Qualifications for Overseers
To this point, Paul has addressed some concerns related to the community at worship and corrected some abuses generated by the activities of the erring elders. Now he turns to the elders themselves and sets forth some qualifications for “office.”
He begins, in verses 1–7, with a group called episkopoi (“overseers”); then moves in verses 8–13 to a group called diakonoi (“servants,” “deacons”), with a note also about some “women” in verse 11. It is altogether likely that both “overseers” and “deacons” come under the larger category presbyteroi (“elders”). In any case, the evidence from Acts 20:17 and 28 and Titus 1:5 and 7 indicates that the terms episkopoi, “overseers” (Acts 20:28; Titus 1:7), and presbyteroi, “elders” (Acts 20:17; Titus 1:5), are partially interchangeable. Thus at least the overseers (episkopai) of this first paragraph are church elders. (For some brief comments on early church order see the Introduction, pp. 20–23).
It must be noted that in contrast to Titus (1:5), Timothy has not been left in Ephesus to appoint elders. Indeed, everything in 1 Timothy, as well as the evidence from Acts 20, indicates that there already were elders in this church. Why, then, this instruction? Again, the evidence points to the character and activities of the false teachers. In this regard two things must be noted: First, many of the items in the list stand in sharp contrast to what is said elsewhere in the letter about the false teachers. Second, the list itself has three notable features: (1) It gives qualifications, not duties; (2) most of the items reflect outward, observable behavior; and (3) none of the items is distinctively Christian (e.g., love, faith, purity, endurance; cf. 4:12; 6:12); rather, they reflect the highest ideals of Hellenistic moral philosophy. Since the whole passage points toward and concludes with verse 7, that is, concern for the overseer’s (and thus the church’s) reputation with outsiders, this suggests that the false teachers were, by their behavior, bringing the gospel into disrepute. Therefore, Paul is concerned not only that the elders have Christian virtues (these are assumed) but that they reflect the highest ideals of the culture as well.
If our identification of the false teachers as elders is correct, then Paul’s reason for this set of instructions is that Timothy must see to it that elders are living according to their appointment, that is, by these standards. At the same time, of course, the whole church will be listening in and will thus be given the grounds for discipline of erring elders as well as for their replacement (cf. 5:22, 24–25).
3:1 The section begins with our second trustworthy saying (see 1:15). Because the saying itself has seemed rather pedantic, and because the word “save” (cf. 1:15) appears in 2:15, some have argued that the preceding verse is the trustworthy saying. But 2:15 does not have the characteristics of a “saying,” and 3:1 does—despite its noncreedal content. Perhaps too much has been made of the concept “saying,” as though all these “trustworthy sayings” were in wide circulation in the church (as 1:15 probably was). More likely, this became for Paul a kind of reinforcement formula: “What I am about to say has special import” or “can be generally accepted as true.”
The saying itself, if anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task, appears to lend some credence to the commonly held view that people were “running for office.” But there is no other evidence in the NT that people “aspired to” positions of leadership in the church. The little evidence we do have implies that heads of households from among the earliest converts were normally appointed to such positions (Acts 14:23; cf. 1 Cor. 1:16 and 16:15–16).
The saying in fact focuses less on the person than on the position. Thus Paul is not commending people who have a great desire to become leaders; rather, he is saying that the position of overseer is such a significant matter, a noble task, that it should indeed be the kind of task to which a person might aspire. Thus, despite the activities of some, he does not for that reason negate the position itself.
3:2–3 Because being an overseer is such a noble task, Paul is concerned that the elders in Ephesus manifest truly exemplary lives. The overseer, therefore, must be above reproach. That would seem to default any aspiring person! The term above reproach, however, which is repeated regarding the widows in 5:7 and of Timothy himself in 6:14 (in an eschatological context), has to do with irreproachable observable conduct. Here it seems to be intended as the general, covering term for the following list of eleven virtues, or qualities (mostly single words in Greek), that should characterize an overseer.
The first item on the list, the husband of but one wife, is one of the truly difficult phrases in the PE (cf. 3:12; 5:9, of the “true” widows, and Titus 1:6). There are at least four options: First, it could be requiring that the overseer be married. Support is found in the fact that the false teachers are forbidding marriage and that Paul urges marriage for the wayward widows (5:14; cf. 2:15). But against this are that it emphasizes must and wife, while the text emphasizes one, that Paul, and most likely Timothy, were not married, and that it stands in contradiction to 1 Corinthians 7:25–38. Besides, it was a cultural presupposition that most people would be married.
Second, it could be that it prohibits polygamy. This correctly emphasizes the one wife aspect; but polygamy was such a rare feature of pagan society that such a prohibition would function as a near irrelevancy. Moreover, it would not seem to fit the identical phrase used of the widows in 5:9.
Third, it could be prohibiting second marriages. Such an interpretation is supported by many of the data: It would fit the widows especially, and all kinds of inscriptional evidence praises women (especially, although sometimes men) who were “married only once” and remained “faithful” to that marriage after their partner died. This view would then prohibit second marriages after the death of a spouse, but it would also obviously—perhaps especially—prohibit divorce and remarriage. Some scholars (e.g., Hanson) would make it refer only to the latter.
Fourth, it could be that it requires marital fidelity to his one wife (cf. NEB: “faithful to his one wife”). In this view the overseer is required to live an exemplary married life (marriage is assumed), faithful to his one wife in a culture in which marital infidelity was common, and at times assumed. It would, of course, also rule out polygamy and divorce and remarriage, but it would not necessarily rule out the remarriage of a widower (although that would still not be the Pauline ideal; cf. 1 Cor. 7:8–9, 39–40). Although there is much to be said for either understanding of the third option, the concern that the church’s leaders live exemplary married lives seems to fit the context best—given the apparently low view of marriage and family held by the false teachers (4:3; cf. 3:4–5).
The next word, temperate, often means with regard to alcoholic beverages. However, since that is specifically said in verse 3, temperate is probably used figuratively to mean “free from every form of excess, passion, or rashness” (cf. 2 Tim. 4:5). The overseer must also be self-controlled and respectable, words that often occur together in pagan writings as high ideals of behavior. A Christian leader is to be more than, and therefore certainly not less than, such ideals.
The church leader must also be hospitable. This, too, was a Greek virtue, but it also was a thoroughgoing expectation of all Christians in the early church (cf. 5:10; Rom. 12:13; 1 Pet. 4:9; Aristides, Apology 15). Likewise he must also be able to teach. This is the one item in the list that also implies duties, a matter that will become clear in 5:17. This adjective recurs in 2 Timothy 2:24 and Titus 1:9, whose contexts suggest that able to teach means the ability both to teach the truth and to refute error.
In adding that the overseer must … not be given to drunkenness, is Paul also setting out a contrast to the false teachers? Perhaps not, in light of their asceticism noted in 4:3. But they may have been ascetic about certain foods and overindulgent about wine. In any case, drunkenness was one of the common vices of antiquity; and few pagan authors speak out against it—only against other “sins” that might go along with it (violence, public scolding of servants, etc.). The overseer is not necessarily to be a total abstainer (5:23), but neither is he to be given to drunkenness (cf. 3:8; Titus 1:7); this is uniformly condemned in Scripture.
The next three qualities probably go together, and do indeed seem to reflect the false teachers’ behavior. The overseer is not to be violent but gentle, not quarrelsome. The description of the false teachers in 6:3–5, as well as in 2 Timothy 2:22–26 (cf. Titus 3:9), suggests that they are given to strife and quarrels. The true elder is to be gentle, even in correcting opponents (2 Tim. 2:23–25).
The list concludes with not a lover of money. According to 6:5–10, greed turns out to be one of the “deadly sins” of the false teachers, being directly responsible for their ruin. Thus a word against avarice appears in every list of qualifications for leadership (3:8; Titus 1:7; cf. Acts 20:33). On this matter, see especially discussion on 6:5–10 and 2 Timothy 3:6–7.
3:4–5 Paul now moves on in verses 4–7 to address three further concerns. The church leader must have an exemplary family (vv. 4–5), must not be a new convert (v. 6), and must be a person of good reputation with outsiders (v. 7). These, too, probably reflect the situation in Ephesus.
This passage also assumes the episkopos will be married (but does not thereby require it; cf. v. 2). Not only so, but first-century sociology also makes it most probable that those who were appointed “overseers” in the early churches, especially since we are dealing with house churches, were in fact the heads of the “houses” where the churches met. Thus, as verse 5 implies, there is the closest kind of relationship between family and church. The man who is a failure at one (family) is thereby disqualified for the other (church). Indeed, as 3:15 and 5:1–2 indicate, the word oikos (“household”; NIV, family) is for Paul a pregnant metaphor for church.
The overseer, then, must manage his own family well, because he must also take care of God’s church. The word for manage is used again of the elders in 5:17 (NIV, “direct”) as it was earlier in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 (NIV, “are over”). It carries the sense of either “to rule, govern,” or “to be concerned about, care for” (cf. “devote themselves to” in Titus 3:8). The clue to its meaning here lies with understanding the companion verb about the church in verse 5, to take care of, which carries the full force of that idiom in English. That is, to take care of implies both leadership (guidance) and caring concern. In the home and church neither has validity without the other.
Such a person will be known to give the kind of leadership at home that will see that his children obey him (lit., “have children in submissiveness,” as 2:11). The force of the phrase with proper respect probably means not so much that they will obey with respect but that they will be known for both their obedience and their generally good behavior. In Titus 1:6 this is further elaborated to include their being believers, along with a concern for their reputation with outsiders. There is a fine line between demanding obedience and gaining it. The church leader, who must indeed exhort people to obedience, does not thereby “rule” God’s family. He takes care of it in such a way that its “children” will be known for their obedience and good behavior.
3:6 The church leader, therefore, also must not be a recent convert, a metaphor in Greek that literally means “no newly planted person.” As will be repeated in a different way in 5:22, an episkopos must be mature in the faith. The reason for this is the great danger of swelled-headedness, he may become conceited. Since this is precisely what is said of the false teachers in 6:4 (cf. 2 Tim. 3:4), one wonders whether some of them were recent converts, whose “sins … trail behind them” (5:24 = “are seen only later”).
In any case, to become conceited means also to fall under the same judgment as the devil. Although Paul’s Greek is a bit ambiguous (lit., “fall into the judgment of the devil”), he is probably reflecting the common theme that in Christ’s ministry, especially in his death and resurrection, Satan was dealt his decisive defeat, to be realized fully at the End (cf. Rev. 12:7–17 and 20:7–10).
3:7 Finally, he comes to the concern that the church leader be a person who has a good reputation with outsiders. As noted in the discussion on 2:2, this is a genuinely Pauline concern in the NT. Indeed, this concern is what puts the foregoing list into perspective. That list has to do with observable behavior of a kind that will be a witness to outsiders. As in verse 6, Paul’s Greek is not altogether clear, but the emphasis seems to be that a bad reputation with the pagan world will cause the episkopos to fall into disgrace, or be slandered, and thus the church with him; and that would be to fall … into the devil’s trap. It is a trap set by the devil when the behavior of the church’s leaders is such that outsiders will be disinclined to hear the gospel. One wonders again whether the greed and abusive conduct of the false teachers is not bringing disgrace to God’s household in Ephesus, especially when one considers that Paul himself had been so accused in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:1–10) and that pagan moralists in particular condemned such activities among the “false” philosophers (see esp. Dio Chrysostom, Oration 32 and Lucian’s Philosophies for Sale).
Additional Notes
3:1 There are some who favor a textual variation that reads “This is a popular saying” (NEB). But that variant is found only in a few so-called Western sources that are not known for their reliability. Furthermore, the very noncreedal nature of the saying accounts for the change. See the discussion in Metzger, TCGNT, p. 640.
3:2–3 The fact that ton episkopon (“the overseer”) is singular here has led some to argue that this office represents the monepiscopacy (single person as pastor) whereas the plural diakonoi (“deacons”) serve under him (as in most contemporary Protestant churches). However, the singular here is almost certainly generic, as “the woman” is in 2:11–12. The sure clue for such a view, besides the plural at 5:17; is Titus 1:5 and 7, where the plural “elders” appears in v. 5, then shifts to the generic singular in vv. 6 and 7. Furthermore, the “if anyone” clause in v. 1, which has led to the singular in this verse, is a nonlimiting, or generalizing, conditional sentence. It recurs in 1 Tim. 5:8 and 6:3, and in both cases—esp. 6:3—refers to a group of more than one.
Many scholars see this list of twelve qualities as “bourgeois,” containing very little specifically Christian. Thus it is argued that an alleged pseudepigrapher had a “schema” of such virtues, as one finds in Onosander’s Strategikos for the qualities desired in a general, and adapted them for his purposes (see esp. D-C, pp. 158–60). The correspondences with Onosander are indeed striking; however, they are very likely coincidental, as are the equally striking correspondences between 1 Thess. 2:1–10 and Dio Chrysostom’s Oration 32. The language belongs to the milieu; the presence of the false teachers explains the specifics. The lack of “a specifically Christian element” is to be explained as something Paul assumes for elders. Such an element is hardly missing from 1 Timothy (see 4:12 and 6:11).
For a more thorough presentation of the view taken here on having “but one wife,” see C. H. Dodd, “New Testament Translation Problems II,” pp. 112–16. On the several options, see Hanson, pp. 77–78. For the tacit assumption of marital infidelity in Greco-Roman culture, see Demosthenes, Oration 59:122: “Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of the body, but wives to bear us legitimate children” (Loeb, VI, 445, 447, slightly modified).
Kelly thinks that both hospitality and teaching reflect official duties. But since hospitality is expected of all believers, it is difficult to see anything “official” here.
It is possible that since drunkenness often leads to violence, these two go together in the list (cf. GNB), and that the mention of violence then reminds him of the false teachers and leads to the contrasts, gentle and not quarrelsome.
3:4 Some think that with proper respect modifies he (the father) and should be translated “he must manage his own family well, with all seriousness,” or “true dignity.” But the order of words favors the interpretation given here.
3:6 The phrase “fall into the judgment of the devil” could refer to some form of judgment that Satan metes out and thus correspond to v. 7, where the devil’s trap is a snare he sets. But that is highly unlikely in this case. The NT is thoroughgoing that God metes out judgment, not Satan.
Qualifications for Deacons
Paul now turns his attention to the deacons (diakonoi; see disc. on vv. 1–7). As with the deacons, the instruction basically presents qualifications with no hints as to duties. Absent in this case is the word didaktikon (“able to teach”); included are items one would expect to be applicable to the overseers as well—holding fast the deep truths (v. 9) and first being tested (v. 10). How these two groups are otherwise to be distinguished (apart from teaching) is simply not known to us. An appeal to Acts 6:1–6 is of no value, since those men are not called deacons. In fact they are clearly ministers of the Word among Greek-speaking Jews, who eventually accrue the title “the Seven” (Acts 21:8), which distinguishes them in a way similar to “the Twelve.” Thus we are left with the almost certain reality that episkopoi and diakonoi are distinguishable functions in the church, but without knowing what they were.
3:8–9 To designate these men as deacons as over against overseers does not imply that they were not “leaders” as well. The word diakonos, in fact, is a favorite of Paul’s to describe his own and his fellow workers’ ministries (e.g., 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 3:6; Rom. 16:1; Col. 1:23; 4:7) and is so used of Timothy in 4:6. However, as with “prophet” and “teacher,” the word seems to fluctuate between an emphasis on a function and a description of a position; by the time of Philippians it describes an “office” (Phil. 1:1), whereas in the relatively contemporary Ephesians and Colossians diakonos still describes a function. Here, as in Philippians 1:1, it refers to a position of some kind.
The first word in the deacons’ list is also a “cover” term, describing a kind of personal dignity that makes them (like the overseers) worthy of respect (Gk., semnous; cf. 2:2, “holiness,” and 3:4, “with proper respect”). This is followed by three prohibitions: “not double-tongued” (NIV, sincere), that is, fully trustworthy in what one says; not indulging in much wine, like the overseers (v. 3); and not pursuing dishonest gain, also like the overseers (v. 3), that is, loving money to the point of questionable integrity.
From these characteristics Paul turns to a positive: They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. As we already know from 1:5–6 and 1:19–20, the false teachers in Ephesus have turned away from a clear conscience (1:6; 1:19) and have made shipwreck of the faith (1:19). Deacons are to do the opposite.
The word translated deep truths is one of Paul’s favorite words to describe the gospel, literally meaning “mystery” (1 Cor. 2:7; 4:1; Eph. 3:3–9), but scarcely connoting “deep truths.” For Paul, the “mystery of the faith” was neither something “secret” not some kind of “deep truth.” Rather, as 1 Corinthians 2:6–16 makes plain, it refers to the essential truth of the gospel, especially the saving character of Christ’s death, which was once hidden (in God) but now revealed by the Spirit (hence the GNB’s “revealed truth”).
3:10 With this sentence we come to something new, but not surprising, in light of the situation in Ephesus. The deacons are first to be tested, before they serve. Although one cannot be sure, this may be assumed to be true of the overseers as well. There is an “also” at the beginning of Paul’s sentence, untranslated in the NIV, which probably refers back to the overseers (cf. NEB, “no less than bishops”). It may, however, simply refer to verse 9; that is, they should also be tested, to see whether they hold fast the faith.
But what is the nature of this testing? by whom? testing what? Some believe that a formal examination of some kind is in view, including a probation period (cf. Weymouth’s translation, “must undergo probation”). This would be carried out either by Timothy or the other elders, to test the candidate’s understanding of the faith. But that seems to reflect the outlook of a later period. More likely what Paul intends here is the selection of “approved” men, who have been “examined” in the sense of 1 Corinthians 16:3 (“the men you approve”) or 2 Corinthians 13:5 (“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves”).
This view seems to be supported by the words “if there is nothing against them.” This word is a synonym for the “above reproach” (v. 2) required of the episkopoi. (Cf. Titus 1:6, where this word, translated “blameless” by NIV, takes the place of its synonym in 1 Tim. 3:2 at the head of the list.) Paul is saying, therefore, that when you find men “who keep hold of the revealed truth of the faith with a clear conscience,” that is, people whose behavior is above reproach, then let such “approved” men serve (the verb form of diakonos). This obviously implies that, as with the overseer, such a person would not be a recent convert (3:6). Again contrast with the false teachers seems certain.
3:11 This sentence is one of the genuine puzzles in 1 Timothy. Scholarship is divided as to whether Paul is turning his attention to the deacons’ wives (NIV text) or some “deaconesses” (NIV margin), since the word gynē can mean either “wife” or “woman.”
In favor of wives is that the deacons are addressed on either side of this verse. It is also argued that one might have expected more detail if a third category were envisioned. In favor of “deaconesses” is the structure of the sentence itself, which is the exact equivalent of verse 8, both of which in turn are dependent on the verb must in verse 2 (thus implying three categories). It is further argued that had the wives of deacons been in view, Paul might have been expected to say their wives (as the NIV does without any warrant whatsoever). Since there was no word in Greek for “deaconess” (better “woman helper” as GNB), it is likely that “women” here would have been understood to mean women who served the church in some capacity.
This view seems to be supported further by the list of four qualities that should characterize the “women helpers,” which are roughly the equivalent of four qualities of the deacons in verses 9–10. They must be worthy of respect (the feminine form of the same word that heads the deacons’ list). Then there are two prohibitions: they must not be malicious talkers (lit., “be slanderers”; cf. Titus 2:3), the equivalent of the deacons’ “not doubletongued,” but temperate (cf. “not given to much wine,” v. 8), although temperate here may have a broader sense, as in verse 2. Finally, they must be trustworthy in everything (or “faithful in all things,” NASB).
Whichever view one holds on this verse, these qualifications stand in marked contrast to the descriptions of the women in 5:11–15 and 2 Timothy 3:6–7. Their being mentioned, therefore, probably reflects the negative influence of the false teachers on the women of the church.
3:12–13 If Paul intended wives in verse 11, then verse 12 must be understood as a return to deacons because of what he has just said of their wives. It reminds him that what was true of the episkopoi is likewise true of the diakonoi. A deacon must also “be faithful” to his one wife (v. 2), and he must manage his own family well (v. 4).
If Paul intended “deaconesses” in verse 11, as seems more likely, then this verse is something of an afterthought. “Oh yes, back to the deacon for a minute, he must be the husband of but one wife (see on v. 2) and must manage his children and his household well” (see on v. 4).
With verse 13 Paul brings the qualifications of those who have served to a conclusion by holding before them the “reward” they may expect for having served well. First, they gain an excellent standing. The word standing literally means “a step.” Used figuratively, as here, it probably refers to their influence and reputation in the believing community, although it could refer to their standing with God. The former finds more support from the next phrase. Those who by their good labor gain a good reputation are also those who will have great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
The meaning of this last phrase is not entirely clear. The word for great assurance often conveys the sense of having boldness or openness toward others (cf. 2 Cor. 3:12; Phil. 1:20; Philem. 8; cf. also GNB). But the word can also refer to one’s “confidence” before God, as in Ephesians 3:12 (cf. Heb. 10:19, 35). Hence the NIV translates great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus. This is not an easy decision. On the one hand, it would add a further dimension to what it means to have good standing, namely, the confidence in speech that comes from soundness in life and work. On the other hand, it could refer to the double nature of the “reward,” namely, a good reputation with other people and confidence before God. On the whole, the latter is to be preferred, because the qualifying prepositional phrase says “in faith” (not in the faith), implying, as throughout 1 Timothy, one’s own faith in Christ.
These two commendations, of course, are precisely what the false teachers lack. Their “diseased teaching” (see disc. on 1:19), which includes improper behavior and a soiled reputation, also has caused them to abandon genuine faith in Christ (1:5).
Additional Notes
3:10 The content of this verse might seem to support the “church manual” view (see disc. on 2:1–7) that these are instructions for “setting the church in order.” The view taken here is that there is tension throughout 1 Timothy between some already in these positions who lack the qualifications set out and others who will be appointed in the future to replace those who are disciplined.
3:11 It is of some interest to note that the majority of recent commentaries in English (Hanson excepted) take the view favored here, whereas many of the newer translations favor wives (NIV, NEB, GNB).
3:12–13 Some have argued that the standing referred to has to do with “an advance in rank” in spiritual progress, such as one finds in Clement of Alexandria or the later Hermetic writings. But such an idea seems to be much later in time, as well as too esoteric for this context.
The Purpose of the Letter
The letter has now come a considerable distance. It began with a clear statement of its occasion: a charge to Timothy to stay on in Ephesus to oppose some false teachers and their errors, including a digression by way of personal testimony illustrating the truth of the gospel (chap. 1). In chapters 2 and 3, Paul moves through several concerns that reflect some of the disorders in the church, which had surfaced in their gatherings for worship (chap. 2) and in the lives of some of the church leaders (chap. 3).
He now concludes this section of the letter with a further statement of its purpose. The church must give heed to what Paul has written because it alone has been entrusted with the truth (v. 15), truth that is illustrated by an early Christian hymn.
3:14–15 The grammar of the opening sentence is a little rough, but the meaning is clear. Here we learn that Paul had been intending all along to come to Timothy (and therefore the church) soon. In fact the NIV has almost certainly caught the probably concessive force of the Greek participle “hoping,” that is, even though I hope to come to you soon, in case I am delayed (v. 15, as it probably seemed likely to him), I will take the occasion to write you these instructions (lit., “these things,” that is, chaps. 1–3) now. (On the question of whether Paul had recently been in Ephesus, see note on 1:3).
With verse 15 the real urgencies of the letter come into focus. The church itself is at stake. If I am delayed, it is crucial that people know how to behave as God’s people, because they are the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. The church has been entrusted with the truth; the conduct of the false teachers has been an abandonment of the truth (cf. 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:8; 4:4). Thus it is extremely important that Timothy not only stop the false teachers (1:3–11) but get people back in touch with the truth.
To emphasize this point, Paul mixes some metaphors in a way similar to Ephesians 2:19–22. He begins with conduct (behavior) in God’s household. This metaphor for “family,” already hinted at in 3:4–5, flows naturally from the recognition of God as Father, believers as brothers and sisters, and apostles as “stewards” (household managers). Paul’s point, therefore, is not, as the KJV reads and others imply, to know how “to behave in the house of God” (that is, “in church”), but as the NAB happily renders it, “what kind of conduct befits a member of God’s household.” Such a statement of purpose hardly fits the “church manual” approach to the letter.
The metaphor then shifts slightly, from household to building (cf. Eph 2:19–20). The terms pillar (“bulwark”) and foundation and the language of the living God (cf. 2 Cor. 6:16) indicate that Paul’s common image of the church as God’s temple is in view (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21). Just as the living God dwelt in the sanctuary of Israel, so now by the Spirit, God indwells his new temple, the church, and as such they are to “uphold the truth and keep it safe” (JB).
With these two images, family and temple, Paul expresses the two urgencies of this letter: his concern over proper behavior among believers vis-à-vis the false teachers, and the church as the people entrusted to uphold and proclaim the truth of the gospel.
3:16 The mention of the truth (“of the gospel” always being implied by this word) leads Paul to the exclamation: Beyond all question, the mystery (“revealed truth,” as in 3:9) of godliness is great. The word godliness (eusebeia), a favorite in 1 Timothy (see disc. on 2:2), ordinarily refers to “the duty which people owe to God.” But here, as often with “faith” in these letters, it is not referring to the quality of “godliness” as such but “the godliness,” thought of in a more objective way as the content or basis of Christianity.
What follows is an expression of some of the content of the “revealed truth” of the godliness entrusted to God’s people. The passage itself is almost certainly a hymn, or hymn fragment, in six rhythmic lines. Each line has two members, a verb standing in first position, each in the aorist (past) tense, passive voice in Greek, ending with the rhythmic -thē, followed by a prepositional phrase (Gk., en, “in” or “by”). The implied subject of each verb is Christ.
On that much all modern interpreters are agreed; but on the structure itself, the meaning of a couple of the lines, and the meaning of the whole, there has been considerable debate, with nothing like a consensus. It has been viewed as a single stanza of six consecutive lines (see the JB), as two stanzas with three lines each (but in a variety of patterns [cf., e.g., the GNB with the RSV]), as three stanzas with two lines each (cf. NIV), or in other, not easily classified combinations. Moreover, three of the lines (2, 3, and 6) are not perfectly clear as to their meaning, a difficulty raised in part by some apparent parallels and/or antitheses between the lines and in part because the whole seems to have a degree of chronology, moving from the Incarnation to further aspects of Christ’s life and ministry, yet breaking down in line 6. In view of so many difficulties and disagreements, one offers an interpretation with some reservation.
Let us begin with what appears to be somewhat certain. Line 1, he appeared in a body (lit. “he was manifested in the flesh”), has been universally recognized as an affirmation of the Incarnation, comparable to John 1:14 or Romans 1:3. Even more than in 1:15, such language implies pre-existence. In Christ, God himself has appeared “in flesh.”
Line 4, was preached among the nations (or “Gentiles”), is likewise generally recognized to refer to the period of early apostolic history when the gospel was proclaimed throughout the nations of the known world.
Line 5, was believed on in the world, seems to accompany line 4 as a word about the response to the proclamation of the gospel.
The content of these lines, therefore, which begin with Christ’s own entry into the world and in 4 and 5 take up the apostolic witness to Christ, has caused most interpreters to view it as some form of heilgeschichtliche hymn, that is, a hymn that tells the story of salvation (cf. J. Wilbur Chapman’s “One Day,” or Fanny Crosby’s “Tell Me the Story of Jesus”). If these observations are correct, then the problem that remains has to do with the meaning of the other three lines and how they all relate to one another.
Let us turn, then, to what is less certain. Line 2, he was vindicated by the Spirit, presents considerable difficulties. Literally, it says “he was justified in spirit [or Spirit].” In the Greek there seems to be a parallel between “in flesh” in line 1 and “in spirit” in line 2. But does it refer to the Holy Spirit or (more likely, given the parallel) to his spiritual nature? If the latter, then the point of this line, with some poetic license, is at least “vindication,” perhaps “exaltation,” referring to Christ’s resurrection. Thus the first two lines hymn Christ’s humiliation and exaltation (incarnation and resurrection) in a manner similar to the splendid prose of Romans 1:3 and 4 (cf. 1 Pet. 3:18).
Line 3, he was seen by angels, is likewise puzzling. This is the only line without the Greek preposition en (“in” or “by”). This verb (was seen by or “appeared to”), with the person(s) to whom he appeared in the Greek dative case (as here), is the regular formula in the NT for resurrection appearances (Luke 24:23; Acts 9:17; 1 Cor. 15:5–8). In this case, however, it more likely refers to the worship given by angels to the ascended, glorified Christ. If so, then the first three lines sing Christ’s incarnation, resurrection, and glorification and form a stanza about Christ himself, as he is seen “from glory to glory.”
In such a scheme, the next two lines (4 and 5) offer a similar parallel to lines 1 and 2, but now sing the ongoing ministry of Christ through his church. But the problem arises at line 6, he was taken up in glory. The word was taken up elsewhere in the NT refers to the Ascension (Luke 9:51; Acts 1:2, 11, 22; cf. Mark 16:19). How, then, does the Ascension follow the apostolic ministry? The answer seems to lie with the phrase in glory, which less likely refers to the place of his exaltation as to its manner, that is, it was “glorious” or “accompanied with glory.” Like line 3, then, this line also emphasizes his triumph and glorification more than the actual event of the Ascension itself, chronologically understood. Indeed, in this view, line 6 is the glorious climax of the whole that begins in line 1 with the humiliation of Incarnation.
On this understanding, then, the hymn has two stanzas of three lines each. The first stanza sings Christ’s earthly ministry, concluding with a word of triumph and glorification. Similarly, the second stanza sings the ongoing ministry of Christ through his church, concluding again with the theme of glorification. In a certain sense both stanzas reflect the theme of humiliation and exaltation.
Thus the great mystery of the godliness we believe in, Paul sings, has to do with Christ’s own humiliation and exaltation and the church’s ongoing witness to him who is now the exalted, glorified one. This double focus, especially the emphasis on the ongoing ministry to the nations, returns to a theme sounded earlier in the creedal words of 1:15 and 2:4–6.
But the question still remains: Why this hymn with these emphases at this point in the letter? The answer to that is not easy, but two possibilities commend themselves (perhaps it is a combination of both): First, the double emphasis on humiliation/exaltation, focusing on the present, triumphant glory of Christ, probably stands in some kind of contrast to the Christology of the false teachers. This is especially so, if, as we have argued in the Introduction (pp. 7–10), there are some affinities between what is going on in Ephesus and what had earlier been afoot in Colossae and Laodicea. Second, Paul is about to return to a censure of the false teachers, with an exhortation to Timothy to stand in sharp contrast to them. This hymn prepares for that censure by boldly expressing what the truth is all about, as a contrast to their demonic errors.
Additional Notes
3:14–15 In Paul’s Greek sentence the subject of the infinitive “to conduct oneself” is not expressed. The KJV supplies “thou … thyself,” a most unlikely option; the GNB has “we … ourselves,” but people … themselves (NIV; cf. NEB) is much to be preferred. The Living Bible’s “you will know what kind of men you should choose as officers for the church” is altogether unwarranted.
3:16 The original text of line 1 begins with the Greek relative pronoun hos (“he who”). Because this word would have been written OC, somewhere around the fourth century this was mistakenly read as , the abbreviation for God. This reading eventually came to predominate in the Greek church (never in the West, since the translation into Latin happened before the variant arose). Hence the KJV translated “God was manifest in flesh.” See the discussion in Metzger, TCGNT, p. 641; and G. D. Fee, “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament,” esp. 117–18.
The most common alternative to the view of the hymn presented here is to see it as having three sets of two lines, each alternately expressing humiliation and exaltation (or the realm of earth and heaven). The lines then form two sets of chiasmus (a b b a a b—a form of rhetoric in which the words or ideas in the second or subsequent units in otherwise parallel structures are in reverse order); the sets sing respectively his incarnation and resurrection, his ascension and proclamation on earth, his reception on earth and in heaven. As common—and in some ways attractive—as this interpretation is (RSV, Kelly, Bernard, D-C, et al.), some of the alleged parallels seem forced and probably would never have been seen as such if it were not for the flesh-spirit pair in lines 1 and 2. Moreover, the words “in glory” are highly unusual if line 6 was intended to parallel line 5. In that case the expected phrase would be “in heaven,” which is the only antithesis to “earth” used in the NT.
The bibliography for this passage is extensive. The most complete discussion is in German: W. Stenger, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim. 3, 16. Eine strukturanalytische Untersuchung. The most useful recent discussion in English is R. H. Gundry, “The Form, Meaning, and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16.”
