Daniel Kirk has an ongoing series about this sort of stuff, but this latest post caught my eye.
First, Paul himself does not give merely a hierarchical reading of Gen 1-3. He also gives an egalitarian reading when he appeals to birth and mutual dependence on God.
But even more importantly for those of us who are committed to reading the Bible as a narrative, it is the Gospel that finally will not allow hierarchy to stand. Who we are “in the Lord” transforms our understanding of mutual interrelations, so that it no longer makes sense to say, “Here is man, who simply rules over his wife and family.” Now mutual interdependence and dependence come to the fore, such that both depend upon the other–a kind of relationship in which there can not, for long, be any sense of one ruling the other.
Recently, in reading another book, it was posed that Paul pitted Deuteronomy against Leviticus, through the lens of Christ. The author, I believe, made his point. Anyway, I find it interesting to watch other scholars find Paul arguing traditional interpretations of the Old Testament Scripture and bringing in Christ. How often we forget that Christ changed the entire world, including biblical interpretation and in a very real way, Biblical Fact. Here, Kirk is implying that Paul is using the Gospel to turn back the idea that the Creation Order of Genesis 2 still mattered in Christ. Kirk goes on:
Paul’s new creation theology will not allow him to give a creation-based hierarchy the last word.
Here, my mind starts wondering. If Paul has been shown to use one verse against another, one author against another, but always through the lens of Christ, does that mean that he always accepted the premises which he preposed? In other words, simply because he used the “Creation Order” bit, does that mean that he continued to subscribe to it?