In chapter 2, Paul moves into some practical life stuff, answering the ever-present New Testament question: how then shall we live? His urge to Timothy is to constantly be petitioning God on behalf of everyone (yikes, that’s a lot of people), which is to include kings and all those in high positions. Our prayers are agnostic to the political climate around us, power always needs prayer.
But look at the outcome. We do this “…so that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” There’s multiple ways to take this, but I think we can safely assume that praying for everyone will take up plenty of time to keep you out of trouble. It will also always frame those with power around you as someone who you are rooting for (at least spiritually) and keep you from becoming some kind of political hack on one side or the other. Prayer helps maintain right perspective on the world in its fallen state and the fallen people who walk, work and weep within it.
And Paul says this makes God happy, as he desires all to be saved (the praying is the connection here). The footnotes in the ESV make a shallow argument at best for a Reformed view on this passage. The claim is that “…God’s greater desire is to display the full range of his glory which results in election depending upon the freedom of his mercy and not upon human choice.” I fail to see how His glory is not displayed through human choice, and the commentary leaves this undiscussed, it just assumes there is greater glory in humans not having a choice.
Speaking of things unclear, I’m not sure why Paul deems it necessary to assure Timothy he is not lying about being appointed a preacher and an apostle, ultimately a teacher of the Gentiles. I would assume by now that Timothy certainly knows the truth of this. In either case, Gentiles do indeed seem to be Paul’s part in the “all people” who God desires to be saved. The basic description of the good news “…there is one God, and there is one mediator…” seems to represent the type of thing he might say to the Gentiles that stands conversely against other ways Gentile folk may think eternal life or deities may work.
The conversation continues with Paul’s vision of how these groups of “all people” look like in worship to God. Dudes are together, lifting holy hands together and not fighting. Ladies are drawing attention to themselves because of their good works, not their hair or out-of-control-ness. This seems to have been a problem as Paul continues on that ladies are supposed to be quiet while learning and to not teach or exercise authority over any of these dudes lifting holy hands together. This, as you can imagine in today’s culture, is a freakin’ hornets nest.
Things to consider for context. It’s interesting that we don’t generally take “lifting holy hands” as a firm command for the dudes but treat the adornment and silence of the ladies as if it is a firm command. Further, if we don’t over-isolate this particular conversation, it seems to sit within the context of Paul talking about the kinds of things that might happen when these “all people” get together to praise God. The dudes don’t argue and lift hands and the ladies stop dressing like street-walkers and stop interrupting and making a scene. In these perspectives, the context can appear limited to just Paul’s situation (or at least the situation of that era of folk.)
However, his justification for not having ladies teach is significantly more far-reaching. Paul points back to the creation order to establish this who teaches who stuff, and further to Eve’s propensity to deception. I get the first one, the second I have a hard time with (Adam also sinned, failed to protect his wife as well as the situation he was in, and all ladies kind of get sacked for this behavior. Although, if there is a sinful nature, Adam gets tagged with that for all humanity, so there you go.) Either way, the reasoning for not allowing ladies teach certainly reaches beyond that time period and harkens back to a truth that has been around since creation. Further, in chapter 3, the qualifications for elder/pastor are male oriented, which would support something beyond Paul’s context as well.
What do we do with this then? I’m hard-pressed for a firm answer. Although I think the context may allow these distinctions to be non-binding outside of Paul’s world, the justification he gives for the restriction does not. Further, the posturing in the discussion in modern circles presupposes that the declaration, at face value, is not a good one and must be explained away some how. I worry that we miss something that is good, albeit counter to modern culture, while trying to wrestle it into something we are more comfortable with.
That said, Paul often lifts up women who work around him, including Priscilla, whom is listed before her husband Aquila by both Paul and Luke (in Acts) and who is credited with helping to teach Apollos. Here is a point where we should acknowledge that there are faithful people who love Jesus who are working prayerfully through the implications of this passage as it relates to both the modern context and that of its time. Missing a clear conviction on either side, I can only propose grace until then.
This chapter ends with further complication. Paul seems to insinuate that ladies can be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and holiness and self-control. I don’t know man, that last part calls back to the start of the chapter which ties all of what he wrote together as simple, faithful instructions on what we ought to be about as followers of Jesus. That childbearing business throws it for a loop. The best I can discern is that we’re to see childbearing as an example of faithful work that mimics maturity physically the same way remaining faithful and praying for others and such does spiritually. I’m about 20% confident in that explanation, though.