Gal 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It is a real shame that, as with a number of ‘problem texts’, there is a danger of losing the positive meaning in the flurry of controversy that surrounds it.

But controversy there is, and we must face up to it.  For this verse has, in recent years, become the locus classicus for social egalitarians.

The question to be explored here is this: according to this passage, have all social distinctions been abolished by the gospel?

1. Evangelical feminist approaches

As far back as 1859, Catherine Booth published an article in which she argued in favour of women teaching in church.  On Gal 3:28, she commented:

‘If this passage does not teach that in the privileges, duties, and responsibilities of Christ’s kingdom, all differences of nation, caste, and sex are abolished, we should like to know what it does teach, and wherefore it was written.’

(It is to be noted that elsewhere in the same article, she quotes approvingly from the commentator Adam Clarke, who says that the woman ‘was placed by the order of God in subjection to the man’.)

Among ‘mainline’ evangelicals, the debate dates back as far as 1975, with the publication of Paul Jewett’s Man as Male and Female.  Jewett states that Gal 3:38 is ‘The Magna Carta of Humanity’, and assserts the ‘social implications’ of that text.

Discovering Biblical Equality is now (2024) in its third edition.  In the first two editions, an exposition of Gal 3:28 was written by Gordon Fee.  Adopting a somewhat ‘New Perspective’ reading of Galatians, Fee maintained that the key focus of the letter was not soteriology (how we are saved), but ecclesiology (who belongs to the people of God).  Fee concludes:

‘It seems arguable, therefore, that even though our text does not explicitly mention roles and structures, its new creation theological setting calls these into question in a most profound way. There is no biblical culture (in the sociological sense) that belongs to all human societies. And 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.’

Westfall, writer of the equivalent chapter in the 3rd edition of Discovering Biblical Equality, takes a similar line to that of Fee, but expresses it more forthfightly:

‘In Galatians 3:28, Paul sets an agenda for sweeping changes in racial, social, and gender relationships in the church when this verse is read in the context of what had to change as a result of there being no Jew or Greek because of justification, baptism, and location in Christ.’

Longenecker calls this verse the

‘The most forthright statement on social ethics in all the New Testament’

He does, however, agree that

‘the elimination of divisions in these three areas should be seen first of all in terms of spiritual relations: that before God, whatever their differing situations, all people are accepted on the same basis of faith and together make up the one body of Christ’ (My emphasis).

Longenecker suggests that an emphasis on creation tends toward subordination, whereas a stress on redemption leads towards equality

‘…calls us to a unity that extends to all and provides us with a way of seeing one another, not as male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free, but as Christians and children of God first and foremost. Rudy goes on to argue that if ‘Christian’ is the primary identity to which we are called, are the categories of male and female even useful? In fact, if the Christian community fulfils its mission to embrace all, as Rudy suggests, then, she says, ‘surely gender is not the most interesting thing that can be said about each member [of the community].’ This passage paints for us a vision of a world beyond gender, in which there is room for infinite variety and infinite grace.’ (Cited by Davie)

One problem with this approach is that it tends to ignore, or set aside as less authoritative, Paul’s other statements in 1 Corinthians, the Pastoral Epistles, and elsewhere.  But does this text itself teach that the distinctions mentioned are obliterated for those who are ‘in Christ’?  Looking at Paul’s teaching in the round, we see that he continued to regard himself as a Jew, 1 Cor 9:19–23; Acts 21:26; that he never renounced slavery outright (although he did sow the seeds for its eventual dissolution); and that he recognised the distinctive and complementary roles and ministries of men and women.

2. Complementarian approaches

Taking Paul’s overall argument in Galatians, we may re-state the point he is making in this verse as follows:

‘in order to be true believers, Gentiles do not have to become Jews, females do not have to become males, slaves do not have to become free.  The gospel is open to all’.

Questions about the relative roles and statuses of these different groups cannot be settled by this text: their resolution will have to take account of the full biblical revelation.

Timothy George notes that

‘The violence with which this verse has been taken out of context and misrepresented as a manifesto for contemporary social egalitarianism is seen in a new translation of the Bible that renders Paul’s words thus: “There is no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual, cleric and lay, white and multicultural.” According to this invidious translation, what Paul elsewhere recognized and condemned as heinous and sinful he here embraced as acceptable and blessed!’ (quoting Sister Fran Feder)

According to Timothy George, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas called for the elimination of gender distinctions by relating an apocryphal dialogue between Jesus and his disciples:

‘Jesus saw infants being suckled. He said to his disciples, “These infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom.” They said to him, “Shall we then, as children, enter the Kingdom?” Jesus said to them, “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one in the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female … then you will enter [the Kingdom].”’

In an article on androgyny, D. Smith writes:

‘the equality or oneness of persons without gender-based identity is implied to be the ideal state in the family of God (e.g., Gal. 3:28).’ (Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling)

David C. Steinmetz writes:-

‘Women may be forbidden to preach, teach, and celebrate the eucharist only if it can be demonstrated from Scripture that in Christ there is indeed male and female (contra Paul) and that in the last days sons shall prophesy while daughters demurely keep silent (contra Peter).  Women already belong to a royal priesthood.  Otherwise they are not even members of the church.’

Carson, quoting the above, notes that the context of the present passage has to do with justification.  It is in respect of their standing before God that there is no distinction between male and female.  Paul wrote other passages (1 Cor 14:33-36; 1 Tim 2:11-15) which do recognise some distinction between the roles of men and women.  (Exegetical Fallacies, 92f)

With more nuance, the article on ‘Woman, Doctrine of’ in the Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible states that

‘the position of a woman of faith before God is assured on the same equal footing as any man of faith. In the Lord Jesus Christ there are no stratifications of sex, race, or social station, “for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). This verse speaks of justification, not socialization. In Paul’s day there were still great differences based on sex, race, and social station. Within the assertion of justification in this verse are the seeds of change in socialization. Lines of race, of social station (slave and free) blur between those who know God. Debilitating lines of gender are beginning to blur as well.’

In their critique of an article by Andrew Wilson, Ian Paul and Andrew Bartlett stress the difference between the old creation and the new creation:

‘It is this framework of thought (old covenant/new covenant, present age/coming age, first creation/new creation) that gives Paul the boldness to directly contradict Genesis 1:27 (“male and female”) in Galatians 3:28 (“not male and female”). In his letter, he has in mind the contrast between the first creation, disabled through disobedience, and the new creation begun by Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:4; 6:15). In the new creation in Christ, male and female do not have the same significance as before. Just as the abolition in Christ of the Jew/Gentile distinction (though physically it continued to exist) had consequences for behaviour in God’s new family (see Galatians 2:11-21; 6:15-16), so also the abolition in Christ of the male/female distinction (though physically it continued to exist) had behavioural consequences: women became full co-workers in the gospel.’

But this looks to me like an over-realised eschatology.  If, in the present life, distinctions are to be made between husbands and wives, and mothers and fathers (as I think is clear from other NT texts), then a stronger argument needs to be found to support the notion that no distinctions (apart from the obvious physical ones) are to be made between men and women in the church.

When Ian Paul and Andrew Bartlett refer to Peter’s quotation of the Joel prophecy in Acts 2:17f we can heartily agree that this means that ‘the Spirit is given to all’.  But it does not follow that ‘in the new life of the Spirit, the old social distinctions are disregarded.’

Chris Dowd places this verse alongside others which present (he claims) gender variant images:

‘…women are called brothers (Rom 14:10, 1 Cor 6:5-6). We are all brides of Christ (Ephesians 5:25-27), all part of the one body (Ephesians 5:30). Paul writes of himself as a woman giving birth (Galatians 4:19) and Galatians 3:28 asserts that there is no male or female but all are one in Christ Jesus.’

The above is cited by Davie, who comments that

‘two things need to be noted in relation to this language. First, this language is metaphorical and as such is not intended to describe the human sexual identity of the people concerned. Secondly, in line with this fact the New Testament continues to divide the Church into men and women (as in the advice about Christian conduct contained in passages such as Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Peter 3:1-7). A clear division between those who are male and those who are female continues to be maintained.’

With regard to the present verse, Davie urges that when we read it in context we realise that it is

‘not about sexual identity but about spiritual identity. What these verses are saying is that anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ and is baptised (regardless of their race, social standing or sex) is an inheritor of the promise of divine blessing made to Abraham and as such part of the family of God. So men and women do not cease to be men and women, but this distinction does not count in relation to their being heirs of the promise to Abraham.’

Elsewhere, Davie puts it like this:

‘These verses are often read as if St Paul were saying that the difference between men and women established at creation has been done away with amongst Christians. However, that is not his point. These verses are not about sexual identity, but about spiritual identity. Paul means that anyone who has faith in Jesus and is baptised is a member of the family of God regardless of their race, social standing, or sex. Christian men and women are still men and women, but they both have equal standing before God, both as those originally made in God’s image and likeness and as the recipients of the blessing promised to Abraham and delivered through Christ.’

Wayne Grudem agrees that this verse is often inappropriately recruited by egalitarians to support their cause.  Their argument is that role distinctions are abolished because we are ‘all one in Christ Jesus’.  But this is not what the verse says.  To be ‘one in Christ Jesus’ is to be united.  It does not mean that we are all the same.

Grudem and Piper say:

‘The context of Galatians 3:28 makes abundantly clear the sense in which men and women are equal in Christ: they are equally justified by faith (v. 24), equally free from the bondage of legalism (v. 25), equally children of God (v. 26), equally clothed with Christ (v. 27), equally possessed by Christ (v. 29), and equally heirs of the promises to Abraham (v. 29). . . . He does not say, “you are all the same in Christ Jesus,” but, “you are all one in Christ Jesus.” He is stressing their unity in Christ, not their sameness.’

(Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood)

Grudem (citing Hove) adds that Paul, when saying that things are ‘one’, never says that those things are identical.  For example, in Rom 12:4f he says that the many members of the body, which do not all have the same function, are ‘one body in Christ’.  Similarly, in 1 Cor 3:8, the apostle says that those who plant and those who water (i.e. different persons carrying out different tasks) ‘are one’.  In each case, the unity is not of role, but of purpose and function.

John Stott remarks that Paul does not claim that all differences between the sexes have been eradicated:

‘This does not mean that Jews and Greeks lost their physical differences, or even their cultural distinctives, for they still spoke, dressed and ate differently; nor that slaves and free people lost their social differences, for most slaves remained slaves and free people free; nor that men lost their maleness and women their femaleness. It means rather that as regards our standing before God, because we are “in Christ” and enjoy a common relationship to him, racial, national, social and sexual distinctions are irrelevant. People of all races and classes, and of both sexes, are equal before him. The context is one of justification by grace alone through faith alone. It affirms that all who by faith are in Christ are equally accepted, equally God’s children, without any distinction, discrimination or favouritism according to race, sex or class. So whatever may need to be said later about sexual roles, there can be no question of one sex being superior or inferior to the other. Before God and in Christ “there is neither male nor female”. We are equal.’

(Issues Facing Christians Today, 4th ed., p332)

Writing from what I presume is a feminist and moderately critical perspective, Shelly Matthews regards Paul’s teaching as somewhat ambivalent regarding the social consequences of the gospel:

‘On the one hand, Paul appears to regard “neither Jew nor Greek” as having direct social consequences for his assemblies in Galatia, such that Jews and gentiles should eat together (Gal 2:11-14), and his male gentile converts should not seek circumcision. That Paul greets a number of women as coworkers rather than subordinates in Rom 16 and that he may be arguing for slaves to seek freedom in 1 Cor 7:21 (the meaning of this verse is uncertain) are sometimes understood as owing to Paul’s acceptance of Gal 3:28 as a guiding principle for social equality.’

But,

‘On the other hand, Paul himself does not embrace the socially radical potential of the baptismal formula in any thoroughgoing way. For instance, he does not directly challenge the institution of slavery, and he argues for the hierarchy of man over woman in his instructions concerning women’s head coverings in 1 Cor 11:2-16, especially verse 3. With respect to these matters of equality and freedom, Paul seems content to assign them to the final eschatological era, rather than to the “here and now” of the churches.’

See also the discussion in Clare Smith, God’s Good Design, chapter 4.

Kevin DeYoung observes that if sexual differences cease to matter for those who are in Christ, then Paul’s logic in condemning same-sex sexual intimacy (Rom 1:18-32) would make no sense.

Along with many other writers, DeYoung argues that Paul is not obliterating all sexual differences:

‘Rather, he is reminding the Galatians that when it comes to being right before God and being together in Christ, the markers of sex, ethnicity, and station are of no advantage.’

There is indeed an equality between the sexes:

‘Both men and women are held prisoners under the law (Gal 3:23), both are justified by faith (Gal 3:24), both are set free from the bonds of the law (Gal 3:25), both are sons of God in Christ (Gal 3:26), both are clothed in Christ (Gal 3:27), and both belong to Christ as heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29).’

But Paul’s point is

‘not that maleness and femaleness are abolished in Christ, but that sexual difference neither moves one closer to God nor makes one farther from him.’

Guy Layfield in his review of Beth Allison Barr’s book ‘The Making of Biblical Womanhood) notes that

‘All of Paul’s references to gender roles were written after he wrote the letter to the church in Galatia. If gender was destroyed as a construct or the curse in the garden was reversed by the New Covenant, why would Paul then go on to make all the references he did to gender roles for the New Testament church?’

For T. Martin, Paul’s point relatives to the restrictive nature of circumcision in the old covenant, and the inclusive nature of baptism in the new.  Martin, according to Garlington,

‘proposes that the pairs of antitheses in Gal 3:28—Jew/Gentile, slave/free, male/female—are rooted in the covenant of circumcision, that is, the Abrahamic covenant of Gen 17:9–14, which precisely makes such distinctions. Martin argues that the verse does not proclaim an absolute abolition of these distinctions but only their irrelevance for entrance into the Christian community: participation in baptism and full membership in the new people hinge solely on faith in Christ. The antithesis male/female particularly attracts his attention. “In response to the Agitators’ insistence on the distinctions in the Covenant of Circumcision, Paul simply denies that these distinctions have any relevance for determining candidates for Christian baptism and entry into the Christian community. Whereas not everyone in the Jewish community is circumcised, everyone in the Christian community is baptized. Thus, baptism into Christ provides for a unity that cannot be realized in a circumcised community”’

Martin quotes Stephen Clark:

‘In this context, the phrase “neither male nor female” takes on a special significance, because women could not be circumcised. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant of Israel and was only open to the male.… The woman [according to Paul], then, comes into the covenant relation of God’s people through her own faith and baptism, and is fully part of the covenant relationship with God.… The free circumcised male was the only full Israelite. It is against this background that we have to understand “neither male nor female”.’

Jervis remarks that the link with circumcision had been made long ago by Justin Martyr.

S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. refers to New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce:

‘Bruce comments, “It is not their distinctiveness, but their inequality of religious role, that is abolished ‘in Christ Jesus.’” Professor Bruce complains that Paul’s other bans of discrimination on racial and social grounds have been accepted “au pied de la lettre” (literally), or litteratim ac verbatim, to use a Latin phrase, while this one has met with restrictions, since people have related it only to “the common access of men and women to baptism, with its introduction to their new existence ‘in Christ.’ ” He insists that the denial of discrimination holds good for the new existence “ ‘in Christ’ in its entirety,” although he admits that circumcision involved a form of discrimination against women that was removed in its demotion from the position of religious law. Other inequities among Jewish and particularly among Gentile women existed. Bruce argues that, if leadership may be given to Gentiles and to slaves in the church fellowship, then why not to women? ‘ (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p158)

Bruce accepts that other Pauline passages do place restrictions on female activities, but insists that these passage should be interpreted and applied in the light of the present passage, and not vice versa.

Johnson responds:

‘First, the antitheses are not parallel, for the distinction between male and female is a distinction arising out of creation, a distinction still maintained in family and church life in the New Testament. Second, it must also be remembered that in this context Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of standing before God in righteousness by faith. And, third, the apostle in his later letters, such as 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, does set forth just such restrictions as Bruce mentions.’

Richard Hove (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) remarks that, taken out of context, this saying could lead to absurd conclusions:

‘In Christ there is neither male nor female’; therefore, there are not two genders, but one; there can be no heterosexual marriage; men and woman should use the same toilet facilities; and so on.  Paul cannot have meant that categories such as male and female do not exist.  He is, rather, using a figure of speech – a merism (a combination of opposites to indicate the entirety) – to express the universality of believers’ status in Christ.  When we say, for example, ‘I search high and low’, we do not merely mean that we search in high places and then in low places: we mean that we searched everywhere.’

That Paul means that there is no distinction between these groups of people as regards salvation, rather than that there is no difference between them, is confirmed by his teaching in Rom 3:21f; 10:11-3.

Hove concludes:-

1. Oneness in Galatians 3:28 does not imply unqualified equality.
2. Galatians 3:28 does not primarily address the issue of sexual roles.  This is seen in the overall flow of Paul’s argument, in the logic of the context, and in the meaning of the expression ‘you are all one’, all of which point to Paul’s main concern here being salvation-historical.
3. Galatians 3:28 does have social implications.  Since all God’s people share in Christ, there is no room for boasting.  Since they are all one in Christ, their attitude and behaviour should be characterised by unity.  Though they are diverse, they enjoy an equal standing in Christ, and all must be cherished and valued.  Since they are diverse, each should seek to understand the perspective and needs of the others (and this applies to mission and evangelism, as well as to church relations).

Schreiner:

‘Paul affirms the oneness of males and females in Christ, but he does not claim that maleness and femaleness are irrelevant in every respect. If one were to draw such a conclusion, then Paul would not object to homosexuality, but it is clear that he thinks homosexuality is sinful (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10). In the same way, the equality of men and women in Christ does not cancel out, in Paul’s mind, the distinct roles of men and women in marriage (Eph 5:22–33; Col 3:18–19; Titus 2:4–5) or in ministry contexts (1 Cor. 11:2–16; 14:33–36; 1 Tim 2:9–15).’

For Stott, the point is not that all distinctions have been abolished, but that that we have unity in Christ despite these distinctions.

‘What unites the church is a common faith in Christ and a common share in the Spirit. Apart from this one essential, Christians need have nothing else in common at all. We differ from one another in temperament, personality, education, colour, culture, citizenship, language and in many other ways. Thank God we do. The church is a wonderfully inclusive fellowship, in which there is ‘neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female’. In other words, in Christ we have equality. Distinctions of race and status, which are causes of division in other communities, have no place in the Christian community. To bring such things into Christian fellowship is to destroy it. ‘Birds of a feather flock together’ may be true in nature, but it is not a Christian proverb. The glory of the church is not our likeness to one another, but our unlikeness.’ (Christ the Controversialist, p179)

Timothy George cautions:

‘the propriety of women leaders in the church must be decided through careful exegesis of those passages that touch on that issue. Galatians 3:28 cannot legitimately be used either as evidence or counterevidence in this debate. It is regrettable that recent discussions of this theme have obscured the amazing good news Paul set forth in this verse.’

Paul does not say that ‘you are all “equal” in Christ Jesus’, but that ‘you are all “one”‘.  He uses the word hen, ‘one’, rather that isos, ‘equal’.  The two words are never used interchangeably.  Hen can carry a range of meanings.  But it does not mean that two things are exactly the same or that they are interchangeable.  In fact, it is used of ‘diverse rather than identical objects’ (A & M Kostenberger, God’s Design for Man and Woman).

Even if we were to regard this phrase as equivalent to, ‘You are all equal in Christ’, we would need carefully to explain and quality it.  Two people are unlikely to be equally good at creative writing, for example, or at lacrosse.  Similar expressions both within the NT (Mt 19:6/Mk 10:8; Jn 10:30; 17:11,21-23; Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 3:8; 10:17; 1 Jn 5:8) and in relevant extra-biblical writings suggest that the underlying thought is of two or more entities that are diverse and different but which are united by some common feature or quality.  So, for example,

‘in 1 Corinthians 3:8 Paul clearly states that the one who plants and the one who waters have different tasks and different rewards, and yet they are one (likely in purpose). Similarly, in Romans 12:5 Paul states that the members of the body are different, with different tasks, but they, too, are “one.”’ (Hove)

What Paul is saying, then, is that they are all united in Christ (not that they are all equal in Christ).  He is stating that there is no difference between believers in respect of their standing and benefits in Christ.  He stresses the universality of these benefits in Gal 3:36,37,38.  This is in keeping with the wider context, which stresses the universality of the new covenant (see also Jer 31:33f, Joel 2:28f, for example).

As George remarks, it is at baptism that this unity is acknowledged, proclaimed and celebrated.  Bligh puts it like this:

‘When a person is dipped in the bath of baptism, he comes out a changed man: his former color disappears, he comes out the color of Christ. Whether the person before dipping was a Jew or a Gentile, a slave or a free man, a man or a woman, no longer matters.’

There is, then, within the church, rich unity-in-diversity:

‘What unites the church is a common faith in Christ and a common share in the Spirit.  Apart from this essential, Christians may have nothing at all in common.  We differ from one another in temperament, personality, education, colour, culture, citizenship, language and in a host of other ways.  Thank God we do.  The church is a wonderfully inclusive fellowship…In Christ we have equality.’ (Stott, Christ the Controversialist, 183)

Eslewhere, Stott writes:

‘This great statement of verse 28 does not mean that racial, social and sexual distinctions are actually obliterated. Christians are not literally ‘colour-blind’, so that they do not notice whether a person’s skin is black, brown, yellow or white. Nor are they unaware of the cultural and educational background from which people come. Nor do they ignore a person’s sex, treating a woman as if she were a man or a man as if he were a woman. Of course every person belongs to a certain race and nation, has been nurtured in a particular culture, and is either male or female. When we say that Christ has abolished these distinctions, we mean not that they do not exist, but that they do not matter. They are still there, but they no longer create any barriers to fellowship. We recognize each other as equals, brothers and sisters in Christ.’ (Stott, BST)

In what sense have the distinctions between Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free, been abolished or superseded?  George observes that the three pairs identify the three major cleavages that cut across the human race: ethnicity, sexuality, and economic capacity.  None of these distinctions is inherently evil: without gender differences human procreation would be impossible.  Without ethnic diversity the world of art, music and literature would be infinitely impoverished.  And, even though slavery is a gross perversion of God’s intention, some economic diversity is essential to an orderly society.  Each of these area has become perverted and distorted because of human sin:

‘Nationality and ethnicity have been corrupted by pride, material blessings by greed, and sexuality by lust.’  But a new standard and pattern emerges in the life of the community of the baptised.  Here we discover ‘the existence of a place in the world where things are different: Jews and Gentiles share the same table; slaves and free citizens are treated equally as brothers and sisters; women are accorded a respect that is more substantial than a merely outward and sometimes too-edged “equality.”‘ (Ebeling)

Bibliography

In addition to the standard commentaries:

Fee, Gordon (2005) ‘Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:29-29’ in Discovering Biblical Equality (2nd ed; also 1st ed.).

Westfall, Cynthia (2021), ‘Male and Female, One in Christ: Galatians 3:26-29’ in Discovering Biblical Equality (3rd ed).

Windsor, Lionel, A History of the Interpretation of Galatians 3:28.  Online.

Hove, Richard (2002) ‘Does Galatians 3:28 Negate Gender-Specific Roles?’ In Biblical Foundations for Manhood and Womanhood (Ed Grudem) (Online)

Naselli, Andrew (2023), Yet Another Attempt to Justify What God Forbids: A Response to Cynthia Westfall, “Male and Female, One in Christ”.  (Online)

Grudem & Piper (eds) (1991), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

Paul King Jewett (1975), Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View.