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/