Bible Dictionaries
Galatians Epistle to the

　　1. The Apostle, the Galatians, and the Judaizers.-The ‘churches of Galatia’ to which the Epistle is addressed (Galatians 1:2) owed their Christianity to the preaching of St. Paul (Galatians 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 (Galatians 4:13). The nature of his malady was such as made him painful to behold (Galatians 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 (Galatians 3:1). They accepted his glad tidings and were baptized (Galatians 3:1). They had made a good start in the Christian race (Galatians 5:7), strengthened by the gift of the Holy Spirit, whose presence within them was visibly manifested in works of power (Galatians 3:3-5).

　　Once again*τὸ πρότεροντὸ δεύτερον. 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 St. Paul visited the Galatian churches. A little plain speaking was necessary concerning certain matters of doctrine and conduct (Galatians 1:9; Galatians 5:21; Galatians 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 (Galatians 1:7; Galatians 3:1; Galatians 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 (Galatians 3:1).

　　‘The promise of salvation,’ said they, ‘is given to the seed of Abraham alone (Galatians 3:7; Galatians 3:16; Galatians 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 (Galatians 4:10; Galatians 4:21; Galatians 5:2; Galatians 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 (Galatians 2:16; Galatians 2:21). St. Paul was silent about these conditions because he wished to curry favour with you (Galatians 1:10), yet on occasion even he has declared by his action that circumcision is binding upon Gentile Christians (Galatians 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’ (Galatians 1:9 to Galatians 2:14).

　　The effect of this insidious reasoning was like that of leaven in a lump of dough (Galatians 5:9). St. Paul’s authority was undermined, and it seemed likely that his labour would prove to have been wasted (Galatians 4:11). With amazing rapidity ([Note: The ‘Western Text,’ which omits ), 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.]δικαιοσύνη [Galatians 2:21; Galatians 3:21; Galatians 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’ (δικαιοσύνη, Heb. הִצְדִּיק) is represented by the Greek word ὡς δὲ ἐπληροῦντο ἡμέραι ἱκαναί (Acts 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 (Acts 9:28 f.). If this be true, it is difficult to believe that St. Paul’s stay in the city was limited to fifteen days (Galatians 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. Zechariah 12:8; Zechariah 14:14).

　　Yet it is clear that both accounts refer to the same visit, for both place it between St. Paul’s return from Damascus and his departure to Cilicia (Acts 9:30, Galatians 1:21). Nor do the two narratives appear irreconcilable, when the different objects with which they were written are borne in mind. St. Paul’s 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. Paul’s visit to Arabia, which the Apostle himself describes as a temporary absence in the course of a long stay in Damascus ([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.]τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον) implies that St. Paul had already done much missionary work amongst Gentiles, whereas the events of Acts 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 (Acts 22:21).

　　(iii.) That it is chronologically impossible. The date of the famine (and therefore of St. Paul’s 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. Paul’s conversion would be not later than a.d. 33, even if the fourteen years of Galatians 2:1 are reckoned from that event, and as early as a.d. 30, if they are reckoned from his first visit to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18). Most recent students of NT chronology, however (except Harnack, who accepts the date a.d. 30), place St. Paul’s 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. Paul’s 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: ( ἕπειτα of the earlier sections (Galatians 1:18-21; Galatians 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 [Note: This difficulty would disappear if we could accept as original the ‘Western’ text of Acts 15:29 transforms the ‘food law’ into a ‘moral law’ (see K. Lake, op. cit. p. 48 ff.).] passed by the Council (Acts 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 Galatians 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. Paul’s 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† 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 (James 2:14-26). The same OT illustration (Genesis 15:6) is used as in Gal., but the conclusion-‘faith is vain apart from works’ (James 2:20)-seems to be a direct contradiction of St. Paul’s 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 (James 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’ (James 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. (Galatians 3:2; Galatians 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 (1 Corinthians 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, Jülicher, 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. Paul’s 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 (Acts 16:6; Acts 18:23).

　　(a) The meaning of κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ. What is the district described as τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν 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 τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν 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: Γαλατικὴν χώραν instead of τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν 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.*κωλυθέντες (Ask-with, p. 35 ff.), cannot be regarded as proved.]καί the force of ‘or’: β) The meaning of τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν 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 Acts 16:6 as τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν and Γαλατίαν 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 Γαλάται (Galatians 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 Galatians 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 Galatians 1:21. It would also be natural to look for some mention in Acts 13, 14 of the Apostle’s illness (Galatians 4:13).

　　([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 (Galatians 4:13