There is something like a cultural practice in the I Timothy 2 passage. It is not a cultural practice. The reference by Paul to childbearing is a of universal human reality. It was not the universal human reality of childbearing of a particular country or ethnicity. It was a 1) belief related to childbearing, 2) a belief of Artemis as savior of women through childbearing, and 3) a belief which was prevalent throughout Asia. Why do I say that? Because of Paul's close association of salvation, a belief, and childbearing.
There are three points Paul makes which include concerning salvation and which focus exclusively on the woman: 1) the instruction (I do not permit a woman to teach), 2) the reason for the instruction ( For Adam was first formed . . . but the woman being deceived), and 3) the expected results from the instruction (but she will be saved through her childbearing). This is a similar end result objective concerning the salvation of a certain individual who became the focus of Paul's admonition in I Corinthians chapter five. The progression from point 1 to point 3 suggests these are related and are inseparable. Any response to one part can not be done while disregarding or discarding the other two.
So, why did Paul, given the NT examples of obedience to the gospel message of salvation (a belief) through faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior state the expected results for points 1 & 2 in point 3 that the woman will be saved through her childbearing?
Paul began his ministry in Ephesus where Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and Asia what Yahweh was to the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea. Although there were numerous and different beliefs held about Artemis there were no more than about three which were very much in common throughout Asia. One of those beliefs was that she was born first. Then, she turned and assisted her mother give birth to her twin brother Apollo. Artemis then, according to the common belief, became the savior of women _ in childbirth.
Now, note the underlined key words in the Timothy passage above and how each of these stand out as contrasts or affronts by Paul against the belief of Artemis. Especially, in this Timothy passage, against her claim to being the savior of women. However, Paul declares, Jesus is the savior of mankind. Artemis was totally self-deceived in her belief, both of being born first (Yet another Artemis belief which resounds in Paul's writing that it is Jesus who is firstborn, not of woman, but of the resurrection.) and of being the savior of women.
Paul defiantly affronts further the claims of Artemis: Unlike Artemis, Adam and Eve were not born. They were created by the one by whom, through whom and for whom all things were created. Paul's point is not who was deceived, totally deceived or deceived first as much as he was pointing to the deceptive message of a deceived Artemis as savior who could not save anyone. Eve, like Artemis, was deceived, but unlike Artemis there was redemption for Eve, all women and all mankind through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God. His point is not, as some actually suggest, that the childbearing by the woman can free her from the stigma of being the first to sin.
Why, after having been redeemed through faith in Jesus, should our sisters in Christ be burdened with such a carnal task if indeed they have been born of water and spirit?
If there were any stigma from which our sisters in Christ could be freed it was that of being in the debt of Artemis who could not save them. How better then to graphically demonstrate against the BELIEF of Artemis as savior in childbearing than by BEARING CHILDREN without Artemis, but in Jesus. Every day in Jesus whether or not they bore children, because after all this IS NOT a requirement that women are to bear children, (though I'm sure there's someone out eager to impose that yoke.) they are to continue in faith, love, and sanctification with sobriety.
Peace, brothers and sisters.