Yuku free message boards

About the year 278 b.c. a large body of Gauls or Kelts, who had previously invaded and ravaged Greece, Macedonia, and Thrace, crossed over into Asia Minor. Their coming was not-at least not altogether-an unwarranted intrusion, for they arrived as a result of an invitation that had been extended to them by Nicomedes, king of Bithynia. So, here they were, with their wives and children, occupying the very heart-land of Asia Minor, a broad belt extending northward from the center (see accompanying sketch).

They belonged to three tribes: the Trochmi, Tectosages, and Tolisbogii, with whom are associated the cities, respectively, of Tavium, Ancyra, and Pessinus. All three of these tribes were Galli, that is, Gauls ("warriors"), also called Galatae, that is, Galatians ("nobles"). They rapidly gained the mastery over the native population of "Phrygians," of mixed ancestry, devotees of the ancient and impressive religion of Cybele. For a long time, due to constant raids into adjacent districts, the boundaries of the Gallic domain remained fluid, but the newcomers were finally forced by the Romans to live in peace with their neighbors and to remain within the limits of their own territory. In course of time, as happens often in such cases, the Gauls amalgamated with the earlier population, adopted their religion, but in most other respects remained the dominant strain.

Since the Gallic rulers were gifted with shrewdness they generally allied themselves with whoever happened to be "on top" in Rome. The latter reciprocated by allowing the former to be treated more as an ally than as a conquered nation. They were considered a "kingdom." During the reign of their last king, Amyntas IV, their realm was even extended southward. Upon the death of Amyntas (25 b.c.) the Romans fell heir to this already somewhat enlarged kingdom and converted it into the Roman "province of Galatia," which soon comprised, in addition to the central and northern territory, to the south: parts of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Isauria (see the sketch).

It is understandable that the terms Galatia and Galatians could now be used in a twofold sense, as indicating either a. Galatia proper with its Gallic population, or b. the larger Roman province, inhabited not only by the Gauls as the dominant race in the central and north, but also by others farther south. When the term Galatians was used in the former sense, it naturally could not refer to those to whom the gospel had been proclaimed in the course of Paul's first missionary journey. The churches of Antioch (Pisidia), Iconium (Phrygia), Lystra and Derbe (cities of Lycaonia),1 would then be excluded. On the other hand, when it was used in the latter sense it could very well refer to these early converts to the Christian faith about whom we read in Acts 13 and 14.

All of this leads to the question: "To whom was Galatians addressed: to the churches of Pessinus, Ancyra, Tavium and surroundings, or to those in Antioch (Pisidian), Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and vincinity? Did the apostle use the term Galatians (3:1; cf. 1:2) in the racial (ethnic) or in the political sense? Was he thinking of people in the north or of those in the south?"2 For well-nigh two centuries there has been a sharp division of opinion with respect to this subject. Both camps of advocates have their great scholars as well as their lesser lights. For a representative defense of the North Galatian theory see J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, reprint,

Who were the Galatians?

Excellent summaries of arguments and counter-arguments, logically arranged, can be found in several commentaries. In order to avoid duplication and, if possible, increase the interest in this subject, which is not wholly devoid of significance for the proper interpretation of certain Galatian passages, I shall follow a new approach, and present the matter in the form of a brief imaginary debate between a defender of the North Galatian theory and an advocate of the opposite view.

Resolved: That Galatians is addressed to the churches in North Galatia.

A. Affirmative

Mr. chairman, honorable judges, worthy opponent, and all other friends of biblical investigation:

In the days of the apostle Paul there existed in central and northern Asia Minor a people known as Gauls or Galatians. They were Gauls or Galatians by blood and descent. Even long before they had crossed over from Europe into Asia Minor they were known thus. The new kingdom which they established in Asia Minor was consequently a Gallic or Galatian kingdom. It is true that when this kingdom was converted into a Roman province, named Galatia, a few small districts were added, inhabited by people of a different nationality, who, in a remote or definitely secondary sense, were able, from that moment on, to call themselves Galatians. However, it cannot be denied that the primary meaning of this word Galatians is not "inhabitants of the province of Galatia," but Gauls, nothing else. When, therefore, a letter is addressed "To the Galatians," convincing proof to the contrary would be needed before it would be possible to interpret this address in any other way than in harmony with the long established connotation of the word.

Such convincing proof, however, is completely absent. Ask the ancient interpreters, the men who lived much nearer to the time when this letter was written, how they interpreted the term Galatians as used in Gal. 3:1, cf. 1:2. With one voice they will tell you that it refers to the Gauls of Galatia proper, and not to just anyone who, due to some political maneuvering, happened to be living within the Roman province of Galatia. Now this testimony of the ancients should be given its proper due. In all other disputes-for example, touching such matters as the origin of Infant Baptism or of the religious observance of the first day of the week-we are always asking, "What does early tradition say about this?" Why should we ignore such unanimous tradition in this particular instance?

Besides, careful study of the contents of the epistle strengthens the proposition which I am defending. We note that those addressed are pictured as fickle. When the apostle arrived in their midst and preached to them the glorious gospel, they accepted it at once. Yes, they even welcomed him as they would have welcomed an angel or Jesus Christ himself, and had it been necessary, they would even have plucked out their very eyes and given them to Paul (Gal. 4:14, 15). Soon afterward, however, due to the arrival in their midst of some false teachers who slandered the apostle and belittled his preaching, they turn right around, so that they are now at the point of rejecting both Paul and his message (Gal 3:1-4). Now has not instability of character always been the outstanding trait of Gauls, yes, and even of their descendants to this present day? Do we not read in Caesar's Gallic War IV.5: "Caesar was informed of these events; and fearing the fickleness of the Gauls … decided that no confidence could be reposed in them"? These Galatians whom Paul addressed in his epistle were typical Gauls, therefore.

Moreover, when with Luke's account of the first missionary journey, during which the gospel was proclaimed to the people of Antioch (Pisidian), Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, we compare the apostle's own account of his reception by the Galatians and his work among them (Gal. 4:13, 14), do we not see immediately that these two are completely different? This difference is not because one is true and the other false. Rather, it is because the two accounts deal with two entirely different subjects, two different missions. Thus, the apostle tells the Gauls or Galatians: "It was because of an infirmity of the flesh that I preached to you the gospel on that former occasion" (Gal. 4:13). Now compare this remark with Luke's review of Paul's work in Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe (Acts 13 and 14). In that account is there even the least hint that it was because of infirmity that the apostle either began his work in these more southern cities or continued it for a longer period than he had at first intended? Of course not, for these are different people. They cannot be identified with Paul's Galatians.

Besides, when does Luke first mention the word Galatia? Not until he has reached the point in his story where Paul, on his second missionary journey, has left behind the more southern cities of Derbe, Lystra, etc., and is turning northward (Acts 16:6; cf. 18:23; 19:1). It is very clear, then, that when Paul's close friend and frequent companion, Luke, whom the apostle calls "the beloved physician," now finally speaks about Galatia, he cannot have been thinking of the cities of the south that had but recently been added4 to the province of Galatia. His eyes are now turned toward the north. And if that was true with respect to Luke, why should it not hold for Paul? Why should we assume that the latter uses the terms Galatia and Galatians in any sense different than the ethnic?

There is one additional reason that makes it well-nigh impossible to identify the people of the more southern part of the Roman province of Galatia with the Galatians whom Paul addresses in his letter. It is clear from the entire contents of this epistle that those addressed were-either exclusively or at least almost exclusively-converts from the Gentile world (Gal. 4:8-11; 6:12). They were people who had never been circumcised (Gal. 5:2; 6:12), but were now in danger of accepting the rite of circumcision. They could not have been Jews, therefore, for the Jews were circumcised, and were even called "the circumcision." On the other hand, the churches established in the southern part of the Roman province of Galatia consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, perhaps in equal proportion. The Jews may even have predominated. In fact, in Antioch of Pisidia there were "many Jews" who turned to Christ (Acts 13:43). In Antioch and in Iconium there were found synagogues of Jews. Into these synagogues the apostle entered and preached. At Iconium "a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed" (Acts 14:1). This decided difference between the constituency of the southern churches, described in the book of Acts, and the Gentile converts whom Paul addresses in his letter to the Galatians, proves that this letter cannot have been written to South and must have been intended for North Galatia.

B. Negative

Mr. president, noble referees, friendly adversary, and all those interested in scriptural research:

First of all I wish to remind you of the proposition which my worthy opponent was supposed to defend. It was this: "Resolved: That Galatians is addressed to the churches in North Galatia." Permit me to underscore the word churches. At what point in his argument did he ever give us a clear conception of these churches? All he told us was that at some point in the second missionary journey and also later Paul turned "to the north." He evidently wanted us to draw the conclusion that since Paul's letter was addressed to the Gauls, and since the more southern churches did not consist of Gauls, the apostle must have labored for a considerable time among the Gauls of the north, long enough to establish churches there. Am I being unfair when I state that his conclusion is drawn from a false premise? Fact is that when Paul says Galatians he does not necessarily mean Gauls. Rather, in distinction from Luke, he, Paul, in making mention of the churches under his care, and grouping them, uses the names of Roman provinces rather than those of races or nationalities. Thus, for example, in I Cor. 16:5 the apostle speaks of Macedonia; the fifteenth verse of the same chapter he refers to Achaia, and in the nineteenth verse to Asia. Now all of these were Roman provinces. Therefore, when in the opening of the chapter (I Cor. 16:1) he mentions "the churches of Galatia," is it not logical to assume that here, too, as well as in the other three cases, he refers to it as a Roman province? And if in I Cor. 16:1 the meaning must be "the churches of the Roman province of Galatia," why should the identical phrase in Gal. 1:2 have a diffierent meaning?5 We see, therefore, that it is far better to say that the epistle of Paul which figures in this debate was addressed to "churches in the Roman province of Galatia" than to argue that this letter must have been intended for churches in North Galatia.

My opponent made much of the fact that it was in the old ethnic sense that the Church Fathers interpreted the terms Galatia and Galatians. He omitted to mention the reason for this patristic error. That reason was that in the days of these fathers the province of Galatia had again been restricted to virtually its old dimensions, so that for them "the territory inhabited by the Gauls" and "the province of Galatia" coincided. Hence, without further investigation they concluded that Paul, in addressing the churches of Galatia, was speaking to the people who had come from across the sea, the Gauls. But, as has been shown, this opinion of the fathers is not in harmony with Paul's use of political terms.

It somewhat amazes me that my beloved adversary, in the defense of his proposition, even resorts to the now seldom heard argument based on the instability of the Gauls. But is it ever fair and honest for us, who do not possess the gift of infallible inspiration, to characterize an entire nation as being fickle? Is instability a national characteristic? Is it not rather a weakness that pertains to unregenerate human nature in general? Let it be granted that the Galatians whom the apostle ad in his letter were fickle in that they so quickly abandoned their initial enthusiasm with respect to Paul and the message he had brought. Of whom does this instability remind us? Does it not immediately recall the scene at Lystra, a city of Lycaonia in the southern part of the province of Galatia, whose inhabitants, after having first welcomed Paul and Barnabas, shouting, "The gods have come down to us," shortly afterward stoned the apostle almost to death? Truly, to be fickle one does not have to be a Gaul! Besides, strictly speaking, is it even correct to imply that at this late date, the first century a.d., the northern tribes were exclusively Gauls? Granted that the Gallic strain was dominant, is it not true that many tributaries had poured their water into the stream of their composite nationality?

My opponent also appeals to the fact that the book of Acts does not speak of physical infirmity (cf. Gal. 4:13) as a reason why Paul either began or prolonged his mission in South Galatia. But, first of all, this difference between the two accounts can be removed by a different interpretation of Gal. 4:13, according to which it would not read "because of" but "amid" physical infirmity, which would fully harmonize with Acts 13:50; 14:5, 6, 19; cf. II Tim. 3:11. And secondly, even if we retain "because of," and assume a real difference between Gal. 4:13 and the account in Acts, let it be remembered that of those many afflictions which the apostle himself enumerates in II Cor. 11:23-33 Luke mentions only a few. Is it safe, then, to conclude that Paul never endured those which Luke does not record?

As to the Jew versus Gentile difference between Acts and Galatians, diligent study of Acts 13 and 14 leaves the impression that wherever there was a synagogue Paul entered it and proclaimed the gospel, reaching both Jews and Gentiles, proselytes (Acts 13:43; 14:1). Though Jews as well as Gentiles accepted the gospel, the former, on the whole, rejected it, causing the apostle to remark, "Since you thrust it from you, we turn to the Gentiles." Moreover, in some of the places visited, Jews were so few in numbers that there was not even a synagogue. This tallies with the situation as pictured in Paul's epistle. And as concerns the latter, the apostle assumes that those addressed have sufficient knowledge of the Old Testament to follow his reasoning, even including that of Gal. 4:21-31. Does not this fact rather point in the direction of the presence of at least some Jews among the addressed and of considerable Jewish influence even in these predominantly Gentile congregations?

I conclude by saying that my opponent has failed to show that Galatians is addressed to the churches of North Galatia. Of the founding and existence in Paul's day of such churches the book of Acts does not with certainty say anything at all, neither in 16:6 nor in 18:23; 19:1. And, on the other hand, of the establishment of churches in South Galatia it has given us a detailed account.

C. Rebuttal for the Affirmative

As to my opponent's contention that, in referring to groups of churches, Paul classifies them according to the Roman provinces in which they were located, and that, consequently, the term "the churches of Galatia" must refer to churches in the province of Galatia, that rule has its exceptions. Thus, it cannot be proved that the apostle is using political terminology when he speaks of Cilicia (Gal. 1:21), of Judea (Gal 1:22), and of Arabia (Gal. 4:25).

As for the rest, I must express my profound admiration for my opponent's cleverness. He can turn an argument from silence in either direction, to suit his purpose. It makes me think of what a child will at times say to his playmate to determine who will receive the biggest slice of the apple: "Let's flip a coin. Heads I win; tails you lose." When I called attention to the silence of the book of Acts with respect to any infirmity on Paul's part on his first missionary journey, during which he founded the churches of South Galatia, my opponent told us that such silence, if it were a fact, would mean nothing at all. Nevertheless, he was certain that when that same book of Acts fails to say in so many words that churches were established in North Galatia, this silence speaks volumes, and must mean that no churches were established there, churches to which Paul might have addressed his epistle. He maintains this in spite of the fact that Acts 18:23 states that the apostle went through this northern region "establishing all the disciples." Does not the word all indicate that there were many? Does not this imply that these many disciples must have organized themselves into churches? And does not the fact that on this third missionary journey Paul established or strengthened all these disciples indicate that these several churches must have been founded previously, a fact to which Acts 16:6 would seem to call our attention? Moreover, does not Acts 19:1 say that Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus? What else can this "upper country" mean but North Galatia, with its cities of Tavium, Ancyra, and Pessinus? It is true that Luke does not tell us in so many words that churches were established in these cities, but neither does he tell us that a church was ever established in Colosse. Yet Paul wrote a letter to the Colossians. Luke does not even tell us anything about the founding of the church in Rome. Yet we know that a church was established there and that Paul wrote a letter to that church.

I conclude my summary, therefore, by stating once more that it is my firm belief that there were churches in North Galatia, at it was to these genuinely Galatian churches that Paul addressed his letter.

D. Rebuttal for the Negative

It is clear, is it not, that my opponent has not succeeded to overthrow my contention that wherever in Paul's epistles we are in a position to determine with certainty the location and extent of any group of churches the apostle use political terminology to describe it. He uses the names of Roman provinces.

As to these silences of the book of Acts, here my opponent fails to distinguish between expected and unexpected silences. When Luke presumably fails to mention Paul's infirmity, this silence is more or less expected. At least it cannot mean that there was no such infirmity, for by comparing Luke's account with Paul's own catalogue of sufferings (II Cor. 11:23-33) we learn that Luke is not in the habit of particularizing Paul's sufferings. Rather, he recounts Christ's work on earth, establishing a church here, a church there, and welding them into an organic unity. So when, while narrating a journey in which churches were being established, Luke omits any reference to the establishment of churches in a district covered on that journey or to Paul's preaching there, this would be an unexpected silence, unless nothing of importance happened in that district.

My opponent emphasized Acts 16:6; 18:23; 19:1, as if these three passages described Paul's work in the cities of North Galatia. Now in Acts 16:6-8 (second missionary journey), since God intended to send Paul to Europe via Troas, the route may well have touched the western edge of the more northerly part of the Roman province of Galatia. But this passage in Acts says nothing about establishing churches or even preaching there. As to Acts 18:23; 19:1 (third missionary journey), a look at the map suffices to show that the route from Antioch (in Syria) to Ephesus was probably not over Tavium, Ancyra, and Pessinus! The more southerly part of this same Roman province of Galatia is indicated.6 And the words "establishing all the disciples" probably mean "in South Galatia." Cf. Acts 14:20-23; 16:1-5.

It is also significant that, as the last, reference indicates, it was to the churches of South Galatia that the regulations of the Jerusalem Council were delivered, showing that it was exactly there that Judaism was a live issue, the very Judaism against which Paul contends in his letter. I believe, therefore, that Paul used the term Galatians in the political sense, as did also Peter (I Peter 1:1). It is hard to believe that the Judaistic errorists, with their sinister propaganda, would have bypassed South Galatia on their way to North Galatia. Moreover, Barnabas, mentioned three times in Galatians (2:1, 9, 13), had worked with Paul in South Galatia. And it was only with respect to the South Galatian churches, established on the first missionary journey, that Paul, at the time of the Jerusalem Council, could say, "(I did not yield to the infiltrators) in order that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" (Gal. 2:5).

I conclude, therefore, in stressing once again that the proposition according to which Paul's letter was meant for North Galatia is to be rejected.

Report of one of the judges (the author of this book. The readers are the other judges): I believe that both speakers have done justice to their assignment. Nevertheless, the speaker for the negative deserves a slight reprimand for having saved a few of his minor arguments to the very last, so that his opponent lacked any opportunity to answer him. Had the latter been given this opportunity, he would, no doubt, have somewhat diminished the force of these arguments. He would have shown, for example, that Barnabas is mentioned not only in Galatians but also elsewhere (I Cor. 9:6; Col. 4:10). Nevertheless, all things considered, I cast my ballot in favor of the negative and of the South Galatian theory. To believe that the South Galatian churches, so dear to Paul because of his blessed experiences among them (Acts 13:33, 44, 48; 14:1, 3, 20-23), and so vividly impinged upon his memory because of the persecutions which he had endured while laboring in their cities (Acts 13:50; 14:2, 5, 19; cf. II Tim. 3:11), would have played virtually no part in his correspondence and would have disappeared almost completely from sacred history, is difficult. And if the apostle did write to them, as I believe the speaker for the negative has proved, by what common name could he have addressed them better than by that of Galatians?

William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, vol. 8, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of Galatians, Accompanying biblical text is author's translation., New Testament Commentary, 4 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001).