6. GALATIANS 3 AND SOCIAL EQUALITY
STATEMENT Although Galatians 3:28 does not explicitly speak of the social equality of male and female, it does seem to imply it. As noted above, the confession seems to pick up the theme of equality from Genesis 1:27. The force of the implied equality in this passage can be seen as follows. Just as it would be inappropriate to say, "Theophilus may not be an elder because he's a Greek," or "Onesimus may not be an elder because he's a slave," so too it is inappropriate to say, "Apphia may not be an elder because she is a woman." [Report to Synod 2000] RESPONSE The implied connection to Genesis 1:27 is essentially due to the fact that the Greek contains the wording "male and female" rather than "[neither] male nor female." Pointing out this kind of fact is the proper work of hermeneutics. It is through word choices such as this that the Spirit gives indication of the true meaning that was intended to be communicated by a given passage. If it is in fact correct that the use of "and" rather than "nor" connects this passage to Genesis 1:27, is it an immediate conclusion that equality is what is being referred to here? The American Standard version translates the "and" literally, "there can be no male and female . . ." The words "male and female," in connecting to Genesis 1:27 then embody equality. Yet the Galatians passage says "there is no . . ." Is Galatians then somehow negating this equality? When other English versions read "there is neither male nor female," this wording alligns more with the interpretation that there is no distinction, equality is the key. The words "there can be no male and female . . ." have traditionally been taken to pertain to salvation or justification. In other words, when it comes to being saved, being male or female makes no difference. When this passage is applied to women's roles today as it is, should the concept of "no male and female" then be taken to apply to all areas, all roles in life? If we would so apply it 100% across the board, would that not argue for same-sex marriages? If that takes the text too far, where is the line at which we should stop? In the email on Galatians 3 and Male and Female (http://www.dialogos-studies.com/rep2000.html) several key items were pointed out. The word Paul chose, "eni" appears only seven times in the New Testament, three of them in this passage. There was probably a specific reason Paul chose to use such unusual words. The words "ouk eni" are quite uncommon and literally translated mean "it is not in." Therefore, in verse 28 we have: For you are all sons of God through faith IN Christ Jesus . . . It is NOT IN Jew nor Greek, it is NOT IN slave nor free man, it is NOT IN male and female For you are all one IN Christ Jesus. These facts show that being "in Christ" or being saved is quite clearly contrasted with being Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. In other words, our salvation is in Christ, it doesn't matter if we are Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. This interpretation avoids the problems that are listed above. This interpretation is based on the same kind of work that would link this verse with Genesis 1:27. However, even the report is quite tentative when it says that Galatians 3:28 "does seem to imply" equality (emphasis added). The contrast, on the other hand, between "in" and "not in" and the way the latter forms bookends around the former in the passage is relatively clear indication of how the Spirit intended this passage to be interpreted. When one compares the statement and the response here, are there potential weaknesses with the interpretation contained in the response? If such weaknesses are not identified, wouldn't it be correct to conclude that there is more evidence indicating that this verse states our salvation is not determined or influenced by whether we are male or female rather than concluding that it states male and female are equal? [Response by Herb Kraker] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *