Replies

My Point is that Galatians 3:28 should be taken as an ABSOLUTE LAW of Biblical interpretation, and on that basis ALL Racially-Divisive Theologies of Christianity should be rejected out of hand.

So we must take Galatians 3:28 as ABSOLUTE LAW?

Why don't we read the whole verse?

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 KJV)

Oops.

No male and no female? Wow. Imagine that!

If that is ABSOLUTE LAW of Biblical interpretation, then clearly you can't keep women out of the pulpit, can you? A person's sex can have nothing to do with her standing in the Church since there are neither male nor female. That would be "sexually divisive."

Additionally if there is neither male nor female, then how can you prohibit homosexual marriage? You are just marrying two Christians who are "neither male nor female". That distinction has been biblically erased!

So if Galatians 3:28 is Absolute Law in regard to biblical interpretation, then how dare you condemn the homosexual movement within the church? You should be "celebrating" it.

Now, are you willing to say:

"May GOD DAMN all ~~Racially~~ Sexually-Divisive "Christian" theologies."?

I'm sure Vicky Gene Robinson will back you up.

Well said, Marlowe. It's interesting, isn't it, that those who cite Gal. 3:28 on this subject always do so very selectively?

One wonders what they do with other passages in the NT that do indicate a difference:

Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. (1 Co. 7:18)

Really? So Jews are supposed to stay Jews and Gentiles supposed to stay Gentiles even within the Body of the Messiah?

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Rom. 3:1-2)

Wait, there's a natural advantage to being a circumcised Jew? How can that be if there is no more Jew or Gentile?

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Rom. 1:16)
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; (Rom. 2:9)
But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (Rom. 2:10)

Waitwaitwait, what's with all this "Jew first" stuff? I though there was no more Jew or Gentile.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Co. 12:13)
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Co. 12:13)

Ah, there's that annoying distinction again.

So, obviously the ontological (essential, by nature) distinction between Jew and Gentile remains, just as the ontological distinction between male and female does, or the economic distinction between slave and free--but Sha'ul's point is that we are all equally saved by faith in the Messiah of Israel, and that makes us all one family, whether we are Jew, Gentile, man, woman, slave, freeman, black, white, American, Chinese, or any other ontological distinction one can think of.