The characteristics required for the office are now set out. “For the bishop (or overseer) must be blameless (or free from accusation), as God's steward; not self-willed, not passionate, not quarelsome (lit. remaining over wine), not a striker, not a seeker of base lucre; but hospitable, a lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, temperate, holding to the faithful word that is according to the teaching, that he may be able both to encourage with sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers” (ver. 7-9).
It is plain that there would be no force in the reason thus alleged, if “the bishop” and “the elder” were not identical. Titus was to appoint elders in every city as the apostle charged him: “if any man is blameless, &c., for the bishop must be blameless,” &c. Hence the Episcopalian is obliged to give up his idea that the bishop and elders in scripture represent two orders of officials, and driven to look for the prototype of the modern diocesan in such an one as Titus. But the Epistle itself, and other scriptures, refute the supposition of any such permanent functionary, though Titus did appoint elders in Crete.
The elder is expressive of the dignity of the person derived from the respect due to age; not that the elder must needs be an aged man, but one of experience. Thus the title was derived and applied even if there was no great age, where suitability for the position existed. The bishop, or overseer, expresses rather the nature of the office, which was to take account morally of the saints, and to maintain godly order. Oversight in short was the constant duty privately and publicly.
Hence it was a primary requisite that the overseer should himself be blameless, or free from charge against him, as God's steward. He had a governing post, and a moral responsibility therein to God. The apostle in 1 Cor. 4:1 speaks of himself and of his fellow-laborers as “stewards of God's mysteries.” Here we find no mysteries referred to. These were not the sacraments so called, but the new and hitherto secret truths of the New Testament revelation. Yet the elder, or overseer, might not be a teacher; still less did he stand in the higher place of apostle or prophet. Nevertheless he must be “apt to teach,” as we shall see confirmed ere long in this very context, though not possessed of the teacher's distinct gift. But whatever his duty, he must act as God's steward, manifestly identified with the interests of His house. This would give seriousness of purpose, as it supposes moral courage with men and dependence on God and His word.
He must be “not self-willed,” or headstrong. It is the grossest mistake that self-will implies courage, though it may lead to rashness or even recklessness. Nothing gives so much quiet firmness as the consciousness of doing the will of God. One can then be lowly and patient, but uncompromising. Again, he must be “not soon angry” or passionate. Scarce anything enfeebles authority more than proneness to the explosions of anger. The weight of a rebuke, however just it might be, is apt to be lost when a man is overcome with passion. Calmness gives weight and force to a needed rebuke.
The next negation is perhaps a figurative expression; literally it means not abiding long over wine or disorderly through it. Hence it comes generally to mean, “not a brawler.” Even were a Christian free from the suspicion of so evil a source, the easily heated character is unfit to be, and unworthy of being, God's steward. The overseer must be no brawler.
If this refers rather to spirit and words, the next goes further down; he is to be “no striker.” Here there is a still less seemly violence, the one very naturally leading to the other. The overseer must be neither.
There is another characteristic which men in authority are not a little apt to fall into, but it is not to be in an overseer —he must not seek gain by base means, he must not yield to greed of filthy lucre. He who is called to rule before God among the saints must himself watch at least as much against this debasing evil as against those of violence.
How blessed the contrast with all these uncomely traits we see in Christ! And if every Christian is called to be Christ's epistle, how much more are the elders? How could one, known to fail or tamper with any of these things, reprove the failure of others as he ought?
The absence of evil qualities is not enough. The assembly of God is the only sphere on earth for the exercise and display of that which is divine. To steer clear, therefore, of the ordinary snares of men in office never could satisfy the mind of God. The overseer, without a thought of invitation or recompence in return, was called to be hospitable, and we know from other scriptures that this was not to be exercised after the manner of men but according to faith. So in the Epistle to the Hebrews the saints in general were called not to be forgetful of hospitality, for by it some have entertained angels unawares. It was not, therefore on the ground of previous knowledge, or of social equality. Had there been suspicion of a stranger, assuredly it would have excluded all such entertainment. So in faith and love Abraham received into hospitality, not angels only, but the Lord God Himself, in the form of man. Hospitality like this was not to be laid on the shelf, or vainly admired as a patriarchal virtue. Beyond question the overseer was not to be behind the saints in general, but to be given to hospitality. Nor this only, but “a lover of good,” not merely of good men, but of goodness—an important guard in the exercise of much more than hospitality. Self-pleasing might readily enter otherwise; and the indulgence of self ever is the service of Satan. Christ alone shows us truly and fully what good is, and makes it not only attractive but of power for the spirit and the walk. The overseer therefore was to be a “lover of good.”
Further, he was to be discreet or sober-minded. A man might easily carry the love of good into either a sentiment or an enthusiasm; but the Spirit of God gives sobriety. He is “a Spirit of power and of love and of a sound mind.” Thus is everything kept in its true place, because all is seen and weighed in the presence of God.
Hence the overseer was to be “just;” he must rightly estimate the relationship of others and his own: a most important element, not merely in a general way, but especially for one in his place. Nothing would more enfeeble his weight than a failure in righteousness. Yet to be “just” is not enough. It is of course imperative; but there must be more along with it. The overseer must be “pious,” or “holy” in that sense, “ὅσιος:.” It is not separate from evil, but gracious and upright, and is so used particularly of Christ in the Old Testament, as well as in the New. It is that character of piety which appreciates God's mercy, and is itself merciful. This was looked for in an elder, while he and all believers were arm or saints. Further, he was to be “temperate,” an expression much narrowed and so far misapplied in our day. Self-control not in one respect but in all is its real meaning.
These are the moral qualities which the Spirit of God insists on for elders, positively as well as negatively. But there is an addition of great value in verse 9, “Holding to the faithful word according to the teaching, that he may be able both to encourage (or exhort) in sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.”
Here the necessary aptness to teach appears in the peculiar and twofold obligation for which it was required. It might not be formal ministry in the assembly; the work of the elder lay as much, or perhaps even more, with the wants and dangers of individual saints in daily life. Such an one must adhere firmly to the faithful word. Uncertainty in his own perception of it, uncertainty in his handling it for others, would altogether undermine the task laid on him to execute. The elder was not however to act according to his own wisdom; nor did his authority spring from himself, any more than from those that composed the assembly. He was God's steward, and the Holy Ghost made him an overseer, not in a mere flock of his own, “my people,” as men say, “but in the flock of God.” The faithful word, therefore, must be his standard, as well as the source from which he drew whatever material he used; and this not to nourish questions or indulge imagination, “but according to truth and love.” If he was a man in authority, so was he a man under authority. He was God's steward, that God's will might be done and the will of man repressed. God is not the author of confusion but of peace, Who will have all things done decently and in order. Thus the light of the faithful word must guide the elder and indeed the Christian. The teaching he was himself taught can alone determine what that order is; and now it is permanently in scripture. To that faithful word of God, therefore, the overseer must cling, avoiding strange notions as poison. Nor was it for his own guidance only. The elders were to rule, and, as made such by the Holy Spirit, were solemnly responsible to “rule well.” But if such were to be accounted worthy of double honor, it was especially true of those who labored in the word and in teaching (1 Tim. 5:17), as some might if not all.
Now in the conflict of circumstances which would come necessarily before the overseer, there are two wants constantly claiming his care—as well the need to encourage some, as no less the need to reprove gainsayers. Hence says the apostle in this passage, “That he may be able both to exhort (or comfort) with sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.” For both a single eye is needed; but the faithful word is the means or weapon of all moment, sharper than any two-edged sword, which can divide as well as wound. On the overseer would fall this duty from time to time, and the faithful word alone would enable him both to encourage with sound doctrine, and to expose those who sought their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ.