GALATIANS 3:26-4:7
You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

The idea of sonship to Abraham was introduced back in 3:7. The Judaizers probably argued that one must become the children of Abraham to inherit the promise that God made to him. One could be born a Jew, and thus a descendent of Abraham and circumcised. Or a non-Jew could convert and submit under the law, along with all the Jewish customs and regulations, including the rite of circumcision. However, Paul has shown that Abraham himself was justified by faith in God's promise, and those who believe are the children of Abraham. Circumcision is irrelevant.

But now Paul says that Christians are not only the children of Abraham, but also the "sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus," and these are those who have been "baptized into Christ." Of course, Paul has not been stressing justification by faith alone only to contradict himself here by making water baptism a requirement to justification. We know, for example, that one of the criminals who were crucified with Christ professed faith in him. Nailed to the cross, not only did he have no opportunity to perform any good work, but he did not even receive water baptism. Yet Christ said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).

That said, we understand that under ordinary circumstances, those who profess faith in Christ are also to be baptized in his name, and indeed there is usually no reason to proceed without it. So the two are sometimes mentioned as if they are interchangeable, although they are strictly not the same. One could have faith in Christ without the baptism and still be justified, but one could be baptized without faith in Christ, and still not be justified, but remain in condemnation. In any case, verses 26-27 affirm the doctrine of adoption, that those who believe in Christ are the sons of God. This is already implied in verse 24.

Believers are "all one in Christ Jesus" (v. 28) and are the sons of God (v. 26). In our context, this supercedes all natural distinctions between individuals, so that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." The rampant misuse of this verse is partly due to a disregard for its context, which is spiritual, and concerns justification before God.

To paraphrase, Paul is saying, "When it comes to justification, and when it comes to being the children of Abraham and the sons of God, it does not matter whether you are Jew or non-Jew, slave or free, male or female. Before you come to Christ, one is not more disadvantaged than the other, for all are condemned according to the divine standard. When you come to Christ, one is not more welcomed than the other, for all must come through the faith that God gives. After you have come to Christ, one is not more privileged than the other, for all are sons of God in him."

However, Paul is by no means saying, "Christ has abolished all racial differences, all class disparities, and all gender distinctions." Although the verse has been used as if it says this, or almost as if it says this, it is far…far from what the verse teaches. It cannot be used, for example, to refute alleged differences in the intelligence, disposition, and physiology between races, classes, and genders. Whether these differences exist is a separate question – this verse does not affirm or refute them, since it does not address them at all.

Therefore, the verse cannot be used to refute racism, classism, and sexism outside of the context of this passage, unless where the relevance could be established by necessary inference from the verse. It cannot even be used as an appeal to non-Christians against racism, classism, and sexism, since the lack of distinction referred to here is based on the fact that believers are "all one in Christ Jesus." But unbelievers are not in Christ Jesus, so that believers are not one with them. However, from this verse a legitimate appeal may be made for unbelievers to convert, to become believers, so that they may become one with all believers in Christ, where spiritually speaking, there is this basis to end racism, classism, and sexism.

Even among believers, many distinctions between these groups remain. For example, just because we are "all one in Christ Jesus" does not mean that it is appropriate for a man to walk into a women's restroom in church, claiming that there is neither "male nor female" in Christ. Once we wrest the verse out of its context, one may no longer arbitrarily limit its usage. In fact, we may respond to someone who uses this verse out of its context that according to his usage, the problem that he is trying to address no longer exists.

That is, if in Christ there is neither male nor female in the sense that he understands it, that no gender distinction should remain, then the very idea of sexual discrimination also vanishes. If there is no sexual distinction, there can be no sexual discrimination, and this means that no one who uses the verse in this manner can say that there is such a thing as a victim of sexism. The person is discriminated against as an individual apart from his or her gender. Thus once the verse is used to address what it is not supposed to address, the problem that it is not supposed to address also disappears.

The same applies to the application of this verse to racism and classism. A person's skin color does not change just because he becomes a Christian. And a person does not automatically possess more or less wealth or status just because he now believes in Christ. All such distinctions between individuals remain. A man is still a man, and a woman is still a woman. The Scripture even gives the two different instructions regarding their roles, and thus insisting on a sharp distinction between the genders, even when it addresses believers.

As a side point, we must never become one-sided when considering discrimination against various groups. Oftentimes the so-called "victims" are just as prejudiced, if not more so. The Jews had suffered immense persecution and oppression, but they were certainly racists themselves, bitter and self-righteous. Sometimes the difference between the oppressor and the oppressed is not that the former is more prejudiced, but that the latter is more boisterous, complaining and extorting undeserved advantages from other members of society. In any case, Scripture commands slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8), and women to submit to their husbands (Ephesians 6:22-24). Even in Christ, natural distinctions remain and are strictly observed.

Verse 29 says that those who "belong" to Christ are "heirs according to the promise," showing that Paul is willing to consider "Abraham's seed" in the plural, as we mentioned in connection with 3:16. Christ is indeed the "true" heir – in him God's promise to Abraham finds ultimate and complete fulfillment. Believers, however, are also properly called the heirs of the promise, but only in Christ.

As we proceed to 4:1, we must keep in mind that Paul is making his case from the perspective of salvation history. This is important for a proper understanding of the rest of the passage. He says that although an heir would inherit the entire estate, he appears no better than a slave before he comes of age. His activities are dictated by guardians and trustees, and he could make no decision regarding the estate that he would one day inherit. And it was the case under certain ancient laws and customs that the father was the one who determined the official time when the child would be considered an adult.

Likewise, when the people of God were children, they were "in slavery under the basic principles of this world." But at the appointed time, "God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons." This is obviously not referring to what happens in the life of each individual, but to some definite periods and events in history – thus the reminder that Paul is speaking from the perspective of salvation history, and not how God deals with individuals.

Verse 6 hearkens back to 3:2 and the other references to the Spirit as the fulfillment of the blessing of Abraham. We are the sons of God, so the Spirit enables us to know and address him as "Abba, Father." In connection with this, we seem to have too much patience with the common misconception that "Abba" is the equivalent of "Daddy" in English – it is not. A son, of course, is also an heir, and one who takes possession of the inheritance (v. 7).

Posted in Expositions | Permanent Link