Galatians 3:28 and Women Preachers?

"Every kind of foolish and superstitious belief can be proved from the Bible if it is not interpreted according to the demands of context, language, common sense, and reality."[1]

An example of not interpreting a passage or text of Holy Scripture according to the demands of context, language, common sense, and reality is when Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”[2], is used as a proof text for the ordination of women. If ripped out of the context in which this verse appears, seeing what came before the verse and what comes after the verse, one could justify pretty much anything one wanted with regards to the ethnic distinction between Jews and Greeks (gentiles), slaves and non-slaves, men and women, and say it is so because “…you are all one in Christ Jesus.” But, is this what the verse is saying?

What the Apostle Paul is NOT saying is that in Christ women can or should be ordained as preachers of the Word of God. To draw this meaning from Gal. 3:28 would contradict texts of Scripture in which Paul says plainly that God has chosen men and not women as overseers or elders or deacons. In I Timothy 3:1-13, the same writer of Galatians addresses the issue of leadership in the church. He begins with the office of overseer in verse one. Paul later, in Titus 1:5-7, uses the word “elder” to indicate the same office. Qualifications for the overseer or elder are that “he” be the “husband” of one “wife.” This qualification is echoed in Titus 1:6. Paul goes on to say in I Timothy 3: 4,5: “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)” [3] (Italics mine)

If this wasn’t enough to convince that Galatians 3:28 is NOT saying that women should be ordained in the church, in the previous chapter (I Timothy 2:8-15), Paul spells out explicitly the role of men and women in the church. A woman, says the text, is to learn in silence in all submission and is not allowed to have authority over a man [4] And, unlike the accusation of liberals, the reason Paul says this, his reason, is not cultural. It is, rather, theological.

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner” [5]

Paul cites a “creation ordinance” as his exegetical grounds for this teaching about the roles for men and women in the church of Jesus Christ. The creation ordinance argument Paul also uses in I Corinthians 11:8-12.

Galatians 3:28 is NOT speaking to the roles of men and women in the leadership of the church. What the passage IS saying is that with regards to salvation, there is no longer a wall of separation. All in Christ are Abraham’s seed.[6]

This third chapter of Galatians is a corrective one. Paul is rebuking the Galatian Christians for letting themselves be drawn away from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that all are one in Him. The wall of separation had, at the cross, been torn down. Is justification by faith in Christ or the works of the law? Paul reviews and reproves in 3:6-18.

Then, after having rebuked the Galatians for their disobedience to what they knew to be true, he proceeds to prove, again, the doctrine he had rebuked them for rejecting. Paul’s argument goes as follows:

Under the law, the Jews were above the Gentiles (Greeks). Slaves had no privileges at all. Under the law, only the men received the sign of the covenant: circumcision. In union with Christ, all are of the same covenant. Jews and Greeks are one in Christ, women as well as men receive the sign of the New Covenant: baptism, slaves are equal to the freeman in Christ. There are no distinctions or special privileges in Christ under the New Covenant. All classes of people are kings and priests unto God with the same eternal inheritance.[7]

Taken out of context, the Bible can be made to say almost anything. Untaught and unstable the Apostle Peter calls those who twist Scripture and do it, Peter warns, to their own destruction.[8] Seeking the meaning of the text, the intended meaning demands interpreting Bible verses in the immediate and remote context. Not only do you have to interpret the verses within the paragraph in which it appears, like Galatians 3:28, but you have to go even further.

If “Scripture Interprets Scripture,” you must allow Scripture to show you how the one verse fits within the paragraph it appears, the chapter in the book it appears, all the other chapters of the book in which the one verse it appears, and with the rest of Scripture itself—all of it! You cannot understand the intended meaning of “a” verse apart from the rest of the Bible. No verse of Holy Scripture can be separated from the rest of the Scripture. In fact, one must interpret a verse of the text in both its immediate and remote context. Immediate context is the paragraph, chapter, and book in which the one verse appears. Remote context would be the other books, if any, by the same author as well as the rest of Scripture.

No one using “the analogy of faith” (Scripture interpreting Scripture) can come to the Galatians 3:28 text and walk away from it believing it is teaching that women should be ordained ministers to preach in Christ’s church. It would be, I believe, impossible. The contradiction is too great.

---

[1] The Folly of Taking Text out of Context, by A. T. Overstreet; Are Men Born Sinners? Appendix F

[2] New International Version

[3] Ibid

[4] I Timothy 2:11,12

[5] I Timothy 2:13,14

[6] Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 3:11

[7] Revelation 1:6

[8] II Peter 3:16

###

RESOURCES

Christian Dating

Christian Music

Paul's and Peter's Epistles: Similar or Different?

Were the Apostles Paul and Peter at odds with one another in the first century? Perhaps they were rivals or nemesis? Were there such differences in their epistles that warranted some liberal schools of theology to say that the great Apostles were at such opposite ends of the pole theologically so as to interpret the New Testament epistles in light of this conflict. I would suggest otherwise.

Similarities and differences abound in any body of writing when two entirely different individuals are doing the writing. Differences can be one of style, different objectives, personality, and in the case of holy writ, differences of revelation God Himself chose to give to the writers of Scripture. In each men’s writing course the same Messiah, the same death burial, and resurrection, and the same plan of salvation. There is no conflict of revelation only differences of degree of revelation and emphasis.

One example is that in the Pauline writings, the church and its Biblical organization is stressed. The time period between the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to His glorious return is more fully developed through the Apostle’s writings through the epistles to Ephesians 3,4, Timothy , Titus, and the church at Thessalonica. What the church was to look like and function as on a practical basis was revealed to Paul and expressed in his writing. Peter would have known of the church from Matthew 16 as he was in close proximity with the Lord Jesus, however, the details would come in Paul’s writings.

Whereas Paul’s audience was mostly gentiles, Peter had Judeo-Christian readers. His emphasis in writing to this Jewish believing audience, making the transition from a life time of observing the Law of Moses to a life of being saved by Grace through the instrumentality of faith, was the emphasis of making your calling and election sure in an age in which the sheep and the goats mingle together in the church as revealed in the Gospels. (Matt. 25:31-46. Also See “Parable of the Weeds”: Matt.13:24-30)

“Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth⁶ you now have.” (2 Peter 1:10-12. NIV)

In such theological harmony with Paul was Peter that the Apostle wrote of Paul’s writing and its content:

“Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15,16. NIV)

Writing of the goats among the sheep or the tares growing with the wheat, Peter warns his believing audience of the false believer’s scripture twisting ways but advises that Paul is to be trusted. Peter trusted Paul. I contend there was no conflict of theology and its practice between the two Apostles. Peter calls Paul’s writing Scripture.

So what, if any, was the conflict between Paul and Peter that has caused liberals to point and proclaim contradiction in Scripture? Some point to an issue at Antioch when Paul opposed Peter:

“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?”” (Galatians 2:11-14. NIV)

Peter lapsed in applying an aspect of the truth of the Gospel of which he was aware, “That by the death of Christ the partition wall between Jew and Gentile was taken down, and the observance of the law of Moses was no longer in force; as Peter's offence was public, he publicly reproved him. There is a very great difference between the prudence of St. Paul, who bore with, and used for a time, the ceremonies of the law as not sinful, and the timid conduct of St. Peter, who, by withdrawing from the Gentiles, led others to think that these ceremonies were necessary.” (Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible, Galatians 2:11-14.)

A brother reproving another is hardly basis for saying that there was a conflict in doctrine.

The Antioch affair demonstrates the need for a plurality in the church leadership. No man is infallible and needs others within the church’s leadership to rebuke when necessary. It is this plurality in the leadership of the church that holds each leader, elders and deacons, accountable to one another and ultimately to the individual members of the body. The case between Peter and Paul was not a theological dispute of the foundations of the Gospel. It was one brother helping another who had temporarily lost his way get back on track.

Both Paul and Peter wrote of the fundamentals of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with slightly difference distinctions and emphases directed to specific audiences. Perhaps this is why they earned the distinctions of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Paul) and the Apostle to the Circumcision (Peter).

###