In Christ, there is ... no male, no female

[yrieithydd]

Since the failure of the women bishop measure to gain the required 2/3rds majority in the House of Laity to pass 2 weeks ago (20th November), and indeed in the run up to the vote. I have had a number of conversations on Twitter with people who oppose the ministry of women as priests and bishops about the meaning of Galations 3:28. This verse is

Comments

[anonymous]

I also wonder about the grammatical gender of child in Greek here?

In verse 26? It's υιο&iota so literally sons which is masculine. But then it says you are all (παντες) sons so it may well be there masculine plural indicating potentially mixed group use.

Heirs in 29 is masculine plural - same arguments apply?

[yrieithydd]

That's what I guessed. I wrote this while out and didn't check my Greek interlinear when I got back

[yrieithydd]

Silly LJ

[cathedral_life]

This does not directly reference your argument, but I think it's an important aside. The Greek is not best translated "neither male nor female", but "neither male and female".

I am not sure how significant it is, but I think it's possible to make a case that gender is not the correct referent. I recently heard it argued that the passage thus referred to marriage rather than gender, so as to say that neither marriage nor singleness is defining of our new life in Christ.

I guess that it doesn't move the debate forward, but it doesn't move it backwards either.

[yrieithydd]

Interesting. I hadn't noticed that but it's and in the NRSV where the other two are or. Not sure why though.