In the previous chapters we have seen how those resurrected in the resurrection of the just (or righteous) will not marry and not have sexual intercourse or procreate. We also observed how this was not true of the nations of the ongoing human race. We also gave our opinion that the bodies of the resurrected saints will no longer be strictly male or female, especially in body. They will not have male and female genitalia or body parts as they will no longer be needed. We observed how the arguments put forth by those who affirm the retention of genitalia by the resurrected saints are unconvincing, while the arguments against that view are much stronger.
As promised, we will begin this chapter with a look at a highly controversial text that must be examined in the context of this debate on gender for resurrected believers.
Neither Male Nor Female
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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: 26-28 nkjv)
Needless to say, this passage has been a very difficult one to interpret or unpack its full meaning. Many who believe that women may preach and hold any office in the church that men do cite it as a proof text.
I tend to believe, though not dogmatically, that by "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female," is a futuristic present tense, denoting a truth that is not yet fully realized, but one that will surely be realized in the ages to come following the resurrection of the righteous dead. In other words, if we read the verse in the following manner it makes perfect sense to me:
"For in the resurrection (or age to come) there is no male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Gentile." Or, we could paraphrase as follows:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all to become one in Christ Jesus at the second coming of Christ."
Let me give other examples where a futuristic present tense is used.
"We enter into the rest" (Heb. 4: 3) is an example. Eiserchometha, the Greek word translated as "we enter" is a present tense verb. The context makes it clear however that entering the rest of God occurs when a saint dies or when he enters into the eternal glorified state following the resurrection of the righteous dead, and thus is a future event. So we read: "For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest..." (vs. 10, 11) Saints do not cease from their works until they die. This fact is confirmed in other passages such as the following: "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on. 'Blessed indeed,' says the Spirit, 'that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!'" (Rev. 14: 13) Entering the rest follows dying in the Lord and from life's labors.
"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." (42-44)
In the above passage "is raised" is used four times and in each case the verb is in the present tense as it also is in the words "it is sown." This is another clear instance of what is called the futuristic present tense. Paul could have said "it is being sown (linear present) and it will be raised (future)" but using the present tense "it is raised" nevertheless carries the futuristic idea because it is a futuristic present tense. Earlier in this chapter Paul wrote: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15: 22 kjv) Also, when all are made alive in Christ in the resurrection of the just they will then become one or equal.
Had the apostle Paul used the future tense in Galatians 3: 28 there would be more clarity to what Paul is saying and upholding my thesis. He could have said "There shall be (future tense instead of "is") neither Jew nor Greek, there shall be neither slave nor free, there shall be neither male nor female; for you are destined to become all one in Christ Jesus." The words in bold are what I have added or altered. I have put the future tense words "shall be" in place of the verb "is" and for the verb "are" and have added "destined to become." I believe that this is the apostle's meaning and the verbs "is" and "are" are futuristic present tense.
Consider the fact that all saints becoming "one" is not realized in the present dispensation. This is clear from these words of Christ:
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." (John 17: 20-23 nkjv)
So, when we read Paul saying that there will be neither male nor female because they are "all one in Christ Jesus" we should not think that such is the case now nor designed to be so now in this present age nor in the church of this age. The oneness that Christ prayed for in the above words has not yet been realized and that is quite evident. All the saints, both living and dead, have not been made one nor "made perfect in one." That being true, the time when there will be no males or female, no slaves or freemen (slave masters), no Jew and Gentile distinctions, among the resurrected saints, will be when they become in fact one in Christ Jesus. Notice this verse on how oneness or unity among all believers is not yet fully realized, but is rather a work in progress:
"I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought." (I Cor. 1: 10)
That believers in certain areas and certain churches do achieve an almost perfect unity is acknowledged. It is recorded by Luke in the Book of Acts: "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had." (Acts 4: 32 kjv)
Again, another verse that shows that perfect unity is what is being sought after, yet not reached, in this life is this from the apostle Paul:
"So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4: 11-13)
So, Paul's statement that "you are all one in Christ Jesus" does not denote what is a fact now but what will be realized at the resurrection and glorification of the saints. This being so, it is then that there will no longer be Jews and Gentiles, slaves and masters, male and female.
A similar verse to Galatians 3: 28 is this text, also from Paul:
"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Col. 3: 9-11 kjv)
Again, I insist, that there being no ethnicity, or slaves and masters, among those who are in Christ is not yet fully realized. In the church age there have been lots of saved people who were slaves. Freedom from slavery however will be realized in the world to come following the resurrection and when saints enter into the new heavens and earth. It is divinely decreed now that all those who are in Christ will be equal, be one, but it is not now fully realized. Christ is not now actually "all and in all." That will not occur until Christ returns and the new heavens and earth and the New Jerusalem are realized. That is what is stated by the apostle elsewhere. Christ is all, but Christ is not recognized as "all" to everyone. Christ is in some men, in them who are believers in him, but he is not "in all" yet.
"That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph. 1: 10-11 kjv)
When will all things be gathered together "in Christ"? Is it not in the world to come? Is that not when Christ will be "all and in all"? Paul uses the present tense verb "is" when he says Christ "is in all." If this refers to the elect, then it is not true that Christ was in all the elect when Paul wrote those words. Many of the elect were not even born yet. It cannot denote all who are saved, for many did not even exist when Paul wrote the above words and therefore not yet saved. Christ could not be said to be in a person before he is born. It also cannot refer to every human being living on the earth at the time Paul speaks of when he uses the present tense verb "is." The only time it can be true that all the elect, all the saved, or all of the inhabitants of the earth have Christ in them is in the age to come in the new heavens and earth.
The common view says that Paul is not saying that being saved via conversion eliminates social structures but only says that such social distinctions matter not in the matter of being saved from sin. God saves all and not on the basis of race, gender, social status, etc., and that is true but I doubt that is the only thing the apostle had in mind when he said what he did. Further, whoever affirmed that salvation was limited to males or females only? Or, to only masters or slaves? Or, to only Jews or Gentiles? I doubt that Paul is making such an affirmation that is not denied by anyone. God saves slaves, but that does not mean that the slaves will ever be delivered, even in the world to come, from their slavery? Will women not be delivered from the curse wherein the man would dominate and lord it over her? More on that in a moment. Will not the Jew Gentile distinction be eliminated among the sons of the resurrection since they will all be Jews inwardly? (See Romans 2: 28-29)
People have a problem with this text because they see a seeming contradiction between Paul's words in Galatians 3: 28 and his words on the roles of women and men in the church and in social structures. Clearly Paul did make a distinction between males and females, between slaves and masters, and between Jews and Greeks (or Gentiles). Paul did not promote abolition, though he believed that it would be abolished at the second coming and not exist among the resurrected millions. Do those bible interpreters think that the text does not mean that God will never do away with slavery and ethnicity among the redeemed family? Nor with male and female distinctions and roles and of their present inequalities?
Will Gender Roles Still Be Binding?
If male and female genders continue forever by the resurrected saints, will the distinct roles of men and women also continue? Will the man still be the head of the woman? (I Cor. 11: 3) Will there still be patriarchy among the resurrected saints? Will women still be forbidden to teach and usurp authority over the men? (I Tim. 2: 12) Will women still be the "weaker vessel"? (I Peter 3: 7) In I Timothy 5: 14 Paul wrote:
"It is my will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give no occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully."
Surely, as we have seen, this will no longer be the role of women who are resurrected in the resurrection of the righteous. Neither, I think, will she still be under obligation to "learn in quietness and full submission" to men. (I Tim. 2: 11) Nor will the words of Genesis be applicable any longer that say: "Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” (Gen. 3: 16)
If the resurrection does not eliminate male and female, then it can be argued that it also does not eliminate slavery or ethnicity. But, if it eliminates slavery and ethnicity among the sons of the resurrection, then it eliminates male and female distinctions too. I find this reasoning irrefutable.
Further, I think the distinction to be done away with respects the body and not the soul or spirit, or the mind. If the definition of "person" includes all the life experiences, thoughts and feelings, of a person, then there will still be male and female as respects the inner self.
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” (Deut. 22: 5 kjv)
Will this precept still be in force among the resurrected saints who are still male and female?
"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." (I Cor. 11: 6-7)
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." (13-15)
Will women still have long hair and men short hair when they have their resurrected and glorified bodies? Is the man alone "the image and glory of God"? Is the female resurrected saint still "the glory of the man"? Will she wear a head covering in worship in the eternal ages to come? Will such distinctions between men and women continue forever? Will the present roles of women and men in the church still persist in the ages to come? Personally I don't think the hair on the heads of the resurrected saints will continue to grow for if they did then they would need to have barbers forever. But, more on that in later chapters.
In "Role Distinctions in the Church (Galatians 3:28)" Dr. S. Lewis Johnson Jr. writes (See here):
"Surprisingly, Augustine (354-430), the Bishop of Hippo, the greatest of the Latin fathers, rarely alluded to Galatians 3:28 in his writings. In his Second Discourse on Psalm Twenty-six there is one allusion. Speaking of waiting on the Lord, he writes, “He who has lost endurance has become weak and womanish. Let both men and women take heed of this, for man and woman are one in the one Man. He is no longer man or woman who lives in Christ.” The allusion is clear, and it is plain that he has in mind a oneness, a unity, of status in Christ. He says nothing of how this status relates to function in the church."
He also wrote:
"Martin Luther (1483-1546), the great German Reformer, in his important commentary on Galatians, devotes three pages to Galatians 3:28. He reminds the woman to “obey her husband,” and warns that, “if the woman would be the man,” that would be nothing but “confusion.” All the faithful have “the same Christ” that all the saints had. Clearly, Luther sees the text as meaning that all believers have the same status in Christ, but in other spheres, such as the family, a submission within the equality all have in Christ is Biblical."
But, how can "all believers have the same status in Christ" if some are forever in slavery? How can they be equal in Christ but not equal in actuality or in social relations? What Luther and others fail to see, I believe, is the fact that the equality or oneness of Galatians 3: 28 is not realized fully in the church age but in the age to come.
Johnson also wrote:
"The human distinctions of race, social rank, and sex are in some sense nullified in Christ. The crucial question is: In what sense? Betz contends, “There can be no doubt that Paul’s statements have social and political implications of even a revolutionary dimension.”
"In a sense"? Indeed, "in what sense"? I agree with Betz that Galatians 3: 28 has "social and political implications" but do not see the ideal fulfilled in this age but in the age to come. You can tell a slave that by being a Christian he is no longer a slave, but it will be hard to convince him of that fact until he is delivered from his slavery.
Johnson also wrote:
"The second antithesis touches the inferiority of slaves, so marked in the ancient world and in Israelitish society. For Paul a Christian slave, too, inherits the promises equally, being “the Lord’s freedman” (1 Corinthians 7:22). The Epistle to Philemon provides a vivid illustration of this (Philemon 8-20; cf. Colossians 4:9), and also in principle provides just grounds for the abolition of slavery itself. Yet here again, the distinction of slave and freedman still existed within the church (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:17-24). In fact, the vast majority of the New Testament commentators have taken the position that the apostle, while affirming the irrelevancy of the institution of slavery for status and relationship within the church, nevertheless did not feel it necessary to raise the issue of its retention in the society of the time (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:21-24; Colossians 3:22-25). It is difficult to see the “revolutionary dimension” of Paul’s statement here."
How could the distinction of slave and freedman still exist in the church if what Paul said about oneness and equality in Galatians 3: 28 is fulfilled in the present age?
Johnson also wrote:
"Concerning this last antithesis, Bruce comments, “It is not their distinctiveness, but their inequality of religious role, that is abolished ‘in Christ Jesus.’" Professor Bruce complains that Paul’s other bans of discrimination on racial and social grounds have been accepted “au pied de la lettre” (literally), or litteratim ac verbatim, to use a Latin phrase, while this one has met with restrictions, since people have related it only to “the common access of men and women to baptism, with its introduction to their new existence ‘in Christ.’" He insists that the denial of discrimination holds good for the new existence “‘in Christ’ in its entirety,” although he admits that circumcision involved a form of discrimination against women that was removed in its demotion from the position of religious law. Other inequities among Jewish and particularly among Gentile women existed."
Again, the difficulty with many commentators is in thinking that the oneness of believers in Christ is designed to be fulfilled completely in the present age.
Johnson also wrote:
"Bruce argues that, if leadership may be given to Gentiles and to slaves in the church fellowship, then why not to women? Can superiority and inferiority of status have place in the society of which our Lord said, “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (cf. Mark 10:44). Certainly Paul welcomed the service of women in the Gentile mission (cf. Philippians 4:3, etc.) and permitted, many believe, their exercise of prayer and prophecy in church gatherings. Does this mean that the apostle affirmed women in the church offices and permitted their teaching in the church meetings? Professor Bruce does appear to admit that other Pauline passages may provide restrictions on female activities, but he contends that such passages are to be understood in relation to Gal. 3:28, and not vice-versa. We are reserving a fuller discussion of the questions surrounding the third antithesis for the third division of this paper, but perhaps three points ought to be noted here. First, the antitheses are not parallel, for the distinction between male and female is a distinction arising out of creation, a distinction still maintained in family and church life in the New Testament. Second, it must also be remembered that in this context Paul is not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of standing before God in righteousness by faith. And, third, the apostle in his later letters, such as 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, does set forth just such restrictions as Bruce mentions."
Yes, the context has Paul "not speaking of relationships in the family and church, but of standing before God," but that equal standing will in the ages to come be reflected in the elimination of the distinctions Paul mentioned in the passage.
Johnson also wrote:
"Justified by faith in Christ, both male and female are “sons of God” (verse 26), both are “in Christ Jesus” (verse 26), united to Him in eternal union through the baptism of the Holy Spirit (verse 27), both have clothed themselves with Christ and are one in Him (verse 28)."
This is what I have observed previously. It is one of the reasons why some bible teachers have affirmed that all believers will become male in the resurrection. There is some truth in this. However, the text says that there is neither male nor female. The "sons of the resurrection" will retain male and female qualities in their characters but not in their genitalia. It is true that by being saved by faith a believer becomes one with Christ, but this does not mean that this union is perfect or complete nor that the believer is in perfect agreement with every other believer.
Johnson also wrote:
"Paul, however, did not implement his Christian insight thoroughly, which has left us with the problem of the man/woman question. The church must press on to the full implementation of his Galatians 3:28 insight, abandoning, of course, his shortcomings in his other epistles."
That is getting to the whole point of my thesis on the text in question. The mandate of Galatians 3: 28 has not yet been realized in full but will be in the age following the resurrection.
Wrote one commentator on the text:
"This verse continues the proof that all Christians are, in the fullest sense, “sons of God.” Galatians 3:27 showed why this was so; the present verse shows that there are no exceptions, no inequalities. All Christians alike, no matter what their race, status, or sex, stand on the same footing of sonship before God. There is a unity or solidarity in the Christian body. What is true of one is true of all." (Ellicott's commentary)
Ellicott also says:
"The word “one” is masculine—“one man,” “a single person”—as explained in the paraphrase above."
Yes, there are masculine pronouns in the context of Galatians 3: 28. In verse 26, cited above, he had said "you are all the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (although the KJV wrongly translates the Greek as "children" rather than "sons"). Paul says that all the believers in the churches of Galatia, male and female, were "sons of God." Why did he not say "you are all the sons and daughters of God by faith"?
Other texts also speak of the whole body of believers becoming one man, as we have already noticed.
In the next chapter we will conclude our discussion of this text and on its affirmation that there will not be male and female body types in the resurrection.
No comments:
Post a Comment