Galatians 4:4

“But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.”

Galatians 4:4

Introduction

Galatians 4:4 is Paul’s compressed formula for God’s salvation-historical action: at the right moment God sends his Son. The context is the comparison between the time of minority (under the tutor — the law) and the time of maturity (in Christ). With Christ the “fullness of time” (plêrôma tou chronou) has arrived — the time in which God invites people into full sonship.

For Socinianism three elements are decisive: first, the verb “sent forth” (exapesteilen) — God is the agent, the Son is the one sent. Second, “born of a woman, born under the law” — this underlines the genuine, complete humanity of Jesus. Third, the Pauline word order itself, which in the Socinian tradition is read as the key argument against pre-existence — first the birth, then the sending; not the other way round. The verse is a theology of sending, not a statement of pre-existence.

Historical background: the fullness of time

The Letter to the Galatians arises out of the conflict over the question: are Gentile Christians bound to keep the Mosaic law? Paul answers with an epochal argument: the law was a pedagogue — necessary for a time of minority. With Christ that time has run out. “The fullness of time” is the salvation-historical turning point.

The image of the “fullness of time” corresponds to the Jewish notion of God’s sovereign action in history: God acts at the right moment. This does not stress the eternal deity of the one sent, but God’s sovereign control over the schedule of the history of salvation. Paul uses an apocalyptic idiom that was current in late Judaism (cf. 4 Ezra 4:36-37; 2 Bar 21:8): God has counted out the ages, the measure of time is set by him, and when the appointed time is full, he proceeds to act.

The double qualification “born of a woman, born under the law” is unusually emphatic in Pauline epistolary literature. It serves a full identification: Jesus is completely human — in the human condition and under the human conditions of the law. This is theologically important: only a truly human redeemer can represent human experience. The formula “born of a woman” is an Old Testament and late-Jewish standard cipher for “true human being in his frailty” (cf. Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4 — in each case jelud ishâ).

The point of the Pauline arc: precisely because the Son is fully human (born, under the law), he can redeem those who stand under the law and lead them into sonship (v. 5). The saving deed does not hang on a pre-temporal divine nature, but on the full identification of the one sent with those whom he saves. Socinian Christology reads exactly this line as the Pauline point.

Socinian core thesis

Gal 4:4 is the most precise Pauline formula of sending: God sends, the Son is sent, he is born of a woman and lives under the law. The verse names no pre-existent divine nature — it describes the historical act of sending. Sending does not necessarily presuppose pre-existence: Jeremiah was appointed prophet “before he was formed” (Jer 1:5) — that is God’s sovereign counsel, not a biographical pre-existence of the prophet. John the Baptist was “sent from God” (Jn 1:6) — without anyone supposing that he existed before his birth.

The order of Paul’s statement is exegetically decisive: “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law.” The participles genomenon stand in each case after the main verb “sent forth” and describe the modality of the sending. Paul does not say: “The pre-existent Son took flesh and was sent,” but: “God sent the one who was born of a woman.” The one sent is the one born; not a pre-born one who was then also born.

Read Socinianly, Gal 4:4 is a Christology of sending of the purest kind: Jesus is authorised by God, sent, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to lead humanity into sonship. The event of salvation is God’s sovereign initiative through a real human being. A second divine person who appears in a human and then returns explodes this Pauline language — it reads a later metaphysical construction into a straightforward text about sending.

Exegesis: key terms

Five Greek terms decide the exegesis of Galatians 4:4 linguistically and philologically:

exapesteilen — “sent forth”

The aorist exapesteilen (from exapostellô, “to send out, to dispatch”) is the strongest verb of sending in the New Testament. God is the subject, the Son is the object. This is a clear order of sending, not consubstantiality. Luke uses the same verb when God sends the apostles (Lk 24:49), when Christ sends the disciples (Acts 22:21), when God sends the prophet Moses (Acts 7:34-35). In none of these cases is a pre-temporal existence of the one sent inferred.

In OT usage too, aposteilein (LXX) is the standard verb for prophetic sending: God “sends” Jeremiah (Jer 1:7 LXX exapostellô), Isaiah (Isa 6:8), Moses (Ex 3:10-15), Elijah and all the prophets. Sending is constitutive of the prophetic office — it does not presuppose a pre-biographical existence, but God’s sovereign counsel to set a human being into an office. When Paul applies the same verb to Jesus, he speaks the same language: sending = divinely authorised commissioning.

genomenon ek gynaikos — “born of a woman”

The participle genomenon (aorist participle of gínomai, “to become, to come into being, to be born”) stresses becoming, not eternal being. Paul could have used the present onta (“being”) or the imperfect ên (“he was”) if he had wanted to make a timeless statement about essence. He chooses the participle of becoming. Paul uses the same verb in Rom 1:3: genomenou ek spermatos Davíd — “come from the seed of David.” The Son comes to be from David — he was not such from eternity.

The phrase ek gynaikos (“from a woman”) is in Hebrew and late-Jewish usage a standard cipher for “true, frail human being.” Job 14:1: “Man, born of a woman (LXX gennêtos gynaikós), is short-lived and full of trouble.” Job 15:14; 25:4 — in each case the same formula as a statement about human limitedness. When Paul picks up this language, he underlines the full humanity of Jesus: he is just as much a human being as anyone else who is born.

genomenon hypo nomon — “born under the law”

Jesus lives under the conditions of the law — he is fully embedded in human Jewish reality. No transcendent superman, but a real human being under real conditions. Hypo nomon designates the legal status under the Torah which all Jews share — and to which the Son expressly submits himself. The circumcision on the eighth day (Lk 2:21), the presentation in the temple (Lk 2:22-24), the keeping of the feasts (Jn 5:1; 7:2, 10), the confession of the Torah (Mt 5:17-18) — all of this expresses this “being under the law.”

Theologically this is fundamental: redemption happens through full identification, not through metaphysical distance. The Son is not a divine one who only seemingly submits to the law, but a human being who really lives under the law — and who can therefore lead those who stand under the law onto the path of sonship (v. 5). The logic of salvation is solidarity, not disguise.

plêrôma tou chronou — “the fullness of time”

The term plêrôma (fullness, measure, completion) designates in Pauline usage the salvation-historical completion of an age. Cf. Eph 1:10: eis oikonomían tou plêrômatos tôn kairôn — “for the dispensation of the fullness of times.” The fullness of time is the moment set by God at which the new begins — not an eternal precondition, but a historical turning point.

The theological point: God determines the moment of sending. Thus the sovereignty of the Father over salvation history is stressed — not a pre-temporal consubstantiality of the Son. The event of sending is located in time: at the fullness of time. An eternal pre-existence of the Son would have a hard time being integrated into this temporal scheme — the Son would after all always have been there, and the sending would be only an appearance of the one always existing.

ton hyion autou — “his Son”

The title “Son of God” is in OT usage not ontological but relational and office-bound. Israel is God’s “son” (Hos 11:1; Ex 4:22-23). David and his royal successors are God’s “son” (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; Ps 89:27-28). The pious are God’s “sons” (Ps 73:15; Wis 2:13, 18). “Son of God” is a title of dignity and election, not an ontological description of essence.

In the NT the title is applied to Jesus in a pregnantly heightened way, because he is in a unique way God’s chosen agent. But the heightening lies in the degree of election and authority, not in a new ontological category. Rom 1:4 is explicit: Jesus is installed as “Son of God in power” through the resurrection (horisthentôs). Acts 13:33 quotes Ps 2:7 (“today I have begotten you”) and refers the “today” expressly to the raising. Jesus’ sonship is therefore not a timeless statement about essence, but a divinely instituted, historically anchored title of dignity.

Comparison of interpretations

Reference to Fausto Sozzini and the Racovian Catechism

Galatians 4:4 is in the Socinian corpus a central scriptural passage against the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ. The Racovian Catechism (1605, Lat. Catechesis Ecclesiarum Polonicarum) cites the verse expressly as scriptural proof that Christ did not exist before his birth from Mary. The passage stands in the section on those scriptural passages from which the Trinitarian tradition tries to derive a pre-temporal divine nature of Jesus (especially Jn 3:13; 10:36; 16:28; 17:18 — all passages with sending language).

“In addition, Paul expressly says that God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law. From this it becomes clear that Christ was not sent before he was born of a woman, but only after he was born of her, and therefore one cannot infer from this that he existed before he was born of the Virgin, still less that he had assumed that divine nature.”

Racovian Catechism, chapter on the examination of the scriptural proofs for Christ’s divine nature, with express reference to Gal 4:4

Three observations are theologically decisive.

First: the Catechism works strictly with Paul’s wording. Paul does not say: “God sent his pre-existent Son, who was then born of a woman.” He says: “God sent his Son, born of a woman.” The sending follows upon the birth — not the other way round. This order is not accidental; it is exegetically decisive. Christ is sent after he has already been born of a woman. A pre-temporal divine existence is not only not asserted by this but structurally excluded.

Second: the Catechism points out in parallel that the same sending language is also applied to the apostles: “As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world” (Jn 17:18). The apostles were “sent” without anyone supposing that they had existed before their birth. If the same sending language were to prove for Christ a pre-temporal existence, it would have to do so for the apostles as well. Since that is absurd, the inference from sending to pre-existence is likewise not compelling for Christ.

Third: the logic is generalised. The Catechism shows by a series of parallel passages that “to come into the world,” “to descend from heaven,” “to go out from the Father” do not in NT usage necessarily designate local movements from a heavenly previous life, but are the language of sending and office. So 1 Jn 4:1 says that many false prophets have “gone out into the world” — and no one thinks here of a pre-temporal existence of these prophets. The Pauline formula of sending in Gal 4:4 fits consistently into this scheme.

The Catechism draws the summary consequence that Pauline sending language is throughout to be read in terms of office:

“We therefore set our faith on Christ because, sent by God for this purpose, he has promised us the highest blessedness and because he has received from God the authority to make us blessed and has been appointed over this matter.”

Racovian Catechism, on faith in Christ (with reference to 1 Pet 1:21)

The point: Christ’s being Son and Christ’s being sent are conferred authority — not an eternal statement about essence. God sends, God appoints, God determines — the man Jesus receives, is appointed, carries out the commission. This subject-object structure is the theological ground logic of the whole of Pauline Christology and the Acts of the Apostles.

Fausto Sozzini himself unfolds the same line in “On Jesus Christ the Saviour” (De Iesu Christo Servatore) on the basis of the Moses typology. Moses is the prototypical one sent by God — without anyone ever claiming that he existed before his birth. Exactly this Moses typology Sozzini also applies to the concept of sending in Christology:

“As Moses, so commanded by God, freed the people of Israel, in the power and authority bestowed on him by God — not by paying any ransom — from that bondage, brought them to God and finally led them into the land promised them by God: so Christ, in the highest power and authority bestowed on him by God, has redeemed us from the bondage of sin and death … and brought us to God.”

Fausto Sozzini, On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore), Part II, the metaphor of redeeming

The sentence is exegetically precise: Christ’s authority is conferred authority, “so commanded by God.” Just as Moses is one sent and a liberator without pre-existence, so Christ too is one sent and a liberator without pre-existence — in an authority bestowed by God and anchored in history. That is the structural line of Gal 4:4: God sends; the human being who is sent acts in God’s authority.

Elsewhere the Racovian Catechism sharpens the logic of sending by means of a comparison with Jn 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”). Even there, the Catechism says, no pre-temporal existence of Christ is asserted:

“In this passage it is not only not said that Christ existed from eternity — since it is one thing to have been before Abraham and another to have been from eternity — but it is not even contained in it that he was before the Virgin Mary. … Christ could rightly say that he was before Abraham insofar as the divine counsel existed already before all ages.”

Racovian Catechism, on the passage Jn 8:58

The same line of exegesis fits Gal 4:4 exactly: God sends his Son according to his eternal counsel, which existed already before all ages — but the Son himself, the personal, historical Christ, begins his existence with the birth from the Virgin. The eternal pre-existence lies in God’s counsel; it does not lie in a pre-biographical person of the Son.

Book overview of the writings of Sozzini

Logical arguments

From Galatians 4:4 the following logical and linguistic-philological arguments arise for a Socinian Christology of sending without pre-existence:

1. Argument from word order. Paul says: “God sent his Son, born of a woman.” The birth stands after the verb of sending as a predicative participle that describes the manner of the sending — not before it as a temporal precondition. If Paul had wanted to express a pre-temporal pre-existence, he would have had to subordinate the being-born temporally and logically (“the existing Son, who then was born”). He does not. The one sent is the one born.
2. Argument from the usage of the verb of sending. Exapostellô is used throughout the NT of the sending of those who have been born: prophets (Acts 7:34-35), apostles (Lk 24:49), angels (Lk 1:26), John the Baptist (Jn 1:6). No one infers a biographical pre-existence of those sent from this sending language. The application of the same verb to Christ must be read consistently — not in a special hyper-meaning.
3. Argument from the Jeremiah parallel. Jer 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came out of the womb I sanctified you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” That is God’s predestining counsel before the birth — without Jeremiah being biographically pre-existent. The sanctification and the sending are God’s eternal establishment; the prophet himself begins with the birth. Exactly this logic fits Gal 4:4.
4. Argument from the participle genomenon. Paul uses the participle of becoming, not of eternal being. Genomenon is the aorist participle of gínomai — a becoming in the flow of time. A pre-temporal, eternally existing essence cannot be expressed in the aorist of becoming; for that one would have onta or ên. Paul chooses the verb of coming-into-being. Christ becomes from the woman, he becomes placed under the law — he was not such from eternity.
5. Argument from genuine humanity. The phrase gennêtos gynaikós (“born of a woman”) is in late-Jewish usage a standard cipher for “true, frail human being” (Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4). The Pauline use of this formula underlines the full, undivided humanity of Jesus — not a partial humanity balanced out by a second nature. The patristic two-natures doctrine blows this line apart.
6. Argument from the rhetorical aim of Gal 4:4-5. Paul’s point is: because Christ was fully born into the human situation, he can lead those who stand under the law into sonship (v. 5). The saving deed hangs on full identification, not on a pre-temporal consubstantiality. A pre-existence-theological reading distracts attention from the rhetorical peak of Paul.
7. Argument from OT son-language. The title “Son of God” is in the OT throughout election- and office-bound (Israel: Hos 11:1; David and his royal successors: 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; Ps 89:27). When Paul calls Jesus “Son of God,” he speaks in this OT language of dignity — not in a new, ontologically understood category. Christ is God’s chosen, unique Son in the highest sense — but through election and sending, not through a second divine statement about essence.
8. Argument from the “eternal counsel.” What exists “before time” is God’s plan, his counsel, his appointment — not a second divine person (Eph 1:4-5; 2 Tim 1:9; 1 Pet 1:20; Tit 1:2). Pauline theology knows a rich pre-dispositional language: God has elected, appointed, foreseen in advance. That is eternal foreordination, not biographical pre-existence. Gal 4:4 fits consistently into this language: God has determined the moment; at the fullness of time he sends the one he has appointed.
9. Argument from the subject-object distinction. “God sent his Son.” The subject is God, the object is the Son. Both are distinguished grammatically and logically. A Trinitarian reading must catch this distinction by means of an auxiliary construction (two-natures doctrine, communication of idioms, immanent Trinity). The text itself does not bear this construction.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages deepen the exegesis in the light of the whole biblical language of sending and sonship:

Jeremiah 1:5 — appointment without biographical pre-existence

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came out of the womb I sanctified you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” That is God’s predestining counsel before the birth — no biographical pre-existence of Jeremiah. Socinianism reads Gal 4:4 within the same frame.

John 17:18 — the same sending language applied to the apostles

“As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.” Christ himself uses the same sending language for himself and for the apostles. If the sending of Christ were to prove the pre-existence of Christ, the sending of the apostles would have to prove the pre-existence of the apostles. Since that is absurd, the inference from sending to pre-existence is not compelling.

John 1:6 — John the Baptist “sent from God”

“There came a man, sent from God (apestalmenos), whose name was John.” The same sending language as in Gal 4:4 — applied to a born human being without pre-existence. The sending is a calling into an office, not a manifestation of a pre-temporal existence.

Romans 1:3-4 — installed as Son of God by the resurrection

“His Son, who was born according to the flesh from the seed of David, installed (horisthentôs) as Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead.” The sonship of Christ is here expressly referred to the resurrection — not to an eternal pre-existence. Cf. the entry on Acts 2:36.

Hebrews 1:1-2 — in these last days spoken through the Son

“After God had spoken in former times to the fathers in many and various ways by the prophets, he has in these last days spoken to us by the Son.” The line of the prophets and the Son stand in a single salvation-historical line of sending. Cf. Hebrews 1:1-2.

1 Peter 1:20 — foreseen, but revealed in the last time

“Foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world, but revealed in the last times for your sake.” The Pauline-Petrine tradition distinguishes precisely between God’s eternal foreordination (proegnôsmenou) and the historical revelation of Christ. What is pre-existent is God’s plan; what is revealed is the man Jesus in the last time. Cf. 1 Peter 1:20.

Romans 8:3 — parallel formula of sending

“God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, and condemned sin in the flesh.” The parallel formula to Gal 4:4. “In the likeness of sinful flesh” is a statement about the human condition of existence — not about a pre-temporal divine nature which would have disguised itself in human form.

Galatians 3:13 — redemption through Christ’s full identification

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” The saving deed happens through the full identification of Christ with those who stand under the law. This line is continued in Gal 4:4-5: because Christ himself was hypo nomon, he can redeem those hypo nomon. An economy of salvation of solidarity, not of metaphysical distance.

Objections and Socinian replies

Objection 1: “He sent his Son” presupposes that the Son existed before the sending

The argument presupposes a literal temporal sequence where theological and biblical language stands. In NT usage prophets are “sent” (Jer 1:7 LXX; Acts 7:34-35), apostles are “sent” (Lk 24:49; Jn 17:18), John the Baptist is “sent” (Jn 1:6) — all without personal pre-existence. The verb aposteilein designates a calling into office by God, not a manifestation of someone pre-existing.

“His Son” can in addition designate God’s eternal counsel concerning Jesus, which is realised in history. Eph 1:4-5 and 1 Pet 1:20 say explicitly: before the foundation of the world God foresaw Christ — but he is only revealed “in the last time.” The Pauline “Son” is a title of dignity for Jesus’ unique relationship with God, instituted in election — not an ontological inventory.

The Racovian Catechism formulates this precisely: “Christ was not sent before he was born of a woman, but only after he was born of her.” The word order of Paul himself (sending follows upon birth) is exegetically decisive. A pre-temporal pre-existence is not structurally required by the text.

Objection 2: Romans 8:3 says God sent “his own Son” in the likeness of sinful flesh

“Likeness of sinful flesh” (en homoiômati sarkós hamartías) means: Jesus has appeared in the human condition of sinfulness — but without himself sinning (v. 3b: “and for the sake of sin he condemned sin in the flesh”). This is a statement about the quality of the becoming human — not about a pre-temporal divine nature appearing in disguise.

Gal 4:4 and Rom 8:3 are parallel formulas of sending with the same content: God sends the Son into human reality. Both passages use participles of becoming (genomenon, homoiômati) — not participles of eternal being. Pauline language is consistently salvation-historical, not ontological-metaphysical.

Further: if Rom 8:3 were to prove a pre-existent divine nature, it would also have to imply Docetism — for Christ would come in a disguise of sinfulness, not in a real condition of sinfulness. That is plainly not what Paul wanted. The only consistent reading is the Socinian one: Christ is a true human being in a real, frail condition — sent by God, born of a woman, born under the law.

Objection 3: the context speaks of sonship by adoption — Jesus’ sonship is by essence

The difference is one of degree, not of category. Jesus is God’s chosen, unique Son — that distinguishes him from other ones who are sent and from the children won by adoption. But “unique Son” does not mean “co-eternal second divine person.” The text underlines sending and becoming human, not ontological pre-existence.

In OT usage the sonship of Israel (Hos 11:1), of David (2 Sam 7:14) and of the royal successors of David (Ps 2:7) is a precise theological category of election — not adoption in a legally fictitious sense, but a real relationship instituted by God. Jesus’ special sonship lies in his unique election, in his conception by the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35), in his perfect obedience and in the messianic authority bestowed on him.

The Racovian Catechism unfolds this precisely: Christ is Son of God in multiple ways — through the conception by the Holy Spirit, through the sanctification by the Father, through the resurrection from the dead, through the exaltation to the right hand of God. All of this is historically instituted sonship, not timeless consubstantiality.

Objection 4: John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15-17 teach pre-existence — Paul must be read consistently

The argument presupposes what it must prove: that Jn 1:1; Col 1:15-17; Phil 2:6-7 actually teach a biographical pre-existence of Christ. The Racovian Catechism and Sozzini have shown by precise detailed exegesis that these passages are to be read otherwise: Jn 1:1 as the “beginning of the gospel” (cf. the entry on John 1:1-3); Col 1:15-17 as a statement about the new creation (cf. Colossians 1:15-17); Phil 2:6-7 as a Christological hymn about Christ’s humility and exaltation (cf. Philippians 2:6-7).

Methodologically, the right order is: let clear passages interpret obscure ones. Gal 4:4 is linguistically clear (sending follows upon birth; the standard cipher “born of a woman”; sending language as with prophets and apostles). Jn 1:1 and Col 1:15 are in need of interpretation (poetic language, Hellenistic topoi, polemical contexts). It is methodologically backwards to read the clear passages against the standard of the difficult ones.

Further: Pauline theology knows a rich pre-dispositional language (Eph 1:4-5; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 1:2). The passages about “before the world” / “before the ages” / “before the foundation of the world” can be read consistently as statements about God’s eternal counsel — not as statements about a pre-biographical existence of the Son. This reading integrates all the Pauline passages without having to introduce a second divine essence.

Objection 5: the Church Fathers always read Gal 4:4 in terms of pre-existence — the Socinian reading is an innovation

Appeal to ecclesiastical tradition is methodologically double-edged. The first two centuries of Christian exegesis (before Nicaea 325) show a wide variety of Christological readings: Jewish-Christian, Gnostic, modalist, monarchian, subordinationist. Only with the formation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan orthodoxy (4th-5th centuries) is the pre-existence-theological reading of Gal 4:4 dogmatically fixed. Before that it was one possibility among several.

The Reformers of the sixteenth century too (Erasmus, Servetus, the Italian Anti-Trinitarians, finally Sozzini and the Polish Brethren) showed by precise philological-exegetical work that the patristic exegesis in many cases did not take the Greek grammar and the OT linguistic background seriously. The Socinian reading is not an innovation but a recovery of the biblically and linguistically most natural reading.

Finally: the sola scriptura principle of the Reformation demands that Scripture be set as standard over ecclesiastical tradition. If Pauline language (sending follows upon birth; “born of a woman” as a standard cipher for genuine humanity; sending language as with prophets and apostles) does not support the pre-existence-theological reading, then that reading must be given up — regardless of how venerable the tradition is that bears it. Tota scriptura, not tota traditio.

Theological consequences

Related verses

The following passages support, deepen or contrast the exegesis presented here:

• Acts 2:36 — God has made Jesus Lord and Christ (installation Christology).
• 1 Peter 1:20 — foreseen before the foundation of the world, revealed in the last time.
• Hebrews 1:1-2 — in these last days spoken through the Son.
• John 1:1-3 — the Word in the beginning of the gospel.
• John 8:58 — before Abraham; meaning of sending in the divine counsel.
• John 17:5 — glory before the foundation of the world in the divine counsel.
• Colossians 1:15-17 — firstborn of all creation as a title of dignity, not of pre-existence.
• John 6:38 — come down from heaven as sending language.
• 1 Timothy 2:5 — one God, one mediator: the man Christ Jesus.

Summary

Galatians 4:4 is one of the most concise and pregnant Pauline formulas of sending: God sends — at the right time — his Son — as a real human being. That is salvation-historical Christology in compressed form. The verse names no eternal divine nature, no cosmic pre-existence, no two-natures doctrine. It celebrates God’s sovereign action in history through the sent and born Son.

The Pauline word order is exegetically decisive: sending follows upon birth, not the other way round. The Racovian Catechism has classically formulated this line: “Christ was not sent before he was born of a woman, but only after he was born of her.” The sending language of the NT is throughout applied also to prophets and apostles — without anyone inferring a pre-temporal existence of these sent ones. The application to Christ must be read consistently.

Read Socinianly, Gal 4:4 is a key text against the doctrine of biographical pre-existence and for a sending Christology of election: at the fullness of time God appoints the man Jesus, born of Mary, born under the law, as the redeemer of those who stand under the law. The theological point lies in the full identification of the one sent with those to be saved — not in a pre-temporal divine consubstantiality. An economy of salvation of solidarity, not of metaphysical distance: that is Pauline and Socinian Christology at once.