DBE: Chapter 10 – Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29

Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy. A Book Discussion. (Index here)

Part II: Looking to Scripture (The Biblical Texts)

Chapter 10 – Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29. By Gordon D. Fee.

The topic of Dr. Fee’s essay is Galatians 3:26-29:

26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NIV)

Dr. Fee writes:

At issue in the debate about gender equality in this passage is the scope of the unexpected elaboration in Galatains 3:28 of the “all of you” in Galatians 3:27. I the equality, or oneness, of the three pairs – Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female – to be limited to the justifying work of Christ alone, or does it include other aspects of life in the believing community as well? Or is it possible that putting the question this way already exhibits prejudice toward the text one way or the other, since this question does not seem to rise immediately out of the text of Galatians itself?

But a key exegetical question, seldom noted, does beg to be answered: Why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile? And especially, why the addition of the third pair – with its formulation “male and female,” not “man and woman” (which could mean “husband and wife”) – since in similar moments elsewhere (1 Cor 12:13 [cf. 7:17-24]; Col 3:10) this pairing is not included?

The pursuit of this basic exegetical question should give us some insight into the nature and scope of the “newness” Paul sees as available in the new creation. But to get there, we must first examine the argument of Galatians as a whole and of Galatians 3:1-4:7 in particular. (172-173)

Dr. Fee points out that the crisis Paul is responding to in his letter to the Galatians is the presence of Jewish Christian agitators insisting that the men be circumcised. While many try to reduce verses 26-29 to merely a statement about salvation, Fee points out that there is much more at work here:

But in fact Paul says more than this [soteriology], and it is the “more than” that should catch our attention; for what is at stake is not simply the soteriological question of how people are saved, whether it is by faith or by works of law. The final clause in Galatians 3:28 makes that clear. Paul’s explanatory “for” does not elaborate that all are equally justified in God’s sight through faith in Christ Jesus but rather that all constitute one people (form one body) by their equal standing in Christ. After all, those involved in the struggle in Galatia are already “saved.” What is at stake is ecclesiology: who constitutes the people of God under the new covenant of Christ and the Spirit, and on what grounds are they constituted? Paul’s answer: (1) Jew and Gentile together form the one people of God, (2) on the grounds of their common trust in Christ and reception of the Spirit.

…For these three pairs represent the primary ways people were divided/separated from each other in structures of the present age that was now passing away (1 Cor  7:31; cf. 1 Cor 2:6): on the basis of race, social standing and gender. But “in Christ Jesus,” Paul asserts, these categories have lost their structural significance and relevance; that is, these very things that keep people distanced from or at odds with each other in a fallen world have been relativized in the body of Christ, where not only Jew and Greek, but masters and slaves, men and women, all form that one body together. (176-177)

Fee claims that what Paul has in mind here is the “…conviction that Christ and the Spirit have ushered in God’s promised “new creation,” which is now awaiting its final eschatological consummation (Gal 6:15).” (177) He lists two important implications of the “new creation” theology:

1. One must begin by taking Paul seriously with regard to ethnicity, status and gender no longer being relevant for constituting value and social identity in the new creation – especially in light of his three-repeated “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value” (Gal 5:6; 6:15; cf. 1 Cor 7:19). … But in the new creation none of this counts in terms of significance or value; so even though they continue to live in old age sociological contexts, they do so under a new set of rules. (179)

2. But precisely because Paul Still lived eschatologically in a world in which honor and shame were the primary values, he also reflects a degree of ambivalence toward cultural structures and norms. … To follow Christ and thus experience cultural shame [for worshiping a crucified leader] and isolation were not negotiables for Paul… Paul was quite ready to yield on certain cultural matters so as not to predicate the shame on lesser things. Thus, one should hardly expect him to tinker with roles and structures in a world that is on its way out.” (180-181)

Latter Fee writes:

The household codes in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5 assume the structural norm (of  the privileged few who had large households), where the husband, father and master are the same person – the patron (hopefully benevolent) of his wife, children and slaves. But Paul radicalizes this norm in a countercultural way by insisting that he believing husband love his wife- which had very little to do with marriage in that culture. Not only so, he further insists that he love her “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25) putting the significance attached to the structures into jeopardy. In the new order husband and wife are first of all brother and sister in Christ, thus racially altering the perspective, so that she is not simply a member of his household but is in relationship to him; they are members together of “one body.” As such, either my prophesy or teach (1 Cor 14:26) – which are matters of Spirit gifting, not gender – as long as some cultural norms that distinguish male and female are maintained (1 Cor 11-2-16). (183-184)

Fee proceeds from here to point out that the church itself is God’s household and how this thinking encompasses all the relationships in the body.

Personally, I find this chapter very rich. I think Fee helps us get into Paul’s mind and get a grip on the strategy and tactics Paul uses to lead people into being the Kingdom of God. Galatians is central to bringing all the pieces together.

Author:

Gordon D. Fee received his M.A. from Seattle Pacific University and Ph.D from the University of Southern California. He is professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Regent College as well as an ordained minister in the Assemblies of God. His publications include How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth; How to Read the Bible Book by Book; New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook; God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul; Listening to the Spirit in the Text; and commentaries on 1 Corinthians and Philippians (NICNT) and the Pastoral Epistles (NIBC). He and his wife, Maudline, have four married children and twelve grandchildren.

Before commenting, please read Prefatory Comments.

[Previous] [Next] [Index]

Comments

[molly]

As a student of complimentarianism/patriarchy, I was ASTOUNDED to discover the Household Codes.

Keep in mind, I was so sure that we needed to take the Bible literally/seriously, that I refused to look at culture...(sad, but that's sort of what you are taught---"it HAS to be literal, if you think it's cultural, you have just compromised the entire word of God," etc, etc, etc, creating quite a spirit of closed eyes and ears)! The Roman/Greek Household Code is absolutely essential, though, to know about, because it creates the backdrop for Paul's Ephesians and Colossians "household codes." Fascinating stuff...

I've written about this previously:
http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/07/22/roman-household-code/ a few months back as I was newly discovering it...

[ScottB]

Another great summary. I think that the social location of Galatians argues along the lines of Fee - the issue that opens the letter is Paul's opposing Peter for "not acting in line with the truth of the gospel" (2:14). But the issue wasn't some sort of Pelagian controversy - it was table fellowship. To argue that 3:26-29 has no effect on our social and communal lives is to nullify Paul's opposition of Peter in chapter 2 (at least in my reading).

Thanks for a great summary!

[Michael Kruse]

Molly I have been in the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA)old for two decades. (By mainline I mean the United Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran (ELCA), United Church of Christ, Christian Church, North American Baptist, and PCUSA.) The reality is that there are people who do try to develop "cultural contextual" schemes in order to legitimate their preset agendas. We are fallen and the temptation to bend things to what our ears want to hear is true for all of us so a little healthy skepticism about cultural analysis is not unwarranted.

That said, there is know way to read scripture without doing a cultural analysis! When Paul writes about husbands and wives, do we read about the spouses as if they are in an Iraqi context, or Japanese context, or Italian context or Bushman context? No. We read spouse in terms of the context of early twenty-first century in America. While it may not be a conscious exercise on our part, it is the application of cultural context to the words of scripture. The question isn’t of using cultural context or not using it. The question is about which context. That is the shift I think many of those who are so reluctant to struggle with context need to make.

Thanks for your comments!

[Michael Kruse]

You are welcome Scott. I think the key is "for you are all one in Christ Jesus" because while clearly salvation is part of the issue the social divisions are clearly in mind as well as you mentioned. The divisions are gone and we are one.

[Michael Kruse]

Molly, one further thought. I am intrigued by the fact the household code made such an impact on you. I struggled with many of these pieces for years but when I finally got a grip on the households it was like somebody adjusted the camera lens and suddenly all sorts of stuff came into focus. In discussions about this topic, I have more and more often begun to use this as the entry point for dialog.

[molly]

YES. I experienced the same thing---like a camera lens was just adjusted. Things I had been wondering about, puzzling over, researching, feeling (to be honest) really FEARFUL for wondering about, etc, all of a sudden became clear. It was like being a bloodhound who had caught the scent every now and then, but was starting to wonder if he was crazy (or just going the absolute WRONG way)...but then, all of a sudden, caught not just a scent but found the TRAIL.

Okay, so I didn't bay like a bloodhound, but my spirit felt like it wanted to! :)

[Michael Kruse]

I didn't bay like a bloodhound, but my spirit felt like it wanted to!"

LOL

[molly]

PS.
You want to know something REALLY funny...
I just realized (in the post I linked to above, re. when I first began learning about the codes) that IN that post, I linked to one of YOUR previous blog posts about the codes...
http://krusekronicle.typepad.com/kruse_kronicle/2006/03/theology_and_ec_5.html

DUH... :)

[Michael Kruse]

That just makes it all the more special to me.