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

The Tübingen 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 Jülicher'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.

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

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 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)

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.

(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.

(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)

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).

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

(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: Schürer 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. Jülicher 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

(3) The Grammar of Act 16:6

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), Weizsäcker (Das apost. Zeitalter3, 1902, English Translation); after Ramsay (see under GALATIA), by Belser (Beiträge z. Erklärung 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'Apôtre Paul2, English translation, 1891); by Gheorghiu (Adressatii epistle c. Galateni, Cernauti, 1904, praised by Steinmann); and by the German critics Blass (Acta Apost.), von Dobschütz (Die urchr. Gemeinden, 1902, and Probleme d. apost. Zeitalters), Harnack (Apostelgeschichte, 1908, 87-90), H. Holtzmann (Handcomm. z. New Testament, “AG”), Jülicher (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), Schürer (Jahrbuch f. prot. Theologie, XVIII, 460- 74), Sieffert (Meyer's Kommentar), Steinmann (as above), Zöckler (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.”