Talk:Galatians 3:28

Politicized interpretation
It is already mentioned that this verse is used by egalitarians and cultural Marxists for their own political and social goals. And indeed taken out of context one can easily make it appear that way as an appeal to eradicated social and political distinctions between class, gender/sex, ethnicity/race/nationality. However that would be put that verse against almost anything else in the bible including writings of Paul's own letters. I recall this being used by those opposed to social, political, cultural distinctions between races/ethnicities over and over again. They actually got many gullible Christians accept this. However the gullible didn't realize that when they accept it in this way for racial equality and inclusion, they consequently must also accept this for all rules with regards to gender and class. If man and woman are the same, how do you justify the authority of the husband in within marriage and family? How do you justify that marriage is between and a man and a woman and not between e.g. man and man or woman and woman? How do you justify separation of bathrooms with regards to sex? If master and servant are the same/equal, how do you justify differences in authority, obligation, income, property, etc.? There is of course an answer to this, but dimwitted Christians of today wouldn't know this. The answer is that there are two realms: One earthly of the first Adam, which is after the flesh under sin and law. And the other one heavenly of the last Adam, which is in the spirit under grace. It comes as no surprise that the supporters of the egalitarian interpretation are usually those that interpret grace as a license to sin (as long as it doesn't visibly hurt anyone, which would make the folly obvious). 105.8.5.87 (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Are egalitarian interpretations just a means of twisting Scripture to suit one's own desires?
I wonder why gender/sex differences would be important in Heaven if there's no marriage. Yet, this verse makes sense in terms of baptism, considering that the corresponding verse refers to everyone inheriting the promise of Abraham. It doesn't do away with the distinctions of gender, race, class, social status, and such. It only states that these distinctions are irrelevant when it comes to inheriting the promise. Therefore, being Trans or Nonbinary is not affirmed, and females still have subordinate roles and must submit to males, particularly their husbands. Our identities and our roles now are the same as they will be in Heaven. How can anyone argue any differently? Paul made it clear throughout many chapters of the Bible that there are distinct roles for each sex. There's nothing in the Bible I've seen so far that contradicts this, and if anyone with qualifications can show me otherwise, please do. Christianity seems to me to be based on hierarchies and roles. Any attempts to convince anyone otherwise by reinterpreting certain verses doesn't mean much because it doesn't make sense in the general context of the Bible. Either it's a false understanding, a "confirmation bias" reading into the text based on wishful thinking, or a deliberate obfuscation of the truth to suit an agenda. 2601:98A:400:8910:10DC:EF49:2082:82CA (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)