Brownson argues that….gender complementarity is nowhere \u201cexplicitly portrayed or discussed\u201d\u009d in Scripture….[but] The flaw in this argument is, I suspect, not in the details but at its heart. Brownson maintains that the marital relationship established in Genesis 2:24 is not based on \u201cgender complementarity.\u201d\u009d One might be able to read Genesis 2:24 in its Old Testament context and arrive at that conclusion (though this might overlook the canonical movement from the necessity of procreation in the old covenant to the redefinition of family by \u201cnew birth\u201d\u009d in the new), but the usage of the text in Ephesians 5 makes such a reading highly unlikely.<\/p>\n
According to the christological meaning of Genesis 2:24 given in Ephesians 5:32, the difference between male and female becomes not incidental to the meaning of marriage but essential. God established marriage, Ephesians suggests, in order that it might be a sign (mysterion; sacramentum) of Christ\u2019s love for the Church. In order for this parable to \u201cwork,\u201d\u009d the difference between the covenant partners is required.<\/p>\n