On Those Chosen for the Clergy: the Bishop (1 Timothy 3:1–5)

St. Paul said that church assemblies and prayers within them must be conducted by “men” (1 Tim. 2:8)—of course, not every man, but men chosen and consecrated for this. He now shows what qualities must distinguish those chosen for this work, for the clergy in general. There was a need for such persons. Christians had become numerous and gathered in various places; it was necessary to determine who should look after them. St. Paul himself did this everywhere (Acts 14:23). They had been appointed by him for Ephesus as well, as for all of Asia (Acts 20:17, 19:26). But now those appointed by him proved to be too few. Not having time to do this personally, because the needs of the faithful had called him quickly to Macedonia, he entrusted this to be carried out by St. Timothy—as in Crete he entrusted it to St. Titus—and he writes what kind of persons should be chosen for this, namely: a) bishops (1 Tim. 3:1–7)—and: b) deacons and deaconesses (1 Tim. 3:8–13).

A) The qualities of those worthy of the episcopate (1 Tim. 3:1–7)

The Apostle determines that one chosen for the episcopate must take up this ministry: aa) with all zeal (verse 1); bb) must be distinguished by good character and praiseworthy conduct (verses 2–3); cc) must first prove his capacity for governing the Church by good governance of his household (verses 4–5); dd) must not be one of the recently baptized (verse 6); ee) must be held in respect also among the unbelieving (verse 7).

Aa) Zeal (1 Tim. 3:1)

1 Tim. 3:1. The saying is trustworthy: if anyone aspires to the episcopate, he desires a good work.

“The words ‘the saying is trustworthy’—our commentators refer to the preceding speech, that is, to what was said about the salvation of women through the good upbringing of children, along with the fulfillment of the general conditions for salvation—that this salvation is very reliable, because, besides their own works toward their salvation, the good works of their children will also be credited to them. Wishing to show that he says this not merely to say something consoling to the women but that it is truly so, the Apostle adds the assurance: ‘the saying is trustworthy.’ And this is very appropriate. Meanwhile the subsequent speech requires no assurance: here instructions are being written whose justice and aptness are self-evident. St. Chrysostom, followed by Oecumenius, both in reading and understanding connects these words with the preceding speech, and begins chapter 3 with ‘if anyone aspires to the episcopate.’ Blessed Theophylact, though he begins chapter 3 with ‘the saying is trustworthy,’ refers it by interpretation to the preceding speech. St. Chrysostom says: ‘the saying is trustworthy’—refers to this (what we are speaking of, that is, the assistance to the salvation of women through the upbringing of children), not to that which follows: ‘if anyone aspires to the episcopate.’ Since uncertainty could arise about this, he says: ‘the saying is trustworthy’—that fathers and mothers can reap the fruits of their children’s virtue when they have raised them well.” The same is found in Oecumenius and Theophylact. — And this is how it should be understood.

“If anyone aspires to the episcopate.” — “Aspires,” ορεγεται,—denotes such a desire as is the desire for food in one whose appetite has been aroused. The work of the episcopate is full of labor and full of danger. One who approaches it indifferently cannot carry it out as he should. Therefore zealous desire for the episcopate is required—not desire to be a bishop and to enjoy authority and honor, but desire for the very work of the episcopate, that is, the oversight of those being saved and the guidance of them toward salvation. People were chosen for the episcopate. Therefore one must suppose that the Apostle indicates here such a zealous desire after the election and calls it the desire for a “good work,” because its object is good—to enlighten with truth, to purify concepts, to correct morals, to guide toward higher perfection in the spiritual life, to repel false teachings and false teachers, to console the sorrowful, to arrange assistance for the poor and the sick—to be an attentive and well-ordering father. One who, burning with zeal for all such works, desires the episcopate, desires a good work—he seeks not the satisfaction of a base lust for honor and glory, but desires to labor for the good of others, to be the servant of all, sparing himself nothing. St. Chrysostom says: “I do not reproach such a person, says the Apostle. If someone has such a desire and moreover seeks not merely authority and power but the fulfillment of the duties of governance (of the flock) (‘desires to serve, to preside, to guide’ [Oecumenius]); then I do not reproach him. For he desires a good work. Let whoever thus desires it desire it, for the episcopate is so named because it has oversight over all (those entrusted to it).” Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle does not condemn the mere desire, but the love of authority, and teaches one to care not for honor but for virtue—not to desire the rank but to strive after the work required by the rank.”

What is meant here by the Apostle under episcopate? The presbyterate—answers blessed Theodoret. “By ‘bishop’ the Apostle here means the presbyter, as we have demonstrated in interpreting the Epistle to the Philippians. But it is not difficult to discern this also from here; because after the laws for bishops he writes laws pertaining to deacons. At that time the same persons were called both presbyters and bishops; sometimes those now called bishops were also named secondary Apostles. But in the course of time, the apostolic designation was left to the actual Apostles, while the episcopal designation was assigned to those formerly called (secondary) Apostles. Such Apostles were Titus for the Cretans and Timothy for the inhabitants of Asia. — However, although the divine Apostle has legislated this also for presbyters, it is evident that bishops are the first who must observe these laws, as having received the greater honor.”

Bb) Good character and praiseworthy conduct (1 Tim. 3:2, 3)

1 Tim. 3:2. Therefore a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, [reverent,] respectable, hospitable, able to teach.

“In speaking of the episcopate, the Apostle shows in general what a bishop ought to be, not directing his exhortation specifically to Timothy, but conversing with him as if with all, and through him instructing all” (St. Chrysostom).

The first thing proper to him is: “to be above reproach,” ανεπιλημπτον,—“blameless, giving no substantial or just occasion for censure and accusation” (blessed Theodoret). But he cannot be such if he is not adorned with all the virtues. “Having said: ‘above reproach,’ the Apostle named every virtue. — Thus, if anyone is aware of being guilty of any transgression, he does not do well to desire such a calling from which he has removed himself by his own deeds. For such a one ought not to command but to obey. For a superior must be brighter than any lamp and lead a blameless life, so that all might look to him and by his life order their own” (St. Chrysostom).

“The husband of one wife”—not that he should not have two wives simultaneously, for this is forbidden to every Christian; but that he should have been married once, a one-woman man. One who is married to a second wife should not be chosen as bishop. Ambrosiaster writes: “Although it is not forbidden to have a second wife, one worthy of the episcopate must abstain even from what is permitted to others, because of the loftiness of this rank. One who desires it must be incomparably above all.” Equally this does not mean that he must necessarily be married. Blessed Theophylact writes: “In saying this, the Apostle does not legislate that a bishop must necessarily be married. How could he command this, he who said: ‘I desire that all men were even as I myself’ (1 Cor. 7:7)?” Just as a man married twice is unfit for the episcopate, so an unmarried man is even more fit than a man married once. Therefore even then, whenever the possibility existed, not only to the episcopate but also to the priesthood were unmarried persons chosen—those who in freedom from worldly cares served God. Such persons were provided by the order of the ascetics, which was born together with Christianity and blessed and established in the Church by the Apostles.

But how can a bishop be married? Well, first, here, as Theodoret understands, bishop means presbyter. The true bishops were the (secondary) Apostles, such as Titus and Timothy; and they were celibate. Likely in other places as well, persons similar to them were appointed to the actual episcopate. Secondly, necessity compelled it; for at that time celibacy had not yet spread to such a degree that one could everywhere find a celibate, though a beginning had been made. Meanwhile bishops were needed; therefore they were chosen from among those who, though married, lived continently. Blessed Theodoret writes: “The pagans did not practice celibacy; the Jews did not permit it because they regarded fruitfulness as a blessing. Therefore, since at that time it was not possible without difficulty to find those who maintained bodily purity, the Apostle Paul commanded ordaining from those who had been in the married state those who honored chastity.” St. Chrysostom had said even before him: “If a man bound by the bonds of marriage (inevitably) cares about worldly matters, while a bishop should not care about the worldly, why did the Apostle say: ‘the husband of one wife?’”

“Some suppose that here he is pointing to that bishop who would be free from the bonds of marriage. And if not this (is what should be understood here), then—that he, having a wife, can live as though he has none.”

“Sober-minded.” Sobriety watches sharply over all that takes place in the soul, gives place and passage to what is good, and rejects and expels what is not good, and in this way governs well the course of the inner life, by which the outer life is also well-ordered of itself. Episcopal sobriety watches over all that takes place in the flock and confirms the good, while correcting the bad; the bishop watches with special sharpness to see whether any wolves who do not spare the flock are creeping in, so that when he sees such, he may drive them away with the staff of his pastorship. He is set as the guardian of the house of God; therefore he must guard this house vigilantly. “He must be watchful and capable of foreseeing how he ought to act” (blessed Theodoret); “to be sharp-eyed, always unwearying, attentively observant, so as to see everything and always be ready for any necessary work” (blessed Theophylact). “Sober-minded”—that is, “he must be far-sighted, having a thousand eyes on every side—must be penetrating and not cloud his mental vision with anything. For there are many contingencies that do not allow one to see clearly how one ought to act. Therefore he must be unwearingly watchful, having care not only for his own affairs but also for what concerns others—he must be watchful, burning in spirit and, as it were, breathing fire, bearing the labors and obligations (of his office) with greater zeal than a general who makes his rounds of the army day and night—having care and concern for all things” (St. Chrysostom).

“Self-controlled.” Since bodily chastity has already been spoken of in the words “husband of one wife,” by self-control here one must understand “soul’s advancement” (blessed Theodoret), namely—soundness of mind, or prudence, both in one’s own conduct and above all in the conduct of affairs in the governance of the flock. Just as neat attire fits the whole body well, so that everything is in proportion and in its place and suited to the person, so prudently conducted affairs should decently adorn the countenance of the bishop—let him be κοσμιος (blessed Theophylact).

“[Reverent,] respectable.” These two words translate a single Greek word: κοσμιον, which blessed Theophylact explained as: σεμνοπρεπη. And it is likely that our Slavonic translation sought to express more fully the meaning of this last word, which signifies: worthily honorable, and shows that the countenance of the bishop must shine with such a sacred dignity as calls forth general respect. Blessed Theodoret writes: “He must be dignified in speech, in appearance, in gaze, and in walk, so that the decorum of his soul may be visible also in his body.”

“Hospitable”—“gladly receiving strangers” (blessed Theodoret). “For if he is gracious, welcoming, and charitable only toward the local residents, he is ailing with partiality. But toward strangers he must be even more generous; for this bears more manifest witness to his brotherly love” (blessed Theophylact).

“Able to teach.” “The qualities mentioned before this (‘prudence, reverence, and hospitality’ [Oecumenius]) are possessed by many also among the subordinates—for in this respect they too ought to be equal to their superiors. Therefore the Apostle, in showing the advantage of the bishop, added: ‘able to teach.’ This is not required of the subordinate; but it is required above all of the one entrusted with this office of the episcopate” (St. Chrysostom). “The Apostle means by this not one who excels in eloquence, but one who is trained in divine things and capable of giving appropriate counsel” (blessed Theophylact). “Able to teach,” διδακτικον,—expresses that the bishop must be so filled with teaching capacity that at the first opportunity teaching should flow from his lips like a river—that he might always fulfill and did fulfill what the Apostle wrote later in the Second Epistle: “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all patience and teaching” (2 Tim. 4:2).

1 Tim. 3:3. Not given to wine, not violent, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, but gentle, [not contentious,] not covetous.

“Not given to wine.” “This the Apostle himself explained in the prescription for deacons: to be ‘not addicted to much wine’ (1 Tim. 3:8)” (blessed Theodoret).

“Not violent,” μη πληκτην,—not a brawler, as one “addicted to much wine” frequently turns out to be. But in relation to the performance of the superior’s duty, which involves the punishment of the unruly, this may also mean: not harshly exacting, not hot-tempered, not cruelly punishing. Blessed Theodoret writes: “The Apostle forbids by this not the imposing of punishment at the proper time, but doing so in an improper manner. But that he commands punishment to be imposed, about this—as we shall hear shortly—he will himself say: ‘Those who sin… rebuke in the presence of all’ (1 Tim. 5:20); and further: ‘reprove, rebuke’ (2 Tim. 4:2). And writing to the Galatians he said: ‘O foolish Galatians’ (Gal. 3:1)—and further: ‘Are you so foolish?’ (Gal. 3:3).”

“Not quarrelsome,” αμαχον. In Greek this word stands where in Slavonic stands: “[not contentious]”—which is absent from the Greek. It means: “not fond of starting lawsuits” (blessed Theodoret)—and in general disputes and quarrels—non litigiosum—not given to strife, according to Ambrosiaster.

“Not a lover of shameful gain,” μη αισχροκερδη,—Theodoret and Theophylact do not read this; but St. Chrysostom and Oecumenius do. It points to one who does not use means generally disapproved of in the acquisition of wealth—such as, for example, usury; and perhaps also to one who will not agree for any reason to conceal anything disgraceful for the sake of gain, and still less to turn all his ministry to this end.

“But gentle.” “This teaches how one can be non-violent and non-quarrelsome. One who is gentle will not be such” (blessed Theophylact). The gentle person bears personal unpleasantness and insults in a peaceable spirit. Such above all the bishop must be. “He must know how to bear wrongs done against him personally (but only those). For to take no notice of what injury others suffer is not a sign of the modesty proper to a bishop. It is said: ‘{he who leads,} with diligence’ (Rom. 12:8)” (blessed Theodoret).

“Not covetous. The Apostle did not say: without possessions, because he is giving moderate laws, but: not loving money. For it is possible to have money and dispose of it as one should, and not to be enslaved to it but to be its master” (blessed Theodoret). In addition, he must also be charitable, “for which it is necessary to have something from which to be charitable, but to have it without attachment to what one has, so that the hand of beneficence may not be shortened. ‘Since he said above that he must be hospitable, he now adds: not covetous—showing that he will be hospitable if he is not covetous, and at the same time teaching that under the pretext of hospitality he should not be gathering treasures’” (blessed Theophylact).

“St. Chrysostom marvels that St. Paul mentions here such vices as are intolerable in any Christian and even in any non-Christian—“very coarse” (Oecumenius). Therefore he interpreted the words ‘not given to wine, not violent’ not in their literal sense but in a figurative meaning: ‘not given to wine.’ The Apostle is not speaking of one who gets drunk on wine, but of one who is contentious and insolent. ‘Not violent.’ The reference here is not to those who strike with their hands; but since there are people who untimely disturb the conscience of the brethren, it seems to me that he here hints at them.” The same is repeated by Oecumenius and Theophylact. Finally, St. Chrysostom addresses the Apostle thus: “And yet, what are you saying, tell me? Speaking of a bishop, you said that he must not be a drunkard, whereas something more important should have been said. Why, for example, did you not say that a bishop must be like an Angel, subject to none of the human passions? Or why did you not express those great demands of which Christ spoke and which even subordinates must fulfill—that one must crucify oneself and always be ready to lay down one’s soul for others? ‘The good shepherd,’ He said, ‘lays down his life for the sheep’ (Jn. 10:11); also: ‘whoever does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me’ (Matt. 10:38)—but you said: ‘not given to wine?’ One can have good hopes if it is necessary to instruct a bishop in this! But why did you not say that he must be detached from the earth, and even failed to command a bishop what you commanded laypeople? To them you said: ‘Put to death… your earthly members’ (Col. 3:5)—and also: ‘those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh’ (Gal. 5:24). Why then did you not say this to the bishop also? Because such persons could not be found in large numbers, while many bishops were required who would preside in distant cities. Therefore, since in the course of time attacks against the Church might arise, the Apostle speaks of moderate virtue, and not of this elevated and lofty one, because it is possible for many to be sober-minded, respectable, self-controlled.” Ambrosiaster was occupied with the same question and writes: “The Apostle has indicated lower virtues here so that, if anyone is found to have the higher ones, there can be no doubt that he is worthy of the episcopate. If anyone, drawn by higher aspirations, dedicates both his soul and body to God, such a one is all the more worthy.”

Cc) Good governance of his household (1 Tim. 3:4, 5)

1 Tim. 3:4. He must manage his own household well, having his children in submission with all dignity {respectability}.

The Church is the house of God, to govern which the bishop is chosen. Whether the one chosen is capable of this ministry can be judged by how he governs his own household. From one who governs his household well one can expect that he will also govern the Church well. Though the latter task is broader, its subjects of governance more complex, and its aims more lofty, governance as governance requires the same approaches. True, the conclusion from good household management to good governance of the Church does not follow of necessity; but every good manager of a household, when chosen as a presider in the Church, cannot but have an advantage over others, giving good hopes. “The same say also the outsiders—that a good household manager can more readily become a good administrator of civic affairs” (St. Chrysostom). The household encompasses both the persons living in it and its property and its external relations to the government and to private individuals. All of this is present also in the Church: persons of every condition and age—property of its own, designated for the maintenance of the poor, the sick, the aged, widows, and orphans, besides the houses of assembly—and its own relations to those outside. One who in the household has given proof of good governance in all its parts, on entering into the governance of the Church, will not be entering into a work entirely new and wholly unknown to him. Therefore he will more readily find how to act in this or that situation. St. Chrysostom says: “The Church is the same as a small household, and just as in a house there are children, a wife, and servants, over all of whom the husband towers with his authority; so in the Church there is nothing other—the same thing (we find)—children, women, servants. If the presider of the Church has partners in his authority, so too in a household the husband has the wife as a partner in authority. But here one must care for the nourishment of widows and virgins? In the household too the husband has slaves and daughters on his support.”

“Having his children in submission with all {respectability}.” Of all the subjects of governance in the household, the Apostle presents to the special attention of those who are choosing the conduct of the children—not in the sense, of course, that a man whose children are good is a good governor, because here everything may depend on natural causes, but especially in the sense that if the children are not good, what kind of governor can the father be? “At home he must show a good example of governance. For who will believe that one who did not know how to keep his own son in submission will make a stranger obey him?” (St. Chrysostom). — Of the virtues commending the children, the Apostle points to submission and all respectability: submission to the parent as the head of the household, and respectability before all, both within and outside the home. It can therefore be said that these two traits encompass all the good conduct of the children. Therefore blessed Theodoret interprets “having children” with such qualities as: “teaching the children every virtue; for which it is required that not the children’s own disposition alone be at work, but also his own will.” Blessed Theophylact writes: “with all {respectability}” means: “in word and in deed and in dress—and moreover before all and at all times”—and concludes: “How can one hope to make strangers respectable when he has allowed his own blood relations to live without respectability?”

1 Tim. 3:5. But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s Church?

The word “does not know how” points to a lack either of prudence or of character, while the word “care for” betrays laziness, a lack of zeal for the well-being of the household. If, judging by household management, neither zeal nor character nor prudence in the governance of the Church can be foreseen in someone, how can one expect good governance of it from him—expect that he will concern himself with its welfare? From the lesser the Apostle draws a conclusion to the greater. “One who does not know how to manage something small—can the care of what is more important and divine be entrusted to him?” (blessed Theodoret). “To govern a household is easier. How, then, can one govern church affairs, when he cannot even order his own house well?” (St. Chrysostom). “If he was unable to be a good governor of what is neither great nor hard to determine, how should he govern the characters and thoughts of so many souls—incomprehensible thoughts?” (blessed Theophylact).

Dd) Not a recent convert (1 Tim. 3:6)