In the two New Testament passages describing qualifications for πρεσβυτέρους (commonly 'elders'), each has a phrase relating to children:
1 Timothy 3:4
τέκνα ἔχοντα ἐν ὑποταγῇ
Children - having - in - submission
Titus 1:6
τέκνα ἔχων πιστά
Children - having - believing
Is there an emphasis here on recipients requiring children in order to be elders, or is it more a matter of any children they do have requiring these secondary attributes?
The answer to this is actually quite simple. Peter regarded himself as an elder of the church (as did presumably, all the other apostles):
1 Peter 5:1-4 - As a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings, and a partaker of the glory to be revealed, I appeal to the elders among you: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is among you, watching over them not out of compulsion, but because it is God’s will; not out of greed, but out of eagerness; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
There are several things to note about this passage:
Thus, Paul's admonition in 1 Tim 3 concerning the qualifications of elders and their wives and children obviously applies only when such are associated with an elder.
Titus 1:6 New International Version (NIV)
An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
1 Timothy 3:4 New International Version (NIV)
He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect
Many of Jesus apostles were not married and did not have children,obviously it is not necessary for an overseer to have children , however if they did have, their children had to be obedient and of full respect.
The entire congregational arrangement, with its apostles, prophets, evangelizers, shepherds, and teachers, served to produce mature Christians, spiritual adults. (Eph 4:11-14; compare Col 1:28, 29; 4:12, 13.) Obviously, then, those serving as shepherds and teachers had to be spiritually mature persons, not babes. However, more than spiritual adulthood was required of one appointed as an overseer or a ministerial servant. (1Ti 3:1-9, 12, 13; Tit 1:5-9) For example, one of the requirements for an overseer was that he be “a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner, having children in subjection with all seriousness.” (1Ti 3:4) Thus, a man could be mature in certain respects from a spiritual viewpoint, and yet, if his children were rebellious and uncontrollable, he would not qualify for the position of overseer.
No, being married with children is not a prerequisite for being a Bishop/Pastor. The position of a Bishop or overseer is held by an elder. Elders are appointed as overseer, Titus 1:5-7. Hence, it is natural that you will find those recruits would be fathers.
Paul also taught that being single is even better, 1 Cor 7:8; and since an overseer is a slave of God, the rule applies to him as well. If an apostle can be unmarried, so can a pastor. There is no indication that he must not be an unmarried old man, as a rule. To think otherwise is to read between the lines. Some Winstons and Winston comments that "Prerequisites for holding church office are intended to be interpreted as indicative not restrictive". The instruction indicates the candidate is masculine & a father; only because it's a general language of general statements. The reason why we exclude females as overseers is only because we have explicit commands and the long history of scriptural tradition about it. In the same way we include the unmarried candidate because we have an explicit instruction that it is good to remain single, for the service of God, being celibate is the ideal, then why would he exclude them as pastors and deacons? We also know some men live as eunuchs or celibate for the Kingdom of God- Matt 19:12, and nothing can exclude them to from the leadership position.
I thought just the name of Paul would be sufficient to answer the question conclusively; if Paul can be a leader of the Church, then any unmarried man. The questioner really assumes there is some hidden characteristic difference in leadership for a missionary than that of a church leader; however the qualification instructions are not exclusive for the leader/overseer, but the same are listed for a servant, deacon; and Paul is way more than leader of just one church, he is a pastor of many, his letters are known as Pastoral letters. There has been a lot of confusion & controversy over this passage, and the hermeneutical insight to clarify it is essential.
In Men and Women in the Ministry for Christ: Hayk Hovhannisyan, 2014, we read,
While I don't support everything from the egalitarian Western writers, which denies gender and gender roles, and reject the commands against women's being pastors, but those arguments are acceptable that explains that Paul's instructions are general statements. The examples of unmarried (church) leaders like John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul & Barnabas leaves no room for any wild myopic interpretation about the qualifications for the Church officials.
Bible org site writes, in this article Essential Qualities of Elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7):
Paul said that the elder must be “the husband of one wife.” There have been many interpretations of this throughout the centuries: Some think it means elders must be married; however, this would disqualify Paul, Timothy, and Jesus. Others believe this forbids the practice of polygamy. Others think it disqualifies a divorced and/or remarried man.
However, most likely, it has nothing to do with one’s marital status at all. It literally can be translated “a one-woman man.” It means, if he is married, he is faithful to his wife. If he is single, he doesn’t flirt with women. He is not a ladies’ man. David Guzik said, “This means that the Biblical leader is not a playboy, an adulterer, a flirt, and does not show romantic or sexual interest in other women, including the depictions or images of women in pornography.
PS: The "must be"(dei) qualities pertains to his being perfect. The requirements for the pastor and deacon includes perfection (beyond criticism, blameless & of pure conscience 1Tim3:2, 9,10); so are we to conclude that those qualities are requirements only for the synagogue/church officials? In other words, are the laity permissible to be drunkard, violent, debauch, double tongued, adulterer, arrogant, slanderers, hot-tempered etc? Absolutely not, because perfection is a command for all believers, all those qualities are must for the whole church. The instructions only state that the officials should be the best among the congregation. The man should be at least relatively best and perfect, if not really mature and perfect in absolute sense. There is a possibility that a new church lacks an absolute perfect man, if the members are few. This proves that the qualifications are indicative rather than restrictive.
Note that two different words are being used somewhat interchangeably: πρεσβύτερος (e.g. Titus 1:5) and ἐπίσκοπος (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:7).
πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) is almost universally translated as elder.
ἐπίσκοπος (episkopos) will sometimes be translated as bishop (e.g. KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV) and sometimes as overseer, especially in translations favored by "non-hierarchical" denominations.
The other office dating to the Apostles was that of διάκονος (diakonos), described further down in 1 Timothy 3:8, instituted in Acts 6:3.
During Paul's time, there seems to have been no distinction between presbyteros and episkopos, as we see in Titus. Not too much later the two would be considered as distinct offices. We see this, for example, in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, who according to tradition was probably a disciple of John the Apostle. (Today in the Greek Orthodox Church - which inherited most of the New Testament churches still in existence - the offices of what get translated in English as "priest", "bishop" and "deacon" retain the terms presbyteros, episkopos and diakonos in Greek.
(The word "priest" in English appears to be no more than a corruption of the Greek presbyter. The same is true of the word "bishop": episkopos -> Old English "biscoep" and "biscop" -> modern "bishop".)
The passage in Titus does not imply that having children was a requirement for a presbyteros/episkopos. The emphasis in Titus in τέκνα ἔχων πιστά and in 1 Timothy in τέκνα ἔχων πιστά is not on the "having" (ἔχων - echōn) but rather on what qualities are expected in the leaders' children should they have them. This is explained by the commentary (in Greek) by the Greek John Chrysostom, here in English translation:
We should observe what care he bestows upon children. For he who cannot be the instructor of his own children, how should he be the Teacher of others? If he cannot keep in order those whom he has had with him from the beginning, whom he has brought up, and over whom he had power both by the laws, and by nature, how will he be able to benefit those without? For if the father had been incompetent, he would have allowed those to become bad whom from the first he had under his power.
The emphasis in both cases is on managing one's household in an orderly fashion not specifically having children. This becomes clear if we place the phrases in context.
He (the bishop) must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:4-5)
Children are presumed to be part of the household, but there is no implication that they are a requirement. They serve he as analogy of the church. A man who cannot manage his children and household well will not be able to manage the church well either.
In Titus, elders are likewise required to raise their children well, but there is no requirement that an elder must have children per se:
[you shall] appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. (Titus 1:5-6)
Authorship issue
A requirement to have children is certainly out of the question if Paul is the author of these letters, since it would be hypocrisy for him to require elders and bishops to hold to a standard he himself did not maintain. However, critics suggest this is not the case. In its Brief Introduction to the New Testament the Oxford University Press says "Most scholars agree that Paul did not write the Pastoral epistles." This complicates the question because it removes the issue of Paul's personal example contradicting his own teaching.
In conclusion it may indeed be the case that the churches in question, now more settled institutions, required their bishops and elders to be family men. However this is not stipulated in the texts, whether Paul wrote the Pastoral Epistles or not.
