I worry that this involves reading more back into Paul's phrasing than is actually intended. It reminds me of the wording of Job 14:1. "A mortal, born of woman, few of days and full of trouble."
So all I really read there is that Paul is affirming that he was born human and not some sort of disembodied angel, Richard Carrier style.
Actually, if we look at the contexts provided by Paul, we see that in verse 4:4, he first affirms that God "sent forth" an agent, language which reflects that used by other N.T. writers to express an office of a special messenger. We see this kind of thing applied to John the Baptist and to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, as well as to Jesus' commissioning of His apostles as "those who are sent."
Secondly, Paul implies that God is "the Father" of Jesus, which as we all know, is language used profusely by nearly all of the writers in the New Testament. And this Fatherhood/Sonship relation between God and Jesus is exclusive and, as again Paul implies, not a state of being that can be shared by any other human being. Hence, in verse 5, we see Paul saying that Jesus' coming into the world allows us to be "adopted" as sons. Interestingly, there is absolutely no context given by Paul that would then allow for us to read this adoptionist theme back into Jesus' status;
He definitely isn't adopted. He is unique. We are adopted by the Father; Jesus is not adopted. Additionally, all of what Paul says in verse 4 contrasts with the language Paul uses in verse 5 when referring to our "adoption" as sons (and daughters), and this contrast between Jesus and every other person is also conceptually reflected in what John states in his gospel in chapter 1 (e.g. John 1:12).
Thirdly, Paul says that Jesus is born of a woman, and born under the law. So, we know that although Jesus is born in a way similar to any other man, Jesus' birth isn't an illegitimate one or else he couldn't have been born according to the prescription of holiness in the Law. Paul knew, too, that the woman by whom Jesus had to be born would likewise have to be holy under the prescriptions of the Law for Jesus to qualify. Moreover, Paul states that God is the Father, but since we know that Paul says that God is Spirit, then we know Paul HAS to be inferring that the woman involved had to become pregnant by some kind of fiat of God, because there is no sexual intercourse made by God the Father with any human woman, ever.
Fourth, if we follow the encoding that Paul gives to this passage, we see that the totality of the Father's actions through the woman and through the Law make Jesus' mission possible and allow us to identify Jesus' nature, even if just in a minimal way and in just a short set of verses.
So, sorry Silmarien. I think my interpretation stands fairly strong and isn't evidence of my reading anything INTO Paul that isn't already inferred by the kind of Jewish thinking that is available to Paul in his own time.
For anyone else who thinks they're going to ride roughshod over my hermeneutical applications better get ready to put on their thinking caps and pull out their research tablets and do some reading, particularly from the following References:
1) Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture - Burce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, and Grant I. Lovejoy
2) History of Biblical Interpretation: A Reader - William Yarchin
3) Judaism and the Interpretation of Scripture - Jacob Neusner
4) Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation: Six Volumes in One - Moises Silva (Editor)
5) Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible - Richard L. Schultz
6) Beyond the Obvious - James DeYoung and Sarah Hurty
7) Exegetical Fallacies - D.A. Carson
8) Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament - Walter Kaiser Jr., Darrell L. Bock, and Peter Enns.
9) The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New - G.K. Beale (Editor)
10) Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Exegesis and Interpretation - G.K. Beale
...among others I can list.
