be impartial, immune to bribery, and capable of discernment.49
The use of citations from the First Letter to Timothy outside the church orders undergoes a significant change after the third century. Authors of the earlier period tend to treat individually each of the positive characteristics that, according to the epistle, recommend a man for the office of episkopos. Snippets of this passage are usually taken out of context, broken up into smaller segments, and reapplied wherever the author sees fit. This is in contrast to later authors, beginning in the late third century, who usually regard 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and the sequence of virtues it contains as an established and immutable list that has to be quoted in its entirety. Moreover, when the earlier writers extract smaller quotations from the original context, they do so to bring home the point that these character traits are expected not just of the episkopos but of every member of the congregation. Later authors continue to postulate the general applicability of these virtues, but they now also relate them specifically to bishops. Over time, the expectations of virtuous conduct of all Christians thus become focused on the person of the bishop as a model of Christian virtues.
In the earlier period, 1 Timothy 3:1–7 is rarely cited anywhere, except the church orders. The tendency at this time to take shorter segments out of context and to apply them in a general sense can be seen in Tertullian’s use of Paul’s demand that the bishop be married only once. Tertullian repeated this injunction of single marriage in his Exhortation to Chastity 50 and On Monogamy.51 In both instances, he explains that the apostle’s advocacy of a single marriage for the priesthood was intended to apply to all the faithful, since all Christians partake of the royal priesthood. Similarly, Tertullian in his On the Soul cites Paul’s introductory phrase “whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episkopen) desires a noble task,” but he does so in a general discussion of concupiscence or desire.52 Tertullian’s Eastern contemporary, Clement of Alexandria, made equally generalized use of Paul’s recommendation that the bishop not be avaricious or litigious. In his On Virginity, he included these words in a general exhortation to virtuous living.53 These authors understand Paul’s words as applying to all Christians, regardless of their rank and status within the community. The episkopos is not singled out, neither because of his exceptional virtues nor by his function nor through his ordination.
Origen, in the late third century, oscillates between the generalizing application of Paul’s passage that had been typical of the earlier period and the assumption that certain men, because they possess the virtues catalogued by Paul, are identified as episkopoi before God. Origen addresses this issue in two passages in his Commentary on Matthew. In the first passage, he explains that those who conform to the virtues set out by Paul for bishops rightfully exercise the power to bind and loose.54 In other words, the possession of virtues precedes and indeed is the precondition for the exercise of penitential authority that is largely the prerogative of bishops. In the second passage, Origen says that Jewish rabbis receive recognition in the eyes of the people because of the external markers of their position, such as the most prominent seat at banquets or in the synagogue. Bishops, by contrast, are recognized in the eyes of God because of their virtues: “For he who has in him the virtues that Paul lists about the bishop, even if he is not a bishop among men, is a bishop before God, even if the [episcopal] rank has not been bestowed on him through the ordination by men.”55 To illustrate his point, Origen invokes the example of the physician and the pilot of a ship. These men retain their skill and ability, even if they lack the opportunity to exercise them. The physician remains a physician even if he has no patients, and the pilot remains a pilot even if he has no ship to navigate. Taken to its logical conclusion, Origen’s reasoning allows that there may be many more “bishops before God” than there are bishops among men. Moreover, it opens the door to the possibility that men who do not qualify as “bishops before God” are nonetheless ordained to the episcopate. This is in tune with Origen’s general tendency to expose the worldliness of the church as an institution. Criticism of this nature would become even more pronounced in the post-Constantinian era.
Origen also seems to be the first author to apply Paul’s catalog of virtues to bishops specifically, although not exclusively. Paul’s advice that the episkopos should enjoy a good reputation, for example, is reiterated by Origen in order to drive home the point that the bishop should be recognized by all as outstanding in every way and that he should thus be a worthy representative of the whole community.56 In his Commentary on the Letter to the Romans, Origen explains that the different ministries of the church must observe the scriptural precepts that apply to them. The bishop will fulfill his ministry, Origen says, by practicing the virtues listed in 1 Timothy 3.57 Origen puts forward a similar view in his Commentary on Matthew where he castigates those who seek the episcopate out of pride and vainglory. Their negative motivation will render them unable to practice the virtues expected of a bishop according to Paul.58 Origen thus seems to regard the possession of virtues listed in Paul’s passage as a touchstone for identifying those who are bishops in the eyes of God.
The Christian literature of the late fourth century and beyond shows a renewed interest in the episcopate. The expansion of the church and Christianity’s new status as religio licita brought with them a more acute awareness of the public image of representatives of the church. Many more authors now demand, as Ignatius had already done two centuries previously, that the bishop be a worthy spokesman of Christianity, and that he act as an exemplar for his communities. These authors support their claims by reference to Paul’s famous passage.59
In his treatise On the Priesthood, which will be discussed in more detail below, John Chrysostom refers to our Pauline passage only twice, first to point out that the bishop should be held in good repute by others, and second to discuss the desire for office.60 Ambrose, himself a prominent bishop in the imperial capital of Milan, insists that priests and bishops should stand out in the community because of their virtuous conduct. In his Letters, he highlights the importance of hospitality and of the single marriage of the higher clergy. The former, he says, is significant because Paul specifically demanded it of bishops,61 the latter because it lends credence to the bishops’ exhortations to widows to avoid remarriage.62
Basil of Caesarea turns to to 1 Timothy 3 in his efforts to maintain a high quality of clergy. He was troubled by the doings of the chorepiskopoi under his jurisdiction, the rampant practice of simony, and the appointment of unworthy candidates. In a stern letter of admonition, he reminds the country bishops that “according to the ancient custom observed in the Churches of God” a detailed examination of the life and conduct used to be undertaken, following the criteria listed in 1 Timothy 3. Basil insists that this kind of scrutiny be applied to all candidates for the clergy, which in this context means priests and deacons.63
Bishops and other clergy, however, were not the only Christian leaders to whom the words of 1 Timothy 3: 1–7 were thought to apply. The same moral qualifications and exemplary conduct were also expected from heads of monastic communities. One of Basil’s Ascetical Discourses stresses that “the one chosen as guide in this state of life [i.e., the monastic community] be such that his life may serve as a model of every virtue to those who look to him, and, as the Apostle says, that he be ‘sober, prudent, of good behaviour, a teacher.’” Basil adds that a potential future abbot should be examined with regard to his spiritual and moral maturity, to make sure that “everything said and done by him may represent a law and a standard for the community.” 64 This is elaborated further in a passage in Basil’s Long Rules that also establishes a direct nexus between personal conduct and authority within a Christian community, again turning to short pieces of Paul’s injunctions.65 Basil’s repeated use of the catalog of virtues from 1 Timothy 3 shows that Paul’s advice was in a more general sense considered to apply to anyone who held a position of leadership among Christians, whether abbot or bishop.
Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles
Paul’s recommendations in his First Letter to Timothy regarding the episkopoi were, as we have just seen, mined by late antique authors for short snippets or for whole sentences to quote. A more comprehensive treatment might be expected from patristic commentaries on the epistle as a whole, but those are few in number. Jerome’s series of commentaries on the Pauline epistles includes one on the