John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 3

It is a true saying. Chrysostom thinks that this is the conclusion of the preceding doctrine. But I do not approve of this opinion, for Paul commonly uses this form of expression as a prelude to what he is about to introduce. Besides, in the former discourse, there was no need for such a strong 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. Having forbidden women to teach, he now takes occasion to speak of the office of a bishop for these main reasons:

1. So that it may be more clearly seen that it was not without reason that he refused to allow women to undertake such an arduous work.

2. So that it might not be thought that, by excluding women only, he admitted all men indiscriminately.

3. 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 women are so far from being fit for undertaking such an excellent 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 “those things which are excellent are also arduous and difficult;” and thus he unites difficulty with excellence, or rather, he therefore argues that it is not for every person to discharge the office of a bishop, because it is a thing of great value.

I think that Paul’s meaning is now sufficiently clear, though, as far as I perceive, none of the commentators have understood it. The general meaning is that a selection should be made in admitting bishops, because it is a laborious and difficult charge, and that those who aim at it should carefully consider whether or not they are able to bear such a heavy burden.

Ignorance is always rash, and a mature knowledge of things makes a man modest. How is it that those who have neither ability nor wisdom often aspire so confidently to hold the reins of government, if not 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 has purchased with his own blood, and to govern the Church, which is God’s 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: “Is it lawful, in any way, to desire the office of a bishop?” On the one hand, it appears to be highly improper for anyone 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 should it be condemned in “the 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 those who spend all their youth in reading the Holy Scriptures prepare themselves by learning? What are theological schools but nurseries of pastors?

Accordingly, those who have been thus instructed not only may lawfully devote themselves and their labors to God by a voluntary offering, but even should do so, and that too, before they have been admitted to the office; provided that 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 are required.

And if it turns 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 resent that others have been preferred to them. But those who, without any selfish motive, will have no other wish than to serve God and the Church, will be so disposed; and, at the same time, will have such modesty that they will not be at all envious if others are preferred to them as being more worthy.

If anyone objects that the government of the Church is a matter of such great difficulty that it should rather strike terror into the minds of persons of sound judgment than excite them to desire it, I reply that the desire of great men does not rest on confidence in their own industry or virtue, but on the assistance of God, from whom is our sufficiency, as Paul says elsewhere (2 Corinthians 3:5). At the same time, it is necessary to observe what Paul calls “the office of a bishop,” all the more because the ancients were led away from the true meaning by the custom of their times; for while Paul generally includes all pastors, they understand a bishop to be one who was elected from each college to preside over his brethren. Let us remember, therefore, that this word has the same meaning as if he had called them ministers, or pastors, or presbyters.

A bishop, therefore, must be blameless. The particle therefore confirms the explanation I have given; for, on account of the dignity of the office, he concludes that it is required that he be a man endowed with rare gifts, and not just any person taken from the crowd. If the expression used had been “a good work,” as the ordinary translation has it, or “an honorable work,” (honestam,) as Erasmus has translated it, the inference would not have been suitable.

He wishes a bishop to be blameless; instead of this, in the Epistle to Titus, he has used (Titus 1:7) the word ἀνέγκλητον, meaning by both words that he must not be marked by any disgrace that would lessen his authority. No one will be found among men who is free from every vice. But it is one thing to be blemished by ordinary vices, which do not harm the reputation because they are found even in men of the highest excellence, and another thing to have a disgraceful name or to be stained by any shameful conduct.

Therefore, so that a bishop may not lack authority, he directs that a selection should be made of one who has a good and honorable reputation, and is not guilty of any notable vice. Besides, he does not merely give Timothy a rule about what sort of person he must select, but also reminds everyone who aspires to that rank to carefully examine himself and his life.

The husband of one wife. It is a childish fancy to interpret this as meaning “the pastor of a single church.” Another exposition has been more generally received: that the person set apart for that office must be one who has not been married more than once, his one wife having since died, so that now he is not a married man. But both in this passage and in Titus 1:6, the apostle’s words are, “Who is,” and not “Who has been.” And in this very Epistle, where he treats of widows (1 Timothy 3:10), he expressly uses the participle of the past tense. Besides, in this way he would contradict himself, because elsewhere he declares that he has no wish to lay a snare on consciences.

The only true exposition, therefore, is that of Chrysostom: that in a bishop he expressly condemns polygamy, which at that time the Jews almost considered lawful. This corruption was borrowed by them partly from sinful imitation of the Fathers (for those who read that Abraham, Jacob, David, and others of the same class were married to more than one wife at the same time thought that it was lawful for them also to do the same) and partly from neighboring nations, for the inhabitants of the East never observed the proper conscientiousness and fidelity in marriage. However that may be, polygamy was very prevalent among them; and therefore Paul very properly enjoins that a bishop should be free from this stain.

And yet I do not disapprove of the opinion of those who think that the Holy Spirit intended to guard against the diabolical superstition that arose later; as if he had said, “So far is it from being right and proper that celibacy should be enforced on bishops, that marriage is a state highly suitable for all believers.” In this way, he would not demand it as a necessary thing for them, but would only praise it as not inconsistent with the dignity of the office. Yet the view I have already given is more simple and more solid: that Paul forbids polygamy in all who hold the office of a bishop, because it is a mark of an unchaste man and of one who does not observe marital fidelity.

But it might be objected here that what is sinful for everyone should not have been condemned or forbidden in bishops alone. The answer is easy. When it is expressly prohibited for bishops, it does not therefore follow that it is freely allowed for others. Beyond all doubt, Paul universally condemned what was contrary to an unrepealed law of God, for it is a settled enactment:

They shall be one flesh (Genesis 2:24).

But he might, to some extent, tolerate that in others which, in a bishop, would have been excessively vile and therefore unbearable.

Nor is this a law established for the future, that no bishop who already has one wife shall marry a second or a third while the first wife is still living; rather, Paul excludes from the office of a bishop anyone who is guilty of such an enormity.

Accordingly, what had once been done and could not be corrected, he reluctantly tolerated, but only in the common people. For what was the remedy for those who, under Judaism, had fallen into the snare of polygamy? Should they have divorced their second and third wives? Such a divorce would not have been without injustice. Therefore, since the deed was done and could not be undone, he left it untouched, but with this exception: that no bishop should be blemished by such a stain.

Sober, temperate, modest. The word we have translated sober, Erasmus has translated (vigilantem) watchful. As the Greek word νηφάλεος admits of either meaning, readers may make their own choice. I have preferred to translate σώφρονα as temperate, instead of sober, because σωφροσύνη has a more extensive meaning than sobriety. Modest means one who conducts himself with decency and propriety.

Hospitable. The hospitality spoken of here is toward strangers, and this was very common among the ancients; for it would have been considered disgraceful for respectable persons, and especially for those who were well known, to lodge in taverns. Today, the situation is different; but this virtue is and always will be highly necessary in a bishop, for many reasons.

Besides, during the cruel persecution of the godly, many people must have been forced to frequently change their homes; and therefore it was necessary that the houses of bishops should be a retreat for the exiles. In those times, hard necessity compelled the churches to provide mutual aid, so that they gave lodging to one another. Now, if the bishops had not led the way for others in this area of duty, most people, following their example, would have neglected the practice of humanity, and thus the poor fugitives would have been greatly discouraged.

Able to teach. In the Epistle to Titus, doctrine is expressly mentioned; here he only speaks briefly about skill in communicating instruction. It is not enough to have profound learning if it is not accompanied by a talent for teaching. There are many who, either because their speech is defective, or because they do not have strong mental abilities, or because they do not use familiar language suitable for common people, keep the knowledge they possess to themselves. Such persons, as the phrase goes, ought to “Sing to themselves and to the Muses.”

Those who have the charge of governing the people must be qualified for teaching. And here he does not demand fluency of speech, for we see many people whose fluent talk is not suited for edification; rather, he commends wisdom in applying the word of God judiciously for the benefit of the people.

It is worthwhile to consider how the Papists hold that the injunctions the apostle gives do not at all belong to them. I shall not enter into a detailed explanation of all the particulars; but on this one point, what sort of diligence do they observe? And indeed, that gift would be superfluous for them, for they banish from themselves the ministry of teaching as low and demeaning, although this especially belonged to a bishop.

But everybody knows how far it is from observing Paul’s rule to assume the title of bishop and proudly boast of playing a role without speaking, provided only that they make their appearance in theatrical attire. It is as if a horned mitre, a ring richly set with jewels, a silver cross, and other trifles, accompanied by empty display, constituted the spiritual governance of a church, which can no more be separated from doctrine than any one of us can be separated from his own soul.

Not addicted to wine. By the word πάροινον, which is used here, the Greeks denote not merely drunkenness, but any intemperance or excessive indulgence in wine. Indeed, to drink wine excessively is not only very unbecoming for a pastor, but commonly leads to many things still worse, such as quarrels, foolish attitudes, unchaste conduct, and other things it is not necessary to describe. But the contrast added shortly afterwards shows that Paul goes further than this.

Not a striker, not wickedly desirous of gain. As he contrasts “a striker” with one who is not quarrelsome, and the one who is covetous of dishonest gain (ἀφιλάργυρον) with one who is not covetous, so with τῷ παροίνῳ (the one addicted to wine), he contrasts one who is gentle or kind.

The true interpretation is that given by Chrysostom: that men of a drunken and fierce disposition should be excluded from the office of a bishop. Regarding Chrysostom's opinion that “a striker” means one who wounds with the tongue (that is, who is guilty of slander or outrageous reproaches), I do not accept it.

Nor am I persuaded by his argument that it is of little consequence if the bishop does not strike with his hand; for I think that here he generally reproves that fierceness which is often found in the military profession, and which is utterly unbecoming for the servants of Christ.

It is well known how much ridicule those bring upon themselves who are more ready to strike a blow with the fist—and, we might even say, to draw the sword—than to settle the disputes of others by their own sedate behavior. Strikers is therefore the term he applies to those who often resort to threats and are of a warlike temperament.

All covetous persons are wickedly desirous of gain; for wherever covetousness exists, there will also be that baseness of which the apostle speaks. “He who wishes to become rich wishes also to become rich soon.” The consequence is that all covetous persons, even though this is not openly apparent, pursue dishonest and unlawful gains. Therefore, he contrasts this vice with the contempt of money, as there is no other remedy by which it can be corrected. Anyone who will not patiently and mildly endure poverty will never escape the disease of base and sordid covetousness.

Mild and not quarrelsome. He contrasts “the striker” with the one who is “not quarrelsome.” Mild—which, we have said, is contrasted with being “addicted to wine”—describes one who knows how to bear injuries with a gentle and moderate disposition, who forgives much, who overlooks insults, who neither makes himself feared through harsh severity nor exacts everything with full rigor. Not quarrelsome, one who avoids disputes and quarrels; for, as he elsewhere writes,

the servant of the Lord must not be quarrelsome.
(2 Timothy 2:24).

Who ruleth well his own house. Therefore, it is evident that Paul does not demand that a bishop shall be unacquainted with human life, but that he shall be a good and praiseworthy master of a household. For, whatever admiration may be commonly entertained for celibacy and a philosophical life altogether removed from ordinary custom, wise and thoughtful men are convinced by experience that those who are not ignorant of ordinary life, but are practiced in the duties of human intercourse, are better trained and adapted for governing the Church.

And therefore, we should observe the reason which is added (1 Timothy 3:5), that he who does not know how to rule his family, Will not be qualified for governing the Church. Now, this is the case with very many persons, and indeed with almost all who have been drawn out of an idle and solitary life, as out of dens and caverns, for they are a sort of savages and destitute of humanity.

Who hath his children in subjection with all reverence. The apostle does not recommend a clever man, and deeply skilled in domestic matters, but one who has learned to govern a family by wholesome discipline. He speaks chiefly of children, who may be expected to possess the natural disposition of their father; and therefore it will be a great disgrace to a bishop if he has children who lead a wicked and scandalous life. As to wives, he will speak of them afterwards; but at present, as I have said, he glances at the most important part of a household.

In the Epistle to Titus (Titus 1:6), he shows what is here meant by the word reverence; for, after having said that the children of a bishop must not be unruly and disobedient, he likewise adds:

nor liable to the reproach of profligacy or of intemperance.

He therefore means, in a word, that their morals shall be regulated by all chastity, modesty, and gravity.

And if anyone does not know how to rule his own house. This argument, drawn from the lesser to the greater, is self-evident: he who is unfit for governing a family will be altogether unable to govern a people. Furthermore, it is evident that he lacks the virtues necessary for that purpose. What authority will he have over the people, since his own house makes him contemptible?