"Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29" (Ch 10) by Gordon D. Fee

The thesis of Gordon Fee's discussion of Gal 3:26-29 which focuses on verse 28-"there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"-may be briefly summarized as follows: (1) This text represents the new order among God's people in the new creation "in Christ" and as such disallows the significance of structures and roles in relation to the pairs mentioned; (2) thus "to give continuing significance to a male-authority viewpoint for men and women, whether at home or in the church, is to reject the new creation in favor of the norms of a fallen world" (185).

As an introduction to the actual discussion of this text, Fee spends considerable space attempting to show that the central issue of the book of Galatians is not the traditional question of "whether people are justified by faith or by works" (173), but rather the issue of "who constitute the people of God in the new creation" (174). In other words, the "driving issue is not first of all Soteriology but ecclesiology" (174). After all, Fee says, "those involved in the struggle in Galatia are already ‘saved'" (176).

Fee asserts that the real issue of Galatians is "Gentile inclusion in the people of God" (174). Can they "get in on the promise to Abraham...without also taking on Jewish identity" (174)? The discussion of justification by faith and freedom from the law in Gal 3:1-4:7 "focuses on the place of the Gentiles in God's new economy" (175). Similarly, the allegory of the bondwoman and free-woman and their children in 4:21-31, contrasting bondage under law and freedom in Christ through the Sprit (4:21-31), "has to do with Gentile inclusion" (176, n. 10).

In this reviewer's opinion, this question of the nature of the Galatian problem is not central to the topic of the chapter, which is the meaning and significance of 3:28 for gender relations in Christ. But a few comments in response to Fee's evidence for seeing it more an ecclesiological issue rather

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 30

than soteriological may be noted. As for the argument that those involved in the struggle are already saved, it is true that the apostle's opening address assumes his readers to be professing believers (Gal 1:3-4). But his theological opponents are not so much these believers in general, but rather a group of Jewish believers who in Paul's mind were attempting to lead the church away from the truth of the gospel-adversaries whom he is willing to consign to eternal damnation which certainly raises questions about their salvation (Gal 1:9).

To lump together Paul's confrontation with Peter at Antioch for "siding with those who belonged to the circumcision group"-an incident which the apostle cites against his Galatian opponents (Gal 2:11f)-with the Corinthian problem of unchristian behavior at the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 11:17-34), conflicts between those of "weak" and "strong" faith in relation to matters of eating (1 Cor 8:1-13), and the issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 10:1-22) as all demonstrating an ecclesiological focus in Galatians is to fail to distinguish the underlying issue in each case. While all ecclesiological conflict exposes some offense against the fullness of our salvation (e.g., our unity in Christ), not all directly attack the very nature of salvation in the sufficiency of Christ. Peter's action was of the latter sort, raising questions about the very ground of justification-was it "by works of the law" or "through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 2:16)?

To be sure the immediate issue among the Galatians was whether Gentile believers must adhere to certain Jewish practices that had traditionally identified the Jews as God's covenant people. But for the apostle, this question was directly related to the deeper question of the gospel-how does a sinner become rightly related to God? Thus we find numerous references in the letter to "gospel" (five times in 1:6-11 alone where the Galatian issue is set forth), "justification," "faith," "grace," and "works of the law." It was an ecclesiological problem, but like the confrontation with Peter in Antioch, it was most importantly a question of the nature of the gospel or soteriology.

The author's emphasis on the nature of the Galatian problem as ecclesiological is difficult to understand in a discussion focusing on the apostle's statement, "there is neither . . . male nor female," unless it is to set these words more in the context of practical church functioning rather than the soteriological focus of the equality of man and woman in relation to God. But Fee seems to diminish this goal when he notes that his use of "ecclesiology" refers to the "people of God as such, not church order and function" (174, n. 5). He also rightly includes the soteriological dimension in the issue when he says, "What is at stake is ecclesiology: who constitute the people of God under the new covenant of Christ and the Spirit, and on what grounds are they constituted?" When he answers the second question by saying, "on the grounds of their common trust in Christ and reception of the Spirit" (176), he clearly involves soteriology.

He also correctly recognizes the soteriological element in his comment on the central text (3:28), "And in the end, if it appears that too much is being made of ecclesiology beyond the obvious soteriological dimension of our text, one must remember that for Paul these cannot be separated. To be saved meant to become a member of Christ's body/family/household" (185). If the ecclesiology at this point does not involve church order and function, and the question, "Who is a member of Christ's people?"

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 31

is answered, "Those saved," then it is difficult to see why the issue of salvation is not equally, if not more, central in Paul's letter to the Galatians. The manner in which Fee brings ecclesiology and soteriology together in his understanding of the problem leaves this reviewer wondering whether his discussion of this issue sheds any real light on the meaning of Gal 3:28.

Along with the issue of an ecclesiological focus, which is often in the background through the remainder of the chapter, Fee's discussion includes a number of other arguments which seem significant in his arriving at an egalitarian conclusion.

(1) Gal 3:28 represents the new economy of the new creation which is to be lived out now in the believing community. It negates the "value-based distinctions" with regard to ethnicity, status, and gender which were used in the old age for the constitution of value, status, and significance (178-179).

(2) The pairs in the verse represent sociological categories involving structures and roles that belong to the old age. Thus, these structures and roles including that which relates to man and woman are "not divinely ordained" (181). Although believers must still live in old age sociological contexts, the significance of these sociological categories are abolished and therefore irrelevant (179-180). "[I]n the community of faith the old rules cannot be maintained; to do so would be to give them significance that in fact they no longer have" (183). "[E]ven though our text does not explicitly mention roles and structures, its new creation theological setting calls these into question in a most profound way....[T]o give continuing significance to a male-authority viewpoint for men and women, whether at home or in the church, is to reject the new creation in favor of the norms of a fallen world" (185). Fee recognizes that the male-female pair is not completely parallel to the ethnic pair, Jew-Gentile, and the social standing pair, slave-freeman, in that the gender distinction "belongs to the created order." Thus, he says, the "diverse yet essential ways of being human" involved in being male and female remain, only the old age "societal structure and roles" are negated (177, n. 11).

(3) There is "a degree of ambivalence toward the cultural structures and norms" in the teaching of Paul (181). So as not to evoke cultural shame for these lesser things that are passing away (there is already an unavoidable shame in following Christ), the apostle does not outlaw the practicing of the roles and structures of the world for believers except when they are given religious significance (181-182). Nevertheless, in relation to man-woman relationship in marriage, Paul's instructions to the husband "run roughshod over the cultural norms" (181) and "radicalizes this [structural] norm in a counter cultural way" which puts the significance attached to it "into jeopardy" (183).

(4) Paul's teaching concerning an ordered relationship between man and woman is parallel to his teaching regarding slavery (183-184). He does not abolish the system of slavery in his letter to Philemon, but his urging to receive his slave back as "better than a slave, as a dear brother," does dismantle the significance given to slavery and indirectly "heads toward the dismantling of the system itself " (183). Similarly, the husband and wife are "first of all brother and sister in Christ" thus denying the significance of the "male authority" structure. Since both slavery and "male-authority" are found in the two household codes of Ephesians and Colossians, one is logi-

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 32

cally compelled to "justify slavery as a God-ordained structure for the present age" if he advocates the continuation of male authority" (184, n. 25).

(5) The coming of the Spirit with his gifts abolishes the significance of cultural structures and roles in the church. Therefore the apostle "was not overly concerned about roles and structures as such" (184). Men and women are brothers and sisters in God's family where ministry is related to Spirit gifting-not to gender (184). In the house churches where the leader of the household was a woman (e.g., Lydia, Nympha), "we may rightly assume" that she also gave "some measure of leadership to her house church," contrary "to her (unprovable) subservient ‘role' in the church" (184).

The question is whether these points which represent the substance of the argument for an egalitarian interpretation of the statement, "There is . . . neither male nor female," truly represent the apostle's meaning.

One must certainly agree that Gal 3:28 relates to the new creation "in Christ." It is also true that any distinctions in these pairs that were then and are now used to constitute different value, status, and significance of persons are negated by the apostle's teaching. A major question arises, however, when we consider what it is in the pairs named that actually signifies a difference in the value, status, and significance of the persons involved. Are such differences related to the personhood of individuals really inherent in the structures and roles of the pairs so that the negation of these differences entails the abolishment of the structures and roles themselves-a primary premise that Fee assumes in support of his egalitarian conclusion?

A biblical examination of the distinctions involved in the structures and roles of each pair suggests that they do not in themselves constitute diverse values of the persons involved. The Jew-Gentile distinction was established by God himself as part of the outworking of his historical plan of salvation. While it did give some advantages to the Jews, its purpose was manifestly not to constitute Jews as persons of higher personal value than Gentiles. Scripture testifies that God is no respecter of persons and shows no favoritism even with regard to Israel and the Gentiles (Isa 43:10; Rom 2:11). Rather the purpose of setting Israel apart as God's covenant people was functional-that they might serve the nations as a channel of God's blessing. Thus, if the original God-instituted distinction did not constitute value differentiation between persons, the negation of this distinction with the coming of the new covenant cannot be said to abolish a structure that entailed value differential between persons.

The slave-freeman structure no doubt signified different personal value and significance in the culture of the surrounding world, even as it does today where practiced. But, interestingly, again the apostle does not view this as inherent in the structure. His teachings related to slaves refute any idea of a devaluation of the slave's person and significance. Slaves and their masters (if believers) are equally servants of the same Lord and will be equally held accountable by him without partiality (cf. Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22-4:1). The idea of humans being property like impersonal forms of creation was never part of God's plan. Moreover, the scriptural picture of human nature as well as other specific teachings such as Paul's encouragement to be free if possible (1 Cor 7:21) argued against this practice and led to its general abolishment.

But while Paul's rejection of the

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 33

distinction between the slave and freeman in Gal 3:28 is part of the Bible's picture of human personhood and therefore may be argued to be part of Scripture's teaching against the structure of slavery itself, the abolishing of distinctions that constitute the value and significance of persons does not necessitate the abolishment of the structure of slavery. For as we have seen the structure of slavery does not of itself constitute differences between the slave and free person as far as their personal value and significance in Christ. The fact that most interpreters see the New Testament's instructions concerning believing slaves and masters as applicable to the order of employee-employer today would also indicate that Paul's denial of distinction in the slave-freeman pair does not entail the abolishment or any order between the person involved.

It is even more difficult biblically to support the idea that any ordered structure or diversity of roles in the male-female pair constitutes different value and significance of the persons. In the first place, the same apostle teaches such an ordered structure on numerous occasions using a form of the Greek verb hypotass ("to order under") four times in relation to the structure of the man-woman in the home (Eph 5:22 [implied from v. 21], 24; Col 3:8; Titus 2:5), and twice in their relation in the church (1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:11). In addition he twice refers to the headship of man (Eph 5:23; 1 Cor 11:3). Peter also adds to this teaching with his use of hypotass (1 Pet 3:1, 5) and other concepts that point to this same structure (1 Pet 3:2, 6). In none of these is there any hint that these teachings are anything less than apostolic instructions for believers and therefore can hardly be viewed as constituting different personal values. In fact, when explanation is given for the reality of the man-woman order, the apostle always grounds it in the account of the original creation of man and woman in Genesis 2-man is created first (1 Cor 11:8; 2 Tim 2:12-13) and woman is created for the sake of man (1 Cor 11:9).

The claim that this apostolic teaching is simply an accommodation to the patriarchy of the surrounding culture, as most egalitarians argue, is refuted in that the apostle finds an analogy of the husband-wife order in the order of Christ and the church-a permanent theological reality. Moreover when he adds to his instructions for wives to be subject to their husbands the phrase "as is fitting in the Lord," he clearly appears to apply this order to new covenant existence (Col 3:18). It is inconceivable that the apostle would associate an order between man and woman with these theological realities if such a structure necessarily entailed distinctions of personal value and significance.

Further, it is impossible to understand how the apostle could juxtapose teachings that abolish orders because they (allegedly) constitute diverse values of people with instructions for living in such orders. Colossians 3 provides a case in point. Although the male-female pair is not included in this passage, most would agree that the teaching of Gal 3:28 is repeated in Col 3:11 (the particular pairs mentioned here being related to the context of the Colossian readers): "there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." Just seven verses later, we find the apostle telling wives, "be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord." Aside from these teachings being in close proximity, they both seem to represent realities of the same sphere-"in the Lord." First Corinthians 12:13, which is again

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 34

essentially the teaching of our Galatian text, and the references to a man-woman order in 1 Cor 14:34 and 11:1-16, while not as proximate as the Colossian texts, is another example that suggests that the apostle does not see these teachings in conflict.

Finally, Paul's instruction to the believers in Corinth concerning those who are circumcised or uncircumcised and slaves or free persons (1 Cor 7:17-24), which along with 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:10; and Gal 3:28 Fee calls "similar moments," clearly rejects the idea that these structures inherently entail different personal value and significance. The apostle's words to those in these various situations is expressed in his words, "each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him" (v. 17). As we noted previously, Paul does encourage the slave to choose freedom if that is possible. But that is not an issue of personal worth or significance, for his general principle to the slave is "don't let it trouble you" whether you are a slave or not. For a Christian slave is the "Lord's freedman" and "Christ's slave" (vv. 21-22). The final significance of the apostle's key imperatives in the passage, namely, to remain in the situation in which God called them (vv. 17, 20) is summarized well by Fee himself in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. One's situation in terms of these structures, Fee writes, is "irrelevant to one's relationship to God." God's call (or salvation in Christ) "sanctifies that situation as a place where one can truly live out God's call in the present age."¹If such is the import of Paul's teaching here and it is applicable to the pairs in Gal 3:28 including male-female, then obviously these structures do not inherently constitute diverse personal values. For if they did, surely the apostle would not say that they do not matter.

If the structures do not of themselves entail diverse personal values, then there is no ground for seeing in the apostle's teaching, as Fee does, "a degree of ambivalence toward the cultural structures and norms." In fact, except for the order between man and woman which Paul teaches as God's creation structures, he does not actually prescribe the other "cultural structures and norms" themselves. There is no instance, for example, where he teaches the institution of slavery. His teaching rather concerns attitudes and actions for those in that institution, which, as we have suggested are still applicable to our employee-employer structure. With regard to the man-woman order the apostle portrays a radically different picture than that of the cultural patriarchy of the world around him as even Fee correctly acknowledges (cf. point 3 of his argument above). Thus, if the prevalent cultural structures themselves are not part of the apostle's teaching, it is difficult to see any real ambivalence.

If the social structures themselves are not the focus of the denial of distinctions within the pairs of Gal 3:28 (as appears to this reviewer to be a foundational assertion in Fee's chapter), what is really negated in relation to these pairs? To be sure, the momentous advance in salvation history with the coming of Christ brought what might be called a structural change whereby the old covenant that separated and thus distinguished the Jew as God's covenant people from the Gentiles is now replaced by a new covenant that unites both equally as God's people. But it is impossible to explain the removal of the distinctions in the slave-freeman and male-female pairs by this same structural change. Nor, as we have discussed above, can the removal of distinctions between

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 35

these pairs be explained on the basis of the social structures themselves.

Fee rightly points to something more than the change brought about with the inauguration of the new covenant when he asks, "Why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile?" (173). Rather than seeing the answer with Fee in terms of denying any significance to the functional social structures of these additional pairs (for which there is no hint in the context), the solution is found in the apostle's stated explanation. There is no distinction, he says, "for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (3:28). The lack of difference within each pair is due to their oneness. This is clearly not a oneness in everything. Slaves and free persons are still different in many ways; so also man and woman. The oneness in Christ that has abolished the differences is a oneness in their common relation to God and his salvation which they all have through being in Christ.

That this is the meaning of the oneness is evident in the immediate context of v. 28 (emphasis added throughout):

v. 26 - you are all sons of God through faith in Christ

v. 27 - all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ

v. 28 - you are all one in Christ Jesus

v. 29 - if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to promise

The individuals in the pairs of verse 28 are one because they are all "in Christ" through faith. As a result they share the same relationship with God and thus constitute a unity as one spiritual family. The emphasis of the oneness or the similarities of the pairs is totally on what might be called spiritual or religious realities. In saying that the differences within the pairs are overcome by the truth that they are one in Christ, equally members of God's family, and equally sharing in the full inheritance of his salvation, these differences are identified as those that precluded this oneness. The differences negated are thus those that kept those within the pairs from all being one and equal participants in all of the salvation realities mentioned in the context. In short, they were spiritual and religious differences that refer to their relationship with God. Nothing at all is said in verse 28 or its context about the differences within the functional structures themselves-either concerning a new oneness or equality related to them, or about their abolishment.

Paul's use of "male and female" rather than "man and woman" in Gal 3:28-more than simply clarifying that the reference is to more than husband and wife, as Fee suggests (173)-gives further evidence that the focus of the oneness and equality of persons is in relation to God and not on functional differences. When discussing the functional order between man and woman or husband and wife, the apostles always used the Greek terms anr (translated "man" or "husband" depending on the context) and gun ("woman" or "wife"). These same words are used for "man" and "woman" in the Greek translation of the creation account in Genesis 2 which details the creation of woman in relation to man. But in the creation account of Genesis 1, which includes the position of mankind in relation to God as his image and in relation to the rest of creation as ruler, the language is "male" and "female"

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 36

(in the Greek translation, arsen and theus). Like the Greek words, the Hebrew terms for "male" and "female" in Genesis 1 are also distinct from those used for "man" and "woman" in Genesis 2.

The apostle's choice of the "male and female" in Galatians 3, therefore, shows that he is thinking of the creation story of Genesis 1 where the equality of both sexes as human persons in relation to God and the rest of creation is emphasized. He is not referring to the created relationship between man and woman of Genesis 2 which he cites in other texts in support of the man-woman order.

While the differences that were abolished in order to bring a new oneness among the pairs were religious or spiritual and not functional or structural, the fact that Paul can speak of the negation of something related to these pairs reveals that these structures were somehow involved in these religious distinctions. One must agree, therefore, with Fee in seeing Gal 3:28 as negating the "value-based distinctions" that were connected to ethnicity, status, and gender in the contemporary culture. The source of these distinctions negated in Christ, however, was not the structures themselves. Rather it was sin which took occasion of these human differences to make them the source of differences in value and significance as human persons. In short, sinful attitudes of those within the structures led them to utilize their position in the structures as the source of their personal value and significance.

Even the divinely instituted difference between Jew and Gentile became, through sin, the ground for personal value and status, and something of this is still present in the Galatian controversy. Paul sought the Galatians commendably in order to betroth them to Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2), but he sees his opponents as motivated to seek adherents for themselves that they might have something to boast about and put themselves in a superior position (Gal 4:17; 6:12-14). The same superior-inferior personal value was present in the cultural attitudes associated with the pairs, slave-free and male-female. Most importantly this sinful differentiation of person values involved personal distinctions in relation to God, or what may be termed religious distinctions. This is evident in the Jewish temple of that time, where there was a Court of Women and a separate Court of Israel (for men) with the Court of Women at a greater distance from the presence of God in the Holy of Holies. Gentiles could not enter either court. Slaves were likewise considered on a lower level personally and religiously in that world.

The answer to Fee's question as to why Paul included the pairs of slave-free and male-female along with Jew-Gentile is, therefore, that in addition to the change in the Jew-Gentile relationship that came with the inauguration of the new covenant, there was something common to all of the pairs that contradicted the oneness and equality of each person in relation to God-namely, the sinful use of these structures to constitute different personal values. Although the abolishing of the difference between Jew and Gentile with the coming of Christ is clearly taught, there is nothing in the entire letter or the immediate context that indicates that the negation of distinctions related to the other social structures involved in the pairs. Furthermore, as we have seen above, the testimony of Scripture is that these structures did not inherently entail distinctions of personal value and significance so that it was necessary to abolish them in order to attain the reality of oneness in Christ and thus

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 37

equal personal value and significance.

Finally, Fee's general claim that the new creation and the coming of the Spirit leaves all roles and structures without meaning in themselves (184) ignores Paul's clear references to leadership in the church including qualifications for "offices" (e.g., Acts 20:28; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; 1 Tim 3:1-13). To suggest that the patron of the household in which the church met would be leader of that church is to ignore the same Pauline teaching. The numerous references to an "order" between man and woman that we saw above would also suggest that Paul did not see this order as having no significance. To say that the eschatological significance of roles and structures has been abolished is also to ignore the already/not yet of eschatological realities. The presence and diversity of Spirit-given gifts within the church, which one could argue at least in the case of the gifts of leadership represent some order, may be gone with the eschatological perfection, but they still have present significance.

In conclusion, we would suggest that the broad thesis argued in this chapter is both quite right and quite wrong. It is surely right in understanding that the apostle's teaching in Gal 3:28 negates any "value-based distinction"-any distinction that constitutes one person of more value and significance than another as a human being. But it is a serious misinterpretation of this verse to see the structures and roles represented in the pairs as inherently constituting such different values of the persons within them, and, therefore, being abolished by this apostolic teaching. The overall teaching of Scripture demonstrates that the structures and roles in the pairs do not themselves make one a superior person and another an inferior person. It is rather the sinful ego-centered attitudes of the people in the structures that lead to this conclusion.

Scripture reveals that some structures and roles are, in fact, God-ordained for the good of human life (e.g., the original Jew-Gentile distinction, human government). This is especially true of the man-woman order which the same apostle Paul teaches as grounded in the original creation. Differences between people, including functions and roles, frequently become the basis for different personal values because of sin. But the diversity created by God has positive intent. Diversity of spiritual gifts that include different functions and roles, for example, are not only necessary for the life of the body, but it is these very differences that unify the body (1 Cor 12:20). Similar created differences between man and woman, including functions and roles, are designed for true complementarity. While sin uses them to create divisive value-distinctions even among believers, God intends them to draw man and woman together in the recognition of the value, significance, and necessity of the other for human wholeness. The solution to sin's divisiveness is not the abolishing of the order, but seeking to live in accord with God's instructions for our attitudes and actions within it.