Kristen

Jeremy said:
“These reasons are the creation order and Eve’s deception. These reasons are not cultural or temporal, but eternal. Therefore, his command is eternal. No?”
Not necessarily.
There are several places where Paul refers to the creation or to creation theology while clearly not intending to make his present discussion timeless and universal. 2 Cor. 11:3 is one. Most churches also do not believe that the head-coverings commands of 1 Cor. 11 were intended as timeless and universal, but were related to cultural understandings of the meanings of head coverings in an honor-shame culture– and yet Paul refers to the creation order in that chapter as well. In 1 Cor. 10:11 Paul speaks in general of the way he uses references to OT narratives, saying that they are “examples” and “warnings.” He does not say anything about them being meant to ground NT truths.
Also, it is my understanding reason that the word “gar” translated as “for” in “For Adam was formed first, then Eve,” means “for example” or “for illustration” more often than it means “for the reason that” in Paul’s writings.
For these reasons, I do not believe the creation narrative in 1 Tim 2 need be viewed as a way to make what Paul “was not permitting” there timeless and universal. I think it related to a specific problem in a specific church, and the message we should receive from it is, “Those in deception should not be permitted to teach until they have quietly sat down and learned true doctrine.”
If Paul really was giving a universal, timeless prohibition against any and all women ever having authority in the church, these questions must be seriously considered and answered:
Why does he use the word “authentein” instead of the usual word for “have authority,” which is “exousia”? Why does he begin the passage with the words “I do not permit” in the present active indicative tense, rather than, “A woman must not” in the imperative tense? And why does he bury this universal, timeless command for all churches for all time, in a personal letter to his deputy whom he has left behind to correct problems in one particular church having to do with false teaching (1 Tim 1:3)? Why does he commend many women in Rome who clearly have some influence (Rom 16), without mentioning to them that they would be going too far with this authority if they used it to teach or lead in a mixed-gender church gathering?
Finally, if Paul is really saying that there are some gifts of God that are only for men but not for women, why did he include women in: “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . there is not male and female . . . for God sent His Son. . . that we might [all] receive the full rights of sons”? (Gal. 3:28-4-5.) The “full rights of sons” was a phrase that meant the full status of an adopted male heir as a son in every legal sense of the word, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. Are women the only ones of this group who have fewer rights and privileges? Did Paul intend a freeborn Jewish Christian to be able to say to a Christian Gentile slave, “Paul was only talking about salvation here, so be content. We freeborn Jews get all the leadership roles and positions of power and authority in the church.”? And if women are the sole exception, why did Paul specifically include them as receiving “full rights of sons”?