Born of a woman, born under the law

[stevencarrwork]

In Galatians 4, Paul says Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law.

This is replaced in many minds with a claim that Jesus was Jewish.

Why?

When Paul immediately follows it up by claiming Jesus was born under the law so that the Gentile Christians he was writing to would no longer be slaves to the law.

[beowulf]

Galatians 4:4
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law"



Jesus is sent by God.

He is therefore very special, but he is not an angel or a spirit, but a man born of a woman like any other man

Jesus is a son of God, loved by God like a son and given the authority to do and change things

He is not an outsider, but one born under the same tradition and obligations as any other man: when he changes things he will do it with knowledge and out of love for Judaic and Gentiles alike.

Modern example:
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, Martin Luther, born of a woman, born under the law

[stephan happy huller]

Learn about Marcion the oldest exegetical tradition associated with the Apostle. There are many theories about the constitution of the original Pauline community. The Marcionites said they were Jewish proselytes. That makes sense.

With respect to whether or not the Marcionite text had Galatians 4:4, I don't think it did but the evidence isn't clear either way. Schmid dismisses the evidence from Jerome blaming a misunderstanding developed from Origen:

Mir scheint es nun in der Tat so zu sein, daß diese Notiz des Hieronymus nicht auf den marcionitischen Text zurückgeführt werden kann, denn zum einen wird Marcion zwar namentlich erwähnt, aber in einer Reihe mit noch anderen und zum anderen wissen wir, wer die anderen sind: die Valentinianer. Es ist gut möglich, daß hier eine Verwechslung des Hieronymus (vielleicht sogar des Origenes?) vorliegt. (Apostolos p. 242)

The same reading 'made of woman' appears in Irenaeus (AH 3.22.1). It was a Catholic reading, not a specifically Marcionite one. My assumption would be that the Marcionites did not have this addition.

[stephan happy huller]

The argument in Irenaeus is interesting now that I look at it because it seems to be part of an argument over the absence of a birth narrative in Mark. The heretics appealed to that - it would seem - in their claims that Jesus wasn't born:

and that we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ another, but should know them to be one and the same. Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this very point: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God with power through the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ." And again, writing to the Romans about Israel, he says: "Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever." And again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption; " plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son Of man, that through Him we may receive the adoption,--humanity sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God. Wherefore Mark also says: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets."

The simple don't connect the 'division of Jesus and Christ' in this part of book 3 with the explicit reference to 'those who prefer Mark' who divide Jesus and Christ six chapters earlier. Why they don't do this I don't know.

[Blood]

In Galatians 4, Paul says Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law.

This is replaced in many minds with a claim that Jesus was Jewish.

Why?

When Paul immediately follows it up by claiming Jesus was born under the law so that the Gentile Christians he was writing to would no longer be slaves to the law.

Because according to the sick theology of Paul, the Jews have to execute the Jewish Messiah "to redeem those under the law, [so] that we might receive adoption to sonship."

"We" meaning Gentiles. The Pauline writer, who is supposedly Jewish himself, dropped his mask for a moment there, as he sometimes does.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi All

Shades of Frege, the Morning star is the Evening Star.
Wittgenstein was right: Nothing is hidden.
By George, I've got it.
Hallejuyah and yippi kay-yay

The passage is only confusing because people think that the writer is referencing the gospel character Jesus Christ or some mystical God. When we read the text and forget the assumptions, the meaning becomes clear.

4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
The phrase "his son" does not refer to Jesus Christ. The word "son" refers to the children of Abraham living in Paul's time.

Follow the yellow brick road:

Galatians 3:16Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.
The offspring of Abraham is Christ.

Gal.3:25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Through faith and baptism, you have become Christ, il.e. the children of Abraham.

4:1I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave,a though he is the owner of everything, 2but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. 3In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principlesb of the world. 4But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

Christ is the offspring of Abraham. The offspring of Abraham is the offspring of God. God has sent forth his son (the offspring of Abraham who have only been heirs under the guardianship of the law until the fulness of time.) The Jews were heirs but under the law, they were no better than slaves. Now because you Galatians have faith in God, you have become adopted as children of God. You are no longer slaves, you too are the sons of God and an heir.

In other words, the jews were heirs, but heirs when they are children are no better than slaves. Now the time has come when God had sent forth the heirs (children like slaves while under the law). They are his sons. Those who adopt the Jewish faith (but not the law) are also sons of God.

The text "his son, son of a woman born under the law," is a reference to the Jewish offspring of Abraham living in Paul's time. It does not refer to a God or a specific man.

Does anybody know of a writer who put forth this hypothesis before me?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[bcedaifu]

Galatians 3:16Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.

thanks Jay, interesting post. Nope, I don't have a clue who else came up with your idea.

couple of points, small issues, largely insignificant:

offspring is plural (and singular!) There is no such word as offsprings.

David was the offspring of Abraham, and since it is claimed that Jesus is the offspring of David, then, by implication, Jesus must also be the offspring of Abraham.

Isn't there a passage somewhere, ah yes, Revelation 22:16
ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυίδ*,
Jesus argues that he is both the ancestor and the offspring of David--hence Abraham too!

Not much to do with children, slaves, or guardians, just elaboration of good old fashioned paternal ancestral lineage. "born under the law", may refer to Roman law, implying conformance with regulations about census, taxes, and so forth? Or, is this a tacit acknowledgement of the importance of Aristotle's research into genetics, laws of nature--emphasizing the importance of the idea that Jesus was not wholly imaginary, or supernatural, but also human, like Herakles.

[pakeha]

...Modern example:
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, Martin Luther, born of a woman, born under the law

[beowulf]

Contemporary example
But when the fullness of time had come, Brahma sent his Son, Mahatma Gandhi, born of a woman, born under the law


The Trimurti

[pakeha]