Galatians, Epistle to the

Galatians Epistle To The

1. The Apostle, the Galatians, and the Judaizers.-The churches of Galatia to which the Epistle is addressed (Gal 1:2) owed their Christianity to the preaching of St. Paul (Gal 1:8). Humanly speaking, one may say that their conversion was due to an accident. Apparently the Apostle had set out with some other goal in view, but he was led to visit Galatia, or was detained there, because of some bodily ailment (Gal 4:13). The nature of his malady was such as made him painful to behold (Gal 4:14), but in spite of it the Galatians welcomed him as an angel from heaven, and listened eagerly while he proclaimed to them Christ crucified as the only way of salvation (Gal 3:1). They accepted his glad tidings and were baptized (Gal 3:1). They had made a good start in the Christian race (Gal 5:7), strengthened by the gift of the Holy Spirit, whose presence within them was visibly manifested in works of power (Gal 3:3-5).

Once again* [Note: The implied antithesis to (Gal 4:13) is not but . The contrast is not between the first and the second of two visits, but between the former happy state of things and the changed circumstances at the time or writing. The expression has no bearing on the number or St. Pauls visits to Galatia (Askwith, Galatians, p. 73f.).] St. Paul visited the Galatian churches. A little plain speaking was necessary concerning certain matters of doctrine and conduct (Gal 1:9; Gal 5:21; Gal 4:16), yet on the whole it would seem that he found no grave cause for alarm.

Subsequently, however, the steadfastness of the Galatian Christians was greatly disturbed by the appearance of Judaistic opponents of St. Paul (Gal 1:7; Gal 3:1; Gal 5:10), who denied both his apostolic authority and the sufficiency of the gospel which he preached. From the form in which the Apostle cast his defence of himself and of his teaching (Galatians 1-2, 3-5), it is not difficult to deduce the doctrinal position of these disturbers and the arguments by which they bewitched the Galatians (Gal 3:1).

The promise of salvation, said they, is given to the seed of Abraham alone (Gal 3:7; Gal 3:16; Gal 3:29). Gentiles like the Galatians, who wish to be included in its scope, must first be incorporated into the family of Abraham. This means, not only that they must be circumcised, but also that they must undertake to keep the whole of the Mosaic Law (Gal 4:10; Gal 4:21; Gal 5:2; Gal 6:12). Only on these conditions, by exact performance of all the works of the Law, can a Gentile win his way to membership in the Christian Church (Gal 2:16; Gal 2:21). St. Paul was silent about these conditions because he wished to curry favour with you (Gal 1:10), yet on occasion even he has declared by his action that circumcision is binding upon Gentile Christians (Gal 5:11). But it must be remembered that he is not an apostle in the same sense as our teachers, the great apostles of the circumcision, Peter, James, and John. They received their authority directly from Jesus Christ; his was derived from them. They preach the whole truth, he withholds a part (Gal 1:9 to Gal 2:14).

The effect of this insidious reasoning was like that of leaven in a lump of dough (Gal 5:9). St. Pauls authority was undermined, and it seemed likely that his labour would prove to have been wasted (Gal 4:11). With amazing rapidity ( [Gal 1:6]) the Galatians were turning aside from the gospel of Christ to the perverted gospel of the Judaizers (Gal 1:7). They were minded to give up the freedom Christ had won (Gal 5:1), and to take upon them the yoke of the Law with all its burdens (Gal 4:10).

At the time when St. Paul first heard of their defection, he was for some reason unable to pay a visit to Galatia (Gal 4:20). To meet the needs of the moment, therefore, he wrote a letter to the Galatians, denying the insinuations of his opponents with respect to his subordination to the apostles at Jerusalem, and pointing out the fatal consequences of the error into which the Galatians were being led-an error which, pressed to its logical conclusion, was equivalent to the statement that Christs death was gratuitous and unnecessary (Gal 2:21).

To the attack on his personal authority he replies by stating the facts of his immediate Divine call to apostleship, and of his relations with the apostles of the circumcision (Gal 1:9 to Gal 2:14). In answer to the Judaizers insistence on the necessity of circumcision and the observance of the Law, he sets forth the true position of the Law in Gods scheme of redemption. It was a temporary provision, inserted parenthetically between the promise to Abraham and its fulfilment in Christ. The Law itself bears witness of its own impotence to justify (Gal 3:9-11), and now that its purpose is served it has become a dead letter. The gospel of Christ declares that we are justified by faith and not by works of law (Gal 2:16).

Finally, the Apostle meets the charge of pleasing men by exposing the motives of the Judaizers, whose main object was to escape persecution and to gain applause (Gal 6:12-13; Gal 4:17); with this he contrasts his own self-sacrificing love for his converts (Gal 4:19) and the hardships he has suffered for his fearless proclamation of the truth (Gal 5:11; Gal 6:17).

2. Summary of the Epistle.-The Epistle falls into three main divisions.

A. Chiefly historical (Gal 1:1 to Gal 2:14)

Gal 1:1-5. The customary salutation is so framed, with its insistence on the writers apostolic authority, as to lead up to the main subject of the Epistle.

Gal 1:6-10. The usual thanksgiving for past good progress is displaced by an expression of astonishment at the Galatians sudden apostasy, a denunciation of the false teachers, and a declaration of the eternal truth of St. Pauls gospel.

Gal 1:11 to Gal 2:14. This gospel was derived from no human source, but was directly revealed by Jesus Christ. Obviously it could not have been suggested by the Apostles early training, which was based on principles diametrically opposed to the gospel freedom (Gal 1:11-14). Nor could he have learnt it from the earlier apostles, for he did not meet them till some time after his conversion (Gal 1:15-17). When at length he did visit Jerusalem, he saw none of the apostles save Cephas and James, and them only for a short time. Finally, he left Jerusalem unknown even by sight to the great majority of Christians (Gal 1:18-24).

When he visited Jerusalem again, fourteen years later, he asserted the freedom of the Gentiles from the Law by refusing to circumcise Titus.* [Note: The Western Text, which omits (Gal 2:5), implies that Titus was circumcised. This is also a possible interpretation of the generally accepted reading. On the whole question see K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, p. 275 ff.] On this visit he conferred privately with the apostles of the circumcision, on terms of absolute equality. They on their side commended the work he had already done amongst Gentiles, and treated him as a fellow-apostle (Gal 2:1-10). His independent apostolic authority was further demonstrated at Antioch, where he publicly rebuked St. Peter for virtually denying the gospel by refusing to eat with Gentiles (Gal 2:11-14). The particular argument used by St. Paul against St. Peter gradually expands into the general argument which forms the second section of the Epistle.

B. Principally doctrinal (Gal 2:15 to Gal 4:31)

Gal 2:15-21. St. Peter himself and all Jewish Christians, by seeking justification through faith in Jesus Christ, tacitly admitted the impossibility of attaining salvation through works of the Law. St. Pauls own experience had taught him that only after realizing this impossibility, which the Law itself brought home to him, had be come to know Christ as a vital power within. If salvation were attainable by obedience to the Law, then would the Cross be superfluous.

Gal 3:1-9. The Galatians must be bewitched, after having experienced the reality of justification by faith, to turn to works of law as a more perfect way of salvation. Faith, not works of law, makes men true children of Abraham and inheritors of the blessing bestowed on him.

Gal 3:10-18. The Law brings no blessing but a curse, to free us from which Christ died a death which the Law describes as accursed. Through faith in Him we receive the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham-a promise which is older than the Law and cannot be annulled by it.

Gal 3:19 to Gal 4:11. The Law was a temporary provision to develop mans sense of sin, and to make him feel the need of salvation. It was the mark of a state of bondage, not contrary to, but preparing for, the gospel. Under the Law we were in our spiritual minority. Now, as members of Christ, we have reached the status of full-grown men. Being one with Him, we are the true promised seed of Abraham. We have outgrown the limitations of childhood and come to the full freedom of spiritual manhood as sons and heirs of God. How then can the Galatians desire to return to the former state of bondage?

Gal 4:12-20. The Apostle begs them to pause, appealing to their recollection of his personal intercourse with them, which he contrasts with the self-interested motives of the false teachers.

Gal 4:21-31. The witness of the Law against itself is illustrated by an allegorical interpretation of the story of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar, the bondwoman, and her descendants stand for the old covenant and its followers, who are in bondage to the Law. These are thrust out from the promised inheritance and remain in bondage. But Isaac, the child of promise, born of a free woman, represents the true seed of Abraham, namely, Christ, and them who are united to Him by faith. These possess the inheritance, for they are free.

C. Mainly hortatory (Gal 5:1 to Gal 6:18)

Gal 5:1-12. The Galatians should therefore cling to the freedom which Christ has won for them. To follow the Judaizers and accept circumcision is to break away from Christ and return to bondage under the yoke of the Law.

Gal 5:13-26. Yet liberty must not be confused with licence. The fundamental Christian law of love declares that true freedom is freedom to serve others. The works which result from the indwelling of Christs Spirit cannot possibly be mistaken, nor can those of the flesh.

Gal 6:1-10. The freedom of Christian service must be practically manifested, in forbearance and brotherly love and liberality.

Gal 6:11-18. Peroration, summing up the main points of the Epistle, and the final benediction. The Apostle calls attention to the fact that at any rate for these closing verses he has dispensed with the services of the customary amanuensis, and written his message in his own large handwriting (Gal 6:11). Possibly the words may refer to the whole Epistle.

3. Leading ideas

(a) Righteousness and justification.-St. Paul and his Judaistic opponents alike expressed their teaching in conventional Jewish terminology. Both agreed that the object of all religion is the attainment of righteousness ( [Gal 2:21; Gal 3:21; Gal 5:5]). The metaphor underlying the word righteousness is forensic, and has its roots far back in the usage of the OT. In its most primitive sense the word righteous (, Heb. ) is used to describe that one of two litigants whom the judge pronounces to be in the right. Righteousness (, Heb. or ) is the status of one who is in the right. The verb which denotes the action of the judge in pronouncing him righteous (Heb. ) is represented by the Greek word and the English to justify (Luk 7:35). Used in the religions sense, righteousness means the status of one who is in a right relation towards God, in a state of acceptance with God. To justify () is to declare one to be in a state of righteousness (cf. Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5, p. 28ff.).

(b) Works and faith.-The fundamental difference between St. Paul and his opponents was not concerning the nature of righteousness, but concerning the way in which it may be attained. The Judaizers maintained that righteousness is the reward of mans own effort. It is the fruit of perfect obedience to the will of God. The Law of Moses is the most complete expression of the Divine will for man. Whether for Jew or Gentile, therefore, righteousness, the condition of salvation, depends upon an exact performance of all the Mosaic ordinances. We are justified by works of the law (Gal 2:16; Gal 2:21; Gal 5:4).

St. Paul exposes the fundamental defect of this, position. The doctrine of justification by works takes no account of the inborn weakness of human nature. If righteousness be attainable by perfect obedience to the Law, then the Incarnation was unnecessary. Christs death was superfluous and meaningless (Gal 2:21), for men can save themselves. But experience shows that human nature is so constituted as to be incapable of perfect obedience. The search for justification by works has been tried and has failed. Those who sought most eagerly have been most acutely conscious of their failure (Gal 2:15-19). The Law could not help them. All it could do was to make clear the Divine commands, and pronounce sentence on such as failed to keep them (Gal 3:13). From its sentence no man escapes. The actual result of the giving of the Law was to teach man by bitter experience that by works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Gal 2:16).

But that righteousness which man cannot win by his own individual efforts he can now receive as a free gift won for him by Christ (Gal 1:3; Gal 3:13-14). On mans side the one condition of justification is faith. Faith is much more than mere intellectual belief. It is an entire surrender of the whole self to Christ, the conscious act of entering into vital union with Him. This union is no mere metaphor, but a living personal reality. At baptism the believer puts on Christ (Gal 3:27). Thenceforward he is in Christ, Christ is formed in him (Gal 4:19), until he can say, I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me (Gal 2:19-20). Thus they that are of faith (Gal 3:9) are justified, not, as by a legal fiction, by the imputation to them of a righteousness which is not really their own, but because, as members of Christ, they have become living parts of that perfect human nature which alone is completely righteous, i.e. in complete union with God. Christs righteousness is theirs because they are one with Him (Gal 3:28).

But there can be no justification without the faith which is absolute self-surrender. Christ must be everything or nothing. If men persist in relying on their own unaided power to obtain righteousness by works, they cut themselves off from Christ and have no share in the righteousness which human nature has achieved in Him (Gal 5:2).

(c) The Law and the promise.-God made a promise to Abraham, that in him and in his seed all nations should be blessed (Gal 3:9). That promise is fulfilled in Christ. He is the true seed of Abraham (Gal 3:17; Gal 3:29), and the blessing received by the human race is the gift of the Spirit (Gal 3:14), which is the evidence of mans justification. But, when the promise was given, no mention was made of works or law. The Scripture speaks only of the faith of Abraham (Gal 3:6). The promise given to Abraham was of the nature of a covenant signed and sealed. The Law, therefore, which came more than 400 years later, cannot annul it or add to it a new clause insisting on the necessity of works (Gal 3:15; Gal 3:17). The promise came first; the Law came later. The promise is absolute, the Law conditional. The promise was spoken directly by God; the Law was issued through mediators, human and angelic (Gal 3:14). These facts prove that the Law is subordinate and inferior to the promise, though it would be impious to imagine a contradiction between the two, since one God gave both (Gal 3:21). The Law had a real purpose to serve. By its exact definition of transgressions and the consequent deepening of mans sense of sin and helplessness (Gal 3:19), it prepared the way for his acceptance of the fulfilment of the promise, the offer of justification by faith in Christ. But now that the promise is fulfilled the Law is no longer necessary (Gal 3:23; Gal 3:25).

(d) Christology.-The Divinity of Christ is taken for granted (Gal 4:4). The reality of His human nature is indicated by references to His birth of a woman (Gal 4:4), His nationality (Gal 3:16), His Crucifixion (Gal 3:1), and His Resurrection (Gal 1:1). That He is man not individually but inclusively (i.e. not a man but man), is shown by the whole argument of the Epistle, which rests on the conviction that by faith all men may share the power of His perfect human nature (Gal 2:19-20; Gal 4:19).

His redemptive work centres in His death. He gave himself for our sins, thereby delivering us from the present age with all its evils (Gal 1:4). He redeemed us from the curse pronounced by the Law, by Himself becoming a curse for us (Gal 3:13-14; Gal 4:4), i.e. by dying a death which the Law describes as accursed (Deu 21:23).* [Note: Deu 21:23 means not that a curse rests on him who is impaled, but that his unburied corpse is an insult to the God of the land which by its presence it defiles. St. Paul quotes the LXX, which takes wrongly as subjective genitive. St. Paul means simply Christ died a death in connexion with the outward circumstances of which the Law mentions a curse.]

(e) The Holy Spirit.-The indwelling of the Holy spirit is the evidence of our adoption into the family of God (Gal 4:5-6). His presence is manifested in the inward sense of sonship (Gal 4:6), and outwardly in works of power (Gal 3:5) and in the manifold Christian graces (Gal 5:22 f.). He is personally distinct from the Father and the Son, yet the three act as one. The Father sends the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6).

4. Relation to other books of the NT

(a) Galatians and Acts.-The autobiographical details given by St. Paul in Act 1:13-24;Act 2:1-14 cover a period of which a second account is provided by the writer of Acts. The task of reconciling the two narratives is beset by many difficulties, most of which centre round St. Pauls two visits to Jerusalem.

(1) The Epistle asserts that St. Pauls conversion was followed by a visit to Arabia, a return to Damascus, and then, after three years, a visit to Jerusalem. This visit is described as being of a purely private nature. St. Paul saw none of the apostles except St. Peter and St. James, and departed to Syria and Cilicia unknown even by sight to the faithful in Judaea (Act 1:16-23).

Acts, on the other hand, seems to imply that after his conversion St. Paul returned directly from Damascus to Jerusalem (Act 9:23-26). The expression (Act 9:23) suggests that the Apostle spent a considerable time at Damascus, but nothing is said concerning any visit to Arabia. Moreover, the description in Acts of his visit to Jerusalem differs considerably from that in the Epistle. It speaks of a period of public preaching sufficiently widely known to give rise to Jewish plots against his life (Act 9:28 f.). If this be true, it is difficult to believe that St. Pauls stay in the city was limited to fifteen days (Gal 1:18), or that he was unknown by sight to the Christians of Judaea , unless it be assumed that Judaea means the outlying districts exclusive of Jerusalem (cf. Zec 12:8; Zec 14:14).

Yet it is clear that both accounts refer to the same visit, for both place it between St. Pauls return from Damascus and his departure to Cilicia (Act 9:30, Gal 1:21). Nor do the two narratives appear irreconcilable, when the different objects with which they were written are borne in mind. St. Pauls purpose was to give a complete account of his movements so far as they brought him into contact with the apostles. Consequently, in connexion with his visit to Jerusalem, he omits everything except his intercourse with Cephas and James. The object of the writer of Acts was to trace the growth of the Church. He might well omit, as irrelevant to his purpose, all mention of St. Pauls visit to Arabia, which the Apostle himself describes as a temporary absence in the course of a long stay in Damascus ( [Gal 1:17]).

(2) Gal 2:1-10 describes a second occasion, when St. Paul visited Jerusalem in company with Barnabas, and interviewed the apostles of the circumcision. According to Acts, St. Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem together twice:* [Note: McGiffert (History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, p. 172 ff.) is almost alone in arguing that the two visits of Acts 15 and Acts 11 are really one the same.] (a) during the famine of a.d. 46 (Act 11:30; Act 12:25); (b) at the time of the so-called Council of Jerusalem (Act 15:2) some years later. By Ramsay, Lake, Emmet, and other scholars, the visit of Gal 2:1-10 is identified with (a); by Lightfoot, Zahn, and the majority of modern critics with (b).

In favour of the former identification it is urged:

(i.) That the natural inference from the language of the Epistle is that St. Pauls second interview with the other apostles occurred during his second visit to Jerusalem, and Acts places his second visit in the time of the famine; (ii.) that, in three details at least, the circumstances of Gal 2:1-10 agree with the account of Act 11:27-30 : the journey was suggested by revelation (Gal 2:1, Act 11:27); St. Pauls companion is Barnabas (Gal 2:1, Act 11:30); each account mentions the relief of the poor (Gal 2:10, Act 11:19)

In support of the alternative view it is argued: (i.) That in Acts 15 and Gal 2:1-10 the chief persons are the same-St. Paul and Barnabas on the one hand, St. Peter and St. James on the other; (ii.) the subject of discussion is the same, i.e. the circumcision of Gentile converts; (iii.) the result is the same, i.e. the exemption of Gentile converts from the enactments of the Law, and the recognition by St. Peter, St. James, and St. John of the apostleship of St. Paul and Barnabas (Lightfoot, Galatians 5 p. 123ff.).

The acceptance of either view involves difficulties. Against the former it has been objected:

(i.) That Acts does not mention any meeting between St. Paul and the three in connexion with the famine visit, but rather suggests that they were absent from Jerusalem at the time. This is not a serious difficulty. The argument from silence is always precarious, and the only passage which suggests that the apostles were not in Jerusalem is the statement that, from the house of John Marks mother, St. Peter went (Act 12:17), which need not necessarily mean that he left the city.

(ii.) That the language of Gal 2:2 ( ) implies that St. Paul had already done much missionary work amongst Gentiles, whereas the events of Act 11:27-30 took place before his first missionary journey. It is doubtful, however, if this objection has any weight, in view of the fact that at any rate fourteen years had elapsed since the Apostle first realized his special vocation to preach to the Gentiles (Act 22:21).

(iii.) That it is chronologically impossible. The date of the famine (and therefore of St. Pauls visit to Jerusalem) is fixed by the independent evidence of Josephus between a.d. 46 and 48. On this theory, therefore, the date of St. Pauls conversion would be not later than a.d. 33, even if the fourteen years of Gal 2:1 are reckoned from that event, and as early as a.d. 30, if they are reckoned from his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18). Most recent students of NT chronology, however (except Harnack, who accepts the date a.d. 30), place St. Pauls conversion between a.d. 33 and 37. The difficulty is real but not fatal. All chronological schemes for the period a.d. 29-46 are merely tentative, and those who argue for the later date usually take their stand on the assumption that the visit of Galatians 2 is the same as that of Acts 15.

The alternative theory, that Galatians 2 and Acts 15 refer to the same occasion, presents special difficulties of its own.

(i.) St. Pauls account of his dealings with the mother church is incomplete. He is guilty of concealing his second visit to Jerusalem, and thereby his personal defence against the Judaizers is invalidated. The usual answers to this objection are: () St. Paul omits his second visit because he did not meet the apostles on that occasion (see above), or () St. Paul refers only to those visits of which his adversaries had given a distorted account.

(ii.) The most obvious inference from the narrative of Galatians 2 is that St. Pauls dispute with Cephas at Antioch (Gal 2:11) took place after the apostolic meeting at Jerusalem* [Note: Gal 2:11-16 forms the climax, from St. Pauls point or view, in his triumphant assertion of the free Christian rights belonging to Gentile convert (Moffatt, LNT, p. 101).] (Gal 2:1-10). But such a dispute is quite incomprehensible if the relation between Jewish and Gentile converts had already been settled. It is just possible, however, that the quarrel occurred before the meeting. It may be that the absence from Gal 2:11 of the of the earlier sections (Gal 1:18-21; Gal 2:1) indicates that the writer is no longer following strict chronological order.

(iii.) Acts 15 states that the Council of Jerusalem dealt with and settled the very question which St. Paul discusses in the Epistle. It is incredible that the Apostle should describe a private interview with the three which occurred at the time of the Council without alluding either to the Council itself or to its decrees, although the official decision, that Gentiles need not be circumcised, would have provided a conclusive argument against the Judaizers. Again, St. Paul could not truthfully have said (Gal 2:6), after accepting the Gentile food restrictions* [Note: This difficulty would disappear if we could accept as original the Western text of Act 15:29, which by omitting the words transforms the food law into a moral law (see K. Lake, op. cit. p. 48 ff.).] passed by the Council (Act 15:29). These objections are as weighty as any argument from silence can be. They are satisfactorily met only by the assumption that the Acts account of the Council is wholly or partly unhistorical.

The identity of the visit of Gal 2:1-10 must be left uncertain. If it be that of Acts 11, the narrative of Galatians is free from difficulties, but some alteration is necessary in the generally accepted chronology of the primitive Apostolic Age. If it be that of Acts 15, doubt arises as to the historicity of the Acts account of the Council, and the reason for St. Pauls silence concerning his second visit to Jerusalem must be left to conjecture.

See, further, Acts of the Apostles, II. 2 (b).

(b) Galatians and Romans.-Almost every thought and argument in the Epistle to the Galatians may be matched from the other Epistle (sc. Rom. [Lightfoot, Galatians 5, p. 45]). A detailed comparison of the parallel passages shows that this agreement exists not only in general ideas, but also in unusual turns of expression and argument such as would not arise inevitably from the nature of the subject (ib.). More or less consciously the writer must have had the one Epistle in mind when he wrote the other, and there can be no doubt as to which is the earlier [Note: The only modern scholar of repute who places Romans before Galatians is C. Clemen (Chronol. der paulin. Briefe, Halle, 1893).] of the two. The Epistle to the Galatians stands in relation to the Roman letter, as the rough model to the finished statue (ib. p. 49). Yet it cannot be argued from the close connexion between the two Epistles that they must have been written about the same time. Even after the lapse of several years, it would be quite natural for a writer returning to an old topic to slip into the old arguments and the old expressions.

(c) Galatians and St. James.-The subject of faith and works is treated in the Epistle of St. James (Jam 2:14-26). The same OT illustration (Gen 15:6) is used as in Gal., but the conclusion-faith is vain apart from works (Jam 2:20)-seems to be a direct contradiction of St. Pauls teaching. Yet the contradiction is only apparent, for the two writers use the terms faith and works in totally different senses. To St. James faith means intellectual assent to a proposition (Jam 2:19), works are the manifold Christian virtues. To St. Paul works are acts of obedience to the Law considered as the ground of salvation, faith is a personal relation to Christ. The statement that faith is made complete by works (Jam 2:22) is almost exactly equivalent to the assertion, by the hearing of faith ye received the Spirit the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal 3:2; Gal 5:22).

5. The locality of the Galatian churches.-The question of the identity of the Galatian Christians is the centre of a fierce controversy. The point at issue is the meaning of Galatia in 1:2 (1Co 16:1). Two rival theories hold the field:

(1) The North Galatian theory-i.e. that Galatia means the old kingdom of Galatia, the region inhabited by the descendants of the Gauls who settled in Asia Minor in the 3rd cent. b.c. (see Lightfoot, Salmon, Chase, Jlicher, Schmiedel, etc.).

(2) The South Galatian theory-i.e. that Galatia signifies the larger Roman province of that name, which included, together with Galatia proper, those portions of the old kingdoms of Phrygia and Lycaonia in which lay Antioch, Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium. The Epistle to the Galatians was addressed to the Christian communities of these cities (see Ramsay, Zahn, Rendall, Bartlet, Bacon, Askwith, Lake, etc.).

In itself either meaning of Galatia is admissible. Which one is intended by St. Paul must be decided by the internal evidence of the Epistle itself, and the information supplied by the account given in Acts of St. Pauls travels.

(a) Evidence of Acts.-The Apostle undoubtedly visited the cities of S. Galatia more than once (Acts 13, 14, 16). Have we any grounds for supposing that he ever visited Galatia proper? This is the first question to be faced. The only evidence for such a visit is derived from two phrases of doubtful meaning, which occur in the narrative of the second and third missionary journeys (Act 16:6; Act 18:23).

(a) The meaning of (Act 16:6).-The crucial point is the exact significance of Act 16:6. The preceding verses tell how the Apostle passed through Syria and Cilicia (Act 15:41) to Derbe and Lystra (Act 16:1). Thence, it seems to be implied, he went on to Iconium (Act 16:2 ff.). His next undisputed stopping-place was somewhere on the borders of Bithynia over against Mysia. The route by which he travelled thither is concealed in the words, , . What is the district described as ?

(i.) It is argued that the participle must be retrospective. The missionaries went through because they had received the prohibition against preaching in Asia, and consequently after they had received it. But such a prohibition was not likely to be given before they had actually entered Asia, or were on the point of doing so. It follows, therefore, that the journey through began only when the cities of S. Galatia were left behind. Since, then, the Galatic region is distinguished from S. Galatia, it can only be Galatia proper. must be a noun (cf. Act 2:10; Act 18:23), and the whole phrase must mean Phrygia (Asiana) and (some North) Galatic region. The strength of this explanation is that it needs no serious straining of grammar or syntax. Its weakness is firstly that it involves an in consistency: in Acts seems to have the special sense of making a preaching journey, and Phrygia Asiana, where ex hypothesi such a journey was made, lay is the region where preaching was forbidden; secondly, it gives no explanation of the absence of the article before , nor any real reason for the use of instead of .

(ii.) The alternative explanation rests on the conviction that the single article in the phrase proves conclusively that one single district is in view. means that region which is both Phrygian and Galatian, the Phrygo-Galatic region. The only district which really answers to this description is that part of the old kingdom of Phrygia which was included in the Roman province of Galatia, i.e. the country which extended westward from Iconium to Antioch and beyond, south of the Sultan Dagh.

That St. Paul had passed through the whole of S. Galatia before he was forbidden to preach in Asia is a mere assumption. At Iconium two roads lay before him-one to the north, leading via Laodicea into Phrygia Asiana, the other to the west, leading to Phrygia Galatica. It is permissible to suppose that Iconium was the point at which he became conscious of the Divine command not to preach in Asia, and that, because of it, he chose the western rather than the northern road. Sooner or later he was bound to enter Asia; but, by taking the western road, he was enabled to travel as long as possible through a legion where missionary work was allowed.* [Note: The contention that may be predicative, and therefore that the prohibition may have been given at the close of the journey through (Ask-with, p. 35 ff.), cannot be regarded as proved.]

The chief objections to this interpretation of the phrase are: (a) in the NT is elsewhere used only as a noun (Act 2:10; Act 18:23); (b) it is straining language to give the force of or: suggests two districts, not one (cf. [Act 19:21 and Act 27:5]).

() The meaning of (Act 18:23).-Of this phrase, which indicates the route by which St. Paul started on his third journey, only one translation is possible, i.e. the Galatic region and Phrygia. The exact meaning attached to the expression will depend on the interpretation given to the words of Act 16:6. It can be adapted to either of the alternatives.

(i.) On thy first hypothesis, will mean Galatia proper as in Act 16:6, and Phrygia will be Phrygia Asiana.

(ii.) On the second, signifies, that part of the province of Galatia in which were Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium (Lycaonia Galatica). Phrygia means either Phrygia Galatica (i.e. the district described in Act 16:6 as ) or Phrygia Galatica and Phrygia Asiana, for the Apostle would have to pass through both regions in order to reach Ephesus by way of (Act 19:1). The absence of any further definition of Phrygia in Act 18:23 is naturally explained by the fact that on this occasion preaching in Asia was not forbidden.

The impartial critic must admit that the evidence of these two passages is not sufficient to prove conclusively whether St. Paul ever visited N. Galatia or not. In favour of the N. Galatian interpretation, it must be granted that it represents the most straightforward and obvious reading of the verses, and that it gives a uniform meaning to the phrases and . Yet it fails to explain some things-e.g. why the writer of Acts should say where would be sufficient, and why he should state in the same verse that (a) preaching in Asia was forbidden, (b) therefore the Apostle preached in Asia. Again, the Acts usually tells its story at greater length when the gospel is being taken into a new district for the first time, but passes over as briefly as possible second visits to places already evangelized. The extreme brevity of the reference to (Act 16:6) suggests that it is not new ground to the missionaries.

The S. Galatian interpretation avoids these special difficulties, but only at the cost of some forcing of interpretation and straining of grammar. The great stumbling-block to its acceptance is the fact that when Acts is actually speaking of the S. Galatian cities, it does not describe them politically as Galatian, but ethnographically-Antioch in Pisidia (Act 13:14), Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia (Act 14:6). The contribution of Acts towards the discovery of the destination of the Galatian Epistle is simply this. St. Paul certainly visited the cities of S. Galatia; he may or may not have visited N. Galatia.

(b) Evidence of the Epistle itself.-This evidence is slight, and is claimed by both sides.

() For the N. Galatian theory it is claimed that:

(i.) St. Paul addresses his readers as (Gal 3:1). This term applies only to the people of N. Galatia. The inhabitants of Antioch, Derbe, and Lystra were Phrygians and Lycaonians. But it is difficult to see what other general term could be used to include the inhabitants of all these cities. It was true politically if not ethnographically.

(ii.) Assuming that Gal 2:1-10 refers to the time of the Council, we should expect, on the S. Galatian theory, that some reference to the evangelizing of Antioch, Derbe, and Lystra would follow Gal 1:21. It would also be natural to look for some mention in Acts 13, 14 of the Apostles illness (Gal 4:13).

() For the S. Galatian theory it is urged that:

(i.) The circumstances of the conversion of the Galatians (Gal 4:12-13) correspond closely to the account of the evangelizing of S. Galatia given by Act 13:14-52; Act 14:1-22. The arguments of St. Pauls sermon at Antioch in Pisidia reappear in Galatians (Ramsay, Gal., pp. 399-401).

(ii.) The repeated mention of Barnabas (2:1, 9, 13) implies that he was personally known to the readers. but Barnabas was no longer with St. Paul on his second journey.

(iii.) The reference to the circumcision of Timothy, supposed to lie behind Gal 5:11, is more naturally understood if St. Paul was writing to Timothys native place.

None of these arguments taken singly or combined are strong enough to bear the weight of either theory.* [Note: Arguments which have been used, but which are now abandoned, are: (a) that the fickle temperament of the Galatians of the Epistle points to the N. Galatia, who were partly or Celtic descent (Lightfoot); (b) that N. Galatia was not likely to be visited by a sick man (Gal 4:13), owing to the difficulty of the journey; (c) that the legal terms used in the Epistle would be intelligible to S. Galatians but not to N. Galatians (Ramsay).]

(c) A priori arguments.-Zahn (Introd. to NT, i. 177), who accepts the S. Galatian view of Act 16:6; Act 18:23, brings against the N. Galatian theory of the Epistles destination two a priori arguments.

() It is not likely that the churches of N. Galatia would have been dismissed so briefly in Acts if they had been the centre of a fierce controversy; nor is it probable that the important churches of S. Galatia should be left with scarcely a trace of their subsequent development in the NT.

() It is strange that Judaistic teachers from Jerusalem, setting out to oppose St. Pauls influence, should have passed by the cities of S. Galatia without starting any considerable anti-Pauline movement, and begun their campaign in the unimportant churches of a remote district.

The only force such arguments could have would be to strengthen a theory proved independently. By themselves they have little weight.

Summary.-The equal division of opinion even amongst critics of the same school suggests that the evidence is insufficient. Absolute impartiality demands an open verdict. If St. Paul did actually found churches in N. Galatia, it is the most natural-though not inevitable-conclusion that the Epistle was addressed to them. The Apostle undoubtedly founded the churches of S. Galatia, but the arguments which have been advanced prove no more than the possibility that they were the recipients of the letter.

6. Date and place of writing.-It is generally agreed that St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans from Corinth on the eve of his departure to Jerusalem at the close of his third missionary journey. Most scholars fix the actual date a.d. 58. This gives the terminus ad quem for dating the Galatian Epistle (see above, 4).

The terminus a quo is not so easily determined. The Epistle itself supplies but few hints. These are: (a) More than fourteen-perhaps more than seventeen-years have elapsed since St. Pauls conversion, during which he has paid at least two visits to Jerusalem (Gal 1:13 to Gal 2:14). (b) St. Paul has paid at least two visits to his readers before writing the Epistle Gal 1:9; Gal 5:21; Gal 4:16).

As to the place of writing, one suggestion alone is given. St. Paul implies that some reason prevented him from visiting Galatia when he wrote the Epistle, though he longed for a personal interview with his converts (Gal 4:20).

() Date on the N. Galatian theory.-If the N. Galatian theory be accepted, the choice of dates is limited. The Epistle must have been written during St. Pauls third missionary journey, after his second visit to Galatia (Act 18:23), and before the end of his sojourn at Corinth-i.e. either (i.) while the Apostle was on his way from Galatia to Ephesus, or (ii.) during his stay at Ephesus (Act 19:1; Act 19:10), or (iii.) during his journey through Macedonia, or (iv.) early in his stay at Corinth (Act 20:1 ff.).

There is little to choose between these suggestions. The objection brought against (i.) and (ii.), that from Ephesus it would be easy to pay a visit to Galatia, is not serious. The obstacle in St. Pauls way (Gal 4:20) need not necessarily have been the length of the journey. On the other hand, Lightfoots attempt to prove by a comparison of the thought and language of the two letters that Galatians must be later than 2 Cor. cannot be regarded as convincing (Galatians 5, p. 49).

() On the S. Galatian theory.-Some supporters of the S. Galatian hypothesis are willing to agree with their opponents as to the date of the Epistle (e.g. Askwith, p. 99ff.). Others avail themselves of the opportunity given by this theory of placing the Epistle earlier in St. Pauls career.

(i.) Ramsay suggests that it was sent from Syrian Antioch just before the beginning of St. Pauls third missionary journey (St. Paul the Traveller, p. 189ff.). A serious objection to this date is the fact that the Epistle does not suggest that St. Paul is planning a visit to Galatia, but rather the reverse (Gal 4:20).

(ii.) Various points in the course of the second missionary journey have been suggested: (a) Macedonia (Hausrath), or (b) Athens (L. Albrecht, Paulus, Munich, 1903, pp. 114f.; C. Clemen, Paulus, Giessen, 1904, i. 396f.), or (c) Corinth (Zahn, Bacon, Rendall). The arguments used in favour of (b) and (c) are that the Epistle must be placed as soon as possible after St. Pauls second visit to Galatia, and at a time which will explain the absence of any mention of Silas and Timothy. Silas and Timothy were not with St. Paul at Athens or at the time of his arrival in Corinth.

(iii.) But any date subsequent to the Council of Jerusalem makes it very difficult to explain the silence of the Epistle with regard to the Council itself and to its decrees. To some scholars this argument alone seems sufficient to prove conclusively that the Epistle was written before the Council (see Calvin, Beza, Bartlet, Round, Emmet, Lake). Consequently, it is suggested that St. Paul wrote from Antioch just before going up to the Council of Jerusalem (W. A. Shedd, Expository Times xii. [1900-01] 568; Round, Date of Galatians), or in the course of his journey from Antioch to Jerusalem (C. W, Emmet, Expositor, 7th ser., ix. [1910] 242ff.; Lake). This theory would be very attractive if the absolute historicity of Acts 15 could be established, but grave doubts exist on this point (cf. Encyclopaedia Biblica , article Council of Jerusalem).

Summary.-The date of the Epistle is almost as difficult to determine as its destination. To a large extent the two questions are intertwined. If it can be proved, on independent grounds, that the Epistle must have been written before the events which lie behind the narrative of Acts 15, then the S. Galatian theory must he accepted, and the visit of Gal 2:1-10 identified with that of Acts 11, or with some visit unrecorded in the Acts. On the other hand, if the N. Galatian theory can be established on independent grounds, the date of the Epistle is confined within narrow limits, and is in any case later than the Council. Unfortunately, conclusive proof of either position cannot be obtained.

7. Authenticity and permanent value

(a) Authenticity.-That Galatians is a genuine Epistle written by St. Paul to his converts has never been questioned except by those eccentric critics who deny the existence of any authentic Pauline Epistles (e.g. Encyclopaedia Biblica , article Paul). Such a theory scarcely needs refutation. Its supporters cut away the ground from beneath their own feet. If no genuine works of St. Paul have survived, no standard of comparison exists by which to decide what is genuinely Pauline and what is not (cf. Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, pp. 133-243). External testimony to the genuineness of Galatians is as strong as can be expected in view of the scantiness of the records of the sub-Apostolic Age. It is quoted as Pauline by Irenaeus (circa, about a.d. 180) and Clem. Alex. (circa, about a.d. 200); it is cited by Justin Martyr (circa, about a.d. 150) and Athenagoras (circa, about a.d. 170); it is included in the canon of Marcion (circa, about a.d. 140) and in the old Latin version of the NT. Earlier still, clear references to its phraseology are found in Polycarp (Php 3:5 [c. [Note: . circa, about.] a.d. 110]).

The internal evidence of the Epistle is irresistible. It is unmistakably the work of a real man combating real opponents. It contains nothing which would explain its motive if it were a forgery, and much that no forger would be likely to have written. The question with which it deals belongs to a very early stage in the history of the Church. The existence before a.d. 70 of large churches of Gentiles who had not been compelled to accept circumcision, proves conclusively that by that time the controversy about Gentile circumcision was a thing of the past. Consequently the Epistle must have been written within St. Pauls lifetime, and no valid reason remains for denying the traditional belief that he wrote it.

(b) Permanent value.-The value of the Epistle is unaffected by uncertainties concerning its date and destination. It is the most concise and vigorous, as Romans is the most systematic, expression of St. Pauls evangel. It displays the Apostles power of penetrating to the heart of things. He passes beyond the immediate question of circumcision and the observance of the Jewish Law to the ultimate principle which lies beneath.

Universal experience has shown that men cannot by their own efforts attain perfect righteousness. The power to overcome the inherent weakness of human nature is Gods free gift to man in Christ. But man must receive it on Gods own terms, by faith-that is, by the complete self-surrender which brings him into vital union with Christs perfect humanity. Such self-surrender is possible to all who realize their own utter helplessness (cf. Mat 18:2); but if life eternal (Gal 6:8) were dependent on the complete obedience to Gods will of unaided human nature, it would be for ever beyond mans reach. The truth on which St. Paul so strongly insists lies at the very heart of the Christian faith, and is a living message to all ages.

In pressing home his point, the Apostle uses the dialectic methods of the Rabbinic school in which both he and his opponents received their training-e.g. the play on the word (Gal 3:13); the argument of Gal 3:16, which is based on the use of the singular , although the noun is collective and in this sense has no plural; the allegorical use of the story of Hagar and Ishmael (Gal 4:21 ff.).

This style of reasoning no longer appeal s to us with any force, but it must be remembered that these are not the real arguments on which the Apostles teaching rests. He uses the OT in the manner most natural to a Jew of the 1st cent. to support and illustrate a conclusion really reached on independent grounds. The ultimate basis of the Apostles doctrine of justification by faith is his own personal experience, both of the hopelessness of the search for righteousness by works, and of the sense of peace and new power which came to him when he could say, I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me (gal 2:20; cf. Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5, p. 26f.).

Literature.-I. Commentaries: Lightfoot5 (1876); G. G. Findlay (Expositors Bible, 1888); W. M. Ramsay (1899; also St. Paul the Traveller, 1895, and The Church in the Roman Empire, 1893); F. Rendall (Expositors Greek Testament , 1903); T. Zahn (1905); A. L. Williams (Camb. Gr. Test., 1910); C. W. Emmet (Readers Commentary, 1912). Valuable notes on Righteousness, Faith, etc., will be found in Sanday-Headlam, Romans 5 (International Critical Commentary , 1902).

II. General Introductions to NT: G. Salmon9 (1904); A. Jlicher (Eng. translation , 1904); B. W. Bacon (1900; also The Story of St. Paul, 1905); Zahn (Eng. translation , 1909); J. Moffatt (1911; also The Historical NT2, 1901).

III. Special Studies: E. H. Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians: its Destination and Date, London, 1899; Douglass Round, The Date of St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians, Cambridge. 1906.

IV. More General Studies: A. C. McGiffert, A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1897; J. V. Bartlet, The Apostolic Age, do. 1900; R. J. Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, London, 1892, The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ2, do. 1906; Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epp. of St. Paul, do. 1911.

V. Articles: Galatia, Galatians, Epistle to the, Chronology or NT, in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) . Galatia, Galatians (the Epistle), Council of Jerusalem, in Encyclopaedia Biblica .

A more complete bibliography will be found in J. Moffatt, Introd. to Literature of the New Testament (Moffatt)., Edinburgh, 1911.

F. S. Marsh.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Galatians, Epistle to the

Written by Saint Paul to warn the churches of Galatia not to heed those who were urging them to submit to circumcision. These false teachers, known as Judaizers, announced that all Christians must be circumcised in order to be saved; according to some scholars their doctrine took the milder form of teaching merely that circumcision was necessary, if not for salvation, at least for Christian perfection. In either case they found Paul opposed to them and consequently tried to lessen his authority with the Galatians by representing him as a mere disciple of the other Apostles and as one who had failed to learn the Gospel correctly, since on this important point of circumcision he was at variance with the real Apostles. In this epistle Paul first vindicates the supernatural origin of his doctrine showing that he had received it directly from Christ and not from men (1), and then he recalls the historic occasion when he had laid his doctrine concerning circumcision of the Gentiles before the Apostles at Jerusalem and they had fully approved it (2). Appealing to the spiritual experiences of the Galatians and to the testimony of Scripture, he proves that salvation is through Christ alone (3; 4). The Galatians then are not under the bondage of the Old Law; still they must not abuse their Christian freedom to commit sin. The Judaizers are seeking their own glory, not the good of the Galatians; true glory is found only in the cross of Christ (5; 6). Paul writes at least the last few lines with his own hand.

The epistle was probably addressed to the churches in Galatia Proper, situated in the north-central part of Asia Minor. Galatia, however, was also the name of the Roman province embracing Galatia Proper and the region to the south of it in which were Antioch of Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, the cities evangelized by Paul on his first missionary journey; many hold that the epistle was addressed to these southern churches. Hence there are two theories regarding the churches addressed, the North Galatian and the South Galatian theories. The South Galatian theory was formulated by Mynster in 1825 and became popular toward the end of the last century. The North Galatian theory never lacked able defenders and in recent years has been coming into favor again; its chief recommendation is that it better satisfies the strict demands of the text of the epistle especially in the phrase “through infirmity of the flesh” (4:13) in which Paul says that he had first preached among the Galatians because of some illness. No such sudden illness seems possible as an explanation for the beginning of the strenuous and deliberately planned work of the Apostle in the Church of southern Galatia as described in the Acts of the Apostles. Besides, the Galatians seem to have been bewildered by the novelty of the attack made on their faith by the Judaizers, but this could hardly have been the case in southern Galatia where Paul had published the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem and where in consequence the tactics of the Judaizers must have been well known. The epistle was probably written, either from Ephesus or Corinth, between A.D. 55 and 58. It was only on his second missionary journey that Paul preached in Galatia Proper, and from the epistle it seems that at the time of writing he had revisited it on his third journey. The South Galatian theory admits a much earlier date, some of its advocates even considering this the first of all Paul’s epistles. Controversy has long raged concerning the identification of the visit to Jerusalem (2); some seek to make it the same as the alms-visit of Acts, 11, 30, but there seems to be no doubt that it is to be identified with the visit described in Acts, 15, where the question of circumcision was decided.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Galatians, Epistle to the

GALATIA

In the course of centuries, gallic tribes, related to those that invaded Italy and sacked Rome, wandered east through Illyricum and Pannonia. At length they penetrated through Macedonia (279 B.C.), and assembled in great numbers under a prince entitled Brennus, for the purpose of invading Greece and plundering the rich temple of Delphi. The leaders disagreed and the host soon divided, one portion, under Brennus, marching south on Delphi: the other division, under Leonorius and Luterius, turned eastward and overran Thrace, the country round Byzantium. Shortly afterwards they were joined by the small remnants of the army of Brennus, who was repulsed by the Greeks, and killed himself in despair. In 278 B.C., 20,000 Gauls, under Leonorius, Luterius, and fifteen other chieftains, crossed over to Asia Minor, in two divisions. On reuniting they assisted Nicomedes I, King of Bithynia, to defeat his younger brother; and as a reward for their services he gave them a large tract of country, in the heart of Asia Minor, henceforward to be known as Galatia.

The Galatians consisted of three tribes: the Tolistboboii, on the west, with Pessinus as their chief town; the Tectosages, in the centre, with their capital Ancyra; and the Trocmi, on the east, round their chief town Tavium. Each tribal territory was divided into four cantons or tetrarchies. Each of the twelve tetrarchs had under him a judge and a general. A council of the nation consisting of the tetararchs and three hundred senators was periodically held at a place called Drynemeton, twenty miles southwest of Ancyra.

That these people were Gauls (and not Germans as has sometimes been suggested) is proved by the testimony of Greek and Latin writers, by their retention of the Gallic language till the fifth century, and by their personal and place names. A tribe in the west of Gaul in the time of Caesar (Bell. Gall., VI, xxiv) was called Tectosages. In Tolistoboii we have the root of the word Toulouse, and in Boii the well known Gallic tribe. Brennus probably meant prince; and Strabo says he was called Prausus, which in Celtic means terrible. Luterius is the same as the Celtic Lucterius, and there was a British saint called Leonorius. Other names of chieftains are of undoubted Gallic origin, e.g. Belgius, Achichorius, Gaezatio-Diastus. Brogoris (same root as Brogitarus, Allobroges), Bitovitus, Eposognatus (compare Caesar’s Boduognatus, etc.), Combolomarus (Caesar has Virdomarus, Indutionmarus), Adiorix, Albiorix, Ateporix (like Caresar’s Dumnorix, ambbiorix, Vercingetorix), Brogitarus, Deiotarus, etc. Place names are of a similar character, e.g. Drynemeton, the “temple of the oaks” or The Temple, from nemed, “temple” (compare Augustonemetum in Auvergene, and Vernemeton, “the great temple”, near Bordeaux), Eccobriga, Rosologiacum, Teutobodiacum, etc. (For a detailed discussion of the question see Lightfoot’s “Galatians”, dissertation i, 4th ed., London, 1874, 235.)

As soon as these Gauls, or Galatians, had gained a firm footing in the country assigned to them, they began to send out marauding expeditions in all directions. They became the terror of their neighbours, and levied contributions on the whole of Asia Minor west of the Taurus. They fought with varying success against Antiochus, King of Syria, who was called Soter from his having saved his country from them. At length Attlaus I, King of Pergamun, a friend of the Romans, drove them back and confined them to Galatia about 235-232 B.C. After this many of them became mercenary soldiers; and in the great battle of Magnesia, 180 B.C., a body of such Galatian troops fought against the Romans, on the side of Antiochus the Great, King of Syria. He was utterly defeated by the Romans, under Scipio Asiaticus, and lost 50,000 of his men. Next year the Consul Manlius entered Galatia, and defeated the Galatians in two battles graphically described by Livy, XXXVIII, xvi. These events are referred to in I Mach., viii. On account of ill-treatment received at the hands of Mithradates I King of Pontus, the Galatians took the side of Pompey in the Mitradatic wars (64 B.C.). As a reward for their services, Deiotarus, their chief tetrarch, received the title of king, and his dominions were greatly extended. Henceword the Galatians were under the protection of the Romans, and were involved in all the troubles of the civil wars that followed. They supported Pompey against Julius Caesar at the battle of Pharsalia (48 B.C.). Amyntas, their last king was set up by Mark Antony, 39 B.C. His kingdom finally included not only Galatia Proper but also the great plains to the south, together with parts of Lyesonia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and Phrygia, i.e. the country containing the towns Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. Amyntas went to Actium, 31 B.C., to support Mark Antony; but like many others he went over, at the critical moment, to the side of Octavianus, afterwards called Augustus. Augustus confirmed him in his kingdom, which he retained until he was slain in ambush, 25 B.C. After the death of Amyntas, Augustus made this kingdom into the Roman province of Galatia, so that this province had ben in existence more than 75 years when St. Paul wrote to the Galatians.

THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH GALATIAN THEORIES

St. Paul addresses his letter to the churches of Galatia (Galatians 1:2) and calls them Galatians (Galatians 3:1); and in I Cor., vi, 1, he speaks of the collections which he ordered to be made in the churches of Galatia. But there are two theories as to the meaning of these terms. It is the opinion of Lipsius, Lightfoot, Davidson, Chase, Findlay, etc., that the Epistle was addressed to the people of Galatia Proper, situated in the centre of Asia Minor, towards the north (North Galatian Theory). Others, such as Renan, Perrot, Weizsacker, Hausrath, Zahn, Pfleiderer, Gifford, Rendell, Holtzmann, Clemen, Ramsay, Cornely, Page, Knowling, etc., hold that it was addressed to the southern portion of the Roman province of Galatia, containing Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which were visited by Saints Paul and Barnabas, during their first missionary journey (South Galatian Theory).

Lightfoot was the chief upholder of the North-Galatian theory; but a great deal has become known about the geography of Asia Minor since he wrote in the eighteenth century, and the South-Galatian Theory has proportionately gained ground. A German Catholic professor, Stinmann (Der Liserkreis des Galaterbriefes), has, however, recently (1908) given Lightfoot his strong support, though it must be admitted that he has done little more than emphasize and expand the arguments of Chase. The great coryphaeus of the South-Galatian theory is Prof. Sire W.M. Ramsay. The following is a brief summary of the principal arguments on both sides.

(1) The fact that the Galatians were being changed so soon to another gospel is taken by Lightfoot as evidence of the characteristic fickleness of the Gauls. Ramsay replies that tenacity in matters of religion has ever been characteristic of the Celts. Besides, it is precarious to argue from the political mobility of the Gauls, in the time of Caesar, to the religious inconsistency of Galatians, whose ancestors left the West four hundred years before. The Galatians received St. Paul as an angel from heaven (Galatians 4:14). Lightfoot sees in this enthusiastic reception proof of Celtic fickleness of character. In the same way it may be proved that the 5000 converted by St. Peter at Jerusalem, and, in fact, that, nearly all the converts of St. Paul were Celts. Acts (xiii-xiv) gives sufficient indications of fickleness in South Galatia. To take but one instance: at Lystra the multitude could scarcely be restrained from sacrificing to St. Paul; shortly afterwards they stoned him and left him for dead.

(2) St. Paul warns the Galatians not to abuse their liberty from the obligations of the Law of Moses, by following the works of the flesh. He then gives a long catalogue of vices. From this Lightfoot selects two (methai, komoi) as evidently pointing to Celtic failings. Against this it may be urged that St. Paul, writing to the Romans (xiii, 13), exhorts them to avoid these two very vices. St. Paul, in giving such an enumeratio here and elsewhere, evidently does not intend to paint the peculiar failings of any race, but simply to reprobate the works of the flesh, of the carnal or lower man; “they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:21).

(3) Witchcraft is also mentioned in this list. The extravagant devotion of Deiotarus, says Lightfoot, “fully bears out the character ascribed to the parent race.” But the Emperor Tiberius and many officials in the empire were ardent devotees of augury. Sorcery is coupled by St. Paul with idolatry, and it was its habitual ally not only amongst the Gauls but throughout the pagan world.

(4) Lightfoot says that the Galatians were drawn to Jewish observances; and he takes this as evidence of the innate Celtic propensity to external ceremonial, “appealing rather to the senses and passions than the heart and mind.” This so-called racial characteristic may be questioned, and it is a well-known fact that the whole of the aboriginal inhabitants of Asia Minor were given over heart and soul to gross pagan cermonial. We do not gather from the Epistle that the Galatians were naturally attracted to Jewish ceremonies. They were only puzzled or rather dazed (iii, 1) by the specious arguments of the Judaizers, who endeavoured to persuade them that they were not as perfect Christians as if they adopted circumcision and the Law of Moses.

(5) On the South-Galatian theory it is supposed that the Epistle was written soon after St. Paul’s second visit to Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, etc. (Acts 16). Lightfoot makes use of a strong argument against this early date. He shows, by a detailed examination, that the Epistle bears a close resemblance, both in argument and language, to parts of the Epistle to the Romans. This he thinks can be accounted for only on the supposition that both were written about the same time, and, therefore, several years later than the date required for the South-Galatian view. To this date required for the South-Galatian view. To this Rendell (Expositor’s Greek Test., London, 1903.p. 144) replies that the coincidence is not due to any similarity in the circumstances of the two communities. “Still less can the identity of language be fairly urged to prove an approximation of the two epistles. For these fundamental truths formed without doubt the staple of the Apostle’s teaching throughout the years of continuous transition from Jewish to Christian doctrine, and his language in regard to them could not fail to become in some measure stereotyped.”

(6) The controversy has raged most fiercely round the two verses in Acts, xvi, 6 and xviii, 23, the only places where there is any reference to Galatia in Acts: “And they went through the Phrygian and Galatian region” (ten phrygian kai Galatiken choran); “he departed and went through the Galatian region and Phrygia” (or “Phrygian”) (ten Galatiken choran kai phyrgian). Lightfoot held that Galatia Proper was meant in the second. Other supporters of the North-Galatian theory think that the countries of North Galatia and Phrygia are meant in both cases. Their opponents, relying on the expression of contemporary writers, maintain that South Galatia was intended in both places. The former also interpret the second part of xvi, 6 (Greek text) as meaning that the travellers went through Phrygia and Galatia after they had passed through South Galatia, because they were forbidden to preach in Asia. Ramsey, on the other hand, maintains that after they had passed through the portion of Phrygia which had been added to the southern part of the province of Galatia (and which could be called indifferently Galatian or Phrygian) they passed to the north because they were forbidden to preach in Asia. He holds that the order of the verbs in the passage is in the order of time, and he gives examples of similar use of the aorist participle (St. Paul The Traveller, London, 1900, pp. ix, 211, 212).

The arguments on both sides are too technical to be given in a short article. The reader may be referred to the following: North-Galatian: Chase, “Expositor”, Dec. 1893. p.401, May, 1894, p.331; Steinmann, “Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes” (Münster, 1908), p. 191. On the South-Galatian side: Ramsey, “Expositor”, Jan., 1894, p. 42, Feb., p. 137, Apr., p. 288, “St. Paul The Traveller”, etc; Knowling, “Acts of the Apostles”, Additional note to ch. xviii (Expositor’s Greek Test., London, 1900, p. 399); Gifford, “Expositor”, July, 1894, p. I.

(7) The Galatian churches were evidently important ones. On the North-Galatian theory, St. Luke dismissed their conversion in a single sentence: “They went through the Phrygian and Galatian region” (Acts 16:6). This is strange, as his plan throughout is to give an account of the establishment of Christianity by St. Paul in each new region. Lightfoot fully admits the force of this, but tries to evade it by asking the question: “Can it be that the historian gladly drew a veil over the infancy of a church which swerved so soon and so widely from the purity of the Gospel?” But the subsequent failings of the Corinthians did not prevent St. Luke from giving an account of their conversion. Besides, the Galatians had not swerved so widely from the purity of the Gospel. The arguments of the judaizers made some of them waver, but they had not accepted circumcision; and this Epistle confirmed them in the Faith, so that a few years later St. Paul writes of them to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 16:1): “Now concerning the collections that are made for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, so do ye also.” It was long after the time that St. Paul could thus confidently command the Galatians that Acts was written.

(8) St. Paul makes no mention of this collection in our Epistle. According to the North-Galatian theory, the Epistle was written several years before the collection was made. In Acts, xx, 4, etc., a list is given of those who carried the collections to Jerusalem. There are representatives from South Galatia, Achaia, Macedonia, and Asia; but there is no deputy from North Galatia — from the towns of Jerusalem on occasion, the majority probably meeting at Corinth, St. Paul, St. Luke, and Sopater of Berea (probably representing Philippi and Achaia; see 2 Corinthians 8:18-22); Aristarchus and Secundus of Macedonia; Gaius of Derbe, and Timothyof Lystra (S. Galatia); and Tychicus and Trophimus of Asia. There is not a word about anybody from North Galatia, the most probable reason being that St. Paul had never been there (see Rendall, Expositor, 1893, vol. II, p.321). (9) St. Paul, the Roman citizen, invariably employs the names of the roman provincces, such as Achaia, Macedonia, Asia; and it is not probable that he departed from this practice in his use of “Galatia”. The people of South Galatia could with propriety be styled Galatians. Two of the towns, Antioch and Lystra, were Roman colonies; and the other two boasted of the Roman names, Claudio-Iconium, and Claudio-Derbe. “Galatians” was an honourable title when applied to them; but they would be insulted if they were called Phrygians or Lycaonians. All admit that St. Peter named the Roman provinces when he wrote “to the elect strangers dispersed throught Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1).

(10) The manner in which St. Paul mentions St. Barnabas in the Epistle indicates that the latter was known to those for whom the Epistle was primarily intended. St. Barnabas had visited South Galatia with St. Paul (Acts 13:14), but he was unknown in North Galatia.

(11) St. Paul states (ii, 5) that the reason for his course of action at Jerusalem was that the truth of the gospel might continue with the Galatians. This seems to imply that they were already converted. He had visited the southern part of the Galatian province before the council, but not northern. The view favoured above receives confirmation from a consideration, as appended, of the persons addressed.

THE KIND OF PEOPLE ADDRESSED

The country of South Galatia answers the conditions of the Epistle admirably; but this cannot be said of North Galatia. From the Epistle we gather that the majority were Gentile converts, that many were probably Jewish proselytes from their acquaintance with the Old Testament, that Jews who persecuted them from the first were living amongst them; that St. Paul had visited them twice, and that the few Judaziers appeared amongst them only after his last visit. We know from Acts, iii, xiv (and early history), that Jews were settled in South Galatia. During the first missionary journey unbelieving Jews made their presence felt everywhere. As soon as Paul and Barnabas returned to Syrian Antioch, some Jewish converts came from Judea and taught that the circumcision was necessary for them, and went up to the council, where it was decreed that circumcision and the Law of Moses were not necessary for the Gentiles; but nothing was determined as to the attitude of Jewish converts regarding them, following the example of St. James, though it was implied in the decree that they were matters of indifference. This was shown, soon after, by St. Peter’s eating with the Gentiles. On his withdrawing from them, and when many others followed his example, St. Paul publicly vindicated the equality of the Gentile Christians. The majority agreed; but there must have been “false brethren” amongst them (Galatians 2:4) who were Christians only in name, and who hated St. Paul. Some of these, in all probability, followed him to South Galatia, soon after his second visit. But they could no longer teach the necessity of circumcision, as the Apostolic decrees had been already delivered there by St. Paul (Acts 16:4). These decrees are not mentioned in the Epistle by the Judaizers, the advisability of the Galatians accepting circumcision and the Law of Moses, for their greater perfection. On the other hand, there is no evidence that there were any Jews settled at this time in North Galatia (see Ramsay, “St. Paul The Traveller”). It was not the kind of country to attract them. The Gauls were a dominant class, living in castles, and leading a half pastoral, half nomadic life, and speaking their own Gallic language. The country was very sparsley populated by the subjugated agricultural inhabitants. During the long winter the ground was covered with snow; in summer the heat was intense and the ground parched; and one might travel many miles without meeting a human being. There was some fertile tracts; but the greater part was either poor pasture land, or barren undulating hilly ground. The bulk of the inhabitants in the few towns were not Gauls. Trade was small, and that mainly in wool. A decree of Augustus in favour of Jews was supposed to be framed for those at Ancyra, in Galatia. It is now known that it was addressed to quite a different region.

WHY WRITTEN

The Epistle was written to conteract the influence of a few Judaizers who had come amongst the Galatians, and were endeavouring to persuade them that in order to be perfect Christians it was necessary to be circumcised and observe the Law of Moses. Their arguments were sufficiently specious to puzzle the Galatians, and their object was likely to gain the approval of unbelieving Jews. They said what St. Paul taught was good as far as it went; but that he had not taught the full perfection of Christianity. And this was not surprising, as he was not one of the great Apostles who had been taught by Christ Himself, and received their commission from Him. Whatever St. Paul knew he learned from others, and he had received his commission to preach not from Christ, but from men at Antioch (Acts 13). Circumcision and the Law, it is true, were not necessary to salvation; but they were essential to the full perfection of Christianity. This was proved by the example of St. James, of the other Apostles, and of the first disciples, at Jerusalem. On this very point this Paul, the Apostle, placed himself in direct opposition to Cephas, the Prince of the Apostles, at Antioch. His own action in circumcising Timothy showed what he expected of a personal companion, and he was now probably teaching the good of circumcision in other places. These statements puzzles the Galatians, and made them waver. They felt aggrieved that he had left them, as they thought, in an inferior position; they began to observe Jewish festivals, but they had not yet accepted circumcision. The Apostle refutes these arguments so effectively that the question never again arose. Henceforth his enemies confined themselves to personal attacks (see II Corinthians).

CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE

The six chapters naturally fall into three divisions, consisting of two chapters each. In the first two chapters, after the general introduction, he shows that he is an Apostle not from men, nor through the teaching of any man, but from Christ; and the gospel he taught is in harmony with the teaching of the great Apostles, who gave him the right hand of fellowship. He next (iii, iv) shows the inefficacy of circumcision and the Law, and that we owe our redemption to Christ alone. He appeals to the experience of the Galatian converts, and brings forward proofs from Scripture. He exhorts them (v, vi) not to abuse their freedom from the Law to indulge in crimes, “for they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” It is not for love of them he admonishes, that the Judaizers wish the Galatians to be circumcised. If there is virtue in the mere cutting of the flesh, the inference from the argument is that the Judaizers could become still more perfect by making themselves eunuchs — mutilating themselves like the priests of Cybele. He writes the epilogue in large letters with his own hand.

IMPORTANCE OF THE EPISTLE

As it is admitted on all hands that St. Paul wrote the Epistle, and as its authenticity has never been seriously called in question, it is important not only for its biographical data and direct teaching, but also for the teaching implies in it as being known at the time. He claims, at least indirectly, to have worked miracles amongst the Galatians, and that they received the Holy Ghost (iii, 5), almost in the words of St. Luke as to the events at Iconium (Acts 14:3). It is the Catholic doctrine that faith is a gratuitous gift of God; but is is the teaching of the Church, as it is of St. Paul, that the faith that is of any avail is “faith that worketh by charity” (Galatians 5:6); and he states most emphatically that a good life is necessary for salvation; for, after enumeration the works of the flesh, he writes (v, 21), “Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall obtain the kingdom of God.” In vi, 8, he writes: “For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh, also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting.” The same teaching is found in others of his Epistles, and is in perfect agreement with St. James: “For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:2). The Epistle implies that the Galatians were well acquainted with the doctrines of the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, Incarnation, Redemption, Baptism, Grace, etc. As he had never to defend his teaching to these points against Judaizers, and as the Epistle is so early, it is clear that his teaching was identical with that of the Twelve, and did not, even in appearance, lend itself to attack.

DATE OF THE EPISTLE

(1)Marcion asserted that it was the first of St. Paul’s Epistles. Prof. Sir W. Ramsay (Expositor, Aug., 1895, etc.) and a Catholic professor, Dr. Valentin Weber (see below), maintain that it was written from Antioch, before the council (A.D. 49-50). Weber’s arguments are very plausible, but not quite convincing. There is a good summary of them in a review by Gayford, “Journal of Theological Studies”, July, 1902. The two visits to Galatia are the double journey to Derbe and back. This solution is offered to obviate apparent discrepancies between Gal., ii, and Acts, xv.

(2) Cornel and the majority of the upholders of the South-Galatian theory suppose, with much greater probability, that it was written about A.D. 53, 54.

(3) Those who defend the North-Galatian theory place it as late as A.D. 57 or 58.

DIFFICULTIES OF GALATIANS II AND I

(a) “I went up . . . and communicated to them the gospel . . . lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain.” This does not imply any doubt about the truth of his teaching, but he wanted to neutralize the oppostion of the Judaizers by proving he was at one one with the others.

(b) The following have the appearance of being ironical: “I communicated . . . to them who seemed to be some thing” (ii, 2); But of them who seemed to be something . . . for to me they that seemed to be something added to nothing” (ii, 6): “But contrawise . . . James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars.” Here we have three expressions tois dokousin in verse 2; ton dokounton einai ti, and oi dokountes in verse 6; and oi dokountes styloi einai in verse 9. Non-Catholic scholars agree with St. John Chrystostom that there is nothing ironical in the original context. As the verbs are in the present tense, the translations should be: “those who are in repute”; “who are (rightly) regarded as pillars”. It is better to understand, with Rendall, that two classes of persons are meant: first, the leading men at Jerusalem; secondly, the three apostles. St. Paul’s argument was to show that his teaching had the approval of the great men. St. James is mentioned first because the Judaizers made the greatest use of his name and example. “But of them who are in repute (what they were some time, it is nothing to me. God accepteth not the person of man)”, verse 6. St. Augustine is almost alone in his interpretation that it made no matter to St. Paul that the Apostles were once poor ignorant men. Others hold that St. Paul was referring to the privilege of being personal disciples of our Lord. He said that did not alter the fact of his Apostolate, as God does not regard the person of men. Most probably this verse does not refer to the Apostles at all; and Cornerly supposes that St. Paul is speaking of the elevated position held by the presbyters at the council, and insists that it did not derogate from his Apostolate.

(c) “I withstood Cephas.” — “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was blamed [kategnosmenos, perf. part. — not, “to be blamed”, as in the Vulgate]. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were done, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: if thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (ii, 11-14).

Here St. Peter was found fault with probably by the Greek converts. He did not withdraw on account of bodily fear, says St. John Chrystostom; but as his special mission was at this time to the Jews, he was afraid of shocking them who were still weak in the Faith. His ususal manner of acting, to which he was led by his vision many years previously, shows that his exceptional withdrawal was not due to any error of doctrine. He had motives like those which induced St. Paul to circumcise Timothy, etc.; and there is no proof that in acting upon them he committed the slightest sin. Those who came from James probably came for no evil purpose; nor does it follow they were sent by him. The Apostles in their letter (Acts 15:24) say: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that some going out from us have troubled you . . . to whom we gave no commandment.” We need not suppose that St. Peter foresaw the effect of his example. The whole thing must have taken some time. St. Paul did not at first object. It was only when he saw the result that he spoke. The silence of St. Peter shows that he must have agreed with St. Paul; and, indeed, the argument to the Galatians required that this was the case. St. Peter’s exalted position is indicated by the manner in which St. Paul says (i, 18) that he went to behold Peter, as people go to view some remarkable sight; and by the fact that in spite of the preaching of St. Paul and Barnabas for a long time at Antioch, his mere withdrawal was sufficient to draw all after him, and in a manner compel the Gentiles to be circumcised. In the expression “when I saw that they walked not uprightly”, they does not necessarily include St. Peter. The incident is not mentioned in the Acts, as it was only transitory. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., I, xii) says that St. Clement of Alexandria, in the fifth book of the Hypotyposeis (Outlines), asserts that this Cephas was not the Apostle, but one of the seventy disciples. Clement here has few followers.

A very spirited controversy was carried on between St. Jerome and St. Augustine about the interpretation of this passage. In his “Commentary on the Galatians”, St. Jerome, following earlier writers such as Origen and St. Chrysostom, supposed that the matter was arranged beforehand between St. Peter and St. Paul. They agreed that St. Peter should withdraw and that St. Paul should publicly reprehend him, for the instruction of all. Hence St. Paul says that he withstood him in appearance (kata prosopon). Otherwise, says St. Jerome, with what face could St. Paul, who became all things to all men, who became a Jew that he might gain the Jews, who circumcised Timothy, who shaved his head, and was ready to offer sacrifice at Jerusalem, blame St. Peter for acting in a similar manner? St. Augustine, laying stress on the words “when I saw that they walked not uprightly”, etc., maintained that such an interpretation would be subversive of the truth of Holy Scripture. But against this it may be said that it is not so very clear that St. Peter was included in this sentence. The whole controversy can be read in the first volume of the Venetian edition of St. Jerome’s works, Epp., lvi, lxvii, civ, cv, cxii, cxv, cxvi.

(d) Apparent Discrepancies between the Epistle and Acts. — (1) St. Paul says that three years after his conversion (after having visited Arabia and returned to Damascus) he went up to Jerusalem (i, 17, 18) Acts states that after his baptism “he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days” (ix, 19). “He immediately began to preach in the synagogues” (ix, 20). “He increased more in strength, and confounded the Jews” (ix, 22). “And when many days were passed, the Jews consulted together to kill him” (ix, 23); he then escaped and went to Jerusalem. These accounts here are not contradictory, as has been sometimes objected; but were written from different points of view and for different purposes. The time for the visit to Arabia may be placed between Acts, ix, 22 and 23; or between “some days” and “many days”. St. Luke’s “many days” (hemerai ikanai) may mean as much as three years. (See 1 Kings 2:38; so Paley, Lightfoot, Knowling, Lewin.) The adjective ikanos is a favourite one with St. Luke, and is used by him with great elasticity, but generally in the sense of largeness, e.g. “a widow: and a great multitude of the city” (Luke 7:12); “there met him a certain man who had a devil now a very long time” (Luke 8:27); “a herd of many swine feeding” (Luke 8:32); “and he was abroad for a long time” (Luke 20:9); “for a long time, he had bewitched them” (Acts 8:11). See also Acts, xiv, 3, 21 (Greek text); xviii, 18, xix, 19, 26; xx, 37.

(2) We read in Acts, ix, 27, that St. Barnabas took St. Paul “to the apostles”. St. Paul states (Galatians 1:19) that on this occasion, besides St. Peter, “other of the apostles I saw one, saving James the brother of the Lord”. Those who find a contradiction here are hard to satisfy. St. Luke employs the word Apostles sometimes in a broader, sometimes in a narrower sense. Here it meant the Apostles who happened to be at Jerusalem (Peter and James), or the assembly over which they presided. The objection can be pressed with any force only against those who deny that St. James was an Apostle in any of the senses used by St. Luke (see BRETHREN OF THE LORD).

———————————–

One of the best critical commentaries on Galatians is CORNELY, commentarius in S. Pauli Epistolam ad Galatas in the Cursus Scriptura Sacrae (Paris, 1892). Other useful Catholic commentaries are the well-known works of A LAPIDE, ESTIUS, BISPING, PALMIERI, MACEVILLY. PATRISTIC LITERATURE; There are commentaries on the Epistle by AMBROSIASTER, ST. AUGUSTINE, ST. CHRYSOSTOM, ST. JEROME, (ECUMENIUS, PELAGIUS, PRIMASIUS, THEODORET, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA (a fragment), and THEOPHYLACT (all in Migne), and by ST. THOMA AQUINAS (many editions of St. Paul’s Epistles). CRITICAL EDITIONS IN ENGLISH: LIGHTFOOT, Galatians (4th ed., London, 1874); RAMSAY, Historical Commentary on Galatians (London, 1900): RENDALL, Galatians in Expositor’s Greek Test., III (London, 1903). FOR NORTH-GALATIAN THEORY: LIGHTFOOT (supra); CHASE in Expositor, Dec., 1893, May, 1894; FINDLAY in Expository Times, VII; CHEETHAM in Classical Review, vol. III (London, 1894): SCHMIEDEL, Galatia in Encyc. Bibl.; BELSER, Die Selbstvertheidigung des heiligen Paulus (Freiburg, 1896); STEINMANN, Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes (Munster, 1908) contains a very full biblography. FOR SOUTH-GALATIAN THEORY: RAMSAY in Expositor, Jan., Feb., Apr., Aug., 1894, July 1895; IDEM in Expository Times, VII; IDEM, The Church in the Roman Empire (London, 1900); IDEM, St. Paul the Traveller ( London, 1900); IDEM in HAST., Dict. of the Bible; KNOWLING, Acts of the Apostles (additional note to ch. xviii) in Expositor’s Greek Test. (London, 1900); RENDALL, op. cit. above; IDEM in Expositor, Nov., 1893, Apr., 1894; GIFFORD in Expositor, July, 1894; BACON in Expositor, 1898, 1899; WOODHOUSE, Galatia in Encyc. Bibl,; WEBER, Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefes von dem Apostelkonzil (Ratisbon, 1900); IDEM, Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes (Ratisbon, 1900); IDEM, Das Datum des Galaterbriefes (Passau, 1900); IDEM in Katholik (1898-99), Die theol.-praki. Monatsschrift, and Die Zeitschrift fur kath. Theolgie.

C. AHERNE Transcribed by Beth Ste-Marie

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VICopyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Galatians, Epistle To The

the fourth in order of the Pauline epistles of the N.T., entitled simply, according to the best MSS. (see Tischendorf, N.T. ad loc.), . (See the Mercersburg Review, January 1861.)

1. Authorship. With regard to the genuineness and authenticity of this epistle, no writer of any credit or respectability has expressed any doubts. Its Pauline origin is attested not only by the superscription which it bears (Gal 1:1), if this be genuine, but also by frequent allusions in the course of it to the great apostle of the Gentiles (Gal 1:13-23; Gal 2:1-14). It is corroborated also by the style, tone, and contents of the epistle, which are perfectly in keeping with those of the apostle’s other writings. The testimony of the early Church on this subject is most decided and unanimous (see Lardner, Works, volume 2). Besides express references to the epistle (Irenaeus, Haer. 3:7, 2; 5:21,1; Tertullian, De Praescr. ch. 60, al.), we have one or two direct citations found as early as the time of the apostolic fathers (Polyc. ad Philippians chapter 3), and several apparent allusions (see Davidson, Introd. 2:318 sq.). The attempt of Bruno Bauer (Kritik der Paulin. Briefe, Berlin, 1850) to demonstrate that this epistle is a compilation of later times, out of those to the Romans and to the Corinthians, has been treated by Meyer with a contempt and a severity (Vorrede, page 7; Einleit. page 8) which, it does not seem too much to say, are completely deserved.

2. Occasion, etc. The parties to whom this characteristic letter was addressed are described in the epistle itself as “the churches of Galatia” (Gal 1:2; comp. Gal 3:1) in Asia Minor, otherwise called Gallogriecia (Strabo, 12:566) a province that bore in its name its well- founded claim to a Gallic or Celtic origin (Pausanias, 1:4), and that now, after an establishment, first by predatory conquest, and subsequently by recognition but limitation at the hands of neighboring rulers (Strabo, 1.c.; Pausanias, 4:5), could date an occupancy, though not an independence, extending to more than three hundred years; the first subjection of Galatia to the Romans having taken place in B.C. 189 (Livy, 38:16 sq.), and its formal reduction (with territorial additions) to a regular Roman province in A.D. 26. SEE GALATIA.

Into this district the Gospel was first introduced by Paul himself (Act 16:6; Gal 1:8; Gal 4:13; Gal 4:19). Churches were then also probably formed, for on revisiting this district some time after his first visit it is mentioned that he “strengthened the disciples” (Act 18:23). These churches seem to have been composed principally of converts directly from heathenism (Gal 4:8), but partly, also, of Jewish converts, both pure Jews and proselytes. Unhappily, the latter, not thoroughly emancipated from early opinions and prepossessions, or probably influenced by Judaizing teachers who had visited these churches, had been seized with a zealous desire to incorporate the rites and ceremonies of Judaism (especially circumcision, Gal 5:2; Gal 5:11-12; Gal 6:12 sq.) with the spiritual truths and simple ordinances of Christianity. (See Cruse, De statu Galatarum, etc., Hafn. 1722.) So active had this party been in disseminating their views on this head through the churches of Galatia, that the majority at least of the members had been seduced to adopt them (Gal 1:6; Gal 3:1, etc.). To this result it is probable that the previous religious conceptions of the Galatians contributed; for, accustomed to the worship of Cybele, which they had learned from their neighbors the Phrygians, and to theosophistic doctrines with which that worship was associated, they would be the more readily induced to believe that the fullness of Christianity could alone be developed through the symbolical adumbrations of an elaborate ceremonial (Neander, Apostolisches Zeitalter, 2d edit. page 400). It would seem that on his last visit to this region, Paul found the leaven of Judaism beginning to work in the churches of Galatia, and that he then warned them against it in language of the most decided character (Gal 1:9; Gal 5:3). From some passages in this epistle (e.g., Gal 1:11-24; Gal 2:1-21) it would appear also that insinuations had been disseminated among the Galatian churches to the effect that Paul was not a divinely-commissioned apostle, but only a messenger of the church at Jerusalem; that Peter and he were at variance upon the subject of the relation of the Jewish rites to Christianity; and that Paul himself was not at all times so strenuously opposed to those rites as he had chosen to be among the Galatians. Of this state of things intelligence having been conveyed to the apostle, he wrote this epistle for the purpose of vindicating his own pretensions and conduct, of counteracting the influence of these false views, and of recalling the Galatians to the simplicity of the Gospel which they had received. The importance of the case was probably the reason why the apostle put himself to the great labor of writing this epistle with his own hand (Gal 6:11).

3. Time and Place of Writing. On the date of this epistle great diversity of opinion prevails. (See Fischem, De tempore quo ep. ad G. scriptafuersit, s. Longos. 1808; Keil, De tempore, etc., in his Opusc. acad. page 351 sq.; also Ueb. d. Zeit. etc., in Tzschirner’s Asalekten, 3:2, 55 sq., Niemeyer, De tempore, etc., Gott. 1827; Ulrich, Ueb. d. Abfassunqzeit, etc., in the Theol. Stud. n. Krit. 1836, 2:448 sq.). Marcion held this to be the earliest of Paul’s letters (Epiphanius, adv. Hares. 42:9); and Tertullias is generally supposed to favor the same opinion, from his speaking of Paul’s zeal against Judaismn displayed is this epistle as characteristic of his being yet a neophyte (adv. Marc. 1:20); though to us it does not appear that in this passage Tertullian is referring at all to the writing of this epistle, but only to Paul’s personal intercourse with Peter and other of the apostles mentioned by him in the epistle (Gal 2:9-14). Michaelis also has given his suffrage in favor of a date earlier than that of the apostle’s second visit to Galatia, and very shortly after that of his first. Koppe’s view (Nov. Test. 6:7) is the same, though he supposes the apostle to have preached in Galatia before the visit mentioned by Luke is Act 16:6, and which is usually reckoned his first visit to that district. Others, again, such as Mill (Proleg. in Nov. Test. page 4), Calovius (Biblia Illust. 4:529), and, more recently, Schrader (Der Ap. Paulus, 1:226), place the date of this epistle at a late period of the apostle’s life: the last, indeed, advocatest he date assigned in the Greek MSS., and in the Syrian and Arabic versions, which announce that it wag “written from Rome” during the apostle’s imprisonment there.

But this subscription is of very little critical authority, and seems in every way improbable; it was not unlikely suggested by a mistaken reference of the expressions in Gal 6:17 to the sufferings of imprisonment. See Alford, Prolegomena, page 459. Lightfoot (Journal of Sacred and Class. Philo. January 1857) urges the probability of its having been written at about the same time as the Epistle to the Romans, and finds it very unlikely that two epistles so nearly allied in subject and line of argument should have been separated in order of composition by the two epistles to the Corinthians. He would therefore assign Corinth as the place where the epistle was written, and the three months that the apostle staid there (Act 20:2-3) as the exact period. But when the language of the epistle to the Galatians is compared with that to the Romans, the similarity between the two is such as rather to suggest that the latter is a development at a later period, and in a more systematic form, of thoughts more hastily thrown out to meet a pressing emergency in the former. The majority of interpreters, however, concur in a medium view between these extremes, and fix the date of this epistle at some time shortly after the apostle’s second visit to Galatia. From the apostle’s abrupt exclamation in Gal 1:6, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you,” etc., it seems just to infer that he wrote this epistle not very long after he had left Galatia. It is true, as has been urged (see especially Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul 2:132), that in this verse may mean “so quickly” as well as “so soon;” but the abruptness of the apostle’s statement appears to us rather to favor the latter rendering; for, as a complaint of the quickness of their change respected the manner in which it had been made, and as the apostle could be aware of that only by report, and as it was a matter on which there might be a difference of opinion between him and them, it would seem necessary that the grounds of such a charge should be stated; whereas if the complaint merely related to the shortness of time during which, after the apostle had been among them, they had remained steadfast in the faith, a mere allusion to it was sufficient, as it was a matter not admitting of any dieversity of opinion. We should consider, also, the obvious fervor and freshness of interest that seems to breathe through the whole epistle as an evidence that he had but lately left them.

The question, however, still remains, which of the two visits of Paul to Galatia mentioned in the Acts was it after which this epistle was written? In reply to this, Michaelis and some others maintain that it was the first, but in coming to this conclusion they appear to have unaccountably overlooked the apostle’s phraseology (4:13), where he speaks of circumstances connected with his preaching the Gospel among the Galatians, , the former time, an expression which clearly indicates that at the period this epistle was written Paul had been at least twice in Galatia. On these grounds it is probable that the apostle wrote and dispatched this epistle not long after he had left Galatia for the second time, and perhaps whilst he was residing at Ephesus (comp. Act 18:23; Act 19:1 sq.), i.e., A.D. 51. The apostle would in that city have been easily able to receive tidings of his Galatian converts; the dangers of Judaism, against which be personally warned them, would have been fresh in his thoughts; and when he found that these warnings were proving unavailing, and that even his apostolic authority was becoming undermined by a fresh arrival of Judaizing teachers, it is then that he would have written, as it were on the spur of the moment, in those terms of earnest and almost impassioned warning that so noticeably mark this epistle. The reasons which Michaelis urges for an earlier date are of no weight. He appeals, in the first place, to Gal 1:2, and asks whether Paul would have used the vague expression, “all the brethren,” without naming them, had it not been that the parties in question were those by whose he had been accompanied on his first visit to Galatia, viz. Silas and Timothy, and, “perhaps, some others.” The answer to this obviously is that had Paul referred in this expression to these individuals, who were known to the Galatians, he was much more likely, on that very account, to have named them than otherwise; and besides, the expressions “all the brethren that are with me” is much more naturally understood of a considerable number of persons, such as the elders of the church at Ephesus, than of two persons, and “perhaps some others.”

Again, he urges the fact that, about the time of Paul’s first visit to Galatia, Asia Minor was full of zealots for the law, and that consequently it is easier to account for the seduction of the Galatians at this period than at a later. But the passage to which Michaelis refers in support of this assertion (Act 15:1) simply informs us that certain Judaizing teachers visited Antioch, and gives us no information whatever as to the time when such zealots entered Asia Minor. In fine, he lays great stress on the circumtance that Paul, in recapitulating the history of his own life in the first and second chapters, brings the narrative down only to the period of the conference at Jerusalem, the reason of which is to be found, he thinks, in the fact that this epistle was written so soon after that event that nothing of moment had subsequently occurred in the apostle’s history. But, even admitting that the period referred to in this second chapter was that of the conference mentioned Acts 15 (though this is much doubted by many writers of note), the reason assigned by Michaelis for Paul’s carrying the narrative of his life no further than this cannot be admitted; for it overlooks the design of the apostle in furnishing that narrative, which was certainly not to deliver himself of a piece of mere autobiographical detail, but to show from certain leading incidents in his early apostolic life how from the first he had claimed and exercised an independent apostolic authority, and how his rights in this respect had been admitted by the pillars of the Church, Peter, James, and John. For this purpose it was not necessary that the narrative should be brought down to a lower date than the period when Paul went forth as the apostle of the Gentiles, formally recognized as such by the other apostles of Christ.

Some of the advocates of a date earlier than A.D. 50 suppose that the persons addressed under the name of Galatians were not the inhabitants of Galatia proper, but of Lystra and Derbe (Act 14:6), since among the seven districts into which Asia Minor was divided by the Romans the name of Lycaonia does not occur; the latter therefore, with its cities of Derbe and Lystra, must have been included in the province of Galatia, as indeed Pliny, (ist. Nat. 5:27) makes it a part thereof. (See Schmidt, De Galatas, etc., Hefeld. 1748.) It is urged, in addition, that, while copious details are given in Acts 14 respecting the founding of the Lycaonian churches, the first mention of Galatia (Act 16:6) is merely to the effect that Paul passed through that country. On these grounds Pasilus, Ulrich (Stud. und Ksrit. 1836), Bttger, and others hold that under the term , the region round about” (Act 14:6), Galatia must be included; and therefore they put back the composition of the epistle to a date anterior to the apostolic council (Acts 15). It is certain, however, that Luke did not follow the Roman division into provinces (which, moreover, was frequently changed), because he specially mentions Lycaonia, which was no province, and distinguishes it from Galatia. As to the latter point, no valid inferences can be drawn from the comparative silence of the inspired history upon the details of Paul’s labors in particular places, provided his presence there is clearly recorded, although in brief terms. There seems, therefore, no reason to depart from the common opinion that the apostle’s first visit is recorded inActs 16:6; and consequently the epistle must have been written subsequently to the council (Acts 15). With this, too, the references in the epistle itself best agree. The visit to Jerusalem alluded to in Gal 2:1-10, is, on the best grounds, supposed to be identical with that of Acts 15 (A.D. 47); and the apostle speaks of it as a thing of the past. SEE PAUL.

4. Contents. The epistle consists of three parts. In the first part (1, 2), which is apologetic, Paul vindicates his own apostolic authority and independence as a directly-commissioned ambassador of Christ to men and especially to the Gentile portion of the race. After an address and salutation, in which his direct appointment by heaven is distinctly asserted (Gal 1:1), and a brief doxology (Gal 1:5), the apostle expresses his astonishment at the speedy lapse of his converts, and reminds them how he had forewarned them that even if an angel preached to them another gospel he was to be anathema (Gal 1:6-10). The gospel he preached was not of men, as his former course of life (Gal 1:11-14), and as his actual history subsequent to his conversion (Gal 1:15-24), convincingly proved. When he went up to Jerusalem it was not to be instructed by the apostles, but on a special mission, which resulted in his being formally accredited by them. (Gal 2:1-10); nay, more, when Peter dissembled in his communion with Gentiles, he rebuked him, and demonstrated the danger of such in consistency (Gal 2:11-21). In the second part (3, 4), which is polemical, having been led to refer to his zeal for the great doctrine of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ, the apostle now enters at large upon the illustration and defense of this cardinal truth of Christianity. He appeals to the former experience of the Galaties. and urges specially the doctrine of justification, as evinced by the gift of the Spirit (Gal 3:1-5), the case of Abraham (Gal 3:6-9), the fact of the law involving a curse, from which Christ has freed us (Gal 3:10-14), and, lastly, the prior validity of the promise (Gal 3:16-18), and that preparatory character of the law (Gal 3:19-24) which ceased when faith in Christ and baptism into him had fully come (Gal 3:25-29). All this the apostle illustrates by a comparison of the nonage of an heir with that of bondage under the law: they were now sons ands inheritors (Gal 4:1-7); why, then, were they now turning back to bondage (Gal 4:8-11)? They once treated the apostle very differently (Gal 4:12-16); now they pay court to others, and awaken feelings of serious mistrust (Gal 4:17-20); and yet, with all their approval of the law, they show that they do not unederstand its deeper and more allegorical meanings (Gal 4:21-31). In the third part (5, 6), which is hortatory and admonitory, the Galatians are exhorted to stand fast in their freedom, and beware that they make not void their union with Christ (v5:1-6): their perverters, at any rate, shall be punished (Gal 5:7-12). The real fulfilment of the law is love (Gal 5:13-15): the works of the Spirit are what no law condemns, the works of the flesh are what exclude from the kingdom of God (Gal 5:16-26). The apostle further exhorts the spiritual to be forbearing (Gal 6:1-5), the taught to be liberal to their teachers, and to remember that as they sowed so would they reap (Gal 6:6-10). Then, after a noticeable recapitulation, and a contrast between his own conduct and that of the false teachers (Gal 6:11-16), and an affecting entreaty that they would trouble him no more (Gal 6:17), the apostle concludes with his usual benediction (Gal 6:18).

5. Commentaries. The following are special exegetical helps on the whole of this epistle, the most important being designated by an asterisk [*] prefixed: Victorinus, Commentarii (in Mai, Script. Vet. III, 2:1); Jerome, Comasentarii (in Opp. 7:367; Opp. Suppos. 11:97, 9); Augustine, Expositio (in Opp. 4:1248); Chrysostom, Commentarius (in Opp. 10:779; also Erasmi, Opp. 8:267, tr. in Lib. of Fathers, Oxf. 1840, volume 6, 8vo); Cramer, Catena (volume 6); Claudius Taur., Commentarius (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 14:139); Aquinas, Expositio (in Opp. 7); *Luther, Commentarius (Lips. 1519, 4to, and often since; also in Opp. 3:1, etc.; tr. London, 1807, 1835, 8vo); also his fuller Commentarius (Vitemb. and Hag. 1535, 8vo, and later; both works also in Germ. often); Bugenhagen, Adnotationes (Basil. 1525, 8vo); Megander, Commentarius (Tigur. 1:533, 8vo); Seripandus, Commenataria (in his work on Romans, Lugd. 1541, 8vo; also separately, Antw. 1565, 8vo, and later); Calvin, Commentaries et lemones (both in Opp.; the former tr. Edinb. 1854, 8vo; the latter, Lond. 1574, 4to); Meyer, Adnotationes, (Berne, 1546, Hanosa. 1602, 8vo); Sarcer, Adnotationes (Frankfort, 1542, 8vo); Salmeron, Disputationes (in Opp. 15); Major, Enarratio (Vitemb. 1560, 8mo; also in German ib. eod.); Musculus, Commentarius (Basil. 1561, 1569, fol.); Cogelerus, Solationes (Vitemb. 1564, 8vo); Chytraeus, Enarratio (Franc. 1569, 8vo); Heshusins, Commentarius (Helmst. 1579, 8vo); Wigand, Adnotatioae (Vitemb. 1580; Lips. 1596, 8vo); Grynous, Asnalysis (Basil. 1583, 4to); Cornesus, Commentarius [after Luther] (Heidelb. 1583, 8vo); Prime, Exposition (Oxford, 1587, 8mo); Heilbrunner, Commentarius (Lansug. 1591, 8vo); Perkins, Commentary (in Works, 2:153; Cambr. 1601, Lond. 1603; in Latin, Genev. 1611, 2 volumes, fol.); Rollock, Analysis (London, 1602, Geneva, 1603, 8vo); Hoe, Commentarius (Lips. 1605, 4to); Winckelmann, Commentarius (Giess. 1608, 8vo) Weinrich, Exposi (Lips. 1610, 4to); Betuleius: Paraphrasis (Halle, 1612, 1617, 8vo); Battus, Commentarii (Gryphisen. 1613, 4to); Lyser, Analysis (Lips. 1616, 4to); Pareus, Commentarius (Heidelb. 1621, 4to; also in Opp. 3); Crell, Commentarius (Raconigi. 1628, 8vo; also in Opp. 1:373); Coutzen, Commentarius (Colossians and Mog. 1631, folio); Himmel, Commentarius (Jena, 1641, 4to); Lithmann, (Upsal. 1641, 4to); Weininann, Exercitationes (Altorf. 1647, 4to); Terser, Analysis (Upsal. 1649, 4to); Lushington, Conmmentary (Lond. 1650, fol.); Cocceius, Conmmentarius (Opp. 5.); also Explicatio (ib. 12:199); Feurborn, Expositio (Giess. 1653,1669, 4to); Chemnitz, Collegium (Jen. 1656, 1663, 4to); *Kunadus, Disputationes (Vitemb. 1658, 4to); Ferguson, Exposition (Edinb. 1657, Lond. 1841, 8vo); Lagus, Commentatio (Gryph. 1664, 4to); *Stolberg, Lectiones (Vitemb. 1667, 4to); Kronnayer, Commentarius (Lips. 1670, 4to); Moommas, Meditationes (Hag. 1678, 8vo); Van der Waeyen, Verklaaring (Lebard. 1682, 8vo; also in Latin, Franecker, 1681, 4to); *Steengracht, Vitlegging (Ench. 1688, 4to); *Schmid, Commentatio (Kilon. 1690, Hamb. 1696,1704, 4to); Leydekker, in ep. ad Galatians (Tr. ad Rh. 1694, 8vo); *Akersloot, an de Galatians (Leyd. 1695, 4to; in German, Brem. 1699, 4to); *Spener, Erklarung (F.a.M. 1677, 1714, 4to); Aurivilius, Animadversiones (Halle, 1702, 4to); Locke, Paraphrase (Lond. 1705, 1733, 4to); Weisius, Commentarius (Helmst. 1705, 4to); Mayer, Dissertationes (Grypl. 1709, 8vo); Van Dyck, Anmerking (Amst. 1710, 8vo); Boston, Paraphrase (in Works, 6:240); Hazevoet, Verklaaring (Leyd. 1720, 4to); Vitringa, De br. an d. Galatians (Franeq. 1728, 4to); *Plevier, Verklaaring (Leyden, 1738, 4to); Rambach, Erklarung (Giess. 1739, 4to); Murray, Erklarung (Lips. 1739, 8vo); Wessel, Commentarius (L. Bat. 1750, 4to); Hoffmann, Introductio (Lips. 1750, 4to); *Struensee, Erklarung (Flensb. 1764, 4to); Baumgarten, Auslegung (Hal. 1767, 4to); Michaelis, Anmerk. (2d ed. Gotting. 1769, 4to); Zacharia, Erklar. (Gotting. 1770, 8vo); Moldenhauer, Erklarung (Hamb. 1773, 8vo); Cramer, Versuch (in the Beitrdge zu Beford. 1:112 sq.); Chandler, Parcapthrase (London, 1777, 4to); Weber, Anmerkungen (Lpz. 1778, 8vo); Semler, Paraphrasis (Hal. 1779, 8vo); Lavater, Uezschreibung (in Pfenniger’s Magaz. 1:33-72); Riccaltoun, Notes (in Works, 3); Anon. Erklar. (in the Beitrage zu Beford. 5:126 sq.); Esmarch, Uebersetzung (Flensburg, 1784); Schutze, Scholia (Ger. 1784, 4to); Roos, Auslegueng (Tub. 1784, 1786, 8vo); Mayer, Anmerk. (Wien, 1788, 8vo); Krause, Anmerkungen (Frkf. 1788, 8vo); Stroth, Erklar. (in Eichhorn’s Report. 4:41 sq.); Schilling, Anmerkungen (Leipzig, 1792, 8vo); Carpzov, Uebersetzung (Helmstadt, 1794, 8vo); Morus, Acroases (Lips. 1795, 8vo); also Erklar. (Gorl. 1798, 8vo); Anonym. Anmerl. (in Henke’s Magaz. 2:22); Bair, Explicatio (Frcft. 1798, 8vo); Hensler, Anmerk. (Lpz. 1805); Borger, Interpretatio (L. Bat. 1807, 8vo); *Winer, Commentarius (Lips. 1821, 1828, 1829, 1859, 8vo); Anon. Uebers. (Neust. 1827, 8vo); Flatt, Vorles. (Tub. 1828, 8vo); Paulus, Erlauterung (Heidelb. 1831, 8vo); Hermann, In primis 3 cap. (Lips. 1832,4to); *Usteri, Commentar (Zur. 1833, 8vo); *Matthies, Erklarung (Oreifs. 1833, 8vo); *Ruckert, Commentar. (Lpz. 1833, 8vo); Fritzsche, De nonnullis locis, etc. (Rostock, 1833-4, 4to); Zschocke, Erklarung (Halle, 1834, 8vo); Schott, Erklar. (Lpz. 1834, 8vo); Sardinoux, Commentaire (Valence, 1837, 8vo) Windischmann, Erklarung (Mainz, 1843, 8vo); Barnes, Notes (N.Y. 1844, 12mo); Baumgarten-Crusius, Galaterbrief (in Exeg. Schriften, II, 2), Haldane, Exposition (London, 1848, 8vo); Olshausen, Commentary (tr. Edinb. 1851, 8vo); *Hilgenfeld, Erklarung (Halle, 1852, 8vo); Brown, Exposition (Edinb. 1853, 8vo); Muller, Erklarung (Hamb. 1853, 8vo); *Ellicott, Commentary (Lond. 1854,1859, Andov. 1864, 8vo); *Turner, Commentary (N.Y. 1855, 8vo); Jatho, Erlauterung (Hildesheim, 1856, 8vo); Anasker, Auslegung (Lpz. 1856, 8vo); Meyer, Galaterbrief (in Commentar, 7, Gotting. 1857, 8vo); Bagge, Commentary (London, 1857, 8vo); Frana, Commentarius (Goth. 1857, 8vo); Twele, Predigten (Hann. 1858, 8vo) * Wieseler, Commentar (Gotting. 1859, 8vo); Jowett, Notes (in Epistle, 1, London, 1859, 8vo); Gwinne, Commentary (Dubl. 1863, 8vo); Lightfoot, Notes (Lond. 1855, 8vo); Reithmayer, Commentar (Munch. 1865, 8vo); Vomel; Anmerk. (Freft. a.M. 1865, 8vo); Matthias, Erkldrunag (Cassel, 1865, 8vo); *Eadie, Commentary (Glasg. 1869, 8vo); Brandes, Freiheitsbrief (Wiesb. 1869, 8vo). SEE EPISTLE.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Galatians, Epistle To The

GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE

1. Occasion of the Epistle.From internal evidence we gather that St. Paul had, when he wrote, paid two visits to the Galatians. On the first visit, which was due to an illness (Gal 4:13), he was welcomed in the most friendly way; on the second he warned them against Judaizers (Gal 1:9, Gal 5:3 again, cf. Gal 4:13 the former time, though this may be translated formerly). After the second visit Judaizers came among the Galatians, and, under the influence of a single individual (the who of Gal 3:1, Gal 5:7 is singular, cf. Gal 5:10) persuaded them that they must be circumcised, that St. Paul had changed his mind and was inconsistent, that he had refrained from preaching circumcision to them only from a desire to be all things to all men, but that he had preached it (at any rate as the better way) to others. It is doubtful if the Judaizers upheld circumcision as necessary to salvation, or only as necessary to a complete Christianity. It depends on whether we fix the date before or after the Council of Act 15:1-41, which of these views we adopt (see 4). Further, the Judaizers disparaged St. Pauls authority as compared with that of the Twelve. On hearing this the Apostle hastily wrote the Epistle to check the evil, and (probably) soon followed up the Epistle with a personal visit.

2. To whom written. The North Galatian and South Galatian theories.It is disputed whether the inhabitants of N. Galatia are addressed (Lightfoot, Salmon, the older commentators, Schmiedel in Encyc. Bibl.), or the inhabitants of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay in the S. part of the Roman province Galatia (Ramsay, Sanday, Zahn, Renan, Pfleiderer, etc.). Those who hold the N. Galatian theory take Act 16:6; Act 18:23 as indicating that St. Paul visited Galatia proper, making a long detour. They press the argument that he would not have called men of the four cities by the name Galatians, as these lay outside Galatia proper, and that Galatians must mean men who are Gauls by blood and descent; also that by writers speaking familiarly of the scenes in which they had themselves taken part popular usage rather than official is probable, and therefore to call the Christian communities in the four cities the churches of Galatia would be as unnatural as to speak of Pesth or (before the Italo-Austrian war) Venice as the Austrian cities (Lightfoot, Gal. p. 19). Pesth is not a case in point, for no educated person would call it Austrian; but the Venice illustration is apt. These are the only weighty arguments. On the other hand, the N. Galatian theory creates Churches unheard of elsewhere in 1st cent. records; it is difficult on this hypothesis to understand the silence of Acts, which narrates all the critical points of St. Pauls work. But Acts does tell us very fully of the foundation of the Church in S. Galatia. Then, again, on the N. Galatian theory, St. Paul nowhere in his Epistles mentions the four cities where such eventful things happened, except once for blame in 2Ti 3:11a silence made more remarkable by the fact that in the collection of the alms he does mention the churches of Galatia (1Co 16:1). If the four cities are not here referred to, why were they omitted? The main argument of the N. Galatian theory, given above, is sufficiently answered by taking into account St. Pauls relation to the Roman Empire (see art. Acts of the Apostles, 7.)

With regard to the nomenclature, we notice that St. Luke sometimes uses popular non-political names like Phrygia or Mysia (Act 2:10; Act 16:3); but St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, uses place-names in their Roman sense throughout, e.g. Achaia (which in Greek popular usage had a much narrower meaning than the Roman province, and did not include Athens, while St. Paul contrasts it with Macedonia, the only other Roman province in Greece, and therefore clearly uses it in its Roman sense, Rom 15:25, 2Co 9:2; 2Co 11:10, 1Th 1:7 f.; cf. 1Co 16:5), Macedonia, Illyricum (Rom 15:19 only; the Greeks did not use this name popularly as a substantive, and none but a Roman could so denote the province; in 2Ti 4:10 St. Paul himself calls it Dalmatia, as the name-usage was changing from the one to the other),Syria and Cilicia (one Roman province), and Asia (the Roman province of that name, the W. part of Asia Minor, including Mysia). We may compare St. Peters nomenclature in 1Pe 1:1, where he is so much influenced by Pauline ideas as to designate all Asia Minor north of the Taurus by enumerating the Roman provinces. St. Paul, then, calls all citizens of the province of Galatia by the honourable name Galatians. To call the inhabitants of the four cities Phrygians or Lycaonians would be as discourteous as to call them slaves or barbarians. The Roman colonies like Pisidian Antioch were most jealous of their Roman connexion.

The South Galatian theory reconciles the Epistle and Acts without the somewhat violent hypotheses of the rival theory. The crucial passages are Act 16:6; Act 18:23, which are appealed to on both sides. In Act 16:6 St. Paul comes from Syro-Cilicia to Derbe and Lystra, no doubt by land, through the Cilician Gates [Derbe being mentioned first as being reached first, while in Act 14:6 Lystra was reached first and mentioned first], and then they went through (v.l. going through) the region of Phrygia and Galatia, lit. the Phrygian and Galatic region [so all the best MSS read these last words]. This region, then (probably a technical term for the subdivision of a province), was a single district to which the epithets Phrygian and Galatic could both be applied; that is, it was that district which was part of the old country of Phrygia, and also part of the Roman province of Galatia. But no part of the old Galatia overlapped Phrygia, and the only district satisfying the requirements is the region around Pisidian Antioch and Iconium; therefore in Act 16:6 a detour to N. Galatia is excluded. Moreover, no route from N. Galatia to Bithynia could bring the travellers over against Mysia (Act 16:7). They would have had to return almost to the spot from which they started on their hypothetic journey to N. Galatia. Attempts to translate this passage, even as read by the best MSS, as if it were Phrygia and the Galatic region, as the AV [Note: Authorized Version.] text (following inferior MSS) has it, have been made by a citation of Luk 3:1, but this appears to be a mistake; the word translated there Itura is really an adjective Ituran, and the meaning probably is the Ituran region which is also called Trachonitis.

In the other passage, Act 18:23, the grammar and therefore the meaning are different. St. Paul comes, probably, by the same land route as before, and to the same district; yet now Derbe and Lystra are not mentioned by name. St. Paul went in succession through the Galatic region and through Phrygia (or [the] Phrygian [region]). The grammar requires two different districts here. The first is the Galatic region [of Lycaonia]that part of old Lycaonia which was in the province Galatia, i.e. the region round Derbe and Lystra. The second is the Phrygian region [of Galatia], i.e. what was in Act 16:6 called the Phrygo-Galatic region, that around Antioch and Iconium. In using a different phrase St. Luke considers the travellers point of view; for in the latter case they leave Syrian Antioch, and enter, by way of non-Roman Lycaonia, into Galatic Lycaonia (the Galatic region), while in the former case they start from Lystra and enter the Phrygo-Galatic region near Iconium.

All this is clear on the S. Galatian theory. But on the other theory it is very hard to reconcile the Epistle with Acts. The S. Galatian theory also fits in very well with incidental notices in the Epistle, such as the fact that the Galatians evidently knew Barnabas well, and were aware that he was the champion of the Gentiles (Gal 2:13 even Barnabas); but Barnabas did not accompany Paul on the Second Missionary Journey, when, on the N. Galatian theory, the Galatians were first evangelized. Again, Gal 4:13 fits in very well with Act 13:14 on the S. Galatian theory; for the very thing that one attacked with an illness in the low-lying lands of Pamphylia would do would be to go to the high uplands of Pisidian Antioch. This seems to have been an unexpected change of plan (one which perhaps caused Marks defection). On the other hand, if a visit to Galatia proper were part of the plan in Act 16:1-40 to visit Bithynia, Gal 4:13 is unintelligible.

3. St. Pauls autobiography.In chs. 1, 2 the Apostle vindicates his authority by saying that he received it direct from God, and not through the older Apostles, with whom the Judaizers compared him unfavourably. For this purpose he tells of his conversion, of his relations with the Twelve, and of his visits to Jerusalem; and shows that he did not receive his commission from men. Prof. Ramsay urges with much force that it was essential to Pauls argument that he should mention all visits paid by him to Jerusalem between his conversion and the time of his evangelizing the Galatians. In the Epistle we read of two visits (Gal 1:18, Gal 2:1), the former 3 years after his conversion (or after his return to Damascus), to visit Cephas, when of the Apostles he saw only James the Lords brother besides, and the latter 14 years after his conversion (or after his first visit), when he went by revelation with Barnabas and Titus and privately laid before the Twelve (this probably is the meaning of them in Gal 2:2 : James, Cephas, and John are mentioned) the gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. We have, then, to ask, To which, if any, of the visits recorded in Acts do these correspond? Most scholars agree that Gal 1:18 = Act 9:26 ff., and that the word Apostles In the latter place means Peter and James only. But there is much diversity of opinion concerning Act 2:1. Lightfoot and Sanday identify this visit with that of Act 15:2 (the Jerusalem Council), saying that at the intermediate visit of Act 11:30 there were no Apostles in Jerusalem, the storm of persecution having broken over the Church (only the elders are mentioned), and the Apostles having retired; as, therefore, St. Pauls object was to give his relation to the Twelve, he does not mention this visit, during which he did not see them. Ramsay identifies the visit with that of Act 11:30, since otherwise St. Paul would be suppressing a point which would tell in favour of his opponents, it being essential to his argument to mention all his visits (see above); moreover, the hypothesis of the flight of the Apostles and of every Christian of rank is scarcely creditable to them. They would hardly have left the Church to take care of itself, or have allowed the elders to bear the brunt of the storm; while the mention of elders only in Act 11:30 would be due to the fact that they, not the Apostles, would administer the aims (cf. Act 6:2).

Other arguments on either side may perhaps balance each other, and are not crucial. Thus Prof. Ramsay adduces the discrepancies between Gal 2:2 and Act 15:2; in the former case the visit was by revelation, in the latter by appointment of the brethren (these are not altogether incompatible facts); in the former case the discussion was private, in the latter public (this is accounted for by the supposition of a preliminary private conference, but that greatly damages St. Pauls argument). On the other band, Dr. Sanday thinks that the stage of controversy in Gal 2:1-21 suits Act 15:1-41 rather than Act 11:1-30. This argument does not appear to the present writer to be of much value, for the question of the Gentiles and the Mosaic Law had really arisen with the case of Cornelius (Act 11:2 ff.), and from the nature of things must have been present whenever a Gentile became a Christian. The Council in Act 15:1-41 represents the climax when the matter came to public discussion and formal decision; we cannot suppose that the controversy sprang up suddenly with a mushroom growth. On the whole, in spite of the great weight of the names of Bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Sanday, the balance of the argument appears to lie on the side of Prof. Ramsay.

St. Peter at Antioch.This incident in the autobiography (Gal 2:11 ff.) is placed by Lightfoot immediately after Act 15:36. Ramsay thinks that it was not necessarily later in time than that which precedes, though on his view of the second visit it is in its proper chronological order. He puts it about the time of Act 15:1. The situation would then be as follows. At first many Jewish Christians began to associate with Gentile Christians. But when the logical position was put to them that God had opened another door to salvation outside the Law of Moses, and so had practically annulled the Law, they shrank from the consequences, Peter began to draw back (this is the force of the tenses in Gal 2:12), and even Barnabas was somewhat carried away. But Pauls arguments were convincing, and both Peter and Barnabas became champions of the Gentiles at the Council. It is difficult to understand Peters action if it happened after the Council.

4. Date and place of writing.Upholders of the N. Galatian theory, understanding Act 16:6; Act 18:23 to represent the two visits to the Galatians implied in Gal 4:13, usually fix on Ephesus as the place of writing, and suppose that the Epistle dates from the long stay there recorded in Act 19:8 ff., probably early in the stay (cf. Gal 1:6 ye are so quickly removing); but Lightfoot postpones the date for some two years, and thinks that the Epistle was written from Macedonia (Act 20:1), rather earlier than Romans and after 2 Corinthians. He gives a comparison of these Epistles, showing the very close connexion between Romans and Galatians: the same use of OT, the same ideas and same arguments, founded on the same texts; in the doctrinal part of Galatians we can find a parallel for almost every thought and argument in Romans. It is generally agreed that the latter, a systematic treatise, is later than the former, a personal and fragmentary Epistle. The likeness is much less marked between Galatians and I and 2 Corinthians; but in 2 Corinthians the Apostle vindicates his authority much as in Galatians. The opposition to him evidently died away with the controversy about circumcision. Thus it is clear that these four Epistles hang together and are to be separated chronologically from the rest.

On the S. Galatian theory, the Epistle was written from Antioch. Ramsay puts it at the end of the Second Missionary Journey (Act 18:22). Timothy, he thinks, had been sent to his home at Lystra from Corinth, and rejoined Paul at Syrian Antioch, bringing news of the Galatian defection. Paul wrote off hastily, despatched Timothy back with the letter, and as soon as possible followed himself (Act 18:23). On this supposition the two visits to the Galatians implied by the Epistle would be those of Act 13:1-52 f. and 16. The intended visit of Paul would be announced by Timothy, though it was not mentioned in the letter, which in any case was clearly written in great haste. It is certainly strange, on the Ephesus or Macedonia hypothesis, that Paul neither took any steps to visit the erring Galatians, nor, if he could not go to them, explained the reason of his inability. Ramsays view, however, has the disadvantage that it separates Galatians and Romans by some years. Yet if St. Paul kept a copy of his letters, he might well have elaborated his hastily sketched argument in Galatians into the treatise in Romans, at some little interval of time. Ramsay gives a.d. 53 for Galatians, the other three Epistles following in 56 and 57.

Another view is that of Weber, who also holds that Syrian Antioch was the place of writing, but dates the Epistle before the Council (see Act 14:28). He agrees with Ramsay as to the two visits to Jerusalem; but he thinks that the manner of the Judaizers attack points to a time before the Apostolic decreee. Gal 6:12 (compel) suggests that they insisted on circumcision as necessary for salvation ( 1). If so, their action could hardly have taken place after the Council. A strong argument on this side is that St. Paul makes no allusion to the decision of the Council. The chronological difficulty of the 14 years (Gal 2:1) is met by placing the conversion of St. Paul in a.d. 32. Weber thinks that Gal 5:2 could not have been written after the circumcision of Timothy; but this is doubtful. The two visits to the Galatians, on this view, would be those of Act 13:1-52, on the outward and the homeward journey respectively. The strongest argument against Webers date is that it necessitates such a long interval between Galatians and Romans.

5. Abstract of the Epistle.Chs. 1, 2. Answer to the Judaizers disparagement of Pauls office and message. Narrative of his life from his conversion onwards, showing that he did not receive his Apostleship and his gospel through the medium of other Apostles, but direct from God.

Gal 3:1 to Gal 5:12. Doctrinal exposition of the freedom of the gospel, as against the legalism of the Judaizers. Abraham was justified by faith, not by the Law, and so are the children of Abraham. The Law was an inferior dispensation, though good for the time, and useful as educating the world for freedom; the Galatians were bent on returning to a state of tutelage, and their present attitude was retrogressive.

Gal 5:13 to Gal 6:10. Hortatory. Hold fast by freedom, but do not mistake it for licence. Be forbearing and liberal.

Gal 6:11-18. Conclusion. Summing up of the whole in Pauls own hand, written in large characters (Gal 6:11 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) to show the importance of the subject of the autograph.

6. Genuineness of the Epistle.Until lately Galatians, Rom 1:1-32 and 2 Corinthians were universally acknowledged to be by St. Paul, and the Tbingen school made their genuineness the basis of their attack on the other Epistles. Lately Prof. van Manen (Encyc. Bibl. s.v. Paul) and others have denied the genuineness of these four also, chiefly on the ground that they are said to quote late Jewish apocalypses, to assume the existence of written Gospels, and to quote Philo and Seneca, and because the external attestation is said to begin as late as a.d. 150. These arguments are very unconvincing, the facts being improbable. And why should there not have been written Gospels in St. Pauls time? (cf. Luk 1:1). As for the testimony, Clement of Rome explicitly mentions and quotes 1 Corinthians, and his date cannot be brought down later than a.d. 100. Our Epistle is probably alluded to or cited by Barnabas, Hermas, and Ignatius (5 times); certainly by Polycarp (4 times), the Epistle to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Melito, Athenagoras, and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. It is found in the Old Latin and Syrian versions and in the Muratorian Fragment (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 180200), used by 2nd cent. heretics, alluded to by adversaries like Celsus and the writer of the Clementine Homilies, and quoted by name and distinctly (as their fashion was) by Irenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, at the end of the 2nd century. But, apart from this external testimony, the spontaneous nature of the Epistle is decisive in favour of its genuineness. There is no possible motive for forgery. An anti-Jewish Gnostic would not have used expressions of deference to the Apostles of the Circumcision; an Ebionite would not have used the arguments of the Epistle against the Mosaic Law (thus the Clementine Homilies, an Ebionite work, clearly hits at the Epistle in several passages); an orthodox forger would avoid all appearance of conflict between Peter and Paul. After a.d. 70 there never was the least danger of the Gentile Christians being made to submit to the Law. There is therefore no reason for surprise that the recent attack on the authenticity of the Epistle has been decisively rejected in this country by all the best critics.

A. J. Maclean.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Galatians, Epistle to the

I.The Authorship

1.Position of the Dutch School

2.Early Testimony

II.The Matter of the Epistle

A)Summary of Contents

1.Outline

2.Personal History (Galatians 1:11 through 2:21 (4:12-20; 6:17))

Paul’s Independent Apostleship

3.The Doctrinal Polemic (Galatians 3:1 through 5:12)

(1)Thesis

(2)Main Argument

(3)Appeal and Warning

4.The Ethical Application (Galatians 5:13 through 6:10)

Law of the Spirit of Life

5.The Epilogue (Galatians 6:11-18)

B)Salient Points

1.The Principles at Stake

2.Present Stage of the Controversy

3.Paul’s Depreciation of the Law

4.The Personal Question

C) Characteristics

1.Idiosyncrasy of the Epistle

2.Jewish Coloring

III.Relations to Other Epistles

1.Galatians and Romans

2.Links with 1 and 2 Corinthians

3.With the Corinthians-Romans Group

4.With Other Groups of Epistles

5.General Comparison

IV.The Destination and Date

1.Place and Time Interdependent

2.Internal Evidence

3.External Data

(1)Galatia and the Galatians

(2)Prima facie Sense of Acts 16:6

(3)The Grammar of Acts 16:6

(4)Notes of Time in the Epistle

(5)Paul’s Renewed Struggle with Legalism

(6)Ephesus or Corinth?

(7)Paul’s First Coming to Galatia

(8)Barnabas and the Galatians

(9)The Two Antiochs

(10)Wider Bearings of the Problem

Literature

When and to whom, precisely, this letter was written, it is difficult to say; its authorship and purpose are unmistakable. One might conceive it addressed by the apostle Paul, in its main tenor, to almost any church of his Gentile mission attracted to Judaism, at any point within the years circa 45-60 ad. Some plausibly argue that it was the earliest, others place it among the later, of the Pauline Epistles. This consideration dictates the order of our inquiry, which proceeds from the plainer to the more involved and disputable parts of the subject.

I. The Authorship

1. Position of the Dutch School

The Tbingen criticism of the last century recognized the four major epistles of Paul as fully authentic, and made them the corner-stone of its construction of New Testament history. Only Bruno Bauer (Kritik. d. paulin. Briefe, 1850-52) attacked them in this sense, while several other critics accused them of serious interpolations; but these attempts made little impression. Subsequently, a group of Dutch scholars, beginning with Loman in his Quaestiones Paulinae (1882) and represented by Van Manen in the Encyclopedia Biblica (art. Paul), have denied all the canonical epistles to the genuine Paul. They postulate a gradual development in New Testament ideas covering the first century and a half after Christ, and treat the existing letters as catholic adaptations of fragmentary pieces from the apostle’s hand, produced by a school of Paulinists who carried their master’s principles far beyond his own intentions. On this theory, Galatians, with its advanced polemic against the law, approaching the position of Marcion (140 ad), was work of the early 2nd century. Edwin Johnson in England (Antiqua Mater, 1887), and Steck in Germany (Galaterbrief, 1888), are the only considerable scholars outside of Holland who have adopted this hypothesis; it is rejected by critics so radical as Scholten and Schmiedel (see the article of the latter on Galatians in EB). Knowling has searchingly examined the position of the Dutch school in his Witness of the Epistles (1892) – it is altogether too arbitrary and uncontrolled by historical fact to be entertained; see Jlicher’s or Zahn’s Introduction to New Testament (English translation), to the same effect. Attempts to dismember this writing, and to appropriate it for other hands and later times than those of the apostle Paul, are idle in view of its vital coherence and the passionate force with which the author’s personality has stamped itself upon his work; the Paulinum pectus speaks in every line. The two contentions on which the letter turns – concerning Paul’s apostleship, and the circumcision of Gentile Christians – belonged to the apostle’s lifetime: in the fifth and sixth decades these were burning questions; by the 2nd century the church had left them far behind.

2. Early Testimony

Early Christianity gives clear and ample testimony to this document. Marcion placed it at the head of his Apostolikon (140 ad); Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Melito, quoted it about the same time. It is echoed by Ignatius (Philad., i) and Polycarp (Philip., iii and v) a generation earlier, and seems to have been used by contemporary Gnostic teachers. It stands in line with the other epistles of Paul in the oldest Latin, Syriac and Egyptian translations, and in the Muratorian (Roman) Canon of the 2nd century. It comes full into view as an integral part of the new Scripture in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian at the close of this period. No breath of suspicion as to the authorship, integrity or apostolic authority of the Ep. to the Gal has reached us from ancient times.

II. Matter of the Epistle

A) Summary of Contents

1. Outline

A double note of war sounds in the address and greeting (Gal 1:1, Gal 1:4). Astonishment replaces the customary thanksgiving (Gal 1:6-10): The Galatians are listening to preachers of another gospel (Gal 1:6, Gal 1:7) and traducers of the apostle (Gal 1:8, Gal 1:10), whom he declares anathema. Paul has therefore two objects in writing – to vindicate himself, and to clear and reinforce his doctrine. The first he pursues from Gal 1:11 to Gal 2:21; the second from Gal 3:1 to Gal 5:12. Appropriate: moral exhortations follow in 5:13 through 6:10. The closing paragraph (Gal 6:11-17) resumes incisively the purport of the letter. Personal, argumentative, and hortatory matter interchange with the freedom natural in a letter to old friends.

2. Personal History (Galatians 1:11 Through 2:21 (Gal 4:12-20; Gal 6:17))

Paul’s Independent Apostleship

Paul asserts himself for his gospel’s sake, by showing that his commission was God-given and complete (Gal 1:11, Gal 1:12). On four decisive moments in his course he dwells for this purpose – as regards the second manifestly (Gal 1:20), as to others probably, in correction of misstatements:

(1) A thorough-paced Judaist and persecutor (Gal 1:13, Gal 1:14), Paul was supernaturally converted to Christ (Gal 1:15), and received at conversion his charge for the Gentiles, about which he consulted no one (Gal 1:16, Gal 1:17).

(2) three years later he made acquaintance with Cephas in Jerusalem and saw James besides, but no other of the apostles (Gal 1:18, Gal 1:19). For long he was known only by report to the churches of Judea (Gal 1:21-24).

(3) At the end of fourteen years he went up to Jerusalem, with Barnabas, to confer about the liberty of Gentile believers, which was endangered by false brethren (Gal 2:1-5). Instead of supporting the demand for the circumcision of the Greek Titus (Gal 2:3), the pillars there recognized the sufficiency and completeness of Paul’s gospel of the uncircumcision and the validity of his apostleship (Gal 2:6-8). They gave right hands of fellowship to himself and Barnabas on this understanding (Gal 2:9, Gal 2:10). The freedom of Gentile Christianity was secured, and Paul had not run in vain.

(4) At Antioch, however, Paul and Cephas differed (Gal 2:11). Cephas was induced to withdraw from the common church-table, and carried the rest of the Jews, including Barnabas, with him (Gal 2:12, Gal 2:13). The truth of the gospel, with Cephas’ own sincerity, was compromised by this separation, which in effect compelled the Gentiles to Judaize (Gal 2:13, Gal 2:14). Paul therefore reproved Cephas publicly in the speech reproduced by Gal 2:14-21, the report of which clearly states the evangelical position and the ruinous consequences (Gal 2:18, Gal 2:21) of reestablishing the law.

3. Doctrinal Polemic (Galatians 3:1 Through 5:12)

(1) Thesis

The doctrinal polemic was rehearsed in the autobiography (Gal 2:3-5, Gal 2:11-12). In Gal 2:16 is laid down thesis of the epistle: A man is not justified by the works of law but through faith in Jesus Christ. This proposition is (a) demonstrated from experience and history in 3:1-4:7; then (b) enforced by 4:8-5:12.

(2) Main Argument

(a1) From his own experience (Gal 2:19-21) Paul passes to that of the readers, who are bewitched to forget Christ crucified (Gal 3:1)! Had their life in the Spirit come through works of the law or the hearing of faith? Will the flesh consummate what the Spirit began (Gal 3:2-5)? (a2) Abraham, they are told, is the father of God’s people; but ‘the men of faith’ are Abraham’s true heirs (Gal 3:6-9). The law curses every transgressor; Scripture promised righteousness through faith for the very reason that justification by legal doing is impossible (Gal 3:10-12). Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law in dying the death it declared accursed (Gal 3:13). Thus He conveyed to the nations the promise of the Spirit, pledged to them through believing Abraham (Gal 3:7, Gal 3:14). (a3) The testament God gave to Abraham and his seed (a single seed, observe) is unalterable. The Mosaic law, enacted 430 years later, could not nullify this instrument (Gal 3:15-17 the King James Version). Nullified it wound have been, had its fulfillment turned on legal performance instead of Divine grace (Gal 3:18). (a4) Why then the law? Sin required it, pending the accomplishment of the promise. Its promulgation through intermediaries marks its inferiority (Gal 3:19, Gal 3:20). With no power ‘to give life,’ it served the part of a jailer guarding us till faith came, of the paedagogus training us ‘for Christ’ (Gal 3:21-25). (a5) But now in Christ, Jew and Greek alike, ye are all sons of God through faith; being such, you are Abraham’s seed and ‘heirs in terms of the promise’ (Gal 3:26-29). The ‘infant’ heirs, in tutelage, were ‘subject to the elements of the world,’ until God sent forth his Son, placed in the like condition, to redeem them (Gal 4:1-5). Today the cry of the Spirit of his Son in your hearts proves this redemption accomplished (Gal 4:6, Gal 4:7).

The demonstration is complete; Gal 3:1-4:7 forms the core of the epistle. The growth of the Christian consciousness has been traced from its germ in Abraham to its flower in the church of all nations. The Mosaic law formed a disciplinary interlude in the process, which has been all along a life of faith. Paul concludes where he began (Gal 3:2), by claiming the Spirit as witness to the full salvation of the Gentiles; compare Rom 8:1-27; 2Co 3:4-18; Eph 1:13, Eph 1:14. From Gal 4:8 onward to Gal 5:12, the argument is pressed home by appeal, illustration and warning.

(3) Appeal and Warning

(b1) After knowing God, would the Galatians return to the bondage in which ignorantly they served as gods the elements of Nature? (Gal 4:8, Gal 4:9). Their adoption of Jewish seasons points to this backsliding (Gal 4:10, Gal 4:11). (b2) Paul’s anxiety prompts the entreaty of Gal 4:12-20, in which he recalls his fervent reception by his readers, deplores their present alienation, and confesses his perplexity. (b3) Observe that Abraham had two sons – after the flesh and through promise (Gal 4:21-23); those who want to be under law are choosing the part of Ishmael: Hagar stands for ‘the present Jerusalem’ in her bondage; ‘the Jerusalem above is free – she is our mother!’ (Gal 4:24-28, Gal 4:31). The fate of Hagar and Ishmael pictures the issue of legal subjection (Gal 4:29, Gal 4:30): Stand fast therefore (Gal 5:1). (b4) The crucial moment comes at Gal 5:2 : the Galatians are half-persuaded (Gal 5:7, Gal 5:8); they will fatally commit themselves, if they consent to ‘be circumcised.’ This will sever them from Christ, and bind them to complete observance of Moses’ law: law or grace – by one or the other they must stand (Gal 5:3-5). Circumcision, uncircumcision – these count for nothing in Christ Jesus (Gal 5:6). Paul will not believe in the defection of those who ‘ran’ so well; judgment will fall on their ‘disturber’ (Gal 5:7-10, Gal 5:12). Persecution marks himself as no circumcisionist (Gal 5:11)!

4. The Ethical Application (Galatians 5:13-6:10)

Law of the Spirit of Life

The ethical application is contained in the phrase of Rom 8:2, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. (1) Love guards Christian liberty from license; it ‘fulfills the whole law in a single word’ (Gal 5:13-15). (2) The Spirit, who imparts freedom, guides the free man’s walk. Flesh and spirit are, opposing principles: deliverance from the flesh and its works is found in possession by the Spirit, who bears in those He rules His proper fruit. ‘Crucified with Christ’ and ‘living in the Spirit,’ the Christian man keeps God’s law without bondage under it (Gal 5:16-26). (3) In cases of unwary fall, ‘men of the Spirit’ will know how to restore the lapsed, ‘fulfilling Christ’s law’ and mindful of their own weakness (Gal 6:1-5). (4) Teachers have a peculiar claim on the taught; to ignore this is to ‘mock God.’ Men will reap corruption or eternal life, as in such matters they ‘sow to the flesh’ or ‘to the Spirit.’ Be patient till the harvest! (Gal 6:6-10).

5. The Epilogue (Gal 6:11-18)

The autograph conclusion (Gal 6:11) exposes the sinister motive of the circumcisionists, who are ashamed of the cross, the Christian’s only boast (Gal 6:12-15). Such men are none of the Israel of God! (Gal 6:16). The brand of Jesus is now on Paul’s body; at their peril henceforth will men trouble him! (Gal 6:17). The benediction follows (Gal 6:18).

B) Salient Points

1. The Principles at Stake

The postscript reveals the inwardness of the legalists’ agitation. They advocated circumcision from policy more than from conviction, hoping to conciliate Judaism and atone for accepting the Nazarene – to hide the shame of the cross – by capturing for the Law the Gentile churches. They attack Paul because he stands in the way of this attempt. Their policy is treason; it surrenders to the world that cross of Christ, to which the world for its salvation must unconditionally submit. The grace of God the one source of salvation Gal (Rom 1:3; Rom 2:21; Rom 5:4), the cross of Christ its sole ground (Rom 1:4; Rom 2:19-21; Rom 3:13; Rom 6:14), faith in the Good News its all-sufficient means (Rom 2:16, Rom 2:20; Rom 3:2, Rom 3:5-9, Rom 3:23-26; Rom 5:5), the Spirit its effectuating power (Rom 3:2-5; Rom 4:6, Rom 4:7; Rom 5:5, Rom 5:16 -25; Rom 6:8) – hence, emancipation from the Jewish law, and the full status of sons of God open to the Gentiles (Rom 2:4, Rom 2:5, Rom 2:15-19; Rom 3:10-14; 3:28-4:9, 26-31; Rom 5:18; Rom 6:15): these connected principles are at stake in the contention; they make up the doctrine of the epistle.

2. Present Stage of the Controversy

Circumcision is now proposed by the Judaists as a supplement to faith in Christ, as the qualification for sonship to Abraham and communion with the apostolic church (Gal 3:7, Gal 3:29). After the Council at Jerusalem, they no longer say outright, Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved (Act 15:1). Paul’s Galatian converts, they admit, have begun in the Spirit; they bid them be perfected and attain the full Christian status by conforming to Moses – Christ will profit them much more, if they add to their faith circumcision (Gal 3:3; Gal 5:2; compare Rom 3:1). This insidious proposal might seem to be in keeping with the findings of the Council; Peter’s action at Antioch lent color to it. Such a grading of the Circumcision and Uncircumcision within the church offered a tempting solution of the legalist controversy; for it appeared to reconcile the universal destination of the gospel with the inalienable prerogatives of the sons of Abraham. Paul’s reply is, that believing Gentiles are already Abraham’s seed – nay, sons and heirs of God; instead of adding anything, circumcision would rob them of everything they have won in Christ; instead of going on to perfection by its aid, they would draw back unto perdition.

3. Paul’s Depreciation of the Law

Paul carries the war into the enemies’ camp, when he argues, (a) that the law of Moses brought condemnation, not blessing, on its subjects (Gal 3:10-24); and (b) that instead of completing the work of faith, its part in the Divine economy was subordinate (Gal 3:19-25). It was a temporary provision, due to man’s sinful unripeness for the original covenant (Gal 3:19, Gal 3:24; Gal 4:4). The Spirit of sonship, now manifested in the Gentiles, is the infallible sign that the promise made to mankind in Abraham has been fulfilled. The whole position of the legalists is undermined by the use the apostle makes of the Abrahamic covenant.

4. The Personal Question

The religious and the personal questions of the epistle are bound up together; this Gal 5:2 clearly indicates. The latter naturally emerges first (Gal 1:1, Gal 1:11). Paul’s authority must be overthrown, if his disciples are to be Judaized. Hence, the campaign of detraction against him (compare 2 Cor 10 through 12). The line of defense indicates the nature of the attack. Paul was said to be a second-hand, second-rate apostle, whose knowledge of Christ and title to preach Him came from Cephas and the mother church. In proof of this, an account was given of his career, which he corrects in Gal 1:13 through 2:21. Cephas was held up (compare 1Co 1:12) as the chief of the apostles, whose primacy Paul had repeatedly acknowledged; and the pillars at Jerusalem were quoted as maintainers of Mosaic rule and authorities for the additions to be made to Paul’s imperfect gospel. Paul himself, it was insinuated, preaches circumcision where it suits him; he is a plausible time-server (Gal 1:10; Gal 5:11; compare Act 16:3; 1Co 9:19-21). The apostle’s object in his self-defense is not to sketch his own life, nor in particular to recount his visits to Jerusalem, but to prove his independent apostleship and his consistent maintenance of Gentile rights. He states, therefore, what really happened on the critical occasions of his contact with Peter and the Jerusalem church. To begin with, he received his gospel and apostolic office from Jesus Christ directly, and apart from Peter (Gal 1:13-20); he was subsequently recognized by the pillars as apostle, on equality with Peter (Gal 2:6-9); he had finally vindicated his doctrine when it was assailed, in spite of Peter (Gal 2:11-12). The adjustment of Paul’s recollections with Luke’s narrative is a matter of dispute, in regard both to the conference of Gal 2:1-10 and the encounter of Gal 2:11-21; to these points we shall return, iv.3 (4), (5).

C) Characteristics

1. Idiosyncrasy of the Epistle

This is a letter of expostulation. Passion and argument are blended in it. Hot indignation and righteous scorn (Gal 1:7-9; Gal 4:17; Gal 5:10, Gal 5:12; Gal 6:12, Gal 6:13), tender, wounded affection (Gal 4:11-20), deep sincerity and manly integrity united with the loftiest consciousness of spiritual authority (Gal 1:10-12, Gal 1:20; Gal 2:4-6, Gal 2:14; Gal 5:2; Gal 6:17), above all a consuming devotion to the person and cross of the Redeemer, fill these few pages with an incomparable wealth and glow of Christian emotion. The power of mind the epistle exhibits matches its largeness of heart. Roman indeed carries out the argument with greater breadth and theoretic completeness; but Gal excels in pungency, incisiveness, and debating force. The style is that of Paul at the summit of his powers. Its spiritual elevation, its vigor and resource, its subtlety and irony, poignancy and pathos, the vis vivida that animates the whole, have made this letter a classic of religious controversy. The blemishes of Paul’s composition, which contribute to his mastery of effect, are conspicuous here – his abrupt turns and apostrophes, and sometimes difficult ellipses (Gal 2:4-10, Gal 2:20; Gal 4:16-20; Gal 5:13), awkward parentheses and entangled periods (Gal 2:1-10, Gal 2:18; Gal 3:16, Gal 3:20; Gal 4:25), and outburst of excessive vehemence (Gal 1:8, Gal 1:9; Gal 5:12).

2. Jewish Coloring

The anti-legalist polemic gives a special Old Testament coloring to the epistle; the apostle meets his adversaries on their own ground. In Gal 3:16, Gal 3:19-20; Gal 4:21-31, we have examples of the rabbinical exegesis Paul had learned from his Jewish masters. These texts should be read in part as argumenta ad hominem; however peculiar in form such Pauline passages may be, they always contain sound reasoning.

III. Relations to Other Epistles

(1) The connection of Galatians with Romans is patent; it is not sufficiently understood how pervasive that connection is and into what manifold detail it extends. The similarity of doctrine and doctrinal vocabulary manifest in Gal 2:13-6:16 and Rom 1:16-8:39 is accounted for by the Judaistic controversy on which Paul was engaged for so long, and by the fact that this discussion touched the heart of his gospel and raised questions in regard to which his mind was made up from the beginning (Rom 1:15, Rom 1:16), on which he would therefore always express himself in much the same way. Broadly speaking, the difference is that Romans is didactic and abstract, where Galatians is personal and polemical; that the former presents, a measured and rounded development of conceptions projected rapidly in the latter under the stress of controversy. The emphasis lies in Romans on justification by faith; in Galatians on the freedom of the Christian man. The contrast of tone is symptomatic of a calmer mood in the writer – the lull which follows the storm; it suits the different address of the two epistles.

1. Galatians and Romans

Besides the correspondence of purport, there is a verbal resemblance to Romans pervading the tissue of Galatians, and traceable in its mannerisms and incidental expressions. Outside of the identical quotations, we find more than 40 Greek locutions, some of them rare in the language, common to these two and occurring in these only of Paul’s epistles – including the words rendered bear (Rom 11:18 and Gal 5:10, etc.); blessing or gratulation (makarismos), divisions (Rom 16:17; Gal 5:20); fail or fall from (ekppto); labor on or upon (of persons), passions (pathemata, in this sense); set free or deliver (eleutheroo); shut up or conclude, and shut out or exclude; travail (together), and such phrases as die to (with dative), hearing of faith, if possible, put on (the Lord Jesus) Christ, those who do such things, what saith the Scripture? where then? (rhetorical), why any longer? The list would be greatly extended by adding expressions distinctive of this pair of letters that occur sporadically elsewhere in Paul. The kinship of Galatians-Romans in vocabulary and vein of expression resembles that existing between Colossians-Ephesians or 1 and 2 Thessalonians; it is twice as strong proportionately as that of 1 and 2 Corinthians. Not only the same current of thought, but with it, much the same stream of language was running through Paul’s mind in writing these two epistles.

The association of Galatians with the two Corinthian letters, though less intimate than that of Galatians-Romans, is unmistakable.

2. Links with 1 and 2 Corinthians

We count 23 distinct locations shared by 2 Corinthians alone (in its 13 chapters) with Galatians, and 20 such shared with 1 Corinthians (16 chapters) – a larger proportion for the former. Among the Galatians-1 Corinthians peculiarities are the sayings, A little leaven, etc., circumcision is nothing, etc., and the phrases, be not deceived, it is manifest (delon as predicate to a sentence), known by God, profit nothing and to be something, scandal of the cross, the spiritual (of persons), they that are Christ’s (of Christ Jesus). Peculiar to Gal through 2 Cor are another gospel and false brethren, brings into bondage, devour and zealously seek or am jealous over (of persons); a new creation, confirm or ratify (kuroo); I am perplexed, the antithesis of sowing and reaping (figuratively); the phrase on the contrary or contrariwise (t’ounanton), etc. The conception of the two covenants (or testaments) is conspicuous in both epistles (Gal 3:17-21; Gal 4:21-31; 2Co 3:8-18), and does not recur in Paul; in each case the ideas of law (or letter), bondage, death, are associated with the one, diatheke, of spirit, freedom, life, with the other. Gal 3:13 (Christ … made a curse for us) is matched by 2Co 5:21 (made sin for us); in Gal 2:19 and Gal 6:14 we find Paul crucified to the world in the cross of his Master and Christ alone living in him; in 2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15 this experience becomes a universal law for Christians; and where in Gal 6:17 the apostle appears as ‘from hence-forth … bearing in’ his ‘body the brand of Jesus,’ in 2Co 4:10 he is always bearing about in his body the dying of Jesus.

These identical or closely congruous trains of thought and turns of phrase, varied and dominant as they are, speak for some near connection between the two writings. By its list of vices in Gal 5:19, Gal 5:20 Galatians curiously, and somewhat intricately, links itself at once with 2 Corinthians and Roman (see 2Co 12:20; Rom 13:13; Rom 16:17). Galatians is allied by argument and doctrine with Romans, and by temper and sentiment with 2 Corinthians. The storm of feeling agitating our epistle blows from the same quarter, reaches the same height, and engages the same emotions with those which animate 2 Corinthians 10 through 13.

3. With the Corinthians-Romans Group

If we add to the 43 locutions confined in the Pauline Epistles to Galatians-Romans the 23 such of Galatians-2 Corinthians, the 20 of Galatians-1 Corinthians, the 14 that range over Galatians-Romans-2 Corinthians, the 15 of Galatians-Romans-1 Corinthians, the 7 of Galatians-1-2 Corinthians, and the 11 running through all four, we get a total of 133 words or phrases (apart from Old Testament quotations) specific to Galatians in common with one or more of the Corinthians-Romans group – an average, that is, of close upon 3 for each chapter of those other epistles.

With the other groups of Pauline letters Galatians is associated by ties less numerous and strong, yet marked enough to suggest, in conjunction with the general style, a common authorship.

4. With Other Groups of Epistles

The proportion of locutions peculiar to Gal and the 3rd group (Colossians-Philemon-Ephesians-Philippians) is 1 to each of their 15 chapters. The more noticeable of these are in Galatians-Colossians: elements of the world, and the maxim, There is no Jew nor Greek, etc., associated with the putting on of Christ (the new man); fullness of the time (or seasons) and householders of faith (of God), also Christ loved me (the church) and gave up himself for me (her), in Galatians-Ephesians; he that supplieth (your supplying of, epichorega) the Spirit, and vain-glory (kenodoxa), in Galatians-Philippians; redeem (exagorazo) and inheritance are peculiar to Gal with Colossians-Ephesians together; the association of the believer’s inheritance with the Spirit in Galatians-Ephesians is a significant point of doctrinal identity.

The Thessalonians and Timothy-Titus (1st and 4th) groups are outliers in relation to Galatians, judged by vocabulary. There is little to associate our epistle with either of these combinations, apart from pervasive Corinthians-Romans phrases and the Pauline complexion. There are 5 such expressions registered for the 8 chapters of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 7 for the 13 of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus – just over one to two chapters for each group. While the verbal coincidences in these two cases are, proportionately, but one-half so many as those connecting Galatians with the 3rd group of epistles and one-fifth or one-sixth of those linking it to the 2nd group, they are also less characteristic; the most striking is the contrast of well-doing (kalopoieo) with fainting or wearying (egkakeo) in Gal 6:9 and 2Th 3:13.

5. General Comparison

No other writing of Paul reflects the whole man so fully as this – his spiritual, emotional, intellectual, practical, and even physical, idiosyncrasy. We see less of the apostle’s tenderness, but more of his strength than in Philippians; less of his inner, mystic experiences, more of the critical turns of his career; less of his fears, more of his fightings, than in 2 Corinthians. While the 2nd letter to Timothy lifts the curtain from the closing stage of the apostle’s ministry, Gal throws a powerful light upon its beginning. The Pauline theology opens to us its heart in this document. The apostle’s message of deliverance from sin through faith in the crucified Redeemer, and of the new life in the Spirit growing from this root, lives and speaks; we see it in Galatians as a working and fighting theology, while in Romans it peacefully expands into an ordered system. The immediately saving truth of Christianity, the gospel of the Gospel, finds its most trenchant utterance in this epistle; here we learn the word of the cross as Paul received it from the living Saviour, and defended it at the crisis of his work.

IV. The Destination and Date

1. Place and Time Interdependent

The question of the people to whom, is bound up with that of the time at which, the Epistle to the Galatians was written. Each goes to determine the other. The expression the first time (to proteron) of Gal 4:13 presumes Paul to have been twice with the readers previously – for the first occasion, see Gal 4:13-15; for the second, Gal 1:9; Gal 5:3. The explanation of Round (Date of the Epistle to Galatians, 1906), that the apostle intended to distinguish his first arrival at the several (South) Galatian cities from his return in the course of the same journey (Act 14:21-23), cannot be accepted: Derbe, the limit of the expedition, received Paul and Barnabas but once on that round, and in retracing their steps the missionaries were completing an interrupted work, whereas Gal 4:13 implies a second, distinct visitation of the churches concerned as a whole; in Act 15:36 Paul looks back to the journey of Acts 13:14-14:26 as one event.

Now the apostle revisited the South Galatian churches in starting on the 2nd missionary tour (Act 16:1-5). Consequently, if his Galatians were Christians of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe (the South Galatian hypothesis), the letter was written in the further course of the 2nd tour – from Macedonia or Corinth about the time of 1 and 2 Thess (so Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, I, English translation), or from Antioch in the interval between the 2nd and 3rd journeys (so Ramsay); for on this latter journey (Act 18:23) Paul (ex hyp.) traversed ‘the (South) Galatian country’ a third time. On the other hand, if they were people of Galatia proper, i.e. of North (Old) Galatia, the epistle cannot be earlier than the occasion of Act 18:23, when Paul touched a second time the Galatian country, which, on this supposition, he had evangelized in traveling from South Galatia to Troas during the previous tour (Act 16:6-8). On the North Galatian hypothesis, the letter was dispatched from Ephesus during Paul’s long residence there (Acts 19; so most interpreters, ancient and modern), in which case it heads the 2nd group of the epistles; or later, from Macedonia or Corinth, and shortly before the writing of the Epistle to the Romans (thus Lightfoot, Salmon, A. L. Williams and others).

Per contra, the earlier date, if proved independently, carries with it the South Galatian, the later date the North Galatian theory. The subscription of the Textus Receptus of the New Testament written from Rome, rests on inferior manuscript authority and late Patristic tradition. Clemen, with no suggestion as to place of origin, assigns to the writing a date subsequent to the termination of the 3rd missionary tour (55 or 57 ad), inasmuch as the epistle reflects the controversy about the Law, which in Romans is comparatively mild, at an acute, and, therefore (he supposes), an advanced stage.

2. Internal Evidence

Lightfoot (chapter iii of Introduction to Commentary) placed Galatians in the 2nd group of the epistles between 2 Corinthians and Romans, upon considerations drawn from the style and character of the epistle. His argument might be strengthened by a detailed linguistic analysis (see III, 1-3, above). The more minutely one compares Galatians with Romans and 1 and 2 Corinthians, the more these four are seen to form a continuous web, the product of the same experience in the writer’s mind and the same situation in the church. This presumption, based on internal evidence, must be tested by examination of the topographical and chronological data.

3. External Data

(1) Galatia and the Galatians

The double sense of these terms obtaining in current use has been shown in the article on GALATIA; Steinmann sets out the evidence at large in his essay on Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes, 61-76 (1908); see also A. L. Williams’ Introduction to Galatians in Cambr. Greek Test. (1910). Roman authors of the period in using these expressions commonly thought of provincial Galatia (NOTE: Schrer seems to be right, however, in maintaining that Galatia was only the abbreviated designation for the province, named a parte potiori, and that in more formal description it was styled Galatia, Pisidia, Phrygia, etc.) which then embraced in addition to Galatia proper a large tract of Southern Phrygia and Lycaonia, reaching from Pisidian Antioch in the west to Derbe in the east; but writers of Asia Minor leaned to the older local and national usage, according to which Galatia signified the north-central highlands of the peninsula, on both sides of the river Halys, in which the invading Galatae had settled long before this time. (On their history see the previous article) It is asserted that Paul strictly followed the official, as against the popular, usus loquendi in these matters – a questionable dictum (see A. L. Williams, op. cit., xix, xx, or Steinmann’s Leserkreis, 78-104), in view of Gal 1:21, Gal 1:22 (note the Greek double article), to go no farther. There was nothing in Paul’s Roman citizenship to make him a precisian in a point like this. Ramsay has proved that all four cities of Acts 13:14-14:23 were by this time included in provincial Galatia. Their inhabitants might therefore, officially, be styled Galatians (Galatae); it does not follow that this was a fit or likely compilation for Paul to use. Jlicher says this would have been a piece of bad taste on his part. The attachment of the southern districts (Phrygian, Pisidian, Lycaonian) to Galatia was recent – Derbe had been annexed so late as the year 41 – and artificial. Supposing that their Roman colonial rank made the designation Galatians agreeable to citizens of Antioch or Lystra, there was little in it to appeal to Iconians or Derbeans (compare Schmiedel, in EB, col. 1604).

(2) Prima Facie Sense of Act 16:6

The Galatian country (Galatike chora) is mentioned by Luke, with careful repetition, in Act 16:6 and Act 18:23. Luke at any rate was not tied to imperial usage; he distinguishes Phrygia from Asia in Act 2:9, Act 2:10, although Phrygia was administratively parceled out between Asia and Galatia. When therefore Asia is opposed in Act 16:6 to the Phrygian and Galatian country (or Phrygia and Galatian country, Zahn), we presume that the three terms of locality bear alike a non-official sense, so that the Galatian country means Old Galatia (or some part of it) lying to the Northeast, as Asia means the narrower Asia west of Phrygia. On this presumption we understand that Paul and Silas, after completing their visitation of the cities of the former tour (Act 16:4, Act 16:5; compare Act 15:36, in conjunction with 13:14 through 14:23), since they were forbidden to proceed westward and speak the word in Asia, turned their faces to the region – first Phrygian, then Galatian – that stretched northward into new territory, through which they traveled toward Mysia and Bithynia (Act 16:7). Thus Act 16:6 fills in the space between the South Galatia covered by Act 16:4 and Act 16:5, and the Mysian-Bithynian border where we find the travelers in Act 16:7. Upon this, the ordinary construction of Luke’s somewhat involved sentence, North Galatia was entered by Paul on his 2nd tour; he retraversed, more completely, the Galatian region at the commencement of the 3rd tour, when he found disciples there (Act 18:23) whom he had gathered on the previous visit.

(3) The Grammar of Act 16:6

In the interpretation of the Lukan passages proposed by Ramsay, Act 16:16, detached from 16b, is read as the completion of Act 16:1-5 (‘And they went through the Phrygian … region. They were forbidden by the Holy Ghost … in Asia, and came over against Mysia,’ etc.); and the Phrygian and Galatian region means the southwestern division of Provincia Galatia, a district at once Phrygian (ethnically) and Galatian (politically). The combination of two local adjectives., under a common article, to denote the same country in different respects, if exceptional in Greek idiom (Act 15:41 and Act 27:5 illustrate the usual force of this collocation), is clearly possible – the one strictly parallel geographical expression, the Iturean and Trachonite country in Luk 3:1, unfortunately, is also ambiguous. But the other difficulty of grammar involved in the new rendering of Act 16:6 is insuperable: the severance of the participle, having been forbidden (koluthentes), from the introductory verb, they went through (dielthon), wrenches the sentence to dislocation; the aorist participle in such connection must contain, if not something antecedent to ‘they went,’ at least something synchronous with it, in no case a thing subsequent to it, if all the rules of grammar and all sure understanding of language are not to be given up (Schmiedel, EB, col. 1599; endorsed in Moulton’s Prolegomena to the Grammar of New Testament Greek, 134; see also Chase in The Expositor, IV, viii, 404-11, and ix, 339-42). Act 10:29 (I came … when I was sent for) affords a grammatical parallel to Act 16:6 (‘They went through … since they were hindered’).

Zahn’s position is peculiar (Intro to New Testament, I, 164-202). Rejecting Ramsay’s explanation of Act 16:6, and of Act 18:23 (where Ramsay sees Paul a third time crossing South Galatia), and maintaining that Luke credits the apostle with successful work in North Galatia, he holds, notwithstanding, the South Galatian view of the epistle. This involves the paradox that Paul in writing to the churches of Galatia ignored those of North Galatia to whom the title properly belonged – an incongruence which Ramsay escapes by denying that Paul had set foot in Old Galatia. In the 1st edition of the Einleitung Zahn had supposed North and South Galatia together included in the address; this supposition is contrary to the fact that the readers form a homogeneous body, the fruit of a single mission (Gal 4:13), and are affected simultaneously by the same disturbance (Gal 1:6; Gal 5:7-9). Associating the letter in 2nd edition with South Galatians alone, Zahn suggests that while Paul had labored in North Galatia and found disciples there on his return, these were too few and scattered to form churches – an estimate scarcely in keeping with Luke’s phrase Act 5:7-9 all the disciples (Act 18:23), and raising a distinction between disciples and churches foreign to the historian’s usage (see Act 6:2; Act 9:19; Act 14:20). We must choose between North and South Galatia; and if churches existed among the people of the north at the time of writing, then the northerners claim this title by right of use and wont – and the epistle with it. The reversal of Galatian and Phrygia(n) in Act 18:23, as compared with Act 16:6, implies that the apostle on the 3rd tour struck the Galatian country first, traveling this time directly North from Syrian Antioch, and turned westward toward Phrygia when he had reached Old Galatia; whereas his previous route had brought him westward along the highroad traversing South Galatia, until he turned northward at a point not far distant from Pisidian Antioch, to reach North Galatia through Phrygia from the southwest. See the Map of Asia Minor.

(4) Notes of Time in the Epistle

The 3 years of Gal 1:18 and the 14 years of Gal 2:1 are both seemingly counted from Paul’s conversion. (a) The synchronism of the conversion with the murder of Stephen and the free action of the high priest against the Nazarenes (Act 9:2, etc.), and of Saul’s visit to Jerusalem in the 3rd year thereafter with Aretas’ rule in Damascus (2Co 11:32, 2Co 11:33), forbid our placing these two events further back than 36 and 38 – at furthest, 35 and 37 ad (see Turner on Chronology of the NT in HDB, as against the earlier dating). (b) This calculation brings us to 48-49 as the year of the conference of Gal 2:1-10 – a date precluding the association of that meeting with the errand to Jerusalem related in Act 11:30 and Act 12:25, while it suits the identification of the former with the council of Acts 15. Other indications converge on this as the critical epoch of Paul’s apostleship. The expedition to Cyprus and South Galatia (Acts 13; 14) had revealed in Paul ‘signs of the apostle’ which the chiefs of the Judean church now recognized (Gal 2:7-9; compare Act 15:12), and gave him the ascendancy which he exercised at this crisis; up to the time of Act 13:1 Saul was known but as an old persecutor turned preacher (Gal 1:23), one of the band of prophets and teachers gathered round Barnabas at Antioch. The previous visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem (Acts 11; 12) had no ostensible object beyond that of famine-relief. From Acts 12 we learn that the mother church just then was suffering deadly persecution; Peter certainly was out of the way. There was no opportunity for the negotiation described in Gal 2:1-10, and it would have been premature for Paul to raise the question of his apostleship at this stage. In all likelihood, he saw few Judean Christians then beyond the elders, who received the Antiochene charity (Act 11:30). Nothing transpired in connection with this remittance, important as it was from Luke’s standpoint, to affect the question of Gal 1; 2; it would have been idle for Paul to refer to it. On the other hand, no real contradiction exists between Acts 15 and Gal 2 The two accounts admirably complete each other (Pfleiderer; compare Cambr. Greek Test., 145, 146; Steinmann, Die Abfassungszeit d. Gal.-Briefes, section 7); in matters of complicated dispute involving personal considerations, attempts at a private understanding naturally precede the public settlement. It would be strange indeed if the same question of the circumcision of Gentile believers had twice within a few years been raised at Antioch, to be twice carried to Jerusalem and twice over decided there by the same parties – Barnabas and Paul, Peter and James – and with no reference made in the second discussion (that of Acts, ex hyp.) to the previous compact (Gal 2). Granting the epistle written after the council, as both Ramsay and Zahn suppose, we infer that Paul has given his more intimate account of the crisis, about which the readers were already informed in the sense of Acts 15, with a view to bring out its essential bearing on the situation.

(c) The encounter of Paul and Cephas at Antioch (Gal 2:11-21) is undated. The time of its occurrence bears on the date of the epistle. As hitherto, the order of narration presumably follows the order of events, the but of Gal 2:11 appears to contrast Cephas’ present attitude with his action in Jerusalem just described. Two possible opportunities present themselves for a meeting of Paul and Cephas in Antioch subsequently to the council – the time of Paul’s and Barnabas’ sojourn there on their return from Jerusalem (Act 15:35, Act 15:36), or the occasion of Paul’s later visit, occupying some time, between the 2nd and 3rd tours (Act 18:22, Act 18:23), when for aught we know Barnabas and Peter may both have been in the Syrian capital.

The former dating assumes that Peter yielded to the Judaizers on the morrow of the council, that Barnabas too was carried away while still in colleagueship with Paul and when the cause of Gentile freedom, which he had championed, was in the flush of victory. It assumes that the legalists had no sooner been defeated than they opened a new attack on the same ground, and presented themselves as from James when James only the other day had repudiated their agitation (Act 15:19, Act 15:24). All this is very unlikely. We must allow the legalists time to recover from their discomfiture and to lay new plans (see II 2, (2), (3), (4). Moreover, Luke’s detailed narrative in Act 15:30-36, which makes much of the visit of Judas and Silas, gives no hint of any coming of Peter to Antioch at that time, and leaves little room for this; he gives an impression of settled peace and satisfaction following on the Jerusalem concordat, with which the strife of Gal 2:11 would ill accord. Through the course of the 2nd missionary tour, so far as the Thessalonian epistles indicate, Paul’s mind remained undisturbed by legalistic troubles. The apostle had quitted Jerusalem (after his understanding with the pillars) and proceeded to his 2nd missionary journey full of satisfaction at the victory he had gained and free from anxiety for the future … The decisive moment of the crisis necessarily falls between the Thessalonian and Galatian epistles … A new situation suddenly presents itself to him on his return to Antioch (A. Sabatier, The Apostle Paul, English translation, 10, 11, also 124-36).

(5) Paul’s Renewed Struggle with Legalism

The new situation arose through the vacillation of Peter; and the certain from James who made mischief at Antioch, were the forerunners of troublers who agitated the churches far and wide, appearing simultaneously in Corinth and North Galatia. The attempt to set up a separate church-table for the circumcised at Antioch was the first movement in a crafty and persistent campaign against Gentile liberties engineered from Jerusalem. The Epistle to the Romans signalized Paul’s conclusive victory in this struggle, which covered the period of the 3rd missionary tour. On his revisitation of the Galatians (Gal 1:9; Gal 5:3 parallel Act 18:23), fresh from the contention with Cephas and aware of the wide conspiracy on foot, Paul gave warning of the coming of another gospel; it had arrived, fulfilling his worst fears. Upon this view of the course of affairs (see Neander, Planting and Training of the Christian Church, III, vii; Godet’s Introduction to the New Testament, Epistles of Paul, 200-201; Sabatier, as above), the mistake of Peter at Antioch was the proximate antecedent of the trouble in Galatia; hence, Gal 2:11 -24 leads up to Gal 3:1 and the main argument. Now, if the Antiochene collision befell so late as this, then the epistle is subsequent to the date of Act 18:22, Act 18:23; from which it follows, once more, that Gal belongs to the 3rd missionary tour and the Corinthians-Romans group of letters.

(6) Ephesus or Corinth?

Chiefly because of the words, you are removing so quickly, in Gal 1:6, the epistle is by many referred to the earlier part of the above period, the time of Paul’s protracted sojourn in Ephesus (Act 19:8, Act 19:10 :54-56 ad); so quickly, however, signifies not so soon after my leaving you, but so suddenly and with such slight persuasion (Gal 5:7, Gal 5:8). From Ephesus, had the apostle been there when the trouble arose, he might as easily have visited Galatia as he did Corinth under like circumstances (so much is implied in 2Co 13:1): he is longing to go to Galatia, but cannot (Gal 4:19, Gal 4:20). A more distant situation, such as Macedonia or Corinth (Act 20:1-3), where Paul found himself in the last months of this tour (56-57 ad), and where, in churches of some standing, he was surrounded by a body of sympathetic brethren (Gal 1:1) whose support gave weight to his remonstrance with the Galatians, suits the epistle better on every account.

(7) Paul’s First Coming to Galatia

In Gal 4:13-15 the apostle recalls, in words surcharged with emotion, his introduction to the readers. His preaching the good news to them was due to weakness of the flesh – to some sickness, it seems, which arrested his steps and led him to minister in a locality that otherwise he would have passed over, as he did Mysia a little later (Act 16:8). So we understand the obscure language of Gal 4:13. The South Galatian theorists, in default of any reference to illness as affecting the apostle’s movements in Act 13:13, Act 13:14, favor Ramsay’s conjecture that Paul fell a victim to malaria on the Pamphylian coast, and that he and Barnabas made for Pisidian Antioch by way of seeking the cooler uplands. The former explanation lies nearer to the apostle’s language: he says I preached to you, not I came to you, because of illness. The journey of a hundred miles from Perga to Antioch was one of the least likely to be undertaken by a fever-stricken patient (see the description in Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St. Paul, or in Ramsay’s St. Paul the Traveler). Besides, if this motive had brought Paul to Antioch, quite different reasons are stated by Luke for his proceeding to the other South Galatian towns (see Act 13:50, Act 13:51; Act 14:6, Act 14:19, Act 14:20). Reading Gal 4:13-15, one imagines the missionary hastening forward to some further goal (perhaps the important cities of Bithynia, Act 16:7), when he is prostrated by a malady the physical effects of which were such as to excite extreme aversion. As strength returns, he begins to offer his gospel in the neighborhood where the unwilling halt has been made. There was much to prejudice the hearers against a preacher addressing them under these conditions; but the Galatians welcomed him as a heaven-sent messenger. Their faith was prompt and eager, their gratitude boundless.

The deification of Barnabas and Paul by the Lycaonians (Act 14:11-18) is the one incident of Luke’s narrative of which the apostle’s description reminds us. To this the latter is thought to be alluding when he writes, You received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus! But could he speak thus of his reception – hateful at the time – in the character of a heathen god, and of a reception that ended in his stoning? The welcome of the messenger implies faith in his message (compare Gal 4:14; 2Co 6:1; 1Th 1:6; Mat 10:40, Mat 10:41, where the same Greek verb is used).

Paul’s mishandling at Lystra (Act 14:19, Act 14:20) has suggested a correspondence in the opposite sense between the epistle and the story of the South Galatian mission. The Lystran stones left their print on Paul’s body; in these disfiguring scars one might see the marks of Jesus to which he points in Gal 6:17, were it not for the note of time, from henceforth, which distinguishes these stigmata as a fresh infliction, identifying the servant now more than ever with his Master. The true parallel to Gal 6:17 is 2Co 4:10 (see the context in 4:7 through 5:4, also 18), which we quoted above (III, 2). When he wrote 2 Cor, the apostle was emerging from an experience of crucial anguish, which gave him an aspect imaging the dying Saviour whom he preached; to this new consecration the appeal of our epistle seems to refer.

(8) Barnabas and the Galatians

The references to Barnabas in Gal 2:1, Gal 2:9, Gal 2:13, at first sight suggest the South Galatian destination of the letter. For Barnabas and Paul were companions on the first only of the three tours, and Barnabas is named thrice here and but twice in the rest of the epistles. Yet these very references awaken misgiving. Barnabas was Paul’s full partner in the South Galatian mission; he was senior in service, and had introduced Saul to the apostles at Jerusalem; he was the leader at the outset of this journey (Act 9:27; Act 11:22-26; Act 13:1-3; Act 15:25) – Barnabas was taken for Zeus by the heathen of Lystra, while the eloquent Paul was identified with Hermes (Act 14:12). The churches of South Galatia had two founders, and owed allegiance to Barnabas along with Paul. Yet Paul deals with the readers as though he alone were their father in Christ. Referring to Barnabas conspicuously in the letter and as differing from himself on a point affecting the question at issue (Gal 2:13), Paul was the more bound to give his old comrade his due and to justify his assumption of sole authority, if he were in truth addressing communities which owed their Christianity to the two men in conjunction. On the South Galatian hypothesis, the apostle appears ungenerously to have elbowed his colleague out of the partnership. The apostle Paul, it is to be noted, was particularly sensitive on matters of this kind (see 1Co 4:15; 2Co 10:13-16). The name of Barnabas was known through the whole church (see 1Co 9:6; Col 4:10); there is no more difficulty in supposing the North Galatians to be familiar with it than with the names of James and John (Gal 2:9). Possibly Paul, as his responsibilities extended, had left the care of South Galatia to Barnabas, who could readily superintend this district from Antioch in Syria; Paul refers to him in 1Co 9:6, long after the separation of Act 15:39, as a fellow-worker. This would account for his making direct for North Galatia on the 3rd tour; see IV, 3 (3).

(9) The Two Antiochs

In Gal 2:11 Paul refers to Antioch,. the famous city on the Orontes. To South Galatians Antioch meant, as in 2Ti 3:11, the Pisidian city of that name. Had Paul been addressing South Galatians, and Antiochenes imprimis, he could not without singular inadvertence have failed to make the distinction. The gaucherie would have been as marked as if, in writing to a circle of West-of-England towns including Bradford-on-Avon, one should mention Bradford without qualification, meaning the Yorkshire Bradford.

The arguments drawn from local difference in legal usage – in the matters of adoption, testament, etc. – in favor of the South Galatian destination (see Schmiedel’s examination of Ramsay’s views in EB, coll. 1608-9), and from the temperament of Paul’s Galatians in favor of North Galatia (Lightfoot), are too precarious to build upon.

(10) Wider Bearings of the Problem

On a broad view of the scope of Paul’s missionary work and of the relation of his letters to Acts, there is much to commend the South Galatian theory. It simplifies the situation by connecting this cardinal writing of Paul with churches of cardinal importance in Luke’s narrative. The South Galatian cities lay along the main route of the apostle’s travels, and in the mid-stream of the church’s life. The epistle, when associated with the Christian communities of this region, gains a definite setting and a firm point of attachment in New Testament history; whereas the founding of North Galatian Christianity is indicated by Luke, if at all, in the most cursory fashion, and it held an obscure place in the early church. How, it is asked, could Paul’s intimate friend have been (on the North Galatian theory) so uninterested in churches by which Paul himself set such store? And how can Paul have ignored, apart from the allusion of 2Ti 3:11, the South Galatians who formed the first-fruits of his wider labors and supplied a vital link in his chain of churches? In reply, we must point out: (1) that for anything we know Paul wrote many letters to South Galatia; we possess but a selection from his correspondence; the choice of the canonical epistles was not governed by the importance of the parties addressed in them – witness Colossians and Philemon; nor were Paul’s concern for his churches, and the empressement with which he wrote, determined by their magnitude and position, but by their needs and their hold on his affections (see Gal 1:6, etc.; Gal 4:12-20). (2) The North Galatian mission lay off the central line of Paul’s journeyings and of the advance of Gentile Christianity; this is probably the reason why Luke, who was compelled to a strict economy of space, just ignores this field, though he shows himself aware of its existence. The apostle’s confession that he preached to the readers, in the first instance, not from choice but necessity (Gal 4:13), accords with the neglect of North Galatia in Acts; the evangelizing of the North Galatians was an aside in Paul’s work – an incident beyond the scope of his plans, from which at this period he was compelled again and again to deviate (Act 16:6-10).

After all, though less important during the 1st century than South Galatia North Galatia was not an unimportant or inaccessible region. It was traversed by the ancient Royal Road from the East to the Hellespont, which the apostle probably followed as far as Phrygia in the journey of Act 18:22, Act 18:23. Planted by Paul in Old Galatia, the gospel would spread to Bithynia and Pontus farther north, as it certainly had done by the time Peter wrote to the churches of Asia Minor (1Pe 1:1). It is observable that Galatia stands between Pontus and Cappadocia in Peter’s enumeration of the provinces – an order indicating that Christians of North Galatia were particularly in the writer’s mind. Had Paul never set foot in North Galatia, had he not worked along the Royal Road and put his message in the Way of reaching the northern provinces of Asia Minor, the claim of Rom 15:19 is difficult to sustain, that from Jerusalem, and in a circle as far as Illyricum, he had fulfilled the gospel of Christ. On the whole, we find the external evidence in accord with the testimony given by the internal character and affinities of the epistle: we judge that this epistle was written circa the autumn or winter of 56-57 ad, from Macedonia or Corinth, toward the end of Paul’s third missionary tour; that it was addressed to a circle of churches situated in Galatia proper or North Galatia, probably in the western part of this country contiguous to (or overlapping) Phrygia (Act 16:6); and that its place lies between the two Corinthian and the Roman letters among the epistles of the second group.

Literature

The South Galatian destination was proposed by the Danish Mynster (Einltg. in d. Brief an d. Gal, 1825; M. however included North Galatia), and adopted by the French Perrot (De Galatia Provincia Romana, 1867) and Renan (S. Paul); by the German Clemen (Chronologie d. paulin. Briefe, 1893; Die Adressaten d. Gal.-Briefes; Paulus: sein Leben u. Wirken, 1904), Hausrath (NT Zeitgeschichte, 1873, English Translation), Pfleiderer (Paulinismus, 1873, English translation; Paulinismus2, much altered; Urchristenthum, 1902), Steck (as above), Weizscker (Das apost. Zeitalter3, 1902, English Translation); after Ramsay (see under GALATIA), by Belser (Beitrge z. Erklrung d. AG, etc.), O. Holtzmann (Zeitschrift f. KG, 1894), von Soden (Hist of Early Christian Lit., ET; he includes South with North Galatia), Weber (Die Adressaten d. Gal.-Briefes), J. Weiss (RE3, article Kleinasien), in Germany; by Askwith (Ep. to Gal: An Essay on Its Destination and Date), Bacon (Expos, V, vii, 123-36; x, 351-67), Bartlet (Expos, V, x, 263-80), Gifford (Expos, IV, x, 1-20), Maclean (1-vol HDB), Rendall (Expos, IV, ix, 254-64; EGT, Introduction to Galatians), Round (as above), Sanday (with hesitation, The Expositor, IV, vii, 491-95), Woodhouse (EB, article Galatia). The N. Galatian destination, held by earlier scholars up to Lightfoot and Salmon (DB2, an illuminating discussion), is reasserted, in view of Ramsay’s findings, by Chase (Expos, IV, viii, 401-19; ix, 331-42), Cheetham (Class. Review, 1894), Dods (HDB, article Galatians), Williams (Cambr. Greek Testament., 1910), in this country; by Sabatier (L’Aptre Paul2, English translation, 1891); by Gheorghiu (Adressatii epistle c. Galateni, Cernauti, 1904, praised by Steinmann); and by the German critics Blass (Acta Apost.), von Dobschtz (Die urchr. Gemeinden, 1902, and Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters), Harnack (Apostelgeschichte, 1908, 87-90), H. Holtzmann (Handcomm. z. New Testament, AG), Jlicher (NT Intro, English Translation), Lipsius (Handcomm. z. New Testament, Galater) Lietzmann (doubtfully, Handbuch z. NT, III, i, Galaterbrief), Mommsen (ZNTW, 1901, 81-96), Schmiedel (Encyclopedia Biblica), Schrer (Jahrbuch f. prot. Theologie, XVIII, 460- 74), Sieffert (Meyer’s Kommentar), Steinmann (as above), Zckler (a full and masterly discussion: Studien u. Kritiken, 1895, 51-102). Mommsen’s verdict is thus expressed: To apprehend ‘the Galatians’ of Paul otherwise than in the strict and narrower sense of the term, is unallowable. The Provinces associated with Galatia under the rule of a single legate, as e.g. Lycaonia certainly was as early as the time of Claudius, were in no way incorporated in that region; the official inscriptions simply set Galatia at the head of the combined regions. Still less could the inhabitants of Iconium and Lystra be named ‘Galatians’ in common speech.

Apart from the aforesaid controversy, besides the standard Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, Luther’s Ad Galatas is of unique historical interest; the interpretations of Usteri (1833), Hilgenfeld (1852), Winer (18594), Holsten (Das Evangel. d. Paulus, 1880), Philippi (1884), in German; Baljon (1889), in Dutch; and of B. Jowett, Ellicott, Beet, are specially serviceable, from different points of view; see also CGT and EB.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Galatians, Epistle to the

Epistle to the Galatians. The Pauline origin of this epistle is attested not only by the superscription which it bears (Gal 1:1), but also by frequent allusions in the course of it to the great Apostle of the Gentiles (comp. Gal 1:13-23; Gal 2:1-14), and by the unanimous testimony of the ancient church. It is corroborated also by the style, tone, and contents of the epistle, which are perfectly in keeping with those of the Apostle’s other writings.

The parties to whom this epistle was addressed are described in the epistle itself as ‘the churches of Galatia’ (Gal 1:2; comp. 3:1). Into this district the Gospel was first introduced by Paul himself (Act 16:6; Gal 1:8; Gal 4:13; Gal 4:19). Churches were then also probably formed; for on revisiting this district some time after his first visit, it is mentioned that he ‘strengthened the disciples’ (Act 18:23). These churches seem to have been composed principally of converts directly from heathenism, but partly, also, of Jewish converts, both pure Jews and proselytes. Unhappily, the latter, not thoroughly emancipated from early opinions and prepossessions, or probably influenced by Judaizing teachers who had visited these churches, had been seized with a zealous desire to incorporate the rites and ceremonies of Judaism with the spiritual truths and simple ordinances of Christianity. So active had this party been in disseminating their views on this head through the churches of Galatia, that the majority at least of the members had been seduced to adopt them (Gal 1:6; Gal 3:1, etc.). From some passages in this epistle (ex. gr. Gal 1:11-24; Gal 2:1-21) it would appear also that insinuations had been disseminated among the Galatian churches to the effect that Paul was not a divinely-commissioned Apostle, but only a messenger of the church at Jerusalem; that Peter and he were at variance upon the subject of the relation of the Jewish rites to Christianity; and that Paul himself was not at all times so strenuously opposed to those rites as he had chosen to be among the Galatians. Of this state of things intelligence having been conveyed to the Apostle, he wrote this epistle for the purpose of vindicating his own pretensions and conduct, of counteracting the influence of these false views, and of recalling the Galatians to the simplicity of the Gospel which they had received. The importance of the case was probably the reason why the Apostle put himself to the great labor of writing this epistle with his own hand (Gal 6:11).

The epistle consists of three parts. In the first part (Galatians 1-2), after his usual salutations, Paul vindicates his own Apostolic authority and independence as a directly-commissioned ambassador of Christ to men, and especially to the Gentile portion of the race, asserting that the Gospel which he preached was the only Gospel of Christexpressing his surprise that the Galatians had allowed themselves to be so soon turned from him who had called them, to a different Gospeldenouncing all who had thus seduced them as troublers of the church, perverters of the doctrine of Christ, and deserving, even had they been angels from heaven, to be placed under an anathema instead of being followedmaintaining the divine origin of his Apostolic commission, which he illustrates by the history of his conversion and early conduct in the service of Christand declaring that, so far from being inferior to the other Apostles he had ever treated with them on equal terms, and been welcomed by them as an equal. Having in the close of this part of the epistle been led to refer to his zeal for the great doctrine of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ, he enters at large, in the second part (Galatians 3-4) upon the illustration and defense of this cardinal truth of Christianity. He appeals to the former experience of the Galatians as to the way in which they had received the Spirit, to the case of Abraham, and to the testimony of Scripture in support of his position that it is by faith and not by the works of the law that men are accepted of God (Gal 3:1-9). He proceeds to remind them that the law has brought a curse upon men because of sin, a curse which it has no power to remove, and from which the sinner can be redeemed only through the substitutionary work of Christ, by whose means the blessing of Abraham comes upon the Gentiles. And lest any should object that the law being of more recent origin than the covenant must supersede it, he shows that this cannot be the case, but that the covenant must be perpetual, while the law is to be regarded only in the light of a temporary and intercalary arrangement, the design of which was to forward the fulfillment of the promise in Christ (Gal 3:10-29). The relation of the Jewish church to the Christian is then illustrated by the case of an heir under tutors and governors as contrasted with the case of the same person when he is of age and has become master of all; and the Galatians are exhorted not willingly to descend from the important and dignified position of sons to that of mere servants in God’s housean exhortation which is illustrated and enforced by an allegorical comparison of the Jewish church to Ishmael, the son of Hagar, and of the Christian to Isaac, the son of Sarah, and the Child of Promise (Gal 4:1-31). The third part of the Epistle (Galatians 5-6) is chiefly hortatory and admonitory. It sets forth the necessity of steadfast adherence to the liberty of the Gospel in connection with obedience to the moral law as a rule of duty, the importance of mutual forbearance and love among Christians, and the desirableness of maintaining a firm adherence to the doctrine of Christ and Him crucified. The epistle concludes with benedictions and prayers.

Respecting the time when and the place where this epistle was written, great diversity of opinion prevails. But the majority of writers on this subject concur in the opinion that the Apostle wrote and dispatched this epistle not long after he had left Galatia for the second time, and, perhaps, while he was residing at Ephesus (comp. Act 18:23; Act 19:1, sqq.).

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Galatians, Epistle to the

[Gala’tians]

The date when this Epistle was written has been disputed more than that of any of the others, some placing it early, and others later. The events seem best to agree thus: on Paul’s second missionary journey he went throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia. Act 16:6. We learn from Gal 4:13-15 that he had preached the gospel to them, and that they had received him as an angel and would have plucked out their eyes for him. This visit would have been about A.D. 51. Then about 54 Paul again visited them; all we read as to this journey is that he went over all the country of Galatia, strengthening, or confirming, all the disciples. Act 18:23. They may, alas, have as readily received the Judaising teachers, and when this came to the ears of Paul, he wrote this Epistle to them. He grieved that they were so soon diverted to another gospel which was not another. In 1Co 16:1 we read that Paul had instructed the churches in Galatia as to the collection for the poor. This was written to Corinth about A.D. 55. The collection is not mentioned in his Epistle to the Galatians, and as far as we know he did not visit them again. This has caused some to suppose that Paul wrote the Epistle to them after his first visit; and that he gave them the directions as to the collection on his second visit; but they may have been given by another letter or by a private messenger.

Gal. 1. After a brief opening, in which the intent of the Lord’s giving Himself for our sins is set forth, namely, to deliver us from this present age according to the will of God, the apostle proceeds directly to the point and marvels at the rapid departure of the Galatian converts from the gospel. In the strongest terms he denounces the efforts made to pervert them from the grace of Christ to other ground. Paul would have them know that his apostleship was not by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father; that the gospel he preached was by the revelation of Jesus Christ. The Jews’ religion, by which they were so attracted, had led him to be a bitter persecutor, but it had pleased God to reveal His Son in him that he might preach Him among the Gentiles. His commission and authority had come direct from on high, and had no connection with Jerusalem as a source. The saints in Judaea did but glorify God in him.

Gal. 2. Fourteen Years after [his conversion] he went up to Jerusalem and communicated to those there the gospel he preached to the Gentiles. He utterly refused to submit to pressure from Judaising brethren in the case of the Gentile convert Titus, and in result received the full fellowship of the three pillars – James, Cephas, and John – in regard to his ministry among the heathen. Subsequently, at Antioch, Paul had actually withstood Peter to the face as to the truth of the gospel, which Peter was fatally compromising from fear of the Jews. Peter’s conduct was wholly inconsistent. Peter and Paul had themselves left the law for justification, to find it alone on the principle of faith in Christ. Had Christ become the minister of sin in their doing this? If not, in going back to the law they built anew what they had destroyed, and were confessedly transgressors; for if right in leaving it for Christ, they were wrong in returning to it. For Paul, however, it was true that through law he had died to law, in order to live to God. With Christ he was crucified (was judicially dead); yet he lived, but no longer himself, for Christ lived in him, and his life as still in this world was by faith – the faith of the Son of God, a living object whose love filled his soul. Christ had died in vain if righteousness came by the law.

Gal. 3. The Galatians were as though bewitched. Had they received the Spirit on the principle of law or of faith? To this there could be but one answer. Having begun in the Spirit, were they now to be made perfect by the flesh ? Faith was the principle on which Abraham, the head of promise and blessing, was reckoned righteous, and on which the Gentiles would, with believing Abraham, receive blessing, according to God’s promise to him. Those under law were under the curse; and on that ground none could be justified. Christ had borne the curse that Abraham’s blessing might come on the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, and that through faith they might receive the promise of the Spirit. The law, given four hundred and thirty years after the promise, could not set the latter aside, which was made not only to Abraham, but to his Seed, even to Christ. The law came in by the way till the Seed should come: it proved transgressions; it had been useful as a guard: it had been for those under it a tutor up to Christ. Now faith had come, such were no longer under a tutor; the Gentile believers were now God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus. In Christ distinctions between Jew and Gentile disappeared: all were one, and the Gentile believers being of Christ were Abraham’s seed and heirs according to promise.

Gal. 4. Though heirs, the Jews were, under law, in the condition of children under age, held in bondage under the elements of the world, with which indeed the law had to do. But now God had sent forth His Son, to redeem those under law, that believers might receive sonship. He had sent the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, giving the cry of relationship, ‘Abba, Father.’ They were therefore no longer bondmen, but sons; and if sons, then heirs through God. Were the Gentile believers (formerly in heathen darkness, but now knowing God) going to turn back to the principles of law, which the apostle does not hesitate to call weak and beggarly elements? They observed days, and months, and times, and years, as though Christianity were a system for man in the flesh. But he reminds them of their former affection for him, and how they had received him as an angel of God. Was he now their enemy because he told them the truth? These Judaising teachers had sown this discord in order that they might supplant the apostle in their affections. Spiritually he again travailed in birth with them till Christ should be formed in them. He knew not what to make of them. Let those who wanted to be under law listen to it. He then submits to them the allegory of Sarah and Hagar, in which the principles of law and faith in God’s promise are seen in conflict. The promise is secured in Isaac, that is, in Christ. Believers, as Isaac was, are children of promise, they are not children of the maid-servant but of the free woman.

Gal. 5. He exhorts the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ made free. If circumcised they were debtors to do the whole law, and were deprived of all profit from the Christ. They had in such case fallen from grace. Christians awaited the hope of righteousness, by the Spirit, on the principle of faith. For those in Christ faith wrought through love. The Galatians had run well, but who had now hindered them? The guilt of this mischief should be borne by the troubler, whoever he was. The scandal of the cross was done away if circumcision was preached, for it was rehabilitating the flesh. But love was the fulfilment of the law. The flesh and Spirit were in fact utterly opposed, but if led by the Spirit they were not under law. The works of the flesh are set forth in contrast to the fruit of the Spirit. Those that were of Christ had crucified the flesh with its lusts, the Spirit being the only power for christian walk.

Gal. 6. Some closing exhortations follow. The spiritual were to restore those taken in a fault, remembering what they were in themselves. They were to care for one another – to think nothing of themselves – to care for those who ministered to them in the word. He warns them of the consequences of sowing to the flesh, but in sowing to the Spirit they should reap eternal life. Let them do good then to all, but especially to the household of faith. He tells them he had written this letter with his own hand as evidence of his deep concern as to them. He once again refers to the mischief-makers in scathing terms. But the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ was his only boast, through whom the world was crucified unto him, and he to it. In Christ Jesus nothing availed but a new creation; and upon those who walked according to this rule peace and mercy are invoked. This Epistle, in which the grief of the apostle is mingled with indignation, is concluded by an affecting allusion to the sufferings he had endured in the maintenance of the truth which they were so lightly turning from: he bore in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus. There are none of the customary salutations.

The epistle is an example of the energy and rapidity of the apostle’s style, and of the spiritual power of his argument. We see him deeply moved by the baneful influence of the Judaisers in Galatia and at their success. Alas! it is what has extended everywhere throughout Christendom.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary