Introduction
A point raised by those egalitarians who do not see Gal 3:28 as an ‘equality text’ is the simple fact that the verse says nothing about equality. The subject is unity, ‘all one’, not equality, ‘all equal’, as has been pointed out by both egalitarians and complementarians.[1] This article reviews the points that are made by such scholars.
Equality or Unity?
Complementarian R. W. Hove notes that there are two key reasons why the ‘all one’ phrase does not mean ‘all equal’. One reason is the fact that the Greek word for ‘one’ here simply does not mean ‘equal’:
As noted in the previous chapter, there are two critical reasons why “you are all one” does not mean “you are all equal”.
I will review these two reasons briefly. The first reason is the lexical range of the word ‘one’. Lexically this word cannot mean “equal.” Our overview of BAGD confirmed this, as we found that there is no known example of ‘one’ being used this way. [2]
The other reason is the fact that uses in other Greek literature of this same ‘all one’ phrase indicates that it was not used to refer to equality, but unity; Hove states:
The second reason “you are all one” does not mean “you are all equal” is that the phrase was not used in that way in the era of the New Testament. As we have seen, a study of every parallel use of the phrase “we/you/they are one” in the 300 years surrounding the New Testament reveals that this expression fails to express the concept of unqualified equality.
In fact, “you are all one” is used of diverse objects to denote one element they share in common; it is not used of similar objects to denote that they are the same.[3]
Likewise, egalitarian scholar F. Watson argues that Paul is not addressing hierarchy and equality in this passage, but that the ‘all one’ phrase refers to unity in Christ:
In baptism, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female receive a new identity as they ‘put on Christ’ (3:27): the emphasis lies not on their ‘equality’ but on their belonging together as they participate in the new identity and the new practices and modes of interaction that this will entail.
Paul could have assumed that the three distinctions he mentions were hierarchical ones, and that in Christ these are replaced by an egalitarian oneness, but there is nothing in the wording of his statement (or in the hypothetical baptismal formula supposed to underlie it) to suggest that he actually did so. The polarity of hierarchy and equality is an exceedingly blunt instrument for interpreting this text.[4]
Hove provides several Biblical examples of the use of ‘one’ to denote unity rather than equality or the same roles:
In 1 Corinthians 3:8 Paul writes that the one who waters and the one who plants are one. Both of these individuals have different roles and different rewards, but Paul uses the expression “you are one” to show that they share one thing in common— that they have a common purpose.
In Romans 12:5 Paul writes that, “We who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts…” Again, the expression “we are one” is an expression that denotes what different people, with different gifts, have in common—one body in Christ. The pattern is the same with the Father and Son (John 10:30) and the husband and wife (Mark 10:8). In both cases the expression “you are one” highlights an element that diverse objects share in common.[5]
He also notes that in such cases the roles of those who are ‘one’ are different:
The New Testament examples of “we/you/they are one,” where a plurality of people are called one, are: the planter and waterer (1 Cor. 3:8); Father and Son (John 10:30; 17:11, 21, 22 [2x], 23); husband and wife (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:8); and different believers with different gifts (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 10:17).
In every instance the groups of people in these pairs have different roles. Given these expressions, which formally are directly parallel with Galatians 3:28, it is difficult to see how the meaning of “you are all one” can be “there are no distinctions of role between you”.[6]
Watson argues against an egalitarian reading of Gal 3:28 on the basis that none of the three relationships referred to by Paul are hierarchical, so the passage cannot be arguing for their abolition on the basis of equality:
In Gal 3.28, for example, the three distinctions (Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female) do not straightforwardly represent a series of hierarchical relationships. The distinction between Jew and Greek does not constitute a hierarchical relationship, since each party regards itself as superior to the other.[7]
As for the second distinction, the terms ‘slave’ and ‘free’ refer less clearly to a hierarchical relationship than if Paul had written ‘slave or master’. ‘Male and female (a;rsen kai. qh/lu)’ is an allusion to Gen 1:27, as the substitution of kai. for ouvde. indicates, and there is no suggestion in the Genesis text that this relationship is understood hierarchically.[8]
This being the case, Watson points out, the purpose of Gal 3:28 is to identify unity, not to argue for egalitarianism:
If the distinctions of Gal 3.28a do not refer to ‘hierarchical’ relationships, then the ‘oneness in Christ Jesus’, in the face of which the distinctions are declared to be irrelevant, is not to be understood as an ‘egalitarian’ oneness.[9]
Egalitarian scholar N. T. Wright says the same:
The point Paul is making overall in this passage is that God has one family, not two, and that this family consists of all those who believe in Jesus; that this is the family God promised to Abraham, and that nothing in the Torah can stand in the way of this unity which is now revealed through the faithfulness of the Messiah. This is not at all about how we relate to one another within this single family; it is about the fact, as we often say, that the ground is even at the foot of the cross.[10]
E. Glasswell further comments,
The three pairs do not have precisely the same significance if one looks at other places where Paul discusses them separately. The differences within each pair are seen as being overcome in Christ but not abolished completely, though this is true of each pair differently.[11]
Hove quotes another commentator who demonstrates that Paul’s treatment of certain relationships actually contradicts the egalitarian claim. Paul does not use Biblical arguments to support the Jew/Gentile and slave/master relationships of his era, but does use Biblical arguments to support other social relationships, such as male/female and husband/wife:
Colin Kruse, investigating human relationships in the Pauline epistles, comes to a similar conclusion. Kruse examined Paul’s treatment of six pairs of human relationships throughout the Pauline corpus: Jew/Gentile, master/slave, male/female, husband/wife, parent/child, and citizen/state. He concludes:
No common pattern emerges as far as the retention in principle of all six human relationships surveyed is concerned. On the one hand, theological support was not offered for the retention in principle of Jew-Gentile and slave-master relationships.
On the other hand, however, theological reasons were provided which imply the necessity of the retention in principle of the male-female, husband-wife, parent-child and citizen-state relationships.[12]
Wright insists that Gal 3:28 is being misread by other egalitarians, that it is not about the position women have in ‘church ministry’, nor does it speak about the relationship of brothers and sisters within the ecclesia. He objects to misuse of this passage by his fellow egalitarians in strong terms:
The first thing to say is fairly obvious but needs saying anyway. Galatians 3 is not about ministry. Nor is it the only word Paul says about being male and female, and instead of taking texts in a vacuum and then arranging them in a hierarchy, for instance by quoting this verse and then saying that it trumps every other verse in a kind of fight to be the senior bull in the herd (what a very masculine way of approaching exegesis, by the way!), we need to do justice to what Paul is actually saying at this point.[13]
Wright also identifies a common egalitarian straw man:
I am surprised to see, in some of your literature, the insistence that women and men are equally saved and justified; that is, I’m surprised because I’ve never heard anyone denying it. Of course, there may well be some who do, but I just haven’t met them.[14]
He also notes a mistranslation of the verse which is commonly used by egalitarians:
First, a note about translation and exegesis. I notice that on one of your leaflets you adopt what is actually a mistranslation of this verse: neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female. That is precisely what Paul does not say; and as it’s what we expect he’s going to say, we should note quite carefully what he has said instead, since he presumably means to make a point by doing so, a point which is missed when the translation is flattened out as in that version. What he says is that there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no ‘male and female’.[15]
P. Hugenberger (a moderate egalitarian who considers women are free to speak and teach in the ecclesia if the male eldership approves them), objects to the typical egalitarian use of Gal 3:28 on several grounds. Most significantly, Hugenberger observes that the passage is simply being taken out of context (it has to do with salvation rather than roles in ecclesial organization), and points out that this is becoming recognized even by other egalitarians, such as B. Witherington III:
Perhaps more compelling, however, is an objection being raised with increasing conviction: Galatians 3:28 and the other so-called “equality texts” actually have less to do with ecclesiology than with soteriology and are in fact concerned to assert not equality but salvific unity within the body of Christ.[16]
This is of course the same interpretation which complementarians have held all along. Another egalitarian who does not agree with the common egalitarian reading of this passage is E. L. Miller. He affirms that the passage teaches a union with Christ which is available to all, regardless of social, ethnic, and gender distinction:
The good news is that this passage does indeed teach that at some level and in some sense such distinctions as Jew/Greek, bond/free, male/female, fall away and prove irrelevant from the standpoint of Christian faith. At this level, the soteriological level, all believers enjoy a salvific union with Christ.[17]
However, he points out that the distinctions referred to by Paul are not eliminated, despite the fact that they are no barrier to salvation. On the contrary, Miller insists that these distinctions are reinforced:
The bad news is that there is another level presupposed by the passage, and it turns out that at this other level such distinctions, far from being abrogated, are actually reinforced. This is the ordinary, everyday level of practical, social life.[18]
Miller recognizes that this conclusion will not be viewed favourably by other egalitarians:
This may be a disappointing interpretation of this celebrated ’egalitarian’ passage, for it turns out at one level to be only another proof-text for those very elements in Paul that many are struggling to get rid of – sexism and patriarchalism, for example.[19]
However, he insists that this reading of the passage is in agreement with its context, and with Paul’s overall teaching:
It must be admitted, though, for better or for worse, that this view of Galatians 3:28 coheres both with its immediate context and with the rest of what we know of Paul. This includes his notion of the priority of the true Israel over Gentile Christians who are merely grafted on to it, his implicit condoning of slavery, and his hierarchical view of husband-wife relations.[20]
Miller acknowledges that it is possible to extrapolate beyond what Paul wrote and apply the passage in an egalitarian manner, but he still declares that Christians must be honest about the fact that Paul’s teaching in this passage did not have an egalitarian aim:
That is not to say that we today, as others before us, cannot work that out and draw the implication on Paul’s behalf. But it seems not to have been done in the Pauline texts themselves, and certainly not the one before us. We have to try to be honest about that.[21]
Conclusion
What would an ‘egalitarian’ Gal 3:28 look like? While observing that arguments should not be based on what was not written,[22] Hove notes that it was entirely possible for Paul to have written such a passage which spoke of brothers and sisters as ‘equal’ in some way if that was the point of the passage, and provides a relevant 1st century parallel:
Philo, writing at about the same time as Paul, uses the phrase pa,ntej evste. ivso,timoi (“you are all entitled to equal honor”), which is almost directly parallel to Galatians 3:28 u`mei/j ei-j evste (“you are all one”).[23]
Moses’ argument here is much like Galatians 3:28. The parts (Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female) have inheritance only because of the whole (being in Christ).[24]
However, Hove also notes that even such a term as Philo uses here would not necessarily mean that those referred to by it would have identical roles:
But notice, while each tribe has equal honor, and each is treated the same way when it comes to fighting battles or settling land, not all the tribes have the same roles (e.g., Gen. 49:10, “the scepter will not depart from Judah,” and Numbers 3, which details the unique role of the tribe of Levi). Thus, even if Paul had used an i;soj (“equal”) word in Galatians 3:28, it would not follow that Jew/Greek,slave/free, male/female have the same roles.
In addition, the fact that Paul did not use an i;soj root word, when it was available, is evidence, though admittedly not weighty, that his intent was not to emphasize the equality of Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female.’’[25]
[1] Standard modern Bible translations render the text as a statement that those in Christ are all ‘one’, not that they are all ‘equal’; readers are invited to test this themselves, and see if they can find any standard modern translation which renders the text as a statement that those in Christ are ‘all equal’ (of course all those in Christ are equal spiritually speaking, even if not socially, legally, physically or financially, but this passage is not denying that spiritual equality).
[2] R. W. Hove, Equality in Christ? Galatians 3:28 and the Gender Dispute (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1999), 108; emphasis is added here and in all subsequent quotations from scholars.
[3] Hove, Equality in Christ?, 108.
[4] F. Watson, “The Authority of the Voice: A Theological Reading of 1 Cor 11.2–16” NTS 46 (2000): 520-536 (521).
[5] Hove, Equality in Christ?, 108.
[6] Hove, Equality in Christ?, 119
[7] Watson, “The Authority of the Voice”, 521.
[8] Watson, “The Authority of the Voice”, 521; [Ed. AP]: Whether Gen 1:27 has an hierarchical overtone depends on how you read 1 Cor 11:7 which is also an allusion—Watson betrays his egalitarian preferences in this quote].
[9] Watson, “The Authority of the Voice”, 521.
[10] N. T. Wright, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis”, which was a conference paper for the Symposium, ‘Men, Women and the Church’’ held at St. John’s College, Durham, 4 September, 2004; cited from the online copy at N. T. Wright’s website, www.ntwrightpage.com, which has no pagination.
[11] M. E. Glasswell, “Some Issues of Church and Society in Light of Paul’s Eschatology” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett, (eds. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1982), 315. Cited by Hove, Equality in Christ?, 94.
[12] Hove, Equality in Christ?, 94 citing Colin Kruse, “Human Relationships in the Pauline Corpus” in The Fullness of Time: Biblical Studies in Honour of Archbishop Donald Robinson (eds. David Peterson and John Pryor; Homebush West, NSW: Anzea Publishers, 1992), 180.
[13] Wright, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis”.
[14] Wright, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis”.
[15] Wright, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis”.
[16] G. Hugenberger, “Women in Church Office: Hermeneutics or Exegesis? A Survey Of Approaches To 1 Tim 2:8-15” JETS 35 (1992): 341-360 (347); Hugenberger cites the following articles in support: J. J. Davis, “Some Reflections on Gal 3:28, Sexual Roles, and Biblical Hermeneutics,” JETS 19 (1976): 201-208 and B. Witherington III, “Rite and Rights for Women—Galatians 3.28,” NTS 27 (1981): 593-604.
[17] E. L. Miller, “Is Galatians 3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?” ET 114 (2002): 9-11 (9).
[18] Miller, “Is Galatians 3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?”, 9.
[19] Miller, “Is Galatians 3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?”, 11.
[20] Miller, “Is Galatians 3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?”, 11.
[21] Miller, “Is Galatians 3:28 the Great Egalitarian Text?”, 11.
[22] Hove, Equality in Christ?, 110.
[23] Hove, Equality in Christ?, 110; the text is cited from Philo’s The Life of Moses, 1.324.
[24] Hove, Equality in Christ?, 110.
[25] Hove, Equality in Christ?, 110.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One