8. Part VI: Galatians 3 IN SUMMARY
GALATIANS 3 FAILS? Clearly Galatians 3 will not fail when it comes to accomplishing what it was inspired by the Spirit to communicate. However, in the discussions on the ordination of women the question must be asked, has the use of this passage by proponents of the ordination of women fallen short of its intended goal? Some have claimed that Galatians 3 is the Achilles Heel of the traditional position of prohibiting women ministers. Do the Agenda for Synod 2000 and these associated emails come to the same conclusion? Five emails were sent out on Galatians 3. The evaluations received from these totaled almost 2 to 1 in favor of the traditional posi- tion. This is something worth thinking about. A brief overview of each of the five emails will be given below. (The full emails are published at www.dialogos-studies.com/rep2000.html.) In reviewing these highlights, ask yourself the question of whether it is a fair statement to say that the material in favor of the ordination of women at times appears to be more a statement of opinion while the material opposing the ordination of women goes into more in-depth exegetical study of the passage. According to what has been documented in the agenda and in these emails does the material for the ordination of women make a better case or does the material for the traditional position make a better case? The Reformed tradition has a long reputation for placing a strong emphasis on having a well-thought out theological comprehension of what God's Word teaches. Yet, an anomaly was experienced here. Our church is moving in the direction of ordaining women. However, when one takes previous synodical material into account as well as these exchanges it is difficult to produce a statement that strongly supports the pracitce we are increasingly embracing. For those who believe with all their heart that women should be ordained, here is an opportunity to help those who are not of that belief. If women should be ordained, no one should hinder them from doing so. With email it is now possible to discuss this topic from ocean to ocean and even around the world. The internet provides the opportunity to put together a paper to which hundreds, thousands literally have the ability to contribute to. At the same time, it doesn't take thousands to produce a good statement; for each person who has a good insight into God's Word to send in their thoughts, this can build up into a good document giving sound, stable advice. * * * * * * * Let's take an overview of the previous five emails: First Email: 1) Jew/Gentile, slave/free and male/female STATEMENT 1.) It is remarkable that here in Galatians Paul should include the pairs slave-free and male-female. . . This early baptismal confession would thus announce the church's belief that in Christ the old racial schisms and cultural divisions had been healed. RESPONSE In only twelve verses we find as many as 27 instances of either direct reference to salvation or the use of words that are very closely related to salvation. Galatians 3:28 is often read by those advocating the ordination of women as though each of the three pairs is an injunction against a major social injustice. That interpretation, however, leaves verse 28 as a very tiny island isolated from the rest of the book. Why would Paul deal at length with the matter of law versus faith, then turn for one short verse to deal with no less than three major social injustices, and immediately return once again to deal at length with the law versus faith question? How would these verses all fit together, where is the integrity of the text as far as this interpretation is concerned? Second Email: 2) Neither male AND female STATEMENT 2) . . . the grammatical construction of the pair "neither male and female" is different from that of the other two pairs, which read "neither . . . nor." It has been rightly discerned that this was done deliberately to pick up the language of Genesis 1:27 ("male and female created he them"), thereby indicating that in Christ male and female are restored to their original equal participation in the image of God and the concomitant call to jointly exercise dominion over creation. RESPONSE If "male and female" is a reference to their original equality, then Galatians 3:28 says it is NEITHER that equality. In some fashion the "neither" in verse 28 negates the "male and female." We need to take a closer look at the words "there is neither" (ouk eni). . . The words "ouk eni" (the longer form is "ouk enesti") literally translated mean "it is not in." If we translate the words of verses 26-28 in a literal sense an interesting balance comes to light: 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. This passage emphasizes these Christians are IN Christ; it is NOT IN Jew/Greek . . . they are IN Christ. These words show that "it is not in Jew nor Greek" etc. is in contrast to being in Christ. When "there is neither Jew nor Greek" is contrasted with being in Christ, it is being used in the sense of "it doesn't matter if you keep the law or if you don't." Our salvation comes through faith in Christ. When the matter of the comparison between male and female comes up, the words "there is neither" must be used in exactly the same sense. Therefore, the meaning of "there is neither . . . male and female" must be that when it comes to salvation, it doesn't matter whether you are male or female. Third Email: 3) Galatians 3 and Peter's refusal to eat with Gentiles STATEMENT 3) From the reference to the first pair (Jew-Greek) it can be seen that the "oneness in Christ" proclaimed in Galatians 3:28 is relevant not only to the equal standing they all enjoy in salvation but also to some "societal" implications. Part of Paul’s reason for writing was to clear up the problem of Peter’s refusal to eat with gentiles at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14). The oneness of Jew and gentile in Christ required equal treatment in table fellowship. Presumably that equal treatment in table fellowship would apply not only to the Jew-Greek pair but just as well to slave-free and male-female pairs. Indeed, so the church has understood it. RESPONSE Depending on how the above references are tallied, there are about 19 references in 21 verses to salvation through faith as opposed to it coming through circumcision. . . If there is some way in which chapter 3 is connected to chapter 2 with respect to a social dimension, where is the evidence of that? The Statement given at the beginning states the opinion that such is the case, where is the evidence, the proof? . . . There is ample evidence in these two chapters indicating that salvation is the focus. Without reasoning that is further developed than what is given in the Statement, this material should be evaluated as coming short of proving that Galatians 3:28 teaches that the "oneness in Christ" is relevant to equal (or identical) standing in social respects, particularly with respect to the roles of men and women in the church. Fourth Email: 4) Galatians 3 and social equality STATEMENT 4) 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." RESPONSE 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 . . . several key items were pointed out. . . 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. Fifth Email: 5) Adoption and the accompanying privileges STATEMENT 5) . . . One of the many blessings that all the believers in Galatia received through Christ and through baptism into him was their adoption: "you all are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." All the privileges that go with sonship were now equally theirs, whether they were Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female. Women who are in Christ are "God's sons" and thus on a par with men. Therefore, they deserve the status that accompanies sonship. RESPONSE In order for the statement to be advocating the ordination of women, the phrases "on a par with men" and "deserve the status" must mean "perform the same role" as men. Even though the statement declares that there are reasons to see broader implications than equality in salvation, it does not provide any of those reasons. The statement simply states as fact that these things are so. When one gets right down to it, this does not help the dialogue. First, how do the phrases "on a par with men" and "deserve the status" equate to "perform the same role" as men? Second, and more importantly, where are the reasons that this is true? . . . As it currently stands, the statement is not an argument in favor of the ordination of women, rather it is merely a statement of opinion. * * * * * * *