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