In Galatians 3:26-29, Paul explains how this link between gentiles and
Christ works. The language of being "in" or "a part of"
Christ permeates this passage:
For in (εν)
Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faithful- ness. As many of you as
were baptized into (εις)
Christ, you have put on (ενεδυσασθε)
Christ. There is no Ioudaios or Greek; there is no slave or free; there is no
male and female. For you are all one in (εν)
Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ (εί δέ ύμεΐς Χριστού), then you are
Abraham's descendants (του 'Αβραάμ σπέρμα), heirs according to the promise.
Once again, Paul uses "in" language to rework the parameters
of kinship for the gentiles: by becoming a part of Christ and being
"in" Christ, gentiles become "sons of God,"
"descendants of Abraham," and "heirs according to the
promise." This is the scenario that was prefigured in Galatians 3:8, in
which scripture announces to Abraham that "all the gentiles will be
blessed in you." Christ, who is the sperma Abraam (Gal 3:16), now
makes gentiles into sperma Abraam (3:29).
Paul relates this kinship creation to baptism, which he presents as a
ritual means of entering "into" Christ: the preposition εις (3:27) connotes a sense of motion toward
or into. Paul uses this same language in two other baptism passages, Rom 6:3
("all of us who have been baptized into [εις] Christ Jesus") and 1 Cor 12:13
("we were baptized into [εις]
one body").38 Baptism ushers gentiles "into" Christ; it forges a
kinship relationship between them and Christ. In the same way that descendants
share the same "stuff" as ancestors, gentiles are "of
Christ"-they have taken in his pneuma-so that he can serve as a
link for them to the lineage of Abraham.
The relationship between Christ and gentiles, however, is not
expressed in terms of ancestor and descendants. Instead, Christ and the
gentiles seem to be same-generation offspring of common ancestors, as signaled
by the phrases describing baptized gentiles as "sons of God" (Gal
3:26), "heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ" (Rom 8:17), and Christ
as the "firstborn among many brothers" (Rom 8:29). The gentiles are
not found in Christ's seed, but they take in his pneuma, "put
on" Christ, and are adopted as his siblings. In this ritual of initiation
into a new family, the gentiles receive the ancestry of their new kin:
"And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs
according to the promise" (Gal 3:29).
Paul elaborates further on this state of being "in" Christ
with the claim: "There is no Ioudaios or Greek; there is no slave
or free; there is no male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus"
(Gal 3:28). This verse, perhaps the most famous of his corpus, has repeatedly
been cited as proof that Paul advocates an eradication of social boundaries
between people. According to this view, Christ has eliminated traditional
social, ethnic, and gender markers, creating a certain equality among a new,
universal people beyond culture and ethnicity (Christians). Yet for a variety
of reasons scholars have challenged this reading, which does not take into
account Paul's own reliance on social hierarchies both later in Galatians and
elsewhere in his letters. I would like to propose a new way to read this verse
based on the kinship model I have been developing here. Understanding Galatians
3:28 in terms of patrilineal descent allows for Paul's concept of unity
"in Christ" without erasing boundaries between members.
We have seen that Paul shares with other ancient authors the
assumption that ancestors contain within them–whether in their womb or their
seed–all of their progeny. In this conception, descendants of one ancestor are
understood as a corporate body, sharing status and manifesting similar
characteristics. Recall the language of Genesis where God promises to make
Abraham into a great people; ancestor and descendants are one (12:1-3; 18:18).
Perhaps it is to this sort of unity that Paul appeals in Galatians 3:28: those
who are baptized into Christ have become members of a common kinship group and
thus constitute a corporate body. As such, they share the material and qualities
of their common ancestor, Abraham. Thus as descendants of Abraham, the gentiles
are recipients of the promise: in this particular sense, the baptized are
"one in Christ Jesus." As members of a common kinship group, those
who are "in Christ" share a solidarity which supersedes other
associations.
This unity, however, does not erase differences. In any patrilineal
descent group which might claim a corporate identity as descendants of a common
ancestor, there are still hierarchies among the members: heads of households, sons,
daughters, first-born, last-born, and so on. Unity based on kinship and social
differences coexist.
This reading is supported by a parallel passage in I Cor 12:13:
"For also by one spirit, we were baptized into one body (εις εν σωμα), whether Ioudaioi or Greeks or
slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one spirit." This verse
speaks of unity, not sameness. Through baptism, Ioudaioi, Greeks,
slaves, and free people become members of one body, Christ's body (see also 1
Cor 12:27). In the following verses, Paul develops this body metaphor,
describing how one body is made up of different parts: the integrity of the
whole depends at least partially upon the diversity of the parts (1 Cor
12:14-26). Paul envisions those who are baptized "into" Christ as a
unified whole which includes various categories of people.
It is important to remember, however, that Paul directs these comments
to gentiles. Thus in Galatians 3:28 and 1 Corinthians 12:13, Paul emphasizes the
oneness of those "in Christ" to make a specific point relevant for
their situation: Christ is their solution. Greeks need not become Jews to
become people of the God of Israel; they need only be baptized into Christ. At
the same time, this shared identity in Christ is not somehow ethnically
neutral, as is often assumed. Being baptized into this Jewish messiah and
receiving his spirit and his lineage bestow on the gentiles an affiliation with
Israel. Being in Christ means being a
part of Israel. (Caroline Johnson Hodge,
If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters of Paul
[Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], 104-6)
In a footnote, we
read the following concerning “corporate personality”:
I want to distinguish my suggestion from the concept of the
"corporate personality" first developed by Henry Wheeler Robinson in
the first decades of the twentieth century (The Christian Doctrine, 8,
and "The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality"). Robinson took
observations from contemporary ethnography and anthropological theory, applied
them to the Hebrew scriptures and theorized that ancient Jews understood the
group, whether it is the family, the tribe, or the whole of Israel, to stand in
place of the individual. Like certain societies documented by ethnographers,
the Hebrew people view all their members as a unit. According to Robinson, this
way of thinking explains why, in certain instances in the Hebrew scriptures,
whole households or families are punished for the crime of an individual member
(a common example in discussions of corporate personality is the story of Achan
in Joshua 7, where Achan's whole household is held accountable for his crime).
Franz Mussner suggests applying this concept to Galatians 3:8; see Der
Galaterbrief, 222.
This theory has been rightly criticized. First, its proponents never
presented a firm definition of "corporate personality," so that its
meaning is ambiguous and applied in various ways to various texts. For these
views, see Rogerson, "The Hebrew Conception," and J. R. Porter,
"The Legal Aspects." Second, and more problematic, this concept rests
on the questionable assumption found in early-twentieth-century anthropological
theory that "primitive" societies think in a certain way and that this
way of thinking grows more sophisticated as societies evolve. Specifically, Robinson
focused on the idea that so-called primitive societies are unable to distinguish
between the individual and the group, and he assigned this characteristic to ancient
Jews (Rogerson, "Hebrew Conception," 47). This evolutionary model is
no longer accepted by most anthropologists.
There are enough problems with the concept of the "corporate
personality" that it is not helpful as a tool for analyzing the Hebrew
scriptures or Paul. Nevertheless, there is something worth salvaging from
Robinson's observations: there are repeated references to understanding the
people of Israel as constituting some sort of unity. I suggest that a better
framework for understanding this language is that of patrilineal descent in
which a connection between ancestors and descendants is perceived. (Caroline Johnson
Hodge, If Sons, Then Heirs: A Study of Kinship and Ethnicity in the Letters
of Paul [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007], 193 n. 41)
