Galatians 3:28—Neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male and Female

As published in Biblical Archaeology Review, January/February 2018


Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial in Washington, DC. Photo: Robin Ngo.

At the end of his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, civil rights activist Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. alludes to the apostle Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (NRSV). In her Biblical Views column in the January/February 2018 issue of BAR, republished in full below, Biblical scholar Karin Neutel examines Paul’s vision for how we would live together in an ideal society.—Ed.

How would we live together in an ideal society? In his letters, the apostle Paul formulated something of an answer to this question. Paul expected an imminent cosmic change, a new creation ushered in by the death and resurrection of the Messiah. Prominent in his vision of this new creation was the fact that all the nations of the world would worship the one true God, together with Israel. Consequently, the apostle called upon gentiles to abandon their gods, to accept God’s Messiah, and to live “in Christ,” in expectation of what was about to happen. “In Christ,” Paul writes, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor male and female” (Galatians 3:28).


The Apostle Paul, Rembrandt van Rijn (and Workshop?), c. 1657. Widener Collection; on display at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC.

This verse seems to strike an almost modern note about human equality. Contemporary interpreters have updated Paul’s statement and added pairs to the three original ones: “neither gay nor straight,” “neither healthy nor disabled,” and “neither black nor white.” While these creative rewritings make Paul’s statement speak to new situations, they also highlight something about the original: These three pairs must have been as relevant in the first century, as the additional categories are today.

So why does Paul put exactly these categories together? The three pairs that Paul includes in this verse all played a role in first-century conceptions of what an ideal world would look like. When imagining ideal or utopian communities, Paul’s contemporaries picture different peoples living together in one homogeneous group under one law—without ethnic distinction. They also imagine societies where people are not divided into households and families, but all live as “brothers,” as equals. Such communities could reject property, slavery, and marriage, since in the minds of first-century philosophers, doing away with possessions, slaves, and wives meant removing the major causes of social conflict. When Paul sums up the community of those who live “in Christ,” he uses categories that reflect such first-century ideals.

This ideal of unity that Paul shared with his contemporaries was influenced by cosmopolitanism, a popular philosophical idea in the early Roman Empire. Cosmopolitanism’s main component was the conviction that all people are first and foremost citizens of the cosmos, rather than of their local communities. This shared cosmic origin was thought to connect all people with each other and with the divine, and it suggested that all people could live in a unified society, rather than divided into different ethnic and geographic communities. Cosmopolitanism had implications not only for contemporary ideas about ethnic difference, but also for ideas about the positions of slave and free and about marriage and the relationship between husband and wife. It therefore affected all three of the pairs mentioned by Paul. We can see how this works if we take a closer look at each of the pairs.

In the free eBook Paul: Jewish Law and Early Christianity, learn about the cultural contexts for the theology of Paul and how Jewish traditions and law extended into early Christianity through Paul’s dual roles as a Christian missionary and a Pharisee.

Like other first-century Jews, Paul expected that in the end time, people from the nations would turn to the God of Israel. In Paul’s letters, this expectation is expressed specifically in terms that have a cosmopolitan ring to them, in that they appeal to this ideal of ethnic unity. When he writes that both Jews and non-Jews can be sons of Abraham together (Romans 4:9–12), or that there is no difference between Jew and gentile (Romans 10:12), Paul denies the relevance of ethnic distinctions, as was characteristic of cosmopolitanism. In these statements, the cosmopolitan mood of the time shines through and takes on a clearly Jewish color.

Attitudes toward slaves were also influenced by the cosmopolitan notion that all people are fundamentally connected. Seen in a cosmopolitan light, slavery constituted a challenge to the brotherhood of all human beings. Even though conventional society was thought to require slavery, and cosmopolitan thought did not challenge this, it could imagine a utopian society as one without slaves, where people either shared tasks equally or simply had no need of labor. Paul’s statements about slaves and free people draw on such ideals, most clearly when he writes that there is “neither slave nor free.”

When it comes to the third pair, male-female, things get a little more complicated. Although it may seem obvious to contemporary readers that this pair refers to gender difference, or gender equality, from an ancient perspective it more likely points to the pairing off of men and women in marriage and procreation.

The distinctive formulation of the third pair, “male and female,” suggests a citation from Genesis 1:27. This passage describes the creation of male and female and God’s instruction to them to be fruitful, to multiply, and to fill the world. It is exactly this world—with its focus of men and women, and on procreation—that Paul expects to end. Marriage will end along with it, as he writes in the well-known passage about living “as if not.” Here Paul instructs men who have wives to live as if they do not have wives “because the forms of this world are passing away” (1 Corinthians 7:29–31). Paul’s own advice—highly unusual at the time—that both men and women should not marry if they could avoid it, confirms how he thought about the practice of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:7–9, 1 Corinthians 32–40).

The cosmopolitan worldview understood marriage as a fundamental tie that formed the primary connection between a man and the rest of humanity. From that first and most intimate bond, all other social relationships extended. Given its important role in ensuring legitimate offspring, the handing down of property, and the continuation of society, it is no wonder that the breakdown of the current world—and the arrival of a new and ideal creation—was thought to encompass the end of marriage.

Seen in the light of first-century cosmopolitan ideals, Paul’s declaration of unity thus takes on a distinctly ancient form. It does not proclaim the equality of all people, regardless of their social positions, as is sometimes assumed by readers today. Rather, it envisages a social ideal of harmony and connection, where those factors in society that create division and conflict have been removed.

Paul’s conviction that he was called at this crucial moment to participate in God’s ultimate plan for the world caused him to imagine what a new and ideal creation would be like and how people would live in such a new creation. His summary of this ideal as “neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor male and female” resonated with the concerns expressed by his contemporaries.

Biblical Views: “Neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male and Female” by Karin Neutel originally appeared in the January/February 2018 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

karin-neutelKarin Neutel is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oslo in Norway. Her most recent book is A Cosmopolitan Ideal: Paul’s Declaration ‘Neither Jew Nor Greek, Neither Slave Nor Free, Nor Male and Female’ in the Context of First-Century Thought (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015).


Related reading in Bible History Daily:

Paul’s First Missionary Journey through Perga and Pisidian Antioch

The Quest for the Historical Paul by James Tabor

Biblical Riot at Ephesus: The Archaeological Context
Archaeology shines light on the riot against Paul at Ephesus

Barnabas: An Encouraging Early Church Leader by Robin Gallaher Branch

What Was Life Like for Roman Slaves?


Posted in Bible Interpretation.

Add Your Comments

One Response

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  • Bryant says


    I sometimes wonder where the exegesis and eisigesis begins and ends. That is always the danger when we look at text, speech, etc.
    The context, context, and context is the most important part of exegesis and interpretation. One not only translates the text from the Source Language (SL) to the Target Language (TL), but one also needs to understand and interpret the underlying genre, grammare, syntax, idioms, etc. I know that I am not saying anything new to you.
    What is the Purpose of the Law? Several answers are given. First, the Purpose of the Law was because of transgressions, i.e. a means to checking sin so that one would know what sin is. It acted as a restraint. Second, the Purpose of the Law was to confirm that a Covenant between God and Man (the nation of Israel) had been sealed with the Two Tablets of the Law (Ten Words-each copy) acting as witnesses for the two parties to be placed in the Ark of the Covenant.
    The Promise to Abraham was an Unconditional Covenant or Promise which was irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Thus, the Law could not nullify the Promise to Abraham since the Promise was done by faith not confirmed by Law.
    The Purpose of the Law was to act as a guardian or school master until the believer reached the age of maturity. Until then, the believer, although an heir, was no different from any other person of the household.
    Therefore, any person whether ethnic group (Jew or Gentile), social status (slave or free), or gender (male or female) would prevent one from coming to salvation in Christ. Thus, becoming an heir of the Promise.
    If there is one thing that the group called Christians were known for was that as “little Christs” it was that “loved one another” and did not allow ethnicity, social status or gender to interfere with one’s salvation and God, i.e. one’s justification not one’s role in society or church.

  • 1 2 3

    Some HTML is OK

    or, reply to this post via trackback.

Send this to a friend

Hello! You friend thought you might be interested in reading this post from
Galatians 3:28—Neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male and Female!
Here is the link:
Enter Your Log In Credentials...

Change Password