Exegetical Fallacies in D.A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies," Pt. 3: Failure to Recognize Distinctions

“Of course the Bible teaches that in Christ there is no male and female (Gal. 3:28); but does the Bible mean that male and female are alike in every respect? Who is going to bear the babies? Or do I now get my turn? The context of Galatians 3:28 shows the concern in that passage is with justification. In their standing before God, male and female are as one: neither enjoys any special advantage, each is acquitted by grace through faith...According to Luke, Peter cites Joel to the effect that both male and female shall prophesy (Acts 2:17); and certainly in the New Testament women do in fact prophesy (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:2-16). But Peter also says that the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Whether this is taken with respect to physical strength or something else, it entails some sort of distinction; and a very good case can be made from New Testament evidence that a distinction was drawn between the gift of prophecy, which men and women could equally enjoy, and the church-recognized teaching authority over men, which only men could discharge” (D.A. Carson, “Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition.” Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, pages 92-93).

Today’s fallacy quote by D.A. Carson comes from his labeled fallacy “Failure to Recognize Distinctions.” While Carson is quite the dogmatic Calvinist, he is also a staunch complementarian. You may not believe this, but most of his book spends time critiquing egalitarians more than it does Arminians (which is the other group he attacks).

Carson argues that, since men and women are biologically different, such biological distinctions testify to distinctions of spiritual authority in the church:

“does the Bible mean that male and female are alike in every respect? Who is going to bear the babies? Or do I now get my turn?”

The problem with this quote is that Carson goes from a biological distinction (that women are child-bearers) to spiritual authority without giving any biblical proof. At the most, this is just an absurd inference that the text does not justify. Not even the Scriptures state that spiritual authority is given on the basis of biological distinction. Rather, spiritual authority is given by the decision of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11). Carson is really stretching his exegesis on this one. To be somewhat facetious, “Who is going to do sound exegesis? Carson? Or do I now get my turn”?

Next, Carson gives another somewhat biological proof for his disagreement with women teaching men:

“According to Luke, Peter cites Joel to the effect that both male and female shall prophesy (Acts 2:17); and certainly in the New Testament women do in fact prophesy (Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:2-16). But Peter also says that the woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Whether this is taken with respect to physical strength or something else, it entails some sort of distinction.”

What does “the weaker vessel” reference have to do with spiritual authority in the church? When Peter refers to the woman as the weaker vessel, he is not talking about the female intellect. 1 Peter 3:7 discusses the context of marriage (not spiritual authority in the church), so Peter is not saying that women are weak and cannot lead in church. Rather, he is referring to the woman in terms of physical strength, vulnerability in the marriage, etc. This is why men are to give honor to their wives: since Paul told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians that “God composed the body, having given greater honor to that part which lacks it” (1 Cor. 12:24, NKJV). Women are not only to be honored because God gives them greater honor in their marriages, but also “that your prayers may not be hindered.” Does this mean that the man’s prayers could be hindered if he dishonors his wife in any way? Yes. Could this possibly refer to spiritual gifts: that is, that if a man dishonors his wife in her spiritual calling, he will hinder his prayers? Absolutely! I doubt, however, that complementarians give this any thought. D.A. Carson does not, in his reference to the passage.

A wife desires to be cherished, to be appreciated, to be seen as more than a sex object to be tossed around at will. But how do complementarians justify their treatment of their wives in church when they prevent them to do what they are called to do? I am thinking of a couple at this very moment where both husband and wife have PhDs. The husband is allowed to teach, publish, write, research, and do all that is in his heart...while his wife received a PhD in order to sit by his side and take care of their children. How right is this? What did she get her PhD for if she would do nothing with it? And does the husband in this case not consider that he might be hindering his wife’s progress, the progress of their marriage, not to mention their prayers? It’s certainly something worth thinking about.

Carson ends his assessment with the idea that the Scriptures teach some sort of leadership distinction between men and women (appealing to 1 Timothy 2). The problem, however, is that one cannot just blow off the context of Galatians. Let’s now revisit Carson’s assessment of Galatians:

“The context of Galatians 3:28 shows the concern in that passage is with justification. In their standing before God, male and female are as one: neither enjoys any special advantage, each is acquitted by grace through faith.”

Carson claims that neither male nor female “enjoys any special advantage,” and each person is “acquitted by grace through faith.” But, notice Carson’s “slide” qualification here: Carson doesn’t just say that neither enjoys special privileges; rather, the privilege that is the same for both male and female is “acquitted by grace through faith.” To Carson, salvation is alike for both male and female, but that’s all. Women are not given the same gifts as men for the same places of leadership in the church.

But does not God gives gifts as He pleases (1 Cor. 12:11)? If this be the case, then how can Carson argue that a distinction in gender explains the Holy Spirit’s moving? Don’t you think that the Holy Spirit could have explained this if He desired to? Since the Spirit is the Creator of the early church, could He not have spoken to us clearly about the Spirit giving gifts “according to gender”? Paul clearly knew how to write “male and female” in Galatians 3:28---so why didn’t he write that in 1 Corinthians 12:11?

Carson’s exegesis has problems simply because he attempts to make distinctions in gifting a result of gender, not a result of the Spirit’s own decision. I guess the next question becomes, “Does the Spirit desire to gift according to gender?”...and sadly enough, Carson has staked out on a position that is unbiblical. If anyone has failed to recognize distinctions, it’s D.A. Carson himself, the same man (may I admit) that wrote a book explaining the nature and practice of exegetical fallacies.

PANOGENITURE

Regarding the concept of primogeniture, Kostenberger writes:

“In referring to primogeniture, complementarian scholars are scarcely suggesting that the cultural practice of primogeniture should be enforced today, nor do they think that Paul is endorsing primogeniture per se. Nor would they deny the many examples from the Old Testament…they appeal to primogeniture to explain that the notion of the firstborn having authority would be easily understood by Paul’s readers. The readers of 1 Timothy would not have scratched their heads with perplexity and amazement when Paul says that women should not teach because Adam was created first. The priority of Adam in creation would have NATURALLY SUGGESTED his authority over Eve to the original readers” (Kostenberger, “Women in the Church,” pg. 107).

I’ve referred to Kostenberger’s quote before, but something made me think about primogeniture yesterday. I’ve spent the past several days thinking on Galatians 3, and yesterday was no different. However, I did have a different thought about the chapter than before. Egalitarians spend a lot of time assessing Galatians 3:28 and its implications for women in the church; yet, what about the verse after—what about Galatians 3:29? No one seems to consider the verse AFTER the famous verse of new creation in Galatians 3. Let’s look at Galatians 3:28—

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28, ESV).

And egalitarians and complementarians invest a great deal of time writing books and articles on this verse. But by doing so, they (me included) forget what follows:

“And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29, ESV).

Paul begins verse 29 with the words, “IF YOU ARE CHRIST’S…” Verse 28 tells us that we are “IN CHRIST.” No matter what differences lie between believers, all together are ONE in Christ. There is only ONE body in Christ—and all believers are a part of that one body.

But complementarians stop here. They spend a great deal of time stressing that each member is a part of the body. But verse 29 goes beyond just our unity in Christ: it goes into the IMPLICATIONS of our being ONE BODY in Christ.

Since we are in Christ, we are “Abraham’s offspring, HEIRS ACCORDING TO PROMISE.”
If we are Christ’s, then we are HEIRS, inheritors of the promise, along with Abraham and the Jewish believers.

Let’s look at a text that will explain this further, Galatians 3:

“Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the GENTILES by faith, preached the Gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’ So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith” (Galatians 3:7-9, ESV).

The quote in Galatians 3:8b is found originally in the Old Testament in Genesis 12:3—

1Now(A) the LORD said[a] to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2(B) And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3(C) I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and(D) in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."[b]

So when God tells Abraham that through him all the nations would be blessed, He really meant ALL nations, including the Gentile nations.

Go back to Galatians 3:28-29. As I stated earlier, complementarians stop too soon in their assessment of the implications of salvation. Paul says in Galatians 3:28 that we are one “in Christ”—but this being “in Christ” is the result of salvation. Paul, however, goes beyond the theory of being “in Christ” and says that it has ecclesiological and personal implications. If someone is in Christ, whether male or female, then they are heirs of the promise. And to be an heir means “to inherit” something. And this is practical.

Let’s look at a situation from our everyday experience. Let’s say that a father has five sons. When the father dies, all five sons EXPECT to receive a portion of their father’s inheritance (each would receive equally 20%). What son would be content just to know he’s getting something BUT NOT receive as much as the next son? No son would be content with that. And no son would accept it. If he is a legitimate son, like his brothers, he will demand that he receive an equal share…

And if Gentiles, including women, are equal SONS of God as well as men, then, God being impartial as Paul tells us in Galatians 2, women expect an EQUAL SHARE in the blessings. The Danvers Statement (and complementarians) will tell you that women receive an equal share. But they also agree to an unequal share—women will receive gifts, but CERTAIN gifts they will not receive. But that doesn’t make sense if women as well as men are legitimate sons (which they are, being that Christ redeemed them through His blood).

Complementarians have espoused primogeniture, the idea that the ELDEST SON gets the father’s inheritance. But IN CHRIST, ALL SONS inherit EQUALLY that which the Father promised to them—and they all inherit AT THE SAME TIME (there is no line of succession for the inheritance to pass from one son to another).

Let’s examine Romans 4 regarding the inheritance:

We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11(J) He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was(K) to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Rom. 4:9b-12, ESV)

Abraham was counted as righteous BEFORE getting circumcised—so the only thing that counts toward righteousness is faith, NOT the work of circumcision itself. Gentiles, then, don’t need to be circumcised (for circumcision will not impart righteousness).

13For(L) the promise to Abraham and his offspring(M) that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14(N) For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15For(O) the law brings wrath, but(P) where there is no law(Q) there is no transgression.
16That is why it depends on faith,(R) in order that the promise may rest on grace and(S) be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham,(T) who is the father of us all, 17as it is written,(U) "I have made you the father of many nations"—in the presence of the God in whom he believed,(V) who gives life to the dead and calls into existence(W) the things that do not exist. (Rom.4:13-17, ESV)

Look at verse 16. The inheritance doesn’t depend on the law, but ON FAITH. Why? So that both the adherents of the law and those of faith (like Abraham) would receive the promised inheritance.

I have often heard a term used in books regarding this subject: and the term is called “primogeniture.” I’d like to propose a new word for this study, the word “panogeniture.” This word comes from the Greek word “pan” meaning “all,” and states that EVERYONE receives an equal share of the blessings God has in store for them the moment they believe.

Now, go back to Kostenberger’s quote at the beginning of the post. Does it make sense? Of course not. If Galatians is all about NO FAVORITISM, not even to the Jews, then why would the church at Ephesus, a part of the body of Christ, use a concept such as PRIMOGENITURE (FAVORITISM of one son over another) as a concept by which to measure the rule of New Creation (Gal. 6:15-16) and the blessings thereof? The Jews were first to receive the gospel, and yet, the Gentiles were given that privilege. Why would it be ANY DIFFERENT in terms of male/female leadership?

"Neither Slave Nor Free"

I’ve been marinating in Gordon Fee’s chapter on “Male and Female in the New Creation” (from “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity without Hierarchy” by Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, General Editors; Contributing Editor: Gordon Fee) the last several days. I wanna take time to recommend this book again to all who need something good to read on the debate. I’ve called this book “The Compendium of the Complementarian/Egalitarian Debate” and I stick by my words—this book is a heavy-hitter when it comes to knowing the real issues in the debate…

I’m still tackling Fee’s “New Creation Theology,” so I’m still digging through the theological implications of Galatians 3:28. Just so you can follow, I’ll post this verse here once more:

28(A) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free,(B) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28, ESV)

For those who need to see the proof for our “New Creation” Rule, I’ll post these verses here, too:

15For(A) neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but(B) a new creation. 16And as for all who walk by this rule,(C) peace and mercy be upon them, and upon(D) the Israel of God. (Gal. 6:15-16, ESV)

As I’ve stated in the last several posts on New Creation, this rule (or canon) tells us that the distinctions we have as individuals (whether it be gender, socio-economic status, or ethnicity) no longer determine our worth; what determines our worth is the fact that we are a NEW CREATION because we are “IN CHRIST,” and, as Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:17, “If any man be in Christ, NEW CREATION; OLD things have passed away…behold, all things have become NEW.”

Today in our post we’re gonna continue our discussion of “slave” and “free.” I wrote on this a bit in my journey through 1 Corinthians 7, but we will also look at it here. Paul says things here that he doesn’t say anywhere else in his letters. This letter, as personal as it was, shows us that Paul lived by the New Creation rule. Fee writes regarding Paul’s letter to Philemon:

“So when Onesimus is returned to his owner Philemon, Paul DELICATELY URGES Philemon to take him back into the household to reassume his role as a slave. But with consummate spiritual wisdom he says far more, by adding: ‘NO LONGER AS A SLAVE, BUT BETTER THAN A SLAVE, AS A DEAR BROTHER’ (Philem 16). THIS DOES NOT ABOLISH THE SYSTEM, BUT CARRIED THROUGH BY PHILEMON, IT DISMANTLES THE SIGNIFICANCE GIVEN TO IT (and in this indirect way, of course, heads toward the dismantling of the system itself!)” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 183).

Paul writes Philemon in love about receiving back Philemon’s runaway slave, Onesimus. However, Paul makes it clear that receiving Onesimus back as a slave is mandatory:

8Accordingly,(M) though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do(N) what is required, 9yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you… (Philemon 8, ESV)

He says that it is “required” for Philemon to accept Onesimus back. In other words, because Onesimus is now one in the faith, he is not to be treated as any common slave; for now, he is a brother in Christ, ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PHILEMON IN THE EYES OF THE LORD! Look at what Paul writes of Onesimus:

For this perhaps is why(V) he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16(W) no longer as a slave[c] but more than a slave, as(X) a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you,(Y) both in the flesh and in the Lord. (Philemon 15-16, ESV)

Here he says that Philemon was to have Onesimus (his slave) back FOREVER. This meant that Onesimus would be Philemon’s slave for a long time. Yet Paul shows his “New Creation Rule” when he says, “No longer as a SLAVE, but MORE THAN A SLAVE, A BELOVED BROTHER…” (verse 16). To think of Onesimus as a BROTHER would be a FAR HIGHER PERSPECTIVE from which to think of Onesimus, not as his old-slave. This is what New Creation does: it looks BEYOND the distinctions, whether male or female, and sees that we’re all brothers and sisters in CHRIST!

Notice that Paul addresses both Onesimus’s earthly state and spiritual state all at once:

“especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (Philemon 16).

Here Paul first acknowledges Onesimus’s current state as slave—“in the flesh.” And then he also acknowledges the spiritual side: “in the Lord.” So, while Onesimus is a SLAVE (a division ACCORDING TO THE FLESH), by virtue of his salvation, he became a BROTHER in Christ to Philemon and would serve him well. He is a NEW CREATION, and, although bound in the flesh, he is THE LORD’S FREEDMAN (to borrow Paul’s words from 1 Corinthians 7).

Paul writes in verse 17:

17So if you consider me(Z) your partner, receive him as you would receive me. 18If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.

Paul told Philemon to “receive him AS YOU WOULD RECEIVE ME” (v. 17). Philemon would receive Paul as a dear friend; and Paul wouldn't have Philemon receive Onesimus back ANY DIFFERENTLY! Paul even told Philemon that if Onesimus owed anything, he [Paul] would cover the cost…

Keeping in mind Gordon Fee’s words about Paul and his NEW CREATION OUTLOOK, I wanna backtrack some to verse 11:

11(Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.)
Paul contrasts Onesimus’ earlier behavior with his behavior now (as a brother in Christ). The name “Onesimus” means USEFUL, and Paul tells Philemon that now, Onesimus is ready to live up to his name—he’s ready to be productive and cooperative as a slave. Although Onesimus once ran off and served as a rebel, he would no longer rebel as a result of the TRANSFORMING POWER OF THE GOSPEL.

Paul’s Letter to Philemon is not that long, but it’s a letter that shows us what the Gospel can do in others—and what the Gospel can do IN OURSELVES. Onesimus was coming back to Philemon to work as a slave should—but Philemon should receive him back and treat him as a brother. The BIGGER EMPHASIS was not on his socio-economic status, but his FAITH STATUS: he was a brother in Christ, a slave on equal footing with his master (in the Lord), and he should be treated as such.
Stay tuned…there’s more on Galatians 3:28 to come…

1 Corinthians 7 Revisited

In my last post I spent time exploring 1 Corinthians 7 and tying it in to the New Creation Rule that Paul states in Galatians 6:16 should be the standard of every believer.

Today we will revisit 1 Corinthians 7—and look at the remainder of the passage. If you thought the beginning portion was amazing, you ain’t seen nothing yet…

Let’s look at verses 29 through 31:

29This is what I mean, brothers:(AJ) the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, 30and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy(AK) as though they had no goods, 31and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For(AL) the present form of this world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29-31, ESV)

All the advice Paul has given in chapter 7 about remaining in the current state is because “the present form of this world is passing away” (v.31). Everything on earth is temporary, which means that its time is short anyway. According to Simon J. Kistemaker in his “New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians”:

“Paul is telling the Corinthians to reject a Gentile perspective on time and to adopt the view that GOD’S KINGDOM HAS INVADED THIS WORLD AND IS TRANSFORMING IT (Matt. 11:12). For this reason, believers should have a broad outlook on life and FOCUS ON ETERNAL ESSENTIALS” (Kistemaker, 242, 243).

When referring to a Gentile perspective, Paul is not talking about the “ethnic” group, but the idea of time as defined by those who are EARTHLY-MINDED. For those whose minds dwell on things on this earth, mortal life is all about what a person can have for themselves, what makes them happy. Paul tells the Corinthian believers not to get “caught up” or absorbed into earthly things—because “I say this for your own benefit…to secure your UNDIVIDED DEVOTION TO THE LORD” (1 Cor. 7:35b, ESV). Having a wife, for example, would cause the husband or wife to split their time between Christ AND their mate; possessing lots of things would invest all the believer’s time into making sure they can KEEP their wealth. And all this does is take time away from the Lord. The person is distracted by virtue of adding other people (or things) into their relationship with the Lord.

Kistemaker is also right in that “God’s Kingdom has invaded this world and is transforming it (as indicated by Matthew 11:12). John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, preached to the masses, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is AT HAND” (Matt. 3:2, ESV). In his eyes, the Kingdom hadn’t arrived yet, but it was near, close by, right around the corner. Jesus even preached it Himself (Matt. 4:17); He taught the disciples how to pray and taught them to pray “Your kingdom come” (Matt. 6:10); in addition, He even told the disciples that the Kingdom of God had come through His miracles:

“But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God HAS COME UPON YOU” (Matt. 12:28, ESV).

The Kingdom of God was near when proclaimed by John the Baptist; when Christ came on the scene and began to heal and perform miracles, the Kingdom of God arrived. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:20, “The Kingdom of God does not consist in TALK but in POWER”; and if this is true, then when Jesus’ power manifested itself through miracles, then the miracles themselves became a VISIBLE SIGN of the Kingdom of God on earth. However, as with New Creation Theology, there is an aspect of the Kingdom that has not come to earth yet. This is why an announcement of the Kingdom was made from Heaven:

"Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." (Revelation 11:15, ESV).

Yes, even though Christ announced that the Kingdom had come through His miracles, there was an aspect that hadn’t arrived yet.

So if this holds true, then, in a sense, the Kingdom IS ALREADY HERE! And if one aspect of the Kingdom is already here, then we should be living Kingdom principles in the here and now.

And this is why complementarianism as a view is quite offensive to me: because complementarians claim that Kingdom principles are to be lived IN THE NEW KINGDOM and ON THE NEW EARTH. Thomas Schreiner, in his chapter titled “Head Coverings, Prophecy, and The Trinity” (in “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” by John Piper and Wayne Grudem) writes regarding the activity of Corinthian women:

“It may be that the Corinthian women had fallen prey to an overrealized
eschatology, and they thought they were like the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30),transcending sexual distinctions” (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, page 131).

Schreiner, as well as other complementarians such as Andreas Kostenberger, assume that the problem at the Corinthian and Ephesian churches was that the women there were acting on principles that would come with the Kingdom; but that’s exactly what we’re supposed to do as believers—for we are charged with the task of living as though God’s Kingdom were on earth in all its glory!!

Regarding 1 Corinthians 7, Simon Kistemaker writes once more:

“Hence, Paul instructs the Corinthians to view marriage, sorrow, joy, possessions, business, and service IN LIGHT OF THE NEW ERA WHICH THE CHRISTIAN FAITH HAS INAUGURATED…Christians should understand that as the present form of this world passes away (v.31), THE COMING OF GOD’S KINGDOM CONTINUES AND TOUCHES ALL ASPECTS OF HUMAN LIFE” (“New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians,” page 243).

Our eschatology as believers is not just some theoretical information in our heads: it’s something that should rule our hearts and minds, and influence our behavior. Complementarians cannot have it both ways—they cannot affirm principles of eternity while denying them in time…for the past, present, and future are all simultaneously before God. We’ll continue to look at New Creation Theology in my next post.

On The Old World Order-- Part I

I’ve spent a great deal of time discussing what New Creation is and showing that it discredits hierarchical structure. But what I want to look at today concerns Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church. The New Creation Standard governed every church to which Paul wrote.

According to Galatians 6:15-16, Paul believed that the New Creation Rule was the standard for those in Christ. As a result, we saw in Galatians that Paul refused to hold the Gentiles to the act of circumcision because of the Jews.
However, although Paul does not force the Gentiles to be circumcised, he also doesn’t force the Jews to be uncircumcised. Paul seems comfortable to tell everyone to remain in the state they’re in—why? “Because neither circumcision nor uncircumcision profits anything, but a new creation” (Galatians 6:15). In light of this, Gordon Fee tackles what many theologians assume is passivity on Paul’s part:

“Thus one should hardly expect him to tinker with roles and structures in A WORLD THAT IS ON ITS WAY OUT. Though he recognizes their existence, he does not argue (except in the case of government in general, Rom. 13:1-7) that they are DIVINELY ORDAINED. Rather, since Christ and the Spirit HAVE ALREADY PRONOUNCED DEATH ON THE OLD ORDER, one can live as Christ’s servant REGARDLESS of ethnicity or status (1 Cor. 7:17-24). But Paul will not give SIGNIFICANCE to these fundamental irrelevancies, in either direction” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 181).

Let’s examine Paul’s words regarding circumcision in 1 Corinthians 7:

17 However, each one must live his life in the situation the Lord assigned when God called (M) him. [i] This is what I command in all the churches. 18 Was anyone already circumcised when he was called? He should not undo his circumcision. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? He should not get circumcised. 19 Circumcision does not matter and uncircumcision does not matter, but keeping God's commandments does.

Notice that Paul tells everyone to remain in their current state, “what I command in all the churches” (v.17). Every church heard this rule and was to obey it. Every church was to govern itself by these words. As I said earlier, Paul’s New Creation Theology governed his words to all his churches.

Next, Paul demonstrates the words he gave the Galatian church in Galatians 6:15 about circumcision and uncircumcision: “Was anyone already circumcised when he was called? HE SHOULD NOT UNDO HIS CIRCUMCISION” (v.18). Being circumcised as a Jew doesn’t hurt a person’s status in the new creation; because the only thing that matters in the new creation is faith in Christ. The same goes for an uncircumcised person: “He should not get circumcised” (v.18). As Paul wrote in verse 19, “Circumcision does not matter and uncircumcision does not matter, but keeping God’s commandments does.” Paul’s concern was walking right before God, not trying to better personal status. Paul spent his time trying to live IN LIGHT OF the New Creation Rule, which meant not getting tied up into the societal struggle for status. Thus, whether one was a Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, didn’t mean anything—it had no relevance before God. Being a Jew didn’t put anyone closer to God than a Gentile—or vice versa.

Paul’s next instructions concern the slave and the freeman:

21 Were you called while a slave? It should not be a concern to you. But if you can become free, by all means take the opportunity. [k] 22 For he who is called by the Lord as a slave (N) is the Lord's freedman. [l] Likewise he who is called as a free man [m] is Christ's slave. 23 You were bought (O) at a price; do not become slaves of men.

Paul says that being a slave shouldn’t be a concern, “but if you can become free, BY ALL MEANS TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY” (v.21). What Paul means is that if a person was a slave when he or she was saved, the person should not worry about the fact that they are a slave. Their freedom in the Lord doesn’t force them to spend their lives trying to become a freeman. However, should they be granted the opportunity, they should take it: “FOR HE WHO IS CALLED BY THE LORD AS A SLAVE IS THE LORD’S FREEDMAN” (v.22).

The statement of verse 22 that I placed in bold caps is very significant: even though the slave is a SLAVE under the old-world order, once he is IN CHRIST, he is NEW CREATION (to whisper of 2 Corinthians 5:17)—and what are the implications of his being created anew? He is THE LORD’S FREEDMAN. This status IN THE LORD is totally averse to his status in society. But Paul also encouraged the slave to secure his freedom, if possible: “but if you can become free, by all means take the opportunity” (v.21). Why? because “he who is called by the Lord as a slave is the LORD’S FREEDMAN.” By securing his freedom (given the opportunity), the slave is acting on his freedom in the Lord as well as the New Creation Rule. By securing his freedom, he is living ESCHATOLOGICALLY—living as though the New World Order is ALREADY IN PLACE!!!

But notice what Paul tells the Corinthian believers in verse 23:

“You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.”

Paul argues something pivotal here: the believers at Corinth were once “slaves to sin.” Christ purchased them, redeemed them (bought them back with His blood), and now they were free in the Lord. To go back to living the life of a slave would UNDO EVERYTHING CHRIST DID AT THE CROSS!!

We can see from Paul’s instructions regarding slavery that he didn’t approve of the institution (“do not become slaves of men”); however, if that was the current state of a believer, since he lived in the old world order, he was to accept it and anticipate the day when he would be a slave no longer (the new earth would dissolve his slavery). But there is also another important point to make about Paul’s statement: while the slave may not be a freedman in the world, he was a freedman AMONG FELLOW BELIEVERS! He wasn’t to be treated the same way in the Body of Christ that he was treated outside the Body of Christ, in the fallen world in which he lived. And that’s the problem with complementarian interpretations of Galatians 3:28—when complementarians claim that women are equal BEFORE GOD but not BEFORE GOD’S PEOPLE, they are giving in to the OLD WORLD ORDER of hierarchy, power, and domination. But this is foreign to the church being the “kingdom of God” on earth. If we are the Kingdom of God on earth, the “city set on a hill,” the “light that shines in darkness” (as Christ was), then we have EVERY REASON to inaugurate the New World Order while on the Old Earth! As 1 John 3 tells us:

1See(A) what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called(B) children of God; and so we are. The reason why(C) the world does not know us is that(D) it did not know him. 2Beloved, we are(E) God’s children(F) now, and what we will be(G) has not yet appeared; but we know that(H) when he appears[a](I) we shall be like him, because(J) we shall see him as he is. 3And everyone who(K) thus hopes in him(L) purifies himself as he is pure.

The last verse of the text from 1 John 3 tells us that “everyone” who will conform to the image of God’s Son in the world to come will not just wait until they arrive in the New World to be pure—but that they will start making steps now to increase their knowledge of God and start to live AS IF THEY ARE ALREADY PERFECT! So holding on the Old World way of life is not acceptable as a child of God. And for complementarians to hang on to Old World distinctions demonstrates that they do not properly understand what New Creation Theology is all about. In regards to slavery, we see in Exodus how God used Moses to deliver His people; and in the New Testament, we see how Paul regards slavery. So if God regards ethnic oppression as wrong, why wouldn’t He see gender oppression as wrong, also? Remember, the same Paul who writes of the New Creation Rule in the churches is the SAME Paul who wrote to the Colossians,

1Masters, treat your slaves[a] justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1, ESV)

And, regarding husbands and wives:

19Husbands, love your wives, and(AX) do not be harsh with them. (Colossians 3:19, ESV).

For the Master, Paul wanted to remind him that he was not the FINAL AUTHORITY in life (irregardless of how much political authority he may/may not have held in his current society). For the husband, he was not to mistreat his wife on the basis of having power over her. So the old structures were there, true; but the believers were to inaugurate the New Order on earth—which meant conducting the affairs of life in a different manner than the rest of society.

We’re not done with our trek through 1 Corinthians 7. I’ll return to this passage in my next chapter to show further Paul’s use of New Creation Theology.

Joel 2:28-29-- A Forerunner of Galatians 3:28

Tonight while at the library, I decided to investigate a source I wrote down on a piece of paper a few days ago in the library. First starting the New Creation Theology series, I began to search for more on this subject—as Gordon Fee has fascinated me (and added to my theology) on the subject. Once again, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND his chapter titled “Male and Female in the New Creation” (from “Discovering Biblical Equality,” by editors Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis; contributing editor: Gordon Fee).

I found an article from a journal, called “Community and Diversity” by Heinrich Bedford-Strohm (the journal is The Union Seminary Quarterly Review) from off the library shelf and decided to open it. I didn’t find what I thought I would find (work on the New Creation); but I did find a hint of Galatians 3:28 in an old passage that I hadn’t even considered before—and that would be the Old Testament passage of Joel 2:28-29. Let’s look at the text:

28[a](A) "And it shall come to pass afterward,
that(B) I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
(C) your sons and(D) your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29(E) Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit.
(Joel 2:28-29, ESV)

Bedford-Strohm points out two significant features of this passage: “First, there is a clear account of diversity within the community. The Spirit is poured out on ALL FLESH. And yet this is not one HOMOGENOUS mass, but a community of QUITE DIFFERENT GROUPS with different experiences: OLD people and YOUNG people, MEN and WOMEN, FREE people and SLAVES” (Union Seminary Quarterly, no. 49-50, page 160). Notice that age no longer divides—old and young with will have dreams and visions; gender is no longer a qualifier for division—for both men and women will prophesy; last but not least, social class is not a qualifier for division—for both MALE and FEMALE SERVANTS (slaves) will receive the Spirit, and there will be visible signs of the Spirit’s presence. Here we see clearly the divisions mentioned in Galatians 3:28—“male” and “female,” “slave” and “free.”

What was the second feature? “Joel’s vision manifests a very powerful COUNTERIMAGE to the HIERARCHY IN SOCIETY. It is a clear statement that not only the sons but also the daughters are expressively mentioned, that slaves are mentioned, and even, again, not only male slaves but female slaves…the text from Joel presents a CREATIVE DIVERSITY OF THE COMMUNITY’S PRAISE OF GOD IN WHICH NONE IS DEVALUED OR PUT ABOVE THE OTHER” (160, 161).

However, I wanna take time to show the reader something in Joel 2:28-29 that I think we overlook quite often. The first words of Joel 2:28 tell us what God promised to do—“I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh.” God says here that He is going to give EVERYONE who believes His Spirit within. Okay—both complementarians and egalitarians agree that God has placed His Spirit within all believers.

But here’s where the complementarian gets stumped: while he realizes that the Spirit is present in a woman’s life, the complementarian denies the woman’s giftedness—but the problem is that the giftedness is a SIGN of the Spirit’s presence in the life of the believer. Don’t take my word for it; look back at Joel 2:

your sons and(D) your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
29(E) Even on the male and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit. (Joel 2:28b, 29)

Notice that the end of Joel 2:28 and all of Joel 2:29 discuss the VISIBLE signs of the Spirit’s presence: prophecy, dreams, and visions. The daughters of Phillip prophesied (Acts 21:9); Paul experienced visions (2 Corinthians 12) and Ananias is given a vision from the Lord about Saul (Acts 9:10). So these experiences were visible signs of the Spirit’s presence in the life of a believer. The gifts as recorded in the New Testament are also visible signs of the Spirit’s presence.

So if giftedness is a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in the woman’s life, then the Spirit can so choose to gift her in any way HE sees fit (1 Corinthians 12). Her giftedness is not our call to make, but the Spirit’s—after all, He is the God of the New Testament church.

Going back to Galatians 3:28, you’ll notice that complementarians no longer discriminate the races (“neither Jew nor Gentile”); and they don’t discriminate against those of differing social classes (“slave nor free”). However, they’re still stuck on the last pair (“neither male nor female”). For them, gender is just too comforting of a hierarchical distinction to give up. But if they desire to exalt God, and God is the One speaking in Joel 2:28-29, then they’re gonna have to loosen their grip—for the Spirit plans to gift the female anyway.

New Creation Theology in Colossians 2 & 3

In the last few days, I have been discussing Galatians 3:28 and its role in the New Creation. According to Galatians 6:15, “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision profits anything, but a new creation.” Galatians 6:16 makes it clear that New Creation is not a concept but a RULE to live by.

In light of this rule, I’d like to examine in the next several posts passages that show us Paul’s application of the New Creation Rule. If he could hold the Galatians to this rule, then clearly he used it himself in other letters to his other churches (and the church at Rome).

To start off our examination of several passages, let’s begin with Colossians 2 and 3. First, to see the New Creation Rule in its context, let’s look at Colossians 3:

“Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the OLD self with its practices and have put on the NEW self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but CHRIST IS ALL, AND IN ALL” (Col. 3:9-11, ESV).

The language of Col. 3:9-11 parallels Galatians 3:28 (which we’ve discussed in great detail) as well as 2 Corinthians 5. Let’s look at the language of 2 Corinthians 5—

“17Therefore, if anyone is(Y) in Christ, he is(Z) a new creation.[b](AA) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God,(AB) who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us(AC) the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:17-18, ESV).

The language of 2 Corinthians 5 shows us the contrast between “the old” and “the new” (v.17). Paul then writes in verse 18, “All this is from God.” Colossians 3:9-11 contrasts the old with the new, as Paul tells them to “put off the old self” and “put on the new self” (vv. 9, 10). So New Creation Theology runs through Colossians 3 in the same way it does 2 Corinthians 5.

But look back at Colossians 3. Paul tells the Colossians to get rid of the old man “with its practices,” referring to its carnality. Once getting rid of the old, they were to put on the new man, “which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” In contrast to the old self, which lived by its own desires, the new self will live by knowledge of God. Another noteworthy contrast is that, whereas the old man (human nature) decays and dies, the new man is “being renewed” (Col. 3:10), being restored every day. In short, the new man is experiencing the OPPOSITE process of the old man—instead of dying, it is being restored to “the image of its creator.” The new man gives believers what they need to live up to the standard Adam and Eve should have obeyed in the first place. The new man, then, will be like Adam before the Fall.

But Paul doesn’t just stop here: what he says in verse 11 is the RESULT of taking off the old man and putting on the new—“Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.” If, as Paul says, believers put on the new man, and the new man is being renewed “in knowledge,” then everyone is viewed the same in the body of Christ. No matter what the social distinction, no man is viewed or treated differently than another. In the body of Christ, the lawyer is treated no better than the mechanic, and the school teacher is treated no less than the college professor or surgeon.

With the information we’ve gleaned from Colossians 3, let’s approach Colossians 2. Much of the message is the same as we’ll see—but what new information we find is that there are those in the congregation who have no idea what it means to say that there is no “Jew, Greek, slave, free, circumcised and uncircumcised…” Look at the text:

8See to it that no one takes you captive by(Q) philosophy and(R) empty deceit, according to(S) human tradition, according to the(T) elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For(U) in him the whole fullness of deity dwells(V) bodily, 10and(W) you have been filled in him, who is(X) the head of all rule and authority. 11In him also(Y) you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by(Z) putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12(AA) having been buried with him in baptism, in which(AB) you were also raised with him through faith in(AC) the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13(AD) And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God(AE) made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14by(AF) canceling(AG) the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15(AH) He disarmed the rulers and authorities[b] and(AI) put them to open shame, by(AJ) triumphing over them in him (Colossians 2:8-15, ESV).

First, let’s look at what Paul warns them AGAINST—“philosophy” and “empty deceit” (v. 8), which are both “according to human tradition.” Such things are part of the OLD world order; especially the “human tradition,” which had been around for some significant amount of time.

Paul then reminds the Colossians of what Christ has done for them: he circumcised them “with a circumcision MADE WITHOUT HANDS, by putting off the BODY OF THE FLESH, by the circumcision of Christ…” (v.10). We see here that the circumcision of the Colossian believers (as well as all) occur without having need of circumcision (which is a JEWISH sign of faith), a physical sign of Jewish culture. Notice Paul writes next “by putting off the body of the flesh.” Remember what 2 Corinthians 5 says about “putting off the old man”? the old man refers to the old nature—so circumcision would qualify as a Jewish practice. So to get rid of physical circumcision is to do away with the “old things.” The new thing would be “the circumcision of Christ” (Colossians 2:11).

Now, he’s where we line up with Christ: “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were ALSO raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Colossians 2:12, ESV). Because of faith in Him, the Colossians (and us) have been raised with Him because of faith. In all honesty, we have experienced an “immaterial resurrection.” But we will also experience a physical resurrection at the end of time, as our bodies will be redeemed and we will dwell on the new earth.

In any case, the new self in us (Col. 3) is being renewed, day by day. This new self is not the same as the old self—it doesn’t decay, it gets younger and better with time.

But this might make someone curious: “okay, if we have been raised with Christ, then “new creation” means I have a new self, right? Exactly. According to Colossians 3, we do. When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15, he made the same statement:
“I will tell you this, brothers: FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD, NOR DOES THE PERISHABLE INHERIT THE IMPERISHABLE…for this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15: 50, 53, ESV).

Because flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom, we must receive a new body—because the old is full of sin and death. It’s the same way with our inner man—because of Adam and Eve’s sin in the Garden, we are born with natures that are BENT to do evil, BENT to sin against God. But we can’t make it if this is what we keep; in order to grow in Christ, we have to receive a new man, an inner man that will allow us to walk according to God’s standard. The inner man cannot “see” things the same way he did BEFORE CHRIST—he isn’t supposed to look at situations the same.
This new self, then, disregards all the old distinctions as being the DETERMINANT of how to treat people within the body of Christ. Everyone is seen as the same in everyone else’s eyes, and Christ is exalted. Christ becomes everything, and no one is made to conform to someone else’s way of life. In my next post, I will tackle the application of Paul’s New Creation Theology as set forth in Colossians 2.

Contrasting Perspectives

I ended the last post with the point that the New Creation Rule should not just change our standing before God, but also before God’s people. Sarah Sumner, author of “Men and Women in the Church,” constantly hits this nail on the head in her book. Sumner argues that it is not enough that “before God,” everyone is the same—but in the eyes of God’s people, women have a different spiritual standing than men.

Gordon Fee gives us more insight into the impact of Paul’s New Creation Theology. It’s impact becomes evident when we assess the culture of Paul’s day:

“…the culture of the Westernized world is equally foreign to that of these early believers at fundamental points. For them position and status prevailed in every way, identifying and circumscribing their existence, giving advantage to some over others WITH LITTLE CHANCE THAT THE DISADVANTAGED MIGHT CHANGE THEIR STATUS. Thus Gentiles had all the advantages over Jews, so Jews took refuge in their relationship with God, which they believed advantaged them before God over the Gentiles…likewise, masters and slaves were consigned to roles where power and authority went to masters. The same was true for men and women, especially in the household, where women were subordinated IN EVERY WAY to their husbands as ‘master of the household.’ A typical marriage was established by contract, not based on love, and was usually between a man of about thirty and a teenage girl who went straight from her father’s household to his and therefore came under his protection and instruction” (“Discovering Biblical Equality, page 180).

All the unprivileged groups—Gentiles (in terms of access to God), slaves, and women—were taken advantage of by those in power. And what about the girl who married as a teenager? Her husband wasn’t a husband to her—he was a dictatorial father who basically told her what to do all the time. It gets even worse for the teenage girl:

“A householder’s wife existed primarily for two purposes: providing a legitimate heir and managing certain aspects of the household. So UNENVIABLE was her station (and therefore her person) that according to Diogenes Laertius, Socrates used to say every day that ‘there were three blessings for which he was grateful to Fortune: first, that I was born a HUMAN BEING, and not one of the BRUTES; next that I was born a MAN and not a WOMAN; thirdly, a GREEK and not a BARBARIAN.’ This obviously influenced the famous rabbinical prayer ‘Blessed are you, O God…that I’m not a brute creature, nor a Gentile, nor a woman” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” page 181).

Notice that in Socrates’ blessings, he considers his “fortune” to be in that, of the two groups for every blessing, he is in the “most fortunate” group.

The world just presented to you was the world of the first-century church. Because of the hierarchy of groups in society, the situation of the first century (and the implications of what Paul meant in Galatians 3:28) seem too far away to comprehend:

"It is difficult for us to imagine the effect of Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 in a culture WHERE POSITION AND STATUS PRESERVED ORDER THROUGH BASICALLY UNCROSSABLE BOUNDARIES, and where attempting to cross those boundaries brought shame instead of honor (the one core value of the culture)” (180).

So to attempt to make a statement like Paul made (for instance, that the master was no better than his slave) would not have been received well. Yet, it is Paul’s boldness (given to him by the Holy Spirit) that helps him proclaim an “Emancipation Proclamation” for all who believe in Christ:

“Paul asserts that in the fellowship of Christ Jesus SIGNIFICANCE AND STATUS NO LONGER LIE WITH BEING JEW OR GREEK, SLAVE OR FREE, MALE OR FEMALE. THE ALL-EMBRACING NATURE OF THIS AFFIRMATION, ITS COUNTERCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, THE FACT THAT IT EQUALLY DISADVANTAGES ALL BY EQUALLY ADVANTAGING ALL—these stab at the very heart of a culture sustained by people’s maintaining the right position and status. BUT IN CHRIST JESUS, THE ONE WHOSE DEATH AND RESURRECTION INAUGURATED THE NEW CREATION, ALL THINGS HAVE BECOME NEW; THE NEW ERA HAS DAWNED” (Fee, 180).

Galatians 3:28 catches us by surprise because it runs counter to the culture of Paul’s day. However, Paul’s understanding of “new creation” was that it liberated man from the “power” attached to societal structures and roles. I wanted to show the reader how unique Paul’s words to the Galatians were in the first century. In future posts, however, I plan to tackle Paul’s words regarding the old societal structures in light of his new creation rule.

Unpacking the New Creation Theology

Today I am gonna answer the question, “What is New Creation Theology?” I’ve been talking about it here at the blog for the last two days, but I’m not sure the reader knows what I mean by it.

Just to recap: according to Galatians 6:15-16, circumcision nor uncircumcision (being Jew or Gentile) is insignificant; the rule or standard by which to measure a person is “new creation.” In Galatians 6:16, Paul calls this a rule (the Greek word “kanon,” from which we derive our English word, “canon”), and says that peace and mercy will be upon the one who lives by this rule.

Earlier this morning I engaged the text of Galatians 3:28 which has been used by egalitarians to argue for women in ministry. On the basis of Galatians 3:28 alone, women have a place in ministry. I showed that, in line with Gordon Fee’s interpretation, Galatians as a book is all about ecclesiology—how the Christian community should live together despite its various distinctions (be they ethnic, economic, social, gendered, etc.). I walked the reader through Paul’s confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2 and showed that Paul was concerned with more than just Peter acknowledging the salvation of the Gentiles—Paul wanted Peter to act on the soteriological position of the Gentiles by eating with them WITHOUT SHAME because they were “new creation” in Christ! Consequently, the same Paul who wanted the rule of New Creation to drive Peter’s ecclesiology wants all believers in Christ (yes, even complementarians!) to have the rule of New Creation to drive their ecclesiology as well.

Having said all this, I now want to tackle the issue at hand: what is New Creation Theology? To answer this question, we will need to look at the following passage: 2 Corinthians 5.

14For the love of Christ(T) controls us, because we have concluded this: that(U) one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15and he died for all,(V) that those who live might no longer live for themselves but(W) for him who for their sake died and was raised.
16From now on, therefore,(X) we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is(Y) in Christ, he is(Z) a new creation.[b](AA) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God,(AB) who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us(AC) the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling[c] the world to himself,(AD) not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us(AE) the message of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:14-19, ESV)

This passage is the main passage in favor of New Creation Theology. It not only tells us that every man in Christ is “new creation,” but it also goes on to state what it means to be new creation: “the old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (v.17).

What does it mean to be “new creation”? to be new creation means to be in Christ. And, because a person is in Christ, the hierarchical distinctions (such as gender, ethnicity, and class status) are made null and void. Because of this, Paul writes in verse 16,

“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh.”

Regarding this verse, Gordon Fee writes,

“He[Paul] asserts that the new creation brought about by Christ’s death and resurrection nullifies viewing anyone/anything from the ‘OLD AGE’ perspective (Greek KATA SARKA, ‘according to the flesh’). Why? Because Christ’s death has brought the whole human race under the sentence of death (2 Cor. 5:14), so that those who live in God’s new order do so for the One who died for them and was raised again (2 Cor. 5:15). Thus being ‘in Christ’ means belonging to the new creation: the old has gone, the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17). This radical, new-order point of view—resurrection life marked by the cross—lies at the heart of everything Paul thinks and does (cf. Phil. 3:4-14)” (“Discovering Biblical Equality,” pg. 178).

Now some may say that I am stretching this concept a bit too far. And the complementarian is probably condemning me into outer darkness at this point (where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth); however, I have proof for the claim that Gordon Fee makes (and that I believe): to demonstrate, we will now look at Galatians 3:28, along with Colossians 3:11 and 1 Corinthians 12:13. I’ll set them up here so you won’t have to worry about finding them.

28(E) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free,(F) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28. ESV)
11(A) Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,[a] free; but Christ is(B) all, and in all. (Col. 3:11, ESV)
13For(AA) in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—(AB) Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and(AC) all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:13, ESV)

In all three verses, we find that “Jews and Greeks” are mentioned; “slave and free” are mentioned. But what we find different in these three passages concerns the designations of “male and female” and “barbarian and Scythian.” First, regarding male and female, we know that these two genders are opposites: one cannot be both male and female at the same time (seeing that “female” is the feminine “male”). However, the distinctions “barbarian” and “Scythian” are not polar opposites—rather, they are two shades of the same color:

“These two expressions are not here set in contrast to one another. The Scythians were BARBARIANS, but were generally considered to be THE MOST EXTREME FORM; THEY WERE THE WILDEST AND MOST SAVAGE OF THE BARBARIANS” (“The Believers’ Bible Commentary,” William McDonald and Art Farstad, pg. 2010).

To place “barbarian” and “Scythian” in relation to each other, we first have to know what a “barbarian” is. Merriam-Webster Dictionary online gives us two definitions:
(1) of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people.
(2) lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture.

Barbarians were believed to be inferior; and they were given this label because they were usually uneducated. Barbarians were savages, those who seemed to be out of touch with human civilization (and even reality). Scythians, however, were “the wildest and most savage of the barbarians,” which means they were the ABSOLUTE WORST!
And yet, as Paul wrote in Colossians 3:11, “Christ is all, and IN ALL.” The wonderful thing for Paul was that this rule of “New Creation” included EVERYONE. No matter what societal standing one had, EVERYONE had equal standing in the eyes of God, and before God.

But, that’s not all. Not only did the New Creation Rule affect one’s standing before God, but also ONE’S STANDING BEFORE GOD’S PEOPLE! As I stated in my last post on Galatians 3:28, our soteriology—our belief that God saves all who come to Him—must influence our ecclesiology—how we carry out this New Creation Rule amongst the community of believers. In future posts, I will focus on how soteriology affects ecclesiology. Paul certainly believed it did—and what’s good for the apostle Paul is good for us, too.

Understanding the Nature of Galatians 3:28

“But a key exegetical question, seldom noted, does beg to be answered: why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile? And especially, why the addition of the third pair—with its formulation ‘male and female,’ not ‘man and woman’ (which could mean ‘husband and wife’)—since in similar moments elsewhere (1 Cor. 12:13, Col. 3:10) this pairing is not included? The pursuit of this basic exegetical question should give us some insight into the nature and scope of the ‘newness’ Paul sees as available in the new creation” (173).

A day or so ago I discussed the first pair of distinctions present in Galatians 3:28—“neither Jew nor Greek.” I also discussed the idea of “new creation” as a canon, a rule by which to live the Christian life. If Galatians 6:16 is correct, then complementarians have a lot of work to do.

In today’s post, I’m gonna take a look at why Paul mentions the other two groups of distinctions—“slave and free,” and “male and female.”

Fee gives us his answer convincingly:

“Appealing to the believers’ common baptism (reflecting the new creation theology of Romans 6:1-11), in which they have “clothed themselves with Christ,” Abraham’s true “seed” (Gal. 3:15-18), Paul points out the logical result: since all are now ‘children of God through faith’ and all who have been baptized are thus clothed with Christ, there is therefore ‘neither Jew nor Greek...’(Gal. 3:28)…” (Discovering Biblical Equality, 176).

It is Galatians 3:28, however, that is used to simply affirm that women are just as saved as men are. But Fee states that there’s more to it than meets the eye:

“But in fact Paul says more than this, and it is the ‘more than’ that should catch our attention…for what is at stake is NOT SIMPLY THE SOTERIOLOGICAL QUESTION OF HOW PEOPLE ARE SAVED…those involved in the struggle in Galatia are already ‘SAVED’…WHAT IS AT STAKE IS ECCLESIOLOGY: WHO CONSTITUTE THE PEOPLE OF GOD…and on what grounds are they constituted?” (176)

Once the believers at Galatia became children of God, their questions no longer consisted of “what is salvation,” or “how to be saved,” or even “Can I be saved?”. The questions now consisted of, “How do we live together as children of God despite our differences?”

Go back to Paul’s words regarding his confrontation with Peter in Galatians 2. What was Peter’s issue? Did it have anything to do with teaching that the Gentiles weren’t saved? Or that they needed to be circumcised? No—instead, Peter’s problem was that “he was eating with the Gentiles” (Gal. 2:12) before certain men returned to Antioch; then, his fear drove him to retreat from them, “fearing the circumcision party.” The issue here had nothing to do with salvation—but instead, the outworkings of salvation. Peter realized that God brought salvation to the Gentiles—for he proclaimed this idea in Acts 15 before the Jerusalem Council:

7And after there had been much(T) debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you,(U) that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear(V) the word of(W) the gospel and believe. 8And God,(X) who knows the heart,(Y) bore witness to them,(Z) by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and(AA) he made no distinction between us and them,(AB) having cleansed their hearts(AC) by faith. 10Now, therefore, why(AD) are you putting God to the test(AE) by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples(AF) that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we(AG) believe that we will be(AH) saved through(AI) the grace of the Lord Jesus,(AJ) just as they will." (Acts 15:7-11, ESV)

So the problem with the Gentiles was not that they were unsaved and Peter felt sinful for eating with heathens; the problem was that the Gentiles, although saved, were considered to be SOCIALLY SEPARATE from the Jews, the circumcision party, and Peter wanted to avoid any social stigmas that came from eating with the Gentiles. Peter wanted to “disown” his Gentile brothers in practice, while “embracing” them in theory!

So, if the issue had nothing to do with soteriology, then what was Paul confronting Peter about? I’ll tell you—he was confronting Peter about ecclesiology—how to embrace fellow believers who were Gentiles. And eating with Gentiles was a sign of acceptance into the body of Christ. So Paul’s confrontation of Peter demonstrates that he was concerned with not just soteriology, but also ECCLESIOLOGY—showing God’s people how “one body in Christ” was to be displayed in the church’s everyday life.

“This is precisely why here alone in Galatians Paul adds the otherwise extraneous ‘neither slave nor free, neither male nor female.’ These pairs are NOT inherent in an argument about ‘justification by faith,’ but they are crucial to PAUL’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD AS BEING NEWLY CONSTITUTED BY CHRIST AND THE SPIRIT. For these three pairs represent the primary ways people were DIVIDED/SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER IN THE STRUCTURES OF THE PRESENT AGE THAT WAS NOW PASSING AWAY(1 Cor. 7:31; cf. 1 Cor. 2:6): ON THE BASIS OF RACE, SOCIAL STANDING, AND GENDER. But ‘in Christ Jesus’…these categories have lost their STRUCTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE…these very things…HAVE BEEN RELATIVIZED IN THE BODY OF CHRIST…” (176, 177).

How were fellow believers, Jews and Gentiles, to look as one body in Christ? The answer is simple—they were to come together and unify in activities such as eating at the table. How were slaves and freedmen to look in the body of Christ? As though they were brothers. How were men and women to look in the body of Christ? As though they were brothers and sisters. The world order was not to creep into the order of the church (which, hinting at the coming “new creation,” would become the New World Order—the prevailing rule of the “new earth” of Revelation 21).

In my next post, I will unpack New Creation Theology and examine the other two “egalitarian” passages Paul wrote (1 Cor. 12 and Colossians 3) to show Paul’s deep understanding of the implications of this New Creation Rule.

Galatians 3:26-29 and New Creation Theology

26for in Christ Jesus(A) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(B) were baptized(C) into Christ have(D) put on Christ. 28(E) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[a] nor free,(F) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And(G) if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring,(H) heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:26-29, ESV).

I realize that I haven’t suggested very many books on the blog; but I wanna suggest to you, the reader, that you read the book “Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy” by General Editors Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, as well as the Contributing Editor Gordon D. Fee. I’ve only read five chapters of the book, but I’ve enjoyed all five of them immensely.

One chapter, however, caught me in particular: chapter ten, called “Male and Female in the New Creation: Galatians 3:26-29,” was written by Contributing Editor Gordon D. Fee. In all the books, chapters, and articles I’ve read on Galatians 3:28, I’ve never read a chapter so spell-binding, so captivating on a text that has been so widely discussed among egalitarians and complementarians. I had such a worship experience reading this chapter that I thought I would share some of its goodness with you.

Gordon Fee gets right to the point with Galatians 3:28:

“But a key exegetical question, seldom noted, does beg to be answered: Why does Paul add the second and third pair at all in an argument that otherwise has to do only with Jew and Gentile? And especially, why the addition of the third pair—with its formulation ‘male and female,’ not ‘man and woman’ (which could mean ‘husband and wife’)—since in similar moments elsewhere (1 Cor. 12:13[cf. 7:17-24]; Col. 3:10) this pairing is not included? The pursuit of this basic exegetical question should give us some insight into the nature and scope of the ‘newness’ Paul sees as available in the new creation” (173).

In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, Paul has spent all his time tackling the subject of circumcision. Let’s look throughout Paul’s letter to find the main idea.

Circumcision is evident in chapter 2:

3But even Titus, who was with me,(E) was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. (Galatians 2:3, ESV)

Circumcision is such the talk of the church at Galatia that Titus, although a Greek, was being forced to be circumcised.

In verse 11-14, Paul opposes Peter before the Jews and Gentiles at Antioch:

11But(U) when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him(V) to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James,(W) he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing(X) the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their(Y) conduct was not in step with(Z) the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas(AA) before them all, "If you, though a Jew,(AB) live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Notice that the Jews are referred to as “the circumcision party” (v.12).

In Galatians 5, Paul tells the Galatians that the “yoke of slavery” or “yoke of bondage” is circumcision:

1For(A) freedom Christ has(B) set us free;(C) stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to(D) a yoke of(E) slavery.
2Look: I, Paul, say to you that(F) if you accept circumcision,(G) Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that(H) he is obligated to keep the whole law.

In verse 6, Paul tells the believers what counts as valuable before God:

6For in Christ Jesus(M) neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but(N) only faith working through love.

In Christ, in the eyes of the Lord, circumcision nor uncircumcision matter at all. Neither of those conditions have anything to do with a person’s walk with Christ, what giftedness they have, or where God will place them in the body of Christ. The only thing that God looks at with regards to the Jew and Gentile is whether or not they have faith in the work of Christ, whether or not they believe Christ died for their sins and rose from the dead.

So all throughout Galatians, we see that Paul’s use of neither “Jew nor Greek” in Galatians 3:28 is a common theme. But Paul ends on a fascinating note in Galatians 6:15-16 regarding Jews and Gentiles that will aid us in discovering Paul’s reason for mentioning “slave” and “free,” “male” and “female”:

15For(AB) neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but(AC) a new creation. 16And as for all who walk by this rule,(AD) peace and mercy be upon them, and upon(AE) the Israel of God. (Galatians 6:15-16, ESV)

Paul says that circumcision and uncircumcision do not matter in God’s scheme of things; what matters to God is that a person is a “new creation.” These words echo Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5:

16From now on, therefore,(X) we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is(Y) in Christ, he is(Z) a new creation.[b](AA) The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. 18All this is from God,(AB) who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us(AC) the ministry of reconciliation;

Notice that Paul said of the “new creation” concept that “this is from God” (v.18). So “new creation” theology is something modern-day believers should take seriously. We should seek to understand what new creation theology was all about.

Go back to Galatians 6:15-16 above. Notice that Paul calls “new creation” a “rule.” The Greek word for “rule” used here is “kanoni,” coming from the Greek word “kanon.” The word “kanon” is the parent term to our English word “canon.”
Merriam-Webster online defines the word “canon” as:

“an accepted principle or rule; a criterion or standard of judgment.”

Therefore, when Paul calls “new creation” a rule, he means that this concept is to be used to evaluate everyone in the body of Christ, regardless of societal distinctions.

If Paul spent most of his time discussing “neither Jew nor Greek,” what do we do with the rest of the distinctions (slave vs. free, male vs. female) in Galatians 3:28? That is a subject I’ll discuss in my next post.