John Calvin 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, 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.