), but there is nothing that more certainly paralyzes the usefulness of a minister of the gospel than the love of money.

There is an instinctive feeling in the human bosom that such a man ought to be actuated by a nobler and purer principle. Moreover, since avarice is the great sin of the world—the sin that sways more hearts and does more to hinder the progress of the gospel than all others combined—it is of the highest importance that the minister of religion should be an example of what people should be. By his whole life, he should set his face against that which is the main obstruction to the progress of the gospel he is appointed to preach.

But patient. This means modest, mild, gentle. See the Greek word in Philippians 4:5, Titus 3:2, James 3:17, and 1 Peter 2:18, where it is rendered gentle. The word means that the minister of the gospel should be a man of mild and kind demeanor, such as his Master was.

Not a brawler. Compare 2 Timothy 2:24. That is, he should not be a man given to contention or apt to take up a quarrel. The Greek is, literally, Not disposed to fight.

Not covetous. The Greek is Not a lover of silver—that is, of money. A man should not be put into the ministry who is characteristically a lover of money. Such a person, no matter what his talents may be, has no proper qualification for the office and will do more harm than good.

One that ruleth well his own house. This implies that a minister of the gospel would be, and ought to be, a married man. It is everywhere in the New Testament supposed that he would be a man who could be an example in all relationships of life.

The position he occupies in the church strongly resembles the relationship a father has with his household. A qualification to govern a family well would be evidence of a qualification to preside properly in the church.

It is probable that in the early Christian church, ministers were frequently chosen from those of mature life who were, at the time, heads of families. Of course, these would be men who had an opportunity to show they possessed this qualification for the office.

However, while this cannot be insisted upon now as a prior qualification for the office, it is still true that if he has a family, it is a necessary qualification. A man in the ministry should be one who governs his own house well. Lacking this will always be a hindrance to extensive usefulness.

Having his children in subjection with all gravity. This does not mean that his children should display gravity, whatever may be true on that point; rather, it refers to the father. He should be a grave or serious man in his family, free from levity of character, and from frivolity and fickleness in his interaction with his children.

This does not mean he should be severe, stern, or morose—traits often mistaken for gravity, and which are as inconsistent with the proper spirit of a father as a frivolous manner—but rather that he should be a serious and sober-minded man.

He should maintain proper dignity (semnotēs); he should maintain self-respect, and his deportment should be such as to inspire respect from others.

For if a man know not how to rule. This is a beautiful and striking argument. A church resembles a family. It is, indeed, larger, and there is a greater variety of dispositions in it than there is in a family. The authority of a minister of the gospel in a church is also less absolute than that of a father.

But still there is a striking resemblance. The church is made up of an assemblage of brothers and sisters. They are banded together for the same purposes and have a common object to aim at. They have common feelings and common wants. They have sympathy, like a family, with each other in their distresses and afflictions.

The government of the church also is designed to be paternal. It should be felt that he who presides over it has the feelings of a father; that he loves all the members of the great family; that he has no prejudices, no partialities, no selfish aims to gratify. Now, if a man cannot govern his own family well; if he is severe, partial, neglectful, or tyrannical at home, how can he be expected to take charge of the more numerous "household of faith" with proper views and feelings?

If, with all the natural and strong ties of affection which bind a father to his own children; if, when they are comparatively few in number, and where his eye is constantly upon them, he is unable to govern them correctly, how can he be expected to preside in a proper manner over the larger household, where he will be bound with comparatively feebler ties, and where he will be exposed more to the influence of passion, and where he will have a much less constant opportunity of supervision?

Confucius, as quoted by Doddridge, has a sentiment strikingly resembling that before us: "It is impossible, that he who knows not how to govern and reform his own family, should rightly govern and reform a people." We may remark, also, in this verse, a delicate and beautiful use of words by the apostle to prevent the possibility of misapprehension.

While he institutes a comparison between the government of a family and that of the church, he guards against the possibility of its being supposed that he would approve of arbitrary authority in the church, even such authority as a father must of necessity employ in his own family. Hence he uses different words: he speaks of the father as 'ruling' over his own family, or presiding over it —prosthnai; he describes the minister of religion as having a tender care for the church —epimelhsetai.