Galatians 4 – Made of a Woman

Introduction

What is Paul’s most basic statement about Christ? The difficulty in choosing such a foundation lies in how to balance the difficult pronouncements of passages such as Phil 2:5-11 and Col 1:15-20 with the more straightforward statements to give a rounded presentation. It is possible to over-emphasize the divine against the human and to completely misconstrue the divine to the extent that Paul is made into someone from a later Christian century rather than a first-century Jew. Galatians 4:4 doesn’t appear to be a difficult text but it has often been used to teach about an incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ. It is not a very strong text to use for teaching such a doctrine, and the fact that it is so used reflects later Christian thinking rather than any first century (Jewish) context of ideas. Nevertheless, it is a good candidate for Paul’s most basic statement about Christ – namely, that he is the son of God.

Son of God – the Background^[1]

Paul obviously thinks that Jesus was the son of God, but we might well ask from our vantage point whether God could have a son in any literal sense? Israel were his son (Exodus 4; Jeremiah 31; Hosea 11), as were the kings of Judah (2 Samuel 7; Psalm 2, Isaiah 9), and perhaps an individual angel could be a son of the gods (Dan 3:25, RSV), but all these uses are metaphor. If there was only one God, could such a God actually have a son? There were no female deities in a Jewish pantheon for there to be the birth of a son from them who could then be sent to the earth. On the other hand, the Greek legendary heroes such as Dionysius were born of Zeus and a human mother.[2] So, it is not entirely out of the ball-park for Paul to state that, “God sent his son, made of a woman, made under the Law” (Gal 4:4), or that God’s son was “made of the seed of David, according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3; cf. Acts 13:22-23) and “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). In a monotheistic framework, and with no female deities, and against a Hellenistic cultural background, this was the only way that God could have a son.

However, incarnation is precluded here because the available Hellenistic cultural models do not offer it and because the scriptural idiom of God ‘sending forth’ would not imply for a Jew any pre-existence for a man. Such an idiom describes how God relates to the world: he sends prophets and leaders (e.g. Exod 3:12; Judg 6:8; John 1:33); he sends his spirit (e.g. Judg 9:23; Zech 7:12); and he sends angels (e.g. Gen 24:40; Ps 151:4). In addition, pre-existence is actually excluded by Gal 4:4 because God’s son is ‘made’ or ‘came to be’ (gi,nomai) of a woman. This might have been a radical idea for the Jews of Paul’s day, but it is anticipated in the Jewish Scriptures.

There is an historical argument here about what is a plausible development in Paul’s thought-world for his readers. The combination of the ideas of a personal incarnation, a pre-earthly existence, and being a son (let alone being of the Godhead) would be exceptionally new as well as radical within Judaism regardless of what flavour we chose to highlight as a background. So, for example, if we were to consider texts about Wisdom existing with God in the beginning and being sent forth (e.g. Prov 8:22; Wisd 9:10), we don’t have the ingredients of sonship (Wisdom is female) or a personal[3] incarnation in such traditions.

This point also applies to the logos of God, a common idea in Greek philosophy and Jewish literature of the inter-testamental period, of which the Jewish philosopher, Philo (c. 20 – 50 CE) is the main exponent.[4] For Philo, the logos is God’s son (Conf. 146; Som. 1.215), but so too is the cosmos (Immut. 31f; Sec. 1.96). It is a matter of scholarly dispute as to whether Philo actually thought of the logos as a heavenly being, or whether he uses the language of such an intermedi­ary in heaven as a way of talking about God.[5] The difficulty in making a comparison between Paul and Philo lies in the fact that there isn’t much material about the logos of God in Paul; we don’t have much to develop as a parallel to Philo. Moreover, Philo doesn’t develop an idea of a personal incarnation of the logos.

Jewish thinking about the attributes of God (such as Wisdom and the logos) is one background brought to bear on Paul’s statements about Christ. There are disagreements amongst scholars on how to understand the language of personification and hypostatization, but in any event the combination of ideas of a personal incarnation, a pre-earthly existence, and being a son is absent. As well as the attributes of God, God sends forth his angelic agents, but, again, none are picked out individually as a son of God and there is no idea of a personal incarnation; the angels, as a group, are called ‘sons of the God of heaven’ (1 Enoch 13.8); they are the heavenly assembly (Psalms 29, 89); but they remain angels performing their work on behalf of God with mortals.

If we turn our attention from heaven to earth, it is well known that the people of Israel are God’s son (Hos 11:1), but a better background for Paul’s thought is God’s dealings with recognizable individuals. Prophets and leaders of the past are sent forth by God (e.g. Moses, Exod 3:14; Gideon, Judg 6:14), but they are not distinguished as a son of God. The kings of Judah are addressed as ‘son’ by God, and this is the basis for referring to the future Davidic king as God’s son (2 Samuel 7; Psalm 2) or even ‘god’ (Isaiah 9). Worthy individuals of old such as Elijah and Enoch were thought of as in heaven and given an eschatological role – but the point is that they have this role as Elijah or Enoch. Scholarly comparisons can be made between Jesus and Enoch in their eschatological role, but these are not found in Paul and, crucially, they pertain to Jesus’ exaltation rather than his origin.[6]

The ‘son of God’ at Qumran is probably the messiah. 1QSa 2.11 expects a time “when God engenders the Messiah”[7] but this understanding of ‘begettal’ is no more than that expressed about the messiah in a text like 2 Samuel 7, to which it alludes (cf. 4Q174 1.10f). Another text, 4Q246 2.1f, “The Son of God, he will be proclaimed and the son of the Most High they will call him”, is contested by scholars over whether it is best taken as a prediction about a king falsely so-proclaimed or to the messiah.[8] The similarity of expression to Luke is noteworthy, but Luke uses ‘son of the Most High’ within a birth story and not just as a comment alluding to Daniel 7. Whatever the interpretation of these DSS texts, there isn’t a parallel here to Paul’s stress on the making of the son of God.

In Jewish writings of the period individuals who follow a wise and just course of life are commended as God’s son (Ecclus 4:10; Wisd 2:17-18; Jub. 1:24-25; Ps. Sol. 17:26-27; Philo Spec. 1.318, Sobr. 56). Also, historical figures of note might be thought of as sons of God, such as the Maccabean martyrs (2 Macc 7:34) or figures such as Moses and Joseph (Jos. Asen. 6:2-6; Josephus Ant. 3.96f; 4.326). These kinds of usage are in line with metaphorical scriptural usage. The most relevant parallel to Jesus is that of Galilean charismatic individuals who might be addressed as a ‘son’ of God. Rabbi Ḥanina b. Dosa, a devout miracle worker of the 1c. CE was addressed in a heavenly voice as ‘my son’ (b.Ta’an 24b; b.Ber 17b; b.Ḥul. 86a).[9] Honi the Circle-Drawer (again 1c. CE) claimed to be a ‘son’ of God’s house (m.Taanit 3.8).[10] Obviously, Paul’s claim for Jesus goes much further than the divinity attached to miracle-working.

Of less relevance is the fact that emperors and kings also appropriated the title ‘son of God’, or something similar, like ‘divine man’ or just ‘god’. The Ptolemys were known as the sons of the sun-god, Helios; Augustus was the son of a god insofar as he was the son of the deified Julius Caesar.[11]  Whether this kind of political conceit is on the radar for Paul is doubtful simply because he makes no comparisons between Jesus and kings and emperors. There would be little point since Jesus was only an itinerant preacher that came to the notice of the political class because of the ‘trouble’ he caused among the Jews.

The idea of a ‘son of God’ is common enough in Hellenistic and Jewish culture; the questions, however, are whether this concept is the same as that used by Paul and whether it should be invoked as an explanatory background for Paul’s christology. Paul’s language ‘made of a woman’ and ‘made of the seed of David’ shows reasonable knowledge of the gospel traditions concerning Jesus’ birth and genealogy. Hence, in contrast to the cultural ideas of the time, we might say that for Paul Jesus was an actual son, whereas other ideas of divine sonship were not so literal and down-to-earth; this would seem to be the point of Paul’s claim for Jesus in Gal 4:4. In sum: the difference to note with regard to this background is, first, there are no allusions nor any explicit comparison with it in Paul. Secondly, there is more to the title ‘son of God’ in Paul than an affirmation that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, a king in waiting. And thirdly, the claim for Jesus’ sonship is grounded by Paul in his birth. Jesus would not have been declared to be the son of God with power in his resurrection (Rom 1:4) were it not for the fact of his virgin birth.

Lordship

There is a constant emphasis in Paul on Jesus as ‘the Lord Jesus’. For example, Paul states that he counted everything as dung compared to “the knowledge of Christ Jesus my lord” (Phil 3:7). He often uses the refrain ‘God our Father and the lord Jesus Christ’ (Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; etc.) This bespeaks a close association of Jesus as ‘the lord’ with God who is ‘the Father’. Today, in a Christian environment, it may be difficult to appreciate the radical nature of this association for first century Jews – that grace came from both God the Father and Jesus, who was a lord. The confession that Jesus is Lord was fundamental for Christians (1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11) but this was a significant challenge to first century Jews. This is because, for Paul, Jesus’ lordship is not merely that of a master with disciples; it is a lordship over all things in heaven and earth (Phil 2:9-11). Recognition of Jesus as their lord on the part of believers led to obeisance and the ascription of honour to him, albeit with this allegiance and devotion being to the glory of God the Father (cf. Rom 16:27; Gal 1:5; Eph 1:12, 14; 3:21; Phil 1:11; 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17).

The categories that a NT historian applies to describe these attitudes to Jesus can reflect his/her own intellectual environment rather than that of Paul. An example of this is the way NT scholars use the term ‘monotheism’. If we say that Paul accommodated Christ within his monotheism, we are applying our own framework to Paul’s thinking and behaviour.[12]  Unless we can derive the concept of ‘within monotheism’ from Paul’s language about Christ and God, we are more accurate in saying that Paul placed Christ alongside God in a cosmological framework. The recourse to an ‘ism in our description of Paul’s thought betrays our concerns rather than Paul’s thinking. Paul’s monotheism, if he is a Jew, pertains to God the Father; placing Jesus alongside God the Father does not therefore bring Jesus within that monotheism.

The devotion implicit in a recognition of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ isn’t characterized by Paul as monotheistic, nor does he say it is a distinctive form of Christian monotheism; these are the claims of theologically minded NT scholars working from a modern Christian standpoint with an eye on the development of early church doctrine. Rather, historically, we should only use ‘monotheism’ to describe the belief about there being one God, the God of Israel. The praxis or worship arises from this belief and the new inclusion of Christ in the devotion of Paul and his churches is expressed in a way that is consistent with this belief.

For Paul, devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ is to the glory of God the Father and this betrays a structure and a purpose to that devotion consistent with Jewish Monotheism. Paul never expresses it the other way – that devotion to God the Father is to the glory of Christ. The devotion that flows from a recognition of Jesus’ lordship is part of a wider devotion to God the Father. This is not an equality of devotion to the Father and the Son which might justify the phrase ‘binitarian’; rather it is devotion to a lord who is subordinate to God and for whom that devotion is ultimately expressed.

It is a self-serving analysis to say that in Paul we have a binitarian form of ‘worship’; what we have is recognition of the lordship of Jesus Christ alongside recognition that the Father is God. This reflects a ‘togetherness’ of the Father and the Son that is radical vis-à-vis Judaism, but it is not radical as regards monotheism. So, for example, in the opening words of his letters, Paul expresses the blessing that grace comes to his readers from God the Father and the lord Jesus Christ. For a Jew, this togetherness, for a ‘prophet’ recently walking among them, would be a radical challenge, but Paul’s order of expression, always placing Christ second, shows his subordinate Christology. The grace comes from God the Father through the lord Jesus Christ. The corresponding attitudes of mind therefore flow through Christ to the glory of God (Rom 1:8; 5:1, 11; 6:11; 7:25; 15:17).

Paul develops but continues the monotheism of the Torah in four ways: first, he retains the common nomenclature for ‘God’ for the single person of the Father; secondly, he orders his devotional language placing the Father first; thirdly, he introduces a direction in the devotion towards Christ – this goes through Christ to the Father so that he alone is thereby glorified; finally, he makes it clear that it is the Father who is the ultimate source of all things that are happening through Christ.

So, we might well ask: could God actually have a son within the Jewish thinking of the time? Obviously, there was room for a metaphorical sense of sonship, but were Jews conditioned in their thinking in such a way that they could not countenance God having a son born of a woman? Adam was made of the dust of the ground and might be regarded as a son of God. The messiah might be thought of in terms of being a son of God very much as the kings of old were called a son of God. These are different concepts and trade on metaphor. Paul believes that Jesus is God’s son because he was made of a woman. This in turn provides the foundation for the togetherness that Paul presents. It is not just a result of Christ’s obedience unto death and a consequent exaltation; it is also because he is actually God’s son that he is with God. Paul is changing Jewish Cosmology and not Jewish Monotheism.[13]

It might be thought that in order to be a son of God in a literal sense, a person has to be of the same nature as well as being related to God by descent. However, the opposite is the case if the concept of ‘son’ is a ‘creature’ concept centred in human procreation. It might then be said that a person cannot be a ‘son’ if there are not two human parents. But this is the point at issue: can a person be a ‘son’ with only a mother for a human parent and with God as the father? We might ask this question, but Paul does not; he states that God sent his son made of a woman. Part of the reason for the constant use of the common expression, ‘God the Father’, by Paul, is the belief that he has a son.

Trinitarian Christians have a different mind-set to Biblical Unitarian[14] Christians. The tendency for the early church fathers was to cash out ‘son of God’ in terms of divine nature; i.e. in philosophical theology, to say that Christ was fully God and fully man. But the ‘nature’ question is a three-way choice: God, man, or God-man. Paul is quite clear, “There is one God and mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). This preserves Jewish Monotheism and it secures the atonement because, contrary to popular preaching, an atoning sacrifice could only be by the death of a man (Rom 5:12-21).

Whether Trinitarian Christians can legitimately be said to believe Jesus is the son of God in Paul’s sense is questionable. However, the danger for Biblical Unitarian Christians is that they under-appreciate what it means for a man to be the son of God because the idea is so familiar.[15] The way to counter this danger is to think about or meditate upon Jesus’ self-conscious awareness of being the son of God. What must it have been like for Jesus to know that he was the son of God and not the son of Joseph?

The ‘divinity’ of Christ consists of his possession of the Spirit and his relationship to God the Father, i.e. in his being God’s son (rather than in a distinctive kind of nature). This fact has an implication for our theology and anthropology. That God could have a son who was a man says something about the closeness of God to man. That a man could be a son of God likewise says something about the potential inherent in man as an image of God (cf. Col 1:15). This is not a ‘High Christology’ explaining divinity in terms of incarnation and nature, but a ‘High Anthropology’ and a ‘Low Theology’ that shows how God the Father has loved his creation from the beginning. The Father and the Son are close because God can be and is close to humankind.

Galatians 4:4

D. G. Dunn’s comment on his survey of the same background material that we have catalogued is that there is a

“…surprising absence within the range of materials surveyed above of the idea of a son of God or divine individual who descends from heaven to earth.”[16]

\What we have instead are examples of men being exalted to divine status. In Gal 4:4, Paul does not use a verb of descent but one of ‘sending forth’ (evxaposte,llw), and what Dunn’s comment shows is that the idea of ‘sending forth’ isn’t part of a cultural matrix of individuals descending from heaven; rather, it is rooted in the scriptural pattern of God sending prophets, angels or his Spirit (i.e. not a Son).[17]

It might be thought that ‘sending forth’ is just the same idea as ‘to send’ (e.g. John 1:6, avposte,llw; John 5:23, pe,mpw), but there is a nuance in Paul’s choice of verb that connects up with the story of the exodus. Moses was sent forth to bring Israel out of Egypt (Exod 3:12, LXX, evxaposte,llw; cf. Ps 105:26; Mic 6:4). Paul is presenting Jesus as a new Moses in his use of this verb. In fact, God has sent forth a myriad of prophets down the ages.[18] For God to send forth a man implies nothing about a heavenly location of origin, but rather the opposite: Jesus came to be of a woman. Equally, we shouldn’t equate the sending forth of Jesus as a ‘commission’ because there is no dialogue making up the commissioning. We have examples of prophets being commissioned and these involve God addressing the prophet.

Paul makes the point that in the fulness of time[19] God sent forth his Son. This is not about there being a point in the purpose of God for the sending of the Son; it is about there being a point in the purpose of God for the ending of the Law.[20] Jews were under the Law until a time appointed of the Father (Gal 4:2). The time for the Law to end had come and so God had sent his son (Christ was the end of the Law to everyone that believed (Rom 10:4)). However, Paul adds a reason for why God has a son, and this is that believers might receive an adoption as sons.

But when the fulness of the time was come,

(A) God sent forth his son, made of a woman,

(B) made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,

(A’) that we might receive the adoption of sons. (Gal 4:4)

There is a small chiastic structure here which points up the association of Jesus being a son and believers’ adoption as sons. Their sonship is parallel to Jesus’ sonship. Why does Paul use the expression ‘made of woman’? The Greek word translated ‘made of’ (gi,nomai) is not the more specific word for giving birth, which he uses in respect of Abraham’s sons (Gal 4:13, genna,w). But rather it is the more general word for becoming, (literally, the Greek is being out of a woman being under law). Typology supplies the reason for Paul’s choice of language.

The scriptural background to Paul’s statement is the promise about the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15). The original promise to Eve was that she would give birth to a seed that would bruise the head of the Serpent. Paul is certainly familiar with the typological significance of the Serpent in Eden (Rom 16:20; 2 Cor 11:3) and the role of Christ in relation to the Serpent. Moreover, there had been a long line of ‘barren’ women who had given birth to a son in God-guided circum­stances — women such as Sarah, Rachael, Jochebed and Hannah. This is another typology that Paul is drawing upon in his emphasis that the Son was made of a woman. Further, we cannot exclude an echo of Isa 7:14 and its prophecy of a young woman conceiving a child that was to be called ‘Immanuel’.

There is a comparison to be made between Gal 4:4-5 and Gal 3:13-14,[21]

…made (gi,nomai) of a woman, made (gi,nomai) under the Law to redeem (evxagora,zw)…that we might receive…the spirit of his son… Gal 4:4-5

…redeemed us (evxagora,zw)…being made (gi,nomai) a curse for us…that we might receive the promise of the Spirit… Gal 3:13-14

The purpose for which God had a son was to redeem and to give the Spirit which is clarified to involve a spirit of adoption, i.e. a spirit of adopted sonship (Rom 8:15, 23; Eph 1:5).

Enclosed within this teaching about sonship, Paul includes redemption from the Law. The contrast he develops is one between bondage under the Law (Gal 4:3, 9, 24-25) and the freedom of sonship (Gal 5:1). This metaphor of ‘bondage’ harks back to Egypt and it explains why Paul chooses the verb ‘to send forth’ for Jesus. It is more than just a comparison with Moses; it is also a comparison between the bondage from which Moses was sent forth to redeem the children of Israel and the bondage of the Law from which Jesus was sent forth to redeem those who believe in him. Failure to see this typology underpins the mis-reading of God sending forth his son from heaven to become incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion

What was Paul’s view of Christ? The question is all embracing. The Christian church has been very concerned with the nature of Christ and developed a doctrine of the Trinity, but whether Paul was so occupied is doubtful, judging from his letters. There was one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). This states Paul’s view, but he doesn’t discuss the topic of Christ’s nature when he says that he is a man. This is a matter-of-fact statement, but it isn’t enough. For Paul, Jesus is also the son of God, made of a woman (Gal 4:4), the Christ, born in the line of David (Rom 1:3), and now the lord (Phil 2:11). These emphases are critical to how Paul sees Jesus, but he doesn’t elaborate on them in terms that talk of any distinctive nature.

For God to actually have a son requires a woman, and for Paul to claim this for Jesus goes well beyond any ideas in his cultural background except for certain early Christian interpretations of Scripture (enshrined in the Gospels). To make the claim for a recently living flesh and blood man that he was God’s son goes beyond what was said of the mythical heroes of Greek legends; it states far more about Jesus than the metaphorical sense of ‘son of God’ as used for the worthies of the past or the kings of Judah. The best background for Gal 4:4 is the tradition about Jesus’ birth which continues the story of Israel and shows the fulfilment of certain prophecies. Why then was this plain reading of Gal 4:4 lost in the Apostolic Fathers? Vermes concludes his survey of the ‘son of God’ material we have reviewed by saying, “When Christianity later set out to define the meaning of son of God in its creed, the paraphrase it produced – ‘God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, consubstantial with the Father’ – drew its inspiration, not from the pure teaching of the Galilean Jesus, nor even Paul the Diaspora Jew, but from a Gentile-Christian interpretation of the Gospel adapted to the mind of the totally alien world of pagan Hellenism.”[22]