Comentários bíblicos

CHAPTER 3

1 Timothy 3:1. πιστός] Instead of this, D has ἀνθρώπινος, and some Latin Fathers have humanus. “Haec lectio vetustior est Hieronymo. Quod si vero vetustior Hieronymo, vetustior quoque est nostris codicibus omnibus. Nemo tamen ita temerarius est, ut eam probaret,” Matthaei.—1 Timothy 3:2. Instead of νηφάλεον, Griesb., following the weightiest authorities, accepted the form νηφάλιον; so, too, Scholz, Matthaei, Lachm. Buttm. Tisch.—1 Timothy 3:3. The words μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ are left out in A D F G 5, 6, 17, al., Syr. Arr. Copt. etc. Griesb. is right, therefore, in striking them out; they were probably interpolated from Titus 1:7. De Wette’s suggestion, that they may have been omitted intentionally as superfluous, since ἀφιλάργυρον follows, is very improbable; comp. Reiche, Comment. crit. on this passage.—1 Timothy 3:4. For προϊστάμενον, א has the form προϊστανόμενον, occurring only in later authors.—1 Timothy 3:6. Several cursives have the reading καὶ παγίδα after διαβόλου, which, however, is manifestly taken from the next verse.—1 Timothy 3:7. δεῖ δὲ αὐτόν] So Griesb. and Scholz, following the Rec.; Lachm. Buttm. and Tisch. left out αὐτόν, because it is not found in A F G H 17, Copt. Boern.; in Matthaei it stands without dispute. The insertion is more easily explained than the omission.—1 Timothy 3:9. For ἐν καθαρᾷ συνειδήσει, א has the singular reading: καὶ καθαρᾶς συνειδήσεως—which can only be explained from an oversight occasioned by the genitive before.—1 Timothy 3:14. τάχιον] Lachm. and Buttm. read ἐν τάχει, following A C D* 17, 71, 73, al. (ταχεῖον and ταχέως are also found). The Rec., which has the testimony of D*** F G K L, al., Chr. Theodoret, al., and is retained by Tisch., is the more difficult reading; besides, in the other passages of the N. T. where the word occurs, the comparative form can be easily explained; ἐν τάχει seems to be an explanatory correction.

In 1 Timothy 3:15, D* Arm. Vulg. Clar. Or. Ambrosiast. have σε inserted after δεῖ.—1 Timothy 3:16. For the Rec. Θεός, the most important authorities have the reading ὅς, as A C F G[113] א 17, 73, 181. Further, the Copt. Sahid. and Gothic versions, also the Syr. Erp. Aeth. Arm., have the relative. Orig., Theod. Mops., Epiph., Cyr. Al., Jerome, Eutherius, beyond doubt, found the latter reading in their MSS.; with several others it is at least probable. The Rec. ΘΕΌς is found, on the other hand, in D*** K L, in nearly all cursives, in the edd. Arab. p. Slav. MS., and besides, in Greg. Nyss. (who seems once, however, to have read Ὅς) Chrys. Theodoret, Didym. (De Trinitate, p. 83) Damasc. Oecum. Theophyl. In Ignatius (Ep. ad Ephes. § 19) we find ΘΕῸς ἈΝΘΡΩΠΊΝΩς ΦΑΝΕΡΟΎΜΕΝΟς; in the Apost. constitt.: Θεὸς κύριε ὁ ἐπιφανεὶς ἡμῖν ἐν σαρκι; in Hippol.: Θεὸς ἐν σώματι ἐφανερώθη; in Gregor. Thaum. (see pot. Apollin. in Photius): Θεὴς ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς—all which passages seem to testify in favour of Θεός.

In the MS. gr. D* is found the reading ὅ. The It. and Vulg. have: mysterium s. sacramentum, quod manifestatum est, and in this they are followed by the Latin Fathers, excepting Jerome himself. This translation does not, however, point necessarily to the reading ὅ; it might also be taken from ὅς, which was referred to μυστήριον. Till Wetstein, the reading ὅς was generally held to be the right one,—later also by Matthaei, Tittm. Scholz, Hahn, Heydenr. Linck, Mack; the reading ὅ is specially defended by Wetstein and Schulthess. Almost all later critics and expositors, both on external and internal grounds, have rightly preferred the reading ὅς, which is accepted also by Lachm. Buttm. Tisch. Comp. the thorough investigation by Reiche, Comment. crit. ii., on the passage.

[113] On the point that in A and C there was originally written not Θ̄Σ but ΟΣ, comp. Griesb. in Symb. crit. vol. I. pp. viii.–liv., and vol. II. pp. 56–76; further, Tisch. Prolegg. ad Cod. Ephr. sec. vii. p. 39, excursus on 1 Timothy 3:16.

1 Timothy 3:1. After speaking of the behaviour of men and women in the church-assemblies, Paul goes on to give instructions regarding the proper qualifications of office-bearers in the church. He begins emphatically with the introductory words: πιστὸς ὁ λόγος, which here, as in 1 Timothy 1:15, do not refer to what precedes (Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others), but to what follows.

εἴ τις ἐπισκοπῆς ὀρέγεται] Since ἐπισκοπή corresponds with ἐπίσκοπος in 1 Timothy 3:2, the word does not denote here generally “the office of one who is set over others” (Hofmann), but specially “the office of a bishop;” for only in this way can the inferences in 1 Timothy 3:2 f. be drawn from what is said here. Why the previous words πιστὸς ὁ λόγος should not be in agreement with this, we cannot understand.

Ἐπισκοπή has a similar meaning in Acts 1:20, where it denotes the office of apostle; comp. Meyer on the passage. In the N. T. the word usually means “the visitation.”

ὀρέγεται does not necessarily imply here, as de Wette thinks, the notion of ambitious striving; comp. Hebrews 11:16.

The ground of the ὀρέγεσθαι may indeed be ambition, but it may also be the zeal of faith and love. The apostle does not blame the ὀρέγεσθαι in itself; he merely asks us to consider that the ἐπισκοπή is a καλὸν ἔργον, and that not every one therefore may assume it.

καλοῦ ἔρου ἐπιθυμεῖ] Leo and others take ἔργον here in the sense of τί; but it seems more correct to hold by the meaning: “work, business” (Luther, Matthies, de Wette, Wiesinger, Hofmann, and others); comp. 2 Timothy 4:5 : ἔργον ποίησον εὐαγγελιστοῦ; 1 Thessalonians 5:13, where the church is exhorted διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν to the love of the προϊστάμενοι. It is, however, very doubtful, to say the least, that the word is chosen to lay stress on the thought that the ἐπισκοπή is an office of work and not of enjoyment (Jerome: “opus, non dignitatem, non delicias;” Bengel: “negotium, non otium”).

καλοῦ, see 1 Timothy 1:18; 2 Timothy 4:7.

1 Timothy 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 Titus 1:7), and in Acts 20:28; Php 1:1 (the verb ἐπισκοπεῖν is found in 1 Peter 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, Titus 1:5 : ἵνα καταστήσῃς κατὰ πόλιν πρεσβυτέρους, and Acts 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 Acts 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 (1 Timothy 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. Acts 20:17; Acts 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 Ephesians 4:11, where he calls them ποιμένες καὶ διδάσκαλοι, and 1 Thessalonians 5:12, where he mentions them as προϊστάμενοι ὑμῶν (comp. also Romans 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 Titus 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 1 Timothy 3:8 we have the plural διάκονοι (comp. also 1 Timothy 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 Titus 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, 1 Timothy 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 Romans 7:2-3, and also in 1 Corinthians 7:39, Paul declares widows to be perfectly free to marry again; in 1 Corinthians 7:8, he even places widows and virgins on the same level; and in this epistle, 1 Timothy 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. 1 Timothy 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 Titus 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 1 Timothy 3:11 (Titus 2:2). In its proper meaning it is equivalent to ΜῊ ΟἼΝῼ ΠΟΛΛῷ ΠΡΟΣΈΧΟΝΤΑ, 1 Timothy 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, 1 Timothy 3:3. Even the root-word ΝΉΦΩ occurs in the N. T. only in the figurative sense, as in 1 Thessalonians 5:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:8, where it is joined with ΓΡΗΓΟΡΕῖΝ, and stands in opposition to the spiritual ΚΑΘΕΎΔΕΙΝ and ΜΕΘΎΕΙΝ; and in 1 Peter 4:7, where it is also connected with ΣΩΦΡΟΝΕῖΝ.

ΣΏΦΡΟΝΑ-G0-, ΚΌΣΜΙΟΝ-G0-] see 1 Timothy 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. 1 Peter 4:9; Hebrews 13:2; Romans 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 2 Timothy 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 Titus 1:9); hence Paul, in Ephesians 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. 1 Timothy 5:9) no other husbands in addition to her own husband.” So also in his comment, on Titus 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].

1 Timothy 3:3. The positive characteristics are now followed by two that are negative (or three, according to the Rec.): μὴ πάροινον] This word occurs only here and in Titus 1:7. Though it is used (comp. παροινέω, LXX. Isaiah 41:12) also in the wider sense, as equivalent to contumeliosus (Josephus, Antiq. vi. 10, where it stands opposed to the word σωφρονεῖν), yet there is here no sufficient ground for departing from its original sense. It is true that, as Bengel indicates, the ἀλλʼ ἐπιεικῆ afterwards seems to be in favour of the wider meaning here, without special reference to drunkenness; but the contrast is the same in the other case, if we only remember that πάροινος does not mean simply “drunken,” but “impudent, arrogant in intoxication.”[119]

μὴ πλήκτην] This word also may be taken in a narrower and a wider sense. Here, as in Titus 1:7, it denotes the passionate man who is inclined to come to blows at once over anything. With these two ideas there are three placed in contrast; not, however, in exact correspondence, for in that case the reading of the Rec., μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, would be indispensable, and for this reading there is too little testimony; but in such a way that the conduct denoted in the one case is opposed to that in the other.

ἀλλʼ ἐπιεικῆ, ἄμαχον ἀφιλάργυρον] In Titus 3:2, as here, the first two expressions stand together. Ἄμαχος does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. Ἐπιεικής does not mean “yielding,” for it does not come from εἴκω, but from εἰκός (ἔοικα).

The nearest meaning is “beseeming.” As used, however, it has mostly the sense of moderateness and gentleness (in Plutarch, Pyrrh. 23.

ἐπιεικῶς is used along with πρᾴως). Luther rightly: “mild.” Ἄμαχος is equivalent to peaceful; Luther: “not quarrelsome.”

ἀφιλάργυρον (only here and in Hebrews 13:5; φιλάργυρος, 2 Timothy 3:2 and Luke 16:14; the substantive φιλαργυρία, 1 Timothy 6:10) lays stress on a point of which no hint was given before. It is joined with ἄμαχος, since avarice necessarily brings strife with it.

[119] Comp. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 981, where the scholiast explains it μέθυσος καὶ ὑβριστής; see Pape on the word.

1 Timothy 3:4. In the second verse, the apostle touched on the subject of marriage-life; here, he directs how the bishop is to conduct himself in his own house.

τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου καλῶς προϊστάμενον] Though ἴδιος is used at times in the N. T. instead of the simple possessive pronoun, it is here emphatic, in contrast with ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ, 1 Timothy 3:5.

οἶκος here, as elsewhere, denotes the entire household, including slaves. It is above all important that he should act properly in regard to the children; hence the apostle adds: τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος] From a comparison with the corresponding passage in Titus 1:6, it is clear that he is speaking here, not of the father’s disposition, but of that of the children (in opposition to Hofmann). The ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ corresponds in sense with μὴ … ἀνυπότακτα in the other passage, and in construction with ἔχοντα … μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας. The bishop is to preside over his house in such a way that the children shall not be wanting in submissiveness. The words μετὰ πάσης σεμνότητος are to be connected with what immediately precedes, and not with προϊστάμενον (Hofmann). If it be right to refer them to the fathers (Heydenrich, Matthies, van Oosterzee), ἔχειν must be explained as equivalent either to tenere (Matthies: “holding the children in obedience”) or to κατέχειν (van Oosterzee). That, however, is arbitrary; besides, the parallel passage in Titus 1:6, where ἀσωτία is the opposite of σεμνότης, is against it. Leo, Mack, de Wette, Wiesinger, are right therefore in referring the words to the children. The idea of σεμνότης does not forbid this reference, if only we avoid thinking of little children; comp., by way of contrast, the conduct of the children of the high priest Eli, in the O. T.

1 Timothy 3:5 in a parenthesis gives the reason why a bishop ought to know how to govern his house properly.

εἰ δέ τις τοῦ ἰδίου οἴκου προστῆναι οὐκ οἶδε] δέ shows that the confirmatory clause is adversative; the conclusion is made a minori ad majus. Bengel: plus est regere ecclesiam, quam familiaim.[120]

Πῶς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς ΘΕΟῦ ἘΠΙΜΕΛΉΣΕΤΑΙ] The contrast here made becomes still more forcible when it is observed that in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul calls the ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ the ΟἾΚΟς ΘΕΟῦ.

ἘΠΙΜΕΛΉΣΕΤΑΙ] The future here, as often with the Greeks, expresses the capability; see Bernhardy’s Syntax, p. 377. The verb ἐπιμελέομαι has not only the more general meaning of “take care of something” (Luke 10:34-35), but also more definitely, “fill an office, be overseer over something,” in which sense it is used here.

For a right understanding of the connection of this verse with what precedes, it is to be observed that the first requisite for a successful superintendence is obedience (ὙΠΟΤΑΓΉ) from the church towards its superintendent. It is the bishop’s duty so to conduct himself that the members of the church may be obedient to him, not as servants to a master, but as children to a father, that they may show him obedience in love.

[120] Theodoret: ὁ τὰ σμικρὰ οἰκονομεῖν οὐκ εἰδὼς, πῶς δύναται τῶν κρειττόνων καὶ θείων πιστευθῆναι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν.

1 Timothy 3:6. Μὴ νεόφυτον] depending on δεῖ … εἶναι in 1 Timothy 3:2, is attached to the previous accusatives, 1 Timothy 3:5 being a parenthesis. Νεόφυτος is rightly explained by Chrysostom: οὐ τὸν νεώτερον ἐνταῦθα λέγει, ἀλλὰ τὸν νεοκατήχητον; comp. 1 Corinthians 3:6-7. Heinrichs is wrong if he thinks that, on account of what follows, the explanation rejected by Chrysostom is really the right one; for the rapid promotion to the episcopate of one newly admitted into the church, might easily have consequences to be dreaded by the apostle.

The reason why a “novice” (Luther) should not be bishop is given in the words that follow: ἵνα μὴ τυφωθεὶς εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου. Τυφωθείς: “lest he being beclouded with conceit (of foolish pride).” The verb (which occurs only here and in 1 Timothy 6:4 and 2 Timothy 3:4) comes from τῦφος, which in the figurative sense especially denotes darkness, as beclouding man’s mind so that he does not know himself, so that the consciousness of his own weakness is hidden from him; in 2 Timothy 3:4 it is appropriately joined with μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος (comp. Athenaeus, vi. 238d). Τυφωθείς describes the conduct of the νεόφυτος which brings on him the κρίμα τοῦ διαβόλου.

εἰς κρίμα ἐμπέσῃ τοῦ διαβόλου] Nearly all expositors take ὁ διάβολος here and in 1 Timothy 3:7 to be the devil. Some, again, explain it as “the libellous fellow” (Mosheim, Wegscheider, Hofmann; Luther: “the slanderer”). Against this latter view, however, there are three decisive arguments—(1) According to the constant usage of the N. T., the substantive ὁ διάβολος always denotes the devil (it is otherwise in the LXX., but only in Esther 7:4; Esther 8:1).[121] (2) The singular has the definite article, which seems to mark out one definite individual, for the collective use of the singular can always be inferred from the context (as in Matthew 12:35; Romans 14:1; 1 Peter 4:18; Jam 2:6; this, indeed, is less the case in Jam 5:6); besides, here the idea of “libeller” is too indefinite for the train of thought; hence Hofmann is forced to define it arbitrarily: “whoever makes it his business to speak evil of Christianity.” (3) If, in the expression ἡ τοῦ διαβόλου παγίς, at 2 Timothy 2:26, ΤΟῦ ΔΙΑΒΌΛΟΥ cannot mean anything else than the devil, it is arbitrary to render it otherwise when used in the same expression at 1 Timothy 3:7.

ΚΡΊΜΑ is not equivalent to “charge, accusation” (Matthies), but “the judgment,” especially “the judgment of condemnation.”

τοῦ διαβόλου is mostly (even by Wiesinger and van Oosterzee) taken to be the genitivus objecti (comp. especially Revelation 17:1), equivalent to “the judgment which is executed on the devil” (van Oosterzee), because κρίνειν is not the devil’s business; Bengel: diabolus potest opprobrium inferre (1 Timothy 3:7), judicium inferre non potest, non enim judicat, sed judicatur.[122] But the notion that the devil is delivered to condemnation because of self-conceit, cannot be scripturally proved. For this reason, and also because ΤΟῦ ΔΙΑΒΌΛΟΥ in 1 Timothy 3:7 is manifestly the subjective genitive, it is preferable to take it in the same way here (so, too, Plitt).[123] Of course the κρίμα of the devil cannot mean a trial which the devil holds, but the judgment which serves to give him foundation for accusing man with God (comp. the name for the devil, κατήγωρ, in Revelation 12:10).[124]

[121] Paul uses the word only here and in ver. 7; 2 Timothy 2:26; Ephesians 4:17; Ephesians 6:11. In 2 Timothy 2:26 and in Ephesians 6:11, even Hofmann takes it to be the devil; but, on the other hand, both here and in Ephesians 4:17 he takes it to be the human slanderer.

[122] It is out of place to appeal to 2 Peter 2:4 and Judges 1:6 (Wiesinger), since in these passages mention is made, not of the judgment which will be passed on the devil, but of the judgment which will be passed on a number of wicked angels.

[123] Had the apostle been thinking of the judgment which will be passed on the devil (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:4 [14, 15]), he would have expressed himself more clearly, with something like this: ἵνα μὴ χρινήται σὺν τῷ διαβόλῳ.

[124] Hofmann asserts that it is irrational to speak of a judgment which the devil pronounces; but we may ask, on the other hand, whether it is not irrational to speak of a devil without judgment.

1 Timothy 3:7. Δεῖ δὲ καὶ μαρτυρίαν καλὴν ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν] Δεῖ δέ (which does not present something opposed to 1 Timothy 3:6) adds a new requirement to those already given in 1 Timothy 3:2-6, a requirement needed for the sake of those who are not Christians. Thus δεῖ here becomes connected with the δεῖ in 1 Timothy 3:2.

μαρτυρία occurs in the Pauline Epistles only here and in Titus 1:13.

ἀπὸ τῶν ἔξωθεν] οἱ ἔξωθεν (for which Paul commonly uses οἱ ἔξω) are those outside the church; ἀπό is equivalent not to “among,” but to “from;” the testimony comes from those who are not Christians. In the choice of a bishop, care is to be taken that he is a man who has led an irreproachable life even in the eyes of those who are not Christians. The reason is added just as in 1 Timothy 3:6 : ἵνα μὴ εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν ἐμπέσῃ καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου] ὀνειδισμόν may be taken absolutely (Wiesinger, Plitt), or joined with τοῦ διαβ. (van Oosterzee). The former view is supported by the fact that ἐμπέσῃ separates ὀνειδ. from παγίδα; the latter, by the fact that the preposition is not repeated before παγίδα. The passage in 1 Timothy 3:14-15, when compared with this, supports the former view, which is further established as correct by the consideration that we cannot well suppose ὀνειδίζειν to be an act of the devil. Since ὀνειδισμός is not defined more precisely, it must be taken as quite general in meaning.

καὶ παγίδα τοῦ διαβόλου] the same expression in 2 Timothy 2:26; in 1 Timothy 6:9 it stands without τοῦ διαβ., and there, too, it is joined with πειρασμός (elsewhere only in Romans 11:9, which follows Psalm 69:23). It is a figurative name for the lying in wait of the devil, who is represented as a hunter. The idea of its association with ὀνειδισμός is this, that the disgrace incurred by one who has not a good testimony from the non-Christians, is used by the devil as a snare, not only to tempt him, but also to seduce him into apostasy from the gospel.[125]

[125] In explaining τοῦ διαβόλου, Hofmann explains ἐμπέσῃ (εἰς) παγ. τ. διαβ. to mean, that the slanderer tries to ensnare such a one in the sense of “showing him as an evidence of the state of morality in an association which selects such a man as its head” (!).