Gal. iv. 4 f. reads as follows: _But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons_. It is most improbable that there is here any reference to the Virgin Birth, or even any indication that the doctrine is known to St. Paul. The phrase “_born of a woman_” is one that is used naturally of an ordinary human birth (cf. Job xiv. 1; and Mt. xi. 11 (Lk. vii. 28) “among them that are born of women”). The determining consideration is, however, the argument of Gal. iv. 1‐7. St. Paul is there working out the figure of the heir who is yet a minor (verses 1, 2). While we were children, he argues, we were in bondage (verse 3). But, when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son to redeem men from the law. To accomplish this purpose, the Son must needs make Himself one with those He came to deliver. Like them He must be “born under the law”; like them He must be “born of a woman”. The one clause asserts His position as a child of the Jewish race; the other declares the reality of His humanity. There is not the slightest suggestion of a miraculous birth.(1) Indeed, the more natural impression made by the words is that of a birth common to all the sons of men. If St. Paul had wished to avoid giving that impression, he could have done so with ease, since he was perfectly familiar with the distinction between γυνή (woman) and παρθένος (virgin) (cf. 1 Cor. vii. 34). Rom. i. 3 f. reads: “... _his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead_.” Here the thought of the Virgin Birth is said to lie implicit in the opening words of the passage (cf. Orr, _The Virgin Birth of Christ_, pp. 119 ff.; also Knowling, _Testimony of St. Paul to Christ_, p. 313; and Sweet, _The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ_, p. 237 n.). Again, the exegesis cannot be allowed. St. Paul’s words state an antithesis; they speak of the Son from two standpoints, that of the body and that of the spirit (SH., Rom., p. 7). “According to the flesh”, He was “born (γενομένον) of the seed of David”, but, “according to the spirit of holiness”, He was designated (ὁρισθέντος) Son of God “by the resurrection of the dead”. It is very difficult to think that the antithesis would have been stated in this way, if the Apostle had been thinking of the Virgin Birth. “Born of the seed of David” contains no reference to the doctrine. The Divine Sonship, indeed, is not mentioned until the following clause, and there it is said to be predicated, not in the Virgin Birth, but in the Resurrection. Without pressing the view that “according to the flesh born of the seed of David” implies an ordinary human birth, we may certainly claim that the Miraculous Conception is a thought entirely foreign to the passage.