# Galatians 3:28 and its improper use



## tellville (Apr 25, 2006)

I posted this on my church forum. I was curious if my exegesis is correct here or whether Rev. Mike Terrett was correct in his usage of Gal 3:28?

A couple of days ago after
Sunday school I engaged in a dialogue with Rev. Mike Terrett. He is a
man I greatly respect and (still) admire and have no malice towards.
Mike Terrett was discussing with Michael about <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=1+Tim+2" target="_blank">1 Tim 2</a>.
I do not wish to discuss his exegesis on the text beyond the fact that
he holds that it does not teach specific gender roles for Christians in
relation to teaching authority. Now normally I wouldn't have engaged
him on this text as I usually do not participate in discussions of
gender roles. I only commented on the Greg Koukl article because I felt
he was doing a great injustice to the Greek. While I do not think Mike
Terret was doing a great injustice to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=1+Tim+2" target="_blank">1 Tim 2</a> per se, I feel his allusion to <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+3:28" target="_blank">Gal 3:28</a> to support his case was quite in error.
<br>

<br>
Now let's look at the passage that Mike Terrett was using to support his case, <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+3:28" target="_blank">Gal 3:28</a> states: 
<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>NASB <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+3:28" target="_blank">Gal 3:28</a> wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">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</td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
Now on face value it seems that this verse is supporting Mike Terrett´s
case: That there are to be no distinction in gender roles for
Christians in regards to teaching authority. It does this by appearing
to state that all distinctions are void because we are now one in
Christ. <br>

<br>
However, I do not think this passage is teaching what Mike Terrett wants it to teach. This is for the very reason that while <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=1+Tim+2" target="_blank">1 Tim 2</a> is addressing gender roles (whether timeless truths or contemporary only I will leave for others to discuss) <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+2:28" target="_blank">Gal 2:28</a>
is dealing with soteriological concerns (salvation related concerns).
Furthermore, 1 Timothy is called a 'pastoral epistle' for a reason: it
is dealing with pastoral concerns. Galatians on the other hand is
dealing primarily with the Gospel message itself as the Gospel was
being compromised by the Judaizers. <br>

<br>
Let´s read <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+3:15-27" target="_blank">Gal 3:15-27</a>:
<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>NASB <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+3:15-27" target="_blank">Gal 3:15-27</a> wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">15
Brethren, I speak in terms of human relations: even though it is only a
man's covenant, yet when it has been ratified, no one sets it aside or
adds conditions to it. <br>

<br>
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not
say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to
your seed," that is, Christ. <br>

<br>

17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and
thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified
by God, so as to nullify the promise. <br>

<br>
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. <br>

<br>
19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having
been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the
seed would come to whom the promise had been made. <br>

<br>
20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 
<br>

<br>
21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be!
For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then
righteousness would indeed have been based on law. <br>

<br>
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the
promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. <br>

<br>
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 
<br>

<br>
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 
<br>

<br>
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. 
<br>

<br>
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 
<br>

<br>
27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
Now, has there been anything up to this point that would suggest to us
that Paul is going to delve into gender roles in the Church? Or roles
given to slaves, or Greeks? Or is Paul talking about soteriological
concerns? Let us read <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+3:28" target="_blank">Gal 3:28</a> again followed by verse 29:
<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>NASB <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+3:28-29" target="_blank">Gal 3:28-29</a> wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">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
<br>

<br>
29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. </td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>Verse 29 shows us that Paul is still talking about soteriological
concerns, and given the lack of any grammatical reason to think that
verse 28 has now jumped to gender roles, verse 28 must be interpreted
from the soteriological framework that Paul has set up here. So, if <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Gal+3:28" target="_blank">Gal 3:28</a> is not talking about gender roles, what is it talking about? 
<br>

<br>
The Judaizers in Galatia were forcing Gentile Christians to first
become Jews by undergoing circumcision. But Paul is preaching against
this mentality. He is pointing out that it does not matter whether one
is a Jew or a Gentile, whether they are a slave or a free man, whether
you are a male or female, but rather, under Christ we are all one. You
don´t have to become a Jew to be a Christian, nor do you need to be set
free from slavery, nor do you need to become a man to become a
Christian. Rather, salvation is open to all regardless of what position
you hold in society. <br>

<br>
Paul makes a similar point in Colossians when he says in 3:9-11:
<br>

<br>
</span><table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td><span class="genmed"><b>NASB <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=Col+3:9-11" target="_blank">Col 3:9-11</a> wrote:</b></span></td>	</tr>	<tr> <td class="quote">9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 

<br>

<br>
10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him-- 
<br>

<br>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">11 a renewal in which there is no
distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised,
barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.</span></td>	</tr></tbody></table><span class="postbody">
<br>

<br>
Paul is saying here that where there is the new Christian, "there is
neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian,
Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all." The new
Christian can be physically a Gentile or a Jew. To God, it really does
not matter, nor should it matter among real Christians. While there is
no mention of 'male nor female' in this passage, Paul's argument is
similar enough to make a parallel. Again, Paul is using this argument
not to discuss gender roles (or any roles in particular) but rather
that soteriologically, Christianity is open to all. <br>

<br>

I feel that in Mike Terrett´s zeal to support that women and men share
exactly the same teaching roles and responsibilties he is using texts
beyond their proper use to support his case. I feel he should have
stayed within the bounds of <a href="http://www.biblegateway.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NASB&x=0&y=0&passage=1+Tim+2" target="_blank">1 Tim 2</a>,
or used another passage that is actually dealing with gender roles to
support his case. I've emailed him the link to this post so if he
desires to respond to it and show that I am in error he is free to do
so. Iron sharpens iron as I always like to say

[Edited on 4-25-2006 by tellville]


----------



## ServantofGod (Apr 27, 2006)

Agreed...


----------

