In the New Testament, there are two words which
describe the principal office-bearers of the Church,
the office-bearers who were to be found in every
congregation, and on whose conduct and
administration its welfare depended.
(1) There was the man who was called the elder
(presbuteros). The eldership is the most ancient of
all offices within the Church. The Jews had their
elders, and they traced their origin to the occasion
when Moses, in the desert wanderings, appointed
seventy men to help him in the task of controlling
and caring for the people (Numbers 11:16). Every
synagogue had its elders, and they were the real
leaders of the Jewish community. They presided over
the worship of the synagogue; they administered
rebuke and discipline where these were necessary;
they settled the disputes which other nations would
have taken to the law courts. Among the Jews, the
elders were the respected men who exercised a
fatherly oversight over the spiritual and material
affairs of every Jewish community. But more nations
than the Jews had an eldership. The presiding body
of the Spartans was called the gerousia, which means
the board of the elder men. The Parliament of Rome
was called the senate, which comes from senex, which
means an old man. In England, the men who looked
after the affairs of the community were called the
aldermen, which means the elder men. In New
Testament times, every Egyptian village had its
village elders who looked after the affairs of the
community. The elders had a long history, and they
had a place in the life of almost every
community.
Quoted verse:
Numbers 11:16
And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy
men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be
the elders of the people, and officers over them;
and bring them unto the tabernacle of the
congregation, that they may stand there with thee.
(2) But sometimes the New Testament uses another
word, episkopos, which the Authorized and Revised
Standard Versions translate as bishop, and which
literally means overseer or superintendent. This
word, too, has a long and honourable history. The
Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew
Scriptures, uses it to describe those who were the
taskmasters, who were overseers for the public works
and public building schemes (2 Chronicles 34:17).
The Greeks use it to describe the men appointed to
go out from the founding city to regulate the
affairs of a newly established colony in some
distant place. They use it to describe what we might
call commissioners appointed to regulate the affairs
of a city. The Romans use it to describe the
magistrates appointed to oversee the sale of food
within the city of Rome. It is used of the special
delegates appointed by a king to see that the laws
he had laid down were carried out. Episkopos always
implies two things: oversight over some area or
sphere of work, and responsibility to some higher
power and authority. The great question is: what was
the relationship in the early Church between the
elder, the presbuteros, and the overseer, the
episkopos?
Quoted verse:
2 Chronicles 34:17
And they have gathered together the money that was
found in the house of the LORD, and have delivered
it into the hand of the overseers, and to the hand
of the workmen.
Modern scholarship is practically unanimous in
holding that in the early Church the presbuteros and
the episkopos were one and the same. The grounds for
that identification are fivefold. (1) Elders were
appointed everywhere. After the first missionary
journey, Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in all
the churches they had founded (Acts 14:23). Titus is
instructed to appoint and ordain elders in all the
cities of Crete (Titus 1:5). (2) The qualifications
of a presbuteros and of an episkopos are to all
intents and purposes identical (1 Timothy 3:2–7;
Titus 1:6–9). (3) At the beginning of Philippians,
Paul’s greetings are to the bishops and the deacons
(Philippians 1:1). It is quite impossible that Paul
would have sent no greetings at all to the elders,
who, as we have already seen, were in every church;
and therefore the bishops and the elders must be one
and the same body of people. (4) When Paul was on
his last journey to Jerusalem, he sent for the
elders of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus (Acts
20:17), and in the course of his talk to them he
says that God has made them episkopoi to feed the
Church of God (Acts 20:28). That is to say, he
addresses precisely the same body of men first as
elders and second as bishops or overseers. (5) When
Peter is writing to his people, he talks to them as
an elder to elders (1 Peter 5:1), and then he goes
on to say that their function is oversight of the
flock of God (1 Peter 5:2) – and the word he uses
for oversight is the verb episkopein, from which
episkopos comes. All the evidence from the New
Testament goes to prove that the presbuteros and the
episkopos, the elder and the bishop or
overseer, were one and the same person.
Quoted verses:
Acts 14:23
And when they had ordained them elders in every
church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended
them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Let us look at the commentary on the word "elders"
in this verse:
Elders - Greek:
presbyters. Literally, this word refers to the aged.
But it may also be a word relating to office,
denoting those who were more experienced than
others, and who were chosen to preside over and to
instruct the rest. What was the nature of this
office, and what was the design of the appointment,
is not intimated in this word. All that seems to be
implied is, that they were to take the charge of the
churches during the absence of the apostles. The
apostles were about to leave them. They were just
organized into churches: they were inexperienced;
they needed counsel and direction; they were exposed
to dangers; and it was necessary, therefore, that
persons should be designated to watch over the
spiritual interests of the brethren. The probability
is, that they performed all the functions that were
required in the infant and feeble churches; in
exhorting, instructing; governing, etc. The more
experienced and able would be most likely to be
active in exhorting and instructing the brethren;
and all would be useful in counseling and guiding
the flock. The same thing occurred in the church at
Ephesus. It is not improbable that the
business of instructing, or teaching, would be
gradually confined to the more talented and able of
the elders, and that the others would be concerned
mainly in governing and directing the general
affairs of the church.
~Barnes Notes
Titus 1:5
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
shouldest set in order the things that are wanting,
and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed
thee:
1 Timothy 3:2-7
which is covered in our study of this chapter.
Titus 1:6-9
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife,
having faithful children not accused of riot or
unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of
God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to
wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men,
sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been
taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both
to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to
all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
Acts 20:17
And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the
elders of the church.
Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the
flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you
overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood.
1 Peter 5:1
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also
an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ,
and also a partaker of the glory that shall be
revealed:
1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the
oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly;
not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
Two questions arise. First, if they were the same,
why were there two names for them? The answer is
that presbuteros described these leaders of the
Church literally as they were personally. They were
the elder men, the older and respected members of
the community. Episkopos, on the other hand,
described their function, which was to oversee the
life and the work of the Church. The one word
described the individual; the other described the
task.
The second question is: if the elder and the bishop
were originally the same, how did the bishop become
what he did? The answer is simple. Inevitably, the
body of the elders would acquire a leader. Someone
to lead would be essential and would inevitably
emerge. The more organized the Church became, the
more such a figure would be bound to arise. And the
elder who stood out as leader came to be called the
episkopos, the superintendent of the church. But it
is to be noted that he was simply a leader among
equals. He was in fact the elder whom circumstances
and personal qualities had combined to make a leader
for the work of the church.
It will be seen that to translate episkopos by the
word bishop in the New Testament now gives the word
a misleading meaning. It is better to translate it
as overseer or superintendent.
~Barclay Commentary
Now to the commentaries on verse 2 which
again reads:
1 Timothy 3:2
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one
wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to
hospitality, apt to teach."
All commentary from Barnes Notes unless otherwise
noted.
A bishop - A minister
of religion, according to the foregoing remarks, who
has the charge or oversight of any Christian church.
The reference here is doubtless to one who had the
government of the church entrusted to him 1 Timothy
3:4-5, and who was also a preacher of the gospel.
Must be blameless -
This is a different word (anepilēmpton)
from that rendered “blameless” in Luke 1:6;
Phillipians 2:15; Philippians3:6 (αamemptos).
The word here used does not mean that, as a
necessary qualification for office, a bishop should
be “perfect;” but that he should be a man against
whom no charge of immorality, or of holding false
doctrine, is alleged. His conduct should be
irreprehensible or irreproachable. Undoubtedly it
means that if “any” charge could be brought against
him implying moral obliquity, he is not fit for the
office. He should be a man of irreproachable
character for truth, honesty, chastity, and general
uprightness.
Quoted verses:
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in
all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord
blameless.
Philippians 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of
God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and
perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in
the world;
Philippians 3:6
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching
the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
The husband of one wife
- This need not be understood as requiring that a
bishop “should be” a married man, as Vigilantius, a
presbyter in the church at Barcelona in the fourth
century, supposed, however desirable in general it
may be that a minister of the gospel should be
married. But, while this interpretation is
manifestly to be excluded as false, there has been
much difference of opinion on the question whether
the passage means that a minister should not have
more than one wife at the same time, or whether it
prohibits the marriage of a second wife after the
death of the first. On this question, the notes of
Bloomfield, Doddridge, and Macknight, may be
consulted. That the former is the correct opinion,
seems to me to be evident from the following
considerations:
(1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language,
and it would doubtless be thus understood by those
to whom it was addressed. At a time when polygamy
was not uncommon, to say that a man should “have but
one wife” would be naturally understood as
prohibiting polygamy.
(2) the marriage of a second wife, after the death
of the first, is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures
as wrong. The marriage of a widow to a second
husband is expressly declared to be proper 1
Corinthians 7:39; and it is not unfair to infer from
that permission that it is equally lawful and proper
for man to marry the second time. But if it is
lawful for any man it is right for a minister of the
gospel. No reason can he assigned against such
marriages in his case, which would not be equally
valid in any other. Marriage is as honorable for a
minister of the gospel as for any other man; and, as
Doddridge has well remarked, “Circumstances may be
so adjusted that there may be as much reason for a
second marriage as for the first, and as little
inconvenience of any kind may attend it.”
Quoted verse:
1 Corinthians 7:39
The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband
liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at
liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the
Lord.
Note: "Only in
the Lord" here meaning another firstfruit...one in
the Salvation Process.
(3) there was a special propriety in the
prohibition, if understood as prohibiting polygamy.
It is known that it was extensively practiced, and
was not regarded as unlawful. Yet one design of the
gospel was to restore the marriage relation to its
primitive condition; and though it might not have
seemed absolutely necessary to require of every man
who came into the church to divorce his wives, if he
had more than one, yet, in order to fix a brand on
this irregular practice, it might have been deemed
desirable to require of the ministers of the gospel
that they should have but one wife. Thus the
practice of polygamy would gradually come to be
regarded as dishonorable and improper, and the
example and influence of the ministry would tend to
introduce correct views in regard to the nature of
this relation. One thing is clear from this passage,
that the views of the Papists in regard to the
celibacy of the clergy are directly at variance with
the Bible. The declaration of Paul in Hebrews 13:4,
is, that “marriage is honorable in all;” and here it
is implied that it was proper that a minister should
be married. If it were not, why did not Paul
prohibit it altogether? Instead of saying that it
was improper that a bishop should have more than one
wife, why did he not say that it was improper that
he should be married at all? Would not a Romanist
say so now?
Vigilant - This word (nēphaleos)
occurs only here and in 1 Timothy 3:11; Titus 2:2.
It means, properly, “sober, temperate, abstinent,”
especially in respect to wine; then “sober-minded,
watchful, circumspect. Robinson.” A minister should
have a watchful care over his own conduct. He should
be on his guard against sin in any form.
Sober - sōphrona
Properly, a man of “a sound mind;” one who follows
sound reason, and who is not under the control of
passion. The idea is, that he should have his
desires and passions well regulated. Perhaps the
word “prudent” would come nearer to the meaning of
the apostle than any single word which we have.
Of good behaviour -
Margin, “modest.” Coverdale renders it, “mannerly.”
The most correct rendering, according to the modern
use of language, would be, that he should be “a
gentleman.” He should not be slovenly in his
appearance, or rough and boorish in his manners. He
should not do violence to the usages of refined
conversation, nor be unfit to appear respectable in
the most refined circles of society. Inattention to
personal neatness, and to the rules which regulate
refined contact, is indicative neither of talent,
learning, nor religion; and though they are
occasionally - not often - connected with talent,
learning, and religion, yet they are never the fruit
of either, and are always a disgrace to those who
exhibit such incivility and boorishness, for such
men “ought” to know better. A minister of the gospel
should be a finished gentleman in his manners, and
there is no excuse for him if he is not. His
religion, if he has any, is adapted to make him
such. He has usually received such an education as
ought to make him such, and in all cases “ought” to
have had such a training. He is admitted into the
best society, and has an opportunity of becoming
familiar with the laws of refined conversation. He
should be an example and a pattern in all that goes
to promote the welfare of mankind, and there are few
things so easily acquired that are suited to do
this, as refinement and gentility of manners. No man
can do good, on the whole, or in the “long run,” by
disregarding the rules of refined contact; and,
other things being equal, the refined, courteous,
polite gentleman in the ministry, will always do
more good than he who neglects the rules of good
breeding.
Given to hospitality -
This is often enjoined on all Christians as a duty
of religion. For the reasons of this, and the nature
of the duty, see the Romans 12:13 note; Hebrews 13:2
note. It was a special duty of the ministers of
religion, as they were to be examples of every
Christian virtue.
Quoted verses:
Romans 12:13
Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to
hospitality.
Let us look at the commentary on, "given to
hospitality."
Given to hospitality - This expression
means that they should readily and
cheerfully entertain strangers. This is a
duty which is frequently enjoined in the
Scriptures, Hebrews 13:2, “Be not forgetful
to entertain strangers, for thereby many
have entertained angels unawares;” 1 Peter
4:9, “Use hospitality one to another without
grudging.” Paul makes this especially the
duty of a Christian bishop; 1 Timothy 3:2,
“A bishop then must ...be given to
hospitality;” Titus 1:8. Hospitality is
especially enjoined by the Saviour, and its
exercise commanded; Matthew 10:40, Matthew
10:42, “He that receiveth you receiveth me,
etc.” The waver of hospitality is one of the
charges which the Judge of mankind will
allege against the wicked, and on which he
will condemn them; Matthew 25:43, “I was a
stranger, and ye took me not in.” It is
especially commended to us by the example of
Abraham Genesis 18:1-8, and of Lot Genesis
19:1-2, who thus received angels unawares.
It was one of the virtues on which Job
particularly commended himself, and which he
had not failed to practice; Job 31:16-17,
“If I have withheld the poor from their
desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow
to fail; or have eaten my morsel myself
alone, and the fatherless hath not eaten
thereof, etc.” In the time of our Saviour it
was evidently practiced in the most open and
frank manner; Luke 10:7, “And in the same
house remain, eating and drinking such
things as they give.” A remarkable instance
is also mentioned in Luke 11:5. This virtue
is no less common in eastern nations at
present than it was in the time of Christ.
It is eminently the virtue of oriental
nations, of their ardent and open
temperament. It springs up naturally in
countries thinly settled, where the sight of
a stranger would be therefore especially
pleasant; in countries too, where the
occupation was chiefly to attend flocks, and
where there was much leisure for
conversation; and where the population was
too sparse, and the travelers too
infrequent, to justify inn-keeping as a
business.
From all these causes, it has happened that
there are, properly speaking, no inns or
taverns in the regions around Palestine. It
was customary, indeed, to erect places for
lodging and shelter at suitable distances,
or by the side of springs or watering
places, for travelers to lodge in. But they
are built at the public expense, and are
unfurnished. Each traveler carries his own
bed and clothes and cooking utensils, and
such places are merely designed as a shelter
for caravans; (see Robinson’s Calmet, art.
Caravanserai.) It is still so; and hence, it
becomes, in their view, a virtue of high
order to entertain, at their own tables, and
in their families, such strangers as may be
traveling. Niebuhr says, that “the
hospitality of the Arabs has always been the
subject of praise; and I believe that those
of the present day exercise this virtue no
less than the ancients did. There are, in
the villages of Tehama, houses which are
public, where travelers may lodge and be
entertained some days gratis, if they will
be content with the fare; and they are much
frequented. When the Arabs are at table,
they invite those who happen to come to eat
with them, whether they be Christians or
Muslims, gentle or simple.” - “The primitive
Christians,” says Calmet, “considered one
principal part of their duty to consist in
showing hospitality to strangers. They were
in fact so ready in discharging this duty,
that the very pagan admired them for it.
They were hospitable to all strangers, but
especially to those who were of the
household of faith. Believers scarcely ever
traveled without letters of communion, which
testified the purity of their faith, and
procured for them a favorable reception
wherever the name of Jesus Christ was
known;” (Calmet, Dict.) Calmer is also of
opinion that the two minor epistles of John
may be such letters of recommendation and
communion; compare 2 John 1:10.
It may be added that it would be
particularly expected of Christians that
they should show hospitality to the
ministers of religion. They were commonly
poor; they received no fixed salary; they
traveled from place to place; and they would
be dependent for support on the kindness of
those who loved the Lord Jesus Christ. This
was particularly intended by our Saviour’s
instructions on the subject, Matthew
10:11-13, Matthew 10:40-42. The duty of
hospitality is still binding upon Christians
and all people. The law of Christ is not
repealed. The customs of society are indeed
changed; and one evidence of advancement in
commerce and in security, is furnished in
the fact that inns are now provided and
patronized for the traveler in all Christian
lands. Still this does not lessen the
obligations to show hospitality. It is
demanded by the very genius of the Christian
religion; it evinces proper love toward
mankind; it shows that there is a feeling of
brotherhood and kindness toward others, when
such hospitality is shown. It unites
society, creates new bonds of interest and
affection, to show kindness to the stranger
and to the poor. To what extent this is to
be done, is one of those questions which are
to be left to every man’s conscience and
views of duty. No rule can be given on the
subject. Many men have not the means to be
extensively hospitable; and many are not
placed in situations that require it. No
rules could be given that should be
applicable to all cases; and hence, the
Bible has left the general direction, has
furnished examples where it was exercised,
has recommended it to mankind, and then has
left every man to act on the rule, as he
will answer it to God; see Matthew 25:34-46.
|
Now back to the commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2:
Apt to teach - Greek, “Didactic;” that is,
capable of instructing, or qualified for the office
of a teacher of religion. As the principal business
of a preacher of the gospel is to “teach,” or to
communicate to his fellow-men the knowledge of the
truth, the necessity of this qualification is
obvious. No one should be allowed to enter the
ministry who is not qualified to impart
“instruction” to others on the doctrines and duties
of religion; and no one should feel that he ought to
continue in the ministry, who has not industry, and
self-denial, and the love of study enough to lead
him constantly to endeavor to “increase” in
knowledge, that he may be qualified to teach others.
A man who would “teach” a people, must himself keep
in advance of them on the subjects on which he would
instruct them.
Now let us finish with the Treasury of Scriptural
Knowledge
A bishop
Titus 1:6-9
6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife,
having faithful children not accused of riot or
unruly.
7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of
God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to
wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men,
sober, just, holy, temperate;
9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been
taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both
to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Blameless:
1 Timothy 3:10
And let these also first be proved; then let them
use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
Luke 1:6
And they were both righteous before God, walking in
all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord
blameless.
Philippians 2:15
That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of
God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and
perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in
the world;
The husband of one wife:
1 Timothy 4:3
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from
meats, which God hath created to be received with
thanksgiving of them which believe and know the
truth.
1 Timothy 5:9
Let not a widow be taken into the number under
threescore years old, having been the wife of one
man,
Hebrews 3:14
For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the
beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Vigilant:
Isaiah 56:10
His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they
are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying
down, loving to slumber.
1 Peter 4:7
But the end of all things is at hand: be ye
therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.
1 Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the
devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking
whom he may devour:
Given to hospitality:
Romans 12:13
Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to
hospitality.
Titus 1:8
But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men,
sober, just, holy, temperate;
Hebrews 13:2
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby
some have entertained angels unawares.
1 Peter 4:9
Use hospitality one to another without grudging.
Apt to teach:
2 Timothy 2:24
And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be
gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
|