What Does The Bible Say About Women Pt. 9 - Difficult Passages - Galatians 3
Click play to listen as you read along
Intro
Today, we tackle another interesting and difficult passage regarding the role of women within God’s Kingdom and the church. Next week, we are going to cover 1 Timothy 2. Before we get started, it’s important to note that for passages like these, lots of people use these passages as the lens by which they view scripture. For example, many with the complementarian view, start with passages like 1 Timothy 2, then make the rest of scripture fit that particular view. On the flip side, many with the egalitarian view, start with Galatians 3, then make the rest of scripture fit this particular view. What we’re going to do is start with the rest of scripture first. What we’ve done is start with what the Torah, the Old Testament, and the New Testament have to say about women first, then we let all of Scripture influence how we should understand passages like Galatians 3 and 1 Timothy 2 according to the biblical perspective.
Context of Galatians 3
Read Galatians 3:23-29
How do you think people have used this passage within the church?
Remember that every Bible passage was designed to answer a specific question or has a specific function or purpose. For this section of Galatians, we find that the church in Galatia was essentially asking, “Do Gentile Christians need to be circumcised in order to be a part of God’s people?” Paul basically responds by saying “Let’s look at how Jesus understood this issue.” Many people also frame the context of this passage as one being about Salvation. And to some extent that would be correct. However, when reading this chapter and the surrounding context, Salvation language is strikingly absent. In its place, Paul uses language about “justification.” Now, yes Justification and salvation are both obviously linked, but it's important to understand that it’s not just a conversation about salvation only.
For example, all throughout Ch. 3, language of God justifying the Gentiles and Nations being blessed through Abrahams's descendants (v. 8), those who have faith are blessed (v. 9), Those who rely on the works of the law are under a curse (v. 10), the blessing coming to Gentiles through Abraham (v. 14), the promise being given to “those who believe,” (v. 22), all have to do with who are considered the people of God. Not necessarily who is “saved” and who is “not saved.” It is more about who has right standing before God, regardless of what people group they belong to. And we know that the one who makes us right before God (this is called “justification” which is found all throughout this chapter) is Christ. The issue in this chapter is not a male/female, or slave/free, issue. but rather more likely it is a “Jew or Gentile” issue because it is mentioned all throughout this chapter. Let’s look at a few more examples.
Read 1 Corinthians 12:13
Read Colossians 3:11
What do you notice is similar or different between these lists?
Who is the one who has broken down all of these distinctions?
These doublets, Jew/Gentile, Slave/free, circumcised/uncircumcised, etc – are these God-made distinctions, or are these human-made distinctions?
Why is this significant?
How are some ways that we today make similar kinds of distinctions? How do we divide people up into groups? Give some examples.
What’s interesting about these doublets is that it is possible that these might have been a part of an early church baptismal confession. Very similar to the formulas we use today when we baptize someone.
What are some of the baptismal confessions we use today?
It’s possible that these doubles served the same purpose. Essentially, the person being baptized accepts how Jesus frees us from the human-made distinctions and we instead align with God’s view of humanity and earthly distinctions.
These doublets, are these things more related to our salvation status or our social status? Our Social status – how we interact and view other human beings!
If these doublets served as early baptismal formulas, would this only have a salvific impact on the person being baptized, or would it also have a social impact on the person being baptized? Why?
It’s likely that these formulas were not only related to one’s salvation but also to a person’s social identity in this new thing called the church – their identity within the Kingdom of God. What these doublets are not implying is that “saved people live this way or that way now.” Instead, it is saying “The people living in God’s kingdom, no longer see each other how the world sees each other.” Essentially, “we as a newly baptized believer, are committing to the community of God with our newfound identity in Christ.” Salvation is a big part, but it’s not the only thing going on here.
What social/practical/boots-on-the-ground issues arise when you view people as:
Jew or Gentile
Slave or free
Barbarian or Scythian
Male or female
How does this impact who eats with who; who associates with who; who shares the gospel with who; and who hires or fires who?
If we think in the terms stated above, is this how Christ wants us to live? Does he want us to treat people of God’s kingdom differently depending on their social status? Why or why not?
Are we all equal in Christ if these social distinctions determine who belongs or doesn’t belong to the Kingdom of God?
If Galatians 3 was only talking about the salvation issue, what do we do with everything we just talked about?
Need more proof?
Look at 1 Corinthians 11:20-34 where it talks about how some people (usually wealthy individuals) arrive early to the daily church meal and they eat all the food before the poor workers can get off work. Look at 1 Cor 14 which we looked at last week when it was talking about certain people believing they are superior to one another based upon which spiritual gift they had received. Paul in Galatians 3 argues that these distinctions is not how the church is supposed to operate. Paul argues that Christ has leveled the playing field when it comes to one another’s social status and their standing within God’s Kingdom. In God’s kingdom, EVERYONE can participate.
2 Interpretations
Egalitarian view: Egalitarians champion this verse as their lead verse. They can often read this verse and read the rest of scripture through this lens. However, they argue that this passage talks about salvation and the social status of people in the Church.
Complementarian view: Complementarians champion 1 Timothy 2 as their lead verse. They can often read this verse and then read the rest of scripture through that lens. They argue that anyone and everyone can be saved, but this passage is only talking about salvation and nothing else.
The disadvantage of this perspective is that the concept of “heirship” – those who belong to the Kingdom of God – has more to do than just salvation. In fact, if you study “salvation” in the Bible, rarely is it only ever talking about what happens to you when you die. It usually always has to do with how we engage with our savior, the church, the people of this world, and the world itself.
This passage speaks to how Christ has created a new family with a new way of relating to one another. In the NT, our relationship with God is often expressed by how we humans relate to other humans – especially how Christians relate to other Christians. In the Old Covenant, we see that both Males and Females, Slaves and free, could be members of the people of God. However, what we don’t see is Gentiles being allowed in. In the Old Covenant, it was just the Jewish people who were God’s people.
If Galatians 3 – and this doublet in v.28 - was only about the issue of salvation, then how do you reconcile the fact that both men and women in the old covenant were allowed to be in the people of God?
If Paul is making a distinction between who is saved and who is not -because this is only a salvation issue according to the traditional interpretation – then this would imply that “see Jews are saved, while gentiles are not; Free people are saved, but slaves are not; males are saved, but females are not… See what I’m saying?
But from everything we’ve been talking about the past few weeks, how does Jesus view slaves, females, gentiles, etc.? How does this compare with how the world views them? This passage does not tell us what this looks like for how churches should operate today. If you were hoping that I would use this passage to support a specific view – sorry. But I’m going to do the same thing next week with 1 Timothy 2. This isn’t so much of a passage talking about who can or cannot serve as a minister, elder, deacon, etc. Rather this passage is more of a “Hey, Gentiles can be in the Kingdom of God now too! Just like how males and females can be in the kingdom, like how slave and freed people can be in the Kingdom, etc. This specific passage does not say “women can do everything that men can do.” Egalitarians go a little too far with their interpretation, but on the other hand, complementarians do not go far enough. This passage is, however, does advocate for a holistic approach to how we are to relate to one another in Christ.
Take away
What are your thoughts on all of this?
How has this shifted your perspective on this verse that has often been used by both sides to promote their specific interpretations of Scripture?