Titus 1:5–7—Appointing Presbyters; the Bishop Blameless

Here the holy Apostle determines what kind of man should be chosen for the episcopate: a) what he must be like in family and civic virtues (verse 6); b) what good moral qualities he must possess (verses 7–8); and c) how capable he must be as a teacher (verse 9).

a) What kind of family man and citizen may be considered worthy of the episcopate?

Tit. 1:6. If anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissoluteness or insubordination.

Before this, as has been said, it is fitting to supply the word “namely”—establishing the following connection between this verse and what precedes: appoint elders of the Church in every city, acting in this as I directed you—namely: when you come to choose someone for this work, choose from among those of whom it can be said: “if anyone is blameless” and the rest.

“Blameless”—that is, “if his life is free from reproach, if no one can accuse him (of a bad life) (‘if he gives no ground for a well-founded accusation’ [Blessed Theodoret]). For hear what Christ says: ‘If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!’ (Mt. 6:23)” (St. Chrysostom). “So first of all he must be blameless, ανεγκλητος — which, by another word, is expressed in the Epistle to Timothy, I think, as: ανεπιλημπτος — above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2). Not only at the very time of his being chosen and appointed should he be without fault or sin, having cleansed his former defilements only by a recent conversion and repentance; but he must be such that his conscience does not reproach him for any sin from the time of his regeneration in Christ (from the time of baptism). For otherwise, how can the presiding minister of the Church remove an evildoer from her midst, when he himself has fallen into the same vice? Or how can he freely reproach a sinner, when he secretly knows in his heart that he himself permitted what he is rebuking in another?” (Blessed Jerome).

“The husband of one wife”—not a twice-married man. The Apostle honored marriage by not making it a barrier to attaining the degree of holy orders; but at the same time he gave no indulgence to marital pleasures, refusing ordination to those who had married twice. What is envisioned, on one hand, is self-restraint, and on the other, fidelity to one wife. Both of these presuppose qualities that can serve as a guarantee that the one being chosen is able to govern well the Church entrusted to him. St. Chrysostom says: “Why does the Apostle present such a man? He is stopping the mouths of heretics who condemned marriage, showing that this matter is in no way blameworthy, but so honorable that one may ascend even to the sacred throne while in that state; at the same time he rebukes the incontinent, not permitting those who have married a second time to receive this authority. Indeed, one who has not preserved his affection for his deceased wife—can he be a good presiding minister? To what reproach will he not be subject? You know—all of you know—that, although the laws do not forbid entering into a second marriage, this matter is subject to many reproaches. But the Apostle desires that the one who holds authority should give those under him no ground for reproach.”

Blessed Jerome looks in this not so much at the outward act as at the inward disposition which the Apostle wished to instill by these words: “The words ‘the husband of one wife’ must be understood in such a way that it does not follow that every man who has had only one wife is on that account better than one who has had two; but it was said to show that it is easier for one to draw others to single marriage and to self-restraint who, in giving such a lesson, teaches more by his own example. For suppose some young man has lost his wife and, being overcome by the needs of the flesh, has taken another; but having soon lost her as well, has resolved to live in self-restraint (from marital pleasures) thereafter. Let us take another who throughout his old age has had one wife and never ceased from bodily union with her. Which of these two is the better, the more self-restrained and pure? Certainly the one who, having suffered misfortune a second time, has afterward lived purely and holily—and not the one who even in old age did not avoid the embraces of his wife. So let the one who is chosen (for holy orders) not congratulate himself merely because he is a man of one wife, as though he were thereby better than every twice-married man, when in his being chosen fortune played a greater part (in not losing his wife) than virtuous resolve (in maintaining self-restraint). Some understand this passage to mean that one who simultaneously has two wives must not be chosen as a bishop. Others interpret it in a thoroughly perverse manner. Montanus and the followers of the Novatian schism, who have assumed the name of the ‘continent’ and ‘pure,’ think (on the basis of this passage) that second marriages are forbidden to Christians; whereas the Apostle prescribed single marriage only for bishops and presbyters, and granted an allowance in this matter to the rest. Likewise, Tertullian wrote a book on single marriage—a heretical one; and anyone who reads the Apostle without prejudice cannot fail to see that he goes against the Apostle.”

“Having faithful children not accused of dissoluteness or insubordination.” It is required that the children of the one being chosen be believers, not subject to reproach for fornication or for insubordination and unruliness. Having one wife and being blameless depends on a person’s own free will; but the fact that children are disorderly is not always the fault of parents. For this reason it is not mistaken to add that the Apostle has in mind here those cases in which children are disorderly through the fault of parents—through their inability to guide them as they ought, or through negligence in doing so. But the Apostle did not single out these cases, because they were very rare; and perhaps also because, even if the children are bad through no fault of the father, a certain shadow still falls upon him—and he wants the one being chosen to be visibly without blemish in all things, to be beyond reproach in the eyes of all. St. Chrysostom sees here a parent who is himself at fault for his children’s disorder, and, affirming that it is just not to choose such a person as bishop, explains this principle as follows: “For,” he says, “one who could not teach his own children, how will he be a teacher of others? If he was unable to set in order those whom he had with him from the very beginning, whom he raised and over whom he had authority both by law and by nature, how will he be able to be of benefit to those who are strangers? If the father’s negligence had not been great, he would not have allowed those over whom he had authority from the beginning of their lives to become wicked. It is impossible, truly impossible, that one who from the very beginning was raised with great diligence and surrounded with care should become wicked; for sins are not by nature so strong as to be able to overcome such care. But if he counted the upbringing of his children a secondary matter, caring only for property and giving them no proper attention—then for this reason also he is unworthy of sacred office. If, where nature itself urged him on, he had so little love, or was so unreasonable as to care more for property than for them—how can he be elevated to the throne of the episcopate and to such a degree of authority? If he could not (bring them up well), he is worthy of great condemnation for his laziness; if he did not try, he is worthy of great condemnation for lack of love. Therefore, one who is negligent concerning his own children, how will he care for those of others?”

Blessed Jerome singles out fathers who are not at fault for their children’s disorder; yet for all that he maintains the full force of the Apostle’s rule—not because the faults of children make their innocent parents guilty, but because otherwise the freedom of speech of the bishop will be constrained and cut off. He writes: “To be a bishop or presbyter without blemish and to have one wife—these are requirements that lie within our power. But what follows: to have faithful children not subject to reproach for fornication or insubordination—these are requirements that do not lie within our power. Therefore, if parents have raised their children well and from their early years have taught them to keep the commandments of the Lord, and yet these children have afterward gone astray, given themselves over to vices and licentiousness, does the fault for this fall upon the parents, and will the sins of a son stain the holiness of an innocent father? Isaac, for example, certainly taught his son Esau every good thing, but Esau proved to be both a fornicator and an ungodly man, to the extent that he sold his sacred birthright for a single meal (Gen. 25). The same with Samuel—who was himself such a man that in the day of need he cried to the Lord on behalf of Israel, and ‘the Lord thundered with a great thunder upon the enemies of Israel, the Philistines, and they were defeated’ (1 Sam. 7:10)—he had children who turned aside after greed and accepted bribes and proved to be such unjust judges that the people of Israel on this account asked for a king for themselves after the manner of other nations (1 Sam. 8). Thus, if among those being chosen for holy orders there were an Isaac and a Samuel, then Isaac on account of Esau, and Samuel on account of his children, would have to be counted unworthy of the priesthood. But in that case, since the sins of parents are not imputed to children, should we not also refuse to hold the sins of children against innocent parents? How then shall we judge? First, we must say that the name of the priesthood is so holy that, even if by our own deeds we should not be unworthy of the episcopate, we nevertheless ought not to be admitted to this degree on account of the disorderliness of our children. For with what freedom can we rebuke the sons of others and teach them the right ways, when the one being rebuked can object to us: first teach your own? Or with what face shall I reproach one who is fornicating, when my own conscience will answer me: then disinherit your own fornicating son—cast off your own children given over to vices? But when a worthless son lives under the same roof with you, and you act in this way—that is, rebuking the sons of others—are you not removing the speck from your neighbor’s eye while not seeing the beam in your own? Thus the words of the Apostle do not defile the righteous man on account of the vices of his children, but safeguard the freedom of speech of the presiding minister of the Church—so that he may be the kind of man who is not afraid to rebuke the children of others on account of the failings of his own.”

b) What must a bishop be like in his character and conduct?

Tit. 1:7. For a bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward: not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for dishonest gain.

“It behooves a bishop.” He began his discourse about presbyters, yet here he calls the one to be chosen a bishop. This suggests that in the beginning both words were used interchangeably and were applied in general to the heads of Christian communities, or to the elders appointed to oversee the Christian order within them. But one must suppose that the Apostles appointed bishops—archpriests—and that bishops, when the need arose, appointed presbyters—priests.

“To be blameless,” ανεγκλητον — the same as what came before: “if any man be blameless.” “This is a general requirement encompassing everything that is to be said: to be blameless is to be above reproach” (Oecumenius).

“As the steward of God,” οικονομον — a steward, an overseer. By this the Apostle either gives a special incentive toward blamelessness (“to be God’s steward is a great title and dignity, and therefore demands special attention and vigilant care” (Oecumenius)), or he points to a new dimension in which the bishop must be especially blameless. He said before that the bishop must be blameless as a family man and a citizen; here he indicates that he must be so in the ordering of Church life, as God’s steward, overseer, and administrator. The Church—the community of the faithful—is God’s house. The bishop is appointed to watch over this house and to maintain proper order within it. “God sets him over His own house and he occupies God’s place; therefore in all respects he must be a faithful executor of His will” (blessed Theophylact). Elsewhere holy Paul calls the Apostles themselves stewards of God and dispensers of His mysteries, adding: “moreover it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor. 4:1–2). This is already a general law for all God’s stewards, and among them for bishops, the Apostles’ successors. Blessed Jerome suggests the thought that holy Paul drew this lesson from the parabolic words of Christ the Saviour about the wise and faithful steward, appointed “to give them their portion of food in due season” (Lk. 12:42 and following); for he writes: “what is required of stewards is this: ‘that a man be found faithful’—he is urged not to be the kind of person who eats and drinks with drunkards and beats the menservants and maidservants, but rather, awaiting the unknown coming of God, to dispense ‘a portion of food’ to his fellow servants in its season. The only difference between the steward and the rest is that he—a fellow servant—is set over his fellow servants. Let the bishop and presbyter know, therefore, that a people is entrusted to them, not slaves.” Judging by this, the blamelessness required of the bishop by the Apostle in the administration of God’s house obliges him not to err in nourishing the souls entrusted to him with divine truths, in sanctifying and strengthening them by grace through the administration of the holy sacraments, and above all in guiding all along the path of salvation—without going astray.

After this general requirement, the Apostle also points to particular marks of blamelessness—which likewise call to mind that parabolic speech of the Saviour. — “Not self-willed,” μη αυθαδη — not presumptuous, one who, carried away by self-will, places his own arbitrary pleasure above everything, paying no attention to the just desires and needs of those under his care. The Slavonic translation renders this word with two further words: “not bold, not contentious.” Holy Chrysostom says: “One who holds external civil power, governing by force of law and of necessity, may justly not always accommodate the wishes of his subordinates; but one who must exercise authority over people who submit to him voluntarily and who feel gratitude for his governance—if he acts in everything only according to his own arbitrary will, as though he need give account to no one, will make his governance violent and despotic.” Holy Peter prescribes the same, saying: “Elders… feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof” “(watching over it)” “not by constraint, but willingly and according to God… neither as lording it over those entrusted to you” (God’s heritage) (1 Pet. 5:1–3).

“Not quick-tempered.” “How can one teach others to bridle this passion,” says holy Chrysostom, “who has not first taught himself? Authority places a man in many circumstances that make even the very meek harsh and severe, furnishing a multitude of occasions for anger. Therefore, if he has not first taken care to subdue this passion, he will be exceedingly burdensome to those under him, and will harm and destroy much in the affairs of his governance.” Let us add also the words of blessed Jerome: “A quick-tempered man is always irritated and, at a small careless word or some fault, is stirred up like a leaf by the wind. And truly nothing is more unseemly than a raging teacher who, when he ought to be meek and—according to the following word of Scripture: ‘the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all, apt to teach, patient, correcting those who oppose him with meekness’ (2 Tim. 2:24–25),—instead presents himself with a threatening look, trembling lips, a furrowed brow, and a face now growing pale, now flushing red, striking with furious shouting, and dragging those who have erred not toward good but casting them down by his ferocity into greater evil. This is why Solomon says: ‘wrath destroys even the wise’ (Prov. 15:1). And holy James teaches that ‘the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God’ (Jas. 1:20)”.

“Not given to wine,” μη παροινον — strictly speaking, not boisterous as from wine, not quarrelsome and abusive, not one who picks fights and accosts others with offensive words. Holy Chrysostom says precisely this: “Here he has in view one who insults others. A bishop should do everything by exhortation, not by censure and insult; for what necessity is there to insult? One must threaten with Gehenna and in this way bring people to fear and trembling. The one who is insulted grows bolder and despises the one who insults him. For nothing provokes contempt so much as insult, which brings more dishonor upon the one who insults, depriving him of the respect due to him. The word of a bishop must be full of great godliness, reminding sinners of the coming judgment and free from every kind of insult. If someone hinders him in fulfilling his duty, then one must act with full authority.” Oecumenius and Theophylact say the same, paraphrasing this word thus: μη παροινον — μη υβριστην.

But blessed Theodoret understands “given to wine” here as “one who gets drunk.” So too does blessed Jerome, who writes: “He also forbids the bishop to be a lover of wine, which in the Epistle to Timothy is expressed as: ‘not given to much wine’ (1 Tim. 3:8). What a sight to see a bishop tipsy, when either under the influence of pleasant feelings he raises his voice in laughter and guffaws beyond all measure, demeaning his dignity, or, recalling something sorrowful, starts playing the fool and weeping. Besides, it would take too long to enumerate all the unseemly things to which intoxication leads. Even in the Old Testament it was commanded that priests, when they draw near to perform the service of God, should not drink wine (Lev. 10:9). Likewise the Nazirites were required throughout all the days of their vow to abstain from wine and strong drink and from everything made from the vine, because this deprives the mind of its proper soundness of judgment (Num. 6:3). Let others say what they will; I bear witness in good conscience that the violation of temperance in this matter never passes without harm, while its observance is always beneficial.”

“Not a striker”—neither bodily nor spiritually, “neither inflicting blows and wounds with the hands, nor striking at souls with bitter and hardening words” (blessed Theophylact). “Not one who strikes the conscience of weak brethren” (Oecumenius). “For the teacher is a physician of souls; and a physician does not inflict blows, but heals and restores the one who has been struck” (holy Chrysostom).

Blessed Jerome, likewise combining both bodily and spiritual striking, says: “After the prohibition of love of wine, he further commands that one must not be a striker. This can be understood simply as the counsel not to let one’s hands fly loose and not to rush upon another like a madman to deal blows. But it is better for us to call him ‘not a striker’ who is meek and patient, who knows when to speak and when to keep silence, so as not to wound the conscience of the weak with untimely speech. The Apostle, sketching the image of a good head of the Church, does not, I think, forbid him merely from being a brawler—which even among ordinary people, even pagans, is not approved; but rather, as I said, from destroying by untimely quarrelsomeness one who could be corrected and saved by gentleness and quietness.”

Blessed Theodoret points out a special aspect of this matter, understanding “a striker” as “one who imposes punishments without discernment.”

“Not greedy for dishonest gain.” By this not only is the bishop forbidden to acquire wealth by unjust means, but any seeking and desire for profit at all is counted shameful in the person of a bishop. The Apostle declares that he must be utterly “free from acquisitiveness” (Oecumenius)—“showing complete contempt for wealth” (holy Chrysostom). In a bishop, all acquisitiveness, even legitimate, is shameful (blessed Theophylact). And not only shameful, but exceedingly harmful to the affairs of the episcopate: for nothing distorts the straight course of affairs so much as the expectation, desire, and seeking of gain. Blessed Jerome writes: “Also, the desire for dishonest gain must be foreign to one who is to be a bishop. According to Solomon, ‘better is a little with righteousness than great revenues with injustice’ (Prov. 15:29); and: ‘a good name is to be chosen rather than great riches’ (Prov. 22:1). A bishop who desires to imitate the Apostle, having food and clothing, should be content with these (1 Tim. 6:8). Those who serve the altar shall live by the altar (1 Cor. 9:13)—they shall live, he says, not grow rich. This is why no money is allowed for us at the belt, and we must be content with one garment and not be anxious about the morrow (Mt. 10; Mk. 6). The desire for dishonest gain is precisely the anxiety that exceeds what the present requires.”