The order of creation in scripture ends with the creation of humanity, and the crowning event in the creation of humanity is God’s creation of Eve. It is after this that God rests (Gen. 2:20-25).
The fall envisions and brings forth a humanity where the crowning aspect of creation (the woman) is being “Lorded Over” by her also-fallen husband (Gen. 3:13-19).
The New Creation (in Jesus) provides a new trajectory that works toward a return to the pre-fall dynamic of mutual submission, partnership, collaboration, interdependence, and co-reigning (Gal 3:28 & Eph. 5:21-33).
In this new way of being human (in Jesus), there is such inter-dependency that a husband’s body belongs to his wife. There is no male privilege in Jesus (1 Cor. 7:4). That is all erased.
The New Creation mirrors the original creation and works away from the fall rather than reinforcing it as the way things ought to be. Jesus has come to “un-adam-and-eve” humanity.
What does this mean? What are the implications?
Christians who advocate for “men over women” rather than “submit to one another — wives to your own husbands with respect — husbands loving your wives with self-giving sacrificial love” are actually championing the image of humanity shaped by the fall, and not by the image of a healed humanity envisioned in the New Creation.
Christians are to live in the now in light of what the future will actually be like rather than clinging to and reinforcing the dark past (e.g., the fall). Christians are to live toward the eschatological realities of the New Creation — for in Jesus, the reign of God has begun breaking in and is already here and is…
“…like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened.” (Lk. 13:21).
We have lots of Kingdom work to do. Toward the future. Toward the New Creation. Away from the fall. Away from the old creation.
Kenny, some interesting conclusions, but long on assumptions with little reasoning. Let me ask, what do you say to those who recognize that husbands and wives are ontologically equal, but who would still say that the husband has the authority to make the final decision. Thus, wives –who are just as much the Imago Dei as the husband, and just as much part of the body of Christ– must still submit to their husbands in the same manner that Christ, though he was of the form of God, still voluntarily submitted himself to the Father? Your ball.
This can be the first of many exchanges, so as a starting place, my first question to the person who “would still stay that the husband has the authority to make the final decision” is — “The final decision about what? Buying or not buying a refrigerator? Apartment versus condo living? Red car, blue car? Christian school, home school? Pepsi, Coke? Grilled chicken, baked chicken? This church, that church?” and “Where do you get the idea that the big idea about the dynamic relationship between a husband and his wife is primarily about who has authority to make final decisions about things?” The idea that “the husband has the authority to make the final decision” is rather broad. My wife makes a significant number of “final” decisions in our relationship, and sometimes I do too. If we based that part of our relationship on our gender, we would be hurting big time as a family. She often has a better sense of what we should do in big and small ways than I do. Thus, our ethos is “submit yourselves to one another… wives to your own husbands.” That’s how the text reads in the original language. The emphasis seems to be mutual submission, and the boundary seems to be around marriage (e.g. women are not submitted to all men). That can be a starting place for more dialogue. Go!