GALATIANS 3:26-29 AND THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN

A response to the CTICR paper (Lutheran Theological Journal, May 2005) summarising how this passage of Scripture is understood by those who promote the ordination of women and by those who argue for the ordination of men only.

Unfortunately the writer is not aware of the detailed discussions which the members of the CTICR have had on this matter nor does he have access to any of their documents detailing such discussions other than this article which claims to ‘summarise’ what has been debated and discussed. But the very way in which this article is presented clearly infers that this passage of Scripture has relevance to the question of the ordination of women for those who support it and for those who believe that Scripture clearly intends ordination for men only. Such an inference is misleading and confusing because Galatians 3:26-29 is never used by the Church in upholding that ordination is for men only. The only reasons that it is debated by those who believe that only men should be ordained is to ‘refute’ its use as a valid argument for the ordination of women. While this article does that to some extent, it could and should more clearly demonstrate that Gal. 3:26-29 has nothing at all to do with the question of the ordination of women and that the methodology used to interpret it in such a way is totally unacceptable and invalid. The interpretation given by those who use this passage to allow for the ordination of women goes far beyond what this passage says and what St. Paul intended it to say.

In this passage St. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles as he calls himself, is making it quite clear that ALL people, regardless of any station in life, regardless of age or gender, are, by faith through the Spirit, sons and children of God; a message which St. Paul consistently presents in his letters to other churches cf. Romans 2:11; 3:22-23,29; 10:12; Ephesians 3:6. There was need for him to stress this to his readers simply because they did not appreciate or understand that God does not favour people in terms of salvation based on any human differentiation. No person is eligible for salvation (becoming a child of God) based on who or what he/she is. ALL need to be transformed by the power of the Spirit and those who are become one in Christ Jesus.

Now let us ask the question: does becoming a child of God, one in Christ, change who or what one is in this life? St. Paul nowhere says or infers that it does. However, he clearly states, particularly in his letter to the Romans, that it does change one’s ‘mind’, which in turn changes one’s attitudes and behaviours in all natural human settings and relationships – ‘natural’ taking us back not to the Fall but to creation itself as God made it. Addressing the new life of the person made righteous through faith St. Paul, especially in Romans, gives a lengthy list of the kind of transformed behaviours should be evident in the life of the life of the child of God. And he does so both negatively and positively – not this, but that. Such a new life applies equally to every child of God. And its eternal outcome is the same for every believer, regardless of their status or station in this life, namely, their being united with Christ through baptism WILL

mean that they will also be united with him in his resurrection (Rom. 6:5). But that is a future reality. In this human life it is a FAITH reality, not yet fully realised. We do not yet know what we shall be, but we shall be like Christ. In this life that means that we ‘count ourselves DEAD to sin and ALIVE to God in Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 6:11). It does not mean that we cease to be what and who we are in the human context – a believing Jew remains a Jew; a Christian master remains a master of slaves; a man remains a male and a woman remains a woman.

To delete and to attempt to reason why St. Paul mentions the categories of human distinction that he does is to miss the point. Scholars can search for reasons, as they do, but they will not find the answers because St. Paul does not give them. There is no need for him to do so because the examples given are sufficient to emphasise the message he is giving, namely, salvation is for everyone. If he had chosen to do so St. Paul could have identified other human differences such as parent and child. In fact, in his application of this message in Romans St. Paul indicated what this salvivic equality in other categories might imply e.g. government rulers and citizens cf. Rom 12. And in other letters St. Paul identifies how ‘being transformed’ changes the behaviour in relationships – husband/wife, child/parents. No human relationship is abolished nor is its created purpose changed. What is transformed is the mind and heart of the believer so that he/she behaves and lives as Christ. The equality of believers here in Christ is a spiritual one yet to be fully realised but which now reveals itself in all human relationships – not by eliminating natural distinctions but by transforming the minds of believers to avoid sin and to lead holy and blameless lives in all their relationships.

On page 89 the article states that those who argue for the ordination of women according to Galatians 3:26-29 say that incorporation into the people of God ‘establishes not only unity but also equality’ i.e. that all have the same status before the Father. From there it is argued that ‘although the text does not say that all distinctions have ceased to exist in every sphere, it is the new reality of being in Christ which limits and redefines the significance of these other distinctions’. In the view and understanding of the writer ‘being in Christ’ does not limit or redefine distinctions. What it does do is to change the attitude and behaviour of the redeemed person in all distinctive relationships. It is the person, not the station, which is changed.

Reference is made (p 89) to Philemon and the slave/master relationship. Certainly a relationship where one or both are in Christ will have a practical effect but the master remains master and the slave remains a slave. Being in Christ does not abolish slavery.

On page 90 the article quotes St. Paul as saying in I Cor. 11:11-12 ‘that the Christian husband and wife are not independent of each other but remain interdependent’. Indeed, that is so but St. Paul does not say here that natural submission in Christ changes who they are, especially in their created purpose as male and female.

The writer has real problems with the content of paragraph 4 on page 90. It is claimed there the status of believers as children of God ‘now gives shape and meaning to all other relationships’. This seems to imply that it changes the purpose of those relationships as created and intended by God. What it does do is to inform the believer of how to behave and conduct himself/herself in all relationships. It informs the individual Christian how to behave so that the godly purpose of the relationship is fulfilled. It does NOT change God’s intended purpose in the human context. In this sense there is NO opening for possible change. What it will eliminate and change is sinful behaviour (dead to sin – Rom. 6:11) and encourage and promote life in accordance with the Spirit (Rom. 8:5)

This same paragraph says that women have an ‘inferior status’ in the ministry of the church. That, to the writer, is injecting a false human judgment re ministry in the church. No act of ministry in the church, whether by male, female, adult or child has inferior status. The very concept of status is foreign to Christian ministry. All members of the Church are equally children of God and all ministries are treasured. But not all perform the same ministry. Not ordaining women does not mean that women in the Church have ‘inferior status’ or are deprived of participation in ministry as children of God.

Paragraph 5 on page 90 also is problematic for this writer. It is argues that St. Paul’s message reflects a restriction of God’s original intention in creation, overthrown by the fall into sin. But then it claims (Gen.1:26) that “sin’s defeat reinstates the partnership in which male and female both ‘rule’”. The implication of this is that this restoration means equal partnership of men and women in the Spirit’s ministry of proclamation. But what about Genesis 2:15ff and the created male/female relationship is describes? Sure, all believers, in word and deed, should proclaim the Word of the Lord. But it does not follow that every believer is to be ordained to the ministry of publicly preaching God’s Word and administering the Sacraments.

Paragraph 7 on pages 90 and 91 presents an argumentation in support of ordaining women which the writer finds unacceptable and invalid. There is need to more clearly define terms and phrases e.g. this paragraph speaks of ‘the freedom of the gospel’. But such freedom is not licence or even liberty to deny or negate the created purposes for men and women. As we live, work and worship in society the freedom we have in the gospel is to live according to the will of God. Our behaviour not only has godly boundaries but it also lives within the boundaries of our given godly duties and responsibilities.

This paragraph then claims that the distinction between Jew and Gentile was abolished in the early history of the church. Yes and no. It was abolished as far as unity in the Church was concerned. But in society it remained and still exists today. The paragraph then identifies the abolition of slavery in Western society with Christians taking a leading role. Great, but so what! Slavery still exists today in different forms – employer/employee. Today there are harsh and unfair employers who exploit their employees. There are employees who cheat on their employers and are disloyal to them. The status or distinction is not what is important but the acceptable behaviour, the Spirit led behaviour of the individual in the relationship who claims to be a child of God.

This paragraph then makes the claim that ‘progress towards the establishment of equal opportunities for women within our society . . . at its best represents an achievement which can also be seen as a reflection of the renewed and restored creation – Gal.3:28’ Equal opportunities for women within society is entirely a political/social phenomenon and is of another ‘equality’ order. It is not the equality of sonship which St. Paul speaks of in Galatians and his other letters.

The ordination of women in no way reflects this changed status within society. There is no status of any kind in society which determines the relationship between God and all people. That has been and is being determined by the love and grace of God in Christ Jesus. And it is yet to be brought to fulfilment. When that happens then we can forget all human distinctions, stations and responsibilities. But until then our God created differences and relationships remain. All this we seek to fulfil in obedience to God and in loving service to one another.

Galatians 3:26-29 is not relevant to the debate on ordination. Biblical interpretation demands that we read and apply it as St. Paul clearly intended – as unity in Christ in a diversified creation.

T T Reuther

August 2005.