Kay

Ortlund’s attempt at slight-of-hand theology is unbelievable. How can you get this:

“Instead of turning away from the bar of God’s justice in bitterness and despair, Adam turns to his wife and says, “I believe God’s promise. He has not cast us adrift completely…I believe God, and I honor you. (pg 110 RBM&W)”

out of this:
“I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

Ortlund says, “God gives the woman up to a desire to have her way with her husband. Because she usurped his headship in the temptation, God hands her over to the misery of competition with her rightful head. This is justice, a measure-for-measure response to her sin.”

What brand of magical logic is he using here? According to complementarians/hierarchists the woman was already under Adam’s authority, but suddenly “abracadabra” it becomes “justice” meted out to Eve.