I don’t see how you can separate your point from Honzo’s. Galations 3:28 reflects the status of this new community, “justified by faith,” and signified by baptism. The old distinctions now fall away. Your point on circumcision is espcially helpful to Honzo actually, because by the set-up of the old covenant…women couldn’t participate. They were not part of the covenant because they could not be circumcised. Yet, if “faith” and “baptism” are now the covenental signifiers, women can participate. Circumcision long stood as a difference marker between men and women, but no longer. The law worked to perpetuate Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female dichotomies…this new system of faith (hopefully) no longer needs or reinscribes such destructive dualistic structures. Alas, it doesn’t take long to realize we’ve still not figured that one out.

On what basis is such an interpretation warranted in the context of Galatians 3? Time and time again I see Galatians 3:28 used to argue for the egalitarian position but to do so does not fit the context. This is part of a large argument about justification by faith. The reason why we are sons of Abraham and God is because we are united to Christ, which our baptism signifies. How does your comment about baptism have anything to do with justification by faith and not by law keeping and circumcision, with is the entire point of Galatians 2:15 through the end of chapter 4? I don’t see the textual warrant to make such statements as is being made.

What if we look at Gal 3:28 in the context of baptism?  After all, it was most likely a early christian baptism rite.  If we do so, we see it (and Paul, who is employing it) as saying that before we enter into the community of Christ (through the rite of baptism) we have these power divisions that are given to us by the secular world.  However, after we enter into our community (in real time, in real life - not some far off place and time) , these divisions are broke and no longer are.

I agree completely.  I want to emphasize that first.  Something else I often wonder about is if sin also creates a perception that we are less than we really are at the same time.  We often see our selves as worthless creatures, totally wretched.  And while it is true that we need Jesus to save us, we (I) need to remember that we are still God’s creation and that He is a wonderful and good creator that only creates good works. He is no demiurge.  So, I wonder if sin is best described as something that gives rise to a false perception of ourselves.

Good thoughts Jan.

Coulda swore he was talking about the status of those who enter the Kingdom of God; they are able to break free of the cursed order and become as God intends - equal. We are all images of God - beings of equal worth and where two become one - of equal authority. Is slavery still cool? No, of course not - and neither is a man dominating a woman in marriage. It existed back then and exists today, but that is not because it is a good thing, but because we have not worked hard enough to bring about this aspect of the Kingdom of God, where we are all equals, because we have not worked hard enough to bring this about. Before God, are there slaves and masters? No, they are of equal worth and there should be no domination of one over the other. Before God, are there Jews and Greeks? No, they are of equal worth and there should be no domination of one over the other. Before God, are there males and females? No, they are of equal worth and there should be no domination of one over the other. Why restrict the enaction of this equality in only two of the three cases?

What, praytell, are these nasty inherent differences that exists in men and women respectively? Furthermore, what is your justification for this?

Your interp of Gen 3 is off as well. You are right in that it is not a failing wish on man’s part to dominate woman (as is the case for woman), but a cursed reality, a result of the fall for women is that they will be unnatturally dominated by men - and we have roughly 8,000 years of human history showing that it has been the case.

But, are you going to address my larger point? Is there a monolithic biblical notion of marriage?

Henry (St. Henry)

1. In context of Galatians 3, verse 28 should not be taken as a call for an egalatarian proper Christian society, where men and woman enjoy freedom from those nasty inherent differences that exists in men and women respectively.  Here, Paul (St. Paul that is) speaks of men and women being the same under the category of faith.  Regardless of race/gender/social status, faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, and the path to God is but one way.  No exceptions for men or women.  Thus, those in the same faith are the same in said context.

2. The curse given to the woman and her female progeny in Genesis 3 is given to the woman only.  Her curse is her desire to rule over her husband, but she will fail at doing so.  The man’s curse is not that he wishes to rule over his wife.