1 Timothy 3
LenskiCHAPTER III
Qualifications for Offices in the Congregation
1 Timothy 3:1
1 This chapter should not be entitled die Gemein-deverfassung, the congregational organization. Paul is not telling Timothy to arrange for these offices and to define their functions and their scope; such offices were already established and in use, and Timothy is merely to see to it that only properly qualified persons fill them. When Paul left Ephesus after founding this congregation, it had elders whom a year later he summoned to meet him at Miletus when he stopped there on his way to Jerusalem (Acts 20:17).
This chapter begins without a connective, and we first have the general statement: Faithful (is) the statement: If one aspires to overseership he desires an excellent task. Zahn rejects the reading πιστός although it is overwhelmingly attested and prefers ἀνθρώπινος which is but weakly attested (it is found only in D and in some Latin versions). He cannot understand how the latter could have been substituted for the former while he thinks the reverse might easily have been done since 1:15; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Tit. 3:8 have Πιστὸςὁλόγος. Zahn’s subjective canon is unsafe, it is beyond our ability to explain many a variant. The other four instances where this expression occurs in these letters lead us to expect that in our passage πιοτός would again be used and not a strange adjective. Yet a few of the fathers have the Latin humanus in 1:15 in the sense of benignus, and thus, by way of the Latin, D may have come to write its variant: “Human,” i.e., benignant, is the statement.
Zahn’s contention, however, is that ἀνθρώπινος means that this is a “human” saying in the sense of a locus communis, a current expression of the day among pagans, that whoever aspires to an ἐπισκοπή desires an excellent task. Yet Zahn does not mention an instance in pagan literature, where such an expression was used. Besides, this word ἐπισκοπή is found nowhere in common Greek save once in Lucian’s Dialogs, and there in the entirely different sense of “visit,” Besuch, looking in upon someone (B.-P. 465; C.-K. 1000), and once in a Lycaonian inscription (R., W. P.). What a trivial preamble it would be to say that it is allgemeine menschliche Rede (Wohlenberg, following Zahn) that to aspire to an overseership is to seek an excellent task! It is a different matter and one very much to the point when Paul says that it is a “faithful” statement, reliable because it is true, a statement that he as an apostle makes about the holy office and its high desirability, the qualifications for which he intends to list. For if important qualifications are needed, the office must be valuable and desirable accordingly.
Ἐπισκοπή = the office of an ἐπίσκοπος, of one who oversees, from which we have “episcopal” and thus “bishop” and “bishopric.” But in the New Testament ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος, “overseer” and “elder,” are titles for the same office and the same officeholder; he is called “overseer” in consideration of the work to be done, “elder” in consideration of the dignity. The latter word was borrowed from the synagogue which also had its “elders.” The Jews also called them ἄρχοντες, “rulers,” a term that was not adopted by the Christians since these Jewish elders had judicial authority and could try cases, which was not the function of the elders in Christian congregations.
The synagogue elders were usually older men who were dignified because of their age. The New Testament lays no stress on the age although in the first Christian churches older men would naturally be chosen. While Timothy was no longer young and was not an elder in a congregation but Paul’s representative in the whole Asian territory he was still considered to have youth (4:12). Bishops, as officers distinct from men in the pastorate in the sense of superintendents over a diocese, do not appear until the second century. The suggestion that in these letters of Paul traces of a distinction between episkopoi and presbyteroi are apparent is, in our estimation, too difficult to prove.
On the basis of 5:17, where the elders are divided into two groups: those who teach and those who only preside or manage, Kretzmann concludes that the latter were διάκονοι while the former were ἐπίσκοποι, both being termed πρεσβύτεροι. He also thinks that in small congregations one ἐπίσκοπος may have sufficed and that for this reason Paul probably uses the singular in v. 2. That idea is interesting, but it would be difficult to substantiate it. Paul does have plurals in v. 8, 11, 12 and does require aptness to teach only of the ἐπίσκοπος (v. 2); but is that enough? If so, we should have pretty much our present arrangement of preacher-pastor and church council. A great deal has been written on the whole subject, which the student may investigate.
The apostolic church had nothing resembling a hierarchy in its ministry; in fact, the term episkopos indicated only the labor while presbyteros connoted the dignity and the honor. Deacons were never called presbyteroi.
“If one aspires to … he desires” varies the verbs and makes the expression most exact. Paul commends the aspiration and thus encourages it. It is thus that he continues by setting down the essential qualifications which all aspirants must meet. It is not said that they would at once then be placed into the office; as is the case now, that depended on the needs of the congregations. One gains the impression, however, that there was plenty of opportunity for those who qualified.
Such an aspirant desires καλοῦἔργου, “an excellent work or task”; we have two genitives after verbs of emotion, R. 508. “Excellent” = noble in itself and also noble in the eyes of others who know how to appreciate this quality; ἀγαθοῦ would mean beneficial to those served as it does in Eph. 4:12. The emphasis is on “excellent.” The fact that the office is a negotium, non otium (Bengel), a “task” that calls for all of the man’s energy and not a mere honor to be enjoyed, is taken for granted even as it is already indicated in the title: Episcopus est nomen operis, non honoris (Augustine), which all theological students and all ministers may well note.
1 Timothy 3:2
2 It is necessary, then, that an overseer be irreproachable, one wife’s husband, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, hospitable, apt to teach, etc.
In Tit. 1:6, etc., these requirements are made of an elder. This rather excludes the idea that only some elders taught and were thus called “overseers” while non-teaching elders were called “deacons.” Δεῖ is used to indicate all kinds of necessity, here the necessity inherent in the office named. The word ἐπίσκοπος is far more frequently used in the Greek than ἐπισκοπή.
The first group of requirements consists of seven which may be divided into 1 + 4 + 2 or into 1 + 1 + 3 + 2; the number seven is intentional. “Irreproachable” is general: “not to be taken hold of,” i.e., of such a character that no one can rightfully take hold of the person with a charge of unfitness, the following items list the points that need to be considered. It has been remarked that all of these save the ability to teach and that of not being a novice or beginner in Christianity are requirements that apply to all Christians, which is quite true and shows that, as far as morals are concerned, the New Testament has only one standard for both clergy and laity and not two. Yet we may note that in the case of the members of the congregation faults may be borne with which cannot be tolerated in ministers, for they are to be examples of the flock (Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Pet. 5:3). A man who aspires to the ministry must be of proved character.
Four personal qualities are then mentioned: “one wife’s husband—temperate—sober-minded—orderly.” The emphasis is on one wife’s husband, and the sense is that he have nothing to do with any other woman. He must be a man who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity. It is plain that Paul does not say that none but married men may enter the ministry, that every pastor must be married. Since the days of Origen the question has been raised as to whether a widowed pastor is here forbidden to remarry. The fact that Origen stoutly affirms this is not strange when we remember that he castrated himself; his exegesis is dominated by his peculiar asceticism. Others conclude that remarriage is here forbidden because they think that “one husband’s wife” which occurs in 5:9 refers to a widow who had never had more than one husband.
But the two passages are identical in wording, their sense is entirely the same so that we are able to get nothing out of the one that is not already contained in the other. We need not review the protracted discussion of this item, the non-exegetical arguments, the church legislation, etc.
Paul had a reason for beginning with “one wife’s husband.” In those days mature men were chosen for the eldership, who, as a rule, were married and had families; there were no seminary graduates who were awaiting calls. The bulk of the membership from which the elders had to be chosen had come from paganism. What this means as to sexual vices is written large in the New Testament and in the moral records of the day. Even the early apostolic conference in Jerusalem warns against “fornication” and uses this wide term to cover all the prevalent pagan sexual excesses (Acts 15:29). The epistles fairly din the word into their readers’ ears. There was the regular institution of the hierodouloi, pagan temple prostitutes; the common custom of having hetaerae (“companions,” see Liddell and Scott ἑταῖρος), girls from non-citizen families who were used by unmarried and by-married men; and thus, besides these standard practices, all the rest of the vileness that formed the soil from which these grew.
Converts to the gospel did not at once step into perfect sexual purity. Hence this proviso regarding the “overseers”: to begin with, a man who is not strictly faithful to his one wife is debarred.
It would be strange, indeed, if this first specific item implied that remarried widowers were to be refused. Were the woods so full of men who had second wives that a bar had to be put up lest they crowd the ranks of the ministry? Was remarriage such a sin that, of all sexual requirements, it alone is here singled out? Where in all Scripture is remarriage for a widower or a widow either prohibited or regarded as being a reflection on a person’s morality? As far as 5:9 is concerned, would Paul advise young widows to marry again (5:14) if they would thereby forfeit the right which is offered to widows in 5:9? It is Paul who wrote 1 Cor. 7:9, 39 on this subject (also Rom. 7:2, 3).
To point to 1 Cor. 7:2, 8, 27, or to 7:38, 40 is to misunderstand the very reason for which Paul writes this advice, which he himself states in 1 Cor. 7:26: “the present distress,” and v. 28 “I am sparing you” (see The Interpretation of First Corinthians). Heb. 13:4 stands: “Marriage is honorable in all.” Paul does not in any way come under his own condemnation of those “forbidding to marry” (4:3). It is asked why, if he had in mind sexual purity, he did not use a wording that prohibited πορνεία and μοιχεία. Because in this group of four he has four positive qualifications, and because “one wife’s husband” states the positive qualification with great exactness. The commentators of the early church misunderstood Paul because of their un-Pauline asceticism and not because his words are not clear.
“Temperate,” or sober (compare the verb in 1 Thess. 5:6, 8), is like 2 Tim. 4:5: “temperate in all things,” not only in regard to intoxicants, but also in regard to the mind, “spiritually temperate,” not carried away by teachings such as those indicated in 1:4, etc. “Sober-minded” is added (the noun is used in 2:9, 15,) soundness and balance in judgment, not flighty, unstable, and the like. A leader in the church who lacks these qualities would be dangerous, even a member who lacks them would be a liability.
We see from 1:3, etc., and from others of Paul’s letters how all sorts of follies and errors tried to gain a foothold in the churches; in 4:1, etc., Paul warns regarding the future (Acts 20:28, etc., may well be recalled). Leaders of a temperate and sober mind were needed. They are needed today. Kretzmann points to modern results of science and of Bible criticism. Besides these we have all the religious fads, fancies, and fictions of unstable minds. We need pastors who will conduct their own persons and then also their congregations with a sane, safe, and steady mind in all matters of life and of faith.
The fourth requirement is κόσμιον (the adjective and the verb are found in 2:9), “orderly,” but here it is to be understood in its broadest sense as denoting a quality of character. This has been regarded rather superficially when it is taken to mean “the refined, courteous, polite gentleman … of good breeding.” Is this word ever used thus? The Greek calls the gentleman καλός not κόσμιος. Like the two preceding adjectives, this one also denotes a quality of mind and character which will then naturally manifest itself in the life. Bengel notes the relation to the preceding: Quod σώφρων est intus, id κόσμιος est extra; but has the relation wrong, both refer intus to the character. A pastor’s whole make-up should be “orderly,” spiritually, mentally, and in his habits.
Being tidy and courteous is only one of the outward marks, but this is by no means all that Paul requires. We said above that we may group together: “temperate, sober-minded, orderly.” That would be an inadequate grouping if the latter means only “not slovenly in appearance or rough and boorish in his manners.”
While these three are marks of character, “hospitable, apt to teach” again belong together and refer to imparting something to others. Christian hospitality is mentioned in Rom. 12:13; Heb. 13:2; 1 Pet. 2:9. It does not mean to entertain and to feast friends or even the poor but to take in Christian strangers or acquaintances when these are traveling, or when they are fleeing from persecutions and often are without means of any kind.
The very word conjures up the conditions of that day. There was much travel everywhere in the empire, which helped the spread of the gospel immensely. Christian travelers would want to lodge with Christians and to receive their trustworthy aid in whatever business they had. Christian hospitality was a great blessing to them. Persecution made fugitives who were often in great need. Then other cases such as poverty, sickness, the need of some widow and some orphan would afford opportunity for hospitality. The elders in the church, to whom all these cases would generally come first, did what they could and then appealed to others. A man who was ever ready with his own hospitality had one quality for being made an elder.
Διδακτικός does not mean “willing to teach” because of 2 Tim. 2:24, for in both passages as well as in Philo who alone uses this word it means “apt or able to teach.” “Are all teachers?” 1 Cor. 12:29. No, not all. Those who still need much teaching and are themselves incompetent to impart knowledge should not be given an office in which some proficiency in teaching is needed. When we read in 5:17 that honor is to be accorded “especially to those laboring in the Word and teaching,” we take it that the elders divided the work among themselves, and those who were most able to teach attended to most of the teaching and the preaching. This does not imply that the others could not teach at all. The fact that the latter were really “deacons” while the teachers were “overseers,” and that both classes were called “elders,” will be difficult to prove, the more so since ἐπίσκοπος does not connote teaching as little as διάκονος does.
We have division of labor in our church councils today, yet our deacons do not act as our trustees although they could; also vice versa. Ability to teach means not merely a fair natural aptitude but the qualification of having been taught. Kretzmann: the διδακτικός must be a διδακτός, 2 Tim. 3:14; 2:2. The more a faithful teacher teaches, the more will he feel the need of acquiring more and more knowledge of the blessed truth he is to teach.
1 Timothy 3:3
3 The first seven are followed by another seven, namely two with μή, three that are opposites, and two (a positive and a negative) that are elaborated. The six adjectives used in v. 2 remain adjectives because they may be so used with εἶναι; but the five terms used in v. 3 contain the noun πλήκτης so that we may regard the adjectives as being substantivized: not one (sitting long) beside wine, not a striker; on the contrary (ἀλλά), one yielding, not fighting, not silver-loving, etc.
A πάροινος is one who lingers long beside his wine, a winebibber, a tippler. A striker is one who is quicktempered, carries a chip on his shoulder, is ready with his fists. On the opposite side we have the ἐπιεικής, one who is gelinde (Luther), gentle, yielding. This is a beautiful Greek word which has no exact equivalent in Latin or in English. See the author on Phil. 4:5 where this word is treated at length. An ἄμαχον one who never fights, who is not of the fighting kind.
Lastly, one who is not a lover of money, not mercenary, not stingy. Note that the one positive term which names a virtue stands in the middle, on the one side are two negatives with μή, on the other two with a privativum, which arrangement is not accidental, not in the case of Paul as we know him. Also note that ἀλλά puts only ἐπιεικῆ and not the two following terms into contrast.
1 Timothy 3:4
4 The construction with the accusative predicates after εἷναι continues with the participles: superintending his own house well as having children in subjection with all dignity; if now one does not know to superintend his own house, how will he take care of God’s church?
The participle means “to superintend,” to be first or at the head of his own house (household); “to rule” is less exact. In 5:17 the participle of this verb is used with reference to the church work of the elders. Any Christian man should be able to function well as the head of his own home; one who fails in so simple a requirement is not fit to be elevated to the ministry. Unfortunately, this test cannot now be applied for entrance into the ministry when unmarried or newly married seminary graduates are called. Note that the objects of both participles have an emphasis because they are placed forward; this is also true with regard to “God’s church” in v. 5 Verbs of ruling govern the genitive.
This excellent superintendence is most evident in the case of such children as one may have, hence “having children” is not coordinate with “superintending” but subordinate to it. The requirement is not that an “overseer” must have children, that a childless man could not be chosen, but that, when he has a family as most men have, any children, whatever their age (τέκνα is thus anarthrous), be “in subjection with all dignity,” “subjection” as in 2:11. There is no need to separate the two phrases as some do for fear that otherwise the dignity will have to mean the dignity of the children, and little ones cannot be expected to act dignified. The sense is: “in subjection to the father, with dignity on his part.” “Subjection” has the passive sense and implies the father as the subject. We may translate: “holding such children as he has (anarthrous) in subjection (imposed by him) with all dignity.” He acts in a dignified way when he secures due obedience.
1 Timothy 3:5
5 Ill-trained, bad children reflect on any pastor, not merely because they are hurtful examples to the children of the members of the church, but still more because they show that the father is incompetent for his office. There is no parenthesis, δέ only specifies this point in a rhetorical question, εἰ with the indicative assumes such a case as real, οὐ is thus the regular negative. Credit the mind of Paul with making a comparison on two points, where most writers would stop with only one: 1) the objects: “his own house—God’s church”; 2) the activities: “superintend—take care of.”
This expresses a third thought that Paul wants to indicate: God’s church is not to be conceived as being the overseer’s family. In this church God and not the overseer is the Father; the overseer is only the episcopos. In order to make this evident Paul may have already in v. 2 chosen this title instead of “elder,” in the Orient the old father-patriarch who has all his sons and his sons’ families around and under him. When Paul speaks of his fatherhood in 1 Cor. 4:15, this refers to him as being the apostolic founder of the church at Corinth; in Gal. 4:19 Paul speaks of his motherhood. In our passage the “overseer” assumes a position in a congregation that is already established.
This is elementary logic, concluding from the less to the greater: one who does not know how to superintend (the effective aorist) “his own house,” how will he handle the great responsibility of caring for “God’s church”? If one cannot even “superintend” his little family, how will he attend to the far greater task of “caring for” all those in God’s assembly (ἐκκλησία is here used with reference to a single congregation)? Δέ says that this is the point of the requirement presented in v. 4.
1 Timothy 3:6
6 The last item, like the previous one with its exposition, remains in the same construction (accusative predicate of εἶναι, v. 2): not a novice lest, having become conceited, he fall into the devil’s judgment.
The adjective is here substantivized and = newly planted = “novice,” a recent convert. To elevate such a man into the episcopate is to place him into a position that is entirely too dangerous for him; Timothy, as well as the congregations, are not to be guilty of placing a hopeful beginner who has the other qualities but not the one of maturity in the faith into office. Novice is not to be taken in the physical sense as referring to too young a man but in the spiritual sense. In Tit. 1:6, etc., this point is not included. The reason is that when the gospel was newly introduced in a territory—Crete was new territory—only novices could be placed in charge of the newly gathered flocks because no others were available; and because in the case of such novices there was no danger of falling into conceit, “the leaders of a forlorn hope.” Where, however, the church was already fully established, where prominent elders were already in honored positions, there to elevate a novice might easily fill him with conceit and bring about his downfall.
Τυφόω, from τῦφος, “smoke” = to wrap in smoke; the aorist passive participle means “besmoked.” But here the word is used in the metaphorical sense, “made conceited,” although in the sense of obnubilation, the pride of conceit enfolding him as in a smoky fog. The final outcome might easily be that “he fall into the devil’s judgment.” In exegesis we must follow the analogy of Scripture as the safe guide. Now in the whole New Testament and also in the Old Testament LXX ὁδιάβολος with the article = the devil; it is the Hebrew hasatan save in Esther 7:4 and 8:1 where a different Hebrew word is used and refers to Haman. This analogy of Scripture has been set aside, and Paul is thought to speak of “the (human) slanderer who has his delight in calumny.” But we have the word again in v. 7 and in 2 Tim. 2:26 where it undoubtedly means the devil. It is too radical a departure to translate 2 Tim. 2:26, “the devil’s snare” and 1 Tim. 3:7, “the slanderer’s snare.” Κρῖμα is always a vox media and should be left so in translation; when an adverse “judgment” is meant, the context indicates this sufficiently.
But is this an objective genitive: the judgment which God rendered regarding the devil; or a subjective genitive: the judgment which the devil renders? C.-K. 188 and a few others modify this: the judgment which the devil is permitted to execute. This is done largely in view of the genitive found in v. 7 (2 Tim. 2:26): “the devil’s snare” (subjective), i.e., which the devil lays. The view that κρῖμα always has the subjective genitive as in Rom. 2:2, 3; 11:33 is answered by examples where it has the objective genitive as in Rom. 3:8; Rev. 17:1. It would be peculiar, indeed, if such a word as this, which denotes the result of an action, whose verb form admits both a subject and an object, should be construed only with a subjective genitive.
Judgment, moreover, is never ascribed to the devil: God judges. The very word means the judicial announcement of a verdict or the verdict as it stands. Where did Satan ever sit on the throne of judgment and render a verdict? “Judgment” and “the devil” can be combined in only one way: God’s judgment pronounced on the devil (objective). The claim that this thought would require τὸκρῖμα is untenable because every genitive already limits and makes definite its governing noun just as in the English “the devil’s judgment.” The very word “snare,” cunningly laid to catch a victim, suggests “of the devil” and is a subjective genitive.
The devil’s judgment is specific: God’s judgment on his pride. Into that very judgment which has long ago been pronounced upon the devil the conceited novice might easily fall in his pride. This aorist refers to a fatal fall (just as it does in v. 7) and not only, as some who regard it as a subjective genitive suppose, a fall into temporal ills and punishments, the devil being allowed to inflict them. The view that a fatal fall would be too severe a punishment for a novice in the faith overlooks the fact that by his conceit this novice would smother his young faith and would thus plunge into what the devil plunged into. Unholy pride may, indeed, carry its victim that far.
1 Timothy 3:7
7 Verses 2–6 are but one sentence, νεόφυτον still being dependent on εἶναι. This means that δέ now introduces what may be termed the conclusion of the whole. It thus reverts to the very first predicate that an overseer in a congregation must be “irreproachable,” he must be that, as we are now told, even as far as outsiders are concerned. Moreover, it is necessary also that he have excellent testimony from those without lest he fall into reproaching and the devil’s snare.
Δεῖ takes us back to v. 2 where ἀνεπίληπτον is negative: “nothing left on his doorstep against him”; now we have the positive: “excellent testimony from those outside,” from non-Christians. This, then, closes the whole presentation regarding the kind of men that are to be made overseers in the church.
Only here and in Tit. 1:13 Paul uses the word μαρτυρία; he has used the neuter in 2:6. Yet each form is quite in place; here the word means “excellent testimony in general.” This refers to testimony concerning his life since his conversion. The kind of a pagan or the kind of a Jew the convert who is now aspiring to office in the church had been could not be considered. On this basis Paul himself would have been excluded. The testimony that Paul refers to is such as Timothy and the congregation could really take into consideration. Rabid haters of all Christians would vilify all of these, but decent outsiders would acknowledge Christians of good Christian character. Paul properly uses the plural “from those without,” for some personal outside enemy would not be considered.
The negative purpose clause causes some discussion among commentators: “lest he fall into reproaching and the devil’s snare.” The verb is the same one that was used in v. 6 and is in a similar unemphatic position. The two ἵνα clauses thus resemble each other; yet this does not parallel the two requirements themselves as we have already shown, “not a novice” is not paired even in form with: “Moreover, it is necessary,” etc. The Greek is so flexible that the use of ἐμπέσῃ in both ἵνα clauses (v. 6 and 7 may have no significance in regard to the words which are construed with each of these verbs although it may be possible that in v. 6 the verb means that we are to construe: “judgment (verb) upon the devil”; and v. 7: “into reproaching (verb) and the devil’s snare.”
Be this as it may, although only one εἰς is used with the two nouns, in the latter clause the genitive cannot be construed with both, i.e., the “reproaching” and the “snare” cannot be predicated of the devil. The use of but one preposition does not decide the matter as some claim; it is decided by the nouns themselves. The one is literal and indicates an activity; the other is figurative and does not indicate an activity but an object. That also means that “snare” is not an explication of “reproaching” so that the reproaching forms a snare for the man in question. What the devil’s reproaching might mean has yet to be discovered. He certainly is the last one to reproach a faulty Christian for his faults.
All twinges of conscience come from God and tend to repentance and never are a devil’s snare into which a Christian falls with fatal results (effective aorist). Even if we translate “reviling” (Matt. 5:11: the verb; but see Matt. 11:20: Jesus “upbraids,” “reproaches”), to attribute this to the devil is incongruous.
This reproaching is usually taken to be that of the outsiders just mentioned. But why restrict it to them? Would not the Christians likewise engage in reproaching and rather openly when such a man is a disgrace to them in his sacred and high office? Ὀνειδισμός is in this case justified reproaching; in Rom. 15:3 it is unjustified. The one preposition indicates that falling “into reproaching” is not a separate item, and falling “into the devil’s snare” another item. That would be the meaning if two prepositions were employed; but here the reproaching of men and the devil’s snare go together. The reproaching, especially of the Christians, removes him from them, and so the devil lays his snare for him, once more to catch him as his victim.
On “snare” in Rom. 11:9 (Ps. 69:22) see that passage. Here, in 6:9, and in 2 Tim. 2:26 no special interpretation of “snare” is given although some supply this and go into descriptive details. The figure interprets itself: to fall into the devil’s snare = into his deadly power like an animal that is caught and then killed. A novice may lose his soul if he is made a minister; so, in a different way, may a man who bears no good reputation although he has been a member of the congregation for a long time.
1 Timothy 3:8
8 All that we know about deacons as they were found in Paul’s day is contained in this passage and in Rom. 16:1; Phil. 1:11. The διακονία used in Rom. 12:7 and the διακονεῖν used in 1 Pet. 4:1 point to the office of deacons although both passages refer to all who have the charisma of ministering to others. This is true also regarding the ἀντιλήψεις or “helps” mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:28. We must, therefore, be content with the little information that we have. The fact that two offices are referred to by “overseers” and “deacons” is assured by our passage and by Phil. 1:1. The fact that deacons held the minor office and did not teach is also certain.
What the deacons actually did is nowhere stated in detail. To say that they performed the same work as the episcopoi with the exception of the teaching is not provable. They were not the overseers, did not act as pastors and spiritual leaders of the flock. The best we can say is that they assisted the overseers by performing the minor services and attending to incidental matters such as collecting and distributing alms, looking after the physical needs of the sick, keeping the place of worship in order, etc. Thus there were also women deacons (v. 11); Phoebe was one of these, and she is referred to as early as Rom. 16:1. We note the errand she performed for Paul.
Voluntary diakonia was plentiful. The regular choice and appointment of deacons in all probability grew out of this voluntary service. The fact that these deacons were called “elders,” and that together with the episcopoi they formed the πρεσβυτήριον or “presbytery,” is nowhere indicated. If we may use the word “clergy” with reference to the officers of this early period, the deacons were not considered as belonging to the clergy. The “overseers” oversaw also the deacons.
As far as Acts 6 is concerned, the seven men appointed in the mother church were not called deacons, yet the work for which they were chosen by the church was evidently that of deacons, attending to aid for the many widows when the mother church had grown to a membership of thousands, estimated at 20, 000 to 25, 000. This example seems to have prompted Paul’s congregations to appoint men for similar purposes and then to call them deacons. Stephen’s other activities such as doing miracles and testifying mightily in the synagogues were not a part of the work to which he and the six others were appointed. But all this was discontinued when Stephen was stoned and the mother church was widely scattered because of the first great persecution. It was then that we read of Philip doing evangelistic work in Samaria and elsewhere. His office in the mother church had ended. The scattered Christians, too, started congregations in the places to which they had fled.
With this background which has been gleaned from the records we read Paul’s directions about the kind of men to be used as regular deacons in the churches. Deacons in like manner dignified, not double-tongued, not devoting themselves to much wine, not out for shameful gain, possessing the mystery of the faith in a clean conscience.
This statement is still to be construed with the δεῖεἷναι used in v. 2; not with δεῖἔχειν occurring in v. 7 This means that v. 2–7 are a unit and that v. 8 begins another unit. It is scarcely accidental that Paul speaks of the high office of the episcopos in the singular and of the lower offices of men and of women in the diaconate in the plural. “In like manner” simply means that, as of the former, so of the latter, certain requirements must be made; δεῖ = necessitated by the very nature of the office in question. Nothing need be said about aspiring to the lower office; the fact that aspirants were found for this as well as for the higher office is implied.
Paul divides the enumeration of the requirements for deacons by inserting those for women deacons in v. 11, between v. 8–10. and v. 12. His intention is to place together and on a par the personal moral requirements of men and of women deacons. In the case of the men v. 12 adds also the requirement about family life. We note that while this requirement is divided with reference to the overseer (“one wife’s husband” in v. 2 the rest in v. 4, 5), it is combine with reference to deacons in v. 12 No such requirement is listed for women deacons because mothers with children found their duties in their homes and not in the diaconate.
“Dignified” (our versions, “grave”) is the adjective corresponding to the noun σεμνότης which was used in v. 4; it is Luther’s ehrbar, of serious bearing because being of serious mind and character. Because they had to deal with all classes, all ages, all types of people in their work sensible, steady men were needed.
Three disqualifications follow although these extend beyond what “dignified” implies in a positive way. “Not double-tongued,” saying one thing to one person and a conflicting thing to another so that, on comparing notes, the discrepancy becomes apparent. This is bad in any person; it would be especially bad in an officer of the church, who had constant rounds of visitation to make and would talk with many members.
“Not devoting themselves to much wine” (προσέχω with τὸννοῦν understood) does not forbid the use of wine, the common drink of the day, but the love of too much of it. “Not out for shameful gain” (Tit. 1:7; adverb, 1 Pet. 5:2) = like pilfering Judas. The point is the disgracefulness of such an act whether it be by embezzlement of the alms entrusted for distribution or by otherwise currying favors for mercenary ends (G. K. 190).
1 Timothy 3:9
9 “Possessing the mystery of the faith in a clean conscience” is the direct opposite of the preceding three. But instead of merely saying that in all their work the deacons must preserve “a clean conscience” Paul adds to this what is greater than conscience, what is to enlighten and thus to govern and to hold the conscience true, and thus to keep it clean. Even in 1:19 “a good conscience” is not sufficient for Paul.
Many commentators consider “the mystery of the faith by itself” and then ask what this is and puzzle about the genitive. In addition, not a few say that “the faith” means fides qua creditur and either deny or do not consider that it may mean fides quae creditur. Thus we get various explanations, the best one being that the faith found in the hearts of the deacons is to believe the mystery. This view overlooks the participle ἔχοντας and does not note the kind of a qualifier τὸμυστήριον should have. “Possessing” the mystery already includes the faith which believes and thereby “possesses” the mystery, namely personal faith, qua creditur. The feature that needs to be added is what mystery is referred to, a defining modifier is required. We have it: this is “the mystery of the faith.”
This is also true in all those many cases where τὸμυστήιον and its defining genitive appear: the mystery of God—of Christ—of the kingdom of God—of the will of God—of the gospel—of the lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:7)—of the godliness (1 Tim. 3:16)—and now: of the faith. All these are alike, all are definitive genitives because “the mystery” leaves us with a question mark, and the genitive supplies the answer. It makes little difference what you call these genitives, whether objective: “the mystery that deals with these persons and objects”; or possessive: “which belongs to this and that”; or something else. The point is that these genitives are alike and are not subjective. In other words, “the faith” and in v. 16 “the godliness” are objective like “the lawlessness—the kingdom—the will,” etc.
The only question that remains is whether this mystery treats about our personal believing and objectifies it, or about the Christian faith as such, which is considered as something to believe. This question really answers itself. Some have said that a man’s believing, both the fact and the whole act, appear as a great mystery when the man examines himself. But my believing is not a mystery. The fact that I should have faith in Christ, my Savior, is the most natural thing in the world because he is so deserving of every sinner’s trust, and only by the most unnatural and unreasonable resistance can any man remain without the faith that his love and his grace would always instill.
Lietzmann has stated it well in a number of places: “the faith” is a synonym for “Christianity.” Here “the mystery of the faith” = “the mystery of Christianity”; deacons must possess this, must hold it “in a clean conscience.” C.-K. 893 denies this objective use of ἡπίστις by saying that the word never means doctrina fidei. The objective use is not disposed of by narrowing it down to the idea of doctrine or a set of doctrines although ἡπίστις does at times refer to the doctrinal contents of what we Christians believe.
“The faith” in the objective sense is always the substance, the contents of what we are to embrace in living trust, “the Way” (Acts 9:22; 19:9, 23; 24:22), the truth, etc. Μυστήριον always means, not something that is to remain hidden, but something that is to be known only through revelation. It would be strange, indeed, if a term like πίστις, which is derived from πιστεύω, did not admit of both the subjective and the objective use when a large number of similar words do this. Like ourself, many others find the objective use in quite a number of passages, compare 4:1; 6:10, 12, 21 “Mystery” is objective and thus also “the mystery of the faith.”
Any man who is not careful of the truth, or who is enamored of wine, or who allows money to stick to his fingers, cannot hold to Christianity, to this blessed mystery of the faith, “in connection with a clean conscience,” and is certainly not the man to be made a deacon in the congregation.
1 Timothy 3:10
10 In order to be safe when deacons are to be chosen Paul adds: These, too, moreover, let them first be tested, then let them minister as being men unaccused. “And” in our versions translates δέ, “also” is the translation of καί. The former adds this point as one that is somewhat different from the preceding. The fact that such a testing was to be applied also to overseers is so self-evident from the nature of the requirements laid down in v. 2–8 that καί now refers to it. Lest one should think that such testing is unnecessary in case of the lesser office of deacon, Paul states that it is likewise quite necessary. He uses his favorite word for testing, which is employed regarding coins, metals, etc., but he does not use the aorist imperative to express a formal and a set test but the present imperative which indicates a testing that covers some time.
This does not indicate a period of probation, that men were tried out in the office before permanent appointment was made, but a constant testing so that, when deacons are later needed, such men may be nominated as candidates. In Acts 6:3 we see that such men were sought out. The plural imperatives do not imply that Timothy alone is to do this testing and then let the men serve. This is the business of each congregation, Timothy guides and supervises it in place of Paul.
The participle is not conditional: “then let them minister if they be blameless” (R. V.) but predicative: “as being (men) unaccused,” unbeschuldigt. Having been such before this time, the congregations may expect them to continue as such. Paul does not advocate what some would do, namely appoint to a place on the church council men who have hitherto been careless in their Christian lives in the hope that the being placed in office will improve them; that is not what church offices are for. To set aside good available men for poor timber always produces a bad general effect.
1 Timothy 3:11
11 Women in like manner dignified, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. First: “Deacons in like manner dignified,” and now: “Women in like manner dignified.” The wording is exactly the same. The idea that all women are referred to is untenable. All women as women are considered in 2:9, etc. That the wives of deacons are referred to (A. V.) is strongly argued especially by B. Weiss. Yet if deaconesses are referred to, why did Paul not write τὰςδιακόνους, “feminine deacons”; the word διακονίσσα was not yet in use. He could not use the article in v. 2 when he was speaking of the “overseer” or in v. 8 and 12 with reference to deacons; the article would make the words refer to persons who were already in office while Paul speaks only of those who are eligible for office.
The plea that the deacons’ wives are mentioned because these wives would help their husbands in their office while the wives of overseers could not do so because of the nature of this office, cannot be granted, for then the congregation would after all elect women deacons save that it would elect deacons’ wives, mothers with families (v. 12). It would certainly be the sensible thing to elect unattached women. Paul would be the last one to select both husband and wife for an office and assign to the wife duties that would take her away from home and her children. The view that v. 11 speaks of the deacon’s wife and v. 12 of his children has already been met in v. 8 it is just because lone women and not deacons’ wives were considered for the office of deaconess that their personal qualifications follow v. 10 where the personal qualifications of men deacons are listed. Then, because these men alone have families, the qualifications in regard to this point follow in v. 12
“In like manner” connects the qualifications for deaconesses with those required of the deacons; compare the adverb in v. 8. All three sets of officers must meet certain requirements in the same way and cannot be chosen without them. Deaconesses must be “dignified” just as deacons are (v. 8). “Not slanderous” is certainly to the point, for in their gossip many women like to tell others anything bad they have found out, and a deaconess would get around widely in a congregation. Here we have only the adjective which is not substantivized by the article: “slanderous.” “Temperate” has the same force it has in v. 2. “Faithful in all things” = trustworthy in all respects. The opinion that the phrase is too indefinite unless deacons’ wives and the things in which they assist their husbands in the office are referred to is inconclusive, for what about trustworthiness in other things? “In all respects” means just that: only all-around trustworthy women were fit for the office. Paul, for instance, entrusted his letter to the Romans to Phoebe, and she herself was a deaconess and not merely some deacon’s wife.
1 Timothy 3:12
12 Let deacons be husbands of one wife, excellently superintending children and their own homes. We need not repeat what has already been said about this requirement in v. 4, 5. “Husbands of one wife,” with the singular, is the common individualizing singular with plurals.
Δεῖεἷναι in v. 2 governs the construction of διακόνους in v. 8 and of γυναῖκας in v. 11: “an overseer—deacons—women must be,” etc. The very construction indicates three offices. If Paul had continued this construction in v. 12 clarity would be lost; it would seem that Paul is adding a fourth office, which, of course, he is not. This he avoids by using the imperative just as in v. 10 he uses the imperative, there and here again adding only another point to offices already indicated.
1 Timothy 3:13
13 The discussion of the requirements for the offices is concluded. A certain necessity for all of them has been stressed (δεῖ in v. 2 and v. 7, which is to be supplied in v. 8 and v. 11; imperatives in v. 10 and v. 12), a necessity that is due to the offices themselves. When Paul now closes with “for,” this is not begruendend; here and in scores of instances γάρ is neither causal nor illative, it is explanatory, and the precise relation which it indicates is to be determined from the context (R. 1190, etc.). Here it introduces a result which is to act as an incentive to those who have obtained these offices and is to move them to fill these offices καλῶς, in an excellent way. The sense of “for” is: these are the requirements and qualifications; all of them are necessary, “for” these offices are not merely to be filled somehow or other but so that those who fill them may gain for themselves an excellent standing as a result and a reward. As their very names indicate, all these offices are to serve others; hence the qualifications are such as will insure true service in advance. It is thus that those who do well in these offices thereby acquire a noble place for their own selves.
For they who ministered excellently are acquiring for themselves excellent standing, a great boldness in faith in Christ Jesus.
Who are referred to? All those mentioned in v. 1–12, overseers, men deacons, women deacons. Our versions render οἱδιακονήσαντες as though only deacons are referred to; some refer the word only to male deacons. This verb is, however, not technical: “to serve as deacons.” The nouns ἐπίσκοπος and διάκονος are beginning to become technical but are only beginning to become such, the latter is also used with reference to deaconesses, Rom. 16:1. Πρεσβύτερος was used in a technical sense already in the synagogue.
Paul loves to call himself a diakonos, he applies this term also to his assistants; see Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23; 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; 1 Tim. 4:6. The verb διακονεῖν is still used in a general sense and means to do service for others; so also διακονία refers to any type of service. How could Paul hold out an incentive for male deacons only and not for excellent women deacons? How could he say that only deacons were to have a reward for their office and not the overseers or pastors? These questions are left unanswered by those who refer this verse to male deacons only. Moreover, it is well to note that Paul always has his whole paragraph in mind when he comes to the close of it.
This promise pertains to all the servants of the congregation who minister excellently in their various offices. Out of their very excellent work there ever springs for them an excellent reward.
Note the tenses: “they who did minister (aorist) are acquiring for themselves (present, durative).” Yes, they have already ministered, they have been doing a lot of excellent work. It is thus that they are acquiring something. We speak in the very same way; we say a person has done well and is thus getting somewhere. The aorist must not mean that the ministering is ended, that these persons are no longer in office. Reflexive middles may also have the reflexive pronouns in order to emphasize the reflexive idea; the pronoun may even be placed forward as is done in this instance. Καλῶς—καλόν is a play on these two words; they are placed chiastically: “excellently having ministered—a standing excellent,” etc. To be sure, working excellently produces excellent standing as a result and a reward.
Βαθμός is derived from βαίνω. In the LXX it is used in a literal sense to designate a step before a door, in the plural to designate steps of a stairs; in the inscriptions it is used metaphorically in the sense of a foothold, a standing, a rank. By having ministered excellently all church officers are obtaining “a standing that is excellent,” noble, fine. The thought is complete. Some think that a genitive, a phrase, or something should be added and state to what this step refers. They have in mind quite a different “step” from the one to which Paul is referring; he speaks of a step or a standing that is excellent in the ministering in which the congregational officers have been engaged (διακονήσαντες, aorist).
He is dealing with nothing else. Because those who have served are still in office he says that they “are acquiring” (present) such an excellent standing and not that they have already ended it. Why Paul should have used the comparative “more excellent,” as some think he should have done, is not apparent. This is not a comparison between a standing which they had prior to their offices or at the time when these persons were chosen and a standing to which they attained later on. “A standing that is excellent” in that persons have served excellently is at the same time a reward and an incentive.
This answers the thought of an excellent standing in the matter of personal salvation or of a high degree of glory in heaven. Paul is speaking of neither of these. Still less is he speaking of a standing of male deacons which places them in line for promotion from their diaconate to pastorates. We have already shown that οἱδιακονήσαντες = all the officers, the women, the overseers, or pastors, as well as the male deacons. The fact that pastors were often chosen from the ranks of male deacons may be true, but Paul says nothing about it in v. 2–7 when he speaks about the kind of men that are to be chosen as overseers. To what would the women deacons aspire, to what the overseers?
Or is this reward and incentive intended only for male deacons? Paul is not presenting the diaconate of men as an apprenticeship for the pastorate. The ethics of such a procedure has been rightly questioned. The application has even been made that pastors who are stationed in small congregations ought to serve well in order to be called to larger congregations. Is that why they should serve well? What if they are not advanced and remain disappointed?
The verb separates “excellent standing” from the second object: “great boldness in faith in Christ Jesus.” The two objects are thus distinct: “excellent standing” is one item to which another is added, “great boldness.” Paul does not intimate that the standing has reference to men, to church membership, and the boldness to God, either now or on judgment day. Both standing and boldness refer to the offices of which Paul speaks, the excellent position one acquires when service has been excellently done, plus the free, open, assured feeling (παρρησία) for the work yet to be done. This is, of course, “great boldness in faith,” the faith that rests “in Christ Jesus” (the phrase being added by the article). Here, too, “great” is proper and not the comparative “greater.” All these offices—certainly not only that of the male deacons—are to be exercised “in faith”; all these persons serve as earnest believers. To have served excellently for some time places one beyond any timidity or hesitation and makes him act with boldness and assurance. The acquisition of such boldness in faith, the blessed faith that rests in Christ Jesus, is the most satisfying reward and the incentive to proceed on this tried course.
Paul’s last sentence rounds out his instructions to Timothy and to the churches regarding these various offices in the most effective manner.
1 Timothy 3:14
14 Just as Paul writes a personal word to Timothy at the end of the orders about the fanatical teachers in the churches (1:18–20), so at the end of the orders about men and women in the church and about the qualifications for church offices (2:1–3:13) he again writes a personal word to Timothy, (v. 14–16). As 1:18–20 concludes chapter 1, so 3:14–16 concludes chapters 2 and 3. This is so plain that we do not begin, the third section of the epistle with v. 14.
These things I am writing to thee, hoping to come shortly; yet in case I am slow, that thou mayest know how it is necessary to behave thyself in God’s house, which is the living God’s church, pillar and foundation of the truth, etc.
If v. 14–16 conclude 2:1–3:13, “these things” = those mentioned in 2:1–3:13 and not those written in the entire letter, not those stated in the two precedingparts, and by no means those yet to be discussed in the part that follows, 4:1, etc. Paul is giving these things to Timothy in writing because, while he is hoping to come shortly (4:13), he rather expects (ἐάν, v. 15) to be slow. Did Paul return to Timothy in Ephesus? We have no means of knowing. He wrote to Titus about this same time and told Titus to come to Nicopolis for the winter (Tit. 3:14). This was his plan for the coming winter, which was probably a few months hence, so that before going to Nicopolis Paul hoped to visit Timothy in Ephesus.
1 Timothy 3:15
15 The instructions here given in writing would guide Timothy in his superintendence of the Asian churches and let him know how to conduct himself as Paul’s representative when he was arranging the worship and the offices “in God’s house” where God dwells with his gracious presence, where everything must be as God wants it and not as various foolish men may wish to have things. The infinitive is a present middle: “to be conducting thyself,” and here refers, not to ordinary Christian conduct like that of other godly church members, but to official conduct in supervision. Εἰδῇς is the second perfect which is always used in the sense of the present tense. The indirect question introduced with “how” is deliberative. Timothy will ask: “How must I act in this, in that matter?” Paul has here told him how. The directions are so important because Timothy is managing things “in God’s house.” This is not Timothy’s own house nor the house of the church members; it belongs to God.
The gender of ἥτις is attracted to the predicative ἐκκλησία and, as is the case so often, this relative has a bit of causal force: “it being the living God’s church.” This is the sense in which it is God’s house. The noun οἶκος often = family, cf., v. 4, 5, 12; some would give it that sense here by thinking of Eph. 2:19, but this is not exact, nor does the term “house” occur in Eph. 2:19. Even physically a father dwelling in a house and dwelling in a family are not the same, he has his family about him in the house but he is literally in the house itself. Spiritually, with reference to God, this is far more the case. Οἶκος = ἐκκλησία = not the family in a house but the “assembly,” the church members themselves. They are this “house,” which is called “house” because God dwells in them. This is one of the many beautiful expressions for the unio mystica, in this case it is collective with reference to the church.
Paul says only “God’s house,” but when he adds the relative he says “living God’s church”; this adjectival participle is emphatic. Some expositors are content with remarks about God being the author and source of life, who through Christ and his Spirit regenerates us and gives us life, etc. “God living” is the tremendous opposite of dead idols. They are placed in a temple, a house made of dead material. What more can there be? But God is living, his very being is life. His “house” are we ourselves, we the “church,” in all our being, as assembled and called to be God’s own spiritually.
Wonderful and blessed indeed! And here Timothy is appointed to direct how things ought to be “in God’s house.” “In God’s house” so plainly fits 2:1–3:13 and not 4:1, etc., that this little paragraph belongs to all of chapters 2 and 3.
Continuing the implication of responsibility, Paul adds the double apposition: “pillar and foundation of the truth.” A pillar supports the roof structure, and an ἐδραίωμα (that which forms the seat), the real foundation (Luther: Grundfeste), supports the pillar. The figure of the “pillar” is intensified by the figure of the “foundation”; it is like saying: “The living God’s church is the pillar, yea more, even the foundation of the truth.” We do not translate “a pillar, a foundation” as if there were others; the church is the only one; the absence of the articles stresses the qualitative force of the nouns.
The gospel = “the truth.” As ἀλήθεια, “reality,” this truth exists independently and is dependent on no pillar, foundation, or other kind of support. Every reality and, above all this eternal one, is simply there, and that is all. Yet this gospel truth which God sent into the world is not just to be there, i.e., in existence; it is to save men, and thus the men it has saved, the living God’s church, bear it as a pillar, yea as a foundation bears its superstructure. The church thus bears God’s saving truth for all the world.
This is the living God’s church, and as sure as he lives, his church will stand as “pillar and foundation of the truth.” The gates of hell shall not prevail against the church. By means of the church, which the living God made his truth’s pillar and foundation, this truth shines in the world and draws men unto itself, to be joined to those who are its pillar and foundation. In this church Timothy is to perform his work in Paul’s place. A responsible, an inspiring, a blessed task! “God’s house” and “the living God’s church” direct Timothy’s heart to God while he is engaged in the work of the church; “pillar and foundation of the truth” direct his heart to the supreme function of the church in the world, with which his task is concerned.
1 Timothy 3:16
16 The substance of this truth is now summarily stated in a most effective form. While it is true that we cannot prove it, we, too, take it that Paul is quoting a Christian hymn or rather a psalm. We print accordingly: And confessedly great is the mystery of the godliness:
Who was manifested in flesh,
Was justified in spirit,
Was seen by angels,
Was preached in nations,
Was believed in the world,
Was received up in glory.
“Confessedly” refers to these lines. Since they were used in a hymn or a chant in the congregations themselves they express “in an acknowledged way” that “the mystery of godliness,” the saving truth which the living God’s church upholds as pillar and foundation, “is great.” Because of its brevity and its restraint the mere word “great” is effective. Look at this truth, the mystery of the godliness, Christ he who (ὅς) is described in these hymn lines—“great,” nothing less than “great.” To be “confessedly” so refers only to the church, for she alone knows “the mystery of the godliness.” What v. 9 calls “the mystery of the faith” is here termed “the mystery of the godliness,” but here the hymn lines state just what is meant. We express our faith and our godliness, both of which are objective, in these lines: “Who was manifested,” etc.
This is the substance of what we believe, the content of our godliness. We have explained this term in v. 9, which see. “The mystery” is the proper word and is often used by Paul to indicate the gospel content. The world does not know it, this mystery must be revealed or “preached” to it. “Of the godliness,” however, takes us a step farther than “of the faith.” What constitutes the one constitutes the other when both are looked at objectively; but “the faith” regards this mystery as the object intended for trust, “the godliness” presents it as the inwardness of all that forms real godliness, man’s blessed relation to God.
One text and a few versions have divided the adverb into two words (ὁμολογοῦμενὡς): “We confess: ‘How great is the mystery of the godliness!’” This is attractive but altogether too weak textually. “Confessedly” conveys substantially the same thought. Equally weak textually is ὅ for ὅς, the neuter being a mere accommodation to τὸμυστήριον. While this makes a smoother connection with the antecedent, it weakens the connection with all the following verbs, the real subject of which is not the neuter “which” but the masculine “who,” namely Christ. “The mystery of the godliness” = Christ “who,” etc. Since the “who” clauses are a quotation, the change in gender is quite immaterial; similar changes are not infrequent when exact quotations are introduced. Some texts have “God” in place of “who” (A. V.): “God was manifested in flesh,” which would make this quotation a dictum probans for the deity of Christ.
One may hesitate regarding the reading; yet not because we need one more proof for Christ’s deity, we have a rich abundance. The textual evidence is in favor of the relative.
Six terse statements, all with aorist passives, all with the verbs placed emphatically forward, all statements of fact, of ἀλήθεια, “truth,” reality, that cannot possibly be annulled or even modified. Six tremendous facts, heaped one upon the other, all soteriological, all infinitely blessed. They are like the facts stated in the second article of the Apostolic Creed. Five have ἐν phrases; only the third has a dative. The form is striking indeed and also beautifully rhythmic.
“In flesh” and “in spirit” form a pair. “Angels” and “nations” are counterparts; so also are “in (the) world” and “in glory.” The verbs “was preached” and “was believed” are correlative. “Angels—nations—world—glory” from a chiasm: the angels and the glory are placed first and last, nations and world in the middle, a plural and a singular in each. It seems that others besides Paul used the beauties of rhetorical form. Paul chose these lines as a quotation because he fully appreciated their form. They are to this day one of the high points of this letter. They were sung by Timothy and by the churches he was supervising, and Paul’s use of them in these directions for the services (chapter 2) and for the church offices (chapter 3) is like drawing away the curtain from the inner sanctuary and revealing “the mystery” of blessedness it holds, Christ in all his saving acts.
These acts take us from heaven to earth and then from earth back to heaven, and both earth and heaven are ever after changed for us. The order is really chronological, for the preaching to the nations and the consequent believing in the world, which were due to Christ’s great commission to the apostles and the church (Matt. 28:16–20; Mark 16:15, 16; Luke 24:47, 48) are properly placed before the ascension.
Christ “was manifested in flesh,” was made to appear to men on earth “in fashion as man” (Phil. 2:8). “The Word became flesh and tented among us,” John 1:14. Christ “took part of flesh and blood,” Heb. 2:14. Each expression illumines the others. Each prevents undue stressing of the rest. Thus “was manifested” is not a mere appearance in flesh without having real flesh (Docetism). “Flesh” is the “flesh and blood” used in Hebrews, yet it is not only the physical body but all that belongs to our human nature, the body animated by soul and spirit. This is the incarnation: he who was manifested in flesh existed before that (John 1:1).
Those who claim that Paul says nothing about the Virgin birth which is recorded in detail by Matthew and by Luke ignore statements such as this in our passage, in Rom. 1:3; Gal. 4:4, and elsewhere. Here there is more, however, than the mere moment of the incarnation; here there is the whole manifestation in flesh during Jesus’ earthly life.
It is claimed that if we regard this verse as a quotation we must make the first clause the subject of all the following verbs: “Who was manifested in flesh was justified, seen, preached,” etc. But why would a quotation need to be read thus? In any case, ὅς is the subject of all these passives, all of them aorist passives. Only this is true, these coordinate, asyndetic clauses are cumulative; they let us see this ὅς from his incarnation to his ascension. Each step upward rests on the preceding one. The first clause is not the subject of the other five.
“Was justified in spirit” = was forensically declared just and righteous. The forensic sense cannot be eliminated. Even if we translate erwiesen, it must be forensic: als gerecht erwiesen. This is the place to look at “the Righteous One,” ὁδίκαιος, who was declared righteous by God, Acts 7:52; “the Holy and Righteous One,” Acts 3:14, both being titles of the Messiah. “God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ,” Acts 2:36, “Prince and Savior,” Acts 5:31. Add “Jesus Christ, the Righteous,” 1 John 2:1; “he is righteous,” 1 John 2:29; “that Righteous One,” Acts 22:14. Finally, “Thou art righteous, O Lord, who art, and wast, and shalt be,” Rev. 16:5.
When and how was Jesus declared righteous by God? In and by the act of raising him from the dead. Men had nailed him to the cross, condemned him to the cross as one accursed of God, for to be hung on wood meant to be declared accursed of God; him God raised from the dead, him God thereby declared righteous. God’s forensic judgment was analytic: Jesus himself was declared righteous; it was not synthetic: another’s righteousness was not imputed to him. On Christ’s sinlessness note John 8:46; Heb. 10:7, 9; 7:26; 4:15. Why this signal act of declaring Jesus righteous? He is made “unto us righteousness,” 1 Cor. 1:30; “he was raised for our righteousness,” Rom. 4:21; “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” 1 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 10:4.
The phrases match the verbs; a person would not be manifested “in spirit,” the manifestation would be “in flesh,” for when “flesh” is used to designate the whole human nature, as it is here, it includes body, soul, and spirit and thus the whole visible, bodily life that is manifest to other men and manifesting the kind of person one is. So Christ was manifested “in flesh,” and John 1:14 says, “we beheld his glory,” etc. But one is not justified or declared righteous “in flesh” but “in spirit,” for one’s spirit is judged when a justification occurs; here it was Christ’s spirit of holy obedience unto the death on the accursed cross. This explains Rom. 1:4 in which “spirit of holiness” is sometimes misunderstood, as is also 1 Pet. 3:18 and its dative πνεύματι: “made alive by spirit,” Christ’s spirit that returned to his body in the tomb. “Flesh” = the whole human nature of Jesus assumed at the incarnation = body, soul, and spirit, the material and the immaterial part; “spirit” = his human spirit as this was joined to his body, in which the ἐγώ was that of the eternal Son. That is the only contrast there is in these two parallel phrases. To assume a different contrast, one in which “spirit” is something else, is to go beyond Paul’s intention.
The A. V. does this when it translates “in Spirit” and thinks of the Holy Spirit and prints as parallel references Matt. 3:16; John 1:32, 33; 15:26; 16:8, 9. How Jesus could be declared righteous “in the Holy Spirit” is inconceivable. At his baptism the Holy Spirit was bestowed upon Jesus for his great work; that was all that happened as far as the Holy Spirit was concerned. The declaration: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I was well pleased” (aorist), refers to the human spirit of Jesus who came to the baptism in holy obedience to fulfill all righteousness (Matt. 3:15).
As the A. V. has “spirit” = the Holy Spirit, so some have “spirit” = the divine nature, the deity of Jesus. They argue that, if “flesh”—the human nature of Jesus, then “spirit” must = his divine nature. Thus they get a wrong contrast. Since this is wrong, it matters little where they find the justification, whether at his baptism, or in his whole earthly life, or at his resurrection from the dead. It is unthinkable that Jesus should be justified in his deity just as it is unthinkable that he was justified “in the Holy Spirit.” In order to uphold their view they give justification a meaning that is different from the one we have advanced above. It was not God’s declaration that Jesus is “the Righteous One,” “the Holy and Righteous One” (Acts 7:52; 3:14, plus the verdicts in all the other passages quoted above), it was not a verdict on his holy Messianic, substitutionary obedience, the perfect obedience of his whole life, the obedience unto death, even the accursed death on the cross (Phil. 2:8) which was rendered according to his human nature, in his spirit which directed his soul as well as his body—all this that is so plain in Scripture, even in Isa. 53:11: “my righteous Servant,” is overlooked, and Paul is thought to say that “over against his enemies and accusers Jesus was proven to be what he claimed to be, God’s Son and Savior of the world.” Thus “spirit” is referred to Christ’s deity. Δικαιοῦν, which always means to pronounce a verdict on character, conduct, deeds as to whether these are righteous or not, is taken in the sense of erwiesen, of proving the nature, the deity of Jesus.
Since it occurs in a series of six passives, ὤφθη should not be understood in the middle sense: “appeared to angels,” but as a true passive with the dative of the agent: “was seen by angels.” But when and where? When they answer these questions some refer to heaven and say this occurred when Jesus ascended to glory; but this virtually repeats the last clause: “was received up in glory.” Some refer to hell and to the evil angels. They do this on the supposition that, if Jesus was declared righteous by being raised from the dead, this reference to his resurrection should be followed by a reference to his descent into hell. The analogy of Scripture shows that the unmodified word ἄγγελοι is never used to designate demons.
Some take the word to mean “messengers” and find these messengers in the apostles, to whom the risen Savior appeared during the forty days. This brings us close to the truth. Some include all the angels who saw Jesus while he was here on earth. “Was seen by angels” = in his resurrection. The Obedient, Righteous One whom God justified by raising him from the dead was seen in his glorified human nature by angels; these were the beings who first saw him thus.
“By angels,” without the article, is not by “the angels,” i.e., by all of them, the entire class. Angels saw him. Why does Paul not speak of the human witnesses as he does in 1 Cor. 15:5–8? Angels are greater; Paul is here not proving the reality of the resurrection as he is in 1 Cor. 15. This hymn dwells on the great saving features that appear in Jesus. That is why two points are mentioned in these hymn lines in regard to the resurrection; for in all the apostolic preaching the resurrection of Jesus is made to stand out most highly: God declared him righteous—angels saw him risen indeed. Whatever balance or parallel may be observed between “angels” and “nations,” the main balance seems to lie in the verbs, all the verbs are placed emphatically forward.
“Was preached in nations,” heralded in their midst, refers to Matt. 28:16–20 as explained above. “Was believed in the world” (no article is needed, there being only one world) goes with the preaching among the nations. Both phrases are general and do not distinguish between Jews and Gentiles. We might think that the last line: “was received up in glory,” should precede the preaching and the believing, and so it might. In Acts 2:31–36 the resurrection and the ascension are preached, but as explaining the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. In Acts 4:2 it is the preaching of the resurrection (compare Acts 4:8–12; 5:31, 32). The order of this hymn is according.
The point itself is of minor importance. Jesus ordered the preaching before his ascension; it was, of course, actually done after. Take the chronology as you wish. “Was received up” is the verb used in Mark 16:19 and Acts 1:4; “borne up” in Luke 24:51, and “taken up” in Acts 1:9, all mean the same thing, all are passives.
“In glory” is not, as the older grammarians supposed, a pregnant use of ἐν: motion “into” and thus rest “in.” It is only a variation of this older view to say that “in glory” describes the condition that followed the receiving up. The act and its subject Jesus were “in glory,” i.e., the glorious and glorified Jesus was gloriously received up. To say that the whole heavenly life of Jesus in glory is included in the verb is to extend unduly the force of the aorist which denotes one act. Of course, having been received up “in glory,” Jesus is in heaven and in glory, but the verb does not extend beyond the reception. Some speak of a progression in glory, that Jesus grew in glory already during the forty days and then reached the pinnacle of glory when he entered heaven. But the Scriptures do not speak of such a process or progression.
Two trilogies are noted by those who think of the “angels” as being in heaven. Three pairs are noted by others; they get these by pairing the modifiers: 1) flesh—spirit; 2) angels—nations; 3) world—glory. Yet the verbs are the important words, and these do not form three pairs. Two threes are thought to denote: 1) Christ’s person and work: incarnation—resurrection—ascension (this is the “seen by angels” in heaven); 2) the church militant and triumphant: preaching—believing—kingdom of glory. But the ascension is not number three, it is number six. And this is the ascension of Jesus, not our transfer to glory. These are neither pairs nor trios. There is only an interlocking in some of the verbs, also in some of the phrases, a beauty of thought and a wording that are of a rare kind.
B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.
C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..