Born of a woman, under the law... Joshua...

[rgprice]

In Gal 3 Paul lays out a pesher about God's promise to Abraham. He talks about how his promise only applied to a single seed, a single child, and Abraham's. He ends with:

28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

Then he goes on in Gal 4 to say:

1 My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; 2 but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

After this he tells the story about Sarah and Hagar.

It's quite plain to me that here Paul is talking about the birth of Isaac. Isaac is the son born under the law, not Jesus. "When the fullness of time had come," is talking about how Sarah had to wait so long to have a child. She had to wait because she needed to show faith in God. The "we" Paul is talking about here are Jews. "We" were redeemed under the law, because "we" are children of Sarah. "You", however, are children of Hagar, so God is NOW sending the Spirit of his son into "our" hearts to redeem "you" by faith, thus you never need to become subject to the law, which is Paul's whole point in this thing. Paul is saying, now the Jews can include the Gentiles in the covenant without circumcision.

(Edited the title to say Joshua.)

[gryan]

It's quite plain to me that here Paul is talking about the birth of Isaac. Isaac is the son born under the law, not Jesus.

RE: "God sent his son" as Isaac--not Jesus!--what about the parallel claim in Romans 8:3?

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened (weak and poor stoichia?) by the flesh ("your flesh", Cf Rom. 6:19?), could not do. By sending his own Son (Jesus?) in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh...

[rgprice]

Paul never said anything about God only sending one son.

It's pretty clear that the son born under the law in this passage is Isaac. The whole of Galatians 4 is about Abraham, Sarah and Isaac. The whole of Galatians is about circumcision.

Galatians 4:
1 My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; 2 but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Genesis 24:
21 The Lord dealt with Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as he had promised. 2 Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the time of which God had spoken to him. 3 Abraham gave the name Isaac to his son whom Sarah bore him. 4 And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him.

"when the fullness of time had come" = "in his old age, at the time of which God had spoken to him"

"you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise." = "Lord did for Sarah as he had promised"

"born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law" = " Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him"

Later Paul states: "28 Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac."

[gryan]

"born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law" = " Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him"

What about the argument that Isaac was a child of "promise"--not born "under the law"!--in Paul's interpretation, since the law came "430 years after"? Commentators have thought about this question a lot, of course. See, for example, Ellicott's on Gal. 3:17,

"Four hundred and thirty years after.—The giving of the Law from Mount Sinai is thus placed four hundred and thirty years after the giving of the promise to Abraham. This would include the two periods of the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan and the sojourn in Egypt. According to another system of chronology, the sojourn in Egypt alone occupied four hundred and thirty—or, in round numbers, four hundred—years. Thus, in Genesis 15:13, Abraham is warned that his seed is to be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and to be afflicted “four hundred years.” In Exodus 12:40 it is expressly stated that “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” In Acts 7:6 the prophecy of Genesis 15:13 is quoted: the people were to be “entreated evil four hundred years.” It is noticeable, however, that in Exodus 12:40, which is the least ambiguous of the three passages, the L.XX. and Samaritan Pentateuch add, “and in the land of Canaan,” so as to make the four hundred and thirty years cover the whole of the two periods, in agreement with the present passage. It has been thought that an examination of the genealogy of Levi favours the same reckoning. It would seem, however, that there were two systems of chronology really current. Josephus adopts both in different parts of his writings (comp. Ant. ii. 15, § 2, with Ant. ii. 9, § 1; Wars, v. 9, § 4), and both are represented in other writers of the period, or not very much later. It is possible that the shorter reckoning may have arisen from difficulties observed in the longer, though it may be questioned whether it does not raise greater difficulties itself."

You may ask, isn't Abraham and Isaac's circumcision an indication of their being under the law? Paul deals with that problem in Romans:

Romans 4:11: "And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them."

So, in Paul's interpretation, the circumcision of Isaac was a sign of the faith (and promise) that preceded it, not of the law that came 430 years later.

[rgprice]

Yeah, you're right. Jesus getting Paul straight is complicated :p

But it still doesn't make sense.

3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Does this not still imply that "we" (the Jews) were redeemed at some point in the far past? He says, "in order to redeem those who were under the law". Isn't he saying that redemption occurred long ago? Is the "fullness of time" then the "four hundred thirty years later"? And if that is the case, then is this not talking about Joshua? But if so, then why so vague?

Is this not then to be read:

God made a promise to Abraham. That promise only applied to one of his children. That child was Isaac, who was born according to the promise. Then, 430 years later, Joshua was born under the law, to redeem the people of Israel. But now, God is sending Joshua's Spirit into the hearts of the Gentiles.

On the one hand this seems valid, on the other it seems like it would be more plainly spelled out elsewhere.

[rgprice]

But wait, maybe this is spelled out.

Romans 5:
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus (Joshua) Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus (Joshua) Christ.

18 Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus (Joshua) Christ our Lord.

Doesn't this say what it should say if the son born under the law is Joshua?

[rgprice]

To test this a little further, are there any stories about Joshua son of Nun going from rich to poor?

2 Cor 8:9 For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.

[gryan]

3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Does this not still imply that "we" (the Jews) were redeemed at some point in the far past?

The "we" of 4:3f refers broadly to "all who are justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of the law" without regard to "Jew or Greek... circumcision or uncircumcision. This "we" includes but is not limited to the "even we" of 2:16 (i.e. "Jews by birth--not Gentile sinners--living like Gentile sinners"vss. 14-15),

εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ,
καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου,
ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

"...yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law except through the faithfulness of Jesus (the blood brother of James) Christ (per interpolation/this is Peter's Gospel of the circumcision), so even we (Jews by birth) have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by the faith of Christ and not by works of the law, because all flesh will not by justified by works of the law (because not everyone from all nations is--or ever will become--works-of-the-law Jewish).

[rgprice]

What I'm proposing is that everywhere Paul was always talking about Joshua son of Nun. Any time Paul says Jesus Christ he's really saying the Messiah Joshua son of Nun. Paul never talks about a Jesus blood brother of James.

[gryan]

What I'm proposing is that everywhere Paul was always talking about Joshua son of Nun. Any time Paul says Jesus Christ he's really saying the Messiah Joshua son of Nun. Paul never talks about a Jesus blood brother of James.

One name, arguably two meanings in context. Per a Google search, here is standard explanation:

“Jesus” or “Joshua” in Acts 7:45 & Hebrews 4:8?
“ιησους (Iesous),” or “Jesus,” is the Greek form of “Joshua.” Critics claim that the KJV, by merely transliterating the name, misleads readers into thinking that these verses about Joshua the son of Nun are about Jesus Christ. However, one must wonder why English readers should be misled by something that did not mislead Greek readers, for the Greek does not differentiate the two. Rather, it would be more helpful for an English reader to learn that “Jesus” was a typical Hebrew name, and that the identity of any “Jesus” must be determined by context... Jesus the son of Nun of the Old Testament was a "type" of Jesus the son of God of the New Testament. Whereas the mortal Jesus led the Israelites to physical rest, the divine Jesus led man to spiritual rest. God may have purposely given the same name to both men in order that we see that one is the type of the other. This truth is apparent in the KJV.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/jesus-or-j ... hebrews-48

To my ear, your re-reading is deaf to NT use of typology.