Lange Commentary - 1 Timothy 3:1

Lange Commentary - 1 Timothy 3:1 - 3:7

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - 1 Timothy 3:1 - 3:7

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

VII

The proper temper of the overseers of the community, of the deacons, and of their wives

A.—Dignity and nature of the office of the overseer

1Ti_3:1-7

¹This is a true saying [Faithful is the saying], If a man desire [aspire unto] the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. ²A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour [decorous = ornatum], given to hospitality, apt to teach; [,] ³Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; [,] but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; [,] ⁴One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with ⁵all gravity; [—] For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? [—] ⁶Not a novice, lest being lifted up [blinded] with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Ti_3:1. This is a true saying. There is no reason whatever to refer this phrase, which often occurs in the Pastoral Epistles, to the preceding remarks (Chrysostom); it is clear, on the contrary, that here, as 1Ti_1:15, there begins a new line of thought. After the Apostle, in the former chapter, has treated of the duties of the church as a whole, especially in regard of public prayer, he turns to the special view of certain persons, the episcopi and diaconi. Undoubtedly it would fall to the lot of Timothy, in his intimate relations to the body, to appoint such officers; and as there might arise a difference of opinion, it was desirable for him to have a written direction from the Apostle, to which he might always appeal. Paul begins, therefore, by informing him, as Titus (1Ti_1:6), what special qualities such officers should possess. It is from his own knowledge, doubtless, of the high importance of this function of the episcopus, that he considers first its weighty requirements.—If a man desire, &c. It appears as if, at that time, there was in Ephesus, and its neighborhood, an eager strife for such a presbyterial rank—a strife which contrasts strikingly with the reluctance shown to its acceptance by so many eminent men in the third and fourth centuries; and as it certainly did not spring with all from the purest motives, it does not give us the happiest proof of their Christian spirit. Yet we need not understand ὀñÝãåôáé in the sense of an ambitious rivalry (thus De Wette, against which comp. Heb_11:16), since the Apostle would surely have rebuked it with decision. It may have been joined, on the part of many, with an active zeal for the church, which needed only a partial check and guidance.—The office of a bishop, ἐðéóêïðÞ . The word does not before occur in this sense in the New Testament, with the exception of the citation from the Old Testament (Act_1:20). As to its real meaning, it is proven beyond doubt that in the days of the Apostle the ἐðßóêïðïé had no higher rank than the ðñåóâýôåñïé , although Paul (1Ti_5:17) makes a distinction even among the latter and it is certain, likewise, that first in later times, by the combined influence of various causes, a higher place was given to the bishops among their fellow episcopi (Act_20:17; Act_20:28). The rule of the church at large was entrusted to, the Apostles; that of the individual communities, to the episcopate or presbyterate. On the diaconate, which is not at all identical with these last, see below, 1Ti_3:8.—He desireth a good work, êáëïí ἔñãïí ἐðéè . The adjective expresses the excellence, the noun the difficulty of the work; since ἔñãïí , in this connection, is not the same as ðñᾶãìá or ÷ñῆìá . The Apostle regards it not as a passive, but an active reality; and Augustin thus far wrote with truth, De Civ. Dei, xix. 19: “Episcopatus est nomen operis, non honoris.”—Jerome: “Opus, non dignitatem, non delicias; opus per quod humilitate decrescat, non intumescat fastigio.” Bengel: “Negotium, non otium.” On the whole subject here treated by Paul, we may well compare the Tractatus by Joh. de Wiclef, De Officio Pastorali, published by Dr. G. B. Lechler, Leipzig, 1863. He treats of two points, de sanctimonio vitæ, et de salubritate doctrinæ, and gives suggestions to be laid to heart.

[Note, on the Presbyter-Episcopal Office.—This verse is the crux of the whole controversy concerning the ministry of the apostolic church, and should not, therefore, be passed by with so slight notice as in this commentary. We will endeavor here to give an impartial, critical summary of the evidence contained in the Pastoral Epistles. It is clear, from 1Ti_3:1-7; Tit_1:5-9, that the titles “episcopus” and “presbyter” belonged at first to the same rank. See Bingham, “Ch. Antiq.,” B. 1, c. 3; Schaff, “Apost, Ch.,” B. 3, c. 3, and the citation from Jerome, Ep. 82, Ad Oceanum. Presbyter was the earlier Jewish-Christian name, nomen ætatis; episcopus the later, taken from political usage among the Greeks, nomen officii. The former very probably denoted the general ministerial dignity; the latter, the oversight of a particular church. The restriction of the episcopate to a superior order, therefore, came later. Was it of apostolic date or authority? We turn to this Epistle, and it is clear that Timothy had the power of judging presbyters; 1Ti_4:11; 1Ti_4:14; 1Ti_5:1; 1Ti_5:17-24; and the power of ordaining them; 1Ti_5:22. The power of ordaining elders in every city is also given to Tit_1:2; the injunction to rebuke with all authority, Tit_2:15. We omit 2Ti_1:6; 2Ti_1:14; 1Ti_2:2, since these are too vague for any fair argument. Timothy and Titus, then, were commissioned by St. Paul, and had the two powers of ordination and of judicial rule. See Hooker, Eccl. Pol., B. 7, c. 11, where the argument is forcibly stated. But the next question is, was this superior office a temporary or permanent one? Were these diocesan bishops, or only evangelists, sent on a special mission? It cannot be proved with certainty, from these Epistles, that they were more than evangelists. Timothy, moreover, is charged to “do the work of an evangelist,” 2Ti_4:5. Titus is spoken of, 2Co_8:23, with other brethren, as “messengers of the churches.” See Calvin, Inst.i1Tim 1Ti_3:3, s. 4. The fact of their superior authority appears to us, then, a presumptive argument for the establishment of the episcopate; yet it cannot be a demonstration. But a further question remains: How can this change of name be explained, by which the later bishop became higher than the presbyter? It is the received theory of the Episcopal divine, that when the apostolic authority had thus passed into this diocesan form, the official title was restricted to the higher rank. The name, it is said, is unimportant, but the fact is the essential. See Bingham, B. 2, c. 19. But this does not wholly meet the difficulty. It is not at all likely, had these new diocesan rulers been appointed directly, like Timothy and Titus, by the Apostles, that they would have taken a name appropriated to a lower order. The change points naturally to some election of a presbyter by the college as their chief. This sufficiently explains the case, and appears the most probable custom in the early church. Thus Field, “Of the Church,” B. 5, c. 27. Yet it is, after all, uncertain whether this was done in all cases, as he claims, by the direct choice of the Apostles, or by the choice of the body. There can be little doubt, however, from the appointment of Timothy and Titus, that such a superior order of men was becoming the general rule of the church, and that, too, with the permission, if not by the ordinance of the Apostles. We must, then, draw our conclusion from these meagre and uncertain hints. The chief error has been on either hand, that men have judged the plastic, growing institutions of the early church by the fixed order of a later age. It is enough to say, that toward the close of the lives of St. Paul and St. John, there was a natural, historic change of the church, as it became settled in its great social centres, from the general rule of the apostolate to a diocesan structure. See Rothe, Anfänge d. christl. Kirche, p. 498, ff. We see, in the cases of Timothy and Titus, the germinal form of such an episcopal office. It was a legitimate outgrowth. It had the sanction of the Apostles. To say that it was the invention of a later age, an apostasy from primitive parity or democracy, is unhistoric. Such a structural change could not have taken place without conflict; and the very silence of the sub-apostolic records, the undisputed right with which diocesan episcopacy emerges at the opening of authentic church history, confirms it as primitive. Yet it is alike unhistoric to rear this fact into a jus divinum, or to identify this simple episcopate of the early church with the type of a later hierarchy. Compare also the numerous works on the Ignatian controversy, by Cureton, Bunsen, Baur, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, and others.—W.]

1Ti_3:2. A bishop then must be, &c. Here follows a long list of qualifications, partly negative, and wholly concerned with the circle of daily, household life; since the Apostle is not speaking here of the higher gifts of Spirit and faith, which should be lacking in no Christian, least of all in an episcopus. All which is needed for the life hid with Christ, is passed by in silence, that he may consider solely the special requisites of the office. This fully met his purpose, as he speaks only of the aspirants to the episcopate, not of those already in it; and this apostolic rule was to serve Timothy as a safeguard against the importunity of incapable and unworthy men.—Then, ïὖí , joins the following counsel with the previous praise of the office. Bengel: “Bonum negotium, bonis committendum.”—Blameless, the husband of one wife. Two qualifications are named first, which the Apostle holds of highest worth. The episcopus must be blameless, ἀíåðßëçðôïí åἶíáé , in good repute, without offence in the eyes of believers, as well as of the unbelieving world. Thus he would be by no means blameless, were he not ìéᾶò ãõíáéêὸò ἀíÞñ . Is this phrase to be understood as forbidding polygamy or deuterogamy to the newly-appointed overseer? Scholars are not agreed, and the subject itself is far from clear. It is cited in favor of the former view, that polygamy was by no means strange among the Jews; see Justin M., Dial c. Tryph., § 134, ed. Colon; that this custom was less common among the Greeks, and might give offence; that Christianity expressly enjoins and demands (monogamy. The champions of the other view maintain that Timothy hardly needed the warning not to choose an episcopus who had several wives, since the unfitness of so sensual a man for this spiritual office would be self-evident; that, on the other hand, a second marriage might not have been approved by the Greeks; that Paul did not prescribe this abstinence as a general rule (the opposite is clear from 1Co_7:8; 1Co_7:39), but that this may rightly have been enjoined on such officers, who were to set an example of the highest self-restraint; and that, finally, in 1Ti_5:9, it is required of a widow, chosen as deaconess, to have been once only married. The last reason seems of the greatest weight; and we therefore agree with those who hold this command of Paul to be directed against a second marriage, as unseemly for the episcopal office. As to the question how far this rule should be considered binding now, we cannot better reply than with Heubner, in loco: “Perhaps the rude, quarrelsome disposition of the stepmother, in the servile condition of women at that time, was the cause of this law. With us such a reason is no longer applicable; and, on the contrary, the nurture of the young often requires a second marriage. If we regard marriage ideally, as the heartfelt union of two persons, wholly surrendered to each other, then a second marriage seems to disparage the first, or to be rather a thing of policy than love. Our general inference is, that a church teacher should conform to the usages of the country or the society in which he lives, so far as he can.” That, however, Christian antiquity had really no favorable opinion of second marriage, is seen from Athenag., Legat. pro Christo, p. 37. Theophilusad Autolyc. iii. p. 127, ed. Colon. Minucius Felix Octav.: “Unius matrimonii vinculo libenter adhæremus, cupiditate procreandi aut unam scimus, aut nullam.” Tertullian. ad ux. i. 7. Exhort. Castit., c. 7. De Monogamia, c. 12. Origenes, Contr. Celsum, iii. p. 141, and elsewhere. (According to Diod. Sic. xiii.12, the old Sicilian legislator Charondas had deemed that he who gave his children a stepmother, should not hold office as judge.) The wisdom of this apostolic rule was specially suited to that time, when Christians were anxious to avoid whatever might harm their reputation with the heathen. The view, that Paul speaks here only of the married state, as a conditio sine quânon for the episcopi, or that he merely discourages anything unusual, immoral, or illegal in the married life of such officers, does not fully explain his language. We may mention, as a curious view, still another of some Romish expositors, that by the ãõíÞ here named should be understood the church. Such finespun ingenuity cannot destroy the strong argument which this passage contains against the law of Gregory VII. enforcing celibacy. [Conybeare has here a suggestive note. “In the corrupt facility of divorce allowed both by Greek and Roman law, it was very common for man and wife to separate, and marry other parties during the life of each other. Thus, a man might have three or four living wives, or women who had successively been his wives. An example of this may be found in the English colony of Mauritius, where the French revolutionary law of divorce had been left unrepealed by the English Government; and it is not uncommon to meet in society three or four women who have all been wives of one man, and three or four men who have all been husbands of one woman. This successive rather than simultaneous polygamy is perhaps forbidden here.”—W.]—Vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, &c Vigilant, íçöÜëéïò ; here probably in the sense of spiritual vigilance, since it would else make a tautology with 1Ti_3:3; having thus the same meaning as prudent, judicious, and joined, therefore, with óþöñùí , the opposite of that violent disposition which can never keep the right measure. Of good behaviour; orderly, so that his whole conduct has in it nothing unseemly; the outward sign of the inward state, expressed by óþöñùí .—Given to hospitality (comp. Tit_1:8); especially toward so many Christian brethren (Rom_12:13; Heb_13:2; 1Pe_4:9).—Apt to teach. It appears, from 1Ti_5:17, that he counts worthy of special honor the episcopi, who labor in word and doctrine (comp. 2Ti_2:24).

1Ti_3:3. Not given to wine = ìὴ ïἴíῳ ðïëëῷ ðñïóÝ÷ïíôáò , 1Ti_3:8 (comp. Tit_1:7); a vice usually leading to quarrel, and hence the phrase just after: No striker; one who, in his rage, would soon use blows against his opponents. [Wordsworth notices that this injunction against striking shows the impulsive vehemence of the Oriental character. We may add, that it shows the half-Christianized morality of the early Church, which could need such precepts in regard to the first rules of social conduct. The history of church councils in the East supplies too many shameful illustrations.—W.]—But patient, ἐðéåéêῆ ; the opposite of a quarrelsome character. Luther: Gentle.—Not a brawler, ἄìá÷ïí ; shunning all needless strifes. Luther: Not wrangling.—Not covetous, ἀöéëÜñãõñïí ; free from that selfish greed which so often begets wrath and strife (comp. 1Ti_6:10; Heb_13:5). We know how often the Lord warned His disciples to beware of covetousness (Luk_16:14, and elsewhere).

1Ti_3:4. One that ruleth well his own house. Bengel: “Multi, foris mansueti, domi eo minus coercent iracundiam, erga conjuges,” &c. The Apostle requires of the episcopus that he shall make his own family a little Christian community. House here embraces the members of the whole household, the private family, in distinction from the public affairs of the Christian body (1Ti_3:5). Slaves are therefore included; but the Apostle has in special view the good training of the children.—Having his children in subjection. Here, as often, ἔ÷ïíôá = êáôÝ÷ïíôá ; see Wolf on this passage. Subjection is regarded as the wholesome rein to check all lawless, froward actions in the children.—With all gravity, does not apparently refer to the children (Wiesinger, Huther), since the word fitly signifies the gravity of the manly and the epicopal character; it betokens, too, the way in which the father must do his duty (comp. Tit_2:15), by the needful exercise of his paternal power. The justice of such a requirement is obvious, as the firmness which enables us to rule our own household must be needed to guide the community; and he who lacks this in the smaller, personal sphere, cannot exhibit it in the greater. In the following verse this is still more plainly urged.

1Ti_3:5. For if a man know not, &c. A parenthetical proposition, containing a conclusion a minori ad majus.—Take care, ἐðéìåëåῖóèáé ; to nourish, provide for, administer—almost identical with the foregoing ðñïÀóôáóèáé . It is used in Luk_10:34, of the care of the Samaritan for the wounded Jew. Theodoret: “ ὁ ôὰ óìéêñὰ ïἰêïíïìåῖí ïὐê åἰäὼò ðῶò äýíáôáé ôῶí êñåéôôüíùí êáὶ èåßùí ðéóôåõèῆíáé ôῆí ἐðéìÝëåéáí .”

1Ti_3:6. Not a novice, íåüöõôïò , newly planted; i. e., who has shortly since become a convert to Christianity. Undoubtedly, in a community so recently established, there must have been such a novice now and then placed in the episcopal office. But in Ephesus, where the church had existed some years already, Timothy could more easily choose among those who, earlier or later, had professed the gospel; and it was wise, therefore, not to include the latter among those raised to the episcopal office. This meets the objections of De Wette. It was not merely youth, but the lack of necessary knowledge and experience, which marked the novice; and he would, besides, be in danger of being misled by his pride.—Lifted up, ôõöùèåßò ; literally, beclouded, darkened, befooled; i. e., from pride and self-delusion, through his promotion to such rank above even older converts. There could be no readier sin for the newly converted than such self-exaltation, and, above all, if they were placed in any eminent position; the grace of God must keep them in the path of humility, discipline, and suffering. The following words, lest he fall into the condemnation of the devil, are variously explained. Luther has: “That he be not puffed up, and fall under the judgment of the slanderers;” i. e., give, occasion to slanderers. Others (Mosheim, Wegscheider) refer it to calumnious men. But there is no reason, when ôïῦ äéáâ . is here used, to understand by it aught save the father of lies, the murderer from the beginning. Nor is the idea satisfactory (Matthias), that the principle of evil is here denoted; but we think it should have the significance of the inward spiritual Power of evil. But what is the condemnation ( êñßìá ) of the devil? Not the judgment which the devil brings on those who fall under his influence (Genit. subjecti); for here Bengel’s remark applies: “Diabolus potest opprobrium inferre, judicium inferre non potest; non enim judicat, sed judicature.” But it is rather the judgment which has been fulfilled in the case of the devil (Genit. objecti), and will reach, likewise, all who are led astray by pride. Jerome: “Tale judicium, in quod etiam diabolus incidit.” Êñßìá is not merely denunciation, accusation (Matthies), but, as often, in the sense of êáôÜêñéìá or ôéìùñßá = the sentence of condemnation. If we compare this passage with 2Pe_2:4; Judges 6, we may infer that pride was the chief cause of the devil’s fall. Bengel: “Videtur prius quam alii angeli ad præfecturam super multos angelos, licet multis junior esset, fuisse suscitatus et erectus, quod ipsum ei quoque occasio superbiæ fuit.” Comp. Artemonius, ad init. Joh. præfect., p. 23.

1Ti_3:7. Moreover, he must, &c. A last requisite is added to the rest. It is not enough that the episcopus should be blameless in the eyes of the community (1Ti_3:2), but he must have a truly good report from those without; that is, who are not, or no longer members of the Christian body.—Lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. If before his nomination he had lived in gross sin, yet had been appointed, the remembrance of his old vices would still remain with those who had known him, and this might bring suspicion on the office itself. It was better for such a man, even after a genuine conversion, to retire into the seclusion of a private life, than take a prominent place. Otherwise he would fall åἰò ὀíåéäéóìüí —into suspicion,—whether deserved or not, and from those, too, within, as well as without the community; and thus, in his weakness and depression, he might readily fall into the snare of the devil, ðáãßäá ô . äéáâ . Deprived of his good name, he might lapse into the same sins which he had scarcely renounced, and become as evil as he was reputed to be. “Quid enim spei restat, si nullius peccati pudor?” Calvin. As ὀíåéäéóìüí and ðáãßäá are not separated by åἰò , we must consider the former no less than the latter as the work of the devil.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The worth of the episcopal office, which Paul has here so impressively set forth, has been affirmed in all ages and in manifold ways. Compare, e.g., Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio; Baxter, “Reformed Pastor;” Burk, “Pastoral Theology in its Examples;” and the well-known writings of Harms, Vinet, Nitzsch, Ebrard, Moll, Löhe, and others. “Pastor habet triplex officium; primo, verbo Dei spiritualiter pascere oves suas; secundo, purgare prudenter oves suas a scabie, ne sese et alios magis inficiant; tertio, defendere oves suas a lupis rapacibus, tam sensibilibus quam insensibilibus;” Wiclef.

2. Undoubtedly the Greek church, in forbidding second marriage to its clergy, has a support in the ìéᾶò ãõíáéêὸò ἀíÞñ of Paul. Yet it is quite another question how far the Apostle enjoins the literal fulfilment, in all countries, times, and circumstances, of the precept which he gave for Ephesus. The opponents of the papal hierarchy—which has found so strong a prop in the law of celibacy—rightly point to the liberty given by Paul to the episcopi, of entering once at least into marriage. A compulsory abstinence, without any special calling to it, is surely most unlike the spirit of the Apostle. Yet, whether the eagerness, with which many young pastors of the evangelical church unite their entrance into the ministry with their marriage, would always have his sanction, is quite a doubtful question. All depends on the time and circumstances; but it might be wished that, in the choice of their wives, clergymen would not quite forget the Christian church to which they may be so useful. Compare the “Mirror of a Good Clergyman’s Wife,” by Chr. Burk, 1842. [See Wordsworth for a valuable note on the usage of the Eastern and Western churches in regard of the Apostle’s rule. It seems to have been a general, unwritten law, yet not held of perpetual obligation, or enforced by any decree of general councils. In the time of Callistus, at the beginning of the second century, we learn from Hippolytus that persons twice or thrice married were admitted to the ministry. The whole passage, however, is most striking as a picture of the simple, healthful household life of the primitive clergyman, in contrast with the later diseased type of the Latin church.—W.]

3. It is a noteworthy proof of the practical spirit of Christianity, that the Apostle gives such special worth to the domestic and social virtues even in the official rulers of the community. A life of faith and morality are indivisible in his view. The pastor of the church must above all be a good father in his own family, and that even to the least particulars. If there be those who think that the care of their wider sphere of labor will not permit them to attend to such private duties, the Apostle sets before them our Lord’s words: “These ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Mat_23:23). The family of the clergyman must specially deserve the name of a little household church. “He must have a hundred eyes on every side; his spiritual vision must be sharp, not short-sighted. He must be awake, not for self, but for others;” Chrysostom. It is notable that the same Church father laments, in eloquent words, that his care for his large flock hardly left him time to think and watch over his own soul. 44 Hom. in Act. App. Opp. ix. p. 335, ed. Montfauc.

4. With reason Paul here enjoins that an episcopus should be ἀöéëÜñãõñïò . If this vice be the root of all evil in general, the life of Judas Iscariot and Simon Magus show what injury it has done to the clergy and the church; and we may say in this view, that the history of simony is no less shameful than that of celibacy.

5. The words of Paul on the condemnation of the devil is a striking contribution to the New Testament dæmonology, although he gives us but a glance behind the raised veil. The representation of Satan as a fallen angel makes a marked distinction between this scriptural doctrine and the Persian dualism from which it is so often sought to be derived.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The high worth of the episcopal office.—“If any man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” This is clear from (1) Its origin; (2) its nature; (3) its lineage; (4) its object; (5) its fruit.—The episcopal office: (1) A work; (2) a noble work; (3) a work which every one should not desire.—The due qualifications named by Paul are: (1) Manifold; (2) difficult; (3) just; (4) rich in blessing.—The evangelical clergyman is called to be a pattern of all personal, domestic, and social virtues.—The clergyman (1) a householder of God in the church; (2) in his own dwelling.—Use and abuse of the saying, “Whoso careth not for his own house,” &c.—The rocks which are in the way of a newly-converted man.—Through high to low, through low to high.—The value of a blameless youth to him who would feed the flock of God.—The snare of the devil in the office of pastor and teacher.

Starke: Art thou of high rank, and therefore ashamed to be a preacher of Christ? yet believe it, the office is noble and weighty; it has to do with the greatest things; it regards the salvation of souls, and eternal life.—A preacher may be unmarried without wrong, yet it is better for many reasons that he marry.—Continence of body must be joined with soberness of soul, in him who would grow in spiritual prudence, discretion, foresight.—Lange’s Opus: Covetousness is a hidden, shameful lust, especially in a clergyman.—Starke: A clergyman may be zealous, but not deal blows like a godless man.—A teacher who would not make his family an offence to the church, must look to it that he choose a devout help-meet; else, if he make a blind and carnal choice, he will lay the corner-stone of great evil.—A man can more easily rule his household, than a whole community: (1) Because it is far smaller; (2) because the household will sooner obey than strangers; (3) because he associates more with them than with others; (4) because he naturally treats them with more affection than others.—If a new convert be unfit for the office of teacher, how much more an unconverted person.—The shame and vice of a teacher are snares of the devil, whereby Satan robs his office of its blessing (1Co_9:12).

Lisco: The personal characteristics of a servant of the word.

Heubner: The bishop must consider his good appearing, his good fame, not hold it lightly because of his real purity; for his good fame adds to his influence.—Covetousness is a blot on the character of a clergyman.—Loss of honor often makes a man dull and base; honor leads to self-respect.—Perhaps the Apostle regarded the higher virtues, here omitted, as acknowledged requisites, and would only keep us from undervaluing those lower ones; or he would guide us upward from the outward conduct of life, here sketched, to the inward gifts.

Footnotes:

1Ti_3:1.—[ ðéóôὸò ; all the authorities; the Sinaiticus. But Ä ., Orig. also, ἀíèñþðéíïò ; humanus, hæc lectio vetustior est Hieronymo. But no one is rash enough to approve it. Matthäi, quoted by Huther.—E. H.]

1Ti_3:2.—[ íçöÜëåïí . Every one now reads íçöÜëéïí .—E. H.]

1Ti_3:3.— ìὴ áἰó÷ñïêåñäῆ . Wanting in A. D. F. G., and others, and upon this account Lachmann and Tischendorf have left it out. The Sinaiticus has it not. Apparently it has been intercalated from Tit_1:7.

1Ti_3:4.—[ ðñïúóôÜìåíïí . So Recepta, Lachmann, Tischendorf. The Sinaiticus reads ðñïúóôáíüìåíïí —peculiar and exceptional.—E. H.]

1Ti_3:7.—[ äåῖ äὲ áὐôüí ; áὐôüí left out by Lachmann and Tischendorf (wanting in A. F. G. H., and others); not in the Sinaiticus. In G., the whole seventh verse is written in the margin; according to Lachmann.—E. H.]