What if Paul's inscribed audience, "brothers" (Gal. 3:15 and 4:12), is taken in its literal sense: not "brothers and sisters", but rather, males assigned male at birth? Thus:

"There can be neither Jew nor Greek ["brothers"], there can be neither bond nor free ["brothers"], there can be no male and female ["brothers"]; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28, ASV [augmented]

In this rereading, Paul was abolishing males becoming female. Is this plausible as a reconstruction of the original sense of the statement: "there can be no male and female"?

  • 1
    If there is neither 'male nor female' then your premise cannot be correct.
    – Nigel J
    Nov 1 '19 at 19:30

This is not hard to understand the point the Apostle Paul is making. He is speaking of the "UNIVERSALITY" of salvation. By nature all, regardless of gender, are under the curse of sin. Through Christ's redemptive work all who believe enjoy the blessings of grace.

Also notice vs29 restates and summarizes what Paul has said in this chapter. All who are in Christ are spiritually Abraham's descendants and hence are heirs with him of the blessings God promised him, namely, salvation by grace alone, the gospel which Paul had faithfully shared with the Galatians. Moreover, if you continue reading the next chapter 4 the Apostle expands on what he previously clearly stated.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.