1 and 2 Timothy and Titus—To Guard the Deposit (Preaching the Word | PtW)
Digital Logos Edition
Logos Editions are fully connected to your library and Bible study tools.
Overview
There are substantial reasons to be energized by the prospect of studying the Pastoral letters of Paul. Between them they teach the proper ordering of the church (1 Timothy), present a developed challenge to all who call themselves disciples of Christ (2 Timothy), and suggest God’s plan and priorities for mature ministry (Titus)—all so that the Lord may be most glorified. Authors R. Kent Hughes and Bryan Chapell skillfully guide the reader through these New Testament gems with clear and insightful commentary.
Whether you are corporately or privately concerned about the church's--or every Christian's--role and responsibility to communicate the truth of the gospel in this diverse and pluralistic society, the Pastorals offer great perspective. They remind us that, like Timothy, we are to guard what has been entrusted to our care. To fight the good fight. And to keep preaching the Word.
A well-ordered church, a clearly called and mature leadership with its priorities straight, and a body of believers committed to living a godly life in Christ are key to people being saved and coming to the knowledge of the truth. Through the apostle's words and the commentators' insights here, we gain an understanding of what God requires of those who would lead in the local church, as well as those who would be led. Embracing grace, loving godliness, and sharing Christ were not just charges to the early believers, and are not solely the responsibility of pastors, deacons, and elders in the church. They are exhortations for any of us who call ourselves disciples of Christ today.
Top Highlights
“There is such balanced wisdom for Timothy (and for all who would be men and women of God) in these four imperatives. He is to flee sin. At the same time he is to follow or pursue holiness. While doing these he also fights the good fight of the faith, fastened with all he has to eternal life.” (Page 155)
“The overarching purpose of the book is to teach the proper ordering and conduct of the church, as Paul so clearly states it to Timothy: ‘Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth’ (3:14, 15).” (Pages 16–17)
“Correction (showing your people where they are wrong) and rebuke (telling them to stop)9 require that you not be a people pleaser or popularity seeker—and certainly not a flatterer.” (Page 246)
“But when it comes to spiritual matters, we hesitate. Discipline sounds so much like legalism. But such thinking is mistaken. Legalism is self-centered, but discipline is God-centered. The legalistic heart says, ‘I will do this thing to gain merit with God.’ The disciplined heart says, ‘I will do this thing because I love God and want to please him.’ Paul knew this difference well, and he never gave an inch to legalists, even while challenging Christians to ‘train yourself to be godly.’” (Page 108)
“This divine desire informed and drove Paul to engage in a worldwide mission. It is not our responsibility or capability to solve the puzzle of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. It is our task to preach the gospel universally—to every tongue and people regardless of class or rank. It is our mission to proclaim what God wants us to proclaim. Lifesaving was Paul’s business—and it is ours.” (Page 61)
Product Details
- Title: 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: To Guard the Deposit
- Authors: R. Kent Hughes and Bryan Chapell
- Publisher: Crossway Books
- Publication Date: 2000
- Pages: 415
Reviews
5 ratings
Dino
8/11/2024
(continued) If we go beyond just 1 Tim 2:11-15, here's what Andrew Bartlett writes about the majority view of the church: The traditional majority Christian view was robustly patriarchal. Women were inferior to men, both in rank and in nature. Men were the leaders in all spheres of life. As compared with men, women were regarded as inherently defective, being less intelligent, more prone to sin and unfit for the kinds of leadership which men were able to provide. They were not in God’s image in the same full sense as men. Some teachers believed that this was the way God originally created them, while others understood women’s defective nature to be a result of the fall. The traditional majority view is found in the writings of Christian teachers through the centuries, including some of the faith’s best-known luminaries such as Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin: Clement of Alexandria (about 190): The mark of the man, the beard, by which he is seen to be a man, is older than Eve, and is the token of the superior nature. (The Instructor 3.3) Augustine of Hippo (about 418): The woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman is joined with him in one. (The Trinity 12.7) That a man endowed with a spiritual mind could have believed this [the lie of the serpent] is astonishing. And just because it is impossible to believe it, woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by the superior reason. (Literal Commentary on Genesis 11.42) Albertus Magnus (about 1258): For a woman is a flawed male and, in comparison to the male, has the nature of defect and privation, and this is why naturally she mistrusts herself. And this is why whatever she cannot acquire on her own she strives to acquire through mendacity and diabolical deceptions. Therefore, to speak briefly, one must be as mistrustful of every woman as of a venomous serpent and a horned devil. . . . the female is more prudent, that is, cleverer, than the male with respect to evil and perverse deeds. . . . In this way, the woman falls short in intellectual operations, which consist in the apprehension of the good and in knowledge of truth and flight from evil. . . . sense moves the female to every evil, just as intellect moves a man to every good. (Questions concerning Aristotle’s On Animals, Book 15, Question 11: Whether the male is better suited for proper behaviour [mores] than the female) Thomas Aquinas (1273): As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten . . . (Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 92, Article 1, Reply to Objection 1) Woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. (Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 92, Article 1, Reply to Objection 2) Martin Luther (1535): The woman, although she was a most beautiful work of God, nevertheless was not the equal of the male in glory and prestige . . . this sex . . . is inferior to the male sex. (Lectures on Genesis 1 – 5, Gen. 1:27) John Calvin (1548): There is no absurdity in the same person commanding and likewise obeying, when viewed in different relations. But this does not apply to the case of woman, who by nature (that is, by the ordinary law of God) is formed to obey; for gunaikokratia (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach. (Commentary on Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Tim. 2:12) Now Moses shows that the woman was created afterwards, in order that she might be a kind of appendage to the man; and that she was joined to the man on the express condition, that she should be at hand to render obedience to him. (Genesis 2:21). . . . God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid. (Commentary on Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 Tim. 2:13) Let the woman be satisfied with her state of subjection, and not take it amiss that she is made inferior to the more distinguished sex. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11:12) Unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 1 Cor. 14:34) Richard Hooker (1597): [T]hings equal in every respect are never willingly directed one by another: woman therefore was even in her first estate framed by Nature, not only after in time, but inferior in excellency also unto man . . . [I]n ancient times . . . women . . . were in marriage delivered unto their husbands by others. Which custom retained hath still this use, that it putteth women in mind of a duty whereunto the very imbecility of their nature and sex doth bind them; namely to be always directed, guided and ordered by others. (Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity 5.73) Adam Clarke (about 1831): The structure of woman’s body plainly proves that she was never designed for those exertions required in public life. In this the chief part of the natural inferiority of woman is to be sought. (The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes, 1 Tim. 2:13) Charles Hodge (1860): The ground of the obligation [of wife’s obedience] . . . is the eminency of the husband; his superiority in those attributes which enable and entitle him to command. . . . This superiority of the man . . . thus taught in Scripture, founded in nature, and proved by all experience, cannot be denied. . . . (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Eph. 5:23) These views were not uniform. More positive notes were sometimes heard. But these kinds of remarks represented the predominant opinion concerning women. [...] The traditional view was held by the majority of Christians during most of church history. It is now generally recognized as a source of shame that the name of Christ was associated with it. Andrew Bartlett, Men and Women in Christ: Fresh Light from the Biblical Texts (Oxford, England: IVP, 2019).Dino
8/11/2024
(continued) Aquinas on 1 Tim 2:11-15: 79. In regard to the first he mentions three things that are suitable to women, namely, silence, discipline and subjection. These three things proceed from one source, namely, their lack of reason. So he imposes silence on them, when he says: let the woman learn in silence: if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man (Jas 3:2); let women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the Lord says (1 Cor 14:34). For the words of a woman are inflammatory: her conversation burns as fire (Sir 9:11). Second, that they learn, because that is the proper function of one who is weak in intellect: if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home (1 Cor 14:35). However, it is given to men that they teach. Third, he recommends subjection, because it is natural for the soul to rule the body, and reason the lower powers. Therefore, as the Philosopher says, whenever any two things are related as the soul is to the body, and reason to sensuality, it is natural for the one with the greater amount of reason to rule and give orders, and for the other to be subject, since it is lacking in reason: he shall have dominion over you (Gen 3:16). 80. Likewise, he states what things are not permitted to women, saying nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. Consequently, he forbids them to teach. [...] 81. Then when he says, for Adam was formed first, he assigns the reason for what he had taught: first, from the order of creation: second, from the order of sin, at and Adam was not seduced. 82. In regard to the first it should be noted that in the order of things the perfect and the imperfect are differently ordained: because in one and the same individual the imperfect is prior in time, but the perfect is prior in nature, because nature proceeds from the imperfect to the perfect; but in diverse things the perfect is prior in time and in nature, because nature always starts with what is perfect. This is the order according to which we are now speaking, because man is the perfect specimen of human nature, whereas a woman is a man by happenstance. Hence Adam was formed first: the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth (Gen 2:7); then woman was formed as something imperfect originating from something perfect, namely, from a rib: for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man (1 Cor 11:8). That is why man is not said to be formed for the woman, but to the likeness of God: let us make man to our own image and likeness (Gen 1:26). The woman, however, is for the sake of the man; therefore, the man should rule. 83. Second, from the order of sinning. For the orders of coming to be and of ceasing to be are contrary, because that which is first in coming to be is last in ceasing to be. But sin is the ceasing to be of a nature. Therefore, coming to be first begins from Adam, and ceasing to be from the woman. Hence he says, Adam was not seduced, i.e., first, because he was the stronger; but the tempter approached the weaker in order that the stronger be seduced more readily. Here he alludes to Adam’s words in Genesis. For when the Lord rebuked Adam, he said: the woman whom you gave me to be my companion, gave me of the tree and I did eat (Gen 3:12). That is why he says, Adam was not seduced; but the woman. Now seduction is of two kinds: in the abstract and in the concrete object, which is the ignorance of choice. Therefore, whoever sins is seduced by ignorance of choice in regard to a concrete object. But the woman was seduced by ignorance in the abstract, when she believed what the serpent said. But the man did not believe this, but was deceived in the concrete; and having never experienced the severity of God, believed that he would be easily forgiven. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Letters of Saint Paul to the Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, trans. Fabian R. Larcher, vol. 40, Latin/English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas: Latin Text (Steubenville, OH; Green Bay, WI: Emmaus Academic; Aquinas Institute, 2018), 273–275.Dino
8/11/2024
To illustrate what I said in my previous post, here is how some influential Christians in the early church have understood 1 Tim 2:11-15. This is probably not what Hughes teaches. Ambrosiaster (earliest complete Latin commentary on the whole Pauline corpus): Paul puts the man ahead of the woman because he was created first and therefore the woman is inferior, since she was created after the man and out of him. He also adds something else, which is that the devil did not seduce the man but the woman, and the man was deceived through her. For this reason no independence is to be allowed to her, but she must be humble, because it was through her that death came into the world. Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians–Philemon, ed. Thomas C. Oden and Gerald L. Bray, trans. Gerald L. Bray, Ancient Christian Texts (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2009), 126. Augustine: "This Lucifer, striving to insinuate his sly seductions into the minds of man whose fidelity he envied, since he himself had fallen, chose for his spokesman a serpent in the terrestrial Paradise, where all the animals of earth were living in harmless subjection to Adam and Eve. It was suited for the task because it was a slimy and slippery beast that could slither and twist on its tortuous way. So, subjecting it to his diabolical design by the powerful presence of his angelic nature and misusing it as his instrument, he, at first, parleyed cunningly with the woman as with the weaker part of that human society, hoping gradually to gain the whole. He assumed that a man is less gullible and can be more easily tricked into following a bad example than into making a mistake himself. Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, Books VIII–XVI, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Gerald G. Walsh and Grace Monahan, vol. 14, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1952), 377. Chrysostom: GREAT modesty and great propriety does the blessed Paul require of women, and that not only with respect to their dress and appearance: he proceeds even to regulate their speech. And what says he? “Let the woman learn in silence”; that is, let her not speak at all in the church; which rule he has also given in his Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, “It is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor. 14:35); and the reason is, that the law has made them subject to men. And again elsewhere, “And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home.” (Ibid.) Then indeed the women, from such teaching, kept silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamor and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place. They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them? To such a degree should women be silent, that they are not allowed to speak not only about worldly matters, but not even about spiritual things, in the church. This is order, this is modesty, this will adorn her more than any garments. Thus clothed, she will be able to offer her prayers in the manner most becoming. “But I suffer not a woman to teach.” “I do not suffer,” he says. What place has this command here? The fittest. He was speaking of quietness, of propriety, of modesty, so having said that he wished them not to speak in the church, to cut off all occasion of conversation, he says, let them not teach, but occupy the station of learners. For thus they will show submission by their silence. For the sex is naturally somewhat talkative: and for this reason he restrains them on all sides. “For Adam,” says he, “was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” If it be asked, what has this to do with women of the present day? it shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” (1 Cor. 11:9.) Why then does he say this? He wishes the man to have the preeminence in every way; both for the reason given above, he means, let him have precedence, and on account of what occurred afterwards. For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband.” (Gen. 3:16.) This had not been said to her before. [...] The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. For he says not Eve, but “the woman,” which is the common name of the whole sex, not her proper name. John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. James Tweed and Philip Schaff, vol. 13, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 435–436.Dino
8/11/2024
Here's a quote from the sample that Logos provides for the book ("See Inside"): "It is also crucial that we understand that the historic interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11–15 has been the majority view of the church at large for most of the last 2,000 years. Bob Yarbrough, Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, surveyed the scholarly articles in the standard bibliographical reference tool New Testament Abstracts and noted that it was only in 1969 that the progressive, revisionist view began to appear in the literature of the academy. But then in the period between 1969 and now a flood of articles appeared. He concludes that the rise in the progressive interpretation’s promotion following the women’s movement of the 1960s is “indebted significantly, and at times probably culpably, to the prevailing social climate rather than to the Biblical text.”1 Similarly, Harold O. J. Brown observes, “When opinions and convictions suddenly undergo dramatic alteration, although nothing new has been discovered and the only thing that has dramatically changed is the spirit of the age, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that that spirit has had an important role to play in the shift.”2 Understanding then that the popularity of the progressive interpretation of the last thirty years found its impetus in secular culture, and that the interpretation runs contrary to the prevailing interpretation of the preceding 1,970 years (some sixty-odd generations), the burden of proof certainly rests upon the progressive revisionists!" I think this displays a mind-boggling lack of self-awareness in terms of distinguishing between the author's own religious beliefs, "the majority view of the church at large for most of the last 2,000 years" and the authority of Scripture. It's highly problematic for several reasons. First, Hughes seems to take it for granted that his views represent the historic Christian position. In reality, neither modern complementarianism or modern egalitarianism represent the majority view of historic Christianity. Second, this is perfectly fine. It has always been the task of theology to address the questions of the time. Addressing new questions may make it necessary to re-examine the biblical evidence. Third, constantly going back to the biblical evidence is also necessary if you regard Scripture (rather than some interpretation of it) as the ultimate authority. Otherwise, Scripture just serves as a handmaid to a particular religious tradition. For those reasons, Hughes' position strikes me as inadequate in terms in terms of scholarly diligence, intellectual rigor and humility of attitude when it comes to interpreting Holy Scripture. And I hope it won't encourage the same kind of lazy hubris in others.
Vivek John
1/4/2021
Dr. Bradford Reaves
12/23/2020
John Garrett Conner
10/24/2013
Dane Carr
8/13/2013
