Introducing the Letter to the Romans (Part 2 of 2)

Audience

The church was potentially started in Rome by Jews and proselytes who had been converted to Christianity in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost or not long thereafter (cf. Acts 2:10–8:4).¹ Archaeological evidence and other historical data confirm the presence of small Greek-speaking Jewish synagogues in Rome, the probable centers of the earliest churches.² Some try to establish a definitive case for a Pentecost-day or Jerusalem connection, seeing that Rom. 12:6 speaks of at least one supernatural gift (prophecy) given to “us” (members of the body), presumably by the hands of Jerusalem apostles (cf. Acts 8:14-23). However, Paul’s statement could be intended generally or even prospectively since he hoped to visit Rome that he “may impart to you some spiritual gift …” (1:11), written nearly three decades after the events of Acts 2.

Seutonius reported that around 49 Claudius “expelled from Rome the Jews who were constantly stirring up a tumult under the leadership of Chrestus” (Life of Claudius 25.2).³If the Latin name Chrestus is a distorted version of the Greek Χριστός (“Christ”), Seutonius may have been alluding to heated debates between Jews and Jewish Christians, who would have mutually been affected by this edict, including Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2). As a result of the expulsion of Jewish Christians, the Lord’s church at Rome would have consisted of and been led by Gentile believers for a time (note Claudius died in 54). When the Jews were allowed to return to Rome, the typical socioethnic barriers that characterized most of Greco-Roman society at the time may have caused the reception of the Jewish Christians by their Gentile brethren to have been less than cordial. 

About eight years after Claudius’ edict, Aquila and Priscilla were back in Rome (Rom. 16:3), and the long list of names in Rom. 16 of those already known by Paul may suggest that he encountered at least some of them as exiles during his travels. When Paul arrived in Rome in the spring of 60 (six years after Claudius’ death), the Jewish leaders were familiar with the Christian movement but apparently had not had recent encounters with it (Acts 28:21-22).

The letter to the Romans is not addressed to the “church” [ἐκκλησία] at Rome, but to the “saints” or “sanctified ones” [ἅγιοι] in Rome.⁴ Greetings are then sent to what appears to be three or more separate churches (cf. Rom. 16:5, 14, 15).⁵ The audience to which Romans is addressed would have been comprised of both Gentile and Jewish believers.⁶ Note the apparent focus on Gentile readers (1:5-6, 13; 11:13-24; 15:14-21), and the apparent focus on Jewish readers (2:17; 6:14-15; 7:4; 16:3, 7, 11).

Forty-five Christians who had been to Rome or lived in Rome are explicitly named in the NT: 

·      Paul (Acts 28:14-31; 2 Tim. 1:17)

·      Peter (1 Pet. 5:13a)⁷

·      Silvanus (1 Pet. 5:12)

·      Tychicus (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:12)

·      Onesimus (Col. 4:9; Philem. 10)

·      Aristarchus (Col. 4:10a; Philem. 24)

·      John Mark (Col. 4:10b; Philem. 24; 1 Pet. 5:13b)

·      Jesus Justus (Col. 4:11)

·      Epaphras (Col. 4:12; Philem. 23)

·      Luke (Col. 4:14a; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11)

·      Demas (Col. 4:14b; Philem. 24)

·      Timothy (Phil. 1:1; 2:19; Col. 1:1; Philem. 1; 2 Tim. 4:9, 13, 21)

·      Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25; 2 Tim. 4:18)

·      Eubulus (2 Tim. 4:21)

·      Pudens, Linus, Claudia (2 Tim. 4:21)

·      Phoebe (Rom. 16:1)

·      Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:2; Rom. 16:3)

·      Epaenetus (Rom. 16:5)

·      Mary (Rom. 16:6)

·      Andronicus and Junia/s (Rom. 16:7)

·      Ampliatus (Rom. 16:8)

·      Urbanus and Stachys (Rom. 16:9)

·      Apelles and Aristobulus’ family (Rom. 16:10)

·      Herodion and Narcissus’ family (Rom. 16:11)

·      Tryphaena and Tryphosa, Persis (Rom. 16:12)

·      Rufus and his mother (Rom. 16:13), and Alexander (Mark 15:21)⁸

·      Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas (Rom. 16:14)

·      Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his siter, Olympas (Rom. 16:15)

Purpose

The purpose of Romans is one of the most heavily debated questions about the letter. One purpose may relate to Paul’s own circumstances and needs: he plans to travel to Spain and he wants to secure the support of the Roman Christians (15:24-29). Another purpose may relate to the circumstances of the Christian community at Rome: the division between non-Jewish and Jewish or non-traditionalist and traditionalist believers (14:1–15:13). It has also been suggested that Romans may be a summary of Paul’s convictions that developed through recent confrontations with Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth, or a rehearsal of the speech he was planning to make in Jerusalem. But if this were his main purpose, it is hard to explain why the document was particularly directed to Rome. More likely, just as he had to defend his apostleship and teaching in other places due to false accusations and suspicions, he would need to set the record straight before journeying to Rome. 

It may be better to speak of Paul’s several purposes in Romans…. The past battles in Galatia and Corinth, the coming crisis in Jerusalem, the need to secure a missionary base for the work in Spain, the importance of unifying the divided Christian community in Rome around the gospel – these circumstances led Paul to write a letter in which he carefully set forth his understanding of the gospel, particularly as it related to the salvation-historical question of Jew and Gentile, law and gospel, continuity and discontinuity between the old and the new.⁹

Despite its appearance as a theological treatise, Romans is a dialogue between Paul and a specific reading audience in a particular setting dealing with real circumstances. It is addressed to a community of Christians Paul had not founded and is written near the end of the major phase of his missionary career during a relatively peaceful time conducive to careful reflection. It explains and defends his mature understanding of the message he preached and intended to continue preaching across the Roman Empire from Jerusalem to Spain. “In short, Romans is still far removed from a dogmatic or systematic treatise on theology, but it nevertheless is the most sustained and reflective statement of Paul’s own theology by Paul himself.”¹⁰

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “It may be significant that these Roman visitors are the only contingent from the continent of Europe to receive express mention among the pilgrims” (F. F. Bruce, Romans 15). 

     ² R. Jewett, Romans 10. 

     ³ The dating of this edict is primarily based on the testimony of the 5th-century writer Paulus Orosius (Hist. Adv. Pag. 7.6.15-16), and even though there is a degree of uncertainty as to the exactness of this date, it is consistent with other chronological data.

     ⁴ The description is: “among whom you also are called of Jesus Christ, all the ones beloved of God in Rome, called sanctified [ones] …” (author’s own translation). As noted in the previous post, the omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ (“in Rome”) at 1:7 and 15 has scant manuscript support.

     ⁵ L. M. White suggests five to eight house churches in Rome at the time (From Jesus to Christianity 211). 

     ⁶ After introducing the section of chaps. 9–11 with allusions to physical Israel (9:1-5), Paul plainly states: “for not all those of Israel are [truly] Israel” (9:6b), and “the children of the flesh, these are not children of God, but the children of the promise are considered a posterity” (9:8; cf. 10:12). This follows the previous affirmations that Abraham is the father of all the Roman believers, both Jewish and Gentile (4:12, 16). Paul seems to be addressing the problem of unwarranted pride on the part of both those with Jewish and those with non-Jewish ancestry (2:1; 3:27; 11:18). He is writing as an evangelist to those who have already been evangelized. 

     ⁷ Peter sends greetings from “she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you,” presumably a metaphoric allusion to the collective members of the church (KJV),consistent with other occurrences of the word ἐκλεκτός (“chosen”) in 1 Peter (1:1-2; 2:9). In late Judaism “Rome began to take on the name and many of the characteristics of Babylon as a world-power hostile to God …” (BAGD 129), and the book of Revelation indicates that first-century Christians understood “Babylon” as a symbolic reference to Rome (cf. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). Mark had been summoned to Rome by Paul (2 Tim. 4:11) and was with Peter at the time of writing (1 Pet. 5:13).

     ⁸ Why would Mark mention Rufus and Alexander by name unless they were known to his reading audience? On the Roman provenance of Mark’s Gospel, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT 67, 70-71. 

     ⁹ D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 407; see also D. J. Moo, Romans 16-22.

     ¹⁰ J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle 25.

Related Posts: Introducing Romans (Part 1), Outline of Romans, Synopsis and Summary of Romans

Image credit: https://www.placefortruth.org/blog/benefits-of-memorizing-the-book-of-romans

Introducing the Letter to the Romans (Part 1 of 2)

Distinctive Features

1. Romans is the longest of Paul’s extant letters.

2. Romans is one of the few Pauline letters beginning with Paul’s name alone in the opening address. The others are Ephesians and the Pastorals.

3. Romans is the only letter wherein Paul’s amanuensis is explicitly identified: Tertius (16:22).¹

4. Romans is one of only two Pauline letters (the other being Colossians) that was written to a Christian community which Paul had no part in establishing (cf. Rom. 1:10, 13; 15:22.).

5. There are more scripture citations in Romans than in the rest of Paul’s writings: about sixty-eight quotations, mostly from the LXX, and even more allusions and verbal parallels.²

6. There are more explicit references to “God” [θεός] (over 150) in Romans than in any other Pauline document.³

7. Romans shares a literary affinity with Galatians and appears to be a further development of the themes introduced in that letter, while there are also themes in the Corinthian correspondence that recur in Romans.⁴

8. The most extensive opening address and prelude to Paul’s standard opening greeting is Rom. 1:1-7, probably because he had never been to Rome nor participated in planting the church there and needed to introduce himself and the gospel he preached.

Authorship

Labeled “the Gospel according to Paul,”⁵ there is no serious dispute over Paul’s authorship of Romans. In fact, it is considered even by the most liberal NT scholars “the preeminent Pauline document” among his “principal” letters. Other than secretarial assistance (16:22), there does not appear to have been any compositional collaboration in the writing of this letter.⁶

Provenance and Date 

At the end of Paul’s third missionary tour, before heading back east with the collection for the poor saints of Judea, he spent the three winter months of 56-57 in Corinth (Acts 20:2-3; cf. 1 Cor. 4:18-19; 16:2-7). It was during this time the letter to the Romans was penned.⁷ Achaia’s contribution had been completed (Rom. 15:26; cf. 2 Cor. 8:10-11; 9:2, 5), Paul was staying with Gaius and mentions Erastus (Rom. 16:23; cf. 1 Cor. 1:14; 2 Tim. 4:20), he commends Phoebe from Corinth’s SE seaport, Cenchrea (Rom. 16:1; cf. Acts 18:18), and present with him were Timothy and Sopater (Rom. 16:23), who accompanied him on his way to Jerusalem (Acts 20:4).

Textual Issues

Manuscript evidence suggests that a fourteen-chapter form of Romans existed in the early church.⁸ However, this does not mean that chapters 15 and 16 were not original and were therefore added sometime later. The heretic Marcion (ca. 85-160) cut out the last two chapters in his abbreviated NT canon, allowing for the production of defective manuscripts thereafter. The best textual evidence leads to the confident conclusion that the original text of Romans consisted of all sixteen chapters.⁹

The doxology (16:25-27) is missing from some manuscripts and occurs at different places in others. The uncertainty of the placement of this passage is probably related to the defective manuscripts noted above. There is no substantial reason to doubt that 16:25-27 was Paul’s own conclusion to the letter.

The Western text omits the grace benediction in 16:20 and has an almost identical formula in v. 24, although the earliest and what many regard as the best witnesses omit v. 24 (cf. ASV, ESV). The omission of ἐν Ῥώμῃ (“in Rome”) at 1:7 and 15 also has scant manuscript support.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ “The reason in this case may have been that this scribe had a particular relationship with the addressees and recorded his name as a greeting. In other cases, this was not necessary. To mention a secretary by name was not customary unless there existed some legal matter which demanded such procedure” (A. Roon, Authenticity 92). Consider also 1 Pet. 5:12, another specific reference to a secretarial assistant at the conclusion of a letter. It is interesting that Tertius is named at the end of a letter that has no co-sender, whereas all of Paul’s apparent allusions to secretarial assistance (1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17; Philem. 19) appear in letters with other persons mentioned with him at the beginning (perhaps indicating a greater compositional role of the co-senders). 

     ² See E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the OT 150-85; C. G. Kruse, “Paul’s Use of Scripture in Romans,” in Paul and Scripture 10:77-92. “The Roman congregation was at home in the Old Testament Scriptures from the synagogue and from Christian worship. They were instructed in the traditions of their faith by Jewish-Christian missionaries” (P. Stuhlmacher, “Apostle Paul’s View of Righteousness” 83).

     ³ Textual variation notwithstanding, of the approx. 548 occurrences of θεός in the entire Pauline corpus, the word “God” appears in Romans 158 times in the NASB, compared to 102 in 1 Corinthians and 75 in 2 Corinthians. Paul wrote these letters in environments that were heavily polytheistic. This does not count the numerous other grammatical allusions to God, such as personal pronouns, participial constructions, various titles, and divine passive verbs. Of all the divine designations used by the apostle, the greatest number and variety are in Romans (see W. Y. Au, Paul’s Designations of God in Romans 17-248).

     ⁴ J. B. Lightfoot, Epistles of Paul: Galatians 45-49; F. F. Bruce, Romans 30.

     ⁵ F. F. Bruce, Romans 23; Q. McGhee, V. Johnson, et al., Romans and Galatians: The Gospel According to Paul 1-316; B. Utley, The Gospel According to Paul: Romans1-300.

     ⁶ “Romans is too carefully worded and its arguments too sophisticated to cause us to think that Paul had anything but a very direct involvement in shaping both the content and expression of the epistle” (Scott W. Hahn, Romans xvi).

     ⁷ Alternative proposals include 47 (C. H. Buck and G. Taylor, Saint Paul 170-71), 51/52 or 54/55 (G. Luedemann, Paul: Apostle to the Gentiles 263), 52-54 (J. R. Richards, “Romans and 1 Corinthians” 14-30), 55 from Thessalonica (A. Suhl, Paulus and seine Briefe 264-82), early 57 (F. F. Bruce, Romans 13-14), 58 (H. C. G. Moule, Romans 1), and 59 (C. H. Dodd, Romans xxvi); thus, most scholars understand that some leeway should be allowed (see D. J. Moo, Romans 3).

     ⁸ This is speaking accommodatively, since chapter divisions were not in place until Stephen Langton (ca. 1150-1228) and the printed Bible of John Wycliffe in 1382.

     ⁹ See J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans 55-65; D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 400-401; D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 421-22; R. Jewett, Romans 7.

Related Posts: Studying Romans & Galatians Part 1, Part 2, Introducing Romans Part 2, Outline of Romans

Image credit: https://cerebralfaith.net/what-is-romans-9-really-abou/

Introducing the Letter to the Galatians (Part 3 of 3)

Date and Provenance

Different scholars have placed Galatians as both the earliest and the latest of Paul’s extant writings, and nearly every position in between.¹ In 4:13 Paul states, “I proclaimed good news to you formerly.” If tó próteron is used here in the sense of “the first time” (ESV, N/ASV, NIV, N/KJV, N/RSV),² this would imply a second visit (or more) before this letter was written. Therefore, the absolute earliest date of composition would be around 50 (Acts 14:21; 16:1-5) but probably sometime later, as the Thessalonian letters (ca. 50-51) appear to be the earliest extant Pauline writings.³

It is commonly argued that Galatians must have been written prior to the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, “since Paul would have undoubtedly used the decision of the council as a major argument for his defence in the letter” (A. S. Kulikovsky, “The Historical Context of Paul’s Letters” 2; cf. D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 460; G. L. Borchert, Galatians 249). However, despite the fact that no one can say for sure what the apostle would have done in any circumstance, this reasoning does not necessarily follow in that Paul went to great lengths to assure his readers that the message he preached came directly from the Lord rather than resulting from a collaboration with other men (1:11–2:10). An appeal to the decision of the Jerusalem council would potentially weaken this emphasis. Furthermore, Paul had already communicated the apostolic decree to these Christians (Acts 16:4), so by the time Galatians was written another approach was apparently needed.

Paul was amazed that the Galatians were “so soon” or “so quickly” turning away to a different gospel (Gal. 1:6). But does this mean (a) shortly after their conversion, (b) shortly after Paul’s last visit, or (c) quickly after the opportunity afforded itself? Since “so soon” is a relative expression, the most that can be said here is that the approximate date suggested below is consistent with the available information.⁴

Does the Jerusalem visit of Gal. 2:1 correspond to Acts 11:30 (ca. 43-44) or to Acts 15:2 (early 50)? The weight of evidence seems to argue in favor of Acts 15:2. Note the common theme of “circumcision” in Gal. 2:3 and Acts 15:2 (cp. also Gal. 2:11-14 and Acts 15:30-40).⁵ The message of Galatians (incl. chap. 2) is clearly targeting the false teachings of Judaizers, yet there is no hint of this controversy prior to Acts 15. The interim visit (Acts 11) is not mentioned in Galatians for understandable reasons.⁶ It was not pertinent to Paul’s argument, i.e., the Gentile controversy had been deferred for the time being (Acts 11:18, 29). The visit was relatively brief and inconsequential to Paul’s apostolic role and preaching. He and Barnabas had dealt with the elders rather than the apostles (Acts 11:30). It was a tumultuous period for the Jerusalem Christians, i.e., famine, persecution, martyrdom of James, imprisonment of Peter. This visit was neither conducive to nor necessary for addressing internal church conflict, as was required later. 

During the Gal. 2:1 visit the leadership at Jerusalem saw that the Lord had effectively worked in Paul toward the Gentiles (vv. 2-9), which is rather curious if the first missionary tour (Acts 13–14) had not yet occurred. If Gal. 2:1 = Acts 11:30, why would the Jerusalem leaders desire Barnabas and Paul to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10) when this was the very reason they were in Jerusalem at this time? Further, it is difficult to fit Titus into the Acts 11:30 visit, since “Barnabas and Saul” are the only designated delegates, whereas in Acts 15:2 “certain others” accompanied them to Jerusalem (easily inclusive of Titus).⁷

Galatians shares a literary affinity with Romans and the Corinthian correspondence,⁸indicative of a comparable timeframe. Galatians seems to be the earliest of these (thus prior to spring 56) because Paul’s directives concerning the collection for the poor in Jerusalem show a logical sequence, beginning with his agreement to organize it (Gal. 2:10), followed by more specific instructions and comments (1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8–9; Rom. 15:25-28).⁹ Almost all NT scholars agree that Galatians is the earlier expression of the material more thoroughly developed in Romans (with similar parallels to 2 Corinthians).  

Paul’s second trip through southern Galatia was early in 50 (Acts 16:1-6), and his third visit was early in 53, after which he had an extended stay in Ephesus until late spring or early summer 56 (Acts 18:23; 19:1; 20:31; cf. 1 Cor. 16:8).¹⁰ It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Galatians was written from Ephesus around 53-54. If this is correct, those potentially included among “all the brothers with [Paul]” (Gal. 1:2) are Timothy and Erastus (Acts 19:22; 1 Cor. 4:17), Gaius and Aristarchus (Acts 19:29), Tychicus and Trophimus (Acts 20:4; 21:29), and Sosthenes (1 Cor. 1:1).¹¹

Occasion and Purpose 

Instigators (Judaizers) had infiltrated the churches of Galatia (1:7; 5:10, 12; 6:17).¹² Paul equates them with “false brothers” (2:4), having perverted the gospel of Christ (1:7). They were causing trouble among the believers (1:7; 5:10, 12; 6:17), had misled them (3:1), were zealous for them (4:17), and were hindering them from legitimately obeying the truth (5:7; cf. 1:6-9). They were binding works of the Jewish Law, leading to bondage (2:16, 21; 3:2, 5, 10; 6:13), particularly circumcision (5:1-6, 11; 6:12, 15), the observance of special [Jewish holy] days (4:9-11), and presumably also food/separation laws (2:12-13).

The impact on the Galatians involved having turned away from Christ to a different gospel (1:6). Their focus had changed from spiritual to physical (3:3). They now desired to be under the old Jewish Law (4:21; 5:4) and were no longer obeying the truth (5:7; cf. 3:1 TR). This was causing strife (5:15, 26), whether within local churches or inter-congregationally or both.

Paul’s response: (a) We are not justified by works of the Law (2:16; 3:2, 5, 10; 6:13);¹³(b) we have liberty in Christ (2:4; 5:1, 13-15 [albeit qualified]), i.e., freedom from the bondage of the Jewish Law; (c) Christians are spiritual children of Abraham (3:7-9, 14, 29; 4:26-31; 6:16), not merely physical Jews; note the repeated contrast between spiritual and physical (3:2-5, 14; 4:6-7, 23-31; 5:5, 13, 16-25; 6:1, 8, 12-15).  

Believers were actually being persecuted by Jewish adherents of the Law (4:29; 5:11; 6:12, 17), thus a primary motivation of the Judaizers was not necessarily to obey God but to avoid persecution! Judaizers might claim to represent and to have the authority of the Jerusalem church (cf. 2:12; Acts 15:1-5), but Paul’s authority and teaching come directly from the Lord (1:1, 11-12, 15-17). 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ G. S. Duncan considers this a question of first-rate importance “for the exegesis of the Epistle, for our answer to it will determine our view of the circumstances in which the apostle was placed when he wrote this great letter, of the stage he had reached in his thinking and missionary activity, and of the development of that opposition which pursued him throughout all his ministry” (Galatians xxi-xxii).

     ² While this meaning is favored in BAGD, the observation is made that from a lexical point of view “it is not poss[ible] to establish the thesis that Paul wished to differentiate betw[een] a later visit and an earlier one” (722).

     ³ Based on K. L. Moore’s A Critical Introduction to the NT (pp. 37-48), whereas an even earlier date (ca. 48-49) is often proposed by those who follow a different chronology (see, e.g., M. C. Tenney, NT Survey [Rev.] 270-71). 

     ⁴ The present tense of metatithesthe indicates that the “shifting” or “turning away” was currently taking place at the time of writing, favoring the period shortly after Paul’s last visit; and the present tense of parassontes suggests that the “troubling” was also current and ongoing, favoring a time soon after the opportunity afforded itself (cf. 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 5:22).

     ⁵ J. B. Lightfoot points out the striking coincidences of geography, time, participants, subject of dispute, character of the conference, and results (Epistles of St. Paul: Galatians 123-28). For arguments against equating Gal. 2 with Acts 15, see G. S. Duncan, Galatians xxii-xxvi. For responses to these arguments, see J. M. Boice, Galatians 10:418-20.

     ⁶ To contend that “the visit in Galatians 2:1 was only Paul’s second visit” (G. L. Borchert, Galatians 250) is to read too much into the apostle’s statement. The text simply says: “then after fourteen years …” This does not necessarily exclude another prior visit, particularly if it were unrelated to the issue at hand. 

     ⁷ That Paul went there “according to a revelation” and then had a private meeting with certain leaders (Gal. 2:1-2) is not at variance with the Acts 15 meeting. Paul did not specify the means through which the revelation was received, and the Antioch church that sent him and Barnabas had prophets among its leadership (Acts 13:1; 15:2-3). Moreover, the time spent in Jerusalem could easily have included both private and public discussions (cf. Acts 15:4, 6).

     ⁸ See esp. J. B. Lightfoot, Epistles of St Paul: Galatians 40-56; C. Kruse, Second Corinthians 45-48; H. Boers, Justification of the Gentiles 241-303; F. O. Francis and J. P. Sampley, Pauline Parallels 5-32.     

     ⁹ Another interesting factor is the opening address of Galatians, which describes the churches geographically (“of Galatia”), similar to the earlier Thessalonian letters (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1).  

     ¹⁰ At the time of writing Paul could say, “for I bear the marks of Jesus in my body” (Gal. 6:17). This would be indicative of his sufferings to date: (a) persecutions (incl. stoning) during his initial visit to southern Galatia: at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra (2 Tim. 3:11; cf. Acts 13:45–14:22); (b) beating and imprisonment at Philippi (Acts 16:23-37); (c) further maltreatment in Macedonia and Achaia (Acts 17:5-14; 18:12-18); and (d) continued affliction during his three-years’ ministry at Ephesus (Acts 19:23–20:19; 1 Cor. 4:9-13; 15:32; cf. Gal. 5:11).

     ¹¹ R. Riesner dismisses this (provenance and date) conclusion because, he argues, Paul wanted to be present with the Galatian brethren (Gal. 4:20) and the conventional view dating Galatians during Paul’s Ephesian ministry “cannot persuasively explain why Paul did not undertake the visit” (Paul’s Early Period 394-95, cf. 290-91). However, something kept Paul in Ephesus for three years (Acts 20:31; 1 Cor. 16:9)—he could not be everywhere at once—and there were other pressing matters that demanded his attention (1 Cor. 4:18-21; 15:32; 16:5-9; cf. Rom. 15:22). Moreover, he may not have wanted to personally visit the “senseless Galatians” while he was so upset with them (cf. 2 Cor. 1:27; 2:1). For alternative dates (both earlier and later), see B. Reicke, Re-examining Paul’s Letters 13-15; M. C. Tenney, NT Survey (Rev.) 267-73; G. S. Duncan, Galatians xxi-xxxii. 

     ¹² Scholars debate as to whether the Judaizers in Galatia were ethnic Jews or Gentile proselytes. Based on Gal. 5:12, B. D. Ehrman proposes the latter, commenting, “Paul hopes that when they perform the operation of circumcision on themselves, the knife slips” (The NT: Historical Introduction [4th ed.] 341; cf. L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 199-201). J. D. G. Dunn points out that the repeated use of the present tense in Galatians (1:6; 4:9-10, 21; 5:2-4; 6:12) “indicates an on-going crisis, with increasing numbers succumbing to the new teaching” (Theology of Galatians 9 n. 11).

     ¹³ The Law was temporary and we are no longer under it (3:10-25; 4:5; 5:18); physical circumcision is no longer binding (5:6; 6:15); the Law = bondage (2:4; 3:23; 4:2-11, 24-25; 5:1); the Law was added (to Abraham’s promise) because of transgressions (3:19), not because Israel was/is superior, and those under the Law still need to be redeemed (4:5).

Related Posts: Introducing Galatians Part 1, Part 2

Image credit: https://www.letthebirdfly.com/2017/06/20/galatians-31-6/

Introducing the Letter to the Galatians (Part 2 of 3)

Audience and Destination 

The letter is addressed to “the congregations of Galatia” (1:2), and the readers are referred to as “Galatians” (3:1). For the most part they were former idolaters (4:8) who had been converted and baptized into Christ (3:27).¹ The problem is, there are two possibilities as to the specific identification of Galatia (modern-day Central Turkey): (a) the comparatively limited geographical territory of North Galatia (in the heart of Asia Minor), bounded by Pontus and Bithynia on the north, by Phrygia on the southwest, and by Cappadocia on the east;² or (b) the more extensive Roman province of Galatia (established in 25 BC), comprising the above territory in addition to the regions of Pisidia, Lycaonia, and parts of Phrygia and Cappadocia, including the cities of Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium. Scholarship is divided as to which Galatia is in view here, whether it has an ethnographical or a political meaning in the NT. Until the 19th century the North Galatian theory was prominent; since then the South Galatian option has become more popular, at least among conservative scholars.³

The North Galatian View

o   Acts 16:6 and 18:23 are interpreted as references to the geographic region of Galatia.

o   “O senseless Galatians” (3:1) is regarded as sounding more like ethnic identity than provincial.⁴

o   In Acts geographic names are used for regions in the southern part of the province: Antioch of Pisidia (13:14); Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia (14:6).

The South Galatian View

o   Acts 16:6 and 18:23 are interpreted as references to “Phrygian-Galatia,” part of the legal province of Galatia.⁵ Note that Luke uses both geographical (e.g., Pisidia, Lycaonia, Phrygia, Mysia) and provincial (e.g., Asia, Bithynia, Macedonia, Achaia) descriptions.

o   There is no conclusive record that Paul ever went to the North Galatian territory, but his work in South Galatia is well documented (cf. Acts 13:13–14:24; 16:1-6).

o   It is unlikely that Paul would have traveled to the less-accessible region to the north to recover from an illness (Gal. 4:13); it is much more likely that the southern province is in view here.⁶

o   “Galatians” is the only term that was broad enough to encompass the inhabitants of Antioch, Lystra, Derbe, and Iconium.⁷

o   The churches of Galatia shared in the contribution for the poor (1 Cor. 16:1), and when the collection was delivered, at least two representatives from South Galatia accompanied Paul (Acts 20:4) but none from the northern territory. 

o   A preference for the names of provinces is evident in Paul’s letters (1 Thess. 1:7; 4:10; 1 Cor. 16:15, 19; 2 Cor. 1:8; 8:1; 9:2, 4, 9; 11:10; Rom. 15:26; 16:15).⁸

o   Southern Galatia was the home of Lois, Eunice, Timothy, Gaius of Derbe, and Crescens (Acts 16:1; 20:4; 2 Tim. 1:5; 4:10).

Additional Considerations

o   Timothy was a native of southern Galatia (Acts 16:1-2), and note also the Barnabas connection (Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; Acts 13–14). Paul and Barnabas parted ways after evangelizing the southern province. 

o   Those who argue for the North Galatia destination are hard pressed to explain why the apostle would so drastically deviate from his obvious strategy of planting churches in the major cities of the Roman Empire, and why he would have taken a detour of about 300 miles (480 km) to enter ethnic Galatia (Acts 16:6). 

o   If the Galatians letter was intended for the northern territory, why is there no mention in Paul’s writings of the churches established in the southern province?

o   In 1 Peter 1:1 Galatia is included among other Roman provinces and therefore appears to be used by Peter in its political sense. Paul had apparently written to at least some of the recipients of Peter’s letters (2 Pet. 3:15), and Peter’s addressees were in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 3:1). Initially Paul was not permitted to go into either Asia or Bithynia (Acts 16:6-7), but he did preach throughout southern Galatia, and later his work did significantly impact Asia (Acts 19:10). Paul’s writings to which Peter alludes potentially include Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and the letters to Philemon, Timothy, and the Laodiceans (cf. Col. 4:16).

What difference does it make?

It affects (a) the dating of the letter, (b) the chronology of Paul’s ministry and writings, (c) our understanding of Paul’s missionary strategy, and (d) the coordination of the Jerusalem visits mentioned in Acts and Galatians, with further implications concerning historical accuracy.⁹ While this question may be of historical and biographical interest, it significantly affects neither the value of the letter nor its interpretation.¹⁰

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author's own translation. The majority of the Galatian addressees were not ethnic Jews (cf. 2:2-5; 4:8; 5:2; 6:12), so the opening phrase of 2:15, “we by nature Jews,” is obviously not addressed to them. It is only natural to understand this as a continuation of the argument of v. 14, and the emphatic “we” with which the sentence begins indicates that this is still part of Paul’s reply to Cephas. 

     ² This area was inhabited by Celtic tribes (Gauls) of Tectosages, Tolistobogii, and Trocmi, which had migrated from Macedonia and Thessaly in the 3rd century BC and were called Gallograecians (as distinct from the West-European Celts). The Galatian people of Paul’s day were a mixed race of Phrygians, Gauls, and Greeks, with a significant presence of Romans and Jews. For an informative history and description of these people, see J. B. Lightfoot, Epistles of St Paul: Galatians 1-17; also J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life 185-91.

     ³ The earlier North Galatian view may have been prominent because historically, near the end of the 3rd century AD, “the southern area was detached, and the province was reduced to the northern sector” (D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 458).  

     ⁴ Josephus calls the ethnic Gauls “Galatians” (Ant. 1.6.1; 15.7.3; cf. Wars Pref. 2; 1.33.9; 2.16; Against Apion 1), although the Gauls in the North did not have a monopoly on foolishness. Remember the superstitious and fickle Lystrans in the South (Acts 14:11-19). 

     ⁵ In Acts 16:6, according to what appears to be the better textual witness (P⁷⁴ a A B C² D E, etc.), the record states that Paul and his companions went through “the Phrygian and Galatian region.” While some manuscripts (cf. the Textus Receptus) have an article [tēn] preceding Galatikēn, which would distinguish between two geographic territories, this reading seems to have weaker attestation (see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 390). In Acts 16:6 Phrugian is probably used as a geographical adjective (BAGD 889; cf. Luke 3:1), i.e., the Phrygian territory incorporated in the province of Galatia. Nevertheless, the wording of Acts 18:23 is slightly different, suggestive of two separate geographic localities. R. Riesner comments: “Here Luke might be referring in addition to (Lycanonic and Phrygian) Galatia to Phrygia that belongs to the province of Asia” (Paul’s Early Period 285-86).

     ⁶ This argument interprets dia (in the expression di’ astheneian tēs sarkos) causally (“because of,” N/ASV, N/RSV, NKJV, NIV, ESV), i.e., the infirmity (“weakness of the flesh”) was the cause or occasion of Paul’s preaching in Galatia. However, if dia merely describes the infirmity as an accompanying circumstance, the argument may lose some of its force, but not totally. Paul’s infirmity at the time could readily be connected to the maltreatment he endured in southern Galatia (Acts 13:50; 14:19; 2 Tim. 3:11). Perhaps the original intention was to travel to the province of Asia (cf. Acts 16:6), but Paul’s physical condition forced the missionaries to alter their course. 

     ⁷ “But how could the apostle have addressed Lycaonians, Phrygians, Pisidians, Greek speakers, and Roman colonists together other than with reference to their common province?” (R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period 287). A modern-day equivalent would be the term “British” to collectively describe the Welsh, the Scots, and the English (D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 460). 

     ⁸ In 1 Corinthians 16, when Paul speaks of the provinces of Macedonia (v. 5), Achaia (v. 15), and Asia (v. 19), would not Galatia (v. 1) in the very same context also be in reference to a province? The description “Asia” is always used in the NT, incl. the writings of Luke and Paul, to denote the Roman province.    

     ⁹ One of the main questions is whether Gal. 2:1 = Acts 11:30 or 15:2. The Jerusalem visits in Galatians are 1:18 (three years after Paul’s conversion) and 2:1 (fourteen years later with Barnabas and Titus). The Jerusalem visits in Acts are 9:26 (when Barnabas vouches for him), 11:30 (delivering the benevolent gift with Barnabas), 15:2 (with Barnabas at the Jerusalem council), 18:22? (although no specific mention is made of Jerusalem here), and 21:17 (when he was arrested). Besides the two visits mentioned in Galatians, the only other trip to Jerusalem that Paul himself records is the last one which occasioned his arrest (Rom. 15:25-28; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 1:16).

     ¹⁰ See J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Galatians 6-7. Nevertheless, D. B. Wallace maintains that the historical value of Acts is at stake, “as well as how to evaluate the theological development in the mind of Paul between the writing of Galatians and Romans” (“Galatians: Introduction, Argument, and Outline,” <Web>).

Related Posts: Introducing Galatians Part 1, Part 3

Image credit: https://www.planobiblechapel.org/tcon/notes/html/nt/galatians/galatians.htm