Who were the Galatians

The general thinking is that Galatia was in Turkey, as was the Ephesian Church..or churches, all visited on Pauls 2nd missionary journey.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The two theroies about who the Galatians were are the Southern and Northern theory. I think most but certainly not all would agree that the area, Galatia is refering to a general area in the southern regions, present day Turkey.

 

rsr is right.

The Celts, or Gauls, were conquered by Julius Caesar during the Gallic Wars. The wars lasted about ten years and by the end, with only local uprisings to deal with, Julius Caesar had taken a good many of the more talented of the enemy back to Rome with him as part of his personal staff! Many others had fled east to Germany, where they were not particularly welcome, and then south, in search of a place to live. When these migrating groups are added to the slaves taken by Roman soldiers and brought back to Rome, we have evidence of a massive shift in Gallic populations at that time.

Archaeologically we find evidence of a number of Gallic, or Celtic, settlements in Turkey during the first century A.D., and these are thought to be the people in the churches Paul established and was writing to.

Caesar wrote in his journals that these were a very religious people. Keeping in mind that they had had another form of worship before Rome, then the Roman 'conglomeration', and then Christianity, one can see where they were easily confused, as Paul's letter indicates.

 

The Gauls were from what we call France, or am I thinking of someone else?

 

The Gauls were those Celts who were in France when Julius Caesar did the conquering, yes. But there were multiple tribes of them with allegiences to different leaders, and they did not always get along among themselves, either!

 

I think Murph's question might be about which group of Galatians Paul was speaking to, the Northern tribes or the Southern tribes.

 

The introduction to Galatians in the NIV study Bible gives about as concise explanation of the two different possibilities as anything else I've read. If anyone has other information I would be interested in knowing.

Here is what I have from the above:

1. The North Galatian theory: This older view holds that the letter was addressed to churches located in north-central Asia Minor (Pessinus, Ancyra and Tavium), where the Gauls had settled when they invaded the area in the third century B.C. It is held that Paul visited this area on his second missionary journey, though Acts contains no reference to such a visit. Galatians, it is maintained, was written between A.D. 53 and 57 from Ephesus or Macedonia.

2. The South Galatian theory: According to this view, Galatians was written to churches in the southern area of the Roman province of Galatia (Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe) that Paul had founded on his first missionary journey. Some believe that Galatians was written from Syrian Antioch in 48-49 after Paul's first journey and before the Jerusalem council meeting (Acts 15). Others say that Galatians was written in Syrian Antioch or Corinth between 51 and 53.

I know that doesn't help, but it might clarify the issue a little...??

 

They were the people who were struggling with the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Rev. G

 

I don't think they were the only ones, Rev. G.!

 

Helen's summaries of the North Galatian vs. South Galatian theories is basically right.

Essentially up until the turn of the 20th century the North Galatian theory was taken for granted by conservative and liberal scholar alike. It was later, due to the research of archaeologist W. M. Ramsay and classical scholar/Church historian F. F. Bruce, that the South Galatian theory gained the dominant following amongst conservative scholars.

Amongst their most significant discoveries was the fact that well before Paul's time, the boundaries in Asia Minor had been reorganized so that not only was the southern part of the region ethnically Galatian, but politically as well. Timothy George writes in his commentary on Galatians:

George's primary source for his argument would appear to be W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on Saint Paul's Commentary to the Galatians, and F. F. Bruce, Galatians.

As I understand the argument, it pretty much puts North Galatianism to bed, although there have been good conservative scholars who disagreed.

 

You're right, Helen, a lot of Baptists haven't a clue today about what justification is.

Rev. G

 

Common answer, but what does it mean?

Rev. G

 

I agree Rev.G it is a very common answer and it is in part misleading. I say misleading because that answer, "Just as if I had never sinned," appears to focus on the "I" rather than the work of Christ that makes justification possible. At best it is an incomplete answer to the question at hand.

I would say that justification means:

To be saved from the penalty of sin. Justification is the process by which an individual is brought into an unmerited, right relationship with Jesus Christ. It is a one time act in which God forgives us totally.

Once an individual repents of sin and confesses Christ as Lord and Savior he is:

A. Born Again (John 3:3)
B. A Child of God (John 1:12; also see Romans 8:14-17)
C. A New Creation (2Corinthians 5:17)
D. Justified (Romans 5:1)

Thus, God no longer see us (saved people) as sinners, but sees the righteousness of Christ and His blood that covers the sin.

[ October 09, 2002, 04:16 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Aha! Proof that the Baptists preceeded the RCC!

 

Brother, justification is NOT a process, but it is a one time act. God declares the unjust person "just," not because of his/her own merit, but because of the perfect righteousness of Christ credited to him/her and because of the fact that Christ has taken away the sin of that person.