But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
Galatians 4:4
When you read this verse, it almost sounds as if it’s giving a progression of events. God first sent his son, then he was born of a woman, born under law. As I’ve explored in some past posts, we know that God didn’t send his son as a preexistent son in heaven to incarnate into the womb of Mary. We know that he was sent as a fully grown man from his Spirit baptism at the Jordan River. The man who was sent into the world (or “the Son of man sent from heaven”) was a man who was already born of a woman.
The Greek verb here for being born is an aorist participle. This is a past tense verb. Most translations do not translate it at all. They simply put, “born of a woman.” However if the past tense is translated into English, it would read either: “God sent his son, who was born of a woman,” or as the BLB translates it, “God sent his son, having been born of a woman.” You can see that this changes the meaning a bit. You have the man who was sent by God was a man who had already in the past been born of a woman. It’s not a man who was sent by to to be born of a woman, as most translations seem to suggest. It was a fully grown man who was sent by God, who had been born of a woman and who had been born under the law.
The way many translations translate it is not necessarily incorrect. The word “born” can be past tense in English. However, if you read this in English without the past tense of the Greek being expressed, you won’t notice this subtle difference. I believe many English translations are intentionally leaving this vague to push the idea that the Son was sent to be born of a woman. Not that a man who was already born of a woman was sent. Just a small thing I noticed, but it’s funny that every time there is something which goes against the Trinitarian view, they are very quiet on it. Every time I come across a manuscript variant, it goes against the Trinitarian view. Every time there’s something in the grammar I didn’t notice or isn’t translated properly, it goes against the Trinitarian view. If everything were brought to light and listed categorically, the evidence against the Trinity would be enormous. The bias and the dishonesty would be seen very clearly.