A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z

Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

GALATIANS, Letter to the

This letter has an important place in the NT. It reveals much of Paul’s character and sheds light on his teaching. It has appropriately been called the charter of Christian liberty.

Preview

• Author

• Destination and Date

• Purpose and Theological Teaching

• Content

Author

The author of the epistle is explicitly stated to be Paul the apostle (Gal 1:1). The letter gives some brief but telling glimpses of his experience before he became a Christian. He mentions his former life in Judaism (v 13). The fact that he had been a thoroughly devout Jew has an important bearing on what he writes in this letter. He remembered his passionate devotion to his former faith, in whose cause he had violently persecuted the church of God. He reminded the Galatians about this, for the Jewish traditions had meant a great deal to him. There is no doubt that he had once regarded his violent opposition to the church as a religious act of the highest order. Indeed, his strong devotion to Judaism sets in clear relief the remarkable transformation that occurred when he became a Christian. A revelation from God, he was convinced, gave him special authority to write the way he did.

In this epistle he mentioned two features of his conversion experience that had a profound effect on him. One is the purpose of God for his life, which he recognized as reaching back even before he was born (v 15). He did not go into detail, but he never tired of talking about the grace of God. He had turned his back on the idea of earning merit through his own efforts. The second aspect of his conversion that deeply impressed him was the recognition that his call to preach could be traced to that occasion. When he preached to the Galatians, he did so with divine authority because he was conscious of having received a divine commission. The apostles and elders of the church did not decide it would be a good thing for him to preach the gospel; it was God who planned it. Moreover, Paul was equally convinced that the gospel he preached was not of his own making. He had received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (v 12).

Paul went to some lengths to demonstrate that he had received his apostleship from God (1:1). He was conscious not only of a call to preach but also of a call to exercise apostolic authority on an equal footing with the Jerusalem apostles. He certainly seemed to be on the defensive, but this was prompted by the special situation that had arisen among the Galatians and that caused this letter to be written.

Paul gives one biographical detail in this letter that is not mentioned in his other letters. He states that after his conversion he went away into Arabia (1:17). The apostle does not tell us what he did there, but probably he was quietly reorienting his thoughts. According to the book of Acts, when he returned to Damascus he powerfully proved that Jesus was the Messiah (Acts 9:22). He also refers to traveling in Syria and Cilicia (Gal 1:21), which must have been prior to his first missionary journey.

Destination and Date

It is impossible to determine the date of this letter before discussing its destination.

Destination

Paul addresses his letter to the Galatians. But there has been much debate over where they lived, because the term Galatia was used in two different senses. It was used of the province that stretched from the borders of Pamphylia in the southern part of Asia Minor to the border of Pontus toward the northern seacoast. The term was also used of a part of the province in the north where a group of people from Gaul had settled and given their name to the whole area. Hence “Galatia” could mean either the geographical area in the north or the whole province. It is not easy to decide what the term meant when used by Paul. The debate is between the view that the term was used geographically, in which case some churches in the north are in mind (North Galatian Theory), or politically, in which case Paul may be referring to the churches in southern Galatia founded on his first missionary journey (South Galatian Theory). It may at first sight seem a quite unimportant issue, but since the decision affects the date of the letter and to some extent its occasion and purpose, a review of the positions must be made.

Until the beginning of the 20th century, no one seems to have questioned that Paul was writing to the inhabitants of the geographical district in the northern part of the province. This view agrees with the oldest use of the term, since the provinces did not come into existence until 25 BC, whereas there were Galatians in the north some time before this. It is reasonable to suppose that the southerners would not have taken too kindly to being addressed as “Galatians.” It may be argued that most people in those days would have thought of the northern peoples when hearing the name.

Luke’s habit when writing Acts was to use geographical rather than political descriptions of places. He refers, for instance, to Lystra and Derbe as cities of Lycaonia, not as cities of Galatia. It is reasonable, therefore, that when he refers to Phrygia and Galatia in Acts 16:6 and 18:23, he means that Paul went through the northern area. There were three main towns in that district—Ancyra, Tavium, and Pessinus—and it would therefore follow that Paul must have established churches there.

The traditional North Galatian view has, however, been challenged. It is pointed out that although Luke prefers geographical descriptions, Paul prefers political ones for grouping his churches. In this letter he mentions the churches of Christ in Judea (1:22). Elsewhere he mentions the “churches of Asia” (1 Cor 16:19). Several times Paul refers to the believers in Macedonia (e.g., 2 Cor 8:1; 9:2; 1 Thes 4:10) and in Achaia (1 Cor 16:15; 2 Cor 1:1), while both are mentioned together in Romans 15:26, 2 Corinthians 9:2, and 1 Thessalonians 1:7. This seems to be Paul’s normal habit, in which case a letter addressed to the Galatians would be circulated to all the existing churches in the province of Galatia.

South Galatian supporters do not agree that the southern people would have resented the name Galatians, maintaining that there would have been no other name available with which to describe them. One fairly positive piece of evidence is found in Paul’s statement that it was because of a bodily ailment that he first preached to the Galatians (Gal 4:13). But a glance at the map, particularly a relief map, would show that the route to the northern area was over mountainous terrain, and it is difficult to think that a sick man would have attempted it. Under the southern theory, the journey would have been much shorter and less arduous.

Another argument in support of the South Galatian Theory assumes that Acts 20:4, which mentions the names of those who accompanied Paul to Jerusalem, is referring to delegates appointed by the churches in support of the collection to aid the poor churches of Judea. If this assumption is right, it is noticeable that no representative is included from the northern area, although both Gaius and Timothy were from the south. This would be more weighty if Acts had actually mentioned the collection. One last point is that Barnabas is mentioned three times (Gal 2:1, 9, 13) suggesting that he is known to the readers. Yet according to Acts, he accompanied Paul only on the first missionary journey.

It is difficult to reach a conclusion, but it seems that the arguments for a South Galatian Theory have more weight than those for the older theory.

Date

Under the North Galatian Theory, it is claimed that the letter was written after the events mentioned in Acts 18:23—that is, during the course of the third missionary journey (c. AD 56), possibly while Paul was at Ephesus or soon after.

On the other hand, if the letter was addressed to the south Galatian churches founded on the first missionary journey, any date after that journey is possible, including during the third journey, as mentioned above. But a further possibility opens up since a much earlier date might more readily fit into the background of the letter. Thus, it is possible that this letter is among the earliest that Paul wrote.

The main problem with assigning a date is that in Galatians 1–2 Paul mentions two visits to Jerusalem (1:18; 2:1), whereas Acts mentions (or implies) three visits (Acts 9:26; 11:29-30; 15:2). It has traditionally been supposed that the second visit (2:1) can be identified with the events of Acts 15. This would mean that Paul was giving his own account of the decisions of the so-called Council of Jerusalem. There is much to be said for this view. There are similarities between the two passages. In both, Barnabas is mentioned. In both, questions are asked about the circumcision of the Gentiles. And in both, Paul and Barnabas give a report about the matter to the Jerusalem leaders. The main difficulty is that Paul’s wording in Galatians 2:1 suggests that this event took place on his second visit to Jerusalem, whereas Acts 15 relates his third visit. It is traditionally explained that on the second visit Paul and Barnabas had no contact with the apostles but simply handed over the collection from the Antioch church to the Jerusalem elders (cf. Acts 11:30). A difficulty with this view is that Galatians 2 speaks only of conversations with the three leading apostles at Jerusalem and does not mention the whole church (as Acts 15 clearly does). Paul does not refer to the decision reached by the church, but only to his agreement with those he calls the “pillar” apostles. It could, of course, be that before the general meeting of Acts 15 (which occured in AD 50), Paul and Barnabas had a behind-the-scenes meeting with the leaders and preferred to mention the decision reached with them rather than quote an ecclesiastical edict. This may also explain another difficulty—the lack of any mention of the prohibitions that the Jerusalem church imposed on the Gentiles (Acts 15:20). Paul simply mentions the need to remember the poor (Gal 2:10). Yet another difficulty with the traditional view is that Paul mentions his dispute with Peter over the question of Gentile-Jewish fellowship (vv 11-14) after his account of the agreement reached with the Jerusalem apostles. This places Peter in a compromising position. It is difficult to explain his inconsistency. He may have agreed that Gentiles should not be circumcised, but then vacillated over the question of fellowship.

An alternative view suggests that when Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem with the collection they also had private talks with the leading apostles. Acts 11:29-30 is set in a period of political activity against the apostles (Acts 12 records the martyrdom of James and the arrest of Peter), and this may explain the private nature of the meeting. This interpretation would explain why Paul makes no mention of the church’s decision—because the meeting happened before the Jerusalem Council. It would also make it easier to explain Peter’s actions at Antioch, if this behavior occurred before the church as a whole had discussed and resolved the matter. According to this view, Paul’s Letter to the Galatians may be the earliest of his letters (pre–AD 50).

There are, however, some difficulties with this view. Acts 11:30 mentions no apostles as meeting Paul and Barnabas. Nor is there any reference to Titus, whom Paul says they took with them (Gal 2:1). Further, Paul’s references to preaching among the Gentiles (v 2) would seem to require a date after the first missionary journey, unless he was thinking of his work in Antioch, a Jewish-Gentile church.

It is difficult to decide between these two views. Chronological considerations (based on Paul’s mention of 14 years in 2:1) slightly favor a later date, while the relationship of the content of this epistle to the Jerusalem Council (AD 50) points to an early date.

Purpose and Theological Teaching

Difficulties had arisen in the Galatian churches because a group of people had been insisting that Gentiles must be circumcised. These people must have been Judaizers, that is, Christian Jews who could see no hope for Gentiles unless they accepted circumcision as an initiatory rite. Linked with this was a criticism of Paul’s apostolic status. The opponents were claiming the support of the Jerusalem apostles, whom they regarded as superior to Paul. This would explain why Paul saw the issue so clearly as a challenge to the gospel he preached. His letter strongly expressed his understanding of the seriousness of the situation.

Interpretation will vary slightly according to which date one assigns to the letter. If it was written before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), the circumcision issue had not yet been thrashed out and the Galatian situation would be the first major crisis over it. But if the Jerusalem Council had already happened, the south Galatian churches would already have received those decisions (16:4), and apparently had allowed themselves to be affected by Judaizers who took a harder line than the Jerusalem apostles had. If the northern churches are indicated, there is no direct evidence to show that they had received the decrees.

We may conclude that the apostle’s aim in this letter is twofold—to maintain the validity of his apostleship, and to uphold the character of the gospel he preached. In the first part of the letter he is concerned to show his relationship with the Jerusalem “pillar” apostles in order to demonstrate his equality with them, while at the same time claiming his independence of them. Moreover, he asserts that there is only one gospel, which suggests that his opponents were charging him with preaching a different gospel. But he claims to have received his gospel from God, not from men.

In the course of his letter, Paul expressed some important theological truths. The main body of the letter issues a strong warning against a form of legalism that is applicable not only to the situation Paul confronted in the Galatian churches but wherever dependence on legal observances is considered essential for salvation. If a Gentile could not become a Christian without being circumcised, it would not only make an external rite a condition for Christian salvation but in addition would imply a commitment to keep the whole Jewish law. When Paul argued against justification by works of the law, he showed the superiority of justification by faith or lawkeeping. The whole letter extols the doctrine of grace.

Nevertheless, in contesting the doctrine of works, the apostle gave no support to spiritual license. He posited that the alternative to legalism is not the absence of all restraint. Although Christ has secured freedom for the believer, that freedom must not be used to indulge the flesh (Gal 5:13). Indeed, Paul’s exposition of the Christian life in this letter is of a high moral order. He sets the standard himself by declaring that he has been crucified with Christ (2:20). Not only is this letter a charter for Christian liberty, but it is also a charter for Christian living.

Content

Introduction (1:1-5)

The opening to this letter is more abrupt than those in Paul’s other letters. He omits the usual thanksgiving and expands the usual greeting. In the first words he strongly affirms the divine origin of his apostleship.

The Opponents (1:6-10)

Paul is astonished that the Galatians have allowed themselves to be influenced so quickly by those who were perverting the gospel. He expresses an anathema against any who preach another gospel.

A Defense of His Apostleship (1:11–2:14)

There are several stages in Paul’s argument about his own position. He states that his teaching has come from God, not from men, showing his awareness that God has not only called him to be an apostle but has also sanctioned his gospel. It is important for him to make clear that he is not dependent on others for his position, although he proceeds to show that there is no difference between him and the leading apostles (1:11-12). He next contrasts his former zeal in Judaism with his calling to preach the gospel, again emphasizing the divine nature of his call (vv 13-17).

He then proceeds to mention that he has on two occasions had meetings with the Jerusalem apostles. As a result, he has been offered the right hand of fellowship—a way of showing that there is no disagreement between them. It was agreed that Paul should be entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, and that Peter should go to the circumcised. There was no questioning of Paul’s apostleship. They all agreed on the Christian responsibility to remember the poor (1:18–2:10).

In order to give a tangible example of his apostolic position, Paul mentions the occasion of his public rebuke of Peter. Peter had acted inconsistently for fear of certain men who had come from James in Jerusalem, and who were representatives of the circumcision party. Paul’s challenge to Peter sets the scene for the introduction of the doctrinal part of the letter (2:11-14).

A Defense of the Gospel (2:15–4:31)

Paul introduces the issue of justification by works of the law and contrasts it with justification by faith. He sees the whole situation as a choice between Christ and the law (2:15-21).

His aim is to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism in the matter of salvation. He notes first that the Galatians had become Christians through the Spirit and wonders what is possessing them to return to the works of the law, which Paul then equates with the “flesh” (3:1-5).

Abraham is brought into the discussion presumably because the opponents were maintaining that only Abraham’s seed would receive the inheritance, and circumcision was regarded as an indispensable sign of a son of the covenant. But Paul points out that even Abraham was justified by faith, not by the law (3:6-9).

Indeed, the law could only bring a curse on those who disobeyed. This leads Paul to show how Christ has become a curse for us. Hence, he claims that in Christ we may still inherit the blessing promised to Abraham (3:10-14).

Paul anticipates that some may say it is invalid to appeal to the promise to Abraham to counteract justification by works of the law. He shows that the promise preceded the law by four centuries and cannot be invalidated by it (3:15-18).

This leads the apostle to reflect on the function of the law. He points out that it served to prepare the way for Christ by showing mankind’s need and by revealing its own inability to give life. Paul calls the law our custodian, whose function (in ancient times) was to guard and guide a son until he reached the age of independence (3:19-29).

The contrast between those under a guardian versus fully independent sons causes Paul to reflect on the superior position of sons. The Spirit of God has enabled believers to call God “Abba” (Father), something the law could not do (4:1-7).

The apostle has made his point, but he supports it with a personal appeal. He reminds his readers of their state of bondage before they became Christians and deplores that they have returned to such a state in wanting to observe ritual feast days after the Jewish manner. He also reminds them of the former affectionate relationship they had with him when they first became Christians. He is deeply affected by their present attitude (4:8-20). Finally, Paul appeals to a scriptural allegory in support of his argument. He sees Isaac and Ishmael, both sons of Abraham, as representing the distinction between sonship and slavery, which he has already mentioned (vv 21-31).

Practical Advice (5:1–6:10)

Paul proceeds to draw out the practical consequences of his doctrinal arguments. He sets out the way in which those who are liberated in Christ should live. They should not commit themselves to Judaism by submitting to circumcision (5:1-6). Paul again attacks those who were leading the Galatians astray (vv 7-12). The new principle that must replace legalism is love. Love is possible only by living in the Spirit. This will lead not only to a rejection of the works of the flesh but also to the development of the fruit of the Spirit (5:13-26). The spiritual man will have a concern for the burdened and will seek to help others, particularly fellow Christians (6:1-10).

Conclusion (6:11-18)

Paul now takes the pen and writes his final word with his own hand. He sees fit to contrast his own aim in glorying in the cross of Christ with his opponents’ aim to glory in the flesh. There are no greetings at the end of this letter, only a request that no one should bother him further.