DramaQ

I could be mistaken, but I am under the impression that Michael argues Mark's dependence on Paul, not vice versa.

Thus Paul could be based on tradition and Mark can be a fiction which incorporates elements of Paul.

In that respect the theories do not contradict each other.

DQ

Ted Hoffman

You are right DramaQ

Amaleq13

I know you didn't ask me and perhaps this requires knowledge of the original language used but it seems to me that the above "prepared" reflects more a belief in predestination than it does pre-existence and that this is quite unlike what is found in Philippians 2. Is there any similar reference to Moses having a particular "form" like or equal to God's that was somehow changed into the "form" of a servant?

TedM

Since it relates, I copied this from another thread:


Obviously it would not have been to let everyone know something that they already knew.

I didn't check out the 'born of a woman thread', but it seems to me that Paul is saying the following:

Jesus is God's offspring. Yet he is born of a human woman to show that we humans can also become God's offspring. He is born a Jew to break the curse of sin, as illustrated through Jewish law. Since God honors faith above all (see points about Abraham's faith), then through faith ALL sinful humans can also become God's offspring.

Paul was relating concepts and not historical biographical facts. I might point out that just as Paul doesn't identify Mary by name, neither does he identify Sarah by name in Galations even though he clearly references her in 4:22-31 as the mother of those who became God's children of promise, who corresponds to Mary as the mother of God's child of promise.

ted

Doug Shaver

Hmm. I saw it over there, and responded, before I saw it here.

I know we don't want parallel threads, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Maybe the mods have a trick they can pull?

The question seems more appropriate for this thread so I'll just copy&paste it here:

jgibson000

Here's Jimmy Dunn's answer to Doug's question. The materials in brackets are Dunn's footnotes.

Jeffrey Gibson

(c) Do the following phrases shed any more light on our question 'born of woman, born under the law'? GENOMENON (born) refers to Jesus as one who had been born, not necessarily to his birth as such.

[Cf Schlier, Galater, p. 196; Betz, Galatians, pp. 207f]

The more specific word for the event of giving birth is GENNAW (e.g. Matt. 1. 16; 19.12; John 3.5-8; Gal. 4.23), whereas there is a less specific time reference in GINOMAI (to become, come to be) which often makes it difficult to distinguish it from the verb 'to be' (EINAI)

['Only at John 8.58 (in the NT) is there any special distinction between GENESQAI and EINAI.' (F. Buchsel ' TDNT 1, p. 682).]

and which allows the participle GENOMENOS to be used regularly with a noun in the sense 'former' ('who had been').

[159. Moulton & Milligan, GINOMAI.].

Moreover, 'born of woman' was a familiar phrase in Jewish ears to denote simply 'man' (Job 14. 1; 15.14; 25.4; IQS 11.20f; IQH 13.14; 18.12f, 16; Matt. 11. 11) - man is by definition 'one who is/has been born of woman'. So the reference is simply to Jesus' ordinary humanness, not to his birth.

Why then does Paul introduce this phrase if not to emphasize the true humanity of a heavenly being? If the natural implication of Paul's language was that he was referring to the manjesus, whose ministry in Palestine was sufficiently well known to his readers, why bother to say that he was a man? [emphasis mine] Here is a consideration of some weight whose import can be clarified only by seeing the passage as a whole. Only then will we see the relation of each clause to the others and its function within the whole. The movement of thought is best illustrated by setting out the passage as. follows:

[leaving out the Greek text]

A When the fullness of time had come
B God sent forth his Son,
C born of woman,
D born under the law,
E in order that he might redeem those under the law,
F in order that we might receive adoption (as sons).


Two points call for comment. First, it is fairly obvious that a double contrast is intended: most clearly between lines D and E - 'born under the law to redeem those under the law'; but also between lines C and F -'(his Son) born of woman ... that we might receive adoption (as sons)'. Here the larger context is important for our understanding of 4.4f. Paul has been talking towards the end of chapter 3 and into chapter 4 of the offspring of Abraham (the Jews) as children, minors, and as slaves, in bondage to the law. So in v. 4 Paul's intention seems to be to present one who also knew what it means to be a child, a minor, to be under the law, but whose divine commissioning aimed to free the offspring of Abraham from their bondage and inferior status (as children who are no better than slaves v.1). We have in fact here what M. D. Hooker has called 'interchange in Christ"

[M.D. Hooker, 'Interchange in Christ', JTS 22, to Gal. 4.4 on p. 352)]

- Jesus was sent as one who experienced the condition of man in all its inferiority and bondage in order that man might be delivered from that condition and given a share in Christ's sonship (through the gift of the Spirit of the Son - v.6), no longer a slave but a son (v.7). Indeed we are in touch at this point with an important strand of Paul's christology which we will examine in detail below - his Adam christology (ch. IV). Jesus was sent as man (born of woman, not of a woman), that is, his divine commissioning was as one who shared the lot of (fallen) Adam (= man), in order that man might share in his risen humanity, as last Adam (cf. Rom. 8.29 and see further below pp. 111-13).

Second, the chief thrust of Gal. 4.4f. is clearly soteriological rather than christologicall

[As most recognize - e.g. E. Schweizer, Jesus, 1968, ET 1971, pp. 84f; Hengel, Son, pp. 811; Stanton, Incarnation, ed. Goulder, pp. 154f.]

" - God sent his Son in order to redeem.... This observation obviously strengthens the conclusion reached immediately above, that the phrase 'born of woman' is chosen to express a primarily soteriological point 'born of woman' as -describing a state prior to the decisive act of redemption (as also 'born under the law') rather than a particular event in the life of Christ. For the redemptive act is clearly not Jesus' birth;

[Against Kramer, Christ, p. 114. EXAGORAZEIN obviously refers to Jesus' death as such (as in Gal. 3.13); cf. Schelkle, Passion, pp. 135-42; L. Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, Tyndale 1955, pp. 52-6; G. Delling, Der Kreuzestod Jesu in der urchristlichen Perkfindigung, G6ttingen 1972, pp. 20f.]

Jesus' being or having been born of woman, born under the law is rather the prior condition which makes possible the act of redemption ('. . . in order that tic might redeem'). In other words Cal. 4.4f really bclongs with the preceding and distinctively Pauline group of Son-passages (§5.2c) and is actually directed more to Jesus' death as Son than to the event of his birth.

[This can be expressed diagrammatically:

not an assertion about Jesus

before after
---------------I-----------------
incarnation


but an assertion about his redeeming action

previous state (slave) present state (son)
----------------------- I----------------------
act of redemption]

Thus it becomes still clearer that Paul has no intention here of arguing a particular christological position or claim, incarnation or otherwise.