Galatians 3:28 is it only about salvation?
Nov 18th, 2008 by Cheryl Schatz
According to complementarians, Galatians 3:28 is not about equality in Christ, but about all of us being in the same “boat” of salvation. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) has made quite an effort to try to demolish Galatians 3:28 as a basis of spiritual equality outside of salvation. Instead, they say that this verse is only about the equality we have in Christ in regards to salvation. In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood pages 71-72, John Piper and Wayne Grudem comment:
The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: they are equally justified by faith (v. 24), equally free from the bondage of legalism (v. 25), equally children of God (v. 26), equally clothed with Christ (v. 27), equally possessed by Christ (v. 29), and equally heirs of the promises to Abraham (v. 29)…Galatians 3:28 does not abolish gender-based roles established by God and redeemed by Christ.
But is Galatians 3:28 only about equality in salvation? Let’s have a close look at the book of Galatians to find out if this is true.
Paul speaks about agitators who had come into the community and had thrown the Galatians into confusion (Galatians 5:12). These agitators were false brothers, Judaizers and the “party of the circumcision” and they had come into the congregation to spy on the liberty that the Christians had in order to persuade them to come back into bondage.
Galatians 2:4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
Paul describes in his letters some of the areas that the Judaizers were working to bring Christians into bondage and causing the Jews to treat some with prejudice. In Galatians 5:2, these men were trying to bring circumcision into the congregation of Gentiles. Also in 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 these followers of the Jewish oral law were trying to silence women in the congregation and they wanted to stop women from public learning.
In Galatians 2:11-14 Paul says that the “party of the circumcision” had even influenced Peter so that he withdrew himself and wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles. When the Judaizers came along, (Paul calls them false brethren in Galatians 2:4), Peter was influenced to turn away from the Gentiles treating them as second class citizens unworthy of fellowship. Paul soundly rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy.
The issue was not about salvation but about sanctification - the outworking of our faith. Were the new Gentile converts required to follow the Jewish laws to progress in their faith? Paul writes in chapter two that there is an acknowledgment that salvation comes through faith:
Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus…
Yet even with receiving salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, the Galatians were being influenced to “work out their salvation” by buying into the bondage of the false brethren that sanctification now comes through the works of the Law. Paul rebukes them in chapter three:
Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?
Galatians 3:2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
Galatians 3:3 Are you so foolish:? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
In verse five Paul continues to deal with the outworking of the faith by giving the example of Abraham:
Galatians 3:5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
The Holy Spirit working miracles among them was not given to them because of the works of the law. The evidence of their sonship and the blessings they received after salvation was the very thing that the Old Testament predicted. Paul writes:
Galatians 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”
It isn’t just salvation that comes by faith but sanctification allowing one to abide in Christ by faith. Paul emphasizes that the living-out part of our sanctification must come by faith.
Galatians 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”
Paul is not saying here that one comes into righteousness by faith, although this is certainly true. Paul is saying that one must LIVE by faith. This is the outworking of their faith and the very reason that Paul was chastising the Galatians who wanted to live out their faith by adding works.
Paul then instructs the Galatians that the way you live out your Christianity will either make you justified or condemned. Those who are righteous will live by faith (verse 11). Those who live out the law after being justified by faith will revisit the curse.
Galatians 3:12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “HE WHO PRACTICES THEM SHALL LIVE BY THEM.”
Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us–for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE”–
Notice that Paul is talking about the outworking of Christianity. He is talking about the practices that follow salvation. The salvation issue had already been dealt with since the Galatians had received forgiveness of sins through Christ. The issue was now how do they live? Paul says that if they go back to the law, and practice living out the law, they will receive a curse. Since they were redeemed from the curse of the law, they were not to go back to the law, but work out their sanctification through faith.
Paul then equates the outworking of our Christianity with our inheritance.
Galatians 3:18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.
In Galatians 3:21 Paul speaks about the promises (plural) of God. Then in verse 25 Paul clearly continues to speak about sanctification - living the life of faith after salvation.
Galatians 3:25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
Notice here that Paul is speaking about what comes after salvation. Now that faith has come what happens next? Now that they have salvation do they go back to the rules and regulations that kept them in bondage before coming to Christ? Paul says no. After salvation comes a life of faith that gives them their inheritance in Christ. Paul then instructs them on what they are:
Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
This is an amazing verse. The inheritance is sonship. There are not sons of God and daughters of God. There are only sons. Each one inherits the kingdom in the same way - all as sons of God. The living out of the faith is clothing themselves with Christ.
Galatians 3:27 For all of you who are baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Baptized into Christ is salvation. Clothing ourselves with Christ is our living out our faith as sons of God.
Now comes the verse that some want to make only about salvation:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
Galatians 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:28 is not about salvation, it is about the inheritance that follows salvation. The clear difference between each group in Galatians 3:28 is not salvation but inheritance. The Old Testament provided for salvation for those of the nations who would join themselves with Israel in serving the one true God. The Old Testament also never taught a prejudice against women in regards to their salvation either. Lastly slaves were given the right to participate in the passover sacrifice along with the household. They too could be saved along with the family of Israel. Salvation was not an issue. Inheritance was the issue.
Galatians 3:28 contains a negation of three categories that reflected common ways of distinguishing humanity among the Jews. The Jewish cycle of morning prayers for the men began this way: “Blessed be He that He did not make me a Gentile; blessed be He that He did not make me a boor [i.e., an ignorant peasant or a slave]; blessed be He that He did not make me a woman.”
What was the problem with each one of these categories that caused the men to rejoice that they were not a Gentile, a slave or a woman? In each one of the groups, the inheritance had been held back. Gentiles did not inherit land in the nation of Israel. Slaves were not part of the inheritance and neither were women. But Paul is saying that we must recognize that just as each has received salvation in the body of Christ as all are already acknowledged as saved, so too must each of the underprivileged groups together with the free Jewish men receive by faith the inheritance as sons.
Gentiles inherit all of the promises of Abraham right alongside the Jews. Women inherit all of the promises and rights of sons alongside the men. Slaves inherit the kingdom promises of Abraham right alongside the free born. Just as all have been brought into salvation, so the outworking of salvation, the sanctification and privileges of sonship belong to all.
Paul carries on this important topic into chapter four. Paul writes:
Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law,
Galatians 4:5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
Galatians 4:7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.
Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 should be clear. The outworking of our faith needs to be by faith and not by bondage to man’s laws. We are each the inheritors of all of the promises of God because in Christ all of us are sons! It is the issue of inheritance that made sons the ones to be desired. It was never an issue of women not having salvation but not having inheritance rights.
How should this look regarding an outworking of faith? The privileges of having spiritual gifts through the distribution from the Holy Spirit belongs to all of us. The privileges of ruling the world to come and judging the angels belongs to all of us, not just the men (1 Cor. 6:2, 3) The privileges of servanthood and giving of ourselves for the benefit of the body of Christ belongs to all of us. We are all sons, all heirs, all equal.
When we all come into unity of the knowledge of our equality of inheritance, we will not hold some back because they do not have the same equality in the body of Christ. All sons may teach, all sons may serve, all sons may inherit every part of the kingdom together. And women too are those sons!
‘The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: ‘
Hi,
I’ve only read up to there. But already I’m thinking there’s that escape word again, ’sense’. terrible. How vague, and unsupportable.
I see ’sense’, ‘notion’, ‘indication’, etc, alot. I think maybe I am notcing more often these words being used when the comp view is being defend.
‘Gentiles inherit all of the promises of Abraham right alongside the Jews. Women inherit all of the promises and rights of sons alongside the men. ’
‘All sons may teach, all sons may serve, all sons may inherit every part of the kingdom together. And women too are those sons!’
This is great!
Simply - thank you
Rachel Re vis. e Re form
Thanks for visiting my blog Cheryl. I am always amazed at the vehemence with with complementarian doctrine is defended. Thanks for sharing your point of view and speaking up! I appreciate it.
It was just a few years back that a CBMW alumni insisted to me that Galatians 3:28 was only referring to equality in salvation. I was blown away by this view. Now, I am seeing this taught all over the place by comps. Could it be because so many have brought up this verse when hearing all the narrow ‘role’ teaching from comps and they needed an interpretation to fit their teaching?
You have done a great job outlining why their view cannot be correct. One reason is because so much comp teaching is that being in your correct ‘role’ is part of the sanctification process. (If you are a woman you submit and if a man you ‘lead’). They also use the childbearing verse in 1 Tim 2 for being in your role for sanctification.
It is a sad thing when works become a part of salvation and sanctification
Thanks pinklight & Rachel!
Lin,
I remember the first few times I heard complementarians insist that Galatians 3:28 is only about salvation and I wondered how they could justify women being a part of the list. If we ignored the context the verse is found within, we certainly could understand if Paul said there is no Jew or Greek in Christ, that people would think it was about salvation because of the mindset of the early Jewish Christians. But where in the scriptures is the salvation of women ever questioned? It would be out of place to say that women are equally saved if there is never any question about their salvation. But it certainly would not be out of place to stress the equality when the subject is on full sonship. Women then inherit as equal heirs and share equal privileges and equal responsibilities.
Galatians 3:28 had to be forced into a salvation “boat” or the complementarian argument that the kingdom is made up of male and female “roles” would be demolished by our equality in the full inheritance of God. What a shame that so many have swallowed CBMW’s interpretation without a careful study of the scriptures. Galatians is written to Christians whose problem is not in regards to their salvation but in regards to their sanctification. Paul makes this abundantly clear throughout the book of Galatians. How we serve God and the growth and maturity that comes through that service is part of our sanctification process. When we limit a person’s sanctification by refusing to allow them to grow in maturity in all the gifts that God has given them, we do the body of Christ a very great disservice.
Also for CBMW to say that Christ “redeemed” gender-based roles, puts a spin on Christ’s redemptive work that is not biblical. When we can see that Old Testament women had more freedom to serve than New Testament women in some complementarian churches, something is drastically wrong. Most comp churches will not allow women to teach men but OT women were not restricted in this way. It is a sad day when we can see these restrictions on women after Christ that were not there before Christ and then hear complementarians say that these gender-based roles are “redeemed” by Christ. If the restrictions are a “redemption” then what were the freedoms that godly women of old experienced? Was their freedom a sign of sin?
I end up where Cheryl did, but I get there differently.
Gal 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
is a better translation. The diff. is the “no male AND female” not “no male NOR female”. The Greek is kai, usually “and”. I see this as a remez/hint back to the garden. Paul in another verse talks about Christ being the 2nd Adam.
“works of the law” I see as a Greek form of the Hebrew “Ma’aseh ha Torah” which was used in the Dead Sea Scrolls to identify the markers of Judaism.
“curse of the law” I see as not saying the law is a curse, but is referring to the curses in the law for not obeying it; these are given in Deu as blessings and curses or in covenant/contract language benefits for compliance and penalties for non-compliance.
The Jews thought that they were “in” simply because they were Jews. Jesus speaks against this to Nicodemus, saying it must be by faith, as does Paul here and elsewhere. The Jews have a huge advantage, as Paul points out, in getting “in” as they were given the word of God, but no one is auto-in. So there is a physical Israel and a spiritual Israel. Being in physical Israel does not guarantee being in spiritual Israel.
So Paul is NOT mainly discussing individual salvation, altho that is included, as Fee points out, he is discussing (spiritual) Israel’s salvation.
The key thing to see is that everything about being a believer AND a congregation is wrapped up in Israel’s salvation; if someone were to claim there is something spiritual outside of that, I do not want it as it would be false, as something false is all that is left outside of spiritual Israel. This is the fundamental mistake of the non-egal understanding when they try to limit the meaning of these verses.
Don,
Yes, the literal Greek is male and female in Galatians 3:28. It is very good to pay attention to the words the way that God breathed them.
You said:
Yes indeed the law isn’t cursed at all. It is those trying to live by getting righteous through the law because it is an “all or nothing” law. James said:
None of us are capable of keeping the entire law. Only Jesus ever kept the entire law perfectly.
Good thoughts, Don! Of course the bottom line is that the complementarian view that limits these verses to salvation alone, leaving no real equality in the outworking of our Christian faith is refuted by the context from the entire book of Galatians.
Here is the way I would word it, gentiles are not capable of keeping the Noah covenant Torah and Israel is not capable of keeping the Mosaic covenant Torah by themselves. ALL have sinned, ALL need Jesus.
Jesus perfectly kept the Mosaic covenant Torah, which is a superset of the Noah covenant Torah. So both those not in the Mosaic covenant and those in it can be declared righteous in faith, not for following the rules of their covenants. The REASON to follow the rules in any covenant is for the blessings of that covenant, but not to be saved by that covenant, as it is not the way to be saved, only faith in Messiah is the way to be saved.
Amen!
Uh oh, for Paul to say that we are all sons, blurs the gender distinctions doesn’t it? I bet CBMW type comps couldn’t have none of it! Hum…
I wonder what the comps in general have written on the subject of our inheritance as, sons.
The masculine plural is used in Hebrew and Greek when a group is composed of at least 1 male, all the way up to all males. So the context is important to see whether a term is best translated as sons or children.
IF the culture was such that only males inherited, then it might be important to translate as sons. We see with the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36 in a very patriarchical culture. But the culture shifts, it did not stay that way in Roman areas, for example.
Don,
I think Galatians 4:7 answers your question because it is singular male.
In this verse it isn’t just child, but son. It says “If a son…then an heir”. This is vitally important because only sons were legal heirs. In the OT one who is an heir is always male. The wording specifically shows that all of the rights, privileges and honor also belong to women. When Paul says there is no Jew or Greek, male and female, slave or free, he is referencing the full and complete rights of inheritance. We, then, have no right to limit someone’s privileges of being used by God or being a mouthpiece of God because all are equally heirs.
#5 Jan,
I think I forgot to formally welcome you here to my blog. Welcome!
pinklight,
I have heard CBMW speakers says that we are sons and daughters of God. Apparently they have missed the bible’s point that there are no daughters of God - only sons. If all are legal heirs, then we should not be differentiating between the haves and have-nots regarding privileges of representing God in the church.
Nyland translates Gal 4:7 as “Consequently, you are no longer a slave but legally adopted, and since you are legally adopted, then by God’s act you are an heir.”
She seems to be saying the point of the verse is adoption and being an heir and not being a son, that is incidental words to express the big idea. Or another way of looking at it is similar to 1950’s English, sometimes in Greek (and 1950s English) a singular man can be a woman, it depends on whether it is a man inclusive or a man exclusive.
Cheryl,
You have done an absolutely superb exegesis of the entire passage. What a defense of a view with the text of scripture as a basis. This is the REASON every time I’m with a pastor in a meeting now, as I was this past week in Lake Jackson Texas, I tell the pastor about you and your blog. In fact, he asked and I consented to bringing it up on his PC for him and putting it on his favorites. He thanked me but he’ll thank me even more later as he reads the archives which I suggested he do.
Keep up using your gifts to the Body. This Body member is blessed by it.
Thanks Pastor Paul! It is comments like yours that make me want to continue to work hard and give out my very best. For the body of Christ and for the Lord Jesus!
Pastor Burleson,
I fixed the spelling of your name. I also fixed the typos on my own post. Boy, we are all getting old, eh?
Don,
The problem with Nyland’s translation is that she misses an extremely necessary piece of Greek and she focuses on something that by itself has no guarantee of the inheritance.
Galatians 4:7 says “IF” and “then”. The word “if” is the Greek word “ei” It is a primary particle of conditionality.
What is “if” connected to? Paul writes “if” a son “then” an heir. The ending result is being an heir. One cannot get to the point of being an heir without being a son. This was their system. Only sons were heirs. So Paul’s point is that they were slaves but they are no longer slaves. They have gone from the position of having no privileges, no rights and no importance, to the place of adoption as a son. The sonship (which is the “if”) must lead to the inheritance (which is the “then”). “IF” sons “THEN” heirs. If we remove the male part of being a son, the part of inheritance is not a natural flow nor is there a guarantee. The reason is because if one is a daughter there is no if/then relationship with the inheritance. Full sonship for all, both men/women, Jews/Gentiles, slaves/freeborn is in view and ALL without exception receive adoption as sons.
If we remove the conditional part of the Greek, then we also have no place to focus the guaranteed rights of sonship. Paul is focusing on our position right now. IF we are sons, THEN there is a guarantee of inheritance. IF we are sons and daughters, then there is not a full guarantee of inheritance. Legal adoption does not guarantee the inheritance. Only sonship does.
Does this make sense?
http://www.answers.com/topic/inheritance has an entry on Jewish inheritance. It is simplistic to say only sons as males inherited. In Galatia there would also be Roman and Greek law and Roman law was more favorable to women in general.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T371 mentions the 3 possibilities which were different.
This is not an area I have studied, but to assert what you have claimed you would need to have statements about how it worked for all 3 types.
Don,
I think we can safely assume that Paul is talking about the Jewish inheritance rights for several reasons:
1. The “law” that is referenced is the entire code of law given to the Jews not the Gentiles (no Roman or Greek law even hinted at here).
2. The Judaizers that were instigating this return to the law were Jews that came from James and so it was the Jewish mindset that is at work in this passage.
3. The “different gospel” that threatened the Gentile Christians was circumcision and rules brought in by the Jewish oral law. Circumcision laws would have nothing to do with any Greek or Roman set of laws.
4. Since we know that Galatians 3:28 cannot be about salvation since the salvation of the Galatians is not what is in question here but rather the outworking of their salvation, the addition of “female” is Galatians must be linked to inheritance issues which is a problem for women amongst the Jews. There is no other reason to bring in females being equal in Christ with the males. Galatians chapter 4 is about inheritance and so is Galatians 3:29 the verse directly after verse 28. Verses 28 & 29 are attached by another “IF” “THEN” conditional connection.
Gal 3:29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.
The entire passage has the Jewish “flavor” of a hindrance caused by those intent on bringing the Gentile believers under bondage. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 also has that Jewish “flavor” by its reference to the Jewish oral law insisted on by the Judaizers. There is of course no God-given OT law that restricted the ability for a woman to learn in public or speak in public.
From what I can see from the passage there is no issue of Roman or Greek influence in the bondage that is being brought onto the Galatians. It is pure and simple a Jewish influence designed to force the Gentile Christians to conform to both the old covenant laws and to the Jewish oral laws that hindered women from using their gifts in public and restricted men to circumcision. Paul refutes all of this by using the Jewish inheritance law to his benefit. He brilliantly argues for women’s privileges and benefits by designating them “in Christ” as part of Christ’s body (THE male heir) therefore all would rightly be receiving sonship and therefore equal heirs (or elsewhere called “joint heirs”). Inheritance then for all is key to us being IN CHRIST for only through him are we heirs at all.
Don, thanks for your thoughts! It is always good to test the exegesis. If there was a Roman or Greek law that was threatening the Christian community by taking away equal inheritance rights or equal anything, I would be willing to see the biblical evidence from the book of Galatians. This is where the primary evidence is located and from everything I can see in Galatians, the threat is from the Jewish agitators alone and the evidence used throughout is Jewish-based law.
I should add one thing, the issue of women inheriting is only ever in favor of women if there is no male heir. In the case of Christ’s followers, there is no such thing as no male heir, so the women would certainly lose out if they were designated as daughters. Because there are males AND females, there must be only sons that would inherit. Thus Paul designates the women “IN Christ” as sons.
Make sense?
I received an email from an interim woman pastor who reads my blog.
Her church is looking for a permanent pastor and they will consider a
female candidate. If you know of anyone in the Minnesota area that would be interested, let me know and I will get you in contact with the pastor.
See email below:
Hi Cheryl, I have been reading your site and am grateful for your
ministry. I am currently serving as an interim pastor in MN. Our
church is in a pastoral search process. I don’t know if you do this
but our church is welcoming toward women candidates in the senior
pastor role. If you know of anyone in the MN area seeking a
pastorate, I would be willing to send the job description and a bit
about our church. The church does not pay alot at this time but is
growing so the candidate will need to be a tent-maker.
The different but equal mantra doesn’t work then if all are a son. There is no male and female.
Physical differences are out when it comes to those IN Christ.
Yippee yay, pinklight, I think you got it!
I agree that all humans can inherit by faith.
I just do not think a woman becomes a man in any sense to achieve that. Rather, the distinctions do not exist in a spiritual sense, not the ethnic, not economic, not gender, etc. However, they still exist in a physical sense, a Jew does not become a gentile when she becomes a believer, she is still a jew, it is just that it does not matter in Christ.
Don,
I am not saying that a woman becomes a man. I think you misunderstand me. What I am saying is that a woman becomes a legal “son”. This means that legally she inherits all the privileges of “sonship”. It does not mean in any sense of the word that she becomes male. It is only that she is treated as a legal heir which is legal sonship. She remains a woman physically. In the spirit there is no sense that we are male or female since there are no spiritual sexual parts.
I really appreciate when you question these things in order to understand what I am saying. I helps me to see where I might be talking around people. If anyone thinks that I am saying a female becomes a male, then I certainly need to clarify that. It is only about legal privileges which belong to sons and “in Christ” we have all legal privileges without restriction as he are considered “in Christ” as having sonship for the purpose of inheritance.
I agree we are all legal hiers thru adoption, just that there does not need to be any mapping of a woman to a legal son, what counts is being a legal heir.
The fact that sons inherited when their dads died in ancient Judaism I see as God working in that time and culture, which was very patriarchical. The daughters got their inheritance when they married in that culture, as the ketubah or dowry, it is not the case that they received no inheritance. The first son got a double portion, as he represented the family in that culture.
In different cultures different inheritance rules apply.
Don,
You said:
The fact is that a woman was not a legal heir. Her dowry was not in her hands and in that patriarchal setting, her dowry could be removed so that she would never benefit from it in any way. A daughter’s rights in no way were equal to a son’s privileges. This left women subject to mistreatment. However “in Christ” we are all full legal heirs. No one can take away our inheritance like a husband could take away his wife’s dowry. Do you see the difference?
By making us all legal sons, we are in a position of power. We are not subject to having our gifts taken away from us as if our gift is under someone else’s control. What Paul has done is provided the strongest legal wording of that day and applied it to women. Women now are legal “sons” and as “sons” they are given the privilege and responsibility in such a way that their privilege is not subject to the control of someone with more responsibility and privilege than they have. When someone is under the ultimate control of another, there is no equality in privilege. Daughters did not ultimately have control of their own privileges. This would have been the problem if Paul had made us “sons and daughters” in Christ. We would have been seen as under the men since no woman had ulitmate control of her dowry. But as “sons” we do not have a dowry. We have a full inheritance with full privileges and we are not under a tutor or a controller.
To me this is the full essence of equalty in Christ. We are all “sons” IN Christ and in Christ there is no sense that I have to have a human male meditator between God and my inheritance. Men should now be able to see us as full “joint” heirs. Women never were “joint” heirs in the natural sense with the men. They always came up on the short end. The men controlled their dowry and could take it away. If a woman went in public without her head covering, he can divorce her without giving her a cent of her dowry. This is not equality in any sense of the word.
But if she was a in the legal sense a joint heir, a legal “son”, then he could not touch her inheritance. This is what God has given to women.
Is this okay with you?
The only way a wife might lose her dowry was thru evidence proving adultery as decided by 3 judges or over time repeatedly not preparing food and clothes or marital rights as decided again by 3 judges. The husband could also lose his money this latter way if he neglected his responsibilities.
Almost all the divorces in the time of Jesus were Hillel “Any Matter” divorces as these did not need any proof of anything, but the wife kept her dowry in this case. Only a man could divorce this way.
I agree there was an asymmetry in favor of the husband and Jesus corrected that.
For a woman to go into public without her veil, would be considered a shameful act, and it was treated as if one was guilty of adultery whether it was true or not.
While I am not saying that God is guilty of treating women in a bad way, I am saying that women’s legal status was not equal to the men’s status because the men had control and they used this control in a very biased fashion. What God has done is given us equality in Christ in such a way that women cannot have their inheritance taken away from them or controlled by a man. This is true equality in a way that should be universally recognized without bias. I believe that some day it will be recognized.
I just pray that God will grant us patience and enough love to bare with our brothers in Christ until they recognize us as full heirs with them in word and deed (privilege). I think that it is tempting to be impatient and with that can come unloving actions and words. I sincerely do not want to be guilty of that. Whether I am accepted or not as a teacher, as a sister in Christ, as one whom God has gifted for a particular purpose, should not stop me from accepting others who do not agree with me if I am walking in the Spirit. If I keep my eyes on Jesus, I will walk in the Spirit and not give a foothold to a any kind of bad attitude or resentment of my dear brothers in Christ. I pray that God will continue to grow love in my heart and a great deal of patience as I strive to make a difference for those female “sons” who have been set aside because of their gender.
“I agree we are all legal hiers thru adoption, just that there does not need to be any mapping of a woman to a legal son, what counts is being a legal heir. ”
Don, I am a bit confused as to what you are trying to explain in your comments. I take it you do agree that women are full heirs but I do not understand the above comment when scripture says ’sons’ and Paul went to the trouble to write there is no Greek, Jew, etc., in Christ. The point of this post was to show that Galatians 3:28 is about more than salvation.
I am not sure what all the different cultural inheritance laws at the time have to do with this outside of what the Judizers may have thought and were teaching. Just color me confused!
Cheryl,
Yes in 1st century culture a wife needed to cover her head when out in public (like a required wedding ring) and could not bare her arms or let down her hair. If she did any of those things it could be considered adultery and I agree this was not right.
Jesus and Paul corrected all these asymmetries that were unfair to a wife, assuming she was married to a believer. In every culture there are some things that are considered very risque’ for a woman to do, it is just that in 1st century culture what was considered risque’ is very tame for today. We think nothing of a woman walking outside without a hat or with bare arms or talking to a male that is not a relative.
Lin,
My point is that the Hebrew and Greek for what is usually translated as sons can include females and also in some cases the singular form can be a female. It is like 1950s English, where a woman might be called a man (inclusive, but understood and not specified).
So my understanding ends up in the same place as Cheryl, but gets there slightly differently. For me, Christ is THE seed of the woman, Abraham, etc. and all IN Christ inherit, gender does not matter, neither does ethnicity, nor economics, etc.
Thanks Don!
Great Work, Cheryl. This blog is in my favourites, and I really value your hard work for the benefit of the whole body of Christ. God bless you and God be with you in all that you do.
Karen,
Thank you for your kind word and welcome to my blog!
Cheryl or Anyone else,
This is not specifically related to this topic but…
I posted about the dust up at CARM over a year ago and today somebody (maybe from CARM) challenged me to a debate over the topic of women in ministry. That’s not my thing but if someone is interested, their contact info is toward the bottom of the comments of the following post:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19951398&postID=596460197829288880&page=1
Thanks!
David
Sorry!
This link would have made more sense:
http://voyageministries.blogspot.com/2007/10/carm-watch.html
Here is the debate challenge that David has referred to me:
Here is my reply:
Cheryl, I went over there and looked around, and I saw that people like me who believe in dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture are considered “nut jobs”. I also saw that if anyone says there’s New Age in The Shack (article on that Here), they need to “get a grip”. So I won’t be venturing over there to help in the debate, sorry.
Paula,
Thanks for visiting my site.
I think you misunderstood at least one thing. Although I do not agree with pre-trib dispensationalism, I do not think they are “nut-jobs.”
However, I did say-and do believe-that there are plenty of nut-jobs within that movement. When people within that group have named every president and pope as the Antichrist I think my point has been made.
As far as The Shack goes, I read it thoroughly with a critical eye and do not see the new ageism the critics are claiming. (And I am a Hank Hanegraaff junkie!) My comment to “get a grip” was for those who have gone crazy critizing the book. If you disagree, God bless ya.
Hoping not to derail this post…
Love & Mercy,
David McLaughlin
David,
I’m a firm believer in respecting a person’s right to say whatever they want in their own “home”, so I hope I didn’t come across as trying to tell you what words you can use to describe people.
But personally, I try to avoid questioning the intelligence or mental health of people whose views I disagree with. I’ll freely blast the views and name names of those who hold them, but I do try to avoid dissing the people themselves unless they are false teachers doing great damage to the Body.
Specific to what you posted here, I still think it’s inaccurate to presume that people who say those things are crazy. Misguided perhaps, maybe even poor exegetes or lacking in discernment, but of sound mind nonetheless.
For The Shack, the link I provided is to comments by a former New Ager whose insight and experience should be taken seriously. People typically go there and just brush it off as “hate” or bashing for no reason, but the people there do their homework. It would be well worth your time.
At any rate, I won’t invade your “home” and cause undue tension.
Paula
Thanks Paula,
I understand what you are saying about my term “nut-job.” And duly noted.
My style of humor us not always wise. (My wife tells me this alot.)
As far as invading my “home,” no need-you are always invited and welcome.
L&M,
dm
No problem, David, thanks.
This is true grace in action. Thanks guys for being a good example of working through a disagreement!
Wow! Talk about some bad exegesis of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
I am just absolutely stunned! I dont know how you can attribute that passage to “Judaizers”!
That passage was the words of the Apostle Paul instructing the Corinthians in what their conduct should be while they were gathered as a Church body!
No where in God’s word does it say that man and women are to be considered as equal in earthly roles!
Yes men and women are equal in salvation, and as Children of God.
However I would seriously check yourself and your motivations in trying to read too much earthly equality into God’s Word!
Otherwise you make the same error that homosexuals make in trying to extend passages far beyond their plain readings to try and say that homosexuality is not a sin.
If you truly think that God’s Word infers earthly role equality for men and women then tell me why Paul did not demand that Philemon free the slave Onesimus to be earthly equal men?
There are some deep insights into why The Apostle Paul did not delve into Social and Political issues, and because of that he did believe that there should be a spiritual reordering of the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus bur He did not reorder their earthly relationship.
It is one thing for God to confer on an individual: man or woman a place of leadership, and that conferring would come through the Holy Spirit speaking to multiple individuals to confirm it, men if needed to allow that leadership role to happen.
However it is not of God for individuals to demand leadership roles because they believe they have a right to equality.
John,
Welcome! Thanks for your comments.
You asked:
The Judaizers were a problem in many of the Gentile churches and Paul said in Galatians 2:4 that it was these “false brethren” who had sneaked into the congregation in order to spy out their liberty in Christ in order to bring them into bondage.
When we look at 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 we should be able to clearly see these false brethren because of the “law” that is quoted. There is no such “law” in the scriptures that silences women in the congregation but there is a law in the oral law of the Pharisees. This oral law, now written in the Talmud, silenced women in the assemblies and stopped them from learning in the assemblies. If you do not see this manmade “law” quoted by Paul (Paul quotes from the letter written to him by the Corinthians - see 1 Cor. 7:1), please do show me where this “law” is in the bible? Those who are in the Christian church such as CBMW who want to have role distinctions between Christians admit that there is no such law and can only guess at what “law” Paul is referring to.
You said:
We are not talking about earthly roles. We are talking about spiritual equality. It is all about our relationship with God and his working through us for the benefit of the body of Christ.
You said:
I would recommend that you reread my article again. The equality I have been talking about is our inheritance in Christ and thus our spiritual equality.
You said:
Thanks for the concern. This isn’t something that we are doing at all. We must read the passages in their context, which is something that I had done in my article. I have taken Gal. 3:28 in its complete context which includes our inheritance as “sons” of God. Galatians 3 read in context will include Galatians 4.
As far as homosexuality, the scriptures are clear in context, that homosexuality is a sin and that no one who practices this sin will inherit the kingdom of God. Can you show me one scripture that states that women who teach the bible to men are sinning against God and will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Again, we are talking about spiritual equality. The Christian influence did eventually bring about the freedom of the slaves, but the importance that Paul was bringing about was not the physical removal of slavery, but the spiritual removal of slavery. Slaves were to inherit with the free men. Slaves were spiritually equal as “sons” of God just as the free born were. Slaves then would be free in their spiritual inheritance to use their God-given gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. No one should discriminate against a slave because of his earthly situation. He was as equal to serve as any other free born “son” of God.
I do not believe that any Christian can demand any “rights”. In fact our inheritance is the ability to serve. We are to follow our Lord Jesus into service as slaves. We are not our own. We are bought with a price. And when we serve each other in submission and love, we serve the Lord Jesus who bought us.
I greatly appreciate your comments here and I hope you feel welcome and valued. We should never fear being challenged on our exegesis or our service for Christ. Truth is provable and can stand the test. Thank you for your thoughtful questions. If I can help you further to understand a side that you do not embrace, I am at your service.
John,
I would encourage you to have a look at the articles on 1 Cor. 14. that I have written especially:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/16/the-elusive-law/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/19/is-a-womans-voice-filthy/
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/21/who-dared-to-contradict-paul/
These should help you to understand why we must see the prohibition demanding complete silence of women in the assembly as a demand from the letter written to Paul. If not we have a serious problem with verse 36 because the inspired Greek contradicts the verses that are just preceding.
Again, thanks for joining the conversation!
Once again, I must ask why any believer would demand to keep a place of superiority over other believers, a place granted not by scripture but by society. Jesus had all authority as God but laid it aside to serve and save the world. He humbled Himself– a lesson yet unlearned by many professing the name of Christ, on many issues. This same Jesus said “not so among you” to all His followers, yet today many still clamor to see “who is the greatest”.
Egalitarianism is about equality, not superiority or rights or chains of command. Equality is the ideal Christian relationship, not a sin or a vice. Those who seem to loathe equality need to ask themselves why. Why does any mere human try to play God to another? Why would any believer even desire such a thing? Why do male supremacists cling so jealously to position and express so much fear of losing it– yet, ironically, try to accuse those who object to it as being the ones seeking position?
Hierarchy is the way of the world, the way of other religions. But “love does not demand its own way”, and “without love, I am nothing”. We are all spiritual siblings, with only Jesus as the “firstborn”. The rest of us are all on the same level. So for any to claim otherwise, to seek preeminence, to view social standing as “something to be grasped”, shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christianity is all about.
It is time for Christians to “remember the height from which you have fallen”, to “return to your first love”. The one who loves is finished with pride and prejudice, and filled instead with service and sacrifice. We must follow the example of Jesus in this.
I believe that believers have rights, but they can also choose to decline to use them for a greater good. But this does not say that they do not have them in the first place.
Understanding that 1 Cor 14:34-35 are from Judaizers is partly based on the term the “law says”. This term is what is used to refer to the so-called Oral Law of the Pharisees, as it was said, being oral. The Written Law, what we call the OT, is what was written or read, it never “says” anything. One needs to read the NT in 1st century cultural context.
Cheryl Said:
“When we look at 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 we should be able to clearly see these false brethren because of the “law” that is quoted. There is no such “law” in the scriptures that silences women in the congregation but there is a law in the oral law of the Pharisees. ”
I say:
Again I am Stunned! You have NO Biblical support for what you are saying in regards to this passage!
Paul was not qouting the Jewish Oral “Law” of the Pharisee’s in this passage! These were Paul’s words! Paul’s instructions on how women should conduct themselves in a gathering of the Corinthian Church Body! And if there was ANY Apostle who clearly showed that Gentile Christians were not under any Jewish Oral “Law” it was the Apostle Paul!
So again this makes your statements in regards to 1 Corinthians 14:34,35 absilutely FALSE! And I am sorry but your twisting of this scripture comes from someone demanding earthly equality! Something as Christians we are not to do!
You ARE extending the meaning of that passage far beyond its plain reading!
If by the grace of God, God chooses to confer a leadership role on anyone, again God will make that known to multiple people within a church body and then it will be offered to an individual, regardless of gender, but on a case by case basis and not as a general rule!
However WE ARE NOT TO DEMAND IT.
No where in Scripture is there support for saying that people who demand equality should have it! On the contrary the prevailing theme in God’s word is to be content with what you have and the position you are placed in by God who is sovereign!
And further the people who are content in what they have and in the position they are in, THESE are the people God find’s worthy, at his will and timing for his plans to raise up in a leadership role to be used by him. Because these people have the humitlity to be used.
There are also some false straw man arguments being used in the comments on this article.
Namely that No Christian should want to keep a position of superiority over another Christian, to infer that individuals of the make persuassion who rightly divide the word in this regard are somehow wanting to maintain a position of superiority over women!
When this is a false argument! In Spiritual terms it has nothing to do with Superiority! It has to do with God ordained roles!
Roles are not the same as superiority!
The mingling and confusing of superiority with roles is a secular aheistic and modern humanist ideology that has been injected into Christian teaching! But one which has no Biblical Basis!
By women coveting roles of leadership within a Church body they are inserting the fallen belief of there being a superiority of roles and ignoring the Spiritual God given instruction of a difference in roles but NOT a difference in superiority of roles!
Superiority is a fallen sinful concept!
Again I will close with this, show me a single Bible passage where God’s choice of a person for leadership was one who demanded it!
John,
My suggestion is you need to learn how to understand these verses are they would have been understood by the original readers, else you end up siding with Judaizers.
Egals demand nothing but faithfulness to the scriptures in context. They do not aspire to contrived “offices” but instead for equality. What part of “equality” is supposed to mean “superiority”? And what part of desiring superiority is supposed to be a Christian quality?
Male supremacists, on the other hand, DEMAND preeminence over half the Body. The fact that they scream so loudly when their culture-granted supremacy is challenged indicates lack of humility and desiring to “lord over”. They refuse to humble themselves as Jesus did; they refuse to give up privileges gained through a long history of bowing to patriarchal culture.
The fact that Paul was so clearly against putting Christians under Jewish law should make it abundantly clear that he would never appeal to it in the same breath. Therefore, Paul is not appealing to any such law but strongly refuting it.
Anyway, people who use excessive numbers of exclamation points are clearly just shouting and not listening at all.
“Paul was not qouting the Jewish Oral “Law” of the Pharisee’s in this passage! These were Paul’s words! Paul’s instructions on how women should conduct themselves in a gathering of the Corinthian Church Body! And if there was ANY Apostle who clearly showed that Gentile Christians were not under any Jewish Oral “Law” it was the Apostle Paul!”
Hi John,
As we can see by the verse, a ‘law’ is being referred to here. It says specifically, “…as the law also says”.
Can you reference this law? It does exist but not in scripture.
If I understand you correctly, you believe that Paul is ‘making a new law’?
Verse 36 really clears up the misunderstandings for us as it negates verses 34 and 35. And this is even more clear as we see Paul refering to women praying and prophesying in the Body in other parts of Corinthians.
John, Also, if I may, I am a bit perplexed that I feel the need to defend the wrong notion that I want ’superiority’ over another. That whole concept is not Christian at all. Eph 5:21 should be our touchstone here no matter if we are elders, pastors or the church janitor. WE are to mutually submit to one another as believers.
What we are discussing here is more about the freedom to exercise our spiritual gifts which are given by the Holy Spirit to edify the Body.
I am at a loss when someone mentions ‘roles’. I do not see that concept in scripture anywhere. That is a Frenchword denoting a ’scroll’ which was used to learn lines to play a pretend character. A role is something we ‘pretend’ or do. As Christians we are to ‘be’ in Christ.
Don said:
“My suggestion is you need to learn how to understand these verses are they would have been understood by the original readers, else you end up siding with Judaizers.”
I say:
This comment thread is just unbelievable! 1 Corinthians was a letter from the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian Church!
To actually suggest that the Apostle Paul was telling the Corinthian Church, a Gentile Church to follow the Pharisee’s Oral Law is ludicrous! It is an insult to the Apostle Paul who stood against the Pharisee’s oral law!
Again all of you are reading far too much into that verse due to a desire to impose a fallen earthly equality where it has no place!
This is what the Apostle Paul says in verses 37 and 38:
If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
The things he WRITES TO THEM ARE FROM THE LORD! Not from the Pharisee’s fallen and false Oral Law!
You are guilty of mishandling the Word of God!
John,
I am in and out of the office today so it will take me some time to get through all the comments. I just read your last comment and I would like to correct your misunderstanding. You said:
This is not correct. No one here is saying that the Apostle Paul was telling the Corinthian Church to follow the Pharisee’s oral law. What is being said is that Paul quotes