Like Button

Thursday, June 07, 2007

No Distinction

Some of the hard sayings of the Bible seem like they shouldn't be that hard. And yet, sometimes they confuse people. One I've often seen used in completely the wrong way is this one:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28).
Plain as day, isn't it? Shouldn't be confusing at all. Clearly this verse is saying that when we are Christians, there are no distinctions in people.

Clearly this is a confusing point. It only takes a moment of thinking to realize that this cannot be the aim of this verse. That is, whether or not a person is a Christian, they are still, for instance, male or female -- not both and not neither.

Now, there are those who would take me to task for such a statement. "What do you mean, 'That can't be what it means'? We find similar thoughts in other places.
There is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him (Rom. 10:12).

There is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:11).
There you have it, Stan ... proof that in Christ there is no distinction between people. How many ways does it have to be said?"

So ... let's assume that these passages all mean that -- no distinctions whatsoever. If this is the case, what was Paul trying to convey when he gave different instructions to slaves and masters? In Col. 3:22, for instance, Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. He never tells masters to obey their slaves (a statement that is obviously ludicrous). Instead, masters are supposed to be fair (Col. 4:1), not obedient. How can this be if there is no distinction? What can possibly be intended if the distinction of "slave" and "master" is meaningless? What could possibly be in mind when Paul says, "I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:3) when there is no distinction between "man" and "woman"? Looking at the question from an algebra viewpoint, if A = B, then what distinction is there? How can we discuss A and B if they are the same? If the intent of these passages is "Ignore any distinctions", then one would expect the Bible to ignore any distinctions. It doesn't.

Let's look again, then, at what these might mean. You see, I think that context doesn't leave any question about intent. And each of these verses has been yanked out of context.

The context of Galatians 3 is given in the opening verses of the chapter.
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Gal. 3:1-3)
The topic is straightforward: We are justified and sanctified by faith apart from works. Paul validates this position with a quote from Habakkuk (Hab. 2:4) -- "That no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, 'The righteous man shall live by faith'" (Gal. 3:11). Paul argues that "the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin" (Gal. 3:22). So if the promises God made to Abraham are dependent on works, they don't help the Jew or the Greek since everyone suffers from sin. The good news, then, is "you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:26). So when Paul gets to the statement in verse 28, he isn't speaking about "in every case from all perspectives" but "in terms of being justified by faith". That is, in terms of who gets justified by faith and who does not, there is no distinction based on your race, gender, or any other human factor. It does not mean a generic, "All distinctions are removed."

You'll find, in fact, that each of the passages are the same in this sense. In Rom. 10:4 Paul says, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." The point of the Law is to point to justification by faith. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation" (Rom. 10:9-10). In this context ("justification by faith apart from works"), there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. Salvation is for all who call on Him regardless of external conditions.

The Colossians verse is completely yanked out of context in the middle of a sentence. The entire sentence reads more like this:
Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him -- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all (Col. 3:9-11).
The topic here is "the new self". This "new self" is "being renewed to a true knowledge." This renewal is without distinction based on externals. It is a product of Christ who "is all and in all."

"A text without a context is a pretext," it is said. Clearly the context of these verses limits their application to the thought at hand. The idea is that salvation and sanctification are without distinction. They are both products of faith accomplished by God and without consideration of race, gender, classification, or any such thing. Thus, all references to salvation are without distinction. That does not mean that there are no distinctions between people. It simply means that in terms of justification and sanctification there are no distinctions. In terms of daily living, on the other hand, the Scriptures give distinct commands ... because there are distinctions. And we know that there are still distinctions. Men do not cease being male when they are saved. Women do not cease being female when they are saved. Our nationalities don't vanish at the point of salvation. We do not all get the same economic status at salvation. There are distinctions. The next time someone tries to tell you that there are no distinctions whatsoever for those who are in Christ, point to the context to counter the pretext and avoid this pervasive error.

5 comments:

Jim Jordan said...

Hi Stan
I like how you meticulously brought out the context and meaning of Gal 3:28. It even makes me wonder if I have misused this verse in the past. It seems to me that Paul is telling us that who we are as man, woman, Jew or Gentile is not of ultimate importance even though we still are who we are.
Here's my question. I have used this as a way to point out to homosexuals that, even if they were right about being "born that way", it would not amount to a hill of beans. In this way, they might see the uselessness, and harm, that results from embracing their "lifestyle" as something ultimately important.
Here in SOuth Florida this lifestyle worship is very visible; Gay Pride festivals, their own newspapers and magazines, their own restaurants and bars etc. It must be like living inside a bubble.
I think you might say that using this in regard to homosexuals is "pretext", but does it violate the meaning of the Scripture?
Thanks for the great post.

Stan said...

I don't know that I'd use this passage for that purpose.

My approach is two-fold. First, I'm "heterosexual", but that doesn't define me. I'm defined by "Christian", "American", "husband", "son", "father", lots of things ... but not my sexual preferences any more than my preference for meat over vegetables. Second, I'm heterosexual. If they are right about "made that way", I'm "made that way". As a heterosexual, I have leanings toward sexual encounters with multiple women all the time. Since I'm a Christian, I say, "No." Since I'm married, I've chosen to limit my choice to one. So "being made that way" doesn't justify wrong choices (multiple sex partners) any more than it would justify wrong choices in a homosexual if they were made that way.

That's my approach.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Well done. Not perfect, but well done :)

Did you read mine on Eph 5:21?

http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/2007/05/eph-521-heresy.html

Stan said...

Indeed I did, Von! Even commented on it.

The Schaubing Blogk said...

Oh, well, silly me.