Galatians 3:28 & Egalitarianism

‎26 For 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, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Here St. Paul DOES affirm the distinctions of class, race, and gender. Paul is saying that despite these very real distinctions that exist that when it come to Justification the ground at the cross is even. The very real distinctions that exist don’t prohibit one from being justified in Christ.

Indeed, I would insist that unless these distinctions are assumed as true this verse makes no sense. Further, I would insist that the distinctions are so limited only to the question of justification, that the Church, composed of all these justified people as it is, still expects men to use the “Men’s Restroom,” and women to use the “Women’s Restroom,” while at Church. Something that would be altogether unnatural if it really were the case that Christians supported the idea of “No male or female categories or roles exist after conversion.” The fact that we still label our Restrooms suggest that we don’t really believe men and women are identically the same. Also, if no category of male or female, because of the putative egalitarianism that Christ brings, there would be therefore no reason whatsoever to object to sodomite marriage and if the implications of this passage were to be fairly traced out consistently according to the egalitarian Hermeneutic there would be no reason to object to pedophilia since the egalitarian Hermeneutic implication of this passage is that in Christ Jesus there is neither child or adult.

So, I believe that Galatians 3:26f can and should be used to refute egalitarianism in the Church and in Christian culture.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

8 thoughts on “Galatians 3:28 & Egalitarianism”

  1. Thank you for articulating what we know as common Biblical Sense. Your words are like soothing medicine for a horrible case of heart burn.

  2. Mark was talking with me about this verse yesterday and remarking how it proves too much for those who would use it against racial/cultural and societal distinctions, precisely because it would also remove gender distinctions. In fact, taken that far, one would have to argue on the basis of verse 26 that women should be allowed (if not commanded) sex changes, since all are now “sons of God.”

  3. “Paul is saying that despite these very real distinctions that exist that when it come to Justification the ground at the cross is even. The very real distinctions that exist don’t prohibit one from being justified in Christ.”

    You are placing the emphasis where it is not intended. I believe Paul would be quite disappointed with your opinion. The great purpose in the proposition written by Paul is in the “all” and the “one”: “all sons” and “all one”. In what? “In Christ Jesus”? The purpose is the glorious unity of the believers in Christ. In that respect, there is niether jew nor greek, slave nor free man, male nor female. Our faith unites us in Christ. Thereafter, we obey the rest of God’s law that governs our conduct toward one another(2Tim.3:16).

    Take a look at what Calvin has to say:

    “There is neither Jew nor Greek. The meaning is, that there is no distinction of persons here, and therefore it is of no consequence to what nation or condition any one may belong: nor is circumcision any more regarded than sex or civil rank. And why? Because Christ makes them all one. Whatever may have been their former differences, Christ alone is able to unite them all. Ye are one: the distinction is now removed. The apostle’s object is to shew that the grace of adoption, and the hope of salvation, do not depend on the law, but are contained in Christ alone, who therefore is all. Greek is here put, as usual, for Gentile, and one department for the whole class.”

    I don’t have heart burn and I don’t need soothing medicine. At least not of the kind in your post above.

    1. Oscar,

      Calvin supports what I am saying,

      “There is neither Jew nor Greek. The meaning is, that there is no distinction of persons here, and therefore it is of no consequence to (a) what nation or condition any one may belong: (b) nor is circumcision any more regarded than sex or civil rank. And why? Because Christ makes them all one. Whatever may have been their former differences, Christ alone is able to unite them all. Ye are one: the distinction is now removed. The apostle’s object is to shew that (c) the grace of adoption, and the hope of salvation, do not depend on the law, but are contained in Christ alone, who therefore is all. Greek is here put, as usual, for Gentile, and one department for the whole class.”

      (a) Calvin admits that they still belong to a nation and that certain distinct conditions are still present

      (b) Calvin admits that circumcision and civil rank still exist

      (c) And when Calvin emphasizes “oneness” and the “Former differences,” that emphasis in reference to “the grace of adoption and the hope of salvation.” Calvin is not speaking of the elimination of the differences except in terms of our unity in Christ as that pertains and applies to the grace of adoption and the hope of salvation.” Calvin is not a anabaptist. Calvin is not a proto-Ranter, Leveller, or Digger.

      Calvin is merely saying that in terms of “the grace of adoption and the hope of salvation,” that a King is not more exalted than a wash-woman … that a genius is not more exalted than a mentally challenged person … that those whose reading comprehension skills are heightened are not more exalted than those whose reading comprehension skills are nugatory.

      And so the unity that we have in Christ is a Spiritual unity that does not compromise the real distinctions that remain extant. True, as in the case with Philemon and Onesimus, the unity in Christ has real world impact but it doesn’t negate that one remains the owner while the other remains the slave. St. Paul never argued that way.

      1. jetbrane,

        “Calvin is not speaking of the elimination of the differences except in terms of our unity in Christ as that pertains and applies to the grace of adoption and the hope of salvation.”

        I agree. Thus, I am sticking to the context to reason Paul’s meaning. You read into it too much. The focus as you have acknowledged in the last part of your statement is this: “…our unity in Christ as that pertains and applies to the grace of adoption and the hope of salvation.” No more, no less.

        By the way, I find the words of John the Baptist sobering and humbling when he tells the Pharisees and Sadducees that God can raise children to Abraham from stones. And, Calvin says this:

        “but as proud men did not believe it to be possible that the Church should be removed to another place, he reminds them, that God has in his power ways of preserving his Church, which they did not think of, any more than they believed that he could create children out of stones.”

        By the way, thanks again for the book recommendation (The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding). I got it.

      2. Right … no more no less … therefore human distinctions remain. You don’t read it enough.

        Especially in light of St. Paul words about these distinctions that exist in Colossians and Ephesians.

        And of course God can raise stones up. Whoever thought otherwise?

        But then God also can raise up the covenant seed of His covenant people to be His people.

    2. “Christ makes them all one” in the context in which Paul uses it, clearly means – and can only mean – that no distinctions or gradations count towards salvation. No sinful man (i.e. all mankind) can ever be saved because of who he is or what he has done. We all “equally” need , are “one” in our need, of Salvation. And we all receive the same salvation – life in Christ – so we are one in salvation. But, salvation does not make us “one man” – otherwise I’m talking to myself! Clearly differences are not nullified. Perhaps this wording would make it slightly clearer:
      “…Paul is saying that despite these very real distinctions that exist – when it comes to justification, the ground at the cross is even. The very real distinctions that exist [HAVE NO BEARING ON] being justified in Christ. [Because Christ alone is the basis of justification. And N.B. : Justification is about the erasure of sin – not the abolition of distinctions, or the deletion of identity.]

Leave a Reply to jetbrane Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *