Holy Bible

The office of a bishop. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 The office of a bishop a good work S. Davies, M. A. If a man desire the office of a bishop from right principles, he desireth. — not a secular dignity — not a good benefice — not a post of honour or profit — not an easy idle life — but he desireth a work; a good work indeed it is: but still it is a work. I. It may properly be called a WORK, if we consider the duties of the office, which require the utmost assiduity, and some of which are peculiarly painful and laborious. II. It is a GOOD WORK, whether you consider, for whom, with whom, or for what you work. The ministers of the gospel work for God, who is carrying on the grand scheme of salvation in our world. His immediate service is the peculiar business of their lives. Ministers also work for Jesus Christ. It was He that originally gave them their commission; it was He that assigned them their work; it is He that is interested in their success. Again, the ministers of the gospel work for the souls of men. To do good to mankind is the great purpose of their office. Let us next consider with whom the ministers of the gospel work; and we shall see how good their employment is. "They are workers together with God." ( 2 Corinthians 6:1 ). They are also co-workers with Jesus Christ, promoting the same cause for which He became man; for which He lived the life of a servant, and died the death of a malefactor and a slave. They may also be called fellow-workers with the Holy Spirit, whose great office it is to sanctify depraved creatures, and prepare them for the refined happiness of heaven. They also act in concert with angels; for what are these glorious creatures but "ministering spirits sent forth to minister to them that shall be heirs of salvation"? ( Hebrews 1:14 ). An angel once condescended to call a minister of the gospel his fellow-servant ( Revelation 19:10 ). Ministers also are engaged in that work in which the apostles went before them. The office of a bishop will farther appear a good work, if it be considered for what it is that ministers work. They do not indeed work for a reward upon the footing of personal merit; but they hope for it on the plan of the gospel, through Jesus Christ. In this view, like Moses, they have "a respect to the recompense of reward" (Hebrews 2:26). And thus it appears, their laborious and painful work is good — good in itself, good for the world, and good for themselves. ( S. Davies, M. A. )

Benson Commentary 1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 1 Timothy 3:1 . Because some false teachers were now spreading their erroneous doctrines with assiduity among the believers at Ephesus, and it was necessary that Timothy (to whom the care of the church there was committed) should be assisted by some bishops, or elders, and deacons, well qualified to teach the people, the apostle, after observing what an honourable office that of a Christian bishop is, here describes the qualities and virtues necessary in one who desires to attain it. This is a true saying — Most certain in itself, and worthy of being always acknowledged and attended to; if a man desire, (or earnestly seek, as ???????? signifies,) the office of a bishop — Overseer, or pastor of Christ’s flock, frequently termed presbyters, or elders, in the New Testament. See on Acts 20:28 ; 1 Peter 5:1-2 ; he desireth a good work — An excellent but laborious employment. “A bishop’s office is termed ????? , a work, to intimate that he must not spend his life in ease and idleness, but in a continued application to the duties of his office. It is also termed ????? ????? , a good, or excellent work, because of its honourableness and usefulness. See on 2 Timothy 2:2 . The words ????? and ?????? are often used promiscuously, to denote what is morally good. But when they are distinguished, ????? includes also the idea of honour, and ?????? the idea of profit. 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; 1 Timothy 3:2-3 . A bishop then — Or an overseer of the flock of Christ, that he may be capable of such an office; must be blameless — In every respect with regard to his moral character, since any thing which might be amiss in that would tend to bring a reproach upon his office, and greatly obstruct his usefulness; the husband of one wife — This neither means that a bishop must be married, nor that he may not marry a second wife; which is just as lawful for him to do as to marry a first, and may, in some cases, be his bounden duty. But whereas polygamy and divorce, upon slight occasions, were both common among the Jews and heathen, it teaches us that ministers, of all others, ought to stand clear of those sins. Macknight’s reasoning on this subject is very conclusive. “That the gospel allows women to marry a second time, is evident from 1 Corinthians 7:9 ; 1 Corinthians 7:39 . By parity of reason it allows men to marry a second time likewise. Wherefore, when it is said here that a bishop must be the husband of one wife, and ( 1 Timothy 5:9 ,) that the widow, who is employed by the church in teaching the young of her sex, must have been the wife of one husband, the apostle could not mean that persons who have married a second time are thereby disqualified for sacred offices. For in that case, a bishop whose wife dies while he is young, must lay down his office, unless he can live continently unmarried. The apostle’s meaning, therefore, in these canons, is, that such persons only were to be intrusted with sacred offices who in their married state had contented themselves with one wife, and with one husband at a time; because thereby they had showed themselves temperate in the use of sensual pleasures; through the immoderate love of which the Asiatic nations universally practised polygamy. In like manner because, according to our Lord’s determination, persons who divorced each other unjustly were guilty of adultery when they married themselves to others; also because such really had more wives and husbands than one at a time, as was the case with the woman of Samaria, ( John 4:18 ,) the apostle, to restrain these licentious practices, which were common among the Greeks and Romans, as well as among the Jews, ordered that no widow should be chosen to instruct the younger women, but such as had been the wife of one husband only at a time.” Vigilant — Intent upon his duty, ready to resist temptation, and careful to preserve his flock from seduction; sober — Greek, ??????? , prudent; or, as the word also implies, one who governs well his passions, and whose mind is well regulated. He must be lively and zealous, yet calm and wise; of good or comely behaviour — As ??????? might be properly rendered; implying that his conduct, in all respects, must be such as becomes his office: his discourse, his dress, his visage, his gait, his manners being all suitable to the gravity of his functions. The former word respects the inward man, and this the outward. Given to hospitality — Literally, a lover of strangers. As the primitive Christians took a particular charge of orphans, widows, sick people, and of such as were imprisoned for their religion, or spoiled of their goods, so also of strangers; to the care of whom they were led by the manners of the age, and the peculiar circumstances of the times. For many of the first converts, having devoted themselves to the preaching of the gospel, often travelled from one place to another; and as there were no inns in the eastern countries like those used now with us, it was customary for travellers to lodge with their acquaintance, or with such persons as they were recommended to. But all the disciples of Christ, considering themselves as brethren, and as engaged in one common cause for the benefit of the world, they made each other welcome, though unacquainted, to such food and lodging as they could afford. And therefore, when travellers were not acquainted with the brethren in any particular place, all they had to do was to make themselves known as Christians, by declaring their faith, ( 2 John 1:10 ,) especially to the bishops, who had a liberal maintenance given them to enable them to be hospitable. Yet the bishop’s hospitality was not to be confined to the brethren: he was to extend it, on occasion at least, even to such heathen strangers as, agreeably to the manners of the times, came to him, drawn by his reputation for wisdom or beneficence. The reason was, by receiving such into his house, he would have an opportunity of recommending the true religion to them by his conversation and example. From this account it is evident, that the hospitality anciently required in a bishop was not what is now meant by that word, namely, the keeping a good table, and an open house for one’s friends and others, who are able to make him a return in kind; but it consisted in entertaining strangers of the character just now described; the poor also, and the persecuted for the sake of religion. Apt, or fit, to teach — By having a thorough knowledge of the things he is to teach, a clear manner of expressing his thoughts, and an earnest desire to instruct the ignorant; or one that is himself well instructed in the things of the kingdom of God, and is communicative of what he knows; is both able and willing to impart to others the knowledge which God hath given him. Not given to wine — Or any other kind of strong liquor; no striker — Not of such a hasty temper as to have so little government of himself as to be ready to strike those who provoke him; or one that is apt to use violence to any one, but who does every thing in a spirit of meekness, gentleness, long- suffering, and love. For the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle toward all men, 2 Timothy 2:24 ; not greedy — Or desirous, rather, of filthy lucre — That is, who does not make his ministry subservient to any secular design or interest; that uses no mean, base, sordid ways of getting money; who is dead to the wealth of this world, and makes it appear by his conduct that he is so, and that he lives above it. It is remarkable that the phrase ???????????? , which is here used, and signifies a person attached to sordid gain, is seldom or never used in the New Testament to express any gain, but that which is made or procured by the covetousness of Christian ministers; and “never surely,” as Doddridge observes, “does an eagerness in pursuit of money appear more dishonourable and sordid than in persons of that noble, but, alas! too often prostituted profession.” But patient — ??????? , gentle, yielding, or moderate; one that does not insist upon the extremity of his right, but is ready to give it up, in some degree, for the sake of peace; not a brawler — A contentious person; not covetous — ??????????? , not a lover of money, or of riches, but who, having food and raiment for himself and those dependant upon him, is content therewith. 1 Timothy 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 1 Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 1 Timothy 3:4-6 . One that ruleth well his own house — That not only rules it, but rules it well, and keeps his family in good order: that rules it so as to promote religion and virtue in all its members; rules it calmly, but firmly; never using harshness where gentleness and love will produce the desired effect; having his children — If he be a father; in subjection, with all gravity — Or seriousness; for levity undermines all domestic authority: and he must thus rule his house both that he may set a good example to other masters of families, and that he may thereby give proof of his ability to preside over the church of God. For if a man know not how to rule his own house — So as to preserve a due decorum in the family where he has such a natural authority; how should he be able to take care of — Or to govern, in a proper manner, that greater and more important society, the church of God — In which there will be such a diversity of characters and dispositions, and over which it will be impossible for him to maintain an equal inspection and influence? Not a novice — ???????? , literally, one newly ingrafted, namely, into the body of Christ, or newly planted, namely, in the garden of his church; that is, one newly converted. Such were not to be made bishops, or presbyters; because, being yet but imperfectly instructed in the Christian doctrine, they were not fit to teach it to others. Besides, as their zeal, constancy, fidelity, and other graces, had not been sufficiently tried, they could have had but little authority, especially with the brethren of longer standing and greater experience. Lest being lifted up with pride — Greek, ???????? , puffed up, with this new honour conferred upon him, or the applause which frequently follows it; he fell into the condemnation of the devil — The same into which the devil fell, or be guilty of the sin of self-conceit and high-mindedness, for which the devil was condemned. 1 Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Timothy 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 1 Timothy 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 1 Timothy 3:7 . Moreover, he must have a good report — That is, a fair or good character, or good testimony, namely, as to the time past; of them that are without — That are not Christians; lest he fall into reproach — By their rehearsing his former life; and the snare of the devil — Which Satan might make a snare of to discourage and cast him down, or in some other way entangle him in unbelief and sin. Here Macknight remarks, “It is intimated, that the sins which a person has formerly committed, when cast in his teeth after he becomes a minister, may be the means of tempting him to repeat these sins, by the devil’s suggesting to him that he has little reputation to lose. Nor is this the only evil. The people, knowing his former miscarriages, will be less affected with what he says to them. All who are candidates for the ministry ought to consider these things seriously.” 1 Timothy 3:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 1 Timothy 3:8-9 . Likewise the deacons — Of whom see on Acts 6:3-4 , and Php 1:1 ; must be grave — Or serious, as some render ??????? : men of a steady, decent, and venerable behaviour. No mention is made of presbyters, or elders, as distinct from bishops; evidently because (as has been observed on 1 Timothy 3:1 , and Php 1:1 ) they were not distinct from them; but the two names were used promiscuously for the same persons. Not double-tongued — Deceitful and dissembling, speaking one thing in one company, and another in another; not given to much wine — Which would render them utterly unfit for their office; not greedy, or desirous of filthy lucre — See on 1 Timothy 3:3 . “With what abhorrence does the apostle everywhere speak of this! All that is gained, (above food and raiment,) by ministering in holy things, is filthy gain indeed! Far more filthy than what is honestly gained by raking kennels, or emptying common sewers.” — Wesley. Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience — Well instructed in, and firmly believing, all the great doctrines of the gospel, and adorning them by a correspondent practice; or steadfast in faith, and holy in heart and life. Although the apostle did not mention it, Timothy would readily infer from this direction concerning deacons, that it was equally necessary in bishops as in them to be sound in the faith, and holy in life. As soundness in the faith was required in deacons, it is probable they were sometimes, if not generally, employed in teaching; but whether by preaching or catechising is not certain. They likewise acted as readers in the congregations. 1 Timothy 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 1 Timothy 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 1 Timothy 3:10 . Let these also — (The word also implies that the same rule was to be observed with relation to bishops) first be proved — “By the examination,” says Whitby, “of the soundness of their faith, and the purity of their former lives: and then let them be admitted to use the office of a deacon, being thus found blameless.” And he shows, by a quotation from the Life of the Emperor Severus, written by Lampridius, and from the epistles of Cyprian, that such an examination was used at the ordination of both bishops and deacons in the churches of the early Christians, and that it was a practice derived from the apostles. Some, however, think that the apostle required, in this direction, that no one should be made either a bishop or a deacon, till he had given proof both of his steadfastness in the faith, and of his genuine piety and good conduct during a reasonable space of time after his conversion: or, that the persons admitted to these offices should be under trial for a while, how they conducted themselves therein, and then afterward, if they gave satisfaction, they should be confirmed in them. 1 Timothy 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 1 Timothy 3:11 . Even so must their wives — Namely, the wives of the deacons; be grave — Serious in their deportment; not slanderers — Or false accusers of the brethren and others; sober — Or watchful, (as ????????? may be rendered,) for occasions of doing good, and guarding against every temptation to evil; faithful — To God, their husbands, and the poor; in all things — Committed to their care, lest their imprudent and unfaithful conduct should bring the character of their husbands under suspicion. The apostle, however, may be understood here, as not only speaking of the wives of the deacons and bishops, but of the believing women in general, and particularly of those who were invested with any office in the church. So the Vulgate interprets his meaning, having here, mulieres similiter pudicas, the women in like manner must be modest. Chrysostom also, and the Greek commentators, with most of the Latin fathers, were of opinion that the apostle, in this passage, is speaking both of those women who, in the first age, were employed in ministering to the afflicted, and of those who were appointed to teach the young of their own sex the principles of religion. As the manners of the Greeks did not permit men to have much intercourse with women of character, unless they were their relations, and as the Asiatics were under still greater restraints, it was proper that an order of female teachers should be instituted in the church for instructing the young of their own sex. These, it seems, were generally widows, Clement of Alexandria reckoning widows among ecclesiastical persons, Pædag., lib. 3. c. 12; and Grotius tells us that these female presbyters, or elders, were ordained by imposition of hands till the council of Laodicea. 1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1 Timothy 3:12-13 . Let the deacons — As well as the bishops; be husbands of one wife — That is, such as have shown their temperance by avoiding polygamy and causeless divorce; (see on 1 Timothy 3:2 ;) ruling their children, &c. — This qualification, which was required in bishops likewise, shows how anxious the apostle was that all who bore sacred offices should be unblameable in every respect; knowing that the disorderly behaviour of the members of their family might give occasion to suspect that they had been careless of their morals. For they that have used — Have discharged; the office of a deacon well, (see Romans 12:7-8 ,) purchase to themselves a good de gree — Greek, ?????? , step, namely, toward some higher office; and great boldness — From the testimony of a good conscience; in the faith which is in Christ Jesus — Namely, in professing and teaching it, for even the wicked must respect persons who show so much benevolence and activity in relieving the poor, the afflicted, and the persecuted. 1 Timothy 3:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 1 Timothy 3:14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 1 Timothy 3:14-16 . These things — Concerning the character of persons fit to be intrusted with the office of bishops or deacons; I write, hoping to come to thee shortly — It seems evident from hence, that Paul intended to have come back to Timothy at Ephesus in a little time, but was providentially called another way; but, as Doddridge observes, it can by no means be concluded from hence that Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy after his imprisonment at Rome. But if I tarry long — If I am hindered from coming, I give thee these instructions in the mean time; that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself — That is, how to discharge thy office properly; (which is the scope of the whole epistle;) in the house of God — In which thou hast the honour to bear so high an office, even in that house, or family, which is the church of the living God — Where he is worshipped in spirit and in truth by his believing people, manifests his special presence, and bestows peculiar blessings. The tabernacle first, and afterward the temple, obtained the name of the house or habitation of God, because there the symbol of the divine presence resided, 1 Samuel 1:7 ; Matthew 21:13 ; Matthew 23:38 . But under the gospel dispensation no material building or temple is called the house of God. That appellation is given only to the church of God, or to those societies of men who profess to believe in Christ, and join together in worshipping God according to the gospel form. The pillar and ground — Or support, as ???????? signifies; of the truth — That is, of the whole system of gospel truth. “Some commentators think Timothy is called, in this passage, the pillar and support of the truth, for the same reason that Peter, James, and John are called pillars, ( Galatians 2:9 ,) and that the particle ?? , as, should be supplied before these words, and the clause translated thus: That thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself, as the pillar and support of the truth in the church, of the living God. But, not to insist on the harshness and irregularity of this construction, it must be observed, that seeing the interpretation of the passage hath been much contested, a word, which entirely changes the apostle’s meaning, should by no means be inserted in the text on mere conjecture, because in that manner the Scriptures may be made to speak any thing which bold critics please.” — Macknight. According to the common reading, the church of God is evidently here called the pillar and support of truth. And since the apostle must be understood as speaking, not of any particular falsely pretended, fallen, or corrupt church, but of the true, genuine, catholic church, or, as he expresses himself, the church of the living God, consisting of all the true churches of Christ throughout the world, and comprehending all true believers and lovers of God, all who hold the mystery of faith in a pure conscience; ( 1 Timothy 3:9 ;) this church, so constituted, may with perfect propriety be termed the pillar and support of the truth, as preserving, from age to age, the Holy Scriptures, which attest the truth, and as always believing and maintaining the great fundamental articles of the Christian faith. Bengelius, however, and many others, adopt a different reading, so far as to end the sentence with the church of the living God, and to begin the next with the words following, thus: The mystery of godliness is the pillar and ground of truth, and confessedly a great thing. And this reading is approved by Witsius, Whitby, Doddridge, Wesley, and many other eminent commentators. According to this interpretation, by the mystery of godliness we are to understand that wonderful and sublime doctrine which is revealed in the gospel, and immediately specified in six articles, which sum up the whole economy of Christ upon earth. God was manifest in the flesh — Namely, the Word that was in the beginning with God, and was God, was incarnated, ( John 1:14 ,) in the human nature of Jesus, conceived by a miracle in the womb of the virgin, and born of her, to whom, therefore, the divine names of God, Lord, and Jehovah, are repeatedly given in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; as also the divine titles of the true God, 1 John 5:20 ; God over all blessed for ever, Romans 9:5 ; Jehovah of hosts, Isaiah 8:13-14 ; Hosea 12:5 ; the Lord of glory, 1 Corinthians 2:8 ; the Holy One and Just, and the Prince of life, Acts 3:14-15 ; the first and last, Revelation 1:17 . To him divine attributes are ascribed; omnipresence, Matthew 18:20 ; omnipotence, Php 3:21 ; omniscience, Revelation 2:23 . And divine works, namely, those of creation, John 1:3 ; preservation, Colossians 1:17 ; Hebrews 1:3 ; redemption and salvation, passim, and judging all mankind at the last day, Matthew 25:31-32 , &c. And to him, as we have very often seen in the course of these notes, divine worship was frequently paid by those divinely-inspired persons, who could not be mistaken, particularly in a matter so momentous. He was manifested in the form of a servant, in the fashion of a man, for thirty-three years, his divine glory frequently breaking forth through the veil of his humanity, especially in the wisdom of his discourses, in the power of his miracles, in the holiness of his spotless life, and in his unspeakable and never-ceasing benevolence, beneficence, and other divine virtues, and in a peculiar manner when he was transfigured on the holy mount, 2 Peter 1:16-17 . Justified in the Spirit — The Lord Jesus appeared on earth in all the infirmity and frailty of mortal flesh, poor, despised, persecuted, and at last put to death as a blasphemer; yet he professed and maintained a high claim, the highest possible, even that of being the Messiah, the Son of God in a peculiar sense, and one with his Father, John 8:58 ; John 10:30 ; John 10:36 . Now how could he be justified in making this claim? He was justified in, or by, the Spirit — Namely, the Holy Ghost; 1st, That Spirit had moved holy men of old, ( 2 Peter 1:21 ,) to utter many predictions concerning him, and these were all exactly fulfilled in him. 2d, The Spirit descended upon him in a visible form at his baptism, and pointed him out as the person, whom the voice from heaven declared to be God’s beloved Son; and this Spirit he possessed without measure in its gifts and graces, as his doctrine, life, and miracles showed. 3d, By this Spirit he was raised from the dead, ( 1 Peter 3:18 ,) and thereby powerfully demonstrated to be the Son of God, Romans 1:4 . 4th, He baptized his disciples with this Spirit, particularly on the day of pentecost, according to the prediction of the Baptist, ( Matthew 3:11 ,) and his own often-repeated promise, and thereby convinced of sin those that did not believe in him, whether Jews or Gentiles, and showed them to be inexcusable in resisting such evidence; giving full proof, at the same time, that he himself was righteous, John 16:7-10 . Seen of angels — However regardless men might be of this astonishing mystery, this manifestation of God in the flesh, the angels viewed it with deep and constant attention and great interest, as a most astonishing and instructive spectacle, more mysterious than any work of creation, or dispensation of providence, and giving them such views of their Maker’s justice and grace, and especially of his love, as they had not had before, 1 Peter 1:12 . Accordingly they worshipped him at his entrance into the world, Hebrews 1:6 ; celebrated his birth, Luke 2:9-13 ; ministered to him in the desert, Matthew 4:11 ; and in his agonies, Luke 2:43 ; were present at his resurrection and ascension, Luke 24:4 ; Acts 1:10 . Preached to the Gentiles — This also is termed a mystery Ephesians 3:4-6 ; Colossians 1:25 ; where see the notes. And if we consider how the Gentile world was sunk in idolatry and vice of every kind, and that whoever preached the gospel to them must testify against their abominable practices in strong terms, and therefore had every reason to expect the most violent opposition and ill usage, even to imprisonment, torture, and martyrdom, we must allow both that God manifested astonishing grace in sending his apostles to preach the gospel to them, and that these his messengers displayed amazing fortitude in going so willingly to preach it. Believed on in the world — This was a still greater mystery; 1st, That a poor, mean, and persecuted man, crucified as the vilest malefactor, should be believed on as the Messiah expected by the Jews and all nations — the Son of God — the Saviour of the world. 2d, That his gospel, so simple and unpromising in appearance, preached without wisdom of words, and by men who had not the advantage of wealth, power, or learning to recommend them, and whose doctrine condemned the reigning idolatry, should be believed in as a revelation from God: especially as, 3d, It could not prevail but it must evidently overthrow the heathen idolatry, established and revered for ages, and bring all the esteemed doctrines of the philosophers into discredit, and therefore would certainly be opposed and persecuted by the three classes of people of the greatest power, the priesthood, the philosophers, and the Roman emperor, with all subordinate kings and magistrates. 4th, Whoever believed it were under an indispensable obligation to confess it; and whoever did so was in danger of suffering the loss of all things, imprisonment, torture, and death. But notwithstanding all these obstacles in the way, Jesus and his gospel were believed on in the world. “This undeniable fact, of which the evidence remains at this day, is mentioned as a part of the mystery of godliness, because it is a strong proof of the truth of Christ’s resurrection, and of the spiritual gifts and miraculous powers by which the apostles and their assistants are said, in the Christian records, to have spread the gospel through the world. For, to believe that the multitudes, not only among the barbarous nations, but among the learned Greeks and Romans, who forsook their native religion and embraced the gospel, were persuaded to do so merely by the force of words, without the aid of miracles and spiritual gifts, is to believe a greater miracle than any recorded in the gospel history.” — Macknight. Received up into glory — When his ministry on earth was completed; when he had fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies, and answered the ancient types; taught the whole truth belonging to his new dispensation, and confirmed it by miracles; had set his followers a perfect example; expiated sin by dying, broke the power of death by his resurrection; giving his disciples clear proof thereof by frequently appearing to them, as well as by showing them that the ancient prophets had foretold these things; and had given them their commission and all needful instruction; — He, who had so long tabernacled in our frail nature in a state of poverty, reproach, and suffering, was received up into glory: that is, as the eternal Son of God, he resumed the glory he had with his Father before the world was; ( John 17:5 ;) his human nature was transformed and glorified, and in his complete person, as God and man, he was placed at the head of the whole creation for the good of his church, ( Ephesians 1:20-22 ,) invested with all authority and power in heaven and on earth, and constituted the final Judge of men and angels. 1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. Chapter 10 ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY; VARIOUS CERTAINTIES AND PROBABILITIES DISTINGUISHED. - 1 Timothy 3:1-10 THIS passage is one of the most important in the New Testament respecting the Christian ministry; and in the Pastoral Epistles it does not stand alone. Of the two classes of ministers mentioned here, one is again touched upon in the Epistle to Titus, { Titus 1:5-9 } and the qualifications for this office, which is evidently the superior of the two, are stated in terms not very different from those which are used in the passage before us. Therefore a series of expositions upon the Pastoral Epistles would be culpably incomplete which did not attempt to arrive at some conclusions respecting the question of the primitive Christian ministry; a question which at the present time is being investigated with immense industry and interest, and with some clear and substantial results. The time is probably far distant when the last word will have been said upon the subject; for it is one on which considerable difference of opinion is not only possible but reasonable: and those persons would seem to be least worthy of consideration, who are most confident that they are in possession of the whole truth on the subject. One of the first requisites in the examination of questions of fact is a power of accurately distinguishing what is certain from what is not certain: and the person who is confident that he has attained to certainty, when the evidence in his possession does not at all warrant certainty, is not a trustworthy guide. It would be impossible in a discussion of moderate length to touch upon all the points which have been raised in connection with this problem; but some service will have been rendered if a few of the more important features of the question are pointed out and classified under the two heads just indicated, as certain or not certain. In any scientific enquiry, whether historical or experimental, this classification is a useful one, and very often leads to the enlargement of the class of certainties. When the group of certainties has been properly investigated, and when the various items have been placed in their proper relations to one another and to the whole of which they are only constituent parts, the result is likely to be a transfer of other items from the domain of what is only probable or possible to the domain of what is certain. At the outset it is necessary to place a word of caution as to what is meant, in a question of this kind, by certainty. There are no limits to skepticism, as the history of speculative philosophy has abundantly shown. It is possible to question one’s own existence, and still more possible to question the irresistible evidence of one’s senses or the irresistible conclusions of one’s reason. A fortiori it is possible to throw doubt upon any historical fact. We can, if we like, classify the assassinations of Julius Caesar and of Cicero, and the genuineness of the Aeneid and of the Epistles to the Corinthians, among things that are not certain. They cannot be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid or an experiment in chemistry or physics. But a skeptical criticism of this kind makes history impossible; for it demands as a condition of certainty a kind of evidence, and an amount of evidence, which from the nature of the case is unattainable. Juries are directed by the courts to treat evidence as adequate, which they would he willing to recognize as such in matters of very serious moment to themselves. There is a certain amount of evidence which to a person of trained and well-balanced mind makes a thing "practically certain": i.e., with this amount of evidence before him he would confidently act on the assumption that the thing was true. In the question before us there are four or five things which may with great reason be treated as practically certain. 1. The solution of the question as to the origin of the Christian ministry has no practical bearing upon the lives of Christians. For us the problem is one of historical interest without moral import. As students of Church History we are bound to investigate the origins of the ministry which has been one of the chief factors in that history: but our loyalty as members of the Church will not be affected by the result of our investigations. Our duty towards the constitution consisting of bishops, priests, and deacons, which existed unchallenged from the close of the second century to the close of the Middle Ages, and which has existed down to the present day in all the three great branches of the Catholic Church, Roman, Oriental, and Anglican, is no way affected by the question whether the constitution of the Church during the century which separates the writings of St. John from the writings of his disciple’s disciple, Irenaeus, was as a rule Episcopal, collegiate, or Presbyterian. For a churchman who accepts the Episcopal form of government as essential to the well-being of a Church, the enormous prescription which that form has acquired during at least seventeen centuries, is such ample justification, that he can afford to be serene as to the outcome of enquiries respecting the constitution of the 2. various infant Churches from A.D. 85 to A.D. 185. It makes no practical difference either to add, or not to add, to an authority which is already ample. To prove that the Episcopal form of government was founded by the Apostles may have been a matter of great practical importance in the middle of the second century. But, before that century had closed, the practical question, if there ever was one, had settled itself. God’s providence ordained that the universal form of Church government should be the Episcopal form and should continue to be such; and for us it adds little to its authority to know that the way in which it became universal was through the instrumentality and influence of Apostles. On the other hand, to prove that episcopacy was established independently of Apostolic influence would detract very little from its accumulated authority. A second point, which may be regarded as certain with regard to this question, is, that for the period which joins the age of Irenaeus to the age of St. John, we have not sufficient evidence to arrive at anything like proof. The evidence has received important additions during the present century, and still more important additions are by no means impossible; but at present our materials are still inadequate. And the evidence is insufficient in two ways. First, although surprisingly large as compared with what might have been reasonably expected, yet in itself, the literature of this period is fragmentary and scanty. Secondly, the dates of some of the most important witnesses cannot as yet be accurately determined. In many cases to be able to fix the date of a document within twenty or thirty years is quite sufficient: but this is a case in which the difference of twenty years is a really serious difference; and there is fully that amount of uncertainty as to the date of some of the writings which are our principal sources of information; e.g., the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles," the Epistles of Ignatius, the "Shepherd of Hermas," and the "Clementines." Here also our position may improve. Further research may enable us to date some of these documents accurately. But, for the present, uncertainty about precise dates and general scantiness of evidence compel us to admit that with regard to many of the points connected with this question nothing that can fairly be called proof is possible respecting the interval which separates the last quarter of the first century from the last quarter of the second. This feature of the problem is sometimes represented by the useful metaphor that the history of the Church just at this period "passes through a tunnel" or "runs underground." We are in the light of day during most of the time covered by the New Testament; and we are again in the light of day directly we reach the time covered by the abundant writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. But during the intervening period we are, not indeed in total darkness, but in a passage the obscurity of which is only slightly relieved by an occasional lamp or light-hole. Leaving this tantalizing interval, about which the one thing that is certain is that many certainties are not likely to be found in it, we pass on to look for our two next certainties in the periods which precede and follow it. 3. In the period covered by the New Testament it is certain that the Church had officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not discharged by ordinary Christians; in other words a distinction was made from the first between clergy and laity. Of this fact the Pastoral Epistles contain abundant evidence; and further evidence is scattered up and down the New Testament, from the earliest document in the volume to the last. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is certainly the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us, we find St. Paul beseeching the Church of the Thessalonians "to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their work’s sake" ( 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 ). The three functions here enumerated are evidently functions to be exercised by a few with regard to the many: they are not duties which every one is to discharge towards every one. In the Third Epistle of St. John, which is certainly one of the latest, and perhaps the very latest, of the writings contained in the New Testament, the incident about Diotrephes seems to show that not only ecclesiastical government, but ecclesiastical government by a single official, was already in existence in the Church in which Diotrephes "loved to have the preeminence" ( 3 John 1:9-10 ). In between these two we have the exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: "Obey them that have the rule over you and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account". { Hebrews 13:17 } And directly we go outside the New Testament and look at the Epistle of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, commonly called the First Epistle of Clement, we find the same distinction between clergy and laity observed. In this letter, which almost certainly was written during the lifetime of St. John, we read that the Apostles, "preaching everywhere in country and town, appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith"-the last words being an inaccurate quotation of the LXX of Isaiah 60:17 . And a little further on Clement writes: "Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office. For this cause, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all-these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe, for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honorably, from the ministration which they had kept blamelessly" (42., 44.). Three things come out very clearly from this passage, confirming what has been found in the New Testament. (1) There is a clear distinction made between clergy and laity. (2) This distinction is not a temporary arrangement, but is the basis of a permanent organization. (3) A person who has been duly promoted to the ranks of the clergy as a presbyter or bishop (the two titles being here synonymous, as in the Epistle to Titus) holds that position for life. Unless he is guilty of some serious offence, to depose him is no light sin. None of these passages, either in the New Testament or in Clement, tells us very clearly the precise nature of the functions which the clergy, as distinct from the laity, were to discharge; yet they indicate that these functions were of a spiritual rather than of a secular character, that they concerned men’s souls rather than their bodies, and that they were connected with religious service ( ?????????? ). But the one thing which is quite clear is this, -that the Church had, and was always intended to have, a body of officers distinct from the congregations to which they ministered and over which they ruled. 4. For our fourth certainty we resort to the time when the history of the Church returns once more to the full light of day, in the last quarter of the second century. Then we find two things quite clearly established, which have continued in Christendom from that day to this. We find a regularly organized clergy, not only distinctly marked off from the laity, but distinctly marked off among themselves by well-defined gradations of rank. And, secondly, we find that each local Church is constitutionally governed by one chief officer, whose powers are large and seldom resisted, and who universally receives the title of bishop. To these two points we may add a third. There is no trace of any belief, or even suspicion, that the constitution of these local Churches had ever been anything else. On the contrary, the evidence (and it is considerable) points to the conclusion that Christians in the latter part of the second century-say A.D. 180 to 200-were fully persuaded that the Episcopal form of government had prevailed in the different Churches from the Apostles’ time to their own. Just as in the case of the Gospels, "Irenaeus and his contemporaries" not only do not know of either more or less than the four which have come down to us, but cannot conceive of there ever being either more or less, than these four: so in the case of Church Government, they not only represent episcopacy as everywhere prevalent in their time, but they have no idea that at any previous time any other form of government prevailed. And although Irenaeus, like St. Paul and Clement of Rome, sometimes speaks of bishops under the title of presbyter, yet it is quite clear that there were at that time presbyters who were not bishops and who did not possess Episcopal authority. Irenaeus himself was such a presbyter, until the martyrdom of Pothinus in the persecution of A.D. 177 created a vacancy in the see of Lyons, which Irenaeus was then called upon to fill; he held the see for upwards of twenty years, from about A.D. 180 to 202. From Irenaeus and from his contemporary Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, we learn not only the fact that episcopacy prevailed everywhere, but, in not a few cases, the name of the existing bishop; and in some cases the names of their predecessors are given up to the time of the Apostles. Thus, in the case of the Church of Rome, Linus the first bishop is connected with the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and, in the case of Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite is said to have been appointed first bishop of that Church by the Apostle Paul. This may or may not be correct: but at least it shows that in the time of Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth episcopacy was not only recognized as the universal form of Church government, but was also believed to have prevailed in the principal Churches from the very earliest times. 5. If we narrow our field and look, not at the whole Church, but at the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria, we may obtain yet another certainty from the obscure period which lies between the age of the Apostles and that of Dionysius and Irenaeus. The investigations of Lightfoot, Zahn, and Harnack have placed the genuineness of the short Greek form of the Epistles of Ignatius beyond reasonable dispute. Their exact date cannot as yet be determined. The evidence is strong that Ignatius was martyred in the reign of Trajan: and, if that is accepted, the letters cannot be later than A.D. 117. But even if this evidence be rejected as not conclusive, and the letters be dated ten or twelve years later, their testimony will still be of the utmost importance. They prove that long before A.D. 150 episcopacy was the recognized form of government throughout the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria; and, as Ignatius speaks of "the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth ( ???? ?????? ?????????? )" they prove that, according to his belief, episcopacy was the recognized form everywhere. { Ephesians 3:1-21 } This evidence is not a little strengthened by the fact that, as all sound critics on both sides are now agreed, the Epistles of Ignatius were evidently not written in order to magnify the Episcopal office, or to preach up the Episcopal system. The writer’s main object is to deprecate schism and all that might tend to schism. And in his opinion the best way to avoid schism is to keep closely united to the bishop. Thus, the magnifying of the Episcopal office comes about incidentally; because Ignatius takes for granted that everywhere there is a bishop in each Church, who is the duly appointed ruler of it, loyalty to whom will be a security against all schismatical tendencies. These four or five points being regarded as established to an extent which may reasonably be called certainty, there remain certain other points about which certainty is not yet possible, some of which admit of a probable solution, while for others there is so little evidence that we have to fall back upon mere conjecture. Among these would be the distinctions of office, or gradations of rank, among the clergy in the first century or century and a half after the Ascension, the precise functions assigned to each office, and the manner of appointment. With regard to these questions three positions may be assumed with a considerable amount of probability. 1. There was a distinction made between itinerant or missionary clergy and stationary or localized clergy. Among the former we find apostles (who are a much larger body than the Twelve), prophets, and evangelists. Among the latter we have two orders, spoken of as bishops and deacons, as here and in the Epistle to the Philippians (1) as well as in the Doctrine of the 2. Twelve Apostles, presbyter or elder being sometimes used as synonymous with bishop. This distinction between an itinerant and a stationary ministry appears in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, { 1 Corinthians 12:28 } in the Epistle to the Ephesians, { Ephesians 4:11 } and perhaps also in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St. John. In the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" it is clearly marked. There seems to have been a further distinction between those who did, and those who did not, possess supernatural prophetical gifts. The title of prophet was commonly, but perhaps not exclusively, given to those who possessed this gift: and the "Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles" shows a great respect for prophets. But the distinction naturally died out when these supernatural gifts ceased to be manifested. During the process of extinction serious difficulty arose as to the test of a genuine prophet. Some fanatical persons believed themselves to be prophets, and some dishonest persons pretended to be prophets when they were not such. The office appears to have been extinct when Ignatius wrote: by prophets he always means the prophets of the Old Testament. Montanism was probably a forlorn attempt to revive this much desired office after the Church as a whole had decided against it. Further discussion of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament will be found in a previous chapter (6). 1. The clergy were not elected by the congregation as its delegates or representatives, deputed to perform functions which originally could be discharged by any Christian. They were appointed by the Apostles and their successors or substitutes. Where the congregation selected or recommended candidates, as in the case of the Seven Deacons, { Acts 6:4-6 } they did not themselves lay hands on them. The typical act of laying on of hands was always performed by those who were already ministers, whether apostles, prophets, or elders. Whatever else was still open to the laity, this act of ordaining was not. And there is good reason for believing that the celebration of the Eucharist also was from the first reserved to the clergy, and that all ministers, excepting prophets, were expected to use a prescribed form of words in celebrating it. But, although much still remains untouched, this discussion must draw to a close. In the ideal Church there is no Lord’s Day or holy seasons, for all days are the Lord’s, and all seasons are holy; there are no places especially dedicated to God’s worship, for the whole universe is His temple; there are no persons especially ordained to be His ministers, for all His people are priests and prophets. But in the Church as it exists in a sinful world, the attempt to make all times and all places holy ends in the desecration of all alike; and the theory that all Christians are priests becomes indistinguishable from the theory that none is such. In this matter let us not try to be wiser than God, Whose will may be discerned in His providential guiding of His Church throughout so many centuries. The attempt to reproduce Paradise or to anticipate heaven in a state of society which does not possess the conditions of Paradise or heaven, can end in nothing but disastrous confusion. In conclusion the following weighty words are gratefully quoted. They come with special force from one who does not himself belong to an Episcopalian Church. "By our reception or denial of priesthood in the Church, our entire view of what the Church is must be affected and molded. We shall either accept the idea of a visible and organized body, within which Christ rules by means of a ministry, sacraments, and ordinances to which He has attached a blessing, the fullness of which we have no right to look for except through the channels He has ordained (and it ought to be needless to say that this is the Presbyterian idea), or we shall rest satisfied with the thought of the Church as consisting of multitudes of individual souls known to God alone, as invisible, unorganized, with ordinances blessed because of the memories which they awaken, but to which no promise of present grace is tied, with, in short, no thought of a Body of Christ in the world, but only of a spiritual and heavenly principle ruling in the hearts and regulating the lives of men. Conceptions of the Church so widely different from each other cannot fail to affect in the most vital manner the Church’s life, and relation to those around her. Yet both conceptions are the logical and necessary result of the acceptance or denial of the idea of a divinely appointed and still living priesthood among men." 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; Chapter 11 THE APOSTLE’S RULE RESPECTING SECOND MARRIAGES; ITS MEANING AND PRESENT OBLIGATION. - 1 Timothy 3:2 THE Apostle here states, as one of the first qualifications to be looked for in a person who is to be ordained a bishop, that he must be "the husband of one wife." The precise meaning of this phrase will probably never cease to be discussed. But, although it must be admitted that the phrase is capable of bearing several meanings, yet it cannot be fairly contended that the meaning is seriously doubtful. The balance of probability is so largely in favor of one of the meanings, that the remainder may be reasonably set aside as having no valid ground for being supported in competition with it. Three passages in which the phrase occurs have to be considered together, and these have to be compared with a fourth. (1) There is the passage before us about a bishop, (2) another in ver. 12 ( 1 Timothy 3:12 ) about deacons, and (3) another in Titus 1:6 about elders or presbyters, whom St. Paul afterwards mentions under the title of bishop. In these three passages we have it plainly set forth that Timothy and Titus are to regard it as a necessary qualification in a bishop or elder or presbyter, and also in a deacon, that he should be a "man of one woman" or "husband of one wife" ( ???? ???????? ). In the fourth passage { 1 Timothy 3:2 } he gives as a necessary qualification of one who is to be placed on the roll of Church widows, that she must be a "woman of one man" or "wife of one husband" ( ??? ). This fourth passage is of much importance in determining the meaning of the converse expression in the other three passages. There are four main interpretations of the expression in question. 1. That which the phrase at once suggests to a modern mind, -that the person to be ordained bishop or deacon must have only one wife and not more; that he must not be a polygamist. According to this interpretation, therefore, we are to understand the Apostle to mean, that a Jew or barbarian with more wives than one might be admitted to baptism and become a member of the congregation, but ought not to be admitted to the ministry. This explanation, which at first sight looks simple and plausible, will not bear inspection. It is quite true that polygamy in St. Paul’s day still existed among the Jews. Justin Martyr, in the "Dialogue with Trypho," says to the Jews, "It is better for you to follow God than your senseless and blind teachers, who even to this day allow you each to have four and five wives" (134). But polygamy in the Roman Empire must have been rare. It was forbidden by Roman law, which did not allow a man to have more than one lawful wife at a time, and treated every simultaneous second marriage, not only as null and void, but infamous. Where it was practiced it must have been practiced secretly. It is probable that, when St. Paul wrote to Timothy and Titus, not a single polygamist had been converted to the Christian faith. Polygamists were exceedingly rare inside the Empire, and the Church had not yet spread beyond it. Indeed, our utter ignorance as to the way in which the primitive Church dealt with polygamists who wished to become Christians amounts to something like proof that such cases were extremely uncommon. How improbable, therefore, that St. Paul should think it worth while to charge both Timothy and Titus that converted polygamists must not be admitted to the office of bishop, when there is no likelihood that a one of them knew of a single instance of a polygamist who had become a Christian! On these grounds alone this interpretation of the phrase might be safely rejected. But these grounds do not stand alone. There is the convincing evidence of the converse phrase, "wife of one husband." If men with more than one wife were very rare in the Roman Empire, what are we to think of women with more than one husband? Even among the barbarians outside the Empire, such a thing as a plurality of husbands was regarded as monstrous. It is incredible that St. Paul could have had any such case in his mind, when he mentioned the qualification "wife of one husband." Moreover, as the question before him was one relating to widows, this "wife of one husband" must be a person who at the time had no husband. The phrase, therefore, can only mean a woman who after the death of her husband has not married again. Consequently the converse expression, "husband of one wife," cannot have any reference to polygamy. 2. Far more worthy of consideration is the view that what is aimed at in both cases is not polygamy, but divorce. Divorce, as we know from abundant evidence, was very frequent both among the Jews and the Romans in the first century of the Christian era. Among the former it provoked the special condemnation of Christ; and one of the many influences which Christianity had upon Roman law was to diminish the facilities for divorce. According to Jewish practice the husband could obtain a divorce for very trivial reasons; and in the time of St. Paul Jewish women sometimes took the initiative. According to Roman practice either husband or wife could obtain a divorce very easily. Abundant instances are on record, and that in the case of people of high character, such as Cicero. After the divorce either of the parties could marry again; and often enough both of them did so; therefore in the Roman Empire in St. Paul’s day there must have been plenty of persons of both sexes who had been divorced once or twice and had married again. There is nothing improbable in the supposition that quite a sufficient number of such persons had been converted to Christianity to make it worth while to legislate respecting them. They might be admitted to baptism; but they must not be admitted to an official position in the Church. A regulation of this kind might be all the more necessary, because in a wealthy capital like Ephesus it would probably be among the upper and more influential classes that divorces would be most frequent; and from precisely these classes, when any of them had become Christians, officials would be likely to be chosen. This explanation, therefore, of the phrases "husband of one wife" and "wife of one husband" cannot be condemned, like the first, as utterly incredible. It has a fair amount of probability: but it remains to be seen whether another explanation (which really includes this one) has not a far greater amount. 3. We may pass over without much discussion the view that the phrases are a vague way of indicating misconduct of any kind in reference to marriage. No doubt such misconduct was rife among the heathen, and the Christian Church by no means escaped the taint, as the scandals in the Church of Corinth and the frequent warnings of the Apostles against sins of this kind show. But when St. Paul has to speak of such things he is not afraid to do so in language that cannot be misunderstood. We have seen this already in the first chapter of this Epistle; and the fifth chapters of 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians supply other examples. We may safely say that if St. Paul had meant to indicate persons who had entered into illicit unions before or after marriage, he would have used much less ambiguous language than the phrases under discussion. 4. There remains the view, which from the first has been the dominant one, that these passages all refer to second marriage after the first marriage has been dissolved by death. A widower who has married a second wife ought not to be admitted to the ministry; a widow who has married a second husband ought not to be placed on the roll of Church widows. This interpretation is reasonable in itself, is in harmony with the context and with what St. Paul says elsewhere about marriage, and is confirmed by the views taken of second marriages in the case of clergy by the early Church. (a) The belief that St. Paul was opposed to the ordination of persons who had contracted a second marriage is reasonable in itself. A second marriage, although perfectly lawful and in some cases advisable, was so far a sign of weakness; and a double family would in many cases be a serious hindrance to work. The Church could not afford to enlist any but its strongest men among its officers; and its officers must not be hampered more than other men with domestic cares. Moreover, the heathen certainly felt a special respect for the univira, the woman who did not enter into a second marriage; and there is some reason for believing that second marriages were sometimes thought unfitting in the case of men, e.g., in the case of certain priests. Be that as it may, we may safely conclude that, both by Christians and heathen, persons who had abstained from marrying again would so far be more respected than those who had not abstained. (b) This interpretation is in harmony with the context. In the passage