Quite frankly I think your interpretation is a matter of reading something back into the test that didn't exist.
But I would say that your interpretation is a matter of reading into the text something that is not there,something absent that you can only hope was meant,given the societal and religious norms of the day. And further that you assume Christ was advocating a continuance of those norms.
I think the only scriptural argument you and others espousing your position have is the passage about bishops which I believe can be explained as a measure that was taken because the Apostles realized Christ was not going to return as soon as they had expected. At that point they had to assign men to lead the Church,quite possibly they had spent time in the homes of married couples and those males were the men they felt knew what Christ had taught as they,the Apostles,had taught them.The Gospels do not mention any Apostles' wives with the exception of Peter's wife's mother. To me,widowed at 27,makes me think Peter's wife predeceased him.
Jesus was celibate,He told Peter to follow Him,He talks about eunuchs who were thus for the sake of the Kingdom,He tells the young man who seeks to be perfect to go sells his possessions and follow him,He tells them there will be no marriages in Heaven and there are other things he said that argue strongly for celibacy.
Paul,who was also celibate mentions the benefits of celibacy many times,so with the exception of the Bishops being married to one wife and demonstrating the ability to be a good head of the household there is scarcely any biblical support for your position. I really think it has been disregarded by some rites/churches because it is such a "hard" saying.
A strong argument or a preference for celibacy is not the same as MANDATORY celibacy. This is where the Roman Church errs, it cannot claim from the Scripture that celibacy is MANDATORY for all clergy everywhere.
If the Apostle Paul himself says clearly and without reservation that Bishops / Presbyters / Deacons can be married what special knowledge do you possess that allows you to claim otherwise? Do you see any finer print that says "This is just for a short time until we can get a big enough pool of celibates?" Is there any place in the Scripture where Jesus or anyone else says anything to the effect that "all clergy must always and everywhere be celibate?" Is there any passage at all anywhere where God shows special favor to one he has called simply because they are not married?
The simple thruth is that there aren't any passages like this and the Roman Church's practice on this matter is founded in suggestion perhaps and tradtition certainly but it is not and never has been by Apostolic command.
Forgive my rather fervent first response.
One of the basic rules of interpretation of Scripture is that clearer passages interpret obscure ones.
Three passages in First Corinthians, First Timothy, and Titus specifically mention the marriages of apostles or clergy and none prohibit it. Many passages in the Bible affirm the value of marriage as something holy and good and none prohibit it when it is lawful.
One the celibacy side we do see a number of passages where the value of the unmarried life is presented but in none of those cases is it presented as a mandate but rather as a choice. Please look at the texts for yourself and in any language you wish, it won't change.
So the clear reading is simple. Chastity is always valued (and marriage is a form of chastity). Christians themselves may choose to be married or not as they feel God would call them to be. Both ways of life are holy. Both have their challenges and their strengths. These options are open to all Christians regardless of their role in the Church.
One may postulate all they want about the personal lives of the Apostles but none of it will change the simple basic truth that in the New Testament era clergy were allowed to be married. One can trace the historic development of celibacy in the West ad nauseum and those texts will not go away. One can value the gifts and calling of celibate clergy or their church's understanding of these things and still the fact remain stubborn things.
The only ways around those texts involve some very dubious propositions. One must insert facts not in evidence like this was a stop gap measure until celibacy could be established or assume that the Apostles and all clergy even if they were married remained in complete continence all their ministering lives. Or one must play with the Greek to change "wives" to the generic "women" while ignoring the context. Those are big steps to make and the burden of proof lies with those who would over-ride what is very clear in the New Testament, namely that clergy can marry, with these other possibilities.
The Roman Catholic Church understands this and has not made celibacy a dogma but rather a discipline. As such it can change it any time it wishes to through its own structures. Quite frankly, and I am not a Roman Catholic, I think it should because I believe it has missed out on the gifts and calling of many holy men simply because they chose, what the Christian faith has always allowed for all men, namely holy marriage.
A little Greek work here in relation to a prior post you made regarding the words Jesus used for His mother in John and the word used for women in 1 Corinathians 9:5 being the same.
Please forgive me for the crude anglicizing of the Greek words. I do not have the ability to import Greek fonts.
That being said it is as I suspected. The root of both the words is the same but the ending in 1 Corinthians provides more definition. Let me explain.
In John 2:4 Jesus addresses His mother as "woman" and the Greek word there is "gunai" (guh-nai) which Bauer's Lexicon (a standard old work horse in this field) defines as "a woman married or unmarried". In other words Jesus addresses
His mother with the generic term for woman, although it should be noted that it was not a term of scorn.
In the passage in 1 Corinthians 9:5 St. Paul uses a word with the same root but an ending that indicates something further. The word is "gunaika" (gun-nai-kah) which Bauer's Lexicon defines as a married woman, a wife.
There is a further confirmation of this meaning from the Gospels when in Luke 14:20 the reluctant banquet guest attempts to refuse the invitation because he has married a wife (the Greek word here is also gunaika (gun-nai-kah)).
It is clear from the context that he is not saying "I have married a woman." This was not San Francisco, he did not have to explain that his spouse was female.
In Titus St. Paul uses a variation of this word when he describes the wife of a bishop (1:6). St. Paul uses not the generic "yunai" which Jesus used to address His mother, but rather "yunaikos" (gun-nai-kohs). This is the same word he uses in 1 Timothy 3:2. In both cases all translators understand this to mean "wife". I can explain, if you wish the why the endings "ka" and "kos" don't change the meaning of the word but time is limited.
The point is simple. The Greek does not support the idea in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that the Apostles, and the word there is plural, or Peter were traveling with women who were not their wives. The Greek word used by St. Paul is clearly "wife". What St. Paul is saying in this text is that during the time of his service the Apostles who were still alive, including Peter, were engaged in ministry and traveling with their wives while drawing support for the necessities of life from the Church.
Please remember as well that both the Roman and Eastern churches understand that the Apostles were the first Bishops of the Church ordained by Christ Himself. So the record is conclusive. While they were serving as the first Bishops of the Church and engaged in their ministries the Apostles, and Peter himself, were both married and traveled with their wives as they ministered. In addition Paul's mention of this at the time of the writing of this book (roughly AD 50-60) shows that Peter was clearly not a widower at this time shortly before his death and that the wives of the Apostles, although unnamed, were known to the earliest believers.