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 Letter to Titus, but not on the First Letter to Timothy. However, his remarks on the passage in Titus 1:5–9 that deals with the moral character of priests draw heavily on the relevant verses of 1 Timothy 3. The catalog of episcopal virtues in both these epistles is eagerly repeated by Jerome, who seizes this opportunity to make pointed jabs against unworthy clergy who indulge in gluttony and excessive drinking, who are given to filthy lucre, who show favoritism in their appointments to the priesthood, and who do not manage to keep their own household in order. The ideal, Jerome insists, is the bishop who embodies all the virtues. The reasoning he gives for the importance of episcopal virtues is not so much, as in the other authors we have encountered, the preaching and teaching authority of the bishop, but rather his penitential and judicial authority, where personal detachment and impartiality are paramount.
Jerome revisits the issue of ascetic virtues among the clergy in his spirited response to Jovinian. Against the latter’s suggestion that the clergy need not excel in their conduct and that chastity is not required of them, Jerome upholds a strict ascetic ideal. He does so by quoting the entire passage of 1 Timothy 3:1–7, implying that it is addressed specifically to bishops who ought to take Paul’s admonition as an incentive to improve themselves: “By being placed in the higher order an opportunity is afforded him [the bishop], if he chose to avail himself of it, for the practice of virtue.”66 Jerome is keenly aware that the ascetic authority of the virtuous man and the pragmatic authority of the ecclesiastical officeholder are two distinct qualities. Only those men whose virtues correspond to their rank in the clergy deserve praise and admiration: “You see then that the blessedness of a bishop, priest or deacon, does not lie in the fact that they are bishops, priests, or deacons, but in their having the virtues which their names and offices imply.”67 Jerome here proves to be an adherent of the idea, first given voice by Clement and Origen, of the “true” bishop in contradistinction to the bishop by ordination. He sums this up elsewhere in the terse statement “Not all bishops are bishops.”68
Jerome’s older contemporary John Chrysostom includes among his exegetical sermons one on 1 Timothy 3. This sermon is remarkable because it combines two unconnected and potentially conflicting strands of thought that we have already identified, without visible concern about inherent contradiction. One the one hand, John Chrysostom emphasizes the need for the bishop, because of his exalted and exposed position, to be a model and an inspiration not only to the Christian community, but also to the pagans, in the hope that this will bring them to conversion. On the other hand, he notes that the virtues required by Paul of bishops, such as hospitality or moderation in wine consumption, are neither particularly demanding nor particularly scarce among Christians. He tackles the issue head-on:
Why said he not that he should be an angel, not subject to human passions? Where are those great qualities of which Christ speaks, which even those under their rule ought to possess? To be crucified to the world, to be always ready to lay down their lives . . . Why are not these things required by Paul? Plainly because few could be found of such character, and there was need for many bishops, that one might preside in every city. But because the churches were to be exposed to attacks, he requires not that superior and highly exalted virtue, but a moderate degree of it; for to be sober, of good behavior, and temperate, were qualities common to many.69
John here couches his acknowledgment of the general applicability of these virtues in the context of the historical narrative of the spread and expansion of the Christian church, a story in which bishops played an instrumental role. He also notes that the episcopate is not an honor, but a function, with reference to the etymology of episkopein, “to be an overseer.” 70 This concession to the realities of ecclesiastical leadership is offset by John’s other writings, most notably his On the Priesthood, discussed below, where he sketches a more lofty picture of the ideal bishop as a high priest.
A very similar approach was taken by Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom’s friend from the time they spent together in Libanius’s classroom and later in a monastery near Antioch. His theological position on the two natures of Christ came under scrutiny during the Three Chapters controversy, with the result that his works were banned as heretical in 553. Like John Chrysostom, Theodore also wrote a treatise titled On the Priesthood, but the text does not survive. However, his exegetical commentary on the Pauline epistles, which includes a treatment of the First Letter to Timothy, invites a comparison of the views of these two friends. Theodore concedes, just like John, that the historical origin of the episcopate lies
