Galatians 4:4 --- What Happened in "The Fullness of Time"?

[robert j]

Ben, I'm responding to your post from the thread --- Paul’s Jesus – Creature of the Scriptures or Recent Figure? ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3769&p=99601#p99601

I suppose we're making some progress here. At least perhaps in terms of narrowing the focus on our points of disagreement. Just to review, I’ll attempt to summarize what seems to be our primary differences on this pivotal passage in Galatians (4:4) ---

Your interpretation ---

The “fullness of time” = Paul’s own time = a recent death of Jesus Christ

My interpretation (we agree on the first two equivalents) ---

The “fullness of time” = Paul’s own time = when Paul revealed the long-secret mystery of the salvific and redemptive death of Jesus Christ and the imminent Parousia, as he found in creative and generative readings of the Jewish Scriptures

I see your two primary arguments here as ---

That “God sent forth his Son”/”God having sent his Son” in Galatians 4:4 and in Romans 8:3 refer to the time of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

And, that God sending forth his Son in Galatians 4:4 and God sending forth the spirit of his Son in Galatians 4:6 refer to two different time periods --- with 4:4 referring to the time of the death of Jesus Christ, and 4:6 referring to Paul’s day when the Galatians accepted the faith and received adoption as sons of God.

I’ll address each in turn ---

The original sending of the son is described in Galatians 4.4-5, in Romans 8.3-4, and in Philippians 2.5-11 ... [and] happened in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4) or at the right time (Romans 5.6).

As for Romans 5:6, again, there is no reasonable level of confidence in the original text, and hence not in any subsequent translation and interpretation. However, in the preceding 27 verses, the author of Romans reviewed in some detail the story of Paul’s Christ strictly in terms of the Scriptures and the requirement for faith in those scriptural ‘events’. Such context does not favor the death of a recent historical figure as the focus of the passage.

I think Philippians 2:5-11 is only marginally relevant here. I agree the passage represents what you refer to as the “original sending”, but the passage does not indicate any specific time frame for the death.

I think that Romans 8:3 is, in part, a paraphrase of Galatians 4:4. Romans, in general and in several portions, presents versions of similar arguments in Galatians, sometimes with a shift in focus. No time period is specified in Romans 8:3-4, but the sending in Galatians 4:4 was said to have occurred “at the fullness of time”.

And I contend that "the fullness of time" in Galatians 4:4 was in Paul’s own time when --- through predestination, revelation, and assignment from God --- Paul brought forth the Son to the Gentiles.

I think another passage from Paul provides the appropriate context here ---

Now all things are of God, the One having reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and having placed in us the word of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God is making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. And working together, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain. For He says: "In the acceptable time I listened to you, and in the day of salvation I helped you." [Isaiah 49:8] Behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, now is the day of salvation. Placing no obstacle in anyone's way so that our ministry should not be blemished, in everything, rather, we are commending ourselves as God's servants … (2 Corinthians 5:18 – 6:4).

I think this wider citation from Isaiah 49, as apparently understood and used by Paul, helps to put his words from Galatians and 2 Corinthians in the appropriate perspective ---

… the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his own servant … behold, I have given you for the covenant of a race, for a light of the Gentiles ... Thus says the Lord, In the acceptable time I listened to you, and in the day of salvation I helped you, and I shaped you, and I gave you for a covenant of nations … (Isaiah 49:5-8)

In the passage above from 2 Corinthians and the explicit use of Isaiah 49, Paul’s intention is clear --- he was chosen by God from the womb to be "his own servant" and to be "a light of the Gentiles". And that "now is the acceptable time" (νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος), the favorable time, the right time when God placed in Paul "the word of reconciliation" since "now is the day of salvation". Paul, with his evangelizing, is the means by which God sent forth his Son, "God is making an appeal through us".

Just like in Galatians 4:4, “when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son”. Paul is the conduit, “Thus says the Lord, In the acceptable time I listened to you, and in the day of salvation I helped you, and I shaped you, and I gave you for a covenant of nations" (Isaiah 49:8)

The relationships between these passages in Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Isaiah 49 are illustrated in the following table ---

Galatians	2 Corinthians and Isaiah 49
… the One having selected me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace … (1:15)	… the Lord that formed me from the womb to be his own servant … (Isaiah 49:5)
… was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might proclaim Him among the Gentiles ... (1:15-16)	... behold, I have given you for the covenant of a race, for a light of the Gentiles (Isaiah 49:6) … that God … placed in us the word of reconciliation … (2 Corinthians 5:19)
… when the fullness of the time had come … (4:4)	… behold, now is the acceptable time, behold, now is the day of salvation … (2 Corinthians 6:2, from Isaiah 49:8)
… God sent forth His Son … (4:4)	… that God … placed in us the word of reconciliation … Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God is making an appeal through us … (2 Corinthians 5:18-20) ... I shaped you, and I gave you for a covenant of nations … (Isaiah 49:8)

And also, the phrase “the fullness of time” served another purpose for Paul in chapter 4 of Galatians. The phrase completed an analogy. The sequential verses represent, first, a human example of inheritance in legal terms that is followed directly by an analogous example of spiritual inheritance.

The “fullness of the time” when God sent forth his Son is used as an analogous phrase to the human example, “the time appointed by his father”. The focus of the passage through verse 7 is to reassure the Galatians that, in fulfillment of their apparent desires, their faith does indeed make them sons of God ---

Now I say, for as long a time as the heir is a child, he differs not from a slave, though being owner of everything. Instead, he is under guardians and trustees until the time appointed by his father. So also, we while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God. (Galatians 4:1-7)

Galatians 4.4-7: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.

Notice that there are two different sendings in this passage, and they cannot be the same sending. The first sending happened in order to redeem those under the Law, so that there might be an adoption; this first sending, then, must necessarily predate the adoption. The second sending, however, comes as a result of the adoption ("because you are sons"), and so must necessarily postdate it. Notice also how the first sending is fleshly ("his son, born of a woman"), whereas the second sending is spiritual ("the spirit of his son"). These are manifestly two different things happening at two different times: first the fleshly sending of the son into the human world, and then the spiritual sending of the spirit of the son into our hearts.

The original sending of the son is described in Galatians 4.4-5 ... we are told that the first set happened in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4) ... The second set is happening "right now," contemporaneously with Paul in his dealings with his churches in the epistles.

Your interpretation here assumes your opinion that “The original sending of the son is described in Galatians 4.4-5”. As I have discussed above, I don’t think Galatians 4:4 refers to an "original sending" (the time of the salvific death).

The sending in Galatians 4:4 and in 4:6 can both be seen as having occurred in the same period of time. Or more specifically, both within a sequence of events in Paul’s own times.

The redemptive death alone, whenever that might have been seen to have occurred, did not redeem anyone. It was only knowledge and faith in that death that brought redemption from the law and adoption as sons. And, according to Paul’s letters, it was Paul and Paul alone that brought the knowledge and faith to the Gentiles --- Paul that brought forth the Son to the Gentiles.

---

---

In the letter Galatians, and in his other letters, at least four foundational and significant sequential events in Paul's system are revealed ---

---

---

First, the death in times of the ages ---

Jesus Christ had died a previously hidden salvific and redemptive death at some non-explicit time within the current “age/aeon” (1 Corinthians 2:6-8, and in a summary of Pauline thought in Romans 16:25-26). Paul found these events in the Scriptures --- for example Galatians 3:13 from Deuteronomy, and Galatians 1:4 and Romans 4:25 from Isaiah 53).

Then the bringing forth the Son in Paul’s own times ---

Paul was predestined at birth to bring the knowledge of the Son to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16, from Jeremiah 1 and Isaiah 49)

Then later, Paul experienced a revelation of the Son from God, and was appointed by God to proclaim the Son to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16, from Jeremiah 1, Isaiah 49, and Numbers 12).

Then, lastly, by his evangelizing, Paul brought forth to the Gentiles the long-secret mystery of the redemptive and salvific death of Jesus Christ using his creative and generative readings of the Scriptures. And Paul brought the opportunity to accept faith in that salvific death. Paul’s proclamation was extremely timely because Paul also proclaimed an imminent Parousia, and a coming wrath of God upon those left behind (much derived from Joel 2)

For such a critical and pivotal issue in relation to the origins of the Christian faith --- and for such a foundational event for Paul --- I just can’t see anything that approaches clear or adequate evidence in Paul’s letters for a recent death.

In his letters, when Paul did characterize the death of Jesus Christ, it was primarily in scriptural terms. The framework of Paul’s Christology can be shown to be derived from novel, creative, and generative readings of the Jewish Scriptures. There is no need for a recent human figure.

My conclusion is still this ---

No recent Jesus Christ figure that recently died is clearly to be found in Paul’s letters --- at best, there are a handful of verses in which the shadow of such a figure might be glimpsed if one presupposes the existence of such a figure.

robert j

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, I'm responding to your post from the thread --- Paul’s Jesus – Creature of the Scriptures or Recent Figure? ---
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3769&p=99601#p99601

Thanks for this.

First, the death in times of the ages ---

Jesus Christ had died a previously hidden salvific and redemptive death at some non-explicit time within the current “age/aeon” (1 Corinthians 2:6-8, and in a summary of Pauline thought in Romans 16:25-26). Paul found these events in the Scriptures --- for example Galatians 3:13 from Deuteronomy, and Galatians 1:4 and Romans 4:25 from Isaiah 53).

Then the bringing forth the Son in Paul’s own times ---

Paul was predestined at birth to bring the knowledge of the Son to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16, from Jeremiah 1 and Isaiah 49)

Then later, Paul experienced a revelation of the Son from God, and was appointed by God to proclaim the Son to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16, from Jeremiah 1, Isaiah 49, and Numbers 12).

Then, lastly, by his evangelizing, Paul brought forth to the Gentiles the long-secret mystery of the redemptive and salvific death of Jesus Christ using his creative and generative readings of the Scriptures. And Paul brought the opportunity to accept faith in that salvific death. Paul’s proclamation was extremely timely because Paul also proclaimed an imminent Parousia, and a coming wrath of God upon those left behind (much derived from Joel 2)

You track a lot of verses in these four illuminating steps, but unfortunately not the two which I am most interested in tracking in this present context. In which steps would you place the (respective?) sending(s) of the son in Galatians 4.4 and Romans 8.3?

[robert j]

First, the death in times of the ages ---

Jesus Christ had died a previously hidden salvific and redemptive death at some non-explicit time within the current “age/aeon” (1 Corinthians 2:6-8, and in a summary of Pauline thought in Romans 16:25-26). Paul found these events in the Scriptures --- for example Galatians 3:13 from Deuteronomy, and Galatians 1:4 and Romans 4:25 from Isaiah 53).

Then the bringing forth the Son in Paul’s own times ---

Paul was predestined at birth to bring the knowledge of the Son to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16, from Jeremiah 1 and Isaiah 49)

Then later, Paul experienced a revelation of the Son from God, and was appointed by God to proclaim the Son to the Gentiles (Galatians 1:15-16, from Jeremiah 1, Isaiah 49, and Numbers 12).

Then, lastly, by his evangelizing, Paul brought forth to the Gentiles the long-secret mystery of the redemptive and salvific death of Jesus Christ using his creative and generative readings of the Scriptures. And Paul brought the opportunity to accept faith in that salvific death. Paul’s proclamation was extremely timely because Paul also proclaimed an imminent Parousia, and a coming wrath of God upon those left behind (much derived from Joel 2)

You track a lot of verses in these four illuminating steps, but unfortunately not the two which I am most interested in tracking in this present context. In which steps would you place the (respective?) sending(s) of the son in Galatians 4.4 and Romans 8.3?

I could have added more verses and detail in those summary steps. The process of God sending his son in both Galatians 4.4 and Romans 8.3 took place in the last 3 steps introduced here by "The bringing forth the Son in Paul’s own times ---". God sent his Son through the agency of Paul by means of predestination, revelation, and assignment.

The details are found in the previous portions of the OP. For example ---

In the passage above from 2 Corinthians and the explicit use of Isaiah 49, Paul’s intention is clear --- he was chosen by God from the womb to be "his own servant" and to be "a light of the Gentiles". And that "now is the acceptable time" (νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος), the favorable time, the right time when God placed in Paul "the word of reconciliation" since "now is the day of salvation". Paul, with his evangelizing, is the means by which God sent forth his Son, "God is making an appeal through us".

Just like in Galatians 4:4, “when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son”. Paul is the conduit, “Thus says the Lord, In the acceptable time I listened to you, and in the day of salvation I helped you, and I shaped you, and I gave you for a covenant of nations" (Isaiah 49:8)

The relationships between these passages in Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Isaiah 49 are illustrated in the ... table ---

[GakuseiDon]

Your interpretation ---

The “fullness of time” = Paul’s own time = a recent death of Jesus Christ

My interpretation (we agree on the first two equivalents) ---

The “fullness of time” = Paul’s own time = when Paul revealed the long-secret mystery of the salvific and redemptive death of Jesus Christ and the imminent Parousia, as he found in creative and generative readings of the Jewish Scriptures

I apologise for butting in here with what might well be a bit of a tangent, though I hope not. Your comment here touches on something that I've wondered about for a while.

I think everyone agrees that the "fullness of time" is Paul's own time, whether it is the recent death of Jesus Christ or the recent revelation of the long-secret mystery of the redemptive death of Jesus Christ at sometime in the long past.

My question is: Why did't Paul be less oblique about the timing? It's not just here, but throughout all his letters? And it's not just on Jesus Christ, but about everything that happens. Few concrete historical pointers exist, not only in Paul's letters, but in the other early letters as well, and even in the Gospels.

On Paul using "fullness of time" instead of (say) "14 years ago": it might be that "fullness of time" has some scriptural significance that makes Paul prefer to use it. But if that is the case, then it might set the expectation on how Paul (and other writers) use 'scriptural language' in describing other things. For example, instead of "Jesus Christ was crucified recently", we have "God sent his Son in the fullness of time".

In his letters, when Paul did characterize the death of Jesus Christ, it was primarily in scriptural terms. The framework of Paul’s Christology can be shown to be derived from novel, creative, and generative readings of the Jewish Scriptures. There is no need for a recent human figure.

robert j, in your opinion how should Paul have characterized the death of Jesus Christ, if he was referring to the death of a recent human figure? Wouldn't you expect him to characterize the death in primarily scriptural terms?

[Ben C. Smith]

I could have added more verses and detail in those summary steps. The process of God sending his son in both Galatians 4.4 and Romans 8.3 took place in the last 3 steps introduced here by "The bringing forth the Son in Paul’s own times ---". God sent his Son through the agency of Paul by means of predestination, revelation, and assignment.

Okay, thanks. Here are the verses again:

Romans 8.3-4: 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Galatians 4.4-5: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

So, to be clear, in your view, God "sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh" happened in Paul's own times, spread out somehow over those three last steps?

In the passage above from 2 Corinthians and the explicit use of Isaiah 49, Paul’s intention is clear --- he was chosen by God from the womb to be "his own servant" and to be "a light of the Gentiles". And that "now is the acceptable time" (νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος), the favorable time, the right time when God placed in Paul "the word of reconciliation" since "now is the day of salvation". Paul, with his evangelizing, is the means by which God sent forth his Son, "God is making an appeal through us".

So, when God sent his son "in the likeness of sinful flesh," the (quasi-)flesh in question is... Paul's? Or what?

[MrMacSon]

The respective passages could, alternatively, be emphasised thus, -

Romans 8.3-4: 3 For what the Law could not do (weak as it was through the flesh) God did -- sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin [thus] condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Galatians 4.4-5: 4 But when the fullness of the time came [ie. deemed to be now], God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Question: does 'under the law' mean to circumvent "what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh" ??

.

[robert j]

I could have added more verses and detail in those summary steps. The process of God sending his son in both Galatians 4.4 and Romans 8.3 took place in the last 3 steps introduced here by "The bringing forth the Son in Paul’s own times ---". God sent his Son through the agency of Paul by means of predestination, revelation, and assignment.

Okay, thanks. Here are the verses again:

Romans 8.3-4: 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Galatians 4.4-5: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

So, to be clear, in your view, God "sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh" happened in Paul's own times, spread out somehow over those three last steps?

In the passage above from 2 Corinthians and the explicit use of Isaiah 49, Paul’s intention is clear --- he was chosen by God from the womb to be "his own servant" and to be "a light of the Gentiles". And that "now is the acceptable time" (νῦν καιρὸς εὐπρόσδεκτος), the favorable time, the right time when God placed in Paul "the word of reconciliation" since "now is the day of salvation". Paul, with his evangelizing, is the means by which God sent forth his Son, "God is making an appeal through us".

So, when God sent his son "in the likeness of sinful flesh," the (quasi-)flesh in question is... Paul's? Or what?

No, not Paul’s flesh. I wrote in the OP ---

I think that Romans 8:3 is, in part, a paraphrase of Galatians 4:4. Romans, in general and in several portions, presents versions of similar arguments in Galatians, sometimes with a shift in focus.

Here’s the paraphrasing ---

… God sent forth His Son, having been born of woman, having been born under the Law … (Galatians 4:4)

… God, having sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh … (Romans 8:3)

This is another foundational concept for Paul here. His Jesus Christ, as a spiritual being, needed to come in the likeness of men, in the likeness of flesh, so his sacrificial death could reasonably be seen as effectively saving men and redeeming men. There are at least 3 good examples ---

… but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men. And having been found in appearance as a man He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death … (Philippians 2:7-8)

God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law … (Galatians 4:4)

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh … (Romans 8:3)

The need for the spiritual savior to assume a flesh-like aspect is a basic assumption in Paul’s system --- a boiler-plate concept.


As MrMacSon already pointed out, it’s useful to outline the wider focus of each passage. In context, what were the authors getting at? Is there a distinct shift in focus in Romans?

Galatians 4:1-7--- Now I say, for as long a time as the heir is a child, he differs not from a slave, though being owner of everything. Instead, he is under guardians and trustees until the time appointed by his father. So also, we while we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental things of the world. But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God.

The Galatians wanted nothing more than to be full participants with God’s chosen people of Israel --- to be sons of God. Of course, the heavenly spiritual being had to have human characteristics --- “having been born of woman, having been born under the Law” in order for his sacrifice to have the desired effect on men, “so that He might redeem those who were under the Law”. That’s boiler-plate stuff for Paul. But a primary focus here is introduced in the opening sentence and found again in the concluding sentence, “So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God.” Paul wanted to re-assure the Galatians that their faith did indeed make them sons of God.

Romans 8:3-8 --- For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

Like in Galatians 4:4-5, the spiritual Son had to have come in the likeness of sinful flesh so that he had the ‘standing’ to have effectively “condemned sin in the flesh” for those who might believe. Again, boiler-plate. But the point of the passage differs from that of Galatians 4:4-7. This passage in Romans is focused on the argument that the weak flesh of men is not able to be saved by the Law --- acceptance of the Spirit is required.

In both passages, God sends forth his Son. But the salvific and redemptive death did not make the Galatians sons of God, nor impress the Spirit upon the readers of Romans. It was the knowledge and faith in the redemptive death that brought the desired effects. And it was Paul that brought forth that knowledge and the opportunity for faith.

As the earliest extant writings about a Jesus Christ, Paul’s world-view is what we have. And, as outlined in detail in the OP, Paul claimed that God had chosen him --- through predestination, revelation, and appointment --- to bring the word to the Gentiles --- to send forth the Son among the Gentles on God’s behalf.

There is a human figure here, more specifically a salvific figure in human-likeness. But a recent person in Paul’s time? I don’t see him. He’s not clearly found in these passages.

[Ben C. Smith]

Here’s the paraphrasing ---

… God sent forth His Son, having been born of woman, having been born under the Law … (Galatians 4:4)

… God, having sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh … (Romans 8:3)

This is another foundational concept for Paul here. His Jesus Christ, as a spiritual being, needed to come in the likeness of men, in the likeness of flesh, so his sacrificial death could reasonably be seen as effectively saving men and redeeming men. There are at least 3 good examples ---

… but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men. And having been found in appearance as a man He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death … (Philippians 2:7-8)

God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law … (Galatians 4:4)

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh … (Romans 8:3)

Okay, good. These are exactly the three passages I am wanting to compare.

The Galatians wanted nothing more than to be full participants with God’s chosen people of Israel --- to be sons of God. Of course, the heavenly spiritual being had to have human characteristics --- “having been born of woman, having been born under the Law” in order for his sacrifice to have the desired effect on men, “so that He might redeem those who were under the Law”. That’s boiler-plate stuff for Paul. But a primary focus here is introduced in the opening sentence and found again in the concluding sentence, “So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God.” Paul wanted to re-assure the Galatians that their faith did indeed make them sons of God.

Right, but this sonship is contingent on the sending of the spirit of God's son in Galatians 4.6-7. That is necessarily (virtually mathematically in the passage itself) not the same sending as in 4.4-5, as I pointed out earlier. I am looking only at the sending of 4.4-5, and you have already stated that Romans 8.3-4 is parallel to and paraphrasing Galatians 4.4-5; and now you are making certain that the Jesus hymn from Philippians 2 is in the mix, as well, a move which I agree with completely (taking the Pauline epistles as they stand for the purposes of this thread):

Galatians 4.4-5: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Romans 8.3-4: 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Philippians 2.5-8: 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

I take (naturally) the sending of Galatians 4.4-5 and the sending of Romans 8.3-4 to be the same sending. I do this because, as you point out, the one is a paraphrase of the other; also, the concepts are obviously parallel, and the language is similar. I would go so far as to suggest that the correspondence of these two sendings (the one in Romans 8.3-4 and the other in Galatians 4.4-5) is obvious to the point of triviality.

If they are the same sending (and they are), then we know two things about this sending: (A) it involved Jesus being in the likeness of men and (B) it was done in the fullness of time. This means that Jesus was made in the likeness of men in the fullness of time. And why was he made in the likeness of men? As an offering (Romans), as a means of redemption (Galatians), in obedience to the point of death (Philippians). This means that Jesus' being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and dying happened in the fullness of time. This result is unsurprising.

I have read and reread your various treatments of all the passages you adduce, and I find nothing that impinges upon this result. I could agree with what you are saying, or I could disagree with what you are saying, and it would not matter in this respect. For example:

In both passages, God sends forth his Son. But the salvific and redemptive death did not make the Galatians sons of God, nor impress the Spirit upon the readers of Romans. It was the knowledge and faith in the redemptive death that brought the desired effects. And it was Paul that brought forth that knowledge and the opportunity for faith.

I can agree with all of this, at least for the sake of argument; but so what? Because neither Greek grammar nor English grammar is able to distinguish, on its own or by itself, immediate effects from ultimate effects (or immediate causes from ultimate causes), none of this has any bearing on when or at what causal distance the redemptive death took place.

You would have to deliberately distinguish somehow between the sending in Galatians 4.4-5 and the sending in Romans 8.3-4 in order to separate the fullness of time from the being in the likeness of flesh, but how would you do so without resorting to textual assassination?

[Bertie]

My question is: Why did't Paul be less oblique about the timing? It's not just here, but throughout all his letters? And it's not just on Jesus Christ, but about everything that happens. Few concrete historical pointers exist, not only in Paul's letters, but in the other early letters as well, and even in the Gospels.

On Paul using "fullness of time" instead of (say) "14 years ago": it might be that "fullness of time" has some scriptural significance that makes Paul prefer to use it. But if that is the case, then it might set the expectation on how Paul (and other writers) use 'scriptural language' in describing other things. For example, instead of "Jesus Christ was crucified recently", we have "God sent his Son in the fullness of time".

Paul and his churches believe they were living in the end times, that the end times had started in the recent past, having something to do with Jesus, and that the end times weren't going to last very much longer before the end of the end. A phrase like "fullness of time" doesn't seem unusual in that context, I think.

Regarding historical (chronological) pointers, there's a few of them, and I'm probably missing quite a few more:

At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me (2 Corinthians 11:32)
I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. (Galatians 1:17-18)
Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. (Galatians 2:1)
There's also quite a bit of relative time when in the letters (what cities and people he saw in the past or was planning to see).

As for the Gospels, this one's about as specific as you're going to get in ancient writings:
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. (Luke 3:1-2)

And also:
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem (Matthew 2:1)
In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah (Luke 1:5)

[MrMacSon]

Philippians 2.5-8: 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

To align with the Galatians 4 and Romans 8 passages, I'd emphasise Philippians 2:5-8 differently, thus -

Philippians 2.5-8: 5 Have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

and (italics only added), -

Galatians 4.4-5: 4 But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, 5 so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

I take (naturally) the sending of Galatians 4.4-5 and the sending of Romans 8.3-4 to be the same sending. I do this because, as you point out, the one is a paraphrase of the other; also, the concepts are obviously parallel, and the language is similar. I would go so far as to suggest that the correspondence of these two sendings (the one in Romans 8.3-4 and the other in Galatians 4.4-5) is obvious to the point of triviality.

If they are the same sending (and they are), then we know two things about this sending: (A) it involved Jesus being in the likeness of men and (B) it was done in the fullness of time. This means that Jesus was made in the likeness of men in the fullness of time. And why was he made in the likeness of men? As an offering (Romans), as a means of redemption (Galatians), in obedience to the point of death (Philippians). This means that Jesus' being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and dying happened in the fullness of time. This result is unsurprising.

I have read and reread your various treatments of all the passages you adduce, and I find nothing that impinges upon this result. I could agree with what you are saying, or I could disagree with what you are saying, and it would not matter in this respect. For example:

In both passages, God sends forth his Son. But the salvific and redemptive death did not make the Galatians sons of God, nor impress the Spirit upon the readers of Romans. It was the knowledge and faith in the redemptive death that brought the desired effects. And it was Paul that brought forth that knowledge and the opportunity for faith.

I can agree with all of this, at least for the sake of argument; but so what? Because neither Greek grammar nor English grammar is able to distinguish, on its own or by itself, immediate effects from ultimate effects (or immediate causes from ultimate causes), none of this has any bearing on when or at what causal distance the redemptive death took place.

You would have to deliberately distinguish somehow between the sending in Galatians 4.4-5 and the sending in Romans 8.3-4 in order to separate the fullness of time from the being in the likeness of flesh, but how would you do so without resorting to textual assassination?

I wonder if these variably similar passages in these different epistles reflect what we see in the synoptic gospels, namely different rendering by different editors, redactors, or - dare I say it - different authors (or editor-authors).

I agree with robert j says in the following commentary, not to contradict or dismiss Ben's commentary or views, but just per se (though I'm not sure about the last two sentences about relative timing: a recent Jesus Christ may not be found in these passages, but his influence is proposed - see pertinent short passages at the end)

This is another foundational concept for Paul ... His Jesus Christ, as a spiritual being, needed to come in the likeness of men, in the likeness of flesh, so his sacrificial death could reasonably be seen as effectively saving men and redeeming men. There are at least 3 good examples ---

… but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a servant, having been made in the likeness of men. And having been found in appearance as a man He humbled Himself, having become obedient unto death … (Philippians 2:7-8)

God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law … (Galatians 4:4)

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh … (Romans 8:3)

The need for the spiritual savior to assume a flesh-like aspect is a basic [proposition/premise] in Paul’s system --- a boiler-plate concept.

... it’s useful to outline the wider focus of each passage. In context, what were the authors getting at? Is there a distinct shift in focus in Romans?

< . . snip . . >

Like in Galatians 4:4-5, the spiritual Son [in Romans 8:3-8] had to have come in the likeness of sinful flesh so that he had the ‘standing’ to have effectively “condemned sin in the flesh” for those who might believe. Again, boiler-plate. But the point of the passage differs from that of Galatians 4:4-7. This passage in Romans is focused on the argument that the weak flesh of men is not able to be saved by the Law --- acceptance of the Spirit is required.

In both passages, God sends forth his Son. But the salvific and redemptive death did not make the Galatians sons of God, nor impress the Spirit upon the readers of Romans. It was the knowledge and faith in the redemptive death that brought the desired effects. And it was Paul that brought forth that knowledge and the opportunity for faith.

As the earliest extant writings about a Jesus Christ, Paul’s world-view is what we have. And, as outlined in detail in the OP, Paul claimed that God had chosen him --- through predestination, revelation, and appointment --- to bring the word to the Gentiles --- to send forth the Son among the Gentles on God’s behalf.

There is a human figure here, more specifically a salvific figure in human-likeness. But a recent person in Paul’s time?* I don’t see him. He’s not clearly found in these passages.*

* As I said above, a recent Jesus Christ may not be found in these passages, but his influence is proposed by Paul for the present and of course the future, -

Romans 8
... the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace ...

Galatians 4
He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, also an heir through God.

Philippians 2.5
Have this attitude in yourselves [now and into the future] which was also in Christ Jesus