Galatians 4:4

But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

The fullness of time ... has the meaning of "At God's appointed time." All of the grand events of God's plan for the redemption of mankind were scheduled in advance, and from the beginning, even the final judgment itself being a planned and scheduled event. "God has appointed a day, etc." (Acts 17:31).

God sent forth his Son ... This is a dogmatic statement of the Incarnation, being a clear reference to the pre-existence of Christ with God before the world was (John 1:1). This clause teaches: (1) the deity of the Son of God, (2) "the going forth of the Son from a place where he was before, and (3) his being invested with divine authority."[7] We agree with Ramsay who said that it was simply "incredible that some unbelievers find here the statement that Christ was only a man."[8]

Born of a woman ... In view of the clear meaning of the preceding clause, it is impossible to accommodate the opinion so often expressed by otherwise reputable and dependable scholars that "this is not a reference to the virgin birth."[9] Since the father of Jesus Christ is clearly set forth as the heavenly Father, pray tell how the Lord could have been born, or entered our earth life, in any other way, except by virgin birth? Are all the commentators ignorant of the fact that if there was cohabitation, in the usual sense, involved in the birth here mentioned it could not have produced one who had previously existed with God before the world was, but would invariably and certainly have produced a brand new individual? To be sure, Paul did not here stress the virgin birth, but there is no way that these words could have been spoken by the blessed apostle unless he truly believed it and so arranged his teaching here as to bear an eloquent witness of it.

Furthermore, it is highly questionable if "born of a woman" is the proper translation of the Greek expression "becoming of a woman." While true enough that Christ was born of a woman, that is not the word Paul used. Huxtable believed a better translation is made to be of a woman, preferring it because "Such a translation would imply a previous state of existence (a thought most certainly in the context), whereas born does not."[10] To say the least, Huxtable's translation more accurately reflects the thought of the whole passage.

Born under the law ... "Made to be under the law" is better in this place also, where the same word is used. There is a genuine sense in which Christ was not "born" under the law, because as the true Temple of God, the Head of the Theocracy, and the divine Son of God, he was intrinsically absolutely above the law, as emphatically indicated in Matthew 17:25-27, where it is recorded that Jesus consented to the payment of the temple tax, not because he owed it, but because he did not wish to cause people to stumble. See in my Commentary on Matthew 17:24ff. In the same manner as indicated there, Christ consented to "be made" under the Mosaic obligations for the purpose of fulfilling them, obligations that did not derive in any sense whatever from his birth, but from his joint-purpose with God even before the Incarnation was begun.

The adoption of sons ... Adam was the "son of God" by creation (Luke 3:38), a status that does not pertain to any of Adam's posterity due to the disastrous behavior of the great progenitor which involved the entire human race in ruin. God's purpose of redemption is that of adopting all of us "Adamites" into the status of sonship with the Father, the same having been the purpose of the Incarnation, the virgin birth, the making of Christ to be under the law, and, in fact, the total family of events clustered around the sacred name of Jesus Christ our Lord.

[7] H. N. Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 155.

[8] Wm. R. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1965), p. 396.

[9] Everett F. Harrison, Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 709.

[10] E. Huxtable, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), Vol. 20, p. 183.