Gender and bias

Still, many scholars argue that gender was not Paul’s main focus. The phrase “male and female” likely supports his broader claim about unity in Christ. In the first century, ideas of gender equality were virtually unknown. Ancient societies widely assumed male superiority. Greek philosophers such as Plato and Socrates thanked fortune for being born human rather than animal, man rather than woman, and Greek rather than barbarian. Similarly, Jewish men often thanked God in the morning, for not being Gentile, slave, or woman.

Recent research has revealed that many married women in the Greco-Roman world suffered from what we would now call domestic violence—to such an extent that most, if not all, bore physical scars on their bodies. The text in Ephesians 5:25–27, which depicts Christ presenting the Church “without blemish,” and compares this to the loving relationship between a husband and wife, can be read as an implicit condemnation of the harsh realities many women faced. In this light, the image of a bride “without blemish” contrasts sharply with the grim reality of numerous women physically marked by their husbands—a sobering reflection of that era. Because that was the norm, any concept of gender equality would be too far-fetched to be in anyone’s mind.

To understand Paul’s intellectual context, it is helpful to consider Philo of Alexandria, who was about twenty years older than Paul and likely influenced the kind of education Paul received. Philo came from an extraordinarily wealthy Jewish family; his brother Alexander was the city’s leader appointed by the Emperor and donated many precious metals used in the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Living in Alexandria—the city where the Hebrew Bible had first been translated into Greek (the Septuagint Bible)—Philo became a philosopher and theologian whose interpretations of Scripture profoundly shaped Greek-speaking Judaism. Each year, Jewish scholars and leaders gathered in Alexandria to celebrate the Septuagint’s translation. Being a member of the leading family in the city, it gave Philo a prominent platform among Jewish thinkers.

Modern scholars suggest that Paul may have encountered Philo’s ideas either while studying under Rabbi Gamaliel or later in Antioch. Philo died around the same time Paul wrote Galatians, and several linguistic details suggest that Paul may have known his writings. 

The phrase “male and female” appears 28 times in Philo’s works, in multiple instances quoting Genesis 1:27 from the Septuagint. Philo consistently uses the common Greek word for “male,” ἄρρεν (arren), yet there is one peculiar exception. In Who Is the Heir of Divine Things? (Her. 164), while citing Genesis, Philo uses an archaic Greek term for “male,” ἄρσην (arsēn), instead of the common contemporary form ἄρρεν (arren). This older word had largely fallen out of use by the first century and survived mainly in the Septuagint translation, made about two centuries earlier.

Paul makes the exact same peculiar linguistic choice in Galatians 3:28. Like Philo, he uses the obsolete form ἄρσην (arsēn) instead of ἄρρεν (arren) when writing “male and female.” For comparison, the Jewish historian Josephus—who lived in the same era—always used the newer form, even when quoting Genesis 1:27. The shared use of this rare, archaic term suggests that both Paul and Philo wanted to draw deliberate attention to the Genesis quotation. This makes it plausible that Paul knew Philo’s interpretation of Genesis 1:27 and may have been influenced by it when composing Galatians.

So what does Philo actually say about Genesis 1:27? In Her. 161–165, he offers his only detailed commentary on the verse. He focuses on the theme of equality, using the Greek words for “equality” (ἰσότης) and “inequality” (ἀνισότης) repeatedly. Philo first calls Moses a “praiser of equality” and then condemns injustice caused by gender inequality. He presents God as “one who loves justice” and argues that God created humanity according to a principle of equality—supporting this by quoting Genesis 1:27. Philo observes that in the Greek text, after “male and female,” the pronoun shifts to the plural “them” (αὐτούς) rather than the singular masculine “him” (αὐτόν). He interprets this grammatical change as deliberate, signalling that both genders share equally in God’s image. Philo’s reasoning—linking divine justice to gender equality—was radical in his cultural context and would have caught the attention of anyone concerned with equality and creation, including Paul.

If Paul knew Philo’s ideas, this connection sheds new light on Galatians 3:28. The phrase “there is no male and female” is not an afterthought but a climactic statement. In many Jewish wisdom sayings, the third element carries the main point. Paul’s version follows this pattern: the first two pairs (“Jew/Greek,” “slave/free”) lead up to the boldest claim—“no male and female.” Seen this way, Paul’s statement about gender equality was intentional, theologically grounded, and socially revolutionary.

I did not have time to engage a deeper exploration of another intriguing possibility: that Paul’s “there is no male and female” may also hint at the transcendence of gender itself. Some Greco-Roman philosophical and religious traditions envisioned an androgynous ideal, symbolizing harmony between masculine and feminine qualities. Certain early Christian groups also spoke of eschatological androgyny—a return to a pre-gendered state reflecting the unity of God’s coming kingdom. In some sects, adherents even wore garments of the opposite gender to express this belief.

If Paul was aware of such ideas, his statement could carry an even deeper meaning. Rather than merely proclaiming equality between men and women, he might have been envisioning a humanity transformed beyond gender distinctions—a unity that transcends its original pattern. Whether or not Paul intended this, his words in Galatians 3:28—likely influenced by Philo—remain a stunning affirmation of radical equality and a vision of a new creation in which human divisions are overcome in Christ.