Just for kicks, and to satisfy my probable OCD, I decided to go back to this OP and interact with (read: nit-pick) it in some detail.
Focus Text – I Tim 2:11-14
First of all, it is sneaky and disingenuous to "focus" on this passage as if vv. 8-10 and 15 are not also part of the context.
Many argue that Paul lived in different times and was constrained by his culture
Here I will have to try to read your mind. I *think* what you are saying is --
"Paul lived in a different time and place, and many like to use this as an excuse to dismiss anything unpalatable that he said as being primitive and irrelevant."
If so, that is certainly true of SOME, but it is not the primary approach among egalitarians/mutualists, although "many" so-called complementarians (but more accurately patriarchalists) are unable or unwilling to recognize this.
A better understanding is, "Paul and the other authors of Scripture lived in a different culture. Each author wrote primarily to a particular audience of his own time, with one or a few specific agendas in mind. Paul in particular explicitly directed many of his epistles to specific individuals or churches, dealing with specific issues. Just as the Biblical languages must be properly understood and translated, the cultural background must be properly understood and translated. Only then can we know which instructions can be applied directly today, which should be totally abandoned as irrelevant, and which need to be modified and adapted."
but by going back to Adam and Eve who existed thousands of years before him, Paul wasn't using reasons contemporaneous with his own culture, he was transcending his own culture.
Pulling vv. 11-14 from their context, and ignoring the way Paul uses references to Adam and Eve elsewhere, facilitates the dubious practice of using this reference to universalize the section. However, if we deal properly with the passage as linked to what precedes and what follows, then we have instructions about hairstyles and garments also being universal. Furthermore, we have the command for men to "raise hands" during prayer also universalized -- a practice common among Pentecostals and Charismatics, but otherwise rare today.
And of course we have the obscure 2:15.
This automatically rules out all modern day liberal appeals to local conditions, customs or a context peculiar to Ephesus.
Perhaps Neil would care to explain what he means by, "liberal."
In any case, no honest and competent exegete would so quickly label a particular interpretation "automatic." Even a quick reading of the whole of 1 Tim. shows that from beginning to end it is concerned with various false teachings spreading at Ephesus. Furthermore, we know from Acts that Paul prophesied this would happen. We also know from Acts (as well as external sources) that a major Artemis cult was active in and around Ephesus. If one studies linguistic resources to obtain the best possible translation, one should also consult cultural resources to see if any shed light. It happens that some versions of Artemis worship, especially in Asia Minor, involved teachings and practices that 1 Tim. 2:12-15 would serve neatly to counter.
Paul feels it necessary to explain his admonition against women teaching or being in authority over men by referring to Eve's being DECEIVED in contrast with Adam NOT being deceived.
He also noted that Adam preceded Eve, and that continuing in faith would give women some degree of protection in childbearing. These neatly counter Artemis cult claims that woman preceded man and is his superior, and that Artemis (rather than Christ), as a fertility goddess, blesses child-bearing.
Furthermore Jesus had no problem breaking social conventions where He felt it would be good to do so. He didn't do so in the area of picking a female to be one of his disciples.
Jesus also did not choose any non-Jews, so that's basically a useless example.
In any case, the question of whether or not PAUL or PETER advocated defying "social conventions" is more appropriate to, e.g., a discussion of the "household codes tables."
Paul gave the reason for his admonition against women teaching as Eve having been deceived (I Tim 2:14), although that wasn't the only reason he gave (v 13 was the other). Many can't understand this or think it unfair in light of Adam having deliberately sinned despite not being deceived. Whether they care to admit it or not they flat out think Paul was wrong or illogical.
True, I freely admit that IF God and Paul were using the Adam and Eve reference that way, it would mean that they both were and are imbeciles. It amounts to this:
"Women, like the prototypical Eve, are easily deceived, therefore they are not to teach or be in authority over men, even though men are less easily deceived and could detect the deceit. Women ARE allowed to teach other women, even though those women would inherently not be well equipped to detect deceit.
Meanwhile, men, like the prototypical Adam, are prone to willful, knowing rebellion, followed by cowardly hiding, obfuscation, and blame-shifting. Therefore, they are well suited to teach and be in positions of authority."
I Timothy 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (KJV)
Since "suffer not" (or "I do not permit," in normal English) is highlighted, it is worth noting that some scholars point out that a more precise translation is, "I am currently not permitting," with the implication being it is a temporary restriction.
In Revelation we see Jesus speaking to a situation where the church DID suffer (allow) a woman to teach, with dire consequences;
Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (KJV)
I'm not saying that Rev 2:20 is prescriptive in any way in and of itself, it's just as interesting aside. It's not saying a woman can't be a prophet(ess), just that in at least one instance, allowing a woman calling herself thus to TEACH, ended badly.
It is prejudicial, not probative. I can quickly find many MORE examples of MEN teaching and prophesying falsely and destructively. I'm not "saying" that's prescriptive, just an "interesting aside."
Something inherent in the makeup or nature of women is different from men. Hardly surprising considering Eve was designed to be a helper to Adam, not his leader.
Where "helper" is a word most often used of God, and here carries the sense of "companion who corresponds to him," "companion that is a suitable match for him," "suitable partner for him."
On the one hand we are all equal in Christ, but on the other, the NT refers to women as 'weaker vessels'. Becoming someone who preaches, teaches & shepherds the flock is akin to entering a spiritual battleground. Not a place to send weaker vessels.
This is an allusion to the household code table in 1 Pet. 3. If you wish to discuss those codes, I'll be happy to engage. For now, I'll just say that this is largely subjective and speculative.
Did you ever take, e.g., a college course in Physics or Calculus? It's always a riot when the prof. scribbles three boards full of gibberish, and climaxes with "CLEARLY the answer is..."
in ruling out women from certain positions within the church, just as it is equally clear about ruling out many MEN from those same positions.
I don't share the same starting point as you. I start with several other portions of Scripture, so for ME, it is "clear" that Scripture makes no such distinction based on sex. To me, it is clearer than crystal that under the New Covenant, all ministries that are open to men are equally open to women, notwithstanding temporary local restrictions.
It's plainly obvious what Paul is saying, except to those who for one reason or another don't LIKE what he's saying and seek to dismiss it. He's allowing something & prohibiting something else. Basically, let them learn, but don't let them teach.
And to ME, it is "plainly obvious" that Peter and Luke (in Acts 2) are saying that all preaching ministries are Spirit-empowered and are equally open to men and women, and it is "plainly obvious" that Paul in Gal. 3 is saying that since the Law of the Obsolete Covenant is gone, the old priesthood is gone, and the old rules that proscribed gentiles, slaves, and women from certain roles are gone.
-------------------- End Part 1 -------------------
that could apply in Rom 16:2 refers to leadership.
