Steven Carr

Galatians 4
‘Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. ‘


Is Jesus the one referred to as 'born according to the flesh'?

If Paul is denying that Jesus was born 'according to the flesh', why would he trace his ancestry 'according to the flesh'?

Chili

oops, 'sisters' cannot be brothers in Christ. Paul was talking to those set free as children of the promise and those are the firstborn always a son so that we can have sonship according to the flesh right back to God.

Better burn that translation before it burns you.

PS, children of the promise are the essence of God and are non-sexed as firstborn and females have sonship in the same way as males.

To be sure, Paul is speaking to the heart of man wherein we have sonship and there is no distinction between male and female (re-back prior to our fall), and so have the same mother but each have our virgin in the promise to make Mary local in the pains of childbirth.

David Deas

Romans indicates Paul's belief that Jesus was supposed to have the whole Davidic lineage thing going. That would seem to answer the question about Paul's personal beliefs.

Of course, Paul's writings focus almost exclusively on the risen Jesus so we don't get to learn a lot about his version of the human Jesus. Paul doesn't seem interested at all in the human Jesus in his writings.

GakuseiDon

No. For what it's worth, YLT has:

Gal 4:28 And we, brethren, as Isaac, are children of promise,
Gal 4:29 but as then he who was born according to the flesh did persecute him according to the spirit, so also now

"We" are the children of promise, the ones born according to the spirit.

Paul is no more denying that Jesus was born 'according to the flesh' than he is denying 'we' were born 'according to the flesh'. From where do you get that reading by Paul?

ApostateAbe

I figure the best way to make sense of that verse is to read the entire passage. Here it is, Galatians 4 of the NRSV:

22 Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23 One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia* and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,

‘Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,

burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs;

for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous

than the children of the one who is married.’

28 Now you,* my friends,* are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29 But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the scripture say? ‘Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.’ 31 So then, friends,* we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman.

Once the entire passage is read, then I don't think an explanation for the meaning of verse 29 is necessary, but I will explain anyway. When Paul says, "child who was born according to the flesh," he was referring to Esau, in contrast to "the child who was born according to the Spirit," which is Isaac. He was drawing an allegory, and he explicitly links "my friends" with Isaac, and he implicitly drew a connection between Esau and those who ridicule or persecute the church. Jesus doesn't even have a place in the allegory, nor should it be expected that Paul uses the phrase, "according to the flesh," in the same sense in all his writing.

This is very basic and obvious interpretation. I suggest that you had best not continue the pattern of scrounging around for any passage that you hope would reinforce your current conclusions, though that is the way of so many millions of ideologues of champions of unlikely conclusions. Instead, I suggest that you change your conclusions according to the best explanations for the whole of the evidence.

aa5874

Why are we going over the same material?

Galatians 1.1 will not magically disappear.

Galatians 1:1 - Galatians 1.11-12 will not vanish either.

Galatians 1 It would appear to me that people here are trying to solve a problem but do not want the data.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a Man and was RAISED from the dead.

People normally try to get as much details to resolve any matter but here people want the very least or nothing.

Galatians 1.15-16 will not evaporate.

Galatians 1 The Pauline Jesus was NOT of FLESH and BLOOD.

Toto

Paul seems to be saying that Jews are children according to the flesh, and gentile converts to Christianity children according to the spirit. Jesus was born a Jew.

But this is inconsistent with the earlier part of Gal 4:

4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

since gentiles are not "under the law."

DCHindley

Abe,

I don't think that this passage is as obvious as you think.

Looking at the passage, there are actually an argument and a commentary. An argument about God's promise made to Abram, and a Commentary which reinterprets it as about faith in Christ, which completely reverses the meaning of the argument about God's promise.

Argument about God's promise.	Commentary reinterpreting the argument as about faith in Christ.
22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave (Gen 16:15) and one by a free woman (Gen 21:2).	24a Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants [re-interpretation of vs. 22].
23a But the son of the slave [Ishmael, born of Hagar, Sarai's servant, Gen 16:15] was born according to the flesh [because Abram, in desperation, let his wife talk him into impregnating his wife's servant as a way to force the fulfillment of God's promise that Abram would be the father of many children even though Sarai remained barren].	24b One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25a Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia [everyone should note that the revelation of the Law to Moses occurred many, many, years after Abram had his son Ishmael by Hagar, so this is a re-interpretation of vs. 23a];
.	25b she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children [clearly an anachronism regarding the capture of Jerusalem and enslavement of its inhabitants in 70 CE, meaning that Hagar is supposed to represents the mother of the Jewish people who are under the Law, in opposition to the surface reading of vs. 23 or Gen 16:15]
23b the son of the free woman [Isaac born of Sarah] [is] through [God's] promise [Gen 21:2].	26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
.	27 For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and shout, you who are not in travail; for the children of the desolate one are many more than the children of her that is married" (Isa 51:1) [this is the proof text for the re-interpretation of 23b, to show that the "desolate one" – Hagar who was turned out into the wilderness after the birth of Isaac by Sarah – whose "children" represent Christ believers, again in direct opposition to the surface reading of vs. 23b].
*28 Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise* [this whole verse is subject to variants].	.
.	29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh [Jews] persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit [Christ believers], so it is now.
.	30 But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave and her son [interpreted as the Jews]; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman [interpreted as Christ believers]" (Gen 21:10) [Proof text, again, for a re-interpretation of vs 28].
.	31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave [i.e., Jews under the Law] but of the free woman [Christ believers].
Hi ho.	5:1 *For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore,* and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery [the part of verse that is between asterisks is subject to variants].

DCH

spamandham

I don't see how any of this has anything much to do with Jesus.

I also don't think the idea that Ishmael represents Jews is correct. Instead, Ishmael represents the Jerusalem church - a brand of Christianity that Paul paid tribute to but did not seem to consider legitimate.

If Paul were referring to Jews/vs Christians, I think he would have used Jacob and Esau rather than Ishmael and Isaac.

Steven Carr

From you, when you claimed 2 sentences ago that 'we' were born according to the spirit.