Sermon Tone Analysis

Andrew Hodge                                                                                                         1st May 2007

 

 

New Testament Survey NTES 111

 

 

Seminar 10

 

 

Galatians

 

General References:

/The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians/

Irving L. Jensen /Jensen//’s Survey of the New Testament /1981, Moody Press, Chicago Ch 13 /Libronix DLS/

Guthrie, Donald  /New Testament Introduction  /Apollos, Leicester, England 4th Ed  1990 Ch 11

 

 

/Trace out the destination of the Epistle:/

            Probably Paul’s first Epistle, written about 48 AD (date disputed, see below), and composed to correct the early Christian heresy that although one is saved by faith, we become perfected through the Law (Judaism - Jensen p 294).

The book of James was the first NT book written - about 45 AD - and addressed the heresy that if a person is indeed saved by faith, then works are unimportant (antinomianism).

In some respects the destination of these two books is reflected in the issues that they address.

The Christians who received them needed to know the truth before being led astray by heretics within their ranks.

In this respect whether the destination was North or South Galatia is not relevant.

*Were* there Judaisers bothering the Churches in Galatia?

Yes, according to Galatians 2:14 (see also 1:7, 9, 3:1, 4:9-10, 17, 5:7-9, 6:12-13 and Acts 13:45-50, 14:19).

These men had arrived at Antioch (presumably the ‘important’ one in Syria) and had led Peter astray.

Peter did not want to offend these Jews by eating (socialising) - as he had done for some time - with the Gentiles, so he withdrew from the Gentiles.

Paul was incensed at this and censured Peter in public because this action of returning to the Law was directly contrary to the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-14 + Paul’s defence of freedom from legalism 2:15-5:12).

Clearly if it was wrong to sit down to eat with the ceremonially unclean Gentiles (Leviticus 11), then they could not celebrate the Lord’s Table together, raising the spectre of two different Church bodies.1

At that time in Antioch, Peter no doubt was recalling the rebuff he had initially received at Jerusalem when he brought the tidings of his experience of God with Cornelius, which proved to him that the Gentiles were included in the Gospel (Acts 11:1-4).

He should also have remembered the Godly response of the Jerusalem leadership (Acts 11:18) and the earlier teaching of Christ Himself (Mark 7:19), that indeed the Gentiles were to be included in the Good News.

1/The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia / G.W.Bromiley General Editor, Fully Revised 1988, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company  Grand Rapids, Michigan *II*, 1150 “Judaising”

If this encounter between Peter and Paul occurred in Syria, then it has to be assumed that the Judaisers subsequently moved into Galatia to harass the Churches there.

Paul’s telling of this incident would be an additional warning to the Galatians of exactly what might happen to them if~/when the Judaisers were to come their way.

It is less likely that this incident occurred in Galatian (Pisidian) Antioch in that Paul had decided not to evangelise in places where other evangelists had worked (Romans 15:20).

It had also been agreed between Peter and Paul that Peter would be ‘The Apostle to the Jews’ (Galatians 2:1-10).

If Jensen is correct in that most of those in the new Galatian Churches were Gentiles, then it is a natural place for Paul to evangelise and for Peter to avoid.

It is interesting to note, as does Jensen (p 294 footnote 2), that the first two NT books that were written addressed the issue of the interrelationship of Faith and Works: the very first effect of sin on the Gospel.

The study of both James and Galatians brings the proper balance between faith and works into the doctrines of salvation and sanctification.

If the Book of Galatians was indeed written in 48 AD when Paul was on his first missionary journey, then his known itinerary carried him *only* through Southern Galatia (Jensen Map N p 220).

This may of course imply that he needed to write to the Northern Galatians because he was aware that they had similar problems to the Church at Antioch in Southern Galatia.

The issue of whether the Book was intended for North or South Galatia or both could well be a Critical Red Herring.

Paul does not distinguish between these regions, and in his introduction he does not name a specific local Church or individual, as he does in every other one of his letters.

The Book is addressed to the “churches of Galatia”.

It might be assumed that this means “all the Churches in the region of Galatia afflicted by Judaisers”.

Jensen states that Paul visited four Galatian Churches “to which he wrote Galatians” (p 295).

There is no scriptural reason for such a conclusion, although it is not unreasonable to assume that Churches were established in those four cities (Lystra, Iconium, Derbe, Antioch - Map T p 296) and that these four places were intended to be recipients of this letter.

But we cannot assume that these were the *only *places that Paul intended this letter to be read.

The region of Galatia itself is not tightly defined, but those initially receiving this letter would know exactly where else it should go to assist other local Christians with their problems with Judaisers.

Hence Paul knew that the Holy Spirit would take the letter precisely where it needed to go.

Perhaps there *were* no Churches in Northern Galatia in 48 AD because no Church-planter had been there by the time Galatians was written.

‘Problem’ solved.

See below re 1 Peter 1:1.

An interesting point is the Book’s non-inspired postscript “Unto the Galatians written from Rome”.

Paul was nowhere near Rome on any of his three missionary journeys according to the standard itineraries.

Why this postscript, especially when Paul says he wrote the letter himself?

(6:11).

/ /

/Analyse the question of the date of the Epistle’s writing:/

/            /Assessing when the Epistle was written is largely determined by whether one accepts the Northern or Southern Galatian view of its destination.

(I do not see any reason why either should be accepted, but the arguments should be put).

/            /If the date of 48 AD for the writing of Galatians is correct (Jensen settles on this p 297) then this is during Paul’s first journey when he passed through the regions of southern Galatia - Perga, Pamphylia, Lycaonia and Phrygia (Acts 13).

If it is assumed that his letter was written to the Churches he actually visited, then Galatians was written to the region of Southern Galatia.

If a later date is accepted, and if Paul visited Northern Galatia on his Second journey (not supported by Jensen - see Map O p 222 where Paul goes no further north than the city of Antioch which he had also visited on the first journey), *and* it is assumed that he writes only to Churches he founded, then the letter could be said to have been intended for Northern Galatia.

Peter also writes to Northern Galatia (1 Peter 1:1) although probably not until 68 AD (Jensen Chart 1 p20) and concerning completely different issues.

If Peter had made a similar resolve to Paul that he would not build on another’s foundation (Romans 15:20), then as far as Peter would have been aware, Paul would not have ministered in Northern Galatia.

One of Jensen’s reasons for an early date (before 49 AD) is that the Jerusalem Council (49 AD) addressed a similar “works” problem - the part played by ceremonial Law in salvation and sanctification which the Judaisers wanted to impose (Acts 15:24) - a Council decision which Paul does not refer to in Galatians because the Council had not yet been convened (assumed); therefore supporting a pre-49 AD writing date.

As discussed in NTES 111 Seminar 7 (Acts), the underlying problem that the Council sorted out was Church unity, but clearly in arriving at unity, the issues of works had to be settled.

It seems to me that the issue of whether the Book was written to Churches in North or South Galatia is a straw argument that in no way advances the intention of the Holy Spirit (Paul) writing it in the first place.

Jensen perfunctorily addresses the data on pp 307-309.

It is not convincing on several grounds, some of which have been already referred to above.

He initially accepts the proposal that a difference of opinion exists and then allows himself to be drawn into the supposed ‘necessary’ debate.

The argument appears to hinge on whether Paul wrote to ‘ethnic’ or ‘provincial’ Galatians.

Clearly this distinction is not relevant when the target audience was Christian.

The very brief history of the region outlined by Jensen on p 308 makes a case for the whole of Galatia by AD 41 being a Roman province, settled some 300 years earlier by migratory Gauls ie no provincial distinction between North and South at that time.

He then claims that ethnic Galatia was only in the North, used in a /popular/ sense (?).

Perhaps he means by this that although the Romans extended their sphere of influence southward, the northern part was still known popularly as Galatia because the majority of the population were descended from the original Gauls.

Jensen then gives points for each of the opposing views on the (unnecessary) assumption that Paul wrote to churches that he had personally founded.

For the North:

·         ‘The Churches were founded on Paul’s second or third missionary journey’.

In support he quotes Acts 16:6 which says Paul went “throughout…..the region of Galatia” on his second journey.

Jensen must have neglected to look at the next line and two verses which say “and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, after they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

And they passing by Mysia came to Troas.”

Maps S and T (pp 283, 296) show that these areas to the North of Pisidian Antioch are areas to which God refused Paul access.

(Guthrie also uses Acts 16:6 to support a Northern theory:

“it is therefore thought reasonable to conclude that when in Acts 16:6 he speaks of Paul and his companions going through the region of Phrygia and Galatia he means these terms also to be understood in a geographical sense.

In that case, North Galatia would be indicated.”[1]a

The same objection applies to this as to Jensen.

In addition, Phrygia is clearly a Southern region (Jensen Map P p 225), as is Lycaonia .2)

Jensen also quotes Acts 18:23 which says Paul “went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order” at the beginning of his third missionary journey.

Phrygia is located in the southern part of Asia, generally southwest of Galatia (Map P p 225).

Perhaps the rationale is that if Phrygia is mentioned in the South, Galatia must represent the North.

See also Guthrie[2]a.

If this argument that the Churches were founded on the second and third journeys is accepted, then the argument regarding date of writing must also be addressed ie it could not be 48 AD.

·         The North represented the ‘true Galatia, in race and language’ ie Paul wrote to ‘real’ Galatians.

Give me a break.

·         ‘There were more Gentiles in the Northern cities, hence the problem referred to in Galatians would more likely exist there’.

A bald statement that should not be taken at face value unless backed up by further fact.

As noted above, the problem is the place of ceremonial Law, and therefore works, in the plan of salvation and sanctification.

The idea that this would be more relevant to Gentiles (who were used to works-based idolatry) than to Jews (who were used to prescribed, formal, Judaistic Temple worship) is a moot point.

·         ‘The early Church fathers understood the term “Galatia” to mean the northern region’.

This may be so, but there is no evidence presented to support it.

Even if they did understand this, this is insufficient to prove that Paul’s “churches of Galatia” in fact meant “churches of Northern Galatia”.

For the South:

·         ‘Provincial Galatia, with the term used in an /official /sense’.

This implies that Paul sent his letter to “churches in Romanised Provincial Galatia”.

This can be discarded as an irrelevant notion as Paul indicates no such thing, and in any case, Romanised Galatia includes both North and South.

·         ‘The churches were founded on Paul’s first missionary journey’.

Jensen gives Acts 13-14 in support of this.

The first journey took Paul and Silas through Cyprus and then into Asia, visiting and being persecuted in, Pisidian Antioch, Lystra and Derbe, ie cities of so-called Southern Provincial Galatia.

This point again begs the questions of whether Paul wrote to Churches he had founded or been to, whether the scripture is silent on other areas he may have visited, whether there were churches at all in Northern Galatia at the time of writing, when exactly the letter was written, etc.