Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Timothy 3:2 - 3:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ti_3:2. Δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι κ . τ . λ .] τὸν ἐπίσκοπον , as a name for the superintendent of the congregation, only occurs in the Pastoral Epistles (here and at Tit_1:7), and in Act_20:28; Php_1:1 (the verb ἐπισκοπεῖν is found in 1Pe_5:2). There can be no doubt that in the N. T. the ἐπίσκοποι and the πρεσβύτεροι denote the same persons. The question why these different names should be given to the same persons has been differently answered.
REMARK.
Baur supposes that every single town had originally one superintendent, who in his relation to the congregation was called ἐπίσκοπος , but that when several ἐπίσκοποι over single congregations were taken together, they were for the most part designated by the co-ordinate name of πρεσβύτεροι . He finds the chief support for his opinion in the passages, Tit_1:5 : ἵνα καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους , and Act_14:23 : χειροτονήσαντες … πρεσβυτέρους κατʼ ἐκκλησίαν ; but the form of expression here used does not necessarily imply that every single town (or congregation) received or was to receive only one presbyter. Since κατὰ πόλιν ( ἐκκλησίαν ) means: by cities, i.e. in every city, and the plural ( πρεσβυτέρους ) is herewith joined with it, it may be taken in Baur’s sense, but it may also be as well taken to mean that the plural refers to each single city. The passage in Act_15:21, to which Baur appeals, proves nothing for his view, since it is well known that there were several synagogues in each city of the Jewish country.
According to the view of Kist (Illgen’s Zeitschrift f. hist. Theol. II. 2, pp. 47 ff.), the Christians in any one place formed originally several house-congregations, each of which had its particular superintendent. The college of presbyters then consisted of the superintendents of those house-congregations in one city, which, taken together, were regarded as a congregation. The passage in Epiphanius, Haer. lxix. 1,[114] shows that in later times such an arrangement did exist; but there is no passage in the N. T. to prove that that was the original arrangement. In the N. T. the presbyters are always named as the superintendents of one congregation, and there is nowhere any hint that each house-congregation had its special superintendent. Even when James (1Ti_5:14) enjoins that a sick man is to summon τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας ,—and not the presbyter of the house-congregation of which he was a member,—his words are clearly against Kist’s view.
The most probable theory is, that originally the superintendents of the single congregations—according to the analogy of Jewish custom—bore the name of πρεσβύτεροι , but that, in so far as they were ἐπισκοποῦντες in reference to the congregation, they were called ἐπίσκοποι ; comp. Act_20:17; Act_20:28.
There are, however, two striking facts to be noticed. In the first place, Paul in his epistles (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) makes use of the word ἐπίσκοπος only in Php_1:1, and of the word πρεσβύτεροι not at all. Nay, he almost never mentions the superintendent of the congregation except in Eph_4:11, where he calls them ποιμένες καὶ διδάσκαλοι , and 1Th_5:12, where he mentions them as προϊστάμενοι ὑμῶν (comp. also Rom_12:8 : ὁ προϊστάμενος ); comp., however, the passages quoted above from Acts. From this it is clear that at first his attention was directed to the congregation only in its indivisible unity, and only by degrees does he give more prominence to its leaders. We cannot, however, conclude from this, either that the congregations in the earlier period had no leaders, for it lay in the very-nature of a congregation to have some kind of leading; or that the Pastoral Epistles were not written by Paul, for why in the later period of his career should circumstances not so have shaped themselves that he thought it necessary to give the leaders more prominence?
The second striking fact is, that both in this passage and in Tit_1:7 the singular ἐπίσκοπος and not the plural ἐπίσκοποι is used, though in the latter passage the plural πρεσβύτεροι immediately precedes, and here at 1Ti_3:8 we have the plural διάκονοι (comp. also 1Ti_5:17 : οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι ). Is there any reason for this in the nature of the episcopate? The fact certainly might be interpreted to favour Kist’s view; but it may more simply and naturally be thus explained. Both times a τις precedes, and this almost by necessity compels the use of the plural after it.
[114] Ὅσαι ἐκκλησίαι τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ὑπὸ ἕνα ἀρχιεπίσκοπον οὖσαι , καὶ κατʼ ἰδίαν ταύταις ἐπιτεταγμένοι εἰσὶ πρεσβύτεροι διὰ τὰς ἐκκλησιαστικὰς χρείας τῶν οἰκητόρων .
Οὖν ] is not simply a particle of transition. From the fact that the ἐπισκοπή is a καλὸν ἔργον , the apostle deduces the necessity of a blameless character on the part of the ἐπίσκοπος ; Bengel: bonum negotium bonis committendum.
ἀνεπίληπτον εἶναι ] In enumerating the qualities which an ἐπίσκοπος must possess, the apostle begins appropriately with a general idea; so also Tit_1:7 : ἀνεπίληπτος , equivalent to μὴ παρέχων κατηγορίας ἀφορμήν , Schol. Thucyd. v. 17. It is important that they who stand at the head of the church should lead an irreproachable life in the opinion both of Christians and of non-Christians.
μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα ] This expression cannot here be properly referred to polygamy; for, although polygamy might at that time be still found among the civilised heathen, and even among the Jews (comp. Justin Martyr, Dialog. c. Tryph.; Chrysostom on the passage; Josephus, Antiq. vii. 2), it was as a rare exception. Besides, there is an argument against such an interpretation in the phrase ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή , 1Ti_5:9; for similarly such a phrase ought to refer to polyandry, which absolutely never occurred.
Most recent expositors (Leo, Mack, de Wette, Heydenreich, Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, Plitt) take the expression as referring to a second marriage after the death of the first wife. Heydenreich quotes many testimonies from the earlier Fathers to justify this view. The results which these give are the following:
Firstly, Many held marriage after the death of the first wife to be something immoral. Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christo, p. 37, edit. Colon.) calls second marriage a εὐπρεπὴς μοιχεία ; and Tertullian repudiates it utterly, as do the Montanists. Secondly, This was, however, by no means the view that generally prevailed. It had many decided opponents, but even opponents of the view regard[115] abstinence from a second marriage as something praiseworthy, nay, meritorious. Hermas (Past. mandat. iv. chap. 4 : dic, Domine, si vir vel mulier alicujus discesserit et nupserit aliquis eorum, num quid peccat? Qui nubit, non peccat; sed si per se manserit, magnum sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum) and the later Fathers, as Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril, all write in this strain.
Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, iii. p. 461) says, that he who marries a second time does not commit sin: οὐ γὰρ κεκώλυται πρὸς τοῦ νόμου · οὐ πληροῖ δὲ τῆς κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον πολιτείας τὴν κατʼ ἐπίτασιν τελειότητα . Thirdly, As to those who held office in the church, it was a general principle that they should not marry a second time. The proof of this is the objection which Tertullian puts in the mouth of his opponents against his condemnation of second marriages: adeo, inquiunt, permisit Apostolus iterare connubium, ut solos qui sunt in Clero, monogamiae jugo adstrinxerit (de Monogamia, chap. 12). Origen’s words are in complete accordance with this: ab ecclesiasticis dignitatibus non solum fornicatio, sed et nuptiae repellunt; neque enim episcopus, nec presbyter, nec diaconus, nec vidua possunt esse digami.
On the other hand, there is a weighty counter-argument in the fact that the earlier expositors of the Pastoral Epistles (Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Oecumenius) do not share in this view,[116] though the practice prevailing in their day must have made the interpretation to them an obvious one. Besides, nowhere else in the N. T. is there the slightest trace of any ordinance against second marriages; nay, in Rom_7:2-3, and also in 1Co_7:39, Paul declares widows to be perfectly free to marry again; in 1Co_7:8, he even places widows and virgins on the same level; and in this epistle, 1Ti_5:14, he says: ΒΟΎΛΟΜΑΙ ΝΕΩΤΈΡΑς ( ΧΉΡΑς ) ΓΑΜΕῖΝ . It would certainly be more than strange if the apostle should urge the younger widows to a step which would hinder them later in life from being received into the class of church-widows (see on chap. 1Ti_5:9).
Appeal has been made to the facts that the nuptiae secundae were held to be unseemly for women even among the heathen (comp. Rein, Das römische Privatrecht, pp. 211, 212, and the Latin word univira); but it is to be observed, on the other hand, that it was considered in no way objectionable for a man to marry again after the death of his wife, and that there exists no trace of the opposite principle. (There is no ground for Heydenreieh’s opinion, that the priests highest in rank, e.g. the Pontifex Maximus, could only be married once.) Hence, neither Christians nor non-Christians could be offended if the presbyters of the churches were married a second time, and Paul would have laid down a maxim which in his day had never been heard of. The undecided opposition to second marriages appeared among the Christians only in the post-apostolic age, when asceticism was already taking a non-Pauline direction, and was therefore inclined to give its own interpretation to the apostle’s words. Besides, the expression here, as also in Tit_1:6, stands in the midst of others, which denote qualities to be possessed not only by the bishop, but also by every Christian as such. Accordingly, there is good ground for taking the disputed expression simply as opposed to an immoral life, especially to concubinage. What he says then is, that a bishop is to be a man who neither lives nor has lived in sexual intercourse with any other woman than the one to whom he is married (Matthies, Hofmann[117]). Thus interpreted, the apostle’s injunction is amply justified, not only in itself, but also in regard to the extraordinary laxness of living in his day, and it is in full harmony with the other injunctions. The expression under discussion might also be possibly referred to successive polygamy, i.e. to the re-marriage of divorced persons, but its terms are too general to make such a reference certain.[118]
ΝΗΦΆΛΙΟΝ ] only here and in 1Ti_3:11 (Tit_2:2). In its proper meaning it is equivalent to ΜῊ ΟἼΝῼ ΠΟΛΛῷ ΠΡΟΣΈΧΟΝΤΑ , 1Ti_3:8; but it is also used in a kindred sense (like the Latin sobrius) to denote one who is not enchanted nor intoxicated by any fleshly passion. It is used, therefore, of sobriety of spirit. This is the meaning of the word here, where it is joined immediately with σώφρονα , and where the original sense follows in the word ΠΆΡΟΙΝΟς , 1Ti_3:3. Even the root-word ΝΉΦΩ occurs in the N. T. only in the figurative sense, as in 1Th_5:6; 1Th_5:8, where it is joined with ΓΡΗΓΟΡΕῖΝ , and stands in opposition to the spiritual ΚΑΘΕΎΔΕΙΝ and ΜΕΘΎΕΙΝ ; and in 1Pe_4:7, where it is also connected with ΣΩΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ .
ΣΏΦΡΟΝΑ -G0-, ΚΌΣΜΙΟΝ -G0-] see 1Ti_2:9.
Bengel: quod ΣΏΦΡΩΝ est intus, id ΚΌΣΜΙΟς est extra. Theodoret: ΚΌΣΜΙΟς · ΚΑῚ ΦΘΈΓΜΑΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΣΧΉΜΑΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΒΛΈΜΜΑΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΒΑΔΊΣΜΑΤΙ ὭΣΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΣΏΜΑΤΟς ΦΑΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ ΤῊΝ Τῆς ΨΥΧῆς ΣΩΦΡΟΣΎΝΗΝ .
ΦΙΛΌΞΕΝΟΝ ] in special reference to strangers who were Christian brethren; comp. 1Pe_4:9; Heb_13:2; Rom_12:13.
ΔΙΔΑΚΤΙΚΌΝ ] “able to teach” (Luther); “good at teaching” (van Oosterzee). Διδακτικός is one who possesses everything that fits him for teaching, including also the inclination (Plitt: “inclined to teach”) or the “willingness” (Hofmann). Hofmann is wrong in specializing it into “a moral quality.” That is justified neither by the etymology of the word (comp. the similarly-formed πρακτικός , γραφικός , etc.), nor by the position in which it stands here or in 2Ti_2:24. The word is found elsewhere only in Philo, De Praem. et Virt. 4, not in classic Greek. Though the public address in the congregation (both that of the διδασκαλία and that of the ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΊΑ , 1 Corinthians 12-14.) was permitted to every one to whom the Holy Spirit had imparted the ΧΆΡΙΣΜΑ , still the ἘΠΊΣΚΟΠΟς in particular had to know how to handle doctrine, in instructing the catechumens, in building up the faith of the church, and in refuting heretics (see Tit_1:9); hence Paul, in Eph_4:11, calls the ΠΟΊΜΕΝΕς of the church, ΔΙΔΆΣΚΑΛΟΙ .
[115] Still there are exceptions, such as Theodore of Mopsuestia, who shows his freedom of thought in arguing most decidedly against this view; see Theodori ep. Mops, in N. T. commentarium, quae reperiri potuerunt; ed. O. F. Fritzsche, pp. 150–152.
[116] Chrysostom places the two views together: οὐ νομοθετῶν τοῦτο φησίν , ὡς μὴ εἶναι ἐξὸν ἅνευ τούτου ( γυναικός ) γένεσθαι · ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀμετρίαν κωλύων , ἐπειδὴ ἐπὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐξῆν , καὶ δευτέροις ὁμιλεῖν γάμοις , καὶ δύο ἔχειν κατὰ ταυτὸν γυναῖκας .
[117] Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 421) says: “The injunction is, that the husband have no other wives in addition to his own wife, and the widow (chap. 1Ti_5:9) no other husbands in addition to her own husband.” So also in his comment, on Tit_1:6.
[118] As a matter of course, Paul did not, as Carlstadt thought, mean in these words to command the bishop to marry; but, on the other hand, there is at bottom a presupposition that it is better for a bishop to be married than to be unmarried (see vv. 4, 5).—We should note also as an exegetical curiosity, that some Catholic expositors, in the interests of celibacy, have explained the word γυνή of the church.—The strange opinion of Bretschneider, that μιᾶς is here the indefinite article, and that Paul meant a bishop should be married, hardly needed the elaborate refutation which is accorded to it by Winer, pp. 111 f. [E. T. p. 146].