Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Timothy 3

This is a true saying.—There is no reason why the rendering of this formula adopted in 1 Timothy 1:15, faithful is this saying, should be altered here. The “faithful saying” here refers to the wish for high and arduous work in the Church of Christ, and declares such a wish to be a noble one; for the office in question was a beautiful one, and honourable, and in those days meant stern and ceaseless work, grave and constant danger.

It was no doubt one of the well-known sayings among the brethren of the first days, and not improbably, with the other “faithful sayings” of this group of Epistles, formed a part of their liturgy, and was woven into some of their special prayers offered in public. Perhaps this “faithful saying” was a portion of a prayer offered frequently in the public assembly, asking that volunteers might be moved by the Holy Spirit to present themselves for the then dangerous office of ordained ministers of the Word.

“A man might well desire the office of chief pastor; it was indeed a good work;” but, in the first place, such a dignity could only be held by one possessing many qualities, which are then enumerated.

If a man desire the office of a bishop.—More accurately rendered, If a man seeks.

In the Pastoral Epistles the Greek words rendered “bishop” and “presbyter” or elder (episcopos, presbuteros), are applied indifferently to the same person, for up to this period (A.D. 65-6) no necessity had arisen in the constitution of the Church for the appointment of a special order of superintending presbyters.

The numbers of the members of the brotherhood, though every year showing a vast increase, were still, comparatively speaking, small. St. Peter, St. Paul, St. James and St. John, and certainly the majority of the apostolic college, were still living; while, until A.D. 70, the Jerusalem congregation still acted as the central authority of the Church, and grave questions continued to be referred to the Fathers resident there.

Early in the second century, however, there is not a shadow of doubt that the episcopal office, as we understand it, was widely established. During the last thirty years, then, of the first century, this great change in Church organisation must have been effected—that is, during the life-time of St. John.

How this was brought about is admirably stated by Professor Rothe, of Heidelberg, as quoted by Canon Lightfoot in his dissertation on the Christian ministry (Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians). Lightfoot, without accepting all the details suggested, still in the main agrees with the famous Heidelberg professor in his theory respecting the very early establishment of episcopacy in the Catholic Church.

After painting the distractions and growing dissensions of the Church—occasioned by the jealousies between the Jewish and Gentile brethren, and the menacing apparition of the Gnostic heresy—Rothe states that in the face of this great emergency, St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. James were carried away by death almost at the same time.

Meanwhile, with the overthrow of Jerusalem very shortly after, the visible centre of the Church was removed, the keystone of the fabric was withdrawn, and the whole edifice was threatened with ruin. There was a crying need for some organisation which should cement together the diverse elements of Christian society and preserve it from disintegration. Out of this need, the Catholic Church in its episcopal character arose.

From notices in Eusebius, Irenæus, and Clement of Rome, Rothe (quoted by Lightfoot) concludes: “that, immediately after the fall of Jerusalem, a council of the surviving Apostles and first teachers of the gospel was held to deliberate on the crisis, and to frame measures for the well-being of the Church. The centre of the system thus organised was episcopacy, which at once secured the compact and harmonious working of each individual congregation, and, as the link of communication between the separate brotherhoods, formed the whole into one undivided Catholic Church. Recommended by this high authority, the new constitution was immediately and generally adopted.”

He desireth a good work.—The office of a presbyter of the Church in the days of St. Paul was a difficult and dangerous post. It involved much labour; it was full of risk; it meant a hard and severe life; yet, from the Christian’s standpoint, it was a work, if faithfully performed, of all toils the most beautiful, the most honourable, the most noble. “Negotium non otium” comments Bengel, in his usual pithy, untranslatable way.

A bishop then must be blameless.—Now follow the various social and moral characteristics of the appointed and recognized officers of the Christian Church—the presbyters or bishops, and the junior ministers, the deacons. The second chapter had treated of the duties of congregations collectively in the matter of public prayer; the third chapter speaks of the special character and qualities necessary for the rulers of these congregations.

These “elders” must, in the first place, be men whose character is unimpeachable—men who stand high in public estimation, known for their pure life and spotless integrity. Not only must believers reverence the character of the superintending and ruling elders of their community, but even those outside the brotherhood of Christ must respect the life and conduct of these prominent and conspicuous members of a society which, from the nature of things, would be sure to provoke distrust and jealousy.

The husband of one wife.—The general opinion of the most ancient writers—the decisions of Church councils when the question was before them—the custom of the great Greek Church, which, while permitting a single marriage, still regarded remarriage as a disqualification for the higher grade of the episcopate—tell us in general terms that the Church from the earliest times interpreted this saying of St. Paul as a declaration against second marriages for those seeking the office of presbyter or deacon. The Greek Church evidently accepts this interpretation, though it relaxes the rule for the inferior orders.

There seems, however, good reason for doubting the accuracy of this popular interpretation, which appears, by thus casting a reproach on second marriages, to urge a spirit of asceticism on all Christian society, very foreign to St. Paul’s usual teaching, which was content with gently inculcating a higher and a purer life as alone in accordance with the mind of his compassionate and loving Master. It was only by slow degrees that he hoped to raise the tone of society and public opinion in this world.

Inspired Christian teaching was careful not to distract the everyday life of men and women by insisting on sudden and violent changes. The behavior of the great Christian teachers in the matter of that terrible and universal practice of slavery should be especially noted.

When we ask, What then did St. Paul mean by these words? we must picture to ourselves the state of society in the empire at the time when the Apostle wrote to Timothy. An inundation of Eastern luxury and Eastern morals had submerged all the old Roman habits of austere simplicity. The long civil war and the subsequent license of the empire had degraded the character of the people.

The period when St. Paul wrote was especially marked by an extreme depravity. A great and general disinclination towards marriage at all, and the orderly restraints of home and family life, had become so marked a feature in Roman society, that we find Augustus positively enacting laws against celibacy.

Another cause that helped to undermine the stability of home life and those family ties which should be considered so sacred was the ease and frequency of divorce. Seneca, who may be considered almost a contemporary of St. Paul, alludes to divorces as incidents no longer looked upon as shameful in Rome. He even, in his indignation at the laxity of the morals of his day, cites cases of women who reckoned their years by their husbands rather than by the consuls.

Martial writes of a woman who had reached her tenth husband. Juvenal speaks of one who, in five years, had had eight husbands. Among the Jews, we know polygamy was then prevalent.

St. Paul, fully conscious of this low and debased moral tone that then pervaded all society in the empire, in these few words condemned all illicit relations between the sexes. He directed that in choosing persons to fill holy offices in Christian congregations, those should be selected who had married and remained faithful to the wife of their choice. Their life and practice would thus serve as an example to the flock, and their homes would be ones to which people could point as the pattern that Jesus loved. In this way, the surrounding pagan world would see that the hated and despised Christians not only loved and honored, but lived that pure home life their own great moralists so earnestly urged upon them, but in vain.

This direction, which requires that those selected to fill holy offices should be known for their purity in their family relations, of course does not exclude—should such men offer themselves—those who, while not entering into marriage, were still known to lead upright, moral lives.

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

Sober.—Better translated, discreet.

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

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

Given to hospitality.—In the early days of Christianity, Christians traveling from one place to another were accustomed, when possible, to stay in the houses of their fellow believers to avoid associating with idolaters in the public inns. It was of no slight importance that the presiding elders in a congregation should be men who loved to entertain strangers and others, from whom nothing could be expected in return.

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

Not given to wine.—Drunkenness is scarcely alluded to here. It is rather a warning against choosing for the sacred office one given to frequenting noisy banquets, where wild and imprudent words are often spoken.

No striker.—Probably something more than merely brawling and fighting may be included here. Not only must the model minister of the Lord never strike his brother believer, but he must also never wound his soul with cutting, unkind words.

Not greedy of filthy lucre.—The Greek word thus translated does not occur in the older manuscripts in this place.

But patient.—God’s minister must be considerate toward the prejudices of others, forbearing, and gentle.

Not a brawler.—Better rendered, not contentious. He must not be easily vexed; but must exercise a steady command over his temper, avoiding all wordy strife.

Not covetous.—Literally, not a lover of money. The disinterested minister, who cares nothing for money for money’s sake, would always stand out in all societies as a strangely attractive figure.

One that ruleth well his own house.—Paul here again turns to the vein of thought first introduced in 1 Timothy 3:2: The life of the officer in the Church of God must be a pattern life for those outside, as well as for those within the Church’s fold, to copy and imitate. He must be pre-eminent in nobility of life and aims; but the life and the aims must belong to ordinary, everyday life. His high standard must be not an inimitable one; the example must be one that all honest people may follow and copy, if they are willing.

So, first of all (1 Timothy 3:2), the Apostle places among the qualities necessary for a governing elder in the Church, the pure home life of the husband; then, after enumerating other points to be looked for in the character of one chosen to rule in the congregation, Paul comes back to this central idea, the home life of the Church official; that home life must present the spectacle of a well-ordered household. This will be at least a good test of a man’s fitness to rule the large family of the congregation, if his own home is gently yet firmly ruled; his wife, a model Christian lady; his children growing up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Having his children in subjection with all gravity.—The Greek word translated as “gravity” occurs in 1 Timothy 2:2, where it is translated in the Authorized Version, not very happily, by “honesty.” The word used in the original Greek denotes that decorum, that propriety of demeanour, which belongs especially to the pure and chaste, and seems to urge that a particular reverence and a special decorum should be aimed at in all relations with the young. Maxima debetur pueris reverentia. The child life in the families of these ministers of Christ’s religion must also be an example to countless other homes.

For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?—The well-ordered household, the decent, modest behaviour, the reverent, affectionate relations between parents and children, between the master and the dependents—these things are to be the test of a man’s fitness for holding high office in the public community of believers.

For, as Theodoret observes, if a man cannot rule decorously a small community (such as a family), how shall he be judged a fit person to be entrusted with administration in a broader sphere—with duties which have to do with divine things?