• Thanks for clearing up what you meant. I was not sure where you were landing on the issue. However, I think that you really think that complimentairanism was corrupted in the world as a result of the fall:
  

  God does put forth the idea that because of sin entering the world, a woman will tend to seek to deny her complimentary role.

  Isn’t that what you are saying here? Before the fall, women and men naturally knew their place as equals with differing roles and with the fall, that knowledge was corrupted and that is where the gender strife originates.

• By original sin I mean “effects of the fall.” I don’t deny that there were serious effects of the fall, I just deny that one of them was the damnation of each and every soul to hell before those souls are even born.
• I will be the first to agree with you on the primary context of the passage in Gal 3:28 is the scope of the saving nature of Christ’s death. God’s relationship is open to all now. However, I think that many passages in the Bible are open to more than one meaning.

  Consider 2 Timothy 3:16. it not only speaks to the inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures, but to what will become the New Testament ones as well. I don’t think any readers here will limit it to its immediate context.

  Also consider Isaiah 7:14. The immediate context was a prophecy that by the time a certain young maiden will have a child and by the time that child will be old enough to tell right from wrong, the kings of Israel and Aram will be dead. Matthew shows us that there is a secondary meaning here. One that points to the coming of the ultimate messiah - Jesus.

  In light of this and countless other scriptures, one can be sure that the strict literal interpretation is not the only valid one when it comes to scripture.

  I think that the verse in Gal 3:28 not only points to the universal gift of salvation, but also to the fundamental equality of all humans, especially in Christ.

So, are you saying that complementarianism was not originally the case and like original sin, it is an effect of the fall and therefore unnatural?

I’m sorry. I didn’t phrase that very well. Let me say it this way.

I actually believe complementarianism was in place [Gen. 2:18] before the fall. I believe what is happening in Gen. 3:14-19 is that God is describing [rather than instituting; sorry bad choice of words] the effect sin will have, from the point of the fall, on both male and female, as well as setting forth some principles about work, childbirth, roles, etc..

So when he is talking to Adam and Eve, he is, more so, describing what affect sin will have on their lives.

And in keeping with our discussion, particularly in Gen. 3:16, when he is talking to Eve, he is describing how the fall will affect all that she does and will do.

In highlighting this, God does put forth the idea that because of sin entering the world, a woman will tend to seek to deny her complimentary role. And this denial twists the divine order - just as a man, because of sin entering the world, will tend twist the divine order and seek authoritarianism and patriarchalism instead of Biblical complementarianism.

complementarianism is natural and was corrupted like our moral natures were with original sin, and corrected back to complementarianism with Jesus’ death.

As I’ve tried to say, I believe complementarianism itself was not corrupted at the point of the fall, but the ability for man/woman to follow this principle, as well as any of God’s principles, was corrupted. That is my main point and what I think is the main point of the entire Gen. 3:15-19 passage. God is focusing on the affects of sin on man.

I would also differentiate between complementarianism and morality. Complementarianism, I believe, is a principle set forth by God. Morality, I believe, is a law that governs humanity, i.e. C.S. Lewis.

Btw, did I see an admission of belief in original sin on your part? Or were you just talking for the sake of the discussion?

I’m not so certain that the “Second Coming of Christ being right around the river bend” was gone when Paul and Peter were establishing the rules of the household. Mark wrote his gospel after Paul wrote most of his theology and that includes Jesus’ mini-apocalypse. If your like me, you tend to lean towards an early date for the writing of Revelation as well; which would put that book being penned early AD 70 or before hand. Just thought I would point out the fact that the church still had parousia fever when the rules of the house were written.

I would agree that it is an interesting insight to observe the nature of the Christian household mirrors that of the Roman family. However, it is much more lax than that of Roman families. I don’t really see Paul advocating the type of power over the family that is defined by pater familias (father of the family) and pater protestas (power of the father). The Bible makes the father a more sacrificial figure than the Roman father is usually understood to be.

That was an excellent work with Genesis 3 and 4. Very nice and I have to agree with you on that point. Genesis 3 and the curse wasn’t cursing us to complementarianism but rather it was corrupting it. Also, good note about Galatians 3:28 and its context being salvific and not about socio-economic status. Many want to use this as a proof-text for gender equality without giving an exegetical backing for their proof. The whole context of Galatians 3 is about having the curse of death and sin payed by Christ and removed from us so that we might be saved.

Is Gen 3:7 complementarianism? I don’t read it as such. I think that one could make a similar case for it being a curse and the “redemptive hermetic” resulting in complementarianism.

So, are you saying that complementarianism was not originally the case and like original sin, it is an effect of the fall and therefore unnatural?

Otherwise, complementarianism is natural and was corrupted like our moral natures were with original sin, and corrected back to complementarianism with Jesus’ death.

I don’t see any other options here. However, I have only been thinking about this for a few hours.

However, I think it is interesting to note that those letters were being written during a period where Christians were realizing the apocalypse was not right around the corner and needed to have some sort of social structure in order to carry on. Hold that in tension with Paul in 1st Corinthians where he admonishes them for maintaining the Roman hierarchy.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that these social structures mirror Roman social structures. Once again, I don’t know exactly what to make of all this, but is just something I have been thinking about recently and want to throw it out to the wolves.

note: I was writing this before Brad’s reply was posted, so don’t take any of this as a response to him.

So it seems we are talking about what is being called the ‘redemptive hermeneutic.’ [Scot McKnight over at jesuscreed.org has done an intriguing series on the 'redemptive hermeneutic.' It was based on a book by William Webb called Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals.]

H.M. and Dave cite Galatians 3:28 as potential proof that the New Covenant as a ‘redemptive hermeneutic’, for example, has negated the complimentarianism instituted in Genesis 3:16. Here is my response.

I believe Genesis 3:14-19 it is simply a description or explanation of the curse; this is the way it’s going to be in history where sin has the upper hand.

To me, the key comes from recognizing the connection between the last words of this verse (3:16b) and the last words of Genesis 4:7. Here God is warning Cain about his resentment and anger against Abel. God tells him that sin is about to get the upper hand in his life. Notice at the end of the verse 7: “Sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it (literally: you shall rule over it).”

The parallel here between 3:16 and 4:7 is amazingly close. The words are virtually the same in Hebrew, but you can see this in the English as well.

Now the reason this is important to see is that it shows us more clearly what is meant by “desire.” When 4:7 says that sin is crouching at the door of Cain’s heart (like a lion, Genesis 49:9) and that it’s desire is for him, it means that sin wants to overpower him. It wants to defeat him and subdue him and make him the slave of sin.

Now when we go back to 3:16 we see the same meaning in the sinful desire of woman. When it says, “Your desire shall be for your husband,” it means that when sin has the upper hand in woman she will desire to overpower or subdue or exploit man. And when sin has the upper hand in man he will respond in like manner and with his strength subdue her, or rule over her.

I critically analyze texts more directly in Jesus’ teachings or the NT writers, since they deal with so much of the relationship between the two covenants. For example, Jesus himself lays the groundwork for, if not finishes completely, the removal of the food laws and all the regulations concerning the Temple system. He changes murder, adultery, divorce. Paul hits these and circumcision and others head on.

Moreover, Acts and the other letters of Paul describe for us even more fully how the New Covenant works vis a vis the old sexual immorality, greed, festivals, the role of the Spirit, etc.

But on the basis of Paul’s letters and the issues in Acts, I tend to view that the New Covenant demolished all the “rules” as such, with a relative few modified “reinstatements” that the NT writers make explicit [complementarianism being one of them].

I guess what I’m saying is that I prefer to stick with a “Jesus first,” “rest of NT second” lens for scripture. I know this doesn/t resolve all issues, but I believe it answers a lot of them.

With that in mind, as for Galatians 3:28 as a text to describe how the new covenant reverses the curse of complementarianism, to me, that’s cherry picking.

The theological thrust of that verse is about the Gospel and salvation; that faith in Jesus is not restricted to racial, social, or sexual status. In other words, it is not the value of our distinctives that make us joint heirs, it is the Cross.

Does this imply that males ruling over females is unnatural?

Yes… I think this passage is pretty clear that males ruling over females is not “natural,” but is instead a result of the curse.

Can it be possible that just like Christ’s death freed us from the curse of sin and spiritual death, it also nullified the above part of the curse as well?

Yes… it is VERY possible…