"Neither Male or Female in The Church" Follow Up

This is a follow up to my earlier Paul Said there is Neither Male or Female in The Church.  Which was based on Galatians 3:28.

I want to address some of the other passages in the New Testament, mainly other teachings of Paul, people might insist contradict my absolutist understanding of that verse.  Some of course I already anticipated in advance there, or dealt with when defending Female Pastors, [that post is a big out of date only in that I no longer support the traditional office of "pastor" at all, but I definitely support female Presbyters].

In Romans 7 the point of the Torah Passage being cited there is to demonstrate that we are no longer under the Law once we are made Dead to the Law in Christ at Baptism.  I don't think it's meant to be relevant to how Christians should understand Marriage, Gender Roles or the Bride of Christ Doctrine.

The end of 1 Timothy 2 I think is about the Seed of the Woman prophecy, it's not saying any individual woman's salvation is dependent on bearing children.  As for everything alleged to be Sexist about this passage, quite a bit has been written about it already.

1 Corinthians 11:5 is clear that Women were speaking in Church.  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is what's often cited to say that women are forbidden to speak in Church and thus be pastors.   First of all 1 Corinthians 14 was largely about the misuse of Tongues and other Charismatic practices.  Second that statement can be viewed as Paul quoting a Rhetorical slogan that he then refutes in verse 36 "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?".

Ephesians 5 is the key passage used to insist the New Testament reinforces patriarchal Gender Roles in Marriage.  But here is what I want to point out, the words for Male and Female used in Galatians 3:28 are not used at all in the entire book of Ephesians.

There are likely a variety of ways Ephesians 5 has been translated, and maybe not even always internally consistent.  What you need to know is Aner/Andros gets translated both Man and Husband while Gune/Gyno gets translated Woman, Wife and maybe sometimes Bride.

In ancient Greek, the words in Galatians are much closer to being clinical terms, with the word for Female there also being the root for the Greek word for breastfeeding.  Aristotle explained their meaning in his Generation of Animals where he says the Arren are those who generate in another and the Thelu are those who generate in themselves, Aristotle on issues was Conservative but not Reactionary, so whatever ones opinion on his philosophy we can trust he got the meanings of words right.  Gyno only seems clinical to us now because of the modern medical profession's selective use of Greek and Latin words.  

Basically, I think Ephesians 5 is about Marriage rather then Gender.  And that in the context of this author also writing Galatians, it can be considered possible that a Female could be a Husband and a Male could be a Wife and a Non-Binary individual could be either or both.

Seneca the Elder’s Controversiae is a teaching manual in legal rhetoric featuring unusual law cases and strategies to be used for or against the defendants involved.  One example he uses comes from Sacaurus consul suffect in 21 CE in his criticism of the tactics used by Hybreas in defending a man who murdered two women he caught having sex with each other.  Sacaurus referred to both women as Tribades (an often debated term associated with Lesbianism during the Greco-Roman era), Hybreas however used Andra of the active partner.  The scene may be interpreted as being comedic, but the use of Andra is not the punchline, it's the set up, the punch line is using "stitched on" to describe the Dildo he looked for didn't find.  This is a first century AD legal precedent for describing a Butch Lesbian as a Husband.  Later in Lucian's Dialogue of the Courtesans Megilla/Megillus and Demonassa call themselves Husband and Wife.

Paul said there is neither Male nor Female in The Church

Galatians 3:28.

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.

I've mentioned this verse before discussing The Bible on Traditional Gender Roles.  And maybe this post risks retreading that same ground.

But I want to rant on how I'm tired of "Traditionalists" saying this is only about how anyone can get Saved.  No, it's not, the context of verses 25-27 are clear, this is about after we're Saved.  He's saying these distinctions don't exist within in the Church, not that they're irrelevant to getting in.

But the hypocrisy is that this isn't how anyone applies the references in the same verse to "Jew nor Greek(Gentile)" or "Bond nor Free".

Dispensationists like Chuck Missler are all about how The Church is a new entity and when you're in it you're neither Jew or Gentile, and so no one regardless of ancestry has to follow The Law.  While Hebrew Roots style Christians like Rob Skiba are all about how Gentiles are grafted into Israel and so everyone regardless of ancestry has to follow The Torah.

Neither supports saying believers can be distinguished between Jew and Gentile.  I don't fully fit into either of those camps but sympathize with aspects of both.  But plenty in both of those camps want to cling to separate laws for men and women regarding how to dress and so on.

Likewise with "Bond nor Free", when Christians are pointing out how many of the Abolitionists were driven by their Faith, this is among the Bible Verses they cited to support abolishing Slavery.  And yet the same modern Christians who think those Abolitionists were so right about Slavery will go 'how dare you think we should abolish gender'.

It is interesting that Chapter 4 keeps using the word "Son" and male pronouns, in-spite of just making clear females are included.  But remember the last verse of chapter 3 is about how we are all made spiritually Abraham's Seed, like what Roman 9-11 is about.

Yes the world into which they (and us still) were born was a patriarchal one.  And those norms influenced the Hebrew Bible, but in Hebrews Paul calls The Law of Moses imperfect and says The Law is now written on our Hearts.  And I've talked before about how gender issues show those imperfections.

So just as Gentiles can now have the Blessings promised to Abraham (which was always the plan in Genesis 12), so now has Christ allowed Women the Freedoms that only Men could have before.  Now also for both of those one could argue that comes with increased responsibilities, but that's for a separate debate about The Law under The New Covenant.

 I've also talked about how the marriage of Genesis 2 was equal unlike Genesis 3.

There are New Testament verses that get used to support patriarchal norms also, how do I address those?

A lot of what's said about Marriage is in the context of discussing The Bride of Christ doctrine, using an Old Testament custom as an illustration of a New Testament doctrine.  Others may be there just because they were living in a world that is still patriarchal.  And we also need to remember that there are words translated "Man" that are meant to be gender neutral.

I believe The Bible is consistent with itself, and Galatians 3:28 is the most unambiguous statement on this issue.  And I think it ties in with how there were no separate courts for Women or Gentiles in Ezekiel's Temple.  The context of the verses around it, 26-29, are basically saying we've not any of these other classes because we are now all in Christ and thus all Sons of God like Christ.

Others have also blogged on this subject, the details often differing from my views but the gist being the same.  Here is one example, and another from the same blog.  And I read this interesting post on naming conventions.

Update October 2018: I have written this follow up post going more into passages not addressed here.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/07/neither-male-or-female-in-churhc-follow.html

The Bible on Traditional Gender Roles

Men and Women are different, both physically and mentally.  And those differences existed from the creation of distinct genders for humanity in Genesis 2.  But the dividing of men and women into different roles in society, especially the notion that men are supposed to be in charge, is purely the product of The Fall in Genesis 3.

In Genesis 2 the Woman is created to be Adam's "Helper" or "Helpmeet".  Adam may have been created first but they were still meant to be equals.  It is not until Genesis 3:16 that God tells her "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

On this side of the cross The Church should be working to restore things to how God intended, though we do so knowing that won't be fully successful until Jesus returns and sets up his Kingdom.

But still we should be working towards that as much as possible.  That's why good Christians oppose Slavery in-spite of the Torah's tolerance of it.  And why I've argued elsewhere we should oppose Capital Punishment, even though it was an important part of The Law.

The Law of Moses does codify many traditional gender role related laws (but not in the same way most other nations did).  But New Testament believers are not under The Law.  And even in the Old Testament we had people like Deborah.

Ezekiel's description of the future Messianic Temple has no separate Court of Women just as it no longer has a separate court for Gentiles.  Likewise Galatians 3:28 says "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."

I have another post arguing against those who say women cannot be Pastors/Preachers.

The verses some people dwell on about cross dressing are directed at specific pagan ritual practices involving cross dressing.  They were not meant to be taken as legalistically as they are today by many pastors who want to shame women for simply wearing pants rather then skirts/dresses.  I notice that particular phraseisim isn't as popular in colder states, like Wisconsin where I live.

The extent to which traditional gender roles are still endorsed in The New Testament (and I believe even NT instructions we shouldn't be legalistic about), are entirely limited to to the relationship between Husband and Wife.  Those verses exist purely for the typological application to the relationship between Christ and The Church.  Point is, as long as your unmarried those verses have no relevance to you and your interactions with people of the opposite gender, weather your male or female.  And if you are married they're relevant only to your relationship with your spouse.  Do not go around judging other couples or individuals.

The New Testament certainly doesn't forbid women to be unmarried.  Nor does it forbid women, married or not, from having careers or doing God's work outside the household.