Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Timothy 3:2

"The bishop therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" — 1 Timothy 3:2 (ASV)

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.