Galatians

by Cardinal Albert Vanhoye

  Being a child of God does not exclude the need for teaching, but it does exclude being subject to the “disciplinarian,” the law of Moses, since the sons and daughters of God in Christ Jesus participate in the glorious sonship of their risen †Lord.8 Later in Galatians (5:13–26) Paul will indicate what replaces the law as the guide to Christian conduct.

  [3:27]

  Paul speaks of baptism as the means by which believers enter into this very close relationship with Christ: For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Baptism is the concrete expression of adherence to Christ in †faith. Paul virtually identifies faith with baptism in these verses, illustrating that Christian faith is not only assenting to a creed or having a religious experience. Faith follows the pattern of the incarnation and therefore involves the body as well. Baptism expresses and brings about the incorporation of the whole believer—body, soul, and spirit—into the body of Christ. Paul will explain in Rom 6:3–14 how baptism unites believers to Christ’s bodily death and resurrection, both in the present and in our ultimate future.9 Baptism actualizes faith in Christ.

  In this way baptism differs radically from circumcision. It is not just a rite but a means of truly joining the lives of two persons, the believer and Christ. While circumcision leaves a permanent, visible mark on the body that indicates belonging to a particular nation, baptism leaves no mark of nationality and is offered to people of every nation.

  In speaking of baptism Paul does not say “baptized in Christ”; he literally says, “baptized into Christ.” In other words, Christ is not the element in which a believer is immersed but rather the person to whom the believer is united through baptism. Immersion happens “in water” (see Matt 3:11) and “in the Spirit” (see Matt 3:11; 1 Cor 12:13), but because of the union it effects, it is baptism “into Christ.”

  BIBLICAL BACKGROUND

  Understanding “Children of God”

  The NABRE, along with many contemporary translations, uses “child” and “children” in Gal 3:26 and 4:6–7, where the Greek says “son” and “sons.” This inclusive translation is appropriate, since Paul clearly intends to include both male and female Christians and elsewhere uses the terms “sons of God” and “children of God” interchangeably (Rom 8:14–19). On the other hand, the words “child” and “children” often refer to minors, while Paul’s emphasis is on adult children (see Gal 4:1–2). Here Paul probably uses “sons” since it more readily conveys the idea of being the heirs of Abraham’s †inheritance. Paul is saying that all believers enjoy the full benefits that belong to Abraham’s heirs.

  Both here and more explicitly in 4:4–7, Paul links our standing as sons of God with incorporation into Christ the Son—we are sons in the Son. Paul is saying that female as well as male believers enjoy all the benefits of inheritance, identity, and freedom that belong to adult children of God.

  Baptism produces not only a change in relationship but also a change in one’s being that Paul describes with the verb “to clothe”: you have “clothed yourselves with Christ.” This statement is a bit perplexing. How is it possible “to clothe oneself” with another person? The expression could be misunderstood as merely an external, superficial change: changing clothes does not transform a person. But here, as in certain Old Testament passages, “clothing oneself” expresses a change that redefines a person’s life. For example, in a text that Paul may have had in mind, Isaiah writes:

  I will rejoice heartily in the LORD,

  my being exults in my God;

  For he has clothed me with garments of salvation,

  and wrapped me in a robe of justice [righteousness]. (Isa 61:10; see Ps 132:16)

  To be clothed in Christ brings a profound transformation (1 Cor 6:11).

  [3:28]

  Being clothed with Christ is so profound that it reaches the most important part of a person’s identity and transforms it. Paul has the boldness to proclaim that in Christ Jesus the religious difference between Jew and Greek, the civil difference between slave and free, and finally the sexual difference between male and female no longer exist. Paul indicates the context in which these differences do not matter with the phrase “in Christ Jesus”: in our relationships with the risen †Lord, these distinctions are no longer important.

  The first distinction that Paul denies—There is neither Jew nor Greek (here referring to †Gentiles)—is the one he is most interested in. The other two are added to reinforce the first. The contrast is not on the cultural level, since then the pairing would be “Greeks and non-Greeks” as in Rom 1:14, where those of Greek culture enjoy preeminence and are listed first. Here the distinction is religious, so the preeminence belongs to the Jews. As members of the chosen people, Jews rightly considered themselves favored by God (see Rom 2:17–20; Eph 2:11–12). For a Jew like Paul to dare to declare that this fundamental religious difference no longer existed was extremely audacious. To many Jews and to the †Judaizers this assertion would have seemed to be the height of religious subversion. It is not surprising that Paul’s apostolate encountered fierce opposition.

  However, even the religious distinction of the Old Covenant between Jew and Gentile is overcome in Christ, since whoever is united to the risen Jesus through †faith belongs to a new category, that of “a new creation” (Gal 6:15; see Eph 2:13–19), which is equally accessible to Greek and Jew since the only condition to enter it is faith in Christ, who died and rose.

  The second distinction Paul denies, neither slave nor free person, primarily concerns civil rather than social standing (otherwise Paul would have said “neither slave nor master”). The distinction between slaves and free citizens was fundamental to the entire organization of society in the Greco-Roman world. Free persons enjoyed a range of political and civil rights; slaves were deprived of rights and dignity. To deny this distinction was as subversive as denying a religious distinction between Jew and Gentile.

  Paul mentions the slave first in this pairing because he wants to emphasize that in the Church and Christ’s kingdom this standing that is unworthy of a human being has been overcome. Baptized into Christ, every believer enjoys full human dignity because the risen Christ is the perfect man. The human vocation, which according to Gen 1:26 is to exercise dominion over the earth, has been fulfilled in the risen Jesus, the Lord of the universe, to whom Christian slaves are now united.

  It is worth noting, however, that Paul rejects not only slavery but also the status of the free person. He does not say, “There are no more slaves; everybody is free!” as one might expect. Instead he says, “There is neither slave nor free person.” He explains this in more detail in 1 Cor 7:22, where he says, “The slave called in the Lord is a freed person in the Lord, just as the free person who has been called is a slave of Christ.” Paul’s point of view is not that of a social reformer correcting injustices. His perspective is deeper. Paul is focused on defining the status of human beings in Christ. He says that from that vantage point the civil status of the individual in the Roman Empire has no relevance since it does not exist in Christ. Of course, this perspective leads to a profound change of attitude, which is illustrated in Paul’s letter to Philemon about the slave Onesimus, whom he describes as “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, . . . a beloved brother” (Philem 1:16 RSV). The recognition that in Christ there is “neither slave nor free person” would ultimately lead Christian societies to eliminate that civil distinction and to emancipate slaves.

  The third and last denial of a distinction is the boldest of all because it concerns sexual differences. The wording of this statement is a bit different: instead of using “neither” and “nor” to deny a distinction, Paul says, there is not male and female. His point is to draw a contrast with Gen 1:27 and 5:2, which say “male and female he created them.” Paul has the audacity to say, “There is no male and female.” Paul is convinced that God has begun a new creation in Christ that is truly different from the first; human beings gain entry to this new creation throu
gh faith and baptism (Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17). A clear implication of Paul’s words is that the differences that existed in Judaism between males and females in religious matters (e.g., circumcision and temple access) are eliminated in Christ.

  Paul’s denial of a difference between male and female in Christ recalls the words of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels about the kind of existence people will have after the resurrection. When the Sadducees ask Jesus about the marital status of a woman who had been married to seven husbands, Jesus tells them, “At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven” (Matt 22:30). While Jesus refers to life after the resurrection, Paul refers to the present situation of Christians. Believers already participate in the life of Christ, who died and was raised. Paul seems to be saying that, since after death marriage and sexual union will cease to exist and humans will be “like the angels in heaven,” in some sense at the deepest level of Christian identity, there is already “not male and female.”10

  It is obvious that this denial of distinction does not apply from the point of view of biology, psychology, and family life. Paul knows that marriage continues in the present age and that baptism does not suppress sexual desire. For this reason he gives considerable pastoral attention to sex and marriage in his writings.11 It is worth noting that Paul did not say, “There is no man or woman.” In 1 Cor 11:11 Paul says, “Woman is not independent of man or man of woman in the Lord” (italics added). Therefore, even in the Lord Paul recognizes a distinction between men and women and affirms their mutual interdependence. Men and women need each other to receive the †grace of Christ in its fullness.

  Immediately after Paul’s forceful denial of distinctions among Christians at the deepest level, he explains the absence of distinctions by an equally powerful affirmation: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. In verse 26 Paul referred to a plurality of sons and daughters: “You are all children of God in Christ Jesus.” This could lead to thinking of God’s children as a scattering of individual sons and daughters. But there is only one Christ. If all are clothed in Christ, since Christ is not divided, all are one in Christ. In this way the plurality of the children of God (v. 26) is shown to be a unity after all. The divine sonship of Christians is possible only in the unique Son, and for that reason all are one in him.

  When Paul refers to the unity of all believers, he does not use the neuter form of the adjective “one,” as Jesus does in the Gospel of John when he prays for his disciples, “May they all be one” (equivalent to “one thing,” John 17:21; see 17:11, 23). Instead Paul uses the masculine form of “one” when he says, “You are all one in Christ Jesus.” Why? In Eph 2:15–16 Paul declares that Christ has abolished the †law that had created the separation between Jews and Gentiles, “that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, . . . and might reconcile us both to God in one body” (RSV, italics added). The Greek word translated “man” is anthrōpos, which means “human being” and includes both sexes. All the baptized thus form one single anthrōpos; they exist only “in Christ Jesus.”

  Nevertheless, the unity of all believers must not be confused with the person of Christ; there is a mystery here that is not easily understood. Elsewhere Paul uses the expression “body of Christ” to indicate the distinction: “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it” (1 Cor 12:27). In Ephesians and Colossians he will speak of Christ as the head of the body, which is the Church.12 The inclusion of Christians “in Christ” to form “one new man” helps explain the nature of our sonship in Christ and the unity it entails.

  With verse 28 Paul concludes a topic he began in verse 25, explaining how it is that through faith Christians are not under the law. The reason is that thanks to faith we have become children of God by being incorporated into the risen Christ, the glorified Son of God.

  [3:29]

  Paul draws now a final conclusion: And if you belong to Christ—literally, “if you are of Christ”—then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise. At first sight, this verse seems a strange conclusion to the discussion. Paul proclaimed that all believers are “children of God” in verse 26, and then he explained that point in the next two verses.13 In verse 29, the concluding sentence, we would expect a further development of this thought. Instead we descend to an inferior level, from rejoicing in being “children of God” to rejoicing in being “the descendants of Abraham.” If a person is already a child of God, what does it matter if one is a descendant of Abraham?

  Paul does not deny this priority, but he has a good reason for wanting to emphasize that baptized believers are descendants of Abraham. Paul wants to finish the topic introduced in 3:7, where, after recalling Abraham’s †faith, he said, “It is those who have faith who are children of Abraham.” We pointed out at the time that this sudden affirmation was not yet adequately demonstrated. Before doing so Paul moved on to other questions.

  A bit later Paul touched again on the topic of the offspring of Abraham. Observing that Genesis speaks of the posterity of Abraham with a singular term, “descendant” (literally, “seed”), Paul specified that this word applies to Christ (Gal 3:16). This remark seems inconsistent with 3:7, which speaks of the “children” of Abraham in the plural. How are these statements to be reconciled?

  Paul provides the key in the verse we are considering. The offspring of Abraham is at the same time both singular and very numerous. Abraham’s descendant is unique in that he is Christ alone; yet his offspring is numerous because it includes all who are “in Christ.” Abraham’s innumerable offspring remain singular because all the baptized are “one in Christ Jesus” (v. 28).

  Paul has now completed his proof that “those who have faith . . . are children of Abraham” (3:7). They are not his children by a mere metaphorical sonship based on imitation or a similar spiritual outlook. A metaphorical sonship would not suffice to satisfy the promises of Genesis, which require physical descent: “Your own offspring will be your heir” (Gen 15:4). But whoever believes in Christ does have a kind of physical relationship to Abraham because through baptism he or she is truly incorporated into Christ, a physical descendant of Abraham. Believers are inserted into Christ not simply by receiving the communication of a message to which they adhere mentally, but also by means of a communication of the life of his body. Christ acts in and through his resurrected body, descended from Abraham, to gather all who believe into himself. Through baptism Jesus acts to assimilate believers both spiritually and physically to the same body that died and gloriously arose.

  The Galatians were concerned with ensuring their relationship with Abraham so as to secure their claim on the promises made to Abraham and thus share in his †inheritance. The †Judaizers claimed that circumcision, mentioned in Gen 17:9–14, was indispensable. But Paul demonstrates conclusively that faith in Christ completed by baptism gives believers the closest possible ties to Abraham, ties that are stronger than any that could come through circumcision. Thanks to faith and baptism, believers are joined to Christ, and since Christ is the unique descendant to whom the promise applies, all Christians are Abraham’s offspring, “heirs according to the promise.” Paul’s demonstration is now complete. It was a bit tumultuous and not easy to follow, but it provides a compelling argument.

  Reflection and Application (3:27–28)

  Equality in Christ. Paul’s declaration that “there is not male and female” (3:28) is often cited as the basis for Christian feminism, and with good reason. Paul affirms that at the deepest level of Christian identity, that of our union with Christ and †justification, there is no distinction on the basis of one’s sex. This affirmation provides solid biblical testimony that woman and man have an equal dignity in Christ.

  Some feminists want to go further and invoke this text regarding the ministerial priesthood. They say that since “there is not male and female” in Christ, priestly ordination should be conferred on women as it is on men. Is this a valid argument?

  T
he answer depends on whether or not ministerial priesthood is located at the level at which Paul denies that any distinction exists. It is certain that Paul’s denial of a distinction between male and female in Christ does not apply to every aspect of human existence and Christian life. Otherwise, one would need to say that marriage is impossible for a Christian man and woman since “there is not male and female” in Christ.

  The context clearly indicates that Paul’s denial of distinctions concerns what is most fundamental to Christian life—namely, justification by †faith and incorporation into Christ through baptism. The Apostle affirms absolute unity and equality at this level for every believer. It does not follow from this that differences disappear in other dimensions of Christian life. For instance, Paul insists that respecting differences in charisms is indispensable. “Now the body is not a single part, but many” (1 Cor 12:14) with diverse functions (12:15–17).

  If we ask where ministerial priesthood fits, the answer comes to us in that same chapter of 1 Corinthians. Paul locates roles of authority and ministry in the Church not at the level of fundamental unity but rather at the level of necessary diversity: “God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended” (1 Cor 12:18). Then Paul asks, “Are all apostles? Are all prophets?” (12:29).