Category: Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in the Letters of Paul

An exegetical study of the (possible) references and allusions to the birth of Jesus, and to the idea of the incarnation (of the Son of God) in the Letters of Paul.

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Romans 1:3-4

This series was introduced for the holiday season, the days of Christmas, during which we explored Paul’s use of the verb gi/nomai (“come to be, become”) in Christologically significant contexts, suggesting the idea of the incarnation of Christ, and, in particular, his birth as a human being. These articles covered the first division (A.) of our study. Now, we turn to the second division (B.), in which we will examine specifically the theme of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, and also the motif of God (the Father) sending His Son to earth. In so doing, we will also give further consideration to the extent to which Paul expresses a belief in the pre-existence of Jesus as the Son of God.

B. The Sonship of Jesus, and the Sending of God’s Son

As noted above, these two themes—the Sonship of Jesus, and God’s Sending of His Son—are closely related, as can be seen, particularly, in a number of key Pauline passages. Two of these references—Galatians 4:4ff and Romans 1:3-4—have already been studied in prior articles, but with the use of the verb gi/nomai as the focus. Now, we shall examine them from the standpoint of the Sonship and Sending themes. We begin with Romans 1:3-4; even though Galatians was written earlier than Romans, there is a strong possibility that in Rom 1:3-4 Paul is utilizing an existing confessional (and/or hymnic) statement. If so, then the wording and formulation of the Christology in Rom 1:3-4, taken on its own, could well be older than that of Galatians.

Romans 1:3-4

Many commentators would hold that these two verses represent (at least a portion of) an early confessional (or credal) statement regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Its phrasing and parallelistic structure would be typical of a hymn or other poetic form that might have been used by first-century Christians in a worship setting. Several details of vocabulary, style, and emphasis, atypical of Paul’s letters, provide a relatively strong argument in favor of a pre-Pauline source for the formula in vv. 3-4. Among the most notable of these are:

    • The traditional Messianic association of Jesus with David (i.e., as the ‘Son of David’), an association that is largely absent from Paul’s letters (but cf. 2 Tim 2:8); it certainly was not a point that Paul emphasized, though it would have been accepted as part of the inherited tradition (cf. below).
    • The use of the verb o(ri/zw (“mark out”), which occurs only here in the Pauline corpus, but which was apparently part of the early kerygmatic/confessional language (cf. Acts 2:23; 10:42; 17:31).
    • The specific expression “Spirit of holiness”, which is according to the Hebrew/Semitic manner of expression (i.e., vd#q) j^Wr)—and thus might have been part of the wording characteristic of early Jewish Christians—whereas Paul always uses the adjective (a%gio$) in Greek (i.e., “holy Spirit”).

Perhaps even more significant is that the Sonship of Jesus is understood (at least in verse 4) fundamentally in terms of the resurrection. While this association is not exactly foreign to Paul (as we shall see), it is particularly prominent in the Christological statements that were expressed by believers during the early years of the Gospel proclamation (kergyma). This point will be discussed briefly below.

We should also note certain formal elements of the statement in vv. 3-4 which tend to feature in early Christian hymns and confessional formulae, and which could be taken as markers of (earlier) traditional material. Two, in particular, can be pointed out: (i) clauses governed by opening participle-forms, and (ii) the use of an initial relative pronoun (“who/which”, o%$/o%) to introduce the key clauses of the formula. On the main participle-clauses of vv. 3-4, see the discussion in the earlier article. The relative pronoun anchors the ‘Christ-hymns’ in Philippians (2:6), Colossians (1:15), 1 Timothy (3:16), and in Hebrews (1:2-3), where the masculine pronoun (o%$) serves to define Jesus Christ as “the one who…”). Here, in v. 2, the neuter pronoun refers, not to the person of Christ proper, but to the message (i.e., Gospel) of Christ (viz., the neuter noun eu)agge/lion).

The lines of this ‘Christ hymn’ (if we are to call it such) comprise part of the epistolary prescript—that is, the opening address and greeting of the letter (vv. 1-7), which reads as a single sentence in Greek. The key term in the opening verse is eu)agge/lion (“good message”, i.e. Gospel); the second verse builds syntactically upon this noun:

“…which [o%] He gave a message about before(hand), through His Foretellers [i.e. Prophets], in (the) holy Writings…”

For the conceptual and thematic connection between verse 2 and the Christological statement in vv. 3-4, see the discussion in the earlier article. The key point, for the purpose of our current study, is the qualifying phrase at the beginning of v. 3, which states that the “good message” (i.e., the Gospel) is specifically about (peri/) God’s Son (“about His Son…” [peri\ tou= ui(ou= au)tou=]). Jesus is thus implicitly identified as the Son of God, without necessarily explaining in what way he is God’s Son. The remaining clauses in vv. 3-4 expound, in summary (confessional) form, the message about the Son (Jesus). We have already examined these (in the aforementioned article), but let us consider them again, in terms of this Christological exposition regarding Jesus’ identity as God’s Son.

Explanatory clause #1 (verse 3)

“the (one hav)ing come to be (born) out of (the) seed of David according to (the) flesh”

There are three main components (phrases/expressions) for each clause; here in verse 3 they are:

    • “the (one hav)ing come to be (born)” [tou= genome/nou]
    • “out of (the) seed of David” [e)k spe/rmato$ Daui\d]
    • “according to (the) flesh” [kata\ sa/rka]

Each component may be further explained in a relatively straightforward manner, in accordance with early Christian belief and tradition:

tou= genome/nou (“the [one hav]ing come to be”)—This is a substantive verbal noun (participle) with the definite article. It defines Jesus Christ (God’s Son) as “the (one who)…”, with the verbal noun governing the entire clause. The verb is the verb of becoming (gi/nomai), the subject of the first division (A.) of our study; on this verb in vv. 3-4, see the earlier article. It implicitly states the coming into being (i.e., the birth) of Jesus, i.e., as a human being. The birth of Jesus was not, per se, part of the earliest Gospel message; for example, it appears nowhere in the preaching recorded in the book of Acts, nor is it particularly mentioned in the core Synoptic narrative (as represented by the Gospel of Mark). However, by around 80 A.D. (at the latest), there was at least a simple narrative in circulation regarding Jesus’ birth—tradition(s) which formed the basis for the Infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke.

Paul’s use of gi/nomai here as an aspect of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son, raises two points of Christological interpretation: (1) first, is the Messianic emphasis of the clause in v. 3, i.e., the Davidic Messiah as God’s “Son” (cf. below); but (2) second, the question of whether God’s Son “coming to be (born)” implies that Jesus was already God’s Son prior to his being born. Let us start with the first point, as it is expressed by the second component of the clause.

e)k spe/rmato$ Daui\d (“out of [the] seed of David”)—This expression implicitly declares Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah—that is, the royal Messiah from the line of David; on this specific Messianic figure-type, see Parts 6-8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”. In early Christian tradition, as reflected by the genealogies in Matthew (1:1-16) and Luke (3:23-38), Jesus’ was a descendant of David only from a legal, not biological, standpoint, through his human father Joseph. However, the wording here in v. 3 suggests that Jesus was (also?) a biological descendant of David. This interpretation is strengthened, both by the qualifying phrase that follows (“according to the flesh”), and by the formal parallel in Galatians 4:4 (“out of a woman” || “out of the seed of David”)—suggesting that the “woman” (i.e., Jesus’ mother) was of the seed of David. Certainly, a Davidic lineage for Mary came to be part of early Christian belief and tradition, even though it is not otherwise indicated in the Gospels; indeed, Luke 1:5, 36 would seem to indicate that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, rather than Judah.

Before proceeding to consider the understanding of Jesus’ Sonship from a Messianic standpoint, let us continue with the final component of the clause:

kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”)—Paul often uses this expression (and the term sa/rc [“flesh”] itself) in a decidedly negative way, in contrast to the Spirit, and in connection with the human impulse toward sin. However, it can also refers to human nature in a general sense, and Paul uses it as such, for example, in 1 Cor 10:18; 2 Cor 5:16; in other references, the general and specific (negative) Pauline usage tends to blend together. Here, the expression means, primarily, that the Son (Jesus) was born as a real (flesh-and-blood) human being. The framework of the first and third components makes this clear: “the (one hav)ing come to be (born)…according to (the) flesh”. It could also imply, as noted above, that Jesus was a descendant of David “according to the flesh” (that is, according to a normal human birth-lineage).

The relation of Romans 1:3 to early Christian Tradition

If we examine the Gospel Tradition (in the New Testament) as a whole, there are three main strands of the Tradition which explain, and according to which we may understand, the Sonship of Jesus:

    • The resurrection (and exaltation) of Jesus
    • The baptism of Jesus (according to the Gospel baptism-scene), and
    • The birth of Jesus (in the two Infancy narratives)

I would argue that, in all three strands of Tradition, the Sonship of Jesus is understood primarily from a Messianic standpoint. This is particularly true with regard to the last two strands—the baptism and birth of Jesus. The connection is clearest for the birth of Jesus in the Matthean and Lukan Infancy narratives (Matt 1-2; Luke 1-2), where Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah is a dominant theme; for a discussion on this, see the recent two-part article (Part 1 & 2) on the Kingdom/Kingship-theme in the Infancy narratives.

As far as scene of Jesus’ baptism is concerned (Mk 1:9-11 par), its place in the Gospel narrative (esp. the Synoptic narrative) indicates that Jesus’ identity as a Messianic Prophet may be primarily in view. The likelihood that the proclamation of the Divine voice from heaven (Mk 1:11 par) alludes to Isa 42:1 (as much as Psalm 2:7), also points in this direction; cf. my earlier article on Isa 42:1 in the Gospel Tradition. The first half of the Synoptic narrative (viz., the Galilean period) emphasizes Jesus’ identification with the Messianic Prophet figure-types (Moses, Elijah, and the herald of Isa 61, etc), rather than the royal/Davidic figure-type (which is emphasized in the second half of the narrative [the Jerusalem period]). The Lukan narrative, in particular, ties the baptism scene to this understanding of Jesus as the Anointed (Messianic) Prophet—see the immediate connection of 3:22 to 4:1ff, 14, 18ff, 24ff. Even so, there is probably also an allusion to Psalm 2:7 (cf. 2 Sam 7:14, etc) in the Baptism-scene, establishing Jesus identity as the Davidic Messiah, even prior to the point where it comes to the fore in the Synoptic narrative (viz., the approach to Jerusalem and the Triumphal Entry scene, Mk 10:47-48; chap 11, par).

This leaves us with the resurrection of Jesus. It would seem that this strand represents the earliest Christian understanding of the Sonship of Jesus—viz., that Jesus came to be the Son of God as a result of his resurrection and exaltation (to heaven). This confirmed his identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah (and thus the Son of God), but it also established a Divine/heavenly status and position for him (at the right hand of God). We see this expressed quite clearly in the early Christian preaching (kerygma) recorded in the book of Acts; note, in particular, the declarations in Acts 2:36 and 13:33ff. The latter occurs in a sermon by Paul, in which Psalm 2:7 (identifying Jesus as God’s Son) is specifically interpreted in terms of the resurrection (cp. Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). That Paul, indeed, shared this early exaltation Christology, would seem to be confirmed by the earliest reference (in his letters) to Jesus as God’s Son, 1 Thess 1:10. Jesus’ Sonship is implicitly understood in terms of his heavenly place/position (with God the Father), which he obtained following the resurrection, and from where he will soon return to earth (cf. chapters 4-5).

However, Paul’s Christology, and his view of Jesus as God’s Son, was not limited to the early exaltation-Christology. As we have already seen in our studies, this early Christology was supplemented with an incarnational view of Christ that suggests at least a rudimentary belief in the Divine pre-existence of Jesus. In the next article, we will bring together the clauses of verse 3 and 4, with a consideration of how Paul has interpreted and developed the early Christian tradition(s) which he inherited. We will also look at vv. 3-4 in light of other references to Jesus’ Sonship (in Corinthians and Galatians).

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Phil 2:7-8 (Part 3)

Philippians 2:7-8, continued
2:8

e)tapei/nwsen e(auto\n
geno/meno$ u(ph/koo$ me/xri qana/tou
qana/tou de\ staurou=
“he lowered himself,
coming to be (one) hearing under to the point of death,
even (of) death at (the) stake.”

Following the interpretive difficulties of vv. 6-7, verse 8 is relatively straightforward by comparison. We must not read it in isolation, however, for it is closely bound, both conceptually and syntactically, with verse 7 (cf. Parts 1 and 2). This can be illustrated through the following chiastic outline (repeated here from the discussion on v. 7c):

    • e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself”)
      • morfh\n dou/lou labw\n (“taking [the] form of a slave”)
        • e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn geno/meno$
          (“coming to be in [the] likeness of men”)
      • sxh/mati eu(reqei/$ w($ a&nqrwpo$ (“being found in shape as a man”)
    • e)tapei/nwsen e(auto\n… (“he lowered himself…”)

e)tapei/nwsen e(auto/n (8a)—The first phrase e)tapei/nwsen e(auto/n (“he lowered himself”) is clearly parallel with e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself” v. 7a [cf. Part 1]), and is similar in meaning, as well as having structural significance, since the two phrases together contain the first two (of the four) primary aorist verbs which govern the hymn. The verb tapeino/w means “make/bring low, lower”, sometimes in an ethical sense connoting humbleness and humility. That is how the verb tends to be used in Jesus’ teaching, in the context of a dualistic contrast with the verb u(yo/w (“make high”). Believers are to make themselves low, in meekness and humility, and through a willingness to sacrifice oneself in service to others (cf. the core saying par. in Matt 23:12; Lk 14:11; 18:14; also Matt 18:4, and note James 4:10). Paul uses the verb in a similar manner (2 Cor 11:7; 12:21; Phil 4:12).

While the same sort of context prevails in chapter 2 of Philippians (cf. 2:1-4), the specific use of tapeino/w here in the hymn has a deeper Christological meaning as well. It refers, not just to the example of Jesus’ humility and self-sacrifice, in a practical sense, but to its supreme manifestation in his becoming a human being (i.e., the incarnation). Jesus not only “emptied himself”,willing to give up his exalted position alongside God in heaven, and become a human being, he also “lowered himself” still further, going even beyond the lowly position of a human slave.

2:8b

geno/meno$ (“coming to be”)—this same aorist participle (of the verb gi/nomai, “come to be, become”) was used in v. 7c (cf. in Part 2), and, indeed, functions the same way in relation to the phrase “he lowered himself” as the participial phrases in v. 7 (in relation to “he emptied himself”). The remainder of v. 8 describes what it means for Jesus to “lower himself”, just as the phrases in v. 7 explain what his “emptying” entailed.

u(ph/koo$ (“hearing under”)—this predicate adjective, used here in a substantive manner (i.e. characterizing a person who is u(ph/koo$), should be considered in light of the parallelism with v. 7c:

    • “coming to be in (the) likeness of men” (e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn geno/meno$)
    • “coming to be (one who) hears under…” (geno/meno$ u(ph/koo$)

The phrase in v. 7c is also subordinate to that of v. 7b, and so “coming to be in the likeness of men” must be understood in relation to the idea of “taking the form of a slave”. This helps to explain the important aspect of Jesus’ humanity expressed in v. 8. A slave is one who “hears under” (i.e., following the commands, etc, of) the authority of a superior; God, of course, is the superior of all, but Jesus willingly submitted (like a slave) to human authorities as well, sinful and wicked though they may be. The adjective u(ph/koo$ is derived from the verb u(pakou/w (“hear under”), and generally refers to one who listens obediently, in submission, to a figure in authority. The sort of submission described here is elsewhere expressed vividly in the Gospel tradition—most notably, in the three Synoptic predictions by Jesus of his Passion (Mark 8:31; 9:30-32; 10:32-34), and in the Passion Narrative itself. The Jewish and Roman authorities equally play a central role in the suffering and death of Jesus. He submits to them, in meekness and humility, scarcely saying a word in his defense (in the Synoptic narrative, at least), effectively fulfilling the prophecy of Isa 53:7-8 (cf. Acts 8:28-35).

It is possible that Paul’s use of the verb u(ph/koo$, which contains the prefixed element u(po/ (“under”), may echo his (earlier) usage of that preposition in reference to the dual-bondage of humankind: (1) “under sin” (u(po\ a(marti/an, Gal 3:22 [cf. also v. 10]; Rom 7:14), and (2) “under (the) Law” (u(po\ no/mon, Gal 3:23; 4:4-5, etc; Rom 6:14-15). In the earlier studies of this series (cf. also the discussion in Part 1 of this article), we considered both aspects in relation to the incarnation and birth of Jesus. That Jesus came to be under the binding authority of the old covenant, willingly submitting to the required duties and regulations of the Torah, is clear from the wording (and context) in both Gal 4:4 [study] and Rom 15:8 [study]. As far as the bondage under sin, this is indicated in Rom 8:3ff and 2 Cor 5:21 [study]; again, he willingly submitted himself to this bondage, but for the ultimate purpose of freeing humankind from it. He also freed humankind (believers) from the binding power of the Law (Torah), but this particular aspect of the bondage/submission-motif is not being emphasized by Paul in Philippians.

me/xri qana/tou (“to the point of death”)—The adverb me/xri (used as a preposition) indicates the point of termination for a time (or place), i.e. “up to the point of, until”. The common noun qana/to$ (“death”) is in the genitive case here, governed by the preposition me/xri. Jesus submitted to the wicked human authorities, no less than to God Himself, as part of his self-sacrificial, redemptive mission on earth. Such submission meant his death, which signifies a position even lower than that of a slave. A slave may possess only limited rights or freedom, but he/she can still live in some measure of comfort and security, under the authority of others. While for an oppressed slave, death can, at times, be seen as a kind of freedom, most slaves still value life, and would seek to avoid the threat of death.

2:8c

qana/tou de\ staurou= (“even of death of [the] stake”)—This final qualifying phrase shares the same governing preposition me/xri  from 8b, i.e. “even to the point of death at the stake”. The conjunctive particle de/ (“but, and”) is used in a continuative (and emphatic) sense—i.e., even to death at the stake. Any death might be feared, but death by crucifixion in ancient times (and as practiced by the Romans) was especially horrific. It tended to be reserved for the worst criminals, and for members of the lower classes (slaves, etc) as a punishment for treason and other high crimes. Jesus’ death by crucifixion is well-established in the Gospel tradition, though depicted with relatively little detail in the narrative (even the gruesome scourging prior to hanging is barely mentioned). It was an especially painful and humiliating manner of death, and one which created tremendous obstacles for early Christians in their attempts to convince fellow Jews, especially, that Jesus was the promised Messiah. Paul fully understood the weight of this apparent contradiction (Gal 3:10-14, etc), and yet embraced the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion (“the cross”) as a central part of the Gospel message (1 Cor 1:17-18; Gal 5:11; 6:14; Col 1:20; 2:14).

The noun stauro/$ literally means “stake, post, pole”, set upright in the ground, and which could be used then for various forms of punishment, etc. It is usually translated “cross” in the New Testament and other early Christian writings; but, while “cross” captures the idea of crucifixion (with the cross-piece for supporting the arms of the victim), it is inaccurate as a translation of stauro/$.

Conclusion

The idea of the incarnation (and birth) of Jesus, insofar as it is expressed by the phrases in vv. 7-8 (and esp. by the use of the verb gi/nomai), is closely tied to that of his suffering and death. Indeed, the death of Jesus (by crucifixion) marks the climactic point of his kenotic descent (from heaven to earth), as described in the first half of the Christ-hymn (vv. 6-8). The two main aorist verbs (in v. 7a and 8a), reflect two distinct stages in this process: (a) “he emptied [e)ke/nwsen] himself”, and (b) “he lowered [e)tapei/nwsen] himself”. Even if the incarnation, properly, is represented by the “emptying” (i.e., kenosis) in verse 7, it culminates with the “lowering” (i.e., tapeinosis) in verse 8.

This stage of self-lowering involves the specific idea of submission: viz., Christ willingly submitted, putting himself under (u(po/) different levels of binding authority. First he submitted himself to the authority of God Himself (implied in v. 6), and then to the Law of God—as expressed by the covenant with Israel and its Torah; see esp. the incarnational aspects of the statements in Gal 4:4 and Rom 15:8, discussed above (and in the prior articles). He also submitted to the various human authorities (and laws) on earth, however corrupt or wicked they might be. This is expressed best by the Passion narrative in the Gospels, especially the complete lack of resistance shown by Jesus during the course of his arrest, interrogation, and execution (cf. above). In submitting himself to the human authorities (of the current wicked world-order) in this way, Jesus also demonstrates that he has come to be “under sin” (i.e., the human bondage under sin), and willingly accepts the situation, in order to fulfill the greater purpose of God (cf. Rom 8:3ff, which we will be discussing in detail). Jesus’ temporary submission to the binding power of sin (over humankind) leads to his suffering the cruel and shameful death by crucifixion—a form of execution typically reserved for the worst criminals and ‘sinners’.

Paul discusses this last point in Galatians 3:10-14, where he specifically refers to Jesus, in his incarnate humanity, as being “under the curse” (u(po\ kata/ran)—an expression which blends together both aspects of humankind being “under sin” and “under the Law” (cf. above). Indeed, Christ became the curse himself (v. 13), just as he was made to become sin (2 Cor 5:21; cf. Rom 8:3). We noted the strong incarnational aspect and orientation of these references, especially with their use of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai), just as here in vv. 7-8 of the hymn.

*        *        *        *        *        *

This brings to a close the set of articles in this series that deal with the Christological use of the verb gi/nomai by Paul. In the second set, we will focus on the theme of the Divine Sonship of Jesus (esp. utilizing the term ui(o/$, “son”), along with the specific motif of God (the Father) sending His Son. We will begin with a further examination of the confessional statement in Romans 1:3-4, considering this reference to Jesus as God’s Son in the light of the early Christian (Gospel) traditions that Paul inherited.

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Phil 2:7-8 (Part 2)

Philippians 2:7-8, continued

The remaining two phrases of verse 7 build upon the second (v. 7b, discussed in Part 1 of this article), further describing what it means to say that Jesus “emptied himself” (7a). All three descriptive phrases that follow are participial phrases, clarifying and explaining the aorist indicative e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied”). Correspondingly, they are aorist participles, a verbal form that is a bit difficult to translate exactly in English; however, the main point is that the participles are subordinate to the main aorist verb e)ke/nwsen:

    • e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied”)
      • labw/n (“taking…”, active)
      • geno/meno$ (“coming to be…”, middle)
      • eu(reqei/$ (“being found…”, passive)

It is possible that the shift from active to passive could itself be meant to illustrate the “emptying”, in grammatical terms. Such an illustrative structure is made more likely when we consider how the phrases in v. 7cd serve to pivot the syntax (and thought) of the hymn to the next aorist verb, in the main clause of verse 8 (e)tapei/nwsen, “he lowered”). This verbal expression (e)tapei/wsen e(auto/n, “he lowered himself”) forms a precise parallel with e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen in v. 7a. The parallelism is carefully constructed within the poetry of these lines, as the following chiastic outline demonstrates:

    • e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied himself”)
      • morfh\n dou/lou labw\n (“taking [the] form of a slave”)
        • e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn geno/meno$
          (“coming to be in [the] likeness of men”)
      • sxh/mati eu(reqei/$ w($ a&nqrwpo$ (“being found in shape as a man”)
    • e)tapei/nwsen e(auto\n… (“he lowered himself…”)

There is thus a beautiful symmetry in this portion of the hymn which is easily lost or obscured in translation.

In Part 1, I pointed out that the contrast being established was not between “God” and “man” per se, nor between the divine and human “nature” as such; rather, it is primarily a question of status and position—between the exalted position of God in heaven and the lowly status of a human slave. The contrasting expression is “form of a slave” (morfh\ dou/lou), not “form of a man” (morfh\ anqrw/pou). However, the word a&nqrwpo$ (“man, human [being]”) does feature in the last two phrases of the verse, making it clear that we are dealing with a human slave, and of Jesus’ status as a human being. We begin here with the phrase in 7c:

2:7c

e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn geno/meno$
“coming to be in (the) likeness of men”

The key element is not the noun a&nqrwpo$, but the prepositional expression e)n o(moiw/mati (“in [the] likeness”). The noun o(moi/wma is derived from the verb o(moio/w, “to be like (one), be the same”, i.e., “be (or make) similar, resemble”. It thus refers to the likeness or similarity of one thing (or person) to another. Much like the noun morfh/ (“[visible] form, shape”, vv. 6-7), o(moi/wma is rare in the New Testament, occurring just 6 times; four of the other five occurrences are also by Paul (in Romans, 1:23; 5:14; 6:5; 8:3), cf. also Rev 9:7. It is somewhat more common in the LXX (41 times, Exod 20:4; Deut 4:12, 15-16, et al). In Rom 1:23 and 5:14, as also in Rev 9:7, the word is clearly used in reference to the image of something, rather than of the thing itself. Based on this usage, the phrase here could be taken to mean that Jesus did not truly become a human being, but only resembled one. This will be discussed further below.

Romans 6:5 and 8:3 provide a closer contextual parallel to the use of o(moi/wma here in Phil 2:7. First, let us consider Rom 6:5:

“For if we have come to be [gego/namen] (one)s planted together in the likeness [tw=| o(moiw/mati] of his death, then also shall we be (in the likeness) of (his) standing up (out of the dead) [i.e. resurrection]”

We have here the same combination of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) and the dative (prepositional) expression [e)n tw=|] o(moiw/mati (“in [the] likeness”). While the ‘death’ and ‘rising’ of believers is not exactly the same as Jesus’ own, we are united with it in such a way that, through the Spirit, we share in its very power and essential reality. Thus, in this instance, o(moi/wma signifies something more than a mere “image” or “likeness”. Romans 8:3 is even more to the point, as it refers to Jesus as a human being, just as here in the hymn:

“…God (did), sending his own Son in (the) likeness [e)n o(moiw/mati] of flesh of sin [i.e. sinful flesh], and, about sin, brought down judgment on sin in the flesh”

We have already looked at this verse briefly, and will examine it in more detail in the final articles of this series that deal with the specific motif of God sending His Son.

The similar wording in Gal 4:4f (see the prior article on this verse) makes clear that Paul understood God’s “sending” of Jesus to entail his birth as a human being. The same verb of becoming that we have been studying (gi/nomai, “come to be”), and which certainly alludes to Jesus’ birth in Gal 4:4 (cf. also Rom 1:3)—and, it would seem, to a real (physical/biological) birth—indicates that a human birth is implied here in v. 7c as well. It must be admitted however that, on the whole, a better parallel is found in Rom 6:5, where the motif is one of a transforming, participatory union, rather than coming to be born.

The use of the noun o(moi/wma in our phrase could easily be understood in a docetic sense—viz., that Jesus did not truly become a human being, but only seemed to be one in appearance. Our interpretation might further point in that direction when we consider how Paul uses the term in Rom 8:3, where he seems to indicate that Jesus did not come to be a human being in every respect—that is, not in the sinfulness of humankind, its bondage under the power of sin (cp. 2 Cor 5:21). If Jesus only resembled sinful human beings (in their sinfulness); by extension, could not the same usage apply in Phil 2:7—i.e., that Jesus only resembled human beings?

From an orthodox Christological standpoint, such a view is referred to as Docetism. There is little evidence of docetic tendencies in the New Testament itself, and it is unlikely that a docetic view of Jesus’ humanity could have become widespread among believers until the end of the first century, after a pre-existence Christology had been developed and firmly established. The hymn in Phil 2:6-11 is an early example of pre-existence Christology (c. 60 A.D.), and was not intended to support the weight of later (orthodox) Christological concerns. It certainly is no witness to 2nd century docetic Christology, nor does it serve as an apologetic against such a view of Christ. We must read and study the hymn in its mid-1st century context.

How, then, are we to understand this pointed emphasis on outward, visible appearance, when it comes to Jesus’ humanity, with the use of terms such as morfh/ (“[visible] form, shape”), o(moi/wma (“likeness”) and sxh=ma (“bearing, shape, form, appearance”)? A consideration of the next phrase (7d) may shed some light on this question.

2:7d

kai\ sxh/mati eu(reqei\$ w($ a&nqrwpo$
“and in sxh=ma being found as a man”

As noted above, this is the third of the three participial phrases, containing aorist participles, subordinate to the main aorist verb in 7a (e)ke/nwsen, “he emptied [himself]”, Part 1); each successive phrase serves to describe and explain what it means that Jesus “emptied himself”:

    • “taking [labw/n] (the) form [morfh/] of a slave” (7b)
    • “coming to be [geno/meno$] in (the) likeness [o(moi/wma] of men” (7c)
    • “being found [eu(reqei/$] in sxh=ma as a man” (7d)

The predicate (object) for each participial phrase involves a noun referring to the outward, visible appearance of something—morfh/, o(moi/wma, sxh=ma. The first two terms were discussed in the preceding notes (cf. above, and in Part 1); the latter (sxh=ma) will be considered here. Each word in the phrase will be considered in turn.

kai/ (“and”)—the force of the conjunction here serves to pivot between the third and fourth phrases, leading (syntactically) to the main clause of verse 8, and joining with it. In English punctuation, we would probably indicate this with a semicolon:

“but he emptied himself, taking (the) form of a slave, coming to be in (the) likeness of men; and, being found in sxh=ma as a man, he lowered himself…”

On the chiastic structure of this portion of the hymn, see the outline given further above.

sxh/mati—a dative form, equivalent to the prepositional phrase e)n sxh/mati (cp. e)n o(moiw/mati in v. 7c), i.e., “in sxh=ma.” I have left the noun untranslated above to avoid prejudicing the analysis; it also happens to be a word that is difficult to render with precision in English. The noun sxh=ma is ultimately derived from the verb e&xw (“hold”) and its irregular future form sxh/sw, and thus fundamentally refers to the way that something “holds (together)”, specifically, in its (outward) shape or appearance. A suitable English approximation to the noun might be “bearing”, though this still only captures a portion of the semantic range; it is variously translated as “form, shape, figure, fashion, constitution,” etc.

To gain a proper understanding of its meaning and significance here, we would naturally turn to occurrences of sxh=ma elsewhere in the New Testament; unfortunately, there is only one other occurrence (also by Paul, in 1 Cor 7:31, discussed below). It is equally rare in the LXX (just once, Isa 3:17), and thus occurs just 3 times in the entirety of the Greek Scriptures. It is more common in the contemporary Jewish authors Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, who each make varied use of the term in their writings. For Philo, it generally refers to the forms of things as they are perceived by the senses, and then understood by the intellect in their essential character.

Paul’s use of the term in 1 Cor 7:31 is of the utmost importance for our study at this point. The word occurs toward the end of his long discussion on marriage (and marital relations) in chapter 7. An important point of emphasis, running through the discussion, is that it is best if believers remain as they are currently: if already married, to stay married, even if joined with a non-believer; and, if single, to stay single, unless one is unable to do so safely (i.e. chastely). Paul offers several reasons for this, one of which is eschatological—the point he makes here in vv. 29-31, that all things in the present Age are “standing together” at this moment, and the current order of things (in this Age) is in the process of passing away. Here is the exact wording in verse 31:

“for the sxh=ma of this world-order [ko/smo$] leads (the way) along [i.e. passes along]”

The noun sxh=ma applies to the entire ‘order of things’ (world-order) in the present Age; in English idiom, we might say “the shape of things”, i.e., the way things are (and appear) right now. Most human beings live, act, and think in accordance with the way things seem to be in the world, valuing and responding to the outward appearance of things; only believers in Christ are aware of a deeper reality, the promise of a New Age, manifest now only through the presence and activity of the Spirit. Thus, we are to live according to the Spirit, and not according to the form and fashion of the current world-order.

If we now examine the use of sxh=ma in Phil 2:7, in light of the above analysis, we would have to posit two main points of significance:

    • In every aspect of his appearance—including how he lived and conducted himself—Jesus was a human being (a&nqrwpo$)
    • It also refers to a ‘mode of being’, living and acting in the world (of human beings), according to the standards and patterns of the current Age (i.e., eating, drinking, sleeping, working, socializing, etc)

In other words, if we were to see Jesus (objectively) during his life on earth, in his appearance and ordinary behavior, he would look more or less like any other human being. This is what is mean by the last expression w($ a&nqrwpo$ (“as a man”).

As mentioned in the discussion on v, 7c (see above), this emphasis on the outward, visible appearance—reinforced by the trio of terms, morfh/, o(moi/wma, and sxh=ma—could easily be interpreted in a docetic sense. In other words, Jesus was not truly a human being, but only looked like one, merely appearing to be human. However, I see no evidence in the hymn, when judged in its mid-first century context, for anything like the Docetism of the 2nd-century; nor does the hymn serve as an apologetic against such a view of Jesus. How, then, should we understand these terms in context?

First, we must keep in mind the basic significance of the noun morfh/, used in the parallel, contrastive expressions “form of God” (v. 6a) and “form of a slave” (v. 7a). In discussing the earlier phrases, I have argued that the main point of contrast is one of status and position—i.e., between the exalted position of God in heaven and the lowly position of human beings on earth. The morfh/ is the visible distinction between God and man—the traditional splendor (glory/honor) that surrounds God in visions and theophanies vs. the limitation, weakness, and suffering of the mortal condition. Jesus “took on” (vb lamba/nw) this mortal condition, with its weakness, when he united with humankind (“came to be”, vb gi/nomai), to the point of being born as a human child (implied in the hymn, cf. again the use of gi/nomai in Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3). When other people saw him during his earthly life, he “was found” (vb eu(ri/skw, passive), i.e., he appeared, to be just like any other human being (“as a man”, w($ a&nqrwpo$); cp. Paul’s reference to a consideration of Jesus “according to the flesh” (kata\ sa/rka) in 2 Cor 5:16.

Second, there is a definite progression in the lines of vv. 7-8 which needs to be recognized:

    • “he emptied himself” —willingness to give up his exalted (highest) position with God in heaven
    • “taking the form of a slave” —taking on the lowly (lowest) position of humankind on earth
    • “coming to be in the likeness of men” —union/participation with the human condition, implying an actual birth as a human being
    • “being found in form/shape/bearing as a man” —his earthly life, among other human beings
    • “he lowered himself” —suffering and death, and his willingness to endure it

The trio of terms ultimately serve, simply, to refer to Jesus’ earthly life (and death) as a human being.

Finally, these terms can also be seen as part of an early attempt to express what we might call the ‘mystery of the incarnation’. Jesus was a human being—just like all others (in appearance), but different from all others in his unique relationship to God the Father (and in his identity as Messiah and Son of God). This uniqueness was originally understood (almost entirely) in terms of the resurrection, through which Jesus was exalted to a position at the right hand of God the Father in heaven. Eventually, however, believers came to the recognition that Jesus must have held this position (as Son of God) even prior to his earthly life (i.e. the pre-existence Christology expressed in vv. 6ff of the hymn). At the time the hymn was composed, Christians were only just beginning to explore what this divine pre-existence meant in terms of Jesus’ earthly life. We cannot expect to find in the hymn a systematic and fully developed Christological statement that dealt with all of the implications of this belief. We can, though, glimpse a powerful Christology taking shape—in some ways, all the more vibrant and compelling for its expression within the limitations of this poetic and hymnic form.

In the conclusion (Part 3) of this article, we will turn to the three phrases of verse 8.

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Phil 2:7-8 (Part 1)

Philippians 2:7-8

The next Pauline passage to be examined in this study is the so-called Christ-hymn of Philippians (2:6-11)—particularly the first half (vv. 6-8), in which the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) occurs in two clauses (in vv. 7 and 8), in a context that certainly may be considered incarnational, alluding (at the very least) to the human birth of Jesus. Nearly every aspect of this passage (and its wording) has been subject to intense scrutiny by commentators and scholars, with many differences of interpretation. In particular, it is a matter of some debate just how far the hymn expresses a definite belief in the incarnation of a pre-existent Divine being. I have discussed Phil 2:6-11 extensively in an earlier set of exegetical notes, and so will make no attempt to reproduce that analysis in full. Instead, I will focus on the specific clauses in vv. 7-8 where the verb gi/nomai is used, along with their immediate context.

We begin with the structure of the hymn itself, in its first half. It is important to note that verses 7-8 follow, and are subordinate to, v. 6. There are numerous exegetical, interpretive, and theological issues related to the initial verse, which I have addressed in the aforementioned notes (on 6a and 6b); any discussion of v. 6 here will refer back to those notes. Here is my arrangement of the clauses in vv. 7-8, which illustrate some of the linguistic and conceptual parallels:

    • a)lla\ e(auto\n e)ke/nwsen  (but he emptied himself)
      • morfh\n dou/lou labw/n (taking [the] form of a slave)
        • e)n o(moiw/mati a)nqrw/pwn geno/meno$ (coming to be in [the] likeness of men)
      • kai\ sxh/mati eu(reqei\$ w($ a&nqrwpo$ (and being found [in] shape/appearance as a man)
    • e)tapei/nwsen e(auto\n (he lowered himself)
      • geno/meno$ u(ph/koo$ me/xri qana/tou (becoming obedient [lit. hearing/listening] until death)
        • qana/tou de\ staurou= (—but a death of [i.e. on] [the] stake!)

Each of these clauses and phrases is important for an interpretation of vv. 6-8 (and of the hymn as a whole); and, it is here that the idea of the incarnation (and human birth) of Christ is vividly expressed. We begin with the first phrase of verse 7.

2:7a

a)lla\ e(autw\n e)ke/nwsen
“but he emptied himself”

a)lla/ (“but”)—the connection of the adversative particle is a major question: does it tie back (in verse 6 [note]) to ei@nai i&sa qew=| or to a(rpagmo\n h(ghsato? If the former, then it signifies that Christ forsook equality with God (in some sense); if the latter, that he forsook any desire to seize it (or hold it) through force. The latter phrase provides the more immediate syntactical connection, and point of contrast; on the meaning of that difficult phrase in context, cf. the three lines of interpretation mentioned at the close of the note [on 6b].

e(autw/n (“himself”)—this reflexive personal pronoun, referring to Jesus Christ (v. 5), is the predicate, providing the object of the verb that follows. That is, it declares what was “emptied” (by Jesus)—he emptied himself!

e)ke/nwsen (“emptied”)—an aorist active form of the verb keno/w (“[make] empty, empty out”), one of a sequence of aorist verb forms that govern the hymn and guide the syntax of the passage:

      • e)ke/nwsen (“he [Jesus] emptied [himself]”)—his ‘departure’ from heaven and birth/incarnation as a human being
      • e)tapei/nwsen (“he lowered [himself]”)—his suffering and death
      • u(peru/ywsen (“[God] lifted [him] high”)—Jesus’ resurrection and ascension/exaltation
      • e)xari/sato (“[God himself] showed favor [to him]”)—”with the name over every name”, as Lord and (Son of) God in heaven

The verb keno/w can refer to a concrete physical/material emptying, or, in a more figurative and metaphorical sense, to removing/nullifying the significance of something. The four other occurrences in the New Testament, all by Paul in his letters, use the verb in the latter (figurative) sense:

      • Rom 4:14—Paul’s argument in chapter 4 (repeating that of Galatians 3) makes the claim that, if the promise to Abraham is fulfilled through observance of the Torah, then the significance of trust (pi/sti$) in Christ is “made empty”
      • 1 Cor 1:17—Similarly, to rely on ordinary human wisdom and eloquence in preaching (the Gospel), risks “emptying” the central message of the sacrificial death (the cross) of Christ of its meaning and power
      • 1 Cor 9:15; 2 Cor 9:3—In these two passages, the verb is used in connection with the “boast” of Paul (and other Christian ministers), by which he refers to the practical effect of his faithfulness in proclaiming the Gospel—believers coming to trust in Jesus, the establishment of local congregations, their growth in faith, etc. The negative behavior and attitude of some believers (and churches) can effectively “empty” that boast of its meaning and validity.

But what does it mean for a person to “empty himself”? Based on the Pauline usage of the verb, utilizing a figurative sense of keno/w, it would have to mean something like making oneself to be of no significance or importance. Use of the verb this way, of a person, is quite rare; rather more common is the idea of something a person possesses being taken away. And, indeed, many commentators would interpret the phrase here in that latter sense—i.e., Jesus gave up (gave away) his divine attributes, or his divine status/position.

To speak of Jesus’ divine “nature” or “attributes” is, on the whole, rather out of place here in the hymn of Phil 2:6-11. It is understandable, of course, why commentators would feel impelled to read the passage in terms of a later, more developed, Christology; however, this should be avoided, if one wishes to gain a proper understanding of the passage in its original (first century) context. This important point will be discussed further as we proceed through vv. 7-8. Which is not to say that there is no relationship between Phil 2:6-11 and the orthodox Christology held (and debated) by subsequent generations. Indeed, the passage has been key to Christological discussion and debate, much of it quite fascinating and provocative. An entire Kenotic theology developed, based largely upon this passage, framed by the conceptual matrix of vv. 6-8, and it is worth mentioning briefly here. 

The word kenosis, a transliteration of the Greek noun ke/nwsi$ (“emptying”, related to the verb keno/w), came to be used as a technical term for the idea that, in the incarnation, (the pre-existent) Jesus “emptied” himself, in a metaphysical sense, of the divine attributes which he possessed (as the Son of God) in his eternal existence alongside God the Father. Such “emptying” would explain many aspects of the New Testament portrait of Jesus, though not without resulting in a number of other difficulties that have to be considered. Yet, neither the hymn, nor the way Paul uses it in his letter, indicates any attempt to make a definitive statement regarding the divine or human “nature” of Jesus Christ. The early Christology of the first century A.D. had a very different orientation, working from a different set of theological premises.

2:7b

morfh\n dou/lou labw/n
“taking (the) form of a slave”

This phrase explains what it means that Jesus “emptied himself” (7a, see above), and indicates what this “emptying” entailed.

morfh\n (“form, shape”)—the noun morfh/ in the accusative (object of the following participle labw/n). The same noun was used in verse 6a, and the expression morfh\ dou/lou (“form of a slave”) is clearly intended as parallel with morfh\ qeou/ (“form of God”); on its use in v. 6a, cf. my earlier note. The two instances of the noun here in vv. 6-7 are the only occurrences in the New Testament (apart from the ‘long ending’ of Mark [16:12]), and it is equally rare in the LXX (occurring just 8 times). A related verbal noun mo/rfwsi$ is also rare (Rom 2:20; 2 Tim 3:5), along with the verb morfo/w (only in Gal 4:19); neither word is used in the LXX. The fundamental meaning of the morf– word-group is that of the (external) form or shape of something—often specifically of human beings or animals, but it could apply to any object or feature of the visible world. It is important to keep in mind that the emphasis is on the visible form or appearance of something.

doulou/ (“of a slave”)—The noun dou=lo$ refers to a slave; related is the corresponding feminine noun dou/lh (for a female slave), the more abstract noun doulai/a (“slavery”), adjective dou=lo$ (“enslaved, [act]ing as a slave”), and verb douleu/w (“be a slave”). It is a common noun, occurring 126 times in the New Testament, including frequently in the Pauline letters. Paul sometimes uses it in reference to people who are actually slaves (in Greco-Roman society), but just as often it is used figuratively or metaphorically, either in a negative (e.g., human beings enslaved to the power of sin) or positive sense (e.g., believers bound in service to God). Of particular importance is the idiom of believers (esp. ministers of the Gospel) as “slaves” (dou=loi) of God and Christ (Rom 1:1; Phil 1:1, etc).

How should the word be understood here? We must bear in mind, first, that the expression “form of a slave” is set as a contrastive parallel with “form of God” in v. 6, with “slave” (dou=lo$) forming a precise contrast to God. As a contrast, this can be taken two ways:

    • By “slave” is meant primarily a human being, in contrast with God
    • The term signifies a lowly status and position, contrasted with the exalted status/position of God (in heaven)

If the former were intended, we would perhaps expect the parallel to be with “form of a man” (morfh\ a)nqrw/pou), rather than “form of a slave”. The noun a&nqrwpo$ does occur in the final two phrases of v. 7 (to be discussed), making it clear that we are dealing with a human slave; however, this does not change the fact that the wording carefully avoids making a precise contrast between deity (God) and humanity (man) per se. The further terminology (in vv. 8ff), of “making low” and “making high,” strongly suggests that the point of the contrast here is one of status and position. God in heaven has the highest, most exalted position, while a human slave has one of the lowest.

Given the early Christian usage of the noun dou=lo$ to refer to believers (esp. ministers) as “slaves” of God and Christ (cf. above), is it possible that the term is meant to indicate Jesus’ position as a slave (or servant) of God? Some commentators have thought so, even suggesting that the Isaian “Servant of the Lord” motif is in view, by way of the “Servant Songs” of (Deutero-) Isaiah (esp. 52:13-53:12). There is no doubt that Jesus, as the Anointed One (Messiah), in his earthly life and ministry, and all the more in his sacrificial death, was seen by early Christians as fulfilling these Isaian Servant Songs (Acts 8:30-35, etc). Moreover, there does seem to be a certain similarity of theme between, for example, Isa 52:13-53:12 and our hymn. However, an emphasis on Jesus as the “slave of God” here, in my view, defeats the force of the contrastive parallel. The point is that Jesus went from the highest position to the lowest, which is symbolized by the motif of a human slave, a person with limited rights and freedoms, dependent entirely on the power and control of one’s human master(s), which could (at times) be harsh and cruel.

labw/n (“taking”)—an aorist active participle of the common verb lamba/nw (“take, receive”). It is clearly epexegetical to the main aorist verb e)ke/nwsen (“he emptied”); the only real interpretive question is whether the participle should be understood as a consequence of Jesus’ “emptying”, or characteristic of it. In other words, does his “taking the form of a slave” describe the emptying, or is it the result of a prior action? I believe the participles of v. 7 are best understood as descriptive—i.e., what Jesus’ “emptying” of himself entailed. It was an action, not of seizing/holding to an exalted heavenly/divine status (v. 6), but of taking on a lower and humbling status instead. This will be discussed further in the next note.

This may be an appropriate time to consider again the three lines of interpretation I put forth (in the earlier note on v. 6b) for understanding the term a(rpagmo/$ (“seizing, [something] seized”) in v. 6b :

    • Though Jesus had an exalted position alongside God, he was not equal to God in all respects; he might have been inclined to seek this greater status, this equality, but he chose not to grasp after it. Some commentators see here a contrastive parallel between Jesus and Adam, who was tempted by the promise of becoming just like God.
    • Jesus did possess this equality with God, but not as something which one grasps hold of in an ambitious way, or to protect one’s position; he was willing to let go any attachment to his divine status for the sake of his redemptive mission on earth.
    • The exalted position of Jesus alongside God, by which he shares equal rule with the Father, is not characterized by a grasping after power, such as ambitious human rulers do; rather, it is characterized by a willingness to sacrifice oneself for the good of those over whom one rules.

The analysis above suggests that the second view is closest to what is being expressed in the hymn—viz., a willingness by Jesus to give up his exalted divine position (equal to God) and take on the low position of human “slave”. At the same time, the contrast between God and “slave” suggests the natural contrast between the slave and a lord or master (i.e. ruler). This, indeed, would frame the contrast even more sharply: ruler with God in heaven vs. lowly slave among human beings on earth. There would also seem to be an implicit emphasis in the hymn on Jesus’ willingness to abandon his ruling position for the sake of his redemptive mission on earth.
The idea, common to many strands of developed orthodox Christology, that Jesus became a human slave while still maintaining his ruling position in heaven, is foreign to the hymn and should not be read into it. Indeed, I would assert that such a Christological interpretation, while legitimate in its attempt to balance the full weight of the theological implications brought about by the New Testament witness, actually contradicts (and defeats) the thematic structure and thought of the hymn itself.

Some consideration should be given to possible relationship between the expression “form of a slave” and the idea of slavery/bondage as expressed, in particular, in Galatians and Romans. In these letters, Paul presents a dual, or two-fold, concept of bondage—viz., of humankind bound (i) “under sin” (u(po\ a(marti/an, Gal 3:22 [cf. also v. 10]; Rom 7:14), and (ii) “under (the) Law” (u(po\ no/mon, Gal 3:23; 4:4-5, etc; Rom 6:14-15). As we have seen in the prior studies, both of these aspects of slavery/bondage are relevant to Paul’s understanding of the incarnation (and human birth) of Jesus:

    • “under sin” —the statements in 2 Cor 5:21 (cf. the study on this verse) and Rom 8:3ff (to be discussed in an upcoming study) strongly suggest that God’s Son (Jesus), in becoming human, also came under humankind’s bondage to sin; Jesus would have been prone to the sinful impulses in the human nature (“flesh”), even if he himself never committed any sin.
    • “under the Law” —most notable is the incarnational statement in Galatians 4:4, discussed in the prior study (cp. Rom 1:3 [study]), which specifically ties the idea of God’s Son coming to be (born) as a human being (“out of a woman”) to his being bound “under the Law”. The wording in Romans 15:8 [study] expresses a similar thought—viz., that Jesus, in becoming a “servant of the circumcision”, took on the religious-ethical obligations of the old covenant, involving (primarily) fulfilling the regulations and required duties of the Torah.

In the second part of this article, we will examine the last two phrases of verse 7.

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Rom 1:3; 15:8

Romans

We continue here with our initial line of investigation for this series: Paul’s use of the verb gi/nomai (or the corresponding idea of becoming) in Christologically significant contexts, relating to the birth of Jesus (as a human being) and/or to the idea of the incarnation (of the Son of God) in the person of Jesus. We have already considered the key references in 1-2 Corinthians and Galatians (cf. the previous article); we now turn to Romans, which contains three references that need to be examined: 1:3, 8:3ff, and 15:8. The central reference is best dealt with under the second division of our study (B.), dealing with the idea of the Sonship of Jesus, and of God (the Father) sending His Son to earth. For this reason, 8:3ff will be touched upon only very briefly in this article, with most of our attention focused on the two references coming from the beginning and end of the letter, respectively—1:3 and 15:8.

Romans 1:3

Paul’s great letter to the Christians at Rome begins with a long introductory sentence, spanning verses 1-7, in which he greets the Roman Christians. As is typical for Paul, this greeting contains two main points of emphasis: (1) his identity as an apostle, one specially commissioned and “sent forth” by Christ to proclaim the Gospel; and (2) a statement regarding the Gospel itself, containing a summarizing theological declaration, applied (in a general way) to the situation of the believers whom he is addressing. Usually, the various rhetorical key points of the letter are contained in the introduction, either implicitly or in a seminal form.

The framework of the sentence is comprised of verses 1 and 7: Paul the author (v. 1) greets the Roman Christians to whom he is writing (v. 7). In between, we have the expository theological statement in vv. 2-6. It can be treated as a lengthy parenthesis. This parenthesis is introduced by a neuter relative pronoun (o%), which refers back to the neuter noun eu)agge/lion (“good message”, i.e., the Gospel) in verse 1: i.e., “the good message…which…”. The statement in vv. 2-6 thus expounds upon the Gospel—its nature, purpose, and effects, etc—with the immediate relative clause in v. 2 qualifying the Gospel as something about which God spoke through the Prophets of Israel in earlier generations. Early Christians, of course, found many passages in the Old Testament which were seen as foretelling (or prefiguring) the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—that is, the Gospel message—along with the mission work of believers in proclaiming the Gospel.
Paul himself mentions a number of these in his letters, either as allusions or by direct quotation. For a survey of some of the key Old Testament Scriptures utilized in this way by early believers, cf. the article “He opened to us the Scriptures”, along with the various articles in the series “Yeshua the Messiah”.

As Paul indicates, the testimony of the Scriptures is about (peri/) God’s Son (“His Son”). This prepositional phrase (“about His Son” [peri\ tou= ui(ou= au)tou=]) further modifies (and expounds) the relative clause in verse 2. Following this main phrase, the modifying clause (vv. 3-4) is a complex unit comprised of two parallel participial phrases, punctuated by a declarative Christological (confessional) formula that identifies Jesus Christ as God’s Son. This structure may be outlined as follows:

    • “…about His Son,
      • the (one hav)ing come to be (born) out of (the) seed of David according to (the) flesh,
      • the (one hav)ing been marked out (as) Son of God, in power, according to (the) Spirit of holiness…
      • —Yeshua (the) Anointed our Lord”

Many commentators feel that here Paul is introducing a confessional formula, one which may have been in use by believers prior to his writing Romans, and which he himself may not have composed. There is a clear poetic parallelism to the lines, as can be seen by the outline above. There are several key points of parallelism:

    • two substantive (passive/middle) aorist participles, from the verbs gi/nomai (“come to be [born]”) and o(ri/zw (“mark out”), signifying the beginning (birth) and end (death/resurrection) of Jesus’ earthly life, respectively
    • the expressions “seed [i.e. son] of David” and “Son of God”, each of which has Messianic significance and is uniquely applied to Jesus by early Christians
    • juxtaposition of “flesh” (sa/rc) and “Spirit” (pneu=ma)

The first line, or couplet, of the poetic formula (v. 3) emphasizes the beginning of Jesus’ earthly life. It is a reference most certainly to Jesus’ birth, as is indicated both by the use of the verb gi/nomai (“come to be, become”) and the term “seed” (spe/rma). The phrasing with the verb gi/nomai resembles that in Galatians 4:4, which we examined in the previous article; indeed, there is a strong parallelism to the two statements:

    • “…(God sent) His Son, (hav)ing come to be [geno/menon] out of [e)k] a woman”
    • “…(about) His Son, the (one) (hav)ing come to be [geno/meno$] out of [e)k] (the) seed of David…”

In each instance the verb of becoming (gi/nomai), as an aorist participle (indicating something coming to be in the past), is used to refer to the birth of Jesus (spec. as a human being); cp. John 1:14. The real flesh-and-blood nature of this birth is indicated, in Gal 4:4, by the detail that he came out of a woman, and in Rom 1:3, by the use of the dual expressions “seed of David” and “according to the flesh” (kata\ sa/rka); cf. Jn 1:14; 1 Tim 3:16. Paul can use the latter expression in a decidedly negative sense, where it is closely associated with the human impulse toward sin (cf. Gal 6:8; Rom 8:4-5, 12-13); however, generally, it simply refers to the human nature (1 Cor 10:18; Rom 11:14; Col 3:22; cf. also 2 Cor 5:16 and Rom 9:3, 5, where again it is applied to the humanity of Jesus). The negative implication of the expression, with its implicit connection to human sinfulness, does tend to prevail in Paul’s usage (cf. Gal 4:23, 29; 1 Cor 1:26; 2 Cor 10:2-3; 11:18). The application of the negative aspect to Jesus could allude to the thought expressed in Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:21; and Rom 8:3 (this latter verse will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming article).

Two additional points related to v. 3 need to be addressed. First (1.), the Messianic orientation; and, second (2.), the possibility of a reference to the incarnation of the (pre-existent) Son of God.

1. “(the) seed of David” (kata\ spe/rmato$)

The word spe/rma (something “scattered,” i.e., “seed”) often refers to the biological descent of a child (son) from his father (or ancestor[s]). This means that: (a) “seed of David” is a reference to a descendant of David, and (b) that the expression is equivalent to “son of David”. The latter expression occurs a number of times in the Synoptic Gospels (Mk 10:47-48; 12:35ff pars; Matt 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 21:9, 15), and is tied to the fundamental Messianic belief in a ruler, coming from the line of David, who will appear at the end-time to defeat/subdue the nations and restore the kingdom of Israel. This is the Davidic-ruler figure type, which I discuss in great detail in Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

In the early Christian preaching (kerygma) as recorded in the first half of the book of Acts, Jesus is associated with David in several ways: (1) David prophesied in the Psalms regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection, (2) specific Psalms given a Messianic interpretation are applied to Jesus, and (3) Jesus is seen as fulfilling the covenant and promise to David. The most notable references are:

    • Acts 2:25-36, which cites Psalm 16:8-11 in the context of Jesus death and resurrection (vv. 25-28), and Psalm 110:1 in terms of Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand God in Heaven (vv. 34-35). In verse 30, Jesus is seen as the descendant of David who would sit on the throne as King (cf. Ps 132:10-11 and 2 Sam 7:11-16 etc), and is specifically said to be the “Anointed (One)” of God in the concluding verse 36.
    • Acts 4:25-27, where Psalm 2:1-2 is cited and applied to the Passion of Jesus; again he is identified with the “Anointed (One)” of God.
    • Acts 13:22ff, 33-37—again Psalm 2 and 16 are cited (Ps 2:7; 16:10), as well as Isaiah 55:3, indicating that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise/covenant with David.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, there are several references to Jesus as a descendant of David (including here in Rom 1:3):

    • 2 Timothy 2:8—”Remember Yeshua (the) Anointed (One), having been raised out of the dead, (and) out of the seed of David…”
    • Revelation 22:16—(Jesus speaking) “I am the root and the ge/no$ of David…” (cf. also Rev 5:5, and note 3:7)

In Rev 22:16, ge/no$ is literally the coming to be (cf. gi/nomai in Rom 1:3), in the sense of something which grows or comes forth (from the ground, womb, etc), i.e. “offspring”, but given the use of “root” (r(i/za) something like “sprout” or “branch” may be intended. Jesus declares that he is both the root of David and the branch/sprout coming out of the root. For the Messianic significance of such images (from Isa 11:1ff etc), see the discussion in Part 7 of the aforementioned study series.

In the Matthean and Lukan Infancy narratives, the birth of Jesus is clearly tied to the idea of his Davidic descent (on the references, cf. the discussion in Part 8 of “Yeshua the Anointed”, and also my recent notes for the current Christmas season) a point that is reinforced by the genealogy of Jesus in each Gospel. Despite their differences in detail, the Matthean and Lukan genealogies show Jesus’ ancestry as stemming from David’s line (cf. the explicit statement in Matt. 1:1). However, both genealogies clearly belong to Joseph and not Mary, and so attest to a legal, rather than biological, ancestry. Yet the wording in Rom 1:3 indicates that a biological descent from David is in view, a view (from Paul’s standpoint) that would tend to be confirmed by the parallel with Galatians 4:4:

“…God se(n)t out from (Him) His Son, (hav)ing come to be (born) out of a woman“

Here the expression “out of a woman” matches “out of (the) seed of David”. This would imply that Jesus’ mother also was of Davidic descent, a belief which, to be sure, came to be held by many early Christians, even though the only available New Testament evidence suggests that Mary was from the tribe of Levi, rather than from Judah (Lk 1:5, 36, 39ff).

Far more important, however, is the identification of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah, which, along with the title “Son of God”, was the central Christological designation for Jesus among early believers; on the pairing of these titles, cf. Mk 1:1 [v.l.]; Lk 4:41; Matt 16:16; 26:63; Jn 11:27; 20:31, etc.

2. “His Son” (o( ui(o/$ au)tou=)

The overriding Messianic context of vv. 3-4 (cf. the discussion in 1. above) strongly suggests that the reference to Jesus as God’s Son should be understood (primarily) in a Messianic sense. I have already noted the close connection between the titles “Anointed One” (Messiah) and “Son of God”; on the Messianic significance of the title “Son of God” itself, and also its relation to the Davidic-ruler figure type (“Son of David”), cf. Part 12 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”. The main question I wish to consider here is whether the use of “His Son” (i.e. the Son of God), in this context, implies a belief in the divine pre-existence of Jesus. That Paul did hold a pre-existence Christology, at least in a rudimentary form, is suggested by several references, in his letters, to God sending His Son. The most significant of these is Gal 4:4, which was already studied in the previous article:

“when the fullness of time came, God se(n)t out from (Him) His Son, (hav)ing come to be (born) out of a woman…”

Since the “sending” precedes Jesus’ birth as a human being, the implication is that he is to be identified as God’s Son even prior to his earthly life (and his resurrection). Similarly, in Rom 8:3 (cf. also v. 32), the divine Sonship of Jesus precedes his incarnation as a human being. The relatively close parallel in wording between Gal 4:4 and Rom 1:3 suggests that, at the very least, Paul would have viewed the two passages in a similar way. Romans was presumably written sometime around the year 57 A.D., likely a few years earlier than Philippians. As we shall discuss, the first half of the Philippians hymn (vv. 6-8) deals specifically with the lowering/emptying of the pre-existent Son of God (Christ), so that he should become a human being. There the same aorist middle participle of the verb gi/nomai is used, in v. 7: “(hav)ing come to be [geno/meno$] in (the) likeness of men”.

Romans 15:8

The closing section (15:7-13) of Paul’s lengthy exhortation (exhortatio) to the Roman Christians (12:1-15:13) exhibits certain points of similarity with the introduction (1:1-7, cf. above):

    • The exhortation for the Roman Christians to welcome one another (lit. take/receive toward [oneself], vb proslamba/nw), v. 7, parallels Paul’s initial greeting (1:1 + 7).
    • The theological core of the introduction (vv. 2-6) begins with an emphasis on Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of what God has promised (to His people, and to humankind) in the Scriptures; so it is also the case here in the exhortation (vv. 8-9ff).
    • There is a common Christological emphasis on Jesus’ coming to be among God’s people (Israel) as a fellow Israelite (according to his human nature, i.e., “flesh”), implying that he was born as a human being, into Israelite/Jewish society with its religious and cultural identity.
    • This human life was in accordance with Jesus’ identity as the (Davidic) Messiah; note, in particular, the expressions “seed of David” (1:3) and “root of Jesse” (15:12, quoting Isaiah 11:1).
    • In his role as the Messiah, sent by God, Jesus’ earthly life (culminating in his death and resurrection) brings salvation and deliverance to Israel (as well as all of humankind, Jews and Gentiles alike).
    • Both passages specifically mention the power of the (holy) Spirit (1:4; 15:13), in connection with the life and ministry of Jesus, and with his Messianic identity.

It is at the beginning of the theological/Christological core of each section that the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) is used. Parallel with the occurrence in 1:3 (see above), we have the corresponding statement in 15:8:

“For I say, (the) Anointed (One) having become [gegenh=sqai] a servant of (the) circumcision, over [i.e., on behalf of] (the) truth of God, (was) for the (purpose of) confirming the message (laid) upon the fathers”

The noun peritomh/ (lit., “cutting around”) is the common Greek term for the rite of circumcision, and Paul (along with other early Christians) came to use it as a shorthand for Israelite/Jewish religious identity, in the context of the (old) covenant and the required duties, etc, of the Torah. Thus, to say that Jesus became an “attendant” (i.e., servant, minister) of the circumcision refers specifically to this religious identity—viz., as an Israelite (or Jew) under the covenant. As in 1:3, the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) alludes to his human birth; at the same time, the context makes clear that this was a birth into the Israelite/Jewish society and religious culture (under the covenant and its Torah). Paul joined together these same two aspects in Galatians 4:4 (cf. the previous study):

    • “(hav)ing come to be (born) out of a woman” —i.e., his birth as a human being generally
    • “(hav)ing come to be under the Law” —his birth as an Israelite/Jew under the covenant and Torah

What Paul does not particularly emphasize in Galatians is the positive effect of Jesus’ earthly life for the Israelite/Jewish people. This is due to the rhetorical (and polemical) thrust of the letter, in which he focuses on the freedom of believers from the Torah, emphasizing the end of the old covenant that is brought about by the coming of Christ (cp. 2 Cor 3:6-18). There is thus an implicit contrast that runs throughout the letter, between the old religious identity (of Israelites and Jews) and the new identity of believers in Christ (both Jewish and non-Jewish).

Paul’s purpose in Romans is rather different, as he treats and develops extensively the theme of the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. We thus find greater emphasis on the ministry of Christ as the fulfillment of the old covenant, along with all of the key promises and prophecies made by God in the Scriptures. Romans is replete with Scriptural quotations and allusions, including several “chains” (catena) of Scripture-citations. The longest and most prominent of these occurs in chapter 3 (vv. 10-18), but there is another such sequence here in vv. 9-12, as Paul quotes from Psalm 18:49 [par 2 Sam 22:50] (v. 9), Deut 32:43 (v. 10), Psalm 117:1 (v. 11), and a conflate quotation from Isa 11:1 and 10 (v. 12). The last of these quotations emphasizes Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah, as in 1:3.

It is especially significant that all four of these Scriptures express the theme of the nations (i.e., Gentiles) joining with Israel to give praise and worship to YHWH (as the one true God). This, of course, is fully in keeping with Paul’s overriding purpose in Romans—to declare and affirm the unity (and equality) of Jewish and non-Jewish believers under the new covenant in Christ.

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Gal 3:13; 4:4ff

Galatians

As noted in the introduction, many scholars would date Galatians as earlier than either 1 or 2 Corinthians, having been written perhaps in 53 or 54 A.D. (some would date it even earlier, 49-50). I am more inclined to place it a bit later (perhaps 57), and closer in proximity of time to both 2 Corinthians and Romans. Its subject matter is very close to that of Romans (in chaps. 3-8), utilizing some of the same (or similar) arguments and illustrations. As for the polemical tone and emphasis of Galatians, it resembles that of 2 Corinthians (esp. in chapters 10-13). I am thus discussing the references in Galatians after those in 2 Corinthians (cf. the previous article). However, it is worth keeping in mind the possibility that Galatians was written a year or two (or more) before 2 Corinthians.

Galatians 3:13

The first reference I wish to discuss is Paul’s statement in 3:13, for two reasons: first, its use of the verb gi/nomai, and, second, its conceptual similarity to the statement in 2 Cor 5:21 (discussed in the previous article).

“(The) Anointed (One has) purchased us out of the curse of the law, (hav)ing become over us [i.e., for our sake] a curse (himself), (in) that it has been written: ‘A curse upon every (one) hanging upon (a piece of) wood [i.e., a tree]'”

Verses 7-14 represent the second in a series of six arguments made by Paul, constituting the probatio (chaps. 3-4) of the letter, in which he seeks to persuade the Galatians regarding the proposition he has made (propositio, 2:15-21), viz.: that a person is ‘made right’ (vb dikaio/w) in God’s eyes through trust in Jesus Christ, and not by performing the required duties, etc, of the Torah (v. 16). As a consequence, Paul also establishes the highly controversial principle that believers in Christ are no longer bound by the Torah regulations, but instead are set free from them (vv. 19-21; cf. 5:1ff, and the arguments throughout chaps. 3-4). I have discussed Paul’s view of the Law (Torah) extensively in an earlier series (part of “The Law and the New Testament”), along with a set of articles on all the sections of Galatians; cf. here the article on 3:7-14.

Paul contrasts the old and new covenants (cf. on 2 Cor 3:7ff in the previous article) by juxtaposing Abraham’s trust in God (and the blessing that results from the covenant God established with him), vv. 7-9, against the “works” required by the Mosaic covenant (and the curse that results from failing to perform them), vv. 10-14. This curse (kata/ra) is part of the ancient binding-agreement (covenant) format (cf. Deut 28:15-68, alongside the blessings of vv. 1-14). Paul specifically cites the declaration in Deut 27:26, but interprets it in such a way as to maintain that everyone who is bound by the Law (including Gentiles, cf. 4:8ff) is effectively under a curse (u(po\ kata/ran, v. 10). Christ, through his death, freed humankind from this curse, and, at the same time, freed them from the binding power of the Torah. It is only through trust in Jesus that this freedom is realized.

By juxtaposing Deut 27:26 with 21:23, Paul is able to tie this curse-motif to the idea of Jesus’ death—i.e., by crucifixion (“hanging on [the] wood”). Indeed, Paul specifically states (here in v. 13) that, with his death, Jesus actually became the curse (“having become [geno/meno$] [the] curse for us”). This is altogether similar in thought to the statement in 2 Cor 5:21, in which Jesus is said to have ‘become’ sin (spec., [God] made [him to become] sin); cp. Rom 8:3. In Romans (chaps. 3-7, esp. ch. 7), Paul expounds on the close association between the Torah and sin; for this same association here in Galatians, see vv. 19-23. Thus, in terms of Paul’s line of argument, the “curse” is a concept that joins together the bondage humanity experiences under both the Law and the power of sin:

Through Christ’s death (and resurrection), those who trust in him are freed (v. 13, “purchased out of [bondage]”) from all three of these. In Paul’s thought, there is a strong incarnational aspect to this proposition, even if it is only expressed in a seminal form. The freedom wrought by God came as a result of Christ coming to be (born) “under the Law” (see below on 4:4ff), and thus also “under the curse” (and “under sin”, cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Rom 8:3). The use of the verb gi/nomai (“come to be, become”) also reinforces this incarnational aspect: just as he came to be born a human being, he also “became the curse” (under the Law), and even “became sin”.

Galatians 4:4ff

“…but, when the fullness of the time came, God sent out from (Himself) His Son, (hav)ing come to be [geno/meno$] out of a woman, (hav)ing come to be [geno/meno$] under (the) Law” (4:4)

This statement by Paul in 4:4 is his clearest reference to the birth of Jesus, and one of his strongest incarnational references as well. It is made in the same overall context as that of 3:13 (see above): namely, his arguments in support of the proposition that people are made right with God through trust in Jesus, not through performance of the required duties of the Torah, and that believers are freed from any binding obligation to the Torah. Verse 4 is part of the fourth argument (3:26-4:11) made toward demonstrating the proof (probatio, chaps. 3-4) of this proposition. As this argument has been discussed extensively in an earlier article (in the series on Paul’s View of the Law, cf. above), I will be focusing here on the points most relevant to the current study.

After the initial orienting temporal clause (“when the fullness of the time came…”), which establishes the time of Jesus’ birth, in terms of what we might call the ‘salvation history’, God chose to act:

“God sent out from (Himself) His Son”
e)cape/steilen o( qeo\$ to\n ui(o\n au)tou=

Even the casual reader of the New Testament will likely notice the similarity to the famous statement in John 3:16, but, even more precisely, in v. 17—

“God sent (forth) from (Him) the Son into the world…”
a)pe/steilen o( qeo\$ to\n ui(o\n ei)$ to\n ko/smon

In the Gospel of John, the coming of the Son “in to the world” unquestionably entails the idea of incarnation, as is clear from 1:14, in relation to vv. 9-10 (cf. also vv. 15, 30). This is often expressed in terms of God sending (vbs. a)poste/llw and pe/mpw) His Son.

I would argue that the incarnational aspect of Gal 4:4 is nearly as strong, if not as explicit, as it is in the Johannine Gospel. This is indicated, for example, by the way that the statement “God sent out from (Him) His Son” is sequentially prior to the human birth of Jesus. Moreover, we might ask: from where would God be sending His Son, if not from heaven? A heavenly origin for Christ would certainly seem to be implied, just as in the Gospel of John, though the comparable wording in Jn 1:6, in reference to John the Baptist, might give one caution about pressing the use of the verb [e)c]aposte/llw too far.

Grammatically, the short clauses that follow in v. 4, are also subordinate to the main statement “God sent out from (Him) His Son”. They qualify this statement by describing what took place when God “sent” His Son. Two parallel participial phrases are used, each involving the important verb of becoming (gi/nomai):

    • “(hav)ing come to be | out of | a woman”
      geno/menon | e)k | gunaiko/$
    • “(hav)ing come to be | under | (the) Law”
      geno/menon | u(po\ | no/mo$

The accusative form of the participle indicates that it modifies “the Son”, which is in the accusative (to\n ui(o/n) as the object of the verb e)caposte/llw. Let us consider the significance of each of these subordinate clauses.

1. “(hav)ing come to be out of a woman” —This clearly refers to the human birth of Jesus, the closest Paul ever comes to a direct reference to Jesus’ birth. He says nothing whatsoever about either the circumstances or nature of his birth. Jesus simply was born, like all human children, “out of” the womb of his mother. Typically, the verb genna/w (related to gi/nomai) is used when specifying a birth (i.e., coming to be born); however, the more general gi/nomai can also be used for this purpose. John 1:14 likely alludes to a human birth (especially given the immediate context of vv. 12-13), even though this is far from being made explicit (cp. 18:37, where genna/w is used).

2. “(hav)ing come to be under (the) Law” —There are perhaps three different levels (or aspects) of meaning for this phrase. First, it can simply refer to the Israelite/Jewish religious and cultural setting into which Jesus was born (cf. Rom 15:8). Second, it may allude to Jesus’ human life (and death) as a fulfillment of the promises and types, etc, in the Scriptures (“[the] Law”), and its related purpose of introducing salvation (and the new covenant) to the Israelite/Jewish people (Rom 15:8 may indicate this as well). Thirdly, it strongly indicates that Jesus, in becoming a human being, came under the bondage of the Law—with its consequent bondage under the power of sin. In the context of Galatians, it is this last (third) aspect of meaning that is primarily in view. Cf. above on 3:13, noting the parallel phrases “under sin”, “under [the] curse”, and “under [the] Law”.

Thus, as Paul expresses it, the Son of God became a human being, born as a human child; but he also came to share in the fullness of the human condition, which includes being held under bondage to the power of sin, and to the binding regulations/requirements of the Torah (on the close association between the Torah and sin in Paul’s thought, cf. above). All of this took place so that God, through His Son, could free humankind (that is, believers) from this bondage, as the concluding statement in v. 5 indicates (using some of the same language from 3:13):

“…(so) that he might purchase th(em) out (from) under (the) Law, (so) that we might receive from (Him) the placement as sons.”

As in the Gospel of John, the Sonship of Jesus is tied the subsequent (Divine) sonship of believers. Through trust in Jesus (the Son), we, as believers, are united with him and share that same Sonship, becoming ourselves the sons (i.e., children/offspring) of God. Paul, unlike the Johannine author(s), is willing to use the term ui(o/$ (“son”) for believers, but typically in connection with the specific thematic motif of ‘adoption’ (lit., “placement as a son”, ui(oqesi/a, cf. Rom 8:15, 23; 9:4, also Eph 1:5). That this Divine sonship is realized through the abiding presence and power of the Spirit, is clear from v. 6 (cf. also Rom 8:14ff).

The spiritual birth of believers is also alluded to in 4:21-31, the final argument of the probatio, utilizing the illustrative Scriptural tradition of the two sons of Abraham (Ishmael and Isaac), building upon the theme established in 3:7ff (see above). In this section (vv. 23-24, 29), the verb genna/w is used for a human birth; but, in the symbolism of the illustration, the expression “according to the flesh” (cp. 2 Cor 5:16) is being used in the negative Pauline sense, related to humankind’s bondage to the power of sin (and, here, the curse of the Law). Even so, the occurrences of gi/nomai and genna/w are juxtaposed in a way that implicitly brings together the related ideas of the human birth of Jesus and the divine birth of humans (believers), reinforcing the connection made in vv. 4-6 (cp. John 1:12-14).

 

 

 

 

 

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: 2 Cor 3:7; 5:21; 8:9

The first line of study in this series (A.) involves Paul’s use of the verb gi/nomai (“become, come to be”) in Christologically significant contexts, related either to the birth of Jesus and/or to the idea of his incarnation (as the pre-existent Son of God). Cf. the introduction for an overview, and the initial discussion of Paul’s gi/nomai-references.

2 Corinthians

There are three key verses in 2 Corinthians where the verb gi/nomai is used, or where the idea of Christ’s “becoming” (in an incarnational sense) is otherwise present. These are: 3:7, 5:21, and 8:9. We will examine each of these references, in turn.

2 Corinthians 3:7

Paul’s discourse in 2 Cor 3:7-18, part of the wider unit of 3:1-18, provides an interesting parallel with the Johannine Gospel Prologue (1:1-18). Both passages draw upon the traditions in Exodus 33-34, involving YHWH’s revelation to Moses (see esp. 33:18-23; 34:5-9, 29-35). This revelation parallels the original theophany in chapters 19-20ff, and its significance relates to the re-establishment of the covenant (34:10-28)—after the original covenant (chaps. 20-24) had been annulled as a result of the Golden Calf incident (chap. 32). The re-established covenant was mediated entirely through the personage of Moses (cf. my earlier study on this passage). Thus, for both Paul and the Johannine author, Moses is rightly regarded as representative of the covenant as a whole.

In the Johannine Prologue (as in the Gospel overall), a specific contrast is made, between Moses and Jesus. The final portions of the Prologue (vv. 14-18) deal with theme, which is made explicit by the statement in v. 17:

“(for it is) that the law was given through Moshe, (but) the favor and truth (of God) came to be [e)ge/neto] through Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

The ‘old’ covenant (here designated as “the law” [o( no/mo$], i.e., the Torah) was specifically mediated “through [di/a] Moses”. Similarly, but entirely by contrast, the ‘new’ covenant is mediated “through Jesus Christ”.

In 2 Cor 3:7-18, Paul presents a much more extensive and well-defined contrast between the old and new covenants. This is fully in accordance with his teaching regarding the Torah in Galatians and Romans (cf. the articles in the series “Paul’s View of the Law”). Indeed, it is interesting that he makes this thematic excursion (viz., contrasting against the old covenant and Torah), since it does not appear to be essential to the point is making (in vv. 1-5). Paul clearly had the controversial issue—addressed so extensively in Galatians and Romans—regarding the relationship of believers (in the new covenant) to the Torah (of the old covenant), very much in the forefront of his thought. Thus he introduces the covenant-theme in v. 6, and proceeds to expound it, utilizing the Scriptural traditions of Exodus 33-34.

The contrast (between the covenants) is clearly established and presented in stark and vivid terms—i.e., letter vs. Spirit, death vs. life, stone vs. the soft flesh of the ‘heart’, etc. Perhaps most significant is his use of the verb katarge/w, which essentially means “make (something) cease working”. The validity and efficacy of the “old covenant” (v. 14) is here symbolized, according to the Scriptural illustration, by the glory that was visible upon Moses’ face after he met with YHWH (in his role as mediator of the covenant), Exod 34:29-35. In Paul’s line of argument, this “glory” (Grk do/ca) was only temporary, being destined to fade and go away (lit, “being made inactive [i.e., to cease working]”, katargoume/nh). So it is with the old covenant as a whole (vv. 11-14)—it is “being made inactive”. See Paul’s use of the verb katarge/w, in a similar context, in Gal 3:17 (note also 5:4, 11) and Rom 4:14; 6:6; 7:2, 6 (and cf. also 3:31, which is often misinterpreted by commentators [note]).

In contrast to the temporary glory of the old covenant, the glory (do/ca) of the new covenant is permanent (vv. 10b-14); indeed, it is eternal, being based on the Spirit, not the “letter” (vv. 6ff, 17-18). It is through the Spirit that believers experience the manifest presence of God in the person of Jesus Christ. This, again, is contrasted with the tradition of the shining face of Moses (vv. 16-18).

Let us return to the parallel between vv. 7-18 and the Johannine Prologue (esp. vv. 14-18). There are three similarities of note:

    • The contrast between Moses and Jesus, representing the old and new covenants, respectively
    • The superiority of Jesus (and the new covenant), emphasizing its permanence and eternality
    • The motif of the glory (do/ca) of God that is manifest (shining forth) in the person of Jesus (His Son), in contrast to the temporary glory on the shining face of Moses.

In addition, it is worth noting the use of the verb of being (gi/nomai). Paul uses it here in verse 7, in reference to the glory of the old covenant (mediated through Moses):

“Now if the ministry of death in letters engraved on stones came to be [e)genh/qh] in (such) glory [do/ca], so as (for) the sons of Yisrael not to be able to (look) straining at the face of Moshe, through the splendor of his face th(at is) being made inactive [katargoume/nhn], how shall not (all the) more the ministry of the Spirit be [e&stai] in glory [do/ca]?”

Paul uses the same contrast, between the verb of being (ei)mi) and becoming (gi/nomai), that we find in the Johannine Prologue. Is this mere coincidence? In the Johannine Prologue (see esp. vv. 1-3), the verb of being is used of God, while the verb of becoming is used of created (human) beings; it is only applied to Jesus (the Divine Word and Son) in the context of his incarnation (as a human being), vv. 14-15, 17. Here in 2 Cor 3:7, the verb of being is used for the “ministry of the Spirit (of God)” and its glory, while the verb of becoming applies to the ministry of the “letter” (i.e., Torah of the old covenant, mediated by the created human being Moses) with its temporary (and fading) glory.

For more on 2 Corinthians 3:1-18 (and verses 7ff, in particular), see my earlier set of notes (part of the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament” [article]).

2 Corinthians 5:21

If the verb gi/nomai refers to the incarnation in 3:7 only implicitly, and by way of contrast, the situation is rather different in 5:21. Yet, once again, the verb is not used directly of Jesus Christ, but applies to him indirectly and implicitly. Let us consider, first, the declaration in verse 17:

“…if any(one) (is) in (the) Anointed, (he/she is) a new formation; the old (thing)s (have) gone along, (and) see—new (thing)s have come to be [ge/gonen]!”

This idea of believers—individually and collectively—as a “new formation” (kainh\ kti/si$) is related conceptually to the “new covenant” theme of 3:6-18 (see above). Indeed, the new covenant is realized through the transforming presence of the Spirit, and, in this regard, we see the theme of transformation (by the Spirit) clearly emphasized at the close of the earlier passage (vv. 17-18). Thus, the believer is transformed (spiritually) into something entirely new—i.e., a new kind of being (that is formed, kti/si$). This Pauline “new creation” motif is clearly related to the idea of a ‘new birth’ —that is, believers born anew as the offspring (sons/children) of God. This is another key point of similarity between the Pauline and the Johannine theology (see above).

The section of 5:11-21 resembles 3:1-18 in the way that it begins with reference to the Christian ministry (spec. the apostolic ministry of Paul and his fellow missionaries), vv. 11-15, and then leads into a theological exposition (vv. 16-21) emphasizing the nature of the new covenant and the consequences of it for believers.

In vv. 18-19, following the declaration in v. 17, Paul emphasizes that this transforming power (of the Spirit) experienced by believers was made possible by the mediating work done by God in the person of Jesus Christ. There are incarnational allusions here, both in terms of the implicit focus on the human life (and death) of Jesus (cf. also vv. 14-15), but also in light of the specific idea of Jesus being considered “according to (the) flesh” (kata\ sa/rka, v. 16). For someone to consider Jesus Christ “according to (the) flesh”, this implies that Jesus was, in fact, a real flesh-and-blood human being (‘in the flesh’). Paul gives us an even clearer allusion to the incarnation with the closing words of the section:

“He [i.e. God] made the (one) not knowing (any) sin (to become) sin over us [i.e., for our sake], (so) that we might become [genw/meqa] the right(eous)ness of God in him.” (v. 21)

Note the parallelistic structure of this verse:

    • God made Jesus to become sin | over us
      so that
      we might become God’s righteousness | in him

The verb of becoming (gi/nomai) is only used in the second portion (in reference to believers); however, I would maintain that is definitely implied in the first portion as well (in reference to Christ)—i.e., God made him become… . In the first instance, the impetus and action of God is emphasized (making Jesus become sin), while in the second it is the result that is emphasized (i.e., God making us become righteousness).

This is not the place to enter into the thorny theological discussion regarding what it means for Jesus to “become sin”. Certainly, Paul suggests a basic sinlessness for Jesus with the participial phrase (indicating a regular/characteristic state) “the (one) not knowing sin”. Just as certainly, we can maintain that, for Paul, to say that Jesus “became sin” meant that he became (fully) a human being, prone to the same sinful impulses (and under bondage to sin) as all other human beings. Whether or not Jesus (as a human being) actually committed sin, while an important doctrinal question, is secondary to the main point Paul is making. He touches upon the broader Christological implications in Romans 8:3ff (to be discussed in an upcoming article). For more on the theological aspects (of both 2 Cor 5:21 and Rom 8:3), see my earlier note.

Does v. 21 allude to the Divine pre-existence of the Son? It might be possible to infer this, depending on how one interprets and expounds the phrase “the (one) not knowing (any) sin”. In particular, if Jesus’ “becoming sin” essentially means “becoming a human being” (i.e., “flesh”, cf. the parallel in Rom 8:3), then his time of “not knowing sin” might refer to his pre-existence, prior to his birth as a human being. This becomes all the more likely when one considers the thought expressed in 8:9 (discussed below).

2 Corinthians 8:9

“For you know the favor of [i.e., shown by] our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed: that, (though) being rich, he became poor [e)ptw/xeusen] through us [i.e., for our sake], (so) that we, by that (one)’s poverty, might become rich [plouth/shte].” (8:9)

The verb gi/nomai is not used in this verse, but the idea of becoming is certain present, in the parallel verbs ptwxeu/w (“be[come] poor”) and ploute/w (“be[come] rich”). The parallelism strongly suggests the idea of the incarnation of a Divine being:

    • Being rich (i.e. Divine), Christ “become poor” (i.e. a human being), so that
    • In his poverty (i.e., humanity [and death]), we might “become rich” (i.e., Divine, sons/children of God)

To be “in Christ’s poverty” is an aspect of the broader principle of being “in Christ”, and refers specifically to his death. It is by participating in his death that we, as believers, are then able to participate in the life-giving power of his resurrection. This is experienced even in the present, through the abiding presence of the Spirit, but eventually it will be realized fully (through the spiritual transformation that occurs) with the final resurrection. In union with Christ, this participation in his death and resurrection enables us to become the sons/children of God (i.e., “rich”). This will be discussed further in the articles on Romans (cf. Rom 6:3-10; 8:9-11, 18-23ff).

The incarnational paradigm Paul indicates here, in seminal form, will be developed more fully in the famous ‘Christ-hymn’ of Philippians 2:6-11 (to be discussed). It is interesting how, both here (chaps. 8-9) and in Philippians 2, Paul utilizes this theological (Christological) frame of reference to buttress a more practical point or argument that he is making (cf. also the context of 2 Corinthians 3, above). In Philippians 2, the incarnation serves as an example for believers to follow—viz., of willing self-sacrifice, subordinating one’s individual needs and interests to the good of the community. Here, verse 9 serves much the same point in the context of chapters 8-9, with Paul’s goal of encouraging the Corinthians to contribute financially to the “collection for the saints” (i.e., the believers in need in Jerusalem and Judea). He specifically frames the (incarnational) self-sacrifice of Christ as that of a rich person who bestows a favor (xa/ri$) or gift, on the behalf of others who are in need (“through us”, i.e., for our sake).

The Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in Paul: Overview

This article introduces a new series to be presented this Christmas season, in which we will examine the possible references to the birth of Jesus in the Letters of Paul. At the same time, we will explore evidence for the idea of the incarnation of Jesus as the (pre-existent) Son of God. The two topics belong together, at least from the orthodox standpoint, since the incarnation of the Son is usually understood in terms of his birth as a human being (Jesus).

At the outset, it should be stated that there are no direct references to the birth of Jesus in Paul’s letters. What we have, instead, are a handful of indirect references or allusions to his birth. All of these will be examined and discussed, in some detail.

A consideration of the evidence for the doctrine of the incarnation (in at least a rudimentary form) is intriguing, as it likely would represent the oldest such testimony (that survives) among the earliest Christians. We might even speculate as to the pioneering role Paul may have played in the establishment and development of the belief. The references in his letters, written sometime around (or just prior to) 60 A.D., can fairly be regarded as the earliest testimony to a revolutionary shift that took place within the Christology of first-century believers, in which a predominantly exaltation-Christology was supplemented (and, to some extent, supplanted) by a pre-existence-Christology. This point will be discussed below (and at various points throughout this series).

The doctrine of the incarnation of Christ (as the Son of God) is evidenced in the New Testament primarily from the Gospel of John and the book of Hebrews. The classic reference, of course, is Jn 1:14 (from the ‘Prologue’, vv. 1-18)—a verse which I discussed extensively in a series last Christmas season. Scholars tend to date both of these writings rather late (c. 90); there is a general consensus for this dating of the Gospel, while a greater divergence of opinion exists regarding the date of Hebrews. In any case, what is striking is the lack of any such reference to the incarnation-concept elsewhere in the New Testament—that is, apart from the letters of Paul. I find virtually no indication of it in any of the Synoptic Gospels, nor in the book of Acts. This is rather surprising, particularly with regard to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, since they are typically dated rather late by scholars (c. 80 A.D., or later). There is not the slightest indication of any pre-existence Christology in the record of the early Christian preaching in Acts, nor does the author (of Luke-Acts) adapt any of the material to fit such a belief.

Thus, apart from (and prior to) Hebrews and the Johannine Gospel, Paul’s letters provide us with virtually the only other surviving evidence of a pre-existence Christology—and, with it, the idea of an incarnation of the pre-existent Son of God—among early Christians of the first-century. This evidence dates from c. 55-60 A.D., which could be as much as 30 years earlier than that of John and Hebrews. Such a striking gap in time raises the distinct possibility that Paul was among the first (perhaps even the first) Christian preacher and author to express the idea of the incarnation—and to set it within an established Christological context.

In proceeding with this study, I will be following two basic lines of evidence. The first involves occurrences of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) used in theologically (and Christologically) significant contexts where it could refer to the incarnation and/or the birth of Jesus. The second involves specific references to the sonship of Jesus, along with the corollary theme of God the Father sending His Son (Jesus) to earth. Interestingly, both of these types of Christological idiom are also prominent—and much more so—in the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters). This raises the possibility, which is being discussed more frequently these days among New Testament scholars, that the Johannine author(s) may have been influenced, in varying decrees, by Paul’s theology and mode/manner of expression. Some of the specific parallels will be discussed in the articles of this series (cf. also at many points in last season’s series “The Word Became Flesh…”).

A. Use of the Verb gi/nomai

We begin with Paul’s use of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai, “become, come to be”). The Johannine Gospel famously makes regular use of this verb (along with the related genna/w), imbuing it with profound theological significance (and importance). In general, the verb(s) of becoming are applied to human beings (esp. believers)—that is, as created beings, who then “come to be (born)” as the offspring (te/kna, i.e., children) of God. It is the verb genna/w which is particularly used to convey this idea of coming to be born. The Johannine Prologue (1:1-18) is instructive for how it distinguishes the verb of being (ei)mi, which applies almost exclusively to God), and the verb of becoming (gi/nomai, which applies to created [human] beings). But then, in verse 14, the verb of becoming is used specifically of the pre-existent Word (Logos) of God:

“And the Word became [e)ge/neto] flesh and put down his tent [i.e. dwelt] among us, and we looked at his splendor, splendor as an only (Son) alongside (the) Father, full of (His) favor and truth.”

This idea of becoming a human being (“flesh”) certainly implies a human birth, even if the verse does not explicitly say so. It is strongly implied from the immediate context (vv. 12-13), with the parallel Johannine idea of believers in Christ “coming to be born” (vb genna/w). The same incarnational use of gi/nomai follows in vv. 15 (and the parallel in v. 30). Then much later on, toward the close of the Gospel, the birth of the Son (as a human being) is referenced more clearly, using the verb genna/w:

“I have come to be (born) [gege/nnhmai] unto this [i.e. for this purpose], and unto this I have come into the world—that I should give witness to the truth; every (one) being of the truth hears my voice.” (18:37)

In between, throughout the Gospel, there are other implicit allusions to the Son’s human birth, usually through the idiom of his coming, and of his being sent by the Father, as well as through the Johannine (use) of the specific expression “the son of man” (on which, see my recent study series).

Possible allusions in 1 Thessalonians?

In Paul’s earliest surviving writing[s] (1 [and 2] Thessalonians), he uses the verb gi/nomai extensively, especially in chapters 1-2. He applies it to himself (and his fellow missionaries), referencing the way in which he (and the Gospel proclamation) “came to be” among the Thessalonians—1:5-7; 2:1, 5, 7-8, 10, 14; 3:4-5. There is no direct Christological application here in these references; however, Paul may be alluding, in a seminal way, to the idea that the apostolic mission (proclaiming the Gospel) is patterned after the incarnation of Christ. This pattern/example motif is certainly present in 1:5-7 (cp. 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1), and the overall emphasis is on faithfulness in the midst of suffering. The idea that, through suffering (for the sake of the Gospel), believers participate in the sufferings of Christ (cf. 2:7-8ff, 14), is something that would be developed by Paul in his later writings. Insofar as the suffering (and death) of Christ is rooted in his humanity, it can be seen as a basic way of referring to the incarnation of the Son. And, indeed, as we shall see, Paul’s rudimentary incarnation-references do focus on the suffering/death of Jesus.

There is, however, in the Thessalonian letter(s), no hint of a pre-existence Christology. The only reference to the Divine/heavenly status of the Son (1 Thess 1:5) indicates an exaltation Christology—viz., the Son’s position in heaven is following (and as a result of) his resurrection from the dead and exaltation (to God’s right hand in heaven).

1 Corinthians 1:30

Probably the earliest Pauline use of gi/nomai, in a distinctly Christological context, is 1 Corinthians 1:30—a verse which I have discussed in a recent series of notes (cf. the note on vv. 30-31). Significantly, as in many of the Johannine passages (cf. above), the “becoming” of Christ is tied to the ‘coming to be’ (viz., as the children of God) of believers:

“But of [e)k] Him, you are in (the) Anointed Yeshua, who came to be [e)genh/qh] (the) wisdom for us from God—also right(eous)ness, and (the means of) being made holy, and (the) loosing from (bondage)…”

As believers, we now belong to God, having been chosen by Him; we have been “gathered out of” the world, and do not belong to it any longer. In the Johannine writings, this use of the preposition e)k (“out of [e)k] Him,” that is, out of God) would specifically connote the idea of being God’s offspring (te/kna, i.e., children, cf. the discussion above). Paul similarly refers to believers as God’s te/kna (and also His ui(oi, “sons”), but here it is best to understand the prepositional expression primarily in terms of belonging to God. The preposition e)k can also emphasize that it is because of God—i.e., His act and initiative—that we are in Christ.

Based on the context of the passage (and of 1 Cor 1:18-4:21 as a whole), the Christological point of reference here is not to Jesus’ birth, but to his death (and subsequent resurrection). Indeed, much of the focus here is upon the cross as the aspect of the Gospel that is being emphasized. In the developed theology of Paul’s letters (e.g., 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Colossians), the union of believers “in Christ” fundamentally involves a participation in his death (and resurrection). And, indeed, the idea of “belonging” expressed here in v. 30 implies a sense of union—viz., we are united with God—a union that is realized by being united with Jesus Christ. Paul expresses this here by his regular idiom “in Christ [Jesus]” (e)n Xristw=| [Ihsou=]); we as believers are “in Christ”, united with him, through the presence of the Spirit (and symbolized by the ritual of baptism).

At this point in the letter, Paul simply states the Christological principle, by way of a shorthand expression, without expounding its significance in detail. He does, however, include the fundamental idea that Jesus, through his death and resurrection, has become wisdom (that is, the true, Divine wisdom) for us. Elsewhere in his writings (e.g., 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4; Col 1:15ff), Paul draws upon a rudimentary pre-existence Christology in identifying Jesus with the Divine Wisdom (a point that will be discussed in the subsequent articles of this series); here, however, the focus is on the death (and resurrection) of Jesus—that is, the earlier exaltation Christology.

A passive form of the verb of becoming (gi/nomai) is used here—e)genh/qh (“he came to be”, i.e., “he was made to become”); this should be understood as an example of the Divine passive, in which God is the implied actor. It was God (the Father) who made Jesus Christ to become the manifestation of Divine Wisdom for us, through his death on the cross (and subsequent) resurrection. Here, Paul’s focus is specifically on Jesus’ death, rather than his resurrection, as a manifestation of God’s Wisdom.

In addition to wisdom (sofi/a), Paul states that Jesus “became” three other things for us:

    • dikaiosu/nh— “rightness” (or “righteousness”), that is, the means by which we are “made right” before God, so that things are made right for us with God. The noun dikaiosu/nh (along with the entire dikaio– word-group) is a key component of Paul’s theological vocabulary.
    • a(giasmo/$— “holiness”, but in the specific sense of the act and/or condition of being made holy (vb a(gia/zw); it is best understood here in terms of Jesus (and his death) as the means by which we are made holy (by God). This is another key theological term for Paul, though it does not occur all that often in his letters (see esp. Rom 6:19, 22); typically, it is associated with the work of the Spirit (2 Thess 2:13), while the practical (ethical/moral) consequences are emphasized in 1 Thess 4:3-7.
    • a)polu/trwsi$— “loosing from (bondage)”; the ‘bondage’ Paul has in mind is humankind’s bondage to the power of sin and evil that dominates the world in this current Age (cf. Paul’s exposition in Romans 5-8). Jesus Christ is the means by which we are set free from this bondage, through our trust and union with him. This is another key Pauline term (cf. Rom 3:24; 8:23); seven of the ten NT occurrences are in the Pauline letters.

Thus, we can see that, though gi/nomai in 1 Cor 1:30 does not refer, in any meaningful way, to the birth of Jesus, it does suggest certain aspects of Paul’s view of the incarnation. In particular, Paul here summarizes important theological implications and effects of the sacrificial death (and resurrection) of Jesus—points which elsewhere serve as contextual components for his incarnation-references. Even so, there is nothing in v. 30 (or in the wider section/division of 1 Corinthians as a whole) which would not be compatible with the earlier exaltation-Christology, or which would require a pre-existence-Christology.

The Chronology of the Pauline Letters

The time-frame of the Corinthian correspondence, in relation to other letters of Paul (i.e., Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Colossians), is worth noting. While some commentators would date Galatians quite early (49-50), making it perhaps the earliest of Paul’s surviving letters, a time of composition in the mid-late 50’s seems more plausible. A date of 54 A.D. (or 53-54) is perhaps the earliest feasible time for the writing of Galatians, and is accepted by many scholars (cf. the chronology outlined by Fitzmyer, pp. 139-41). I tend to think that it might have been written a bit later (perhaps 57), closer in proximity of time to 2 Corinthians and Romans, with which it shares much in terms of subject matter and rhetorical-polemic style, etc.

As for 1 Corinthians, 16:8 indicates that it was written from Ephesus, which indicates a point sometime within the period of 54-57. Fitzmyer (p. 140) suggests the the first (lost) letter to Corinth was written in 56, while 1 Corinthians followed in the spring of 57 (prior to Pentecost); 2 Corinthians then would have been written later in that same year. Other commentators place the time of composition somewhat earlier, with 1 Corinthians being written in spring of 54 or 55 (cf. Thiselton, pp. 29-32). Paul’s letter to the Romans was almost certainly written after 1-2 Corinthians, sometime between 55-58, the latter end being more likely (Fitzmyer suggests 57-58, between the autumn and spring). The dating of Philippians and Colossians is more difficult, and there are many commentators who would regard Colossians as pseudonymous, and thus written (most likely) after Paul’s death. Assuming Pauline authorship for both letters, some time around 60 A.D. (or a few years thereafter) seems probable; if either or both of the letters was written from Paul’s imprisonment in Rome, then it would require a date of 61-62 (possibly 63, at the latest).

For the purposes of this study, I am treating the Corinthian references before the Galatian, even though it is possible that Galatians was written prior to the Corinthian correspondence. In the first main article of this series, we will be examining three references in 2 Corinthians where either the verb gi/nomai is used, or otherwise the idea of Christ “becoming” (in an incarnational sense) is present: 3:7, 5:21, and 8:9.

References above marked “Fitzmyer” are to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Acts of the Apostles, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 31 (1998)—cf., in particular, his chronological outline in pp. 139-41.
Those marked “Thiselton” are to Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary [NIGTC] (Eerdmans: 2000).