Monday, January 8, 2024

Thomas Gaston on Galatians 4:4 and the Virgin Birth

  

It is noticeable that in all the Greek sources cited the word for “born” in the phrase “born of a woman” is a cognate of gennao, the common word for birth:

 

·       Job 14:1,2, LXX – gennetos gunaikos

·       Job 15:14-15, LXX – gennetos gunaikos

·       Job 25:4-5, LXX – gennetos gunaikos

·       Sir. 10:5 – gennemasi gunaikon

·       Matt. 11:11 – genetois gunaikon

·       Luke 7:28 – gennetois gunaikon

 

Paul, however, does not use this word. In Galatians 4:4 he says genomenon ek gunaikos, using a cognate of the root word ginomai (“to become”). Literally Paul says Jesus “came in existence out of a woman” (cf. Darby: “come of a woman,” KJV: “made of a woman,” Young’s Literal Translation: “come of a woman”). The issue is not whether Paul’s choice of words shows him deviating from the common idiom because he wants to say something different.

 

Usually idioms use the same words whenever they occur; it is the consistency of language that makes them idiomatic. “Born of woman” is a Hebrew/Aramaic idiom so, I suppose, it is possible that some may have translated it into Greek in different ways. The evidence from the examples cited, though, is that consistently cognates of gennao are used. It seems reasonable to suppose Paul would have used those words were he using them idiomatically.

 

Also, though it would be acceptable for a Greek writer to use a cognate of ginomai to refer to birth, it is not usual. Norris writes that “since [Paul] makes no categorical statement of the circumstance of Jesus’ conception, he is scrupulous that no misconception shall arise through a misconstruction of words carelessly used.” (Norris, Virgin Birth, 13)

 He contrasts Paul’s use of a cognate of gennao when referring to the births of Isaac and Ishmael in Galatians 4:23. (Norris, Virgin Birth, 14) Paul’s deviation from both the idiom and from his own practice suggests that he is using his words purposefully. And if Paul means to distinguish Jesus’ origins from usual human birth then this may indicate that he knows something special about Jesus’ birth. (Thomas Edmund Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology? [2d ed.; Nashville: Theophilus Press, 2023], 299-300)

 

Gal 4:4 is not necessarily a “Socinian” proof-text:

 

It is worth mentioning, in passing, that ginomai is far too common a word to read much into its usage here. For example, it can be used both of an origin and of a change of state. We cannot form Gal. 4:4 alone determine that Paul believed that Jesus came into existence (i.e., “was made”) when his mother became pregnant, any more than we can, on the basis of this verse aloe, rule out that Paul believed that Jesus was incarnated at his birth. This word alone will not help us in regard to this question. (Ibid., 300 n. 70)