The Logic of Galatians 3:28

Tim Peck

lightstock_329212_medium_andrewpeters

Subscribe to the Junia Project Blog

Get content on biblical equality straight to your inbox. And get our free guide: 5 Pillars of Biblical Equality

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
for_we_are_all_one_in_christ_by_lewissatini-d6k61k7

for_we_are_all_one_in_christ_by_lewissatini-d6k61k7

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus (NRSV).

Both egalitarians and complementarians try to grapple with Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 in their own ways.  However, sometimes we do not look closely enough to see how this verse fits into Paul’s logic in Galatians. In part, this is because the traditional interpretation of Galatians (at least among Protestants since the Reformation) has been that Paul is arguing against works in favor of grace.

According to this view, Paul’s opponents (traditionally called “Judaizers”) were claiming that salvation must be merited by a combination of faith in Christ (grace) and circumcision (works).  In contrast (according to this view) Paul argues that salvation comes by God’s grace alone through faith in Christ alone; making circumcision unnecessary.  Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians is a classic example of this approach.

Paul’s Primary Concern

Although this idea may be present, many contemporary scholars (for example N. T. Wright and James Dunn) argue that this is not Paul’s primary concern in Galatians. His concern is whether uncircumcised non-Jewish Christians may be considered full-fledged members of the people of God.

In other words, the primary question Paul is addressing is who is in and who is out, the boundary between where God’s people end and the world begins. 

Paul’s opponents claimed that circumcision (along with the responsibility to live a Torah observant life) was a requirement to be fully included in God’s people. In contrast, Paul argues that the coming of Jesus historically supersedes Torah observance.  Faith in Christ alone makes one a fully functional member of God’s people, heirs of the promise given to Abraham.

Applications for Church Leadership

Given this background, it is not too difficult to see how this applies to church leadership.

If uncircumcised Christians were not full members, Paul’s opponents would have never accepted his practice of placing them into leadership.  However, Paul’s practice (as seen in his letters and in Acts) was to consistently place uncircumcised believers in positions of leadership in the churches he started (see Acts 14:23). Paul’s appointment of the uncircumcised Titus to Crete (Galatians 2:3; Titus 1:4-5) and his ministry with Luke (Philemon 24) are clear examples of this practice.

Paul’s practice is a logical and natural outgrowth of the argument he develops in Galatians, even though church leadership is not the primary issue. The path from Galatians to Paul’s practice would be this: if uncircumcised Christians are full members of God’s people, then uncircumcised Christians may serve as church leaders as long as they are spiritually mature and morally qualified.

Expansion of Paul’s Argument to Class and Gender

As Paul develops this argument he expands it in Galatians 3:28 to include both gender and class.  As has been noted by many scholars, the three pairs Paul mentions here represent three primary divisions in Greco-Roman society:  ethnicity (Jew/Gentile), class (slave/free), and gender (male/female).  Although the focus of Paul’s argument in Galatians is on the first pair, Paul himself applies his logic to the other two pairs.  This parallel was not invented or imagined by abolitionists and egalitarians.

Based on what we know, let’s imagine what the “Judaizer” arguments might have been against Paul’s practice of appointing uncircumcised Christians to positions of church leadership:

  • Jesus was Jewish; therefore, leaders in his church ought to be Jewish.
  • All of Jesus’ original apostles were Jewish; therefore, their successors ought to also be Jewish.
  • The gospel came to the Jewish people first; it came to the Gentiles second.
  • All the previous leaders among God’s people were Jewish (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc.).
  • Jewish Christians will not follow the leadership of non-Jewish Christian leaders.

Now granted this list is speculative.  There is no record of Paul’s opponents making these arguments.  However, given what we know about Paul’s opponents from Galatians (and from Acts 15, assuming that they are the same opponents), it is very plausible that Paul’s opponents would bring up these objections. In fact, some scholars believe that these very same opponents followed Paul around, infiltrating his churches, questioning his legitimacy as an apostle and promoting themselves to church leadership (for example the “super apostles” in 2 Corinthians 10-13 and the mutilators of Philippians 3).

As William Webb has demonstrated, it took more time for the Christian community to apply Paul’s logic in Galatians to the question of class.  Although some second century evidence suggests that slaves held positions of church leadership, it was not until the abolitionist movement of the 18th century that Paul’s argument was finally carried to its logical conclusion. Galatians 3:28 was a key text abolitionists cited to defend the anti-slavery movement, with proslavery Christians arguing that this verse was not meant to be taken literally and that it only applied in a “spiritual sense” (See Harrill’s “The Use of the New Testament in the American Slave Controversy”).

Eventually a consensus emerged that accepted that Paul’s logic in Galatians applied to class as much as to Jews and Gentiles (see chapter 4 of Rodney Stark’s For the Glory of God). But the Church has continued to struggle with applying Paul’s logic to gender, perhaps in part because Paul appears to be inconsistent in his utilization of female leaders.  (I would argue that Paul did this contextually, based on the setting).

The arguments against women serving in positions of church leadership are much the same as the likely arguments of Paul’s opponents to restrict leadership to Jewish believers only:

  • Jesus was male; therefore, leaders in his church ought to be male.
  • All of Jesus’ original apostles were male; therefore, their successors should be male.
  • God created the man first; he created the woman second.
  • All (or at least most) of the previous leaders among God’s people have been male (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, etc.).
  • Male Christians will not be able to respect the leadership of female Christian leaders.

The only difference is that Paul’s opponents argued that uncircumcised believers were not full-fledged members of God’s people, whereas complementarians claim that believing women are full-fledged members of God’s people. Perhaps this is because an uncircumcised Christian man needed only be circumcised and take upon himself the full yoke of Torah observance to pacify the concerns of Paul’s opponents.  In contrast, complementarians offer no such provision to women, insisting instead on unequal roles in the church and home (submission to male leadership).  Given the logic of Paul’s argument in Galatians, one must question whether complementarians really believe that female Christians are full-fledged members of God’s people.

It took a while for the early Church to sort out whether or not uncircumcised believers were full members of God’s people.  It took far longer to sort this out in relation to class, reaching a tipping point during the abolitionist movement.  And it has taken even longer for some branches of the Church to apply the implications of Paul’s argument to women.  Thankfully a movement is growing that takes Paul’s logic seriously and is courageous enough to follow it to where it leads.

 

Image Credit: http://ibibleverses.christianpost.com/bible-verses-images

Tim Peck

Women and the Bible

Revisiting the Woman at the Well in John 4

Gail Wallace

The story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well is told in chapter…

Personal Stories, Women and the Church

Those Who Protect a Woman’s Call

Sarah Sparks-Franklin

Thank God for those who protect a woman’s call! “I’m not sure I can continue…

General

Awaiting the Refugee King: A Christmas Reflection

Christiana Rice

This Christmas, I’m pondering the grittier, truer side of the nativity narrative through the lens

Subscribe for our free guide

5 Pillars of Biblical Equality

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

14 Comments

  • We’re all one anyway. We didn’t need Paul or anyone else to tell us that or make us that. In fact, Paul and the movement he helped build have done more to divide us than anyone else.

    • Hi Ed: I’m not sure what your vantage point is on this, but as a Christian I am working under the assumption that Paul’s writings are part of God’s revelation to humanity. We may all indeed “be” one; however, the testimony of history is that we have failed to live up to this reality. I would argue that Pauline Christianity did much for the status of women as early as the late first and second century (see Rodney Stark’s “Rise of Christianity,” especially ch. 5) and that Pauline Christianity was the seed that blossomed into the abolitionist movement (see For the Glory of God, also by Stark) .

  • Well said–thank you! I have been contemplating these issues myself as I ponder the problems of patriarchy personally. Bless you, brother, for your support of the sisters!

    • Thanks AbessBrown. Grace and peace on your ministry.

  • Really well done. Thank you so much.

  • A really salient piece by Tim, and one which should be required reading by every would-be church leader.

    It’s astonishing that the same arguments against slavery are used against women leaders, and yet God has so clearly shown in so many ways throughout the Bible that He has made both men and women leaders.

    • Hi Bev: This was part of the tipping point for me, when I realized as a complementarian I was using the same kind of hermeneutical arguments that had been used by proslavery believers.

  • Well said, Brent! I think you should expand this into a blog post of it’s own 🙂 I loved the tie-in to Jesus’s trip to Samaria. Your perspective really enriched this passage for me!

  • I did not realize what “Tim” wrote this insightful commentary until the end and then it made perfect sense, since I know him as a thoughtful and insightful colleague. I believe he has captured the correct historical/cultural context to clarify the meaning of the words in the 1st century, which is always the first task of exegesis/interpretation.

    While I don’t think Paul wrote these words as prophetic, they have seen a certain historical development, starting with the Jew/Gentile difference, as Tim explains. The inclusion of Gentiles was a gradual “comprehension” on the part of the disciples. Even after spending two days with Jesus in Sychar (John 4:1-42), witnessing to Samaritans, this still was so outside of their cultural and religious heritage that it could not be considered, let alone accepted.

    A significant move forward in this first distinction came when Peter had his vision (Acts 10) and eventually went to Cornelius’ house in Caesarea to speak to a “large gathering of people.” Peter begins his remarks with this introduction. “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean,” Acts 10:28 NIV).

    In Acts 11, Peter returns to Jerusalem and gives an account of his recent “inclusive” activities. While it is not mentioned by Luke, I can’t help but believe that as Peter discussed this with the other apostles, the light went on for one of them and he would have referenced their experience in Sychar as support for this decision. This is particularly noteworthy, as before Jesus had his discussion with a “Samaritan woman of questionable reputation,” he sent all 12 disciples to get food for 13 people. In fact it is quite possible that the 12 disciples and the woman may have passed each other. In any case, Jesus had to send these men away, so that he would not be hindered in this historical cross-cultural experience. Now they were beginning to see the trajectory of God’s Kingdom and could now see those two days in Sychar as an internship on racial reconciliation.

    The next category (slave/free) sadly took much longer to understand, first by Christians in England (William Wilberforce) and later in the U.S. As Tim points out, many Christians in the 18th century argued in favor of slavery since nowhere is it explicitly prohibited. In fact when the first white ministers were allowed to preach to slaves, the plantation owners prohibited the ministers from including passages that might encourage the slaves to realize their freedom in Christ and be motivated to rebel.

    This brings us to present day. Finally we are trying to apply these inclusive passages to the role of women in ministry. Thankfully, as Tim points out, there is a growing movement in the right direction. Since we are roughly 2000 years late on “Paul’s logic” and Jesus example, let’s hope this happens sooner, rather than later. Since both men and women were created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27), we have not had a balanced representation of God’s image in religious leadership all this time. CLEARLY WE ARE OVERDUE!

    • Thanks Brent. Great contribution by including the Samaritan/Jewish tension in early Christianity.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top