Bishops/Elder/Pastors required to be married?

[D-D-W]

what St. Paul is telling the young St. Timothy is that those clergy who are married MUST BE THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, i.e., they cannot be divorced and remarried,

You are adding the phrase in red. That is no where in the text. GET rid of it.

 

[Walpole]

Not so. It was for local elders and deacons; not those with trans-local ministries.

Church tradition made up after the fact.

Au Contraire mon Captitan.

The average age of marriage in Judea during the late 2nd temple period was this:

• become arranged by both sets of parents about age 8 or 9.
• negotiate and sign the Ketubah - marriage contract age 12-13 At this point the couple is betrothed but not fully married - like Joseph and Mary.
• about a year later the marriage is consummated. Age 13-14

Here is the world's foremost expert on marriage in ancient Judaism, Brown University's Michael Satlow ---> http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7075.html

"There is much data, supplied incidentally, that suggests that Jews in Palestine and the Western Diaspora married at higher ages than the sources surveyed above might like. Despite the Palestinian prescriptions for men to marry by the age of twenty, these other sources suggest that thirty was a more usual age for men to marry. The book of Jubilees consistently portrays the biblical patriarchs as marrying relatively late, even when not compelled to do so by the biblical account. Abram is 49 when he marries Sarai, and Jacob is 76 when he marries Leah. In their respective Testaments, Levi is said to have married "young," that is, at 28, and Issachar at 30. Josephus himself apparently married for the first time when he was around 30. Philo thinks that the proper age of marriage is between 28 and 35, and for support appeals to a fragment attributed to Solon. The epigraphical record is small and ambiguous, but it does not testify to any early male marriage among Jews in Palestine. There is no evidence that Jewish men who lived in the Greek and Roman worlds regularly married for the first time before their mid-to-late twenties." (Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, pages 105, 106)

 

[Tenchi]

But if you are arguing St. Paul stated marriage is a requirement for ministry, he would preclude himself from that ministry, as he was celibate. He would be contradicting his own teaching.

Only if he had operated in the role of an Elder, which he didn't. He was a missionary/evangelist and a founding Apostle of the Early Church but he had no personal, long-term, direct oversight of any particular church, as an Elder typically would have. Yes, he wrote letters to various churches, giving direction and correction to them, even visiting some of them for periods of time, but Paul didn't confine himself to a single church community, serving it more or less exclusively and personally, as an Elder would do.

As a founding Apostle of the Early Church, Paul occupied a very unusual and rare role that was distinct from, and above, the office of an Elder/Bishop/Overseer/Pastor, invested with supernatural power, traveling around the Mediterranean Sea creating church communities, forming and elaborating Christian doctrines, and finally giving his life for the sake of Christ. Some of what Paul did in his role as a founding Apostle overlapped with the work of an Elder, but this by no means makes it possible to say he was actually an Elder. His own stipulations for being an Elder forbid doing so, which is why I think Paul only associated himself with the role of an Apostle in his various letters, never that of an Elder.

We know from history (Polycrates) that St. Timothy was not married, along with the Biblical text and tradition that followed.

The biblical text is entirely silent on whether or not Timothy married or remained a bachelor and ancient tradition is not something in which I put much stock. Polycrates was Bishop of Ephesus a century after Timothy and his remarks concerning Timothy are very scant, at best, offering nothing like a thorough biography of Timothy's life. In fact, much of what Polycrates wrote comes to us secondhand through ancient historians like Eusebius, Jerome and Apollinaris, none of whom were contemporary with him. So, then, Polycrates is far from a good source for dogmatic statements about Timothy's life.

Men of youth did not marry in Jewish antiquity. Furthermore, there is no tradition in the history of Christianity where the ordained then get married.

??? This may be the case within Roman Catholicism but not in the Church of God, universal and eternal, which encompasses a community far larger than that over which the Pope maintains aegis.

This is still the case with the Church’s married clergy today. The youthful St. Timothy, like the man who ordained him (St. Paul), was celibate.

I don't establish norms for Christian conduct and belief on the basis of the practices and edicts of the Church of Rome. The apostle Paul indicates to me in Scripture what is to be the standard for qualifying as an Elder and celibacy is in bald-faced contradiction to that standard.

1 Timothy 3:1-7
1 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task.
2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,
5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?
6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5-9
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—
6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
7 For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
8 but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.
9 He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

At least as far as I'm concerned, no amount of Church history, no degree of common practice among ancient professing Christians, or in ancient Jewish culture, can negate the plain declaration of Scripture. What Christians may or may not do is not what guides me but what God's word says. And it says, plain as day, that Elders are to be husbands and fathers who rule their households well.

Well we have the example of St. Paul, who again was celibate.

But who never identified himself as an Elder and whose celibacy and missionary work prevented him from ever properly serving as an Elder. Paul, then, does not serve as ground for denying his own plain statement in Scripture concerning the qualifications of an Elder.

Then we have the example of our Blessed Lord Himself, who is the model of what a shepherd should be and He of course was also celibate.

??? Jesus was not an Elder and so, like Paul, never identified himself as such. He was far, far, far more than a mere church Elder and came to earth in order to do a work that no mere man could do. As the God-Man, Jesus occupies a category none of us do, and so trying to extrapolate from his unique, singular life in an effort to deny the plain statement of God's word is a non-starter, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, it seems vaguely blasphemous to me to use Jesus to such an end.

The Apostolic Fathers testify to the Church's practice once it was handed on to them from the Apostles.

Nope. There were no Apostles of the Peter, or Paul, or John, or James sort after their decease. The R.C. heresy of apostolic succession by which the Church of Rome has maneuvered into highly-illegitimate authority over fellow Christians has no solid ground in Scripture, as far as I'm concerned.

Celibacy was the practice of the vast majority of the Apostolic Fathers. Married clergy was merely a concession, since the faith's first adherents were already married. Furthermore, those clergy who were married in the ancient Church were expected to practice clerical continence. (cf. Council of Nicea, Canon 3)

None of this comes anywhere close to trumping the plain declaration of God's word. The word of God is crystal clear about the qualification for the role of Elder including marriage and parenthood. There is nothing that you have offered that can dissolve what Paul wrote plainly and repeatedly on this head.

The "Church Fathers" were just humans, as all their fellow believers were, and are, prone to misunderstanding and error like the rest of humanity, and this is well-demonstrated, it seems to me, in the practice of celibacy by those of them who occupied the role of an Elder. Rather than providing ground for flaunting Paul's standard, they appear to me to be examples of early migration of ancient Christians away from the plain statement of God's word. Being a "Church Father" did not confer immunity from error upon those who were, you know, as their frequent and sometimes very aggressive bickering and politicking demonstrates.

 

[Walpole]

The requirements are for local congregational leaders: elders/shepherds and deacons/servants. NOT for apostles. Besides, to have been a student of Gamaliel Paul/Saul would have had to have been married at that point.

Paul said he was celibate. (1 Cor 7:7)

Furthermore, celibacy was a practice in ancient Judaism. See the Essenes.

Do you have proof (chapter and verse) that Timothy was NOT MARRIED?

Trying to make an exception to what the text plainly says is improper eisegesis.

We know from history (Polycrates) that St. Timothy was not married, along with the Biblical text and tradition that followed.

"Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Tim 4:12)

Again, men of youth did not marry in Jewish antiquity. Furthermore, there is no tradition in the history of Christianity where the ordained then get married. Rather, any married clergy in antiquity were already married prior to receiving ordination. This is still the case with the Church’s married clergy today. The youthful St. Timothy, like the man who ordained him (St. Paul), was celibate.

We know from history that St. Timothy would became the bishop of Ephesus. (1 Tim 1:3) Christianity's first historian records this for us...

"Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete." - Eusebius, Church History, Book III, Ch. 4:6

In addition, we have the example of our Blessed Lord Himself, who is the model of what a shepherd should be and He of course was also celibate. The Apostolic Fathers testify to the Church's practice once it was handed on to them from the Apostles. Celibacy was the practice of the vast majority of the Apostolic Fathers. Married clergy was merely a concession, since the faith's first adherents were already married. Furthermore, those clergy who were married in the ancient Church were expected to practice clerical continence. (cf. Council of Nicea, Canon 3)

 

[Hopeful 2]

Because while he was chosen be God and appointed by Paul, your own flawed understanding out of context disqualified him.

Appointed to the bishop's position by Paul ?
Is that the same Paul who laid out the requirements for being a bishop ?
You have jumped to a false conclusion.

 

[D-D-W]

Paul said he was celibate. (1 Cor 7:7)

He was at the time he wrote that. As a student of Gamaliel (house of Hillel) he was required to be married to a daughter of a graduate of the house of Shammai (the other great school of Pharisees) So either he was widowed or divorced prior to his going on his missionary journeys. Since the Pharisees that gave our Lord the most trouble seemed to be from the Shammai school, it is likely he was divorced as soon as he came to faith in Jesus.

Furthermore, celibacy was a practice in ancient Judaism. See the Essenes.

The Essenes were considered heretics by both the Pharisees and the Sadducees (temple priesthood)

We know from history (Polycrates) that St. Timothy was not married, along with the Biblical text and tradition that followed.

"Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Tim 4:12)

Suspect, since that was written a hundred years later, and AFTER the failed Bar Kochba revolt where the gentile church did everything to make it look different from Judaism to avoid Roman persecution.

 

[D-D-W]

Here is the world's foremost expert on marriage in ancient Judaism, Brown University's Michael Satlow ---> http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7075.html

"There is much data, supplied incidentally, that suggests that Jews in Palestine and the Western Diaspora married at higher ages than the sources surveyed above might like. Despite the Palestinian prescriptions for men to marry by the age of twenty, these other sources suggest that thirty was a more usual age for men to marry. The book of Jubilees consistently portrays the biblical patriarchs as marrying relatively late, even when not compelled to do so by the biblical account. Abram is 49 when he marries Sarai, and Jacob is 76 when he marries Leah. In their respective Testaments, Levi is said to have married "young," that is, at 28, and Issachar at 30. Josephus himself apparently married for the first time when he was around 30. Philo thinks that the proper age of marriage is between 28 and 35, and for support appeals to a fragment attributed to Solon. The epigraphical record is small and ambiguous, but it does not testify to any early male marriage among Jews in Palestine. There is no evidence that Jewish men who lived in the Greek and Roman worlds regularly married for the first time before their mid-to-late twenties." (Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, pages 105, 106)

That is nonsense. What do the Jews say? Why do modern Christians have to be the experts on what a different people group was doing 2000 years ago? My sources are from the Jewish writings including hundreds of extant marriage contracts from the late 2nd Temple period, (100 bc-70ad) and the Mishnah and Talmuds. (200-500 ad)

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Appointed to the bishop's position by Paul ?
Is that the same Paul who laid out the requirements for being a bishop ?
You have jumped to a false conclusion.

You’re denying God’s word which plainly stated that Timothy was put in charge of the Ephesian church, 1 Tim. 1:3. If that doesn’t make him a bishop, and those qualifications only apply to bishops, ok, then none of those qualification matters, because no church leader officially addresses themselves as “bishop”. When’s the last time you met a “bishop”? Have you heard of any preacher, reverend, pastor, priest or any kind of Bible teacher who introduces themselves as Bishop this or that? No? Then Timothy was one, despite your disapproval and denial.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

At least as far as I'm concerned, no amount of Church history, no degree of common practice among ancient professing Christians, or in ancient Jewish culture, can negate the plain declaration of Scripture. What Christians may or may not do is not what guides me but what God's word says. And it says, plain as day, that Elders are to be husbands and fathers who rule their households well.

As far as I'm concerned, God's word is divine, consistend and eternal, never, ever contradicts itself, and yet you make it appear so with your unintelligent, presumptuous reading out of context. In this very same chapter, Paul gave the same "husband and father requirement" to DEACONS, but in Romans, the same apostle Paul addressed sister Phoebe from Cenchrea, the messenger who carried the book of Romans to the Roman church at the time, as a deacon, and ordered the Roman church to assist her. So what does that maker her, hmmm? A transgender lesbian who assumed the pronoun he/him? 'Cause that's the only logical conclusion according to your (mis)interpretation. Why was her not only a deacon, but also entrusted to carry the book of Romans, the foundational theological masterpiece? And I know what you're thinking, some translations may have rendered her a "servant", but the original Greek word was the same - diakanos, so don't bother play word games.

A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 3:12-13)
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me. (Rom. 16:1-2).

 

[Hopeful 2]

You’re denying God’s word which plainly stated that Timothy was put in charge of the Ephesian church, 1 Tim. 1:3. If that doesn’t make him a bishop, and those qualifications only apply to bishops, ok, then none of those qualification matters, because no church leader officially addresses themselves as “bishop”. When’s the last time you met a “bishop”? Have you heard of any preacher, reverend, pastor, priest or any kind of Bible teacher who introduces themselves as Bishop this or that? No? Then Timothy was one, despite your disapproval and denial.

The 1 Tim scripture reads as follows..."As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do."
I see no ordination of a bishop in those words.
In fact, if Timothy was the bishop at Ephesus, why did Paul have to tell him to do what he should have already been doing ?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I see no ordination of a bishop in those words.
In fact, if Timothy was the bishop at Ephesus, why did Paul have to tell him to do what he should have already been doing ?

Paul did put Timothy in charge, that qualifies him as Ephesus's local church leader. Then it's up to you to decide whether that list of qualifications apply to church leaders of any title or only "bishop", it's just a word game.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Paul did put Timothy in charge, that qualifies him as Ephesus's local church leader. Then it's up to you to decide whether that list of qualifications apply to church leaders of any title or only "bishop", it's just a word game.

The word for a church leader is bishop, which I consider a pastor.
Others went from church to church with teachings similar to Timothy's, like Apollos.
Do you also consider Apollos a bishop ?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The word for a church leader is bishop, which I consider a pastor.
Others went from church to church with teachings similar to Timothy's, like Apollos.
Do you also consider Apollos a bishop ?

Then show me evidence that Timothy was married with kids. Show me. All scriptural and historical records imply that he was single, in the bible he was a young man whom Paul called a son of faith. Since Paul appointed him a church leader according to 1 Tim. 1:3, a church leader is a bishop according to you, and a bishop must be "husband and father" according to you and Tenchi, then Timothy must be "husband and father" in your logic. Where's the evidence?

 

[Grailhunter]

Here is the world's foremost expert on marriage in ancient Judaism, Brown University's Michael Satlow ---> http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7075.html

"There is much data, supplied incidentally, that suggests that Jews in Palestine and the Western Diaspora married at higher ages than the sources surveyed above might like. Despite the Palestinian prescriptions for men to marry by the age of twenty, these other sources suggest that thirty was a more usual age for men to marry. The book of Jubilees consistently portrays the biblical patriarchs as marrying relatively late, even when not compelled to do so by the biblical account. Abram is 49 when he marries Sarai, and Jacob is 76 when he marries Leah. In their respective Testaments, Levi is said to have married "young," that is, at 28, and Issachar at 30. Josephus himself apparently married for the first time when he was around 30. Philo thinks that the proper age of marriage is between 28 and 35, and for support appeals to a fragment attributed to Solon. The epigraphical record is small and ambiguous, but it does not testify to any early male marriage among Jews in Palestine. There is no evidence that Jewish men who lived in the Greek and Roman worlds regularly married for the first time before their mid-to-late twenties." (Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity, pages 105, 106)

Good post….
To set it straight from the beginning there is no requirement for a preacher or pastor to be married. But as usual it is not that simple.

Taking it from the beginning…There is no Mosaic Law that says that a man had to be married by a certain age. We can look at Judaism in the Old and New Testament and modern Judaism. Nor are you going to find a requirement by age or if a Rabbi or High Priest must be married. But when you are play detective in history ….. you have to look at what is and what is not.

So on the other hand find an unmarried Rabbi or High Priest in the Bible or history or today. Don’t hold your breath. The exception would be a widower. I am not saying that there are zero unmarried Rabbis or High Priests, I am saying don’t hold your breath because the odds are against you finding an unmarried Rabbi or High Priest. So why is this?
There are a couple reasons….

During the biblical period and up to the 20th century it is accurate to say that the Israelites / Jews were homophobic. And the Mosaic Law required their execution. So in their communities a man that did not show interest in females or was not married by 20 years of age would be considered a homosexual and in a Jewish community there is no up side to this. He would basically be shunned. And there would be no chance of him being a Jewish religious leader ….This brings up the question of why the Jews where talking to Yeshua and the Apostles about religion? The Bible gives no answers to this and scholars have no answer to that question either.

And the fact is if a man reached an age of 30 years old and did not show interest in females and or was not married, he would be labeled a homosexual and he and his family would be disgraced. So the question of an unmarried 30 year old man being a Rabbi or High Priest is out of question and no historical example.

Now as far as Christian priests, pastors, and preachers, it is more or less the same. Homosexually is also a serious sin in Christianity. So Christians are not going to want their priests, pastors, and preachers to be homosexual….not even the question of IF. So marriage is preferred on that merit. Even if it is not 100% proof.

As it is most pastors and preachers are married and most congregations would prefer that. A pastor or preacher that dates is almost a scandal or a potential scandal. People are going to watch them like a hawk and there would always be the question of if he was having sex and then no matter what there would be gossip. Who would want to have to deal with that in their church? Not right and not fair, but that is not the point.

But still there is no requirement for a pastor or preacher to be married.

 

[D-D-W]

The word for a church leader is bishop, which I consider a pastor.
Others went from church to church with teachings similar to Timothy's, like Apollos.
Do you also consider Apollos a bishop ?

Apollos was an apostle.

Acts 14:14

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out

 

[Tenchi]

As far as I'm concerned, God's word is divine, consistend and eternal, never, ever contradicts itself, and yet you make it appear so with your unintelligent, presumptuous reading out of context.

You must be bored...

In this very same chapter, Paul gave the same "husband and father requirement" to DEACONS, but in Romans, the same apostle Paul addressed sister Phoebe from Cenchrea, the messenger who carried the book of Romans to the Roman church at the time, as a deacon, and ordered the Roman church to assist her. So what does that maker her, hmmm? A transgender lesbian who assumed the pronoun he/him? 'Cause that's the only logical conclusion according to your (mis)interpretation. Why was her not only a deacon, but also entrusted to carry the book of Romans, the foundational theological masterpiece? And I know what you're thinking, some translations may have rendered her a "servant", but the original Greek word was the same - diakanos, so don't bother play word games.

*Sigh* So defensive. When I was a training in the martial arts, there was a common saying: "The empty barrel makes the most noise." When I read your...aggressive, strident posts, this saying comes to mind.

Phoebe is not called a deacon in any of the translations I use in Bible study, only a servant. In the KJV, NKJV, Wycliffe Bible, CSB, NASB, and ESV for example, she is described only as a servant, not a deacon. This corresponds well to those places in Scripture that explicitly reserve the official role of deacon for men who are husbands and fathers. More modern Bible translations that refer to Phoebe as a "deacon" do so, I think, in order to pander to trends of thought in contemporary secular culture (e.g. feminism), not with a view to maintaining scriptural cohesiveness.

This isn't a "word game," as you'd like to make it (which is just projection on your part, trying to discount the very thing you're doing), but the simple fact of the matter. To call Phoebe a deacon in the official sense that Paul described to Timothy is to contradict Paul's explicit qualifications for a deacon. To refer to her as a servant, which the term diakonos permits, synthesizes far better with these qualifications.

Anyway, is the role of a deacon, which is to say servant ( Gk. - diakonos: one who runs errands, or attends upon others) of the church community, basically the same as the role of an Elder? No. Serving is something in which every Christian, new to the faith or not, in some measure is enjoined in Scripture to engage (Matthew 20:27; Mark 9:35; Philippians 2:5-9, etc.). Not every Christian, though, is urged in Scripture to be an overseer or bishop of a local community of believers. This is because the role of an Elder is a much more spiritually-crucial role, requiring great spiritual maturity, knowledge of God's truth, and a long season of fellowship with God. It doesn't work then, I think, to extrapolate from the role of deacon (in which all believers are to take part in a greater or lesser, official or unofficial, way) to the role of Elder as though they were essentially the same sort of role. Relatively few Christian men well-qualify for the role of an Elder, though they may still serve the Church, officially or unofficially, even if they don't.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Then show me evidence that Timothy was married with kids. Show me.

That information was never publicized.

All scriptural and historical records imply that he was single, in the bible he was a young man whom Paul called a son of faith. Since Paul appointed him a church leader according to 1 Tim. 1:3, a church leader is a bishop according to you, and a bishop must be "husband and father" according to you and Tenchi, then Timothy must be "husband and father" in your logic. Where's the evidence?

Paul only told Tim to go and "that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: "
Acts 16:3 tells us that at the start, Paul wanted Timothy to go with him on his missionary journey.
They were together at Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Troas, Neapolis, Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, and Thessalonica, before Paul left him and Silas to go to Athens. (Acts 17)
Tim and Silas rejoined Paul at Corinth. (Acts 18)
In Acts 19:22, Paul sends Tim and Erastus beck to Macedonia.
In Acts 20, Paul returns to Macedonia, and Timotheus, from whence they sail to Asia.
Timotheus isn't mentioned again until he is called a "workfellow|" in Rom 16.
In 1 Cor 16, the Corinthians are warned that Timothy may be sent to them.
Timotheus remained with Paul when Paul wrote 2 Cor. Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonica, and Philemon: and Paul said he would send Timotheus to Philippi. (Phil 2:19)
I say all this to show that Timotheus wasn't a pastor/bishop anywhere along the route.
He was as itinerate as Paul.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Apollos was an apostle.

Acts 14:14

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out

I think you have the words Apollos, and apostle confused.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

You must be bored...



*Sigh* So defensive. When I was a training in the martial arts, there was a common saying: "The empty barrel makes the most noise." When I read your...aggressive, strident posts, this saying comes to mind.

Phoebe is not called a deacon in any of the translations I use in Bible study, only a servant. In the KJV, NKJV, Wycliffe Bible, CSB, NASB, and ESV for example, she is described only as a servant, not a deacon. This corresponds well to those places in Scripture that explicitly reserve the official role of deacon for men who are husbands and fathers. More modern Bible translations that refer to Phoebe as a "deacon" do so, I think, in order to pander to trends of thought in contemporary secular culture (e.g. feminism), not with a view to maintaining scriptural cohesiveness.

This isn't a "word game," as you'd like to make it (which is just projection on your part, trying to discount the very thing you're doing), but the simple fact of the matter. To call Phoebe a deacon in the official sense that Paul described to Timothy is to contradict Paul's explicit qualifications for a deacon. To refer to her as a servant, which the term diakonos permits, synthesizes far better with these qualifications.

Anyway, is the role of a deacon, which is to say servant ( Gk. - diakonos: one who runs errands, or attends upon others) of the church community, basically the same as the role of an Elder? No. Serving is something in which every Christian, new to the faith or not, in some measure is enjoined in Scripture to engage (Matthew 20:27; Mark 9:35; Philippians 2:5-9, etc.). Not every Christian, though, is urged in Scripture to be an overseer or bishop of a local community of believers. This is because the role of an Elder is a much more spiritually-crucial role, requiring great spiritual maturity, knowledge of God's truth, and a long season of fellowship with God. It doesn't work then, I think, to extrapolate from the role of deacon (in which all believers are to take part in a greater or lesser, official or unofficial, way) to the role of Elder as though they were essentially the same sort of role. Relatively few Christian men well-qualify for the role of an Elder, though they may still serve the Church, officially or unofficially, even if they don't.

This is exactly a word game and a translation issue, which I’ve already predicted. The original Greek work in Rom. 16:1-2 was diakanos, from which came the word “deacon”, and Paul entrusted her to carry his message from God. Sister Phoebe may not be an elder, but she was most assuredly a deacon, a leader of the Cenchrean church which Paul acknowledged, he asked the Roman church to assist her. Your argument comes not from the Scripture, but your own confirmation bias, it only shows your contempt against women and single people. If this translation is the result of modern feminism, then call God a feminist, for He made Mary Magdalene to be the first eye witness of his only begotten son’s resurrection, an apostle of apostles.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

That information was never publicized.

Paul only told Tim to go and "that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: "
Acts 16:3 tells us that at the start, Paul wanted Timothy to go with him on his missionary journey.
They were together at Phrygia, Galatia, Mysia, Troas, Neapolis, Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, and Thessalonica, before Paul left him and Silas to go to Athens. (Acts 17)
Tim and Silas rejoined Paul at Corinth. (Acts 18)
In Acts 19:22, Paul sends Tim and Erastus beck to Macedonia.
In Acts 20, Paul returns to Macedonia, and Timotheus, from whence they sail to Asia.
Timotheus isn't mentioned again until he is called a "workfellow|" in Rom 16.
In 1 Cor 16, the Corinthians are warned that Timothy may be sent to them.
Timotheus remained with Paul when Paul wrote 2 Cor. Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonica, and Philemon: and Paul said he would send Timotheus to Philippi. (Phil 2:19)
I say all this to show that Timotheus wasn't a pastor/bishop anywhere along the route.
He was as itinerate as Paul.

Nonetheless, the Scripture is clear, by the time Paul wrote 1 Tim. to Timothy, he was told to remain in Ephesus as an overseer of the local church to watch out false doctrines. In 2 Tim. 4:6-8 Paul bid his farewell, the torch was passed to Timothy, so regardless of where Timothy traveled with Paul before, his journey stopped there. This was corroborated by Jesus’s own remark to the Ephesian church, the Lord personally testified Timothy’s work:

“I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;” (Rev. 2:2)