Survey of the Letters of Paul:  1 Timothy 3:2

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;

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,

back to the main page