INTRODUCTION

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE CHURCHES OF GALATIA

The Relationships between Paul and the Galatians According to the Data of the Epistle

The churches of Galatia, to whom Paul is addressing himself in this epistle (1:2), were churches which he himself had founded (1:8, 9; 4:19). The apostle speaks of the considerable effort which his labor with them had cost him (4:11). The first time he preached the gospel to them he did so while suffering from, or in consequence of, a physical infirmity or ailment (4:13). This infirmity, Paul writes, constituted a temptation for them to turn away from him in disgust; but, so far from shunning him for that reason, they had received him as an angel of God, indeed, as Christ Jesus Himself. The letter tells us nothing more specific about the nature of this disease (see the Exposition). What we are to think about it depends partly upon which churches we suppose are being addressed in the letter. If we think these are the churches in the Roman provinces of Galatia, we can find in Acts 13:50, 51; 14:6, 7, and 2 Timothy 3:11 a significant hint as to the nature of this physical condition (see Introduction, IV).

We can deduce from Galatians 1:8 that Paul was in the company of others when he preached the gospel to them. Who these others were, and, indeed, whether his company consisted of one or more persons, cannot be made out from the letter itself. That is again a problem whose solution depends upon which churches we think are being addressed. If we conclude that they are the churches of North Galatia, then Silas and Timothy are candidates for consideration; if, however, the churches of South Galatia are being addressed, then Barnabas may have been the person with Paul.

It would seem to follow from 4:13 that the apostle had more than once visited the churches addressed in the letter. True, some commentators construe the passage translated as the first time in our version in a different way. They make it read before or formerly. This is a construction which of course rules out the implication that Paul had visited the churches of Galatia more than once. The context, however, pleads for the translation: the first time (see the Exposition). We conclude, therefore, that the apostle visited the churches of Galatia at least once after their founding. This matter plays a considerable role in ascertaining the date of the letter (Introduction, V).

It is important, further, to establish the fact that these churches were converted by the preaching of Paul from heathendom. This follows clearly from such a passage as 2:5, in which the apostle speaks of his endeavor for the Gentiles, and of how, in this effort, he wanted also to serve the interests of the Galatians (“with you”). It follows also from 4:8, where the former religion of the churches is expressly referred to. And it follows, finally, from Paul’s reiterated warning that they ought not to let themselves be circumcised (5:2; 6:12). This does not, of course, rule out the likelihood that there were Jews in the churches of Galatia, just as was the circumstance in practically all of the churches founded by Paul. At least it is clear that the apostle assumes a more than superficial knowledge and grasp of the Jewish religion on the part of his readers: witness, for instance, his disquisitions on the law in Chapter 3, and his allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Chapter 4. Such an orientation is most plausibly explained on the assumption that there were Jews in the places where the churches were founded, and also in the churches themselves.

Occasion and Purpose

The occasion for the writing of this letter was something which had come up in the churches of Galatia since Paul’s last visit there. Within a short time (cf. 1:6) they had allowed themselves to be brought around to another doctrine than that which Paul had once and again preached to them. True, he had previously warned them against the danger to which they had now fallen victim (cf. 1:9). At that time, however, he had not yet noticed any signs of the change which was now materializing. Hence the surprise to which he gives expression in 1:6.

The heretical teachers who were responsible for this change (cf. 1:7; 5:10, 12; 6:12, 13) taught that circumcision was necessary for salvation (5:2; 6:12 ff.), and they accordingly demanded a maintenance of the ceremonial law of Moses, or at least the observation of days and months and seasons and years (4:10; cf. 4:21). Unquestionably these teachers claimed for themselves the name of Christian and held that they faithfully preached the gospel (cf. 1:6). However, they not only modified this teaching with heresies so serious that Paul denies to their doctrine the name of gospel (1:7), but they also in their teaching acted out of false motives: that is, out of personal ambition (cf. 4:17; 6:13) and out of offense at the cross of Christ (6:12).

Further, these erring teachers did not scruple to cast suspicion upon Paul’s qualifications for the office and ministration of an apostle. Paul, at least, finds it necessary to declare that in his preaching he seeks to please, not men, but God (1:10); that he was called to his office, not by men, but by God Himself (1:1, 12) and in a most unexpected way at that (1:13); further, that he was not dependent for his knowledge of the gospel upon the other apostles, but that, on the contrary, he had gotten his commission and insight directly from the Lord (1:12, 16 ff.); and that, later, when he came into contact with the other apostles, he maintained his independence over against them, as might be seen from the circumstance of Titus’ remaining uncircumcised and from Paul’s altercation with Peter at Antioch (cf. 2:1 ff., 6–10). At the same time Paul makes it very clear that there was full agreement between him and the other apostles on the score of the principles of missions to the heathen (cf. 2:7–10), so that the errant teachers can lodge nothing against him, either on the count of his independence or on that of certain deviations from the other apostles.

Finally, the apostle rejects the charge that he might, if time and occasion suggested it, himself again preach the circumcision (5:11). In short, everything seems to point to the fact that the heretical teachers were trying to discredit Paul personally, and so to make him suspect in the churches he had established.

It is now generally agreed that the misguided teachers here being counteracted were Judaizers, that is, Jewish Christians who wanted to combine the gospel of Christ with the observation of Jewish ceremonies—a position which had been rejected at the so-called apostolic council at Jerusalem. Some, it is true, have wanted to deduce from 5:10 that the heretical influence came up under the leadership of one person, someone, namely, who carried considerable weight. Moreover, it might be inferred from the distinction made between the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem (4:21–31), the first being the mother of the fleshly seed of Abraham, and the other of the spiritual seed, that Jewish-Christian missionaries had come to Galatia from Jerusalem. All this is uncertain, but it is not impossible.

That is more than can be said for the idea represented by Edward Meyer in his Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, III, 1923, page 434, which has it that the person indicated in 5:10 is Peter, and that this fact accounts for the passion with which Paul defends himself in this letter. This idea goes back to the contentions of the old Tübingen school. It is an idea which conflicts, however, not only with what we are told in the Acts of the Apostles concerning Peter’s position on the matter in question (cf. Acts 10:34; 11:4 ff.; 15:6 ff.), but which conflicts also with the testimony of the letter to the Galatians itself. For, though it is true that Paul in Galatians 2:11 ff. speaks of his difference from Peter about the observance of the ceremonial law, everything points to the fact that Peter and Paul essentially agreed in principle on the matter, and that Peter, at a weak moment, hesitated to assume the consequences of that principle.

The heresy which Paul is counteracting in this letter is however, of quite a different nature, and it is this fact which gives the letter its passionate tone. Personal rivalry between Paul and Peter is not at all in question here. Quite as unacceptable is the hypothesis developed by H. Lietzmann in his Die Reisen des Paulus (SBA), 1930, page 153 ff., and in his commentary An die Galater (3), 1932, page 38. Lietzmann there maintains that Paul’s real opponent in this letter is none other than Barnabas. For this position, too, there is no basis in the text of the letter. As a matter of fact, the way in which Barnabas is brought into the discussion in 2:1, 9 argues directly against such a construction. Instead therefore of adopting these and other interpretations which do violence to the record, we hold to the data lying ready at hand in the letter. These tell us plainly of the Judaistic heresy, without designating specifically who its propagators were.

Another interpretation of the heretical teachers being combatted in Galatians, and thence of the whole bearing of the letter, has it that Paul is not taking to the field against the Judaistic threat merely, but against heathen libertinism also. This view is sometimes called the two-front theory. It is a view which has been advocated by W. Lütgert, in his Gesetz und Geist, 1919, and by J. H. Ropes in “The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians,” Harvard Theological Studies, XIV, 1929. This construction has not met with much acceptance: it involves too hypothetical a conception of conditions in the Galatian churches; it is not necessary in order to explain the paraenetic portion of the letter; and it is hard to harmonize with the first portion of it.

Accordingly, we hold to the traditional view that Paul is here combatting a Judaistic Christianity which had infiltrated the churches of Galatia from without, in an attempt to cut off the effect of Paul’s work and to supplant it by the Judaizing interpretation of Christianity. Within a short while this heresy had deeply influenced the churches. They were shaken in their conviction (1:7; 5:10, 11). they seemed bewitched (3:1), and they had begun to depart from the gospel which had been preached to them (1:6).

Such being the state of affairs, and the report of it having come to Paul’s attention, he had no choice but to intervene. He does so in a singularly passionate way, so that the letter to the Galatians, more than any other of the apostle’s extant writings, gives us some idea of his fiery temperament. However, it gives us an insight also into the serious threat which this heresy spelled for the purity of the gospel and the welfare of the church.

III

Content and Character

After a very brief and soberly restrained exordium and salutation, in which Paul immediately, and with impressive force, maintains the unassailability of his apostolic calling (1:1–5), he at once expresses his surprise that the Galatians should so hastily have embraced another gospel. He denies to this new teaching the name of gospel, and he pronounces an anathema against any and all, whoever they be, that preach another gospel than the one he brought them (1:6–9).

For the rest, the letter can be divided into three parts, in which the apostle, approaching the matter from three different directions, defends the truth of his gospel against the attacks that have been made upon it.

(1) 1:10–2:21. This part is concerned mainly with Paul’s apostolic qualifications—qualifications which had obviously been challenged by the Judaizers. In reply, the apostle points to his direct calling by God; to his independence from the other apostles; to his defense of the gospel of grace at Jerusalem, and to the recognition accorded him by the leaders of the church there; and, finally, to his fearless correction of Peter when the latter faltered and so threatened the purity of the gospel. From all this the legitimacy of Paul’s qualifications as an apostle must become evident, and also the unassailability of the authority to which he lays claim.

(2) 3:1–5:12. This constitutes the letter proper, so to speak. In it the material difference between the gospel and the Judaistic heresy is brought to light, and the latter is strongly attacked. Apparently again in refutation of the contentions of the false teachers, Paul here indicates that, if one is to be called a child of Abraham and to share in his promises, he must seek salvation not in the works of the law but in faith. As counterpart to this, Paul points to the true significance of the law, and to the freedom of believers from the law, something which the apostle presses hard upon the Galatians in view of their incomprehensible falling away from the true gospel.

(3) 5:13–6:8. In this last part, Paul shows that this freedom from the law may not become an occasion for license. Thereupon the life of freedom in the Spirit is discussed in detail, and is set in contrast to the works of the flesh. The letter ends with a final warning against the false teaching, and with a personal appeal to the Galatians by the apostle that they remain true to the gospel of Christ.

From the resumé given above of the main contents of the letter its character also becomes evident. In character the letter to the Galatians most resembles that to the Romans. All the same, commentators have not without reason pointed out a difference in shading between Paul’s treatment of the law in the letter to the Romans and his treatment of it in the letter to the Galatians.

In the Galatian letter the whole emphasis falls on the negative significance of the law. Witness 3:10: all who look for hope to the works of the law are under the curse; 3:12: living out of the law is not ancillary to living out of faith, but antithetical to it; 3:19: the function of the law consists in this, that it brings transgression to light and, so to speak, arouses the sense of it; moreover, the law was not given to Israel by God Himself in His own person, as the promise was given to Abraham by the Lord Himself, but it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator—a significant token of the comparative worth of the two; 3:21: the law cannot “make alive”; 3:23 ff.: it must therefore be carefully distinguished as preliminary and provisional in character, its service being to hold men securely in ward against the coming of Christ, and, like a severe and exacting schoolmaster, to drive them to Christ; 3:25 ff.: since Christ has come, however, the law has lost this function and believers are in that sense now free from its tutelage. To those who would look to the law for the possibility of salvation, the law can only mean captivity, slavery, and the want of freedom. From such bondage Christ has purchased the liberation of His own in order to establish them in the rank of sons of God—a truth which becomes evident also from the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in 4:21–31.

In the letter to the Romans also this negative significance of the law comes in for some attention, as when we read that the law works wrath (Rom. 4:15), and that it serves to make trespass abound (Rom. 5:20); but in this letter in general it is the loftiness and holiness of the law of God that is placed in the foreground—a loftiness and holiness which failed of their purpose only by reason of the sin of men (cf. Rom. 7 passim). Some have construed this difference between Galatians and Romans as expressive of a change of mind, and these maintain that in the interim between the two letters Paul must have arrived at an entirely different idea of the law. There is no occasion, however, for such a judgment. In the first place, Galatians makes it very plain, too, that the law is of divine origin (3:19), that it also is an evidence of God’s grace (3:21), and that, despite all its severity, it was intended, nevertheless, to make room for Christ (3:23 ff.). Such considerations serve to enhance the high importance and the holy character of the law. In the second place, it must be remembered that in the letter to the Galatians, as distinguished from the one to the Romans, the whole argument is governed by Paul’s difference from the Judaizers, who wanted to bind the believers to the ceremonies of Moses also after the advent of Christ. It is altogether natural, therefore, that in such an orientation of meaning, the provisional and negative significance of the law should occupy the foreground. In the letter to the Romans, meanwhile, the argument is more balanced, is slanted less towards the dangers of keeping the law, and is oriented more towards its positive and permanent significance.

We can therefore say that what is indicated in the letter to the Galatians is the inadequacy of the law for salvation, and that what gets the emphasis in the letter to the Romans is this: that there is salvation despite the transgression of God’s holy law.

The Churches That Are Being Addressed

With regard to the problem of who is being addressed in this letter, that is, where the churches of Galatia mentioned in 1:2 are to be found, two theories have been advanced. These are the so-called North Galatian and South Galatian theories.

According to the first or North Galatian theory, the term Galatia must be taken to refer to the geographical territory of that name which lay in the heart of Asia Minor, and was bounded on the north by Pontus and Bithynia, on the southwest by Phrygia, and on the east by Cappadocia. It had gotten its name from the Celtic tribes of Tectosages, Tolistobogii, and Trocmi, which had infiltrated from Macedonia and Thessaly in the third century before Christ, and it comprised as its principal cities those of Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium. The inhabitants of this territory were, in distinction from the West-European Celts, called the Gallograecians. They constituted a very heterogeneous element of the Asiatic peoples and for a long time preserved their own customs and peculiarities. Even after centuries had passed, a deep gulf separated them from surrounding peoples.

Since ancient times it has been accepted that it was to the believers among these Galatian people that he wrote his letter. About the middle of the eighteenth century, however, the so-called South Galatian hypothesis was developed, according to which Galatia must be taken to refer to the Roman province of that name, which comprised in addition to the territory named above also the territories of Pisidia, Lycaonia, and parts of the regions of Phrygia and Cappadocia. In other words, according to this theory, the Galatia of the letter included also the cities of Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium—places which Paul visited on his first and second missionary journeys. We have a far more vivid impression of the churches at these places, an impression gathered, of course, from the Acts of the Apostles, than we have of those in the North Galatian area.

The strongest arguments for the so-called South Galatian hypothesis are the following:

(1) Paul, in distinction from Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, always, or almost always, uses the names of the Roman provinces rather than those of the original geographical territories for the places he has visited. It is true that this argument is sometimes attacked by reference to such passages as Galatians 1:22 and others, where Judaea is mentioned, although it is not certain whether this Judaea in the Roman sense represents the whole of Palestine or some more restricted area. In the first place, this stricture therefore at best points to an uncertainty; and, in the second place, even if Judaea here refers to a more restricted territory, such an exception would not prove much against the general rule. It would be quite possible that such a native Jew as Paul would in such an instance retain the long-established and traditionally employed name of the territory, whereas for the rest he consistently used the Roman provincial names. Similarly, the other so-called “exceptions,” e.g., the reference to Arabia in Gal. 4:25, to Achaia in 2 Cor. 1:1 and 1 Cor. 16:15, and to Cilicia in Gal. 1:21, are highly doubtful. The facts are that, wherever we can judge with absolute certainty, Paul regularly uses the Roman provincial names. This practice, then, may be said to constitute the rule.

It has been countered by others again, e.g., by Schürer, that a general linguistic practice obtained, according to which the term Galatia included also the territories of Pisidia and Lycaonia. But later researches, among others those of Ramsay, have demonstrated the inaccuracy of this contention. Consider, e.g., the documented article of J. Weiss in , 10, 1901, page 556. There it is demonstrated that not only such writers as Ptolemy, Tacitus, and Pliny referred to the whole complex of territories belonging to the province by means of the comprehensive term Galatia, but also that the inscriptions, from which the linguistic practice of the time comes into clearer view, employ the name Galatia to refer to the Roman province. The inscription found at Iconium, for instance, is but one example of it. In this connection it is relevant also to refer to 1 Peter 1, where Galatia all but certainly refers not merely to the territory but to the whole province of that name. True, there are also some pieces of evidence, in the form of inscriptions, which point in the other direction. In any event, however, so much is certain that, alongside of the official legal practice, the contemporary popular usage also employed the term Galatia for designating the whole provincial unit. On this count, then, no serious objection can be raised to the South Galatian view.

(2) A second argument in favor of the South Galatian theory is that the familiarity with and the grasp of Jewish religion which is assumed in the letter (cf. Introduction, III) seems to suit the South Galatian churches better. These churches, as is abundantly evident from Acts 13:14, 43 ff. and 14:1–7, 19, were in more continuous contact with Jews than were the North Galatian Celts, who for the most part lived their own life and probably were less familiar, therefore, with the Jewish law and the Jewish allegories (4:21–31). To this it has been objected that the churches of Iconium and Antioch, what with their better knowledge of Jewish thought, would not, so it would seem, permit themselves to be suddenly talked out of position by itinerant Jews from Jerusalem (Gal. 1:6). It might be supposed, the argument is, that the Jewish heretical teachers could look for more success in churches made up almost entirely of Gentiles. However, it appears from Acts 13:50 and 14:2, 4, and 19 that the Jewish influence bent on drawing the Gentiles away from Paul was very great at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. A Judaizing trend, therefore, which, so to speak, offered a compromise between Judaism and Christianity, definitely found many a point of contact in these areas. Important in this connection, too, is the fact that in Acts 16:1–5 the cities of Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium are named as precisely the places to which Paul transmitted the regulations of the apostolic conference. This does not have to imply, of course, that he said nothing about those regulations at other places, but it does go to show that in these cities especially the problem of Judaism called for attention—a circumstance which argues for susceptibility rather than immunity to Judaistic heresies.

It should be pointed out, too, that on the basis of the North Galatian theory, one could hardly appeal to unfamiliarity with the Jewish religion on the part of the inhabitants of the territory of Galatia, and thence to infer that Jews would naturally have found these people an easy prey to their designs. For the fact is precisely that the letter assumes a more intimate familiarity on the part of its readers with Jewish thought than, as we see it, could reasonably be expected in churches made up almost exclusively of native Gentiles.

(3) Another important basis for the great appeal of the South Galatian hypothesis is the fact that in Acts 13, 14, and 16 we get a full account of the establishment and career of the churches in the south, whereas we have only scant and problematical data (in Acts 16:6 and 18:23) concerning Paul’s labors in the North Galatian area. In reply it is said that this argumentum e silentio can have little significance in this case, inasmuch as the Acts by no means offer a comprehensive report on Paul’s missionary activities. For example, when Paul was working at Ephesus (Acts 19) a good deal took place, according to 2 Corinthians, between him and the church at Corinth of which we read nothing in the Acts. Besides, the Acts do not mention the founding of the church at Rome. Hence, too, and quite justly, it is regarded as very difficult to judge of the greater or lesser importance of the churches of that time. In view, however, of the generally accepted early date of the letter, the churches of North Galatia would, if at all, have been founded on Paul’s so-called second and third missionary journeys. And since the Acts generally give us a clear, if sometimes a short, account of the founding of churches on Paul’s journeys, it would have been regarded as remarkable that not a word is said there about the formation of churches in the North Galatian region. All we get from Acts 16:6 is that on his second missionary journey Paul and his co-workers went through the territory of Phrygia and Galatia; and from Acts 18:23 we learn again that, proceeding from Antioch, he went through Galatia and Phrygia in order, and this time with the addendum: “establishing the disciples.” If both of these references are to one and the same Galatian region, and more specifically to the North Galatian territory, we should have to conclude from Acts 18:23 that Paul, on his travels through that area during his second missionary journey (Acts 16:6), made some converts there (of the formation of churches nothing is said). That is all the Acts have to say about the winning of disciples (and about the formation of churches) in this territory. It should be clear, then, in view of such facts, that in identifying the churches of Gal. 1:2, we can get a better grip on what is known about the South Galatian churches than we can, from these scant reports, about North Galatia.

Others, following in the steps of W. Ramsay, go so far as to discredit every indication of Paul’s having been in North Galatia (that is, in the territory). Such commentators judge that “the region of Galatia” of Acts 18:23 must be taken to refer, not to the North Galatian territory, but to the South Galatian province. They appeal to two considerations: first, to the tremendous detour which Paul would have had to make if, on his way to Ephesus, he had gone through North Galatia; and, second, to the expression “establishing all the brethren” when it has not become evident in what precedes that there were any disciples in North Galatia. That expression, these interpreters feel, would seem much more naturally applicable to the churches at Derbe, Lystra, and the rest, in the southern part of the province of Galatia. Such a view of the matter is the more attractive because we do not get the impression from Acts 16:6 that Paul travelled and worked in the territory of Galatia to such an extent that a later trip, like that reported in Acts 18:23, would be necessary.

A closer look at Acts 16:1–8 seems in order. Verses 1 to 5 are devoted to the journey which Paul and his fellows had made through the cities of Lystra, Derbe, and the rest. Then comes verse 6 with its report: “And they went through the regions of Phrygia and Galatia.” Some have sought to construe this passage as a recapitulation of the journey through South Galatia. There would then be no reference at all to a trip through North Galatia. The context argues against this, however, for verse 6 plainly speaks of a continuation of the journey—a journey, moreover, which, as is suggested also by the reference to Phrygia, is moving in a northwestern and northern direction. That leaves us, however, with the very difficult question of what is meant by the phrase, “the region of … Galatia.” If we construe it to mean the North Galatian territory and its cities, we shall have to accept the idea that Paul here swerved off to the east in a detour of a few hundred miles, preached the gospel there, and then came back to his point of origin in order to continue in the direction originally taken, namely, towards Bithynia. To read all this into the natural chronicle of the travelogue seems to us a bit far-fetched. If, then, we are compelled to interpret “the region of Galatia” as a reference to the North Galatian territory, and to this the context certainly seems to point, we need, presumably, be saying nothing more than that Paul and his party proceeded from Antioch in Pisidia through the country of Phrygia and Galatia while enroute to Bithynia in the north. This would not, however, be routing them through the much more easterly situated Galatian cities of Pessinus, Tavium, and Ancyra.

That Acts 18:23 must be taken to refer to this same territory seems to us subject to serious doubt. It is very difficult to accept the idea that in 18:23 Luke has Paul making that off-route circuit through Celtic Galatia in order (in the country between Phrygia and Galatia) to establish the brethren whom Luke has not previously mentioned. As we see it, there is nothing against accepting the thought that Luke, too, is speaking of Galatia in the broader sense so that in 16:6 it refers to the more northerly territory, and in 18:23 to the more southern parts.

In any event, it ought to be evident from all this that any founding and existence of churches in North Galatia can be inferred from the Acts with only very meager certainty.

(4) The further arguments that are advanced in defense of the so-called South Galatian hypothesis are, as we see it, of less importance. The fact, for instance, that Barnabas is mentioned three times in this letter is said to be subject to a natural explanation only if it is assumed that Barnabas was one of the co-founders of the South Galatian churches. Barnabas, however, was a well-known figure also outside the pale of churches which he himself had helped to establish (cf. 1 Cor. 9:6; Col. 4:10), although it must be acknowledged that he is nowhere in the focus of attention so much as in our letter (2:1, 9, 13).

Again, commentators have pointed out 1 Cor. 16:1, where Paul writes of the collection for the saints, adding that he gave the same order to the churches of Galatia. That the South Galatian churches are involved in that passage is thought to be confirmed by Acts 20:4, where the names of those are mentioned who were delegated, along with Paul, to carry the contributions. Among them are the names of Gaius from Derbe and of Timothy from Lystra. This argument, too, when taken in connection with other data that we have, is not without significance. All the same, it remains impossible, on the basis of so few facts, to reconstruct what is probably a much more complicated historical situation.

If one were to ask, now, what may be pleaded against the South Galatian hypothesis and what in favor of the North Galatian one, our reply would be that such is of even less importance.

(a) It is maintained that Gal. 4:13 is hard to harmonize with the account of Acts 13 and 14. Against this contention, two considerations are in order. First, that of all Paul’s experiences such as he sums up in 2 Cor. 11:24 ff., only a few are reported by Luke in the Acts. Hence any silence on Luke’s part about an illness which Paul had en route to South Galatia can hardly be taken as evidence that Gal. 4:13 is in conflict with the South Galatian theory. Second, it is not necessary to hold that the “infirmity of the flesh” spoken of in Gal. 4:13 was necessarily an illness. As we see it, that infirmity may have been the physical suffering and exhaustion which accrued to Paul en route in the form of molestation at Antioch (Acts 13:50), and of stoning at Lystra (14:19). That last stoning was so severe that it was thought Paul had died as a consequence. Moreover, Acts 14:20 speaks of the loving care which the believers tendered Paul; and the same situation seems to have obtained at Derbe to which he escaped. Hence, all the conjectures about the significance of Paul’s “illness” are probably superfluous, and Gal. 4:13 can best be explained in correspondence with the known facts of Acts 13 and 14. If this be true, the “infirmity of the flesh” is not an argument against but much more probably an argument for the South Galatian hypothesis.

(b) In the churches to which this letter is addressed, so it is argued, there were practically no Jews at all (5:2; 6:12). On the other hand, however, there were Jews in the churches at Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe; at Iconium there were quite a few (Acts 14:1), and perhaps also at Antioch (Acts 13:43). Concerning that, this must be said first of all: that it is hard to tell whether the number of Jews who at first believed, even though at some places that was a considerable number, could maintain themselves after what the enemies did to counteract Paul’s work in those very places (cf. Acts 13:45, 46; 14:2, 4). And next, this can be said: even though in this letter the readers are, in the main, thought of as Gentile-Christians, this need nowhere be taken so absolutely as to exclude the presence of a number of Jewish-Christians (cf. Introduction, II).

We conclude: a positive decision is not possible in this matter. The choice is not a simple one, especially because the authorities on the historical and archaeological particulars sometimes express differing opinions. As we see it, the evidence, on the basis of which the case must be made out, points to South rather than to North Galatia. Our letter is to be regarded, then, as a pastoral missive sent by Paul to the churches whose establishment is described for us in Acts 13 and 14—churches which Paul visited again after their founding (Acts 16). These churches were among the first that he formed. It is no wonder that in a special sense they retained his love and care, as these are revealed in the letter. That they were especially vulnerable to the Jewish danger, and therefore were easily affected by Judaizing influences, is evident from the account of their establishment, and has already been explained above. Further, everything points to a very cordial relationship between the apostle and the churches (cf. 4:12 ff).

The Date

In accepting the South Galatian hypothesis we arrive at an earlier date. On that basis the terminus a quo lies in Paul’s second visit to these churches (cf. Acts 16:1–4; Gal. 4:13): that is, if we fix the year of the apostolic council in 48 or 49. Apparently the letter was written not long afterward (cf. 1:6), probably in Corinth, where the apostle stayed for a while during his second missionary journey. That would then be in 50 or 51. The letter would then be among the first, if not actually the first, of the letters of Paul preserved for us. This is the judgment also of Th. Zahn, in his Einleitung in das N.T., I (3rd. edit.), 1924, page 138 ff., who goes on to point to the fact that Paul transmits no greetings from Timothy and Silas, who were both in a special sense known to the South Galatian churches. He deduces from this fact that the letter had been sent off before these co-workers had arrived in Corinth (cf. Acts 18:5).

There is also a point of view which places this letter before the apostolic council held at Jerusalem in 48. One of the strongest grounds for this view is that, as its adherents suppose, Paul’s journey to Jerusalem mentioned in Gal. 2:1 is a different journey from the one to the apostolic conference mentioned in Acts 15. In short, the supporters of this view think that the facts of Galatians 2 and those of Acts 15 concerning this journey do not square with each other. Even Calvin had judged that Paul’s journey of Gal. 2 was the so-called collection-journey (cf. Acts 11:30). Much later this view of the matter was taken over by others, e.g., by V. Weber. The Tübingen school (F. Chr. Baur), especially, gave this view further impetus. It held, on the basis of an alleged disparity between Acts 15 and Gal. 2, to a thoroughgoing opposition between a Judaizing-Petrine and an anti-Jewish-universalistic-Pauline Christianity—an opposition which came to light clearly enough in Gal. 2, but was unhistorically blurred in the Acts. Then others, who did not want to follow this Tübingen criticism, found a way of escape from it by maintaining that the historical event alluded to in Gal. 2 was a different event from the meeting of the apostles reported in Acts 15. One of the strongest proponents of this view was V. Weber, who devoted no fewer than three published studies to it. Not long ago J. de Zwaan was still following in his wake. Weber is convinced that the journey of Paul reported in Gal. 2 precedes the apostolic conference, and that therefore the date of the letter must also be fixed at a time before that conference. He appeals to the supposed incongruency between Gal. 2 and Acts 15 reported above, and does so for the following reasons, among others:

(a) If the apostolic conference is assumed to precede the writing of the letter to the Galatians, one must ask himself how it can be that a teaching so solemnly and definitively repudiated at Jerusalem can almost immediately be preached again in Galatia. Answer: Heresy has never been abruptly and suddenly subjugated by the pronouncements of the church. In his later letters, too, e.g., in the one to the Philippians, Paul has to take up the cudgels against Judaism.

(b) Why does not Paul appeal simply to the pronouncements of the apostolic conference instead of entering newly upon profound argumentation about the freedom of the Gentiles from the ceremonial law? Answer: He had already communicated these pronouncements to the churches on his second journey (Acts 16:4). Hence, too, his marvelling at the fact that they have so quickly allowed themselves to be brought around to the heresy (Gal. 1:6). That in this letter he does not simply appeal to the utterances of the apostolic conference, but instead resorts to the resource of a new principial apology, that—in view of what he had communicated to them during the visit of Acts 16:4—is to be explained by the nature of the situation. Besides Gal. 2 illuminates the decisions reached at Jerusalem, and can thus serve as a confirmation of what he has already communicated by word of mouth (see the Exposition).

(c) Why does not Paul appeal to the utterances of James and Peter at the apostolic conference (Acts 15), so as to make impossible all efforts of the heretical teachers to set up a contrast between him and them? Answer: In the presence of the Galatians Paul was not concerned solely to maintain his essential unanimity with Peter and James: he was concerned also to maintain his independence over against those apostles. Hence he is at pains to show that at Jerusalem he did not for a moment betray the position which he had independently taken right from the start, and that he had received the approval of Peter and James for his stand.

(d) How—if this letter follows the apostolic conference—is the attitude of Peter to be explained, as it is described in Gal. 2:11 ff.? Answer: Peter’s weakness was not that he demanded the observation of the Jewish ceremonies on the part of the Gentiles, but rather that, later, when some had come from James to Antioch, Peter, being a Jew, separated himself from the Gentiles with whom he had at first mingled fraternally, in order himself, personally, to observe the Jewish ceremonies again. This had not been forbidden by the apostolic conference at Jerusalem. It is true that in so doing he was again making a distinction between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians; and thus he was also indirectly forcing the Gentiles, in the event they wanted to sit at table with their Jewish brethren, to conduct themselves as Jews (Gal. 2:14). For that he was reprimanded by Paul. But that was something quite different from what had been dealt with at the apostolic conference (see also the Exposition, under Gal. 2:1).

The main objection to the hypothesis championed by Weber, and others, is however this: the supposition that Acts 15 and Gal. 2 refer to two different journeys runs into serious difficulties. And when one tries to identify the journey of Gal. 2 with that of Acts 11:30, one is confronted with a series of historical difficulties. Weber felt this to be true himself. In a later study he is of the opinion that the journey of Gal. 2 should be identified with a still earlier one, not even named in the Acts. That, of course, takes us even further into the area of hypothesis. For the time being, therefore, we hold to the interpretation which has been powerfully defended against the Tübingen criticism by S. Greijdanus, among others, namely, that there is no insurmountable obstacle to an identification of the journeys of Gal. 2 and Acts 15. There is no need of Weber’s hypothesis, even though various elements of uncertainty remain. (See also the Exposition).

Authenticity

After the Tübingen school, as a result of the so-called disparity between the Acts and the Letter to the Galatians, chose for the authenticity of the second, and rejected the Book of the Acts as of little historical value, the so-called radical Dutch school came forward with its contrasting view of the solution required by the alleged unreconcilability of the two books. According to this school, the Book of the Acts was to be regarded as the older and more reliable, and the Epistle to the Galatians was to be thought of, not as coming from Paul, but from the second century, just as the other letters of Paul, four of which (Romans, Galatians, and 1 and 2 Corinthians) the Tübingen school had, after all, still regarded as authentic. And further arguments were employed in support of a second century origin for the letter; for example: its lofty Christology, which, it was assumed, could only have arisen at a later time; the logical position which Paul here takes over against the law of Moses, something allegedly quite unthinkable in that early period; the dependence of the letter upon later New Testament, extra-canonical, and even pagan writings.

This radical criticism which first doubted the authenticity of the letter to the Galatians (Evanson, 1792), then denied its genuineness altogether (Bruno Bauer, 1850), was continued especially in The Netherlands, namely, by Loman, Pierson, Naber. van Manen, and, following in their steps, by the Swiss Steck. Others, for whom such radical criticism went too far, claimed that the letter was a combination of an original Pauline text with insertions and interpolations of a much later date. Among such, acting in imitation of Weiss, were Baljon, Cramer, Völter, and others.

Gradually, however, this whole body of criticism has more and more been brought to silence. It is possible now to say that there is not a single letter that is so generally regarded as authentic as is Paul’s letter to the Galatians. This hypercriticism has come to be recognized in its arbitrariness and in the unsoundness of its point of departure, and its arguments have proved worthless. It arises out of a view of Christianity and its development which has proved quite unsound. Such is true, for example, of the contrast between a Pauline and a Petrine Christianity, of the later development of a so-called transcendental Christology, and the like. The arbitrariness of the endless interpolation theories, too, has gradually come to be recognized, and students have developed an eye again for the thoroughly personal and vital quality of the letter. It bears, so to speak, the mark of its genuineness on its forehead.

See also for this entire problem of freedom and the law, my “Vrijheid en Wet volgens Paulus’ Brief aan de Galaten,” an essay contributed to Arcana Revelata, the volume published in honor of F. W. Grosheide (1951) pp. 89–104.

Cf. Th. Zahn, Einleitung in das N. T., I, 3rd edit. (1924) pp. 124 and 131ff.

Real-encyclopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Hauck-Herzog)

In his Die Abfassung des Galaterbriefs vor dem Apostelkonzil (1900) p. 347.

Cf. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Galaten, 3rd edit. (1922) pp. 109–112, where these difficulties are indicated.

Cf. S. Greijdanus, Is Handelingen ix (met 22 en 26) in tegenspraak met Galaten 1, 2? (1935).

↑ Back to top