Replies

Apostles and eunuchs are clearly not the standard or norm.

"I wish that you all..." is not the norm?

Well, if you wish to qualify it such, then one could easily say that bishops are not the norm either.

As now proceeding to discourse of the Episcopal office, he sets out with showing what sort of a person a Bishop ought to be. And here he does not do it as in the course of his exhortation to Timothy, but addresses all, and instructs others through him. And what says he? “If a man desire the office of a Bishop,” I do not blame him, for it is a work of protection. If any one has this desire, so that he does not covet the dominion and authority, but wishes to protect the Church, I blame him not. “For he desireth a good work.” Even Moses desired the office, though not the power, and his desire exposed him to that taunt, “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?” (Ac 7,27 Ex 2,14) If any one, then, desire it in this way, let him desire it. For the Episcopate is so called from having the oversight of all.
“A Bishop then,” he says, “must be blameless, the husband of one wife.” This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one. For even the Jews were allowed to contract second marriages, and even to have two wives at one time. For “marriage is honorable,” (He 13,4) Some however say, that this is said that he should be the husband of one wife. “Blameless.” Every virtue is implied in this word; so that if any one be conscious to himself of any sins, he doth not well to desire an office for which his own actions have disqualified him. For such an one ought to be ruled, and not to rule others. For he who bears rule should be brighter than any luminary; his life should be unspotted, so that all should look up to him, and make his life the model of their own. But in employing this exhortation, he had no common object in view. For he too was about to appoint Bishops, (which also he exhorts Titus to do in his Epistle to him,) and as it was probable that many would desire that office, therefore he urges these admonitions. “Vigilant,” he says, that is, circumspect, having a thousand eyes about him, quicksighted, not having the eyes of his mind dimmed. For many things occur which permit not a man to see clearly, to see things as they are. For care and troubles, and a load of business on all sides press upon him. He must therefore be vigilant, not only over his own concerns, but over those of others. He must be well awake, he must be fervent in spirit, and, as it were, breathe fire he must labor and attend upon his duty by day and by night, even more than a general upon his army; he must be careful and concerned for all. “Sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality.” Because these qualities are possessed by most of those who are under their rule, (for in these respects they ought to be equal to those who rule over them,) he, to show what is peculiar to the Bishops, adds, “apt to teach.” For this is not required of him that is ruled, but is most essential to him who has this rule committed to him).
“Not given to wine”: here he does not so much mean intemperate, as insolent and impudent. “No striker”: this too does not mean a striker with the hands. What means then “no striker”? Because there are some who unseasonably smite the consciences of their brethren, it seems to be said with reference to them. “Not greedy of filthy lucre, but patient: not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” If then “he who is married cares for the things of the world” (1Co 7,33), and a Bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say the husband of one wife? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that hath a wife may be as though he had none. (1Co 7,29) For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, so to regulate his conduct. For as riches make it difficult to enter into the kingdom of Heaven, yet rich men have often entered in, so it is with marriage. But why does he say, speaking of a Bishop, that he should be “not given to wine, hospitable,” when he should name greater things? 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, as Christ said. “The good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (Jn 10,11); and again, “He that taketh not his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.” (Mt 10,38) But “not given to wine,” he says; a good prospect indeed, if such are the things of which a Bishop is to be admonished! Why has he not said that he ought to be already raised above the world? But dost thou demand less of the Bishop, than even of those in the world? For to these he saith, “Mortify your members which are upon the earth” (Col 3,5), and “He that is dead, is freed from sin.” (Rm 6,7) “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh”; and Christ again says, “Whosoever forsaketh not all that he hath, he is not worthy of Me.” (Lc 15,33) Why are not these things required by Paul? Plainly because few could be found of such a character, and there was need of many Bishops, that one might preside in every city.

- St. John Crysostom, Homily X (on 1 Timothy)(c. 391 AD)

Have you ever thought about why 1 Tim 3:2 was written in such a strange fashion as it is?

It seems that if St. Paul intended to command bishops to be married, he'd have simply said γαμέω (gameo -- married). It's not a word that St. Paul wasn't familiar with -- he certainly used it enough times in his writings...

Have one wife...could it be that he was specifying that he have one versus two versus three? Rather than mandating that he be married (in which case, he could have used γαμέω rather than having εἷς (one) γυνή (gune -- woman).

But I shouldn't expect more than what I saw in your response. Take a verse, misinterpret it, and then stand it in opposition to several others (blowing them off because they are inconvenient to your hypothesis).