In recent years this verse, Galatians 3:28, has been hoisted as the battle standard of feminists and Biblical egalitarians who count themselves as evangelical.[1] They argue that this verse shows that the church has, in past generations, maintained unbiblical support of a paternalistic church and family order. This has kept Christian women from rising to their God-ordained place of equality of position and authority alongside men in the leadership of the church and in the family.

As Clark summarizes this view in Man and Woman in Christ,

“Nowadays many assume that Gal 3:28 is the place in which we find the heart of the scriptural teaching about the roles of men and women. Moreover, many interpret Gal 3:28 to mean that ideally in Christ there are no role differences between men and women, an interpretation which opposes Gal 3:28 to all the other texts that assert such a difference. According to this line of interpretation, this tension should be resolved by giving a preference to Gal 3:28. This view sees Gal 3:28 as ‘the great breakthrough’ and regards the other passages as ‘conservative’ or ‘traditional’ passages that express something of limited value.”[2]

In short, the Biblical egalitarian generally believes:

1. Gal. 3:28 to be concerned with, among other social issues, the functional roles of Christian men and women. As such it is the core or “heart” of the New Testament teaching to the church regarding that subject.

2. Tension between this passage’s clear teaching (as socially and functionally determinative) and those passages apparently in opposition to it should be resolved by preferring Gal. 3:28.

Theology Proper, The Doctrine of God: Ontology and Subordination in the Trinity

Conservative scholars have generally held that Scripture teaches the true ontological[b] and spiritual equality and value of the genders (Gen. 1:27, 5:2). They also see no essential conflict between the Bible asserting ontological equality, and simultaneously asserting functional and positional subordination in the church and in marriage.

A comparison can be made with the doctrine of the Trinity: Christian orthodoxy asserts an ontological equality and value between the Father and Son (e.g. John 1:1, “and the word was God.” John 10:30, “I and the Father are one”). In the same breath orthodoxy asserts, indeed demands, an economic, functional subordination of the Son to the Father regarding some of his offices, for example, as the Son of Man and as the high priest in the order of Melchizedek, (e.g. Heb. 5:8-10, “although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered, and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.”).

Ray Ortlund, Jr. points out the apparent tension within the doctrine of the Trinity and its analog, the tension between the essential equality of both men and women, and the differentiation as to functional subordination:

We ought to be sufficiently agile intellectually and emotionally to accept this paradoxical truth. Christians, of all people, have a reason to live with paradox. After all, God exists as one Godhead in three Persons, equal in glory but unequal in role. Within the Holy Trinity the Father leads, the Son submits to Him, and the Spirit submits to both (the Economic Trinity). But it is also true that the three Persons are fully equal in divinity, power, and glory (the Ontological Trinity). The Son submits, but not because He is God, Jr., an inferior deity. The ranking within the Godhead is a part of the sublime beauty and logic of true deity. And if our Creator exists in this manner, should we be surprised and offended if His creaturely analog on earth exists in paradoxical form?[3]

Many evangelical feminists and egalitarians reject this tension with regard to men and women, holding that functional subordination in the home and church is a de facto assertion of ontological inferiority. Further, they would assert that ontological equality must be expressed in functional equality for “equality” to mean anything. They would point to Galatians 3:28 as the proof that the apostle Paul understood this “fact.”

Essential Equality and Functional Subordination in the Trinity: Orthodox or Heterodox?

A brief digression into a question of Theology Proper is in order at this point. Some (not all) in this camp go so far as to deny that this tension exists within the Trinity itself. Evangelical feminists Richard and Catherine Kroeger write in the article Subordinationism in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, asserting in the very first sentence of that article that subordinationism is:

“A doctrine which assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or the Holy Spirit within the Trinity. Condemned by numerous church councils, this doctrine has continued in one form or another throughout the history of the church”[4]

When the Kroegers add inferiority of role to their definition, they condemn the Trinitarianism of historical Christianity! The reader should note with alarm that they have labeled as “condemned,” or heterodox, the universal teaching of the church: that there is equality of nature and essence within the Trinity, while there is willing subordination of roles. They even admit that functional subordination (as to role) has “continued in one form or another throughout the history of the church.” This should not come as a surprise to us since it is the church’s historical view!

Another example along this line of thinking is offered by Gretchen Gaebelein Hull, in her book, Equal to Serve:

“If we define head as ‘authority over,’ then 1 Corinthians 11:3 can mean that there is a dominant to subordinate hierarchy within the Trinity, a position that does violence to the equality of the Persons of the Godhead. Early in its history, orthodox Christianity took a firm stand against any teaching that would make Christ a subordinate figure. To say that God is somehow authoritative over Christ erodes the Savior’s full divinity and puts a Christian on dangerous theological ground”[5]

Katherine Kroeger says in her appendix to this same book by Hull, “The heretics would argue that although the Son is of the same substance as the Father, He is under subjection.”[6]

Kroeger has called historical, orthodox Christianity heresy, attacking catholicity itself. Hull also clearly misstates the church’s historical understanding of the functional roles of the members of the Trinity. Both the Kroegers’ and Hull’s statements are false.

This line of reasoning demonstrates either gross ignorance of Scripture, the early church councils, and the church’s historical teaching, or a deliberate and insidious attempt by these authors to pervert and redefine the historical record. In either case, such thinking itself warrants an examination for heresy and is clearly outside the pale of orthodoxy. It demonstrates a “win at all costs” mentality that indicates a deep a priori commitment to a Christianized feminism that is even willing to attack essential theology to have its way.

One would hope, and in Christian charity assume, that the greater body of evangelical feminism’s thinkers does not share these kinds of theological aberrations. However, a warning against just such a theological tendency among many evangelical feminists was seen in Robert Letham’s article, “The Man-Woman Debate: Theological Comment,” Westminster Theological Journal 52:1 [Spring 1990], pp. 65-78. Caveat emptor!

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to examine Galatians 3:28 in light of its context to determine if it can legitimately be seen to advocate Biblical gender egalitarianism. In short, is it as Paul King Jewett, professor of systematic theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, says, the “Magna Carta of Humanity?”[7] Does Galatians 3:28 indeed advocate functional equality in the church and home. These questions deserve a thoughtful, Biblical answer, for as someone has wisely said, “a text without a context, is merely a pretext.”

Limited Scope

The scope of this paper is necessarily limited. It cannot, in so brief a work, determine the larger issue of functional equality of men and women, an issue that is addressed by other Scriptures. This paper merely seeks to discover if, based on context and exegesis, Galatians 3:28 is to be allowed or disallowed as a support for the egalitarian, functional equality position. If it is disallowed, then it cannot be brought into any discussion to contradict any other texts asserting God-ordained male leadership in the home and church.

The Four Positions

It should be noted that there are at least four major positions within the evangelical church regarding the general issue of gender egalitarianism, and Gal. 3:28 in particular.

1. Biblical Subordinationism: The Scriptures clearly affirm both ontological and spiritual equality and functional subordination. This functional subordination is only in the context of the husband/wife relationship and the church leadership/pastoral roles. This position generally holds that Gal. 3:28 does not speak of social/functional equality in the church and in the home. The Biblical Subordinationist acknowledges Scripture as authoritative and normative regarding the issue at hand. This position is arrived at inductively[c].

2. Biblical Egalitarianism: The Scriptures clearly affirm both ontological and spiritual equality and functional equality. This position generally (although not with absolute uniformity) holds that Gal. 3:28 does indeed speak of social/functional equality in the church and in the home. The Biblical egalitarian acknowledges Scripture as authoritative and normative regarding the issue at hand. This position is arrived at inductively.

3. Experiential Egalitarianism: Egalitarian experience and/or tradition determine the normative pattern for church and home. This group has seen “effective” female pastors and/or experienced functional equality in leadership of the home. This egalitarian pattern has become normative for them. There are basically two subgroups in this position:

a. Gnostic[d]: These Christians know something of the Scriptures, including those that speak to the issue of gender roles. Because of their experiences (either past or ongoing) there is usually substantial emotional and/or social cost to dealing honestly with those Scriptures that teach functional subordination. Therefore these Christians respond in one of three ways: 1) subordinate the authority of Scripture to their experience, 2) continuously undergo internal struggles of conscience between Scripture and experience, and/or 3) choose to ignore this issue and hope it will go away. It is worth noting that many within this group may consider themselves, or are considered by others, to actually be in position two (Biblical Egalitarianism). This position is arrived at deductively[e]. In other words, there is an a priori commitment to egalitarianism.

b. Agnostic[f]: These Christians don’t know the Scriptures dealing with the issues of gender roles. They therefore experience little internal conflict and consider gender roles solely from an experiential and/or traditional viewpoint.

4. Experiential Authoritarianism: Authoritarian experience and/or tradition determine the normative pattern for church and home. This group has seen only male pastors and/or experienced male leadership in the home, (sometimes inappropriate, unloving or occasionally abusive). This experience pattern has become normative for them. As with the Experiential Egalitarians, there are basically two subgroups in this position:

a. Gnostic: These Christians know something of the Scriptures, including those that speak to the issue of gender roles. Because of their experiences (either past or ongoing) there is usually substantial emotional and/or social cost to dealing honestly with those Scriptures that teach ontological equality of the genders and self-sacrificial, loving male leadership. Therefore these Christians respond in one of three ways: 1) subordinate the authority of Scripture to their experience, 2) continuously undergo internal struggles of conscience between Scripture and experience, and/or 3) choose to ignore this issue and hope it will go away. It is worth noting that many within this group may consider themselves, or are considered by others, to actually be in position one (Biblical Subordinationism). This position is arrived at deductively. In other words, there is an a priori commitment to male leadership or even inappropriate domination or abuse.

b. Agnostic: These Christians don’t know the Scriptures dealing with the issues of gender roles. They therefore experience little internal conflict and consider gender roles solely from an experiential and/or traditional viewpoint.

Both Biblical Subordinationists and Biblical Egalitarians hold to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, but they differ in the interpretive result. It is the observation of this author that a large portion of the evangelical church is actually in position three (Experiential Egalitarianism), subcategory “a” (Gnostic) but they think of themselves as Biblical Egalitarians. Likewise, some are actually in position four (Experiential Authoritarianism), subcategory “a” (Gnostic) but they think of themselves as Biblical Subordinationists.

While it may be acknowledged that both Experiential Egalitarians and Experiential Authoritarians may be correct insofar as they have arrived at the proper conclusions, yet they both err in the process of attaining that conclusion. At best, both effectively deny the plenary[g] inspiration of Scripture; at worst, the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, although this seems rarely a deliberate or intentional result. It is, rather the result of benign neglect, laziness or a desire to avoid conflict (Psalm 119:16, Proverbs 30:5, 2 Cor. 4:2). For the purpose of this paper the author will assume that the reader is honestly seeking to understand and obey the authority of the Scriptures, even if those Scriptures contradict the reader’s experiences or background.

On a Personal Note

A personal comment is in order at this point. The author of this paper has made a personal spiritual journey between several of these positions. He says, “I began my journey in the Experiential Egalitarian camp having had a grandmother who had been ordained (an amazing woman who had been a missionary to cannibals). Experiences later led me to be a somewhat puzzled Experiential Authoritarian, struggling and sometimes waffling back and forth between the two experiential camps. As a young adult I came into contact with Biblical Egalitarianism and tentatively took this position as my own. Over the years, however, as my exegetical abilities matured, specifically in the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic, and just as importantly, in my appreciation for the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures, I have arrived at the position of Biblical Subordinationism

Personally, my preference would be for egalitarianism, and were I to design the universe it would certainly be thus. However, as I am (thankfully) not the Designer, I would describe myself as a fully convinced, but emotionally reluctant Biblical Subordinationist. It is my view that this is the best place from which to argue my position: having experienced most all the views, and emotionally preferring egalitarianism, yet being intellectually convinced by Scripture, and in my conscience convicted, that the opposite is true.”

What is at Stake

This is a critical issue for our times. If the Biblical Egalitarians are correct, then at least three general areas of Christian life need to be addressed:

1. Hermeneutical: This passage would be determinative in the interpretations of other seemingly conflicting passages such as 1 Timothy 2:11-15. In this case Galatians 3:28 would become the locus classicus[8], the super-doctrine, the single lens through which all other related passages would be seen and interpreted. It would become a kind of crux, or theological trump card.

2. Ecclesiastical: The church would need to change its practices to not only allow, but proactively encourage and include the ordination of women to the pastorate

3. Family order: There would be no basis for male leadership in the Christian home. The church would need to “modernize” its teaching regarding submission of wives to husbands (Ephesians 5:22).

Galatians 3:28, The Importance of Context

A commitment to both the authority of Scripture and a normal, literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic means, among other things, a commitment to a study of this passage in situ. A key to understanding this passage, and any other, lies in understanding the context. Ramm observes, “grammatical interpretation involves consideration of the context… entire Scripture… sets the general mood, gives the general perspective, governs the fundamental assumptions, or sets the possible limits of meaning for the interpreter.[9]” By lifting passages out of the context of history, authorial background, intended audience, intended purpose and the surrounding passages, various subjective and mistaken interpretations can arise.[h]

The Epistle’s Context –Date and Destination

Paul is writing ca. A.D. 48-49 from Syrian Antioch to the church in the area of southern Galatia in Asia Minor: Antioch (Pisidia), Iconium (Phrygia), Lystra, Derbe and vicinity. Paul and Barnabas had just planted these churches on their first missionary journey (Acts 13-14). This date would make the Galatian epistle Paul’s first grafh. - Scripture.[10] The significance of this being his first Scripture will become apparent in the following section.

The Epistle’s General Context

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson notes with regard to the overall purpose of Galatians that,

“The Epistle to the Galatians, most likely the first of Paul’s letters, centers the attention of the reader on two dominant themes: (1) the justification of the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ apart from legal works, and (2) the ministry of the Holy Spirit as the indwelling energizer of the spiritual life in Christ.”[11]

Commentators and scholars universally acknowledge the close affinity of Paul’s Galatian epistle to that of his Roman one. As 19^th century commentator Lightfoot asserts:

“The Epistle to the Galatians, stands in relation to the Roman letter as the rough model to the finished statue; or rather, if I may press the metaphor without misapprehension, it is the first study of a single figure, which is worked into a group in the later writing.”[12]

The first letter, Galatians, is written in Paul’s first indignant reaction to heresy, while the other, Romans, is written calmly and at leisure.[13] The purpose of Paul as he wrote Galatians (against heresies) should be kept in mind as one evaluates verse 3:28. Johnson recalls the statement of his professor at Dallas Theological Seminary in 1945, Dr. Everett Harrison, “Romans tells us what the gospel is; Galatians tells us what it is not.”[14]

Structurally, Paul’s letter is generally acknowledged to fall into three sections:

1. The opening two chapters (1-2) are largely personal, containing a defense of his gospel and apostleship.

2. The following section, also of two chapters (3-4), contains the exposition, in strongly argumentative form, of the heart of his gospel: the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from legal works.

3. The letter’s final two chapters (5-6) conclude with a hortatory[i] appeal to practice the principles and responsibilities of the Christian life through the energy of the indwelling Spirit of God.

The passage in question, 3:28, falls within the bounds of the doctrinal and theological argumentation portion, rather than the hortatory/exhortative portion, as noted above.

Paul’s purpose for writing, when seen in this light, takes on a particular importance in understanding the passage in question. Paul had, while he was with them, clearly taught them that the gospel of salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Yet Paul had received a report from Galatia that some of the Jewish converts to Christianity, the “Judaizers,” had been bringing a deadly admixture of salvation by grace, with salvation by obedience to the Mosaic Law. To add insult to injury these Jewish Christians were also forcing Gentile Christians to first become Jews, including the rite of circumcision, before they became Christians (or before they could consider themselves “real” Christians), and requiring them to keep the Mosaic Law at best as a way to improve their spiritual standing with God, and at worst as a means of preserving their salvation.

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-- which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.” Gal 1:6-7

Thus, Paul was combating what might be considered an aggressive infection of heresy: salvation by grace through faith, plus reliance on the Mosaic Law.

“You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing--if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?” Galatians 3:1-5

In addition, these “Judaizers” wanted the Gentile converts to be circumcised. One feels the emotional heat of Paul’s scathing reply:

“Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” Gal. 5:11-12

Once we understand Paul’s reason for writing and his overall argument, we can then, and not sooner, proceed to the interpretation of particular passages within the Galatian letter. Paul’s reason/purpose is to shame the Galatian Christians into returning to relying on Christ alone for their salvation, and to abandon their foolish attempts at earning or maintaining salvation through obedience to Mosaic Law. As Donald Campbell concludes his introductory comments in The Bible Knowledge Commentary,

“Galatians was written to remedy a desperate situation, to call early Christians back from the Mosaic Law to grace, from legalism to faith. It is an emphatic statement of salvation by faith apart from works and it is as relevant today as when it was originally penned.”[15]

This mindset, that of a corrective polemic[j], is to be the interpretive grid or “filter” through which we understand the Galatian letter in general, and 3:28 in particular.

The Overall Passage Context

With regard to chapters 3 and 4, the purpose of these chapters is to prove salvation by grace through faith alone. In fact, it was this very chapter (chapter 3) that helped to lead the 16th century German priest Martin Luther away from the Catholic doctrine of salvation by faith-plus-works (from which he suffered horrible guilt at his own failings) to a wonderful knowledge of salvation by grace alone through faith alone.

Paul begins with chapter 3, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, presenting a series of ascending arguments to prove his point. He reaches a thundering crescendo in v26-29! Verses 26-29 shine forth the ultimate eternal position and spiritual inheritance of the person who has placed their hope in Christ.

Following is an outline of chapter 3 in The Bible Knowledge Commentary that helps to illustrate his point.[16]

Doctrinal: A defense of justification by faith (chaps. 3-4)

...... Vindication of the doctrine of justification by faith (ch. 3)

...... By the experience of the Galatians........... (3:1-5)

...... By the example of Abraham........... (3:6-9)

...... By the effect of the Law........... (3:10-12)

...... By the work of Christ........... (3:13-14)

...... By the permanence of faith........... (3:15-18)

...... By the purpose of the Law........... (3:19-25)

...... By the believer’s present position........... (3:26-29)

...... Illustration of the doctrine of justification by faith (ch. 4)

The Immediate Context

S. Lewis Johnson explains the Gal. 3:28 immediate contextual issues, “Galatians 3:28 falls within Paul’s exposition of the purpose of the law, that is, to be a slave-guardian on the path toward maturity and unrestricted enjoyment of sonship (cf.3:24; 4:1-7).”[17]

The immediate preceding context then is that of defining, explaining and illustrating the purpose of the Mosaic Law. Johnson continues to the current context, “With the sonship has come a glorious freedom before God releasing all the faithful, whether Gentiles, slaves, or women, from life under the Old Covenant’s bondage.”[18]

The new “sonship” of the body of Christ, including all believers is contrasted to the strictness of the Law’s bondage. Johnson concludes,

“The saints, enriched by the enjoyment of Abrahamic promises, are clothed with Christ in garments of freedom, family membership with heirship. This Paul now develops, negating any claim by the Judaizers that the Old Covenant life is a better life.”[19]

Thus, the immediate context of 3:28 speaks of maturation by the sons of God as a new corpus: the Jewish Christians having grown from restrictive pre-adolescent guardianship under the Law, and being organically joined with Gentile Christians in the freedom and legitimate inheritance commensurate with adulthood. This argument fits perfectly into Paul’s overall polemic for the true gospel and against the false gospel of the Judaizers.

The Exegesis of v23-29

Having understood the overall context of Galatians to be a polemic against a false gospel, and having perceived the immediate context to be a contrast between the current freedom and joint sonship following a period of being under the restrictive guardianship of the Law, we can now proceed to the examination of the specific passage and the individual verses. We will be following the outline of the text provided by The Bible Knowledge Commentary.

Doctrinal: A defense of justification by faith by - The Purpose of the Mosaic Law

Verse 23

v23 Now before the appearance of The Faith [in Christ], we were being guarded, supervised and rigidly tutored by the Law, restrained until the destined faith should be disclosed.[k]

This verse provides the firs