In defending his Gospel to the Galatians, Paul makes the following statement:
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law (4:4 ESV)
ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον
Someone raised the question why Paul added what had to be obvious, namely that God's Son was born of a woman. As I consider this verse, I noticed two things. First, it employs four verbs: ἔρχομαι (come), ἐξαποστέλλω (sent forth/sent away), and γίνομαι (become) which is repeated. Second, all four are aorist but the first two, ἦλθεν and ἐξαπέστειλεν, are indicative active and the second two, γενόμενον (which is repeated), are participle middle.
Some translations reflect the difference:
But when the fullness of time came, God sent-forth His Son— having come from a woman, having come under the Law (DLNT)
The choice of ἐξαποστέλλω, sent away, rather than ἀποστέλλω, send, implies location: God's Son was with Him and sent away. Does the shift from indicative active to participle middle imply a difference in time? That is, does Paul reinforce the previous existence of God's Son (before being born of a woman) by saying He was sent away using the indicative, to be born using the participle?