The Date and Destination of Galatians

Related Media

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Nature of the Problem

The Epistle to the Galatians is a wonderful document designed to declare the truth of salvation by grace alone and the result of such a salvation; namely, a life of increasing freedom from sin, on the one hand, and enslavement to Christ on the other.¹ It is surely, as one author has called it, “The Charter of Christian Liberty.”² Its importance for understanding Paul and the core of his doctrine of justification by faith alone can hardly be overstated, with the result that it has received a long and extensive treatment by the church. It had a tremendous impact on the Reformers,³ including Luther, who said, “The epistle to the Galatians is my epistle. To it I am as it were in wedlock. It is my Catherine.”⁴ Boice, commenting on its impact since the Protestant Reformation, says, “not many books have made such a lasting impression on men’s minds as the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, nor have many done so much to shape the history of the Western world.”⁵

However, while the text and background of Galatians has been the subject of considerable study and reflection throughout church history, not all details related to the book are for that matter clear. It appears that none have seriously doubted the authorship,⁶ but many, especially since the rise of the period of modern scholarship, have questioned both the destination and the date of the epistle,⁷ as well as its relation to the book of Acts.

With respect to the first of the problems, that is, the destination of the letter, the text of Galatians 1:2 clearly says ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας. But, the interpretive question is: “Where is the ‘Galatia’ to which Paul refers?” Some say the term refers to Galatia in a geographical sense (i.e. the North theory) while others say it refers to Galatia as the Roman provincial title (i.e. the South theory).⁸ F. F. Bruce ⁹ summarizes well the heart of the issue with respect to the destination of the epistle,

The question before us is: Where were these churches and who were the Galatians? Should we locate them in the territory of the former kingdom of Galatia or somewhere else in the more extensive Roman province of Galatia, which included the former kingdom and much additional territory? Were the recipients of the letter Galatians in the ethnic sense, or only in the political sense, as inhabitants of the Roman province of that name?

Closely connected to the destination of the epistle is its date. In fact Guthrie says that the “date of the epistle depends on the decision regarding its destination.”¹⁰ Generally speaking those who hold to a North Galatia theory, date the book on or about the time of Paul’s Ephesian ministry, ca. 56 A.D.¹¹ On the other hand, those who hold to the South Galatia theory generally date the book either before or after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15.¹² This view is generally expressed as a date around 48, 49 or 56 A. D., the latter date corresponding generally to that proposed under the North Galatia theory.¹³

And finally, there is the problematic question of the relation of the details in Galatians 2:1-10, wherein is a description of one of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem, to Luke’s record in Acts. To which visit in Acts,¹⁴ if any,¹⁵ does the visit in Galatians 2 relate? Indeed, this question must be answered before one can posit a date for the book. But, as with many aspects of this study, this too is a thorny issue, yielding itself only to a very tentative solution at best. As Stanley Toussaint has observed, “without a doubt, the outstanding problem in reconciling Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians with the book of Acts is the relating of Galatians 2:1-10 with Luke’s record.”¹⁶

The Purpose of the Study

The destination of the letter to the Galatians is a complicated issue involving several interrelated factors. The date of the epistle is, as a closely related subject to the destination, a complicated issue as well. And the pinpointing of Paul’s travels, as described by him in Galatians with what Luke says in Acts is also equally difficult. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the major arguments with respect to the issues raised in order to postulate satisfactory solutions to all three related questions. While the data is inconclusive, it will be seen that it nonetheless favors a destination in the South for the book and a date on or slightly before 49 A.D. with the letter being sent just prior to the Jerusalem council. The event related by the apostle in Galatians 2:1-10 is the famine visit of Acts 11:27-30 and 12:25.

Overview of the Paper

The paper will proceed along the following lines: First, some preliminary observations will be made with respect to the background of the Galatian peoples as well as an explanation of the referent in the North and South theories. Second, the paper will seek to demonstrate the most likely destination for the letter. Arguments from both sides will be discussed beginning with the Northern theory.¹⁷ Third, the date of the book will be discussed in the light of the theories of destination and certain events in the book of Acts. Fourth, the paper will discuss the relation of Galatians 2:1-10 to Paul’s various visits to Jerusalem as recorded in Acts. Finally the paper will conclude with a evaluative statement concerning the strength and certainty of the conclusions reached on each of the questions undertaken throughout.

Chapter 2: Two Preliminary Observations and the Destination of Galatians

Introduction

The purpose for this chapter is threefold: 1) to explain the origin and common first century understanding of the term ‘Galatia’; 2) to explain in greater detail what is meant by the North Galatia theory and its counterpart, the South Galatia theory ¹⁸ and 3) to determine the destination of the letter.

The Background and Identity of the Galatians

The term “Galatians” (Γάλαται) appears to have been used interchangeably with terms such as Κέλται and Κελτοί (Celts) among Greek authors and Galli (Gauls) among Latin authors.¹⁹ Apparently, according to many modern commentators, these Gauls, as it were, appear on the scene as residents of central Europe, in the Danube Basin. From there they migrated west and south-east, inhabiting such places as Britain and Asia Minor.²⁰ Polhill describes in brief the advancement of the Gauls across northern Europe until their final destination in the land they possessed under Roman imperialism:

They [i.e. the Gauls] extended their dominion as far north as Phrygia and established a kingdom with Ancyra as its capital. Around 230 B.C., these Gauls (hence the term Galatia) were defeated by King Attalos of Pergamum who confined their territory to the regions of the Halys. . . this became known as the Kingdom of Galatia and has as its principal cities Ancyra. . . Pessinus, and Tavium. In 121 B.C. it became subject to Rome. . . This Roman province of Galatia included Galatia, Pisidia Isauria, and parts of Lycaonia, Phrygia, Paphlagonia, and Pontus.²¹

From Polhill’s comments it is apparent that the old Galatian Kingdom was to the north (near Pontus) and derived its name from the Gauls and later, under Roman occupation, was extended to cover larger regions to the south (Lycaonia for example). This is the situation at the time of the apostle Paul in the first century.²²

The Referent Behind the Term ‘Galatia’ in the North and South Theories

From the preceding discussion, it is apparent that Galatia could be used in two senses. Either it could refer to an area in the north (where the Gauls originally settled and from whence it derives its name) whose primary cities are Ancyra, Pessinus and Tavium (i.e. the geographical district of Galatia) or it could include these and as well refer to a much larger land mass including the north, near Pontus, and extending as far south as Pamphylia (i.e. the Roman province).²³ As far as the letter to the Galatians is concerned, if the Northern theory is correct Paul probably wrote it to the churches of the three primary cities just mentioned. If the Southern theory is correct, the letter was probably addressed to churches founded on Paul’s first missionary journey, in places such as Antioch (Pisidia), Iconium (Phrygia), Lystra, Derbe and vicinity.²⁴

The Destination of Galatians

The purpose of the following section is to outline and evaluate the evidence for the destination of the epistle to the Galatians. First, arguments traditionally raised for the Northern theory will be evaluated and finally arguments for the Southern theory will be stated and evaluated.

Arguments for a Northern Destination

There are several arguments raised in support of a northern destination. The following are some of the more important for our consideration.

The Use of the Term ‘Galatians’ and First Century Convention

According to the discussion above, under ‘Two Preliminary Observations,’ it is apparent, at least to those who hold to the North Galatia theory, that the common first century understanding and use of the term ‘Galatia’ was as a designation for the geographical region in the north. This is apparently a result of the fact that that region was inhabited mostly by the Gauls themselves. Therefore, it would be most natural, so it is thought, for Luke (Acts 16:6; 18:23) and Paul (Gal. 1:2) to have used the term in accordance with convention at the time. According to Hendricksen’s,²⁵ interesting presentation of the issue as a court case, “convincing proof to the contrary would be needed before it would be possible to interpret this address [i.e. Gal. 1:2] in any other way than in harmony with the long established connotation of the word” (i.e. as referring to those in the North). Lightfoot,²⁶ as an ardent defender of the northern theory, argues along similar grounds, saying that “writers [i.e. Paul and Luke] speaking familiarly of the scenes in which they had themselves taken part, [leads to the conclusion that] the term would naturally be used in its popular rather than its formal and official sense.”²⁷ However, Guthrie ²⁸ points out that while the term ‘Galatia’ was used generally to represent the geographical region it was not used uniformly so (contra Polhill, 440). Therefore, since there is no necessary reason to believe that Luke followed the convention at the time and since the convention itself cannot be ascertained with certainty, this argument as it stands by itself, contributes little to determining the destination of the letter.

Luke’s Use of the Term ‘Galatia’

If it could be established that the reference to ‘Galatia’ in Acts 16:6 and 18:23 actually refers to ‘Galatia’ in the ethnic sense (i.e. the northern region), then obviously this would go a long way to bolster the theory that it was to the north that the letter of Galatians was sent.²⁹ In order to demonstrate this, certain commentators have appealed to evidence in Acts ³⁰ that demonstrates that it was Luke’s habit to refer to places by geographical titles and not provincial titles. Lightfoot pointed out that Luke refers to Mysia, Phrygia and Pisidia, all of which “are ‘geographical expressions’ destitute of any political significance; and as they occur in the same parts of the narrative with Galatia, it seems fair to infer that the latter is similarly used.”³¹ Luke also uses geographical terms (rather than the political term ‘Galatia’) to designate towns in south Galatia.³² Therefore, the conclusion that appears to follow is that the ‘Galatia’ of Acts 16:6 and 18:23 is indeed ‘Galatia’ in an ethnic and geographical sense, i.e. in the north.

‘Phrygia and Galatia’ in Acts 16:6

The question now, after demonstrating that it was Luke’s habit to use geographical titles, is how does that fit when he actually uses the term ‘Galatia’? Two passages are key: Acts 16:6 and 18:23. In this section we will take up the issue with the first of these passages. The Greek text of Acts 16:6 reads as follows: Διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ, “And they passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been kept by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia” (NASB). The question is posed, “To what does the phrase τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν refer?” Those who hold to the north Galatia theory generally insist that ‘Phrygia’ and ‘Galatia’ refer to two distinct regions ³³ and since Phrygia is unquestionably a geographical title, then so it must be with ‘Galatia.’³⁴ (Otherwise Luke is redundant, since Phrygia would be a part of Galatia as a Roman province.) The result is that Paul most likely established the churches in north Galatia ³⁵ with the logical conclusion that that is the destination of the letter. However, this has been disputed by a number of scholars on grammatical and contextual grounds.³⁶

‘Galatia and Phrygia’ in Acts 18:23

The Greek text of Acts 18:23 reads as follows: καὶ ποιήσας χρόνον τινὰ ἐξῆλθεν, διερχόμενος καθεξῆς τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν καὶ Φρυγίαν, ἐπιστηρίζων πάντας τοὺς μαθητάς. “And having spent some time there, he departed and passed successively through the Galatian region and Phrygia, strengthening all the disciples” (NASB). Lightfoot argued that this passage is to be understood as “quite consistent with the expression”³⁷ in Acts 16:6 in that ‘Galatia’ describes the geographical region in the north. Although Polhill feels that the passage supports a North Galatia view, he says “grammatically, Acts 16:6 and 18:23 on the most natural reading refer to two separate territories.”³⁸ The point of the discussion is that for those who are defenders of the North Galatia view, both Acts 16:6 and 18:23 refer to the region in the north. One must keep in mind though, that even if this be granted, it does not necessarily follow that the letter was directed there. The evidence necessitates no such conclusion.

The ‘Fickle Character’ of the Galatians

Lightfoot thought that the generally ‘fickle’ character of the Gauls in the north (as gleaned from extra-biblical sources commenting on their relation to the Romans)³⁹ fit well with the fickle character described in the letter to the Galatians. These people, that is, the addressees of the Galatian letter, had quickly (ταχέως)⁴⁰ turned from the true, apostolic gospel to another (ἕτερον) gospel. F. F. Bruce, while showing a great deal of respect for the scholarship of Lightfoot, nonetheless, says,

The weight laid by a scholar of Lightfoot’s caliber upon these alleged affinities between the recipients of Paul’s letter and the Celts known to Caesar and his contemporaries is surprising. . .The argument would be valid only if fickleness and superstition were not characteristic of other nations than the Gauls (and Galatians). We have to look no farther than the Galatians’ Phrygian neighbours for another well-known example, while Luke’s account of Paul’s adventure at Lystra suggests that fickleness and superstition were not wanting among the Lycaonians.⁴¹

Bruce’s comments are apropos and the best that one can grant Lightfoot’s work at this point is simply a minor corroborating contribution. In fact, one could possibly argue that these characteristics have been found in people groups from time immemorial.⁴²

Acts 16:6: κωλυθέντες as a Participle of Antecedent Time

The text of Acts 16:6 reads Διῆλθον δὲ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν κωλυθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασία. If κωλυθέντες be taken as a participle of antecedent time ⁴³ to the main verb Διῆλθον,⁴⁴ it would indicate that the missionary band most likely moved north from Lycaonia and then preached in Phrygia and Galatia. In other words, they were in Lycaonia when they received the prohibition not to preach in Asia so they continued north into the geographical district of Galatia.⁴⁵

The foregoing discussion has been an enumeration of the major arguments in support of the northern position. We move now to a consideration of the arguments for the opposing view. This section will rebut certain arguments raised in favor of a North Galatia theory as well as cite other evidence in favor of the South Galatia theory.

Arguments for a Southern Destination

The purpose of the following section is to enumerate the arguments for the South Galatia theory and evaluate their contribution to the question at hand.

A Different Interpretation of Acts 16:6 and 18:23

Those who hold to the South Galatia theory have had to deal with the text of Acts 16:6 and 18:23 in a way consistent with the grammar and demonstrate that the terms ‘Phrygia’ and ‘Galatia’ do not refer to destinations in the north of the province of Galatia, but in the south.⁴⁶ Ramsay,⁴⁷ an ardent defender and popularizer of the South Galatia position, agreed with Lightfoot that the phrase τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν could only refer to “a single district to which both adjectives ⁴⁸ apply.” However, he parted company with Lightfoot on the actual place to which the phrase referred. He says that

it seems to me inconceivable and contrary to the evidence, either that the name of Phrygia should have remained in popular use to denote the country of the Asiatic Gauls [i.e. the north of Galatia] till the time when Acts was written, or that the author should indulge in a display of pedantic antiquarianism, suitable for Strabo’s learned work, but utterly incongruous here. To make possible the reference to North Galatia which Lightfoot and most commentators seek to derive from this passage, it is necessary to go back to the discarded reading τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ τὴν Γαλατικὴν χώραν.⁴⁹

Ramsay goes on to defend the notion that the phrase means “the Phrygo-Galactic territory.”⁵⁰ By this he means the southern region of the province of Galatia which was inhabited by Phrygians.⁵¹ According to Ramsay this was the way in which Luke would have used the phrase. Askwith ⁵² agrees with Ramsay’s analysis of Acts 16:6 as a summary of the journeys outlined in 16:4, 5. But, others have disagreed with Ramsay on contextual bases. First, Polhill says that Ramsay’s analysis of Acts 16:6 as a recapitulation or summary of the narrative in Acts 16:4, 5 appears to be forced, “and the natural reading of Acts 16:6 points toward a journey into new territory beyond that covered in 16:4, 5.”⁵³ This point is not to be overlooked. One gets the distinct impression that the movement in the passage is forward and not simply a summary of previous ground covered.⁵⁴ Second, Moffatt contends, in the light of passages such as Acts 19:21 and 27:5 that the phrase τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν, does not mean the “Phrygia-Galactic region.” Φρυγίαν here at any rate, (as in 2:10 18:23) is not an adjective, and καί does not mean or. “⁵⁵

No Record in Acts of Churches in Northern Region

It has seemed rather strange to proponents of the Southern theory that Paul should have established churches in the north of Galatia and Luke make no mention of them specifically in his account of Paul’s work in Acts. As Polhill states, “South Galatian adherents will always find it difficult to conceive of the relative silence in Acts about a group of churches to which Paul addresses a letter with such apparent familiarity.”⁵⁶ Moffatt agreed with the criticism, admitting that “it is one of the most plausible pleas which are advanced by the South Galatian theorists, but it is inconclusive.”⁵⁷ He countered the point with several points in order to substantiate his belief that this argument amounted to nothing decisive against the North Galatia theory.⁵⁸ First, he says, Luke, according to the North Galatia theory, does mention the churches twice (Acts 16:6; 18:23) as does Peter (1 Peter 1:1) and Paul as well (1 Cor. 16:1). However, according to F. F. Bruce, these references to ‘Galatia’ or ‘Galatians,’ on several different grounds “can be disposed of quickly.”⁵⁹ Second, Moffatt argues that the church of the Romans, the recipient of the weighty letter, is not mentioned by Luke. Third, Luke does not mention Paul’s work in Arabia, Syria and Cilicia, Dalmatia and Illyria, and not a word about the church at Colossae to which Paul directed a letter. Fourth, Luke does not mention the problems between the apostle Paul and the church at Corinth. All this, Moffatt says, is evidence that just because Luke does not mention in detail these churches does not mean in any way that Paul did not plant them there. The point of Acts, then, according to Moffatt, is the engrossing aim “to get Paul across to Europe; and the approach of the Macedonian mission, in which he himself just joined the apostle, leads him to hurry over the movements of the apostles in the interior of Asia Minor.”⁶⁰ However, when one considers the heresy that plagued the Galatians (i.e. the Judaizing problem), it does appear rather strange that apart from Acts 16:6 and 18:23 Luke makes no mention of them. This is further confirmed when one considers that Paul, due to illness (Gal. 4:13), undoubtedly spent some time there in convalescence, and did not just quickly pass through.

The Isolation of the North Galatia District

Ramsay ⁶¹ found it very difficult to believe that Paul, stricken with some form of malady in Ancyra, went on the long journeys to Tavium and Pessinus in order to preach the gospel there. And the text of Galatians clearly says that it was because of a sickness that Paul preached to them (Gal. 4:13). Moffatt contested Ramsay’s reasoning that the journey north into the geographical district of Galatia was any more difficult than that of Perga to Antioch over the Taurus. He says that “Ancyra was connected by roads with the surrounding districts; while Tavium, as a military station and road centre, was probably linked even with Pisidian Antioch.”⁶² While the route up north is longer, and therefore more difficult to imagine for a sick individual,⁶³ Ramsay’s highly critical attitude may be a bit unwarranted. In other words, the route to the north may not be as likely, as a journey in the south, but it is not as impossible as Ramsay claimed it to be.

Paul’s Use of Provincial Titles

As was stated under arguments for the North Galatia theory, Lightfoot attempted to defend that Galatia was used in an ethnic sense by Luke and not a provincial sense, which for the most part was demonstrable. However, there is at least one weaknesses in the above conclusion as it stands as evidence in the matter at hand. Even if Luke uses geographical names (which is an attempt to indicate that Paul went into the north on his missionary campaigns), it does not necessarily follow that Paul used them and that his letter was sent, therefore, to Galatian churches in the north. One needs to develop the idea that Paul used ethnic or political designations. But, as Boice ⁶⁴ points out, this may be difficult to do with the evidence from Paul’s writings, for he seems to prefer provincial titles when referring to churches (cf. “Macedonia” in 2 Cor. 8:1; “Asia” in 1 Cor. 16:19; “Achaia” in 2 Cor 1:1). Paul also speaks of Judea, Syria and Cilicia ⁶⁵ (cf. Gal. 1:21), but never of Lycaonia, Pisidia, Mysia and Lydia. It appears logical and consistent then to say that the term ‘Galatia’ in Galatians 1:2 and 3:1 is probably a provincial designation in which case the letter could have been sent to the churches of the south.

Galatia Can Refer to Those in Southern Area

Lightfoot argued that Paul would not have used the term ‘Galatia’ to refer churches in south Galatia.⁶⁶ But, as Bruce ⁶⁷ points out, “What comprehensive term could have been used to refer to those in Lycaonia and those in Phrygia all at once?” He gives a modern example from his part of the world: Do not people today refer to Englishmen, Welsh, Cornish and Scots as ‘British’ which is only appropriate ethnically to refer to the Welsh and Cornish? And, further, it may be possible that they were proud of the fact that they were Roman citizens.⁶⁸

Ramsay also attacked the notion that the title ‘Galatian’ could only be applied to those who were Gauls by blood and in the north of the province. He claimed that this, like many other theories of those who hold to a destination in North Galatia, crumbles under the weight of historical inquiry: “they fall into error after error, when they try to support their theory from the facts of Galatian history or antiquities.”⁶⁹ Moffatt responded to this by attempting to demonstrate that indeed the term ‘Galatian’ refers solely to those in the north. He quotes Mommsen, an ‘authority’ in the field, as saying that

‘the provinces which were combined with Galatia under a legatus, as, e.g., Lykaonia certainly had been under Claudius, were by no means incorporated into that province. Still less could the inhabitants of Ikonium and Lystra be named Galatians in the common speech of the day.’⁷⁰

The discussion over the use of whether the term applies to those in the North solely, or to both those in the north and the south, is a highly intense one, that does not appear to have any definitive answer in sight. But it must be observed that all Ramsay was seeking to settle was that the term ‘Galatian’ was indeed applied to those living in the south. He did not say or attempt to argue that it was not used for those in the north or deny that that was its primary use. He simply argued from history that it would not have been out of place for Paul to refer to the churches in the south as ‘Galatian churches.’

The Participle in Acts 16:6

The participle κωλυθέντες in Acts 16:6 does not necessarily need to refer to a prohibition by the Spirit before they set out for Phrygia and Galatia (which would form the basis, in the northern view, for why they headed north along the eastern side of Asia Minor and then into Galatia). Askwith ⁷¹ has shown from the Lukan material that it is equally viable to take it as a circumstantial participle of subsequent time. The idea would then be that Phrygia and Galatia had already been traversed by Paul and his companions, being equivalent to the churches of south Galatia, and then they received the prohibition not to preach in Asia. It appears though that the understanding of the participle is much more crucial to the North Galatia view as opposed to the South Galatia view.⁷² And again, since the evidence opens the possibility of taking the participle in either direction, (i.e. either as antecedent time in the North Galatia view or subsequent time in the South Galatia view), an argument based upon the participle is at best a corroborating witness. We must turn to other primary evidence in order to reconstruct the destination of the letter.

The Mention of Barnabas in Galatians 2:1-10

Paul and Barnabas were together on the first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13, 14) and therefore Barnabas would have been known to the churches of south Galatia. Those who hold to the South Galatia position often point out that Paul’s argument in Galatians 2, wherein Barnabas is mentioned three times (vs. 1, 9, 13), is severely weakened if the Galatians were of the North and did not know Barnabas personally.⁷³ Guthrie says that

it must be admitted that these references would have a great deal more force if he were personally known to the readers as would be the case on the southern theory. When Paul says that ‘even Barnabas’ (2:13) was carried away by the insincerity of Peter and other Jews, he seems to imply that this was unexpected in view of what was known of Barnabas’ character.

This argument is one of silence (not unlike many of the arguments in this debate) where there is the belief that Barnabas was unknown to those in the north. This cannot be proven and conversely there is evidence in the N.T. that Paul mentions Barnabas in other instances where he might not have been known to the readers (cf. 1 Cor. 9:6).⁷⁴

Help From the Epistle

Some have argued their respective positions based upon details from within the Epistle. Lightfoot argued that the fickleness of the Galatians as seen in the book (Gal. 3:1) is a help in identifying them as the Gauls of the north. Such, as we have seen, is tentative at the very best. Others claim that since Paul says he was received as an “angel of God” (4:14) that this corresponds with what happened to him in Lystra where they thought he was Hermes and Barnabas, Zeus. Burton rightly says that “the parallel is not close enough to prove anything more than that the Galatians and Lycaonians were both warmhearted, impulsive people.”⁷⁵ Another argument with somewhat more weight arises out of Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:5. He says there that while he was in Jerusalem he did not give in for a moment to the legalizers so that the gospel might remain with “you” (i.e. the Galatians). If the ‘you’ refers to the Galatians in particular and not the Gentiles in general,⁷⁶ then these were churches established before Paul’s visit to Jerusalem recorded in Galatians 2:1-10. The two most likely candidates for the visit mentioned in Galatians 2 are the famine visit (Acts 11) and the Jerusalem council visit (Acts 15). If they were established before the Jerusalem council,⁷⁷ the latest of the two views, there is no way within the framework of the book of Acts that they were in the north for Paul does not go through the north at least until Acts 16:6, sometime after the council.

The Activity of Judaizing Christians

The letter to the Galatians is a polemical letter warning the Christians there of the danger of an improper understanding and use of the Law; i.e. in particular the Mosaic Law including ceremonial rites and circumcision (cf. Gal. 5:6). These problems appear to have been caused by Jewish Christians ⁷⁸ who sought to impose the Law on the Gentile converts claiming that, at some level, true spirituality, where sin was held in check, demanded an adherence to the Law (cf. Gal. 5:13-26 as Paul’s refutation of this error). Guthrie ⁷⁹ says that these facts favor a southern destination since it seems more plausible that Judaizers would have followed him through the southern region than to have tracked him down in the isolated districts of the north. While this argument rests on silence, the book of Acts does specifically indicate Judaizing activity in the south (cf. Acts 15:1 and the ensuing Council). But, Bruce ⁸⁰ says that Jewish emissaries might make it their business to visit any city where Paul had planted a church and this is not wholly unbelievable when one considers what the apostle Paul himself did in the name of a cause (Acts 9:2, 3). Nonetheless, Guthrie’s point stands, namely, that it is much more likely that they would have followed him through the southern region than through the northern.

A Summary of the Evidence

In summary, there are several good arguments for both sides of this issue. The strongest argument in favor of the North Galatia theory is perhaps the conventional use of the term ‘Galatia’ and Luke’s use of geographical titles when referring to places-names. But, there are some major problems with this line of reasoning. Luke is only a secondary source, it is Paul to whom we must turn primarily. When we do this we find that it is Paul’s custom to generally refer to places by Roman provincial titles. And since we know that Paul did indeed establish churches in the South (Acts 13, 14), the South Galatia theory seems to better accommodate the facts.

Chapter 3: The Relation of Galatians 2:1-10 to Paul’s Jerusalem Visits as Recorded in the Book of Acts

Introduction

The purpose of this section is to identify Paul’s Jerusalem visit outlined in Galatians 2:1-10 with one of his visits enumerated by Luke in Acts. There are five ⁸¹ such visits of the apostle to Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Acts, but in the final analysis only two appear to fall within the province of reasonable candidates as the referent to Galatians 2:1-10. They are Acts 11:27-30; 12:25 and Acts 15.⁸²

Arguments for the Identity Between Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15

The purpose of this section is to outline and interact with the traditional arguments in favor of equating Galatians 2:1-10 with Acts 15. According to Guthrie ⁸³ this is the traditional view based primarily, though not solely, upon similarities ⁸⁴ in both accounts.

Similarity in People and Issues

In both Galatians 2 and Acts 15 there is a similarity concerning the people referred to. Both refer to Paul and Barnabas, James and Peter. This seems to lend weight to the idea that these two meetings are really one and the same meeting.⁸⁵ And the issues at stake seem to be the same. In both cases Paul and Barnabas seem to be contending against strong opposition from a Judaizing sect (cf. Acts 15:1, 2 and Gal. 3:1-3). And finally, as Lightfoot ⁸⁶ pointed out, the geography in the two accounts is the same, namely, Jerusalem and Antioch.

However, Boice,⁸⁷ who himself holds to Acts 15 being the same event as Galatians 2, lists at least three apparent discrepancies in the accounts. First, Acts gives the impression that Paul and Barnabas presented their case publicly, but Galatians seems to involve only a private meeting with the leaders. There is the possibility that both occurred, with the smaller, private conference preceded the larger, public conference.⁸⁸ But this appears to diminish the point Paul is making in Galatians 2: 2, wherein he claims that he presented the gospel “privately.” It seems rather incomplete, perhaps deceitful, not to tell them that the next day or some small period of time later, he presented it publicly. Toussaint ⁸⁹ also observes that such a reconstruction of things makes the Jerusalem council, which Luke so strongly emphasizes, little more than a rubber stamp.

The second and third discrepancies Boice mentions include the fact that Galatians says Titus accompanied Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, but Acts does not mention him. And, in Galatians Paul claimed to have gone up to Jerusalem due to a revelation, whereas Acts 15 says they went as envoys of the church. However, these two discrepancies may not be substantial in any way. First, just because Luke does not mention Titus, does not mean to say or even imply that he was not with them. And, on the second point, Paul could have gone up to Jerusalem at the request of the Antiochan leaders as well as a revelation from God (cf. Acts 9:29, 30 with 22:17-21). There is no need to see any special problem here.

Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles

Another argument in favor of equating Galatians 2 with Acts 15 is the fact that Paul was recognized as the apostle to the Gentiles in Galatians (cf. Gal. 2:8). This would not have been possible if Galatians 2 refers to Acts 11 because there simply would not have been enough time for those in Jerusalem to have recognized this about Paul.⁹⁰ Longenecker ⁹¹ has sufficiently dealt with Stein’s work by demonstrating that it depends to heavily on the book of Acts ignoring Paul’s own idea of himself and his calling. It is plain that he received his call to preach to the Gentiles at his conversion as he emphatically states in Galatians 1:15, 16. Stein’s contention does not really stand.

A Literary Argument

Another argument in favor of Galatians 2 referring to Acts 15 is literary in nature, having to do with Luke’s presentation of the leadership relationship between Paul and Barnabas. Luke says in Acts 11 that “Barnabas and Paul” went down to Antioch, but later in Acts 15 he reverses the order of their names, apparently indicating that Paul was now in command of the team. According to Stein,⁹² the fact that Paul is the leader in Acts 15 and appears as such in Galatians 2:1-10 indicates that these meetings should be thought of as the same. But, this appears to ignore the fact that it appears as such in Galatians because Paul is writing of his experience in the light of those who are trying to undercut his gospel and discredit him. He is not talking about Barnabas per se, but is instead fighting for the freedom of the churches he has planted.

Galatians and Romans

Lightfoot ⁹³ contended that the content of Galatians is very similar to that of Romans, which literary connection he thought, presupposes a similar time frame in which both were written. Since it is a well accepted fact that Paul wrote Romans during the winter preceding his last visit to Jerusalem (ca. 57 A.D.),⁹⁴ it is most likely then, according to Lightfoot that Galatians was written then as well. The natural inference from this is that Galatians 2:1-10 would then refer to the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.⁹⁵

There are several reasons for rejecting Lightfoot’s dating of Galatians according to similarities found in Romans and Corinthians. Several authors have treated his method, but the following quote from Longenecker ⁹⁶ serves well to make the point:

The attempt to establish a date for Galatians solely by reference to theological indices within the letter is a dubious one. Historical, exegetical, and critical considerations must be dealt with first if we are to have any hope of grounding the discussion on a solid, evidential basis. If we move the debate away from these considerations and carry it on exclusively in terms of the theology of Galatians vis-a;-vis the theology of Paul’s other letters, we run the risk of a completely subjective criticism.

Longenecker is not decrying the use of theological indices all together, but cautions us against making them primary witnesses in debates such as these. It is true that there is distinguishable progression in the apostle’s thinking on certain issues,⁹⁷ but it seems that the gospel with it’s attendant freedoms, as a central and cornerstone doctrine, was revealed to him very early on—to which he remained committed (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3, 4).

᾿Εσπούδασα in Galatians 2:10

Burton, in his commentary on Galatians says “that the visit to Jerusalem recorded in 2:1-10 was for the purpose of the relieving the poor of Jerusalem is excluded by the aorist tense of ἐσπούδασα.”⁹⁸ Therefore, Burton et al.⁹⁹ say that the famine must have been a while before this Jerusalem visit, since Paul responded to Peter’s plea by claiming that it was the very thing he strove (past tense referring in Burton’s mind to the famine visit) to do. But this argument is really not that substantial and can be dealt with by seeing that Peter’s admonition to Paul came at the end of the visit and thus he was exhorting Paul to continue to remember (μνημονεύωμεν i.e. durative sense) the poor as he had done on this particular occasion. To this Paul simply responded by saying that it was the very thing he had (always) sought (ἐσπούδασα) to do.¹⁰⁰

Two Objections

There are two objections that must be dealt with if one accepts Acts 15 as the visit Paul is discussing in Galatians 2:1-10. First, why then does Paul not mention the decree of the council? According to Longenecker ¹⁰¹ this would have served the coup de grace to the conflict in Galatia. Indeed, Boice refers to it as the most serious problem in this scenario. First, he says that the decrees were addressed to Christians in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, not to Gentiles all over the Roman world. Second, according to Boice, Paul may have very well at a later time, considered the decree concerning restrictions for conscience sake a dangerous concession, likely to be misunderstood. Third, Boice says that if Paul quoted the decree, he would have played right into the hands of those who accused him of getting his gospel from those in Jerusalem.¹⁰²

The first point Boice raises fails to understand the universality of the problem at hand. Acts 16:4 and 21:25 make it clear that the decree was for all Gentile believers wrestling with these issues. The second point is pure conjecture and fails in the light of the above mentioned passages: Acts 16:4 and 21:25. The final point presents no real obstacle either. Paul may have played somewhat into the hands of the Judaizers by quoting the decree, but according to Acts 15:30-16:5 he did it anyway.

The second objection raised against equating Acts 15 with Galatians 2:1-10 concerns the reading of Galatians 1:18-2:10. If this theory stands, Paul has omitted one of his visits to Jerusalem, namely, the famine visit, since 1:18-20 undoubtedly refers to his conversion experience (Acts 9:26-30). The normal reading of the πάλιν (2:1) would indicate that the visit in 2:1-10 is the next visit after the conversion visit (Acts 9), i.e. the famine visit. And it has been suggested by many commentators that a failure on Paul’s behalf to mention the famine visit may leave his integrity open to suspicion—something his opponents would have made much of.

Arguments for the Identity Between Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 11:27-30 and 12:25

The purpose of this section is to surface and evaluate certain arguments that favor the famine visit of Acts 11:27-30 and 12:25 (hereafter simply referred to as Acts 11) as that to which Paul refers in Galatians 2.

Paul and the Incident with Peter

It is difficult to imagine that the decree preceded the events of Peter’s separation from the Gentiles and Paul’s rebuking him. Surely Peter, even though he possessed a vacillating spirit, would not have done such a thing after the Jerusalem church, that is, those who caused it the first time (Gal. 2:12), had settled the issue. Indeed, if the confrontation between Paul and Peter occurred after the decree, then it is difficult to imagine that Paul would record such a thing. In such a case he has been further separated from the apostles at Jerusalem. However, the agreement among those at the Council makes such an interpretation tenuous.¹⁰³

One also needs to consider the idea that it is difficult to imagine that the Judaizers could have accomplished so much, as the letter to the Galatians indicates, if Galatians 2:1-10 refers to the Council. The churches so led astray by the Judaizers would have been quite a bit less willing to go along with the heretics if they had knowledge of the decree.¹⁰⁴

A Normal Reading of Galatians 2:1

This had already been dealt with summarily above. Suffice it to repeat here that Paul appears to be listing his visits to Jerusalem, in succession ¹⁰⁵ since his conversion. This would mean that Galatians 2:1-10 would be equivalent to Acts 11. But, some have replied to this by saying that since Acts 11:27-30 makes no reference to apostles it cannot be the same event as Galatians 2:1-10, wherein it is mentioned that Paul visited with certain apostles (2:9). But as Toussaint ¹⁰⁶ says, it was a question of responsibility. The issue in Acts 11 is a relief fund and as Acts 6:2-4 makes clear this was not the responsibility of the apostles, but elders. It may also be noted that just because Luke does not mention the apostles in Acts 11, it does not necessarily follow that Paul did not see them. One may also argue that it is Luke’s custom in Acts to emphasize gifts and giving (Acts 2:45; 4:32; 5:1-11 [a negative example] and 6:1-4) and may have simply been doing that in Acts 11.

Paul’s Work in Syria and Cilicia

In Galatians 1:21 Paul says that he visited Syria and Cilicia. This occurred after his first visit (1:18) and before his second visit to Jerusalem (2:1). This most likely refers to the fact that Paul concentrated his missionary work in Tarsus and Antioch (after Barnabas ‘retrieved’ him from Tarsus) without going to any other centers. If this is true then, he did not evangelize in Galatia until after his second visit to Jerusalem and therefore, Galatians 2:1-10 must refer to the famine visit with evangelization of Galatia (Acts 13, 14) sometime later.

Two Objections

The first objection concerns the chronological problem inherent in saying that Galatians 2 is equivalent to the famine visit. Most are in agreement that the famine visit took place around A.D. 46.¹⁰⁷ If one adds up the years Paul mentions in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, one has 17 years. This places Paul’s conversion around A.D. 30, which obviously does not even allow enough time for the growth of the church mentioned in Acts 2-8. This has been solved in at least three ¹⁰⁸ ways by various writers: 1) both the three years and the fourteen years refer to the date of Paul’s conversion; 2) Paul is using a method of counting years that counts parts of years as full years and 3) to push back the crucifixion to 30 A.D. from 33 A.D. and then to date Paul’s conversion about 32 A.D. With these solutions in mind, or a combination of them, the chronological problem need to not be insurmountable. For example, if the three years and fourteen years refer to Paul’s conversion then, there is no real problem.¹⁰⁹

The second objection involves the ‘former’ visit referred to by Paul in Galatians 4:13. Those who hold to the North Galatia theory cite this as a reference to Acts 16:6 and 18:23. But this implies that the phrase to; πρότερον carries the idea of “former” only. It may also mean “initially” or “originally.”¹¹⁰ But if the term does mean two visits then it is possible to see them as occurring on his return from the first missionary journey as Luke records him passing back through the cities in which he established churches (cf. Acts 14:21). This would fit well with dating the letter before the Jerusalem Council.¹¹¹

A Summary of the Evidence

In summary, when the evidence is taken into account, though the standard interpretation of Galatians 2:1-10 has been to see it referring to Acts 15, it seems best to refer the Galatians’ passage to Acts 11 and the famine visit. There is both solid evidence for this view as well as no insurmountable problems.

Chapter 4: The Date of the Epistle to the Galatians

The destination of the letter appears to have been in the region of the South, including most likely the churches of Antioch (Pisidia), Iconium (Phrygia), Lystra, Derbe and vicinity. This interpretation of the destination opened the door for the possibility that the letter preceded the Jerusalem Council. Indeed, there is an identity between Galatians 2 and Acts 11. The general parameters of the letter’s date then, would be sometime after the first missionary journey (Acts 13, 14) and before the Council. Working within these parameters, Bruce says the most probable place to put the letter seems to be on the eve of the Jerusalem meeting described in Acts 15:6.¹¹² Thus, the date would be approximately, A.D. 49.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This paper has taken up the issue of the destination and date of Galatians. The best reckoning of the data as far as the destination is concerned is to see the letter being sent to churches that existed in the south Galatia district. These would include the churches of Antioch (Pisidia); Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. These churches would have been founded by the apostle Paul on his first missionary journey (cf. Acts 13, 14).

The date of the letter depends on the destination of the letter. The South Galatia theory opens the door for the possibility of an early date. Since this theory is the most tenable, in conjunction with the fact that the letter probably preceded the Jerusalem Council, the best date for Galatians is around A. D. 49, just before the Council and after Paul’s first missionary journey.

Bibliography

Books

Askwith, Edward Harrison. The Epistle to the Galatians. London: Macmillan, 1899.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Blass, F. and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. trans. and ed. by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Boice, James Montgomery. “Galatians” in The Expositors Bible Commentary. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Bruce, F. F.The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, Commentary on Galatians. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Burton, Ernest De Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921.

Goetchius, Eugene Van Ness. The Language of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965.

Guthrie, Donald. Galatians. New Century Bible Commentary. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1973; reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1981.

Harrison, Everett F. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.

Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. London: Macmilland and Co., Limited, 1866; reprint, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 41 Dallas: Word Books, Publisher, 1990.

Pliny Natural History. Loeb Classic Library.

Ramsay, W. M. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Vol. 1. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.

________. A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Vol. 2. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978.

________. The Church in the Roman Empire. 3rd ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1894.

________. St. Paul The Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1949.

Tenney, Merrill C. Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950.

The Holy Bible. New American Standard Version. Chicago: Moody Press, 1960.

Thiessen, Henry C. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955.

Zahn, Theodor. Introduction to the New Testament. vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Kregal Publications, 1953.

Zerwick, Maximilian, Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. trans. Joseph Smith. 5th reprint, Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990.

Periodical Articles

Bruce, F. F. “Galatian Problems. 2. North or South Galatians?” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 52 (Spring 1970): 243-66.

________. “Galatian Problems. 4. The Date of the Epistle.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54 (Spring 1972): 250-67.

Hoehner, Harold. “The Chronology of the Apostolic Age.” Th.D. Diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1965.

Hoerber, Robert G. “Galatians 2:1-10 and the Acts of the Apostles.” Concordia Theological Monthly 31 (August 1960): 482-91.

Polhill, John B. “Galatia Revisited, The Life Setting of the Epistle.” Review and Expositor 69 (Fall 1972): 437-48.

Stein, Robert H. “The Relationship of Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-35: Two Neglected Arguments.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17 (Fall 1974): 239-42.

Talbert, Charles H. “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem.” Novum Testamentum 9 (January 1967): 26-40.

Toussaint, Stanley D. “The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10.” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (October-December 1963): 334-40.

Other Material

Teo, Peter. The Legitimacy of Aorist Participle of Subsequent Action and its Significance to the South Galatian Theory in Acts 16:6. Dallas Seminary: non-published paper for Advanced Greek Grammar, 1992.

¹For an excellent summary treatment of the meaning and significance of the message of Galatians, see William Hendriksen, “Galatians and Ephesians” in the New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968), 3, 4.

²Merrill C. Tenney, Galatians: The Charter of Christian Liberty (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950).

³Richard N. Longenecker, “Galatians,” in the Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 41, ed. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books Publishers, 1990), 43-57.

⁴Luther, Commentary on Galatians, cited in Hendricksen, op. cit., 3.

⁵James Montgomery Boice, “Galatians,” in The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 10, Gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 409.

⁶Ernest De Witt Burton says, “From the end of the second century quotations from our epistle are frequent, and no question of its Pauline authorship was raised until the nineteenth century.” Eernest De Witt Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921), 69. According to Burton, Bruno Bauer is credited with the first person to doubt Pauline authorship, but many commentators point to the “Dutch School of critics” as those who attempted to popularize the notion—without success. See Donald Guthrie, “Galatians” in the New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black, (Grand Rapids: W, B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973), 1. cf. also, Boice, op. cit.,420.

⁷Donald Gutherie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. ( Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 465. cf. also, Richard N. Longenecker, op. cit. 63; John B. Polhill, “Galatia Revisited, The Life-setting of the Epistle,” Review Expositor 69: 4 (Fall 1972): 439. Ernest De Witt Burton, op. cit., 24, says that “ancient interpreters took it for granted without discussion that the churches were in the northern” region.

⁸There does not seem to be, historically, any other widely advocated and supported option. It is either north Galatia or south; cf. Burton, op. cit., 30. But, Longenecker, op. cit., (p. 67) makes reference to the work of J. Schmidt (whom most people think was the first scholar to really break with the totally North Galatia view) and J. P. Mynster as two scholars who held to a ‘Pan-Galatian’ view. Their view had serious problems and was never really embraced as viable. James Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920), 92, says that “this modification attempts to do justice to the plain sense of Acts 16:6, but it fails to bring out the evident homogeneity of the churches addressed in Galatians and involves more difficulties than it solves.” But, cf. also Henry C. Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), 216, as a contemporary expression of this position. He says that “we hold, then, that the Epistle to the Galatians is primarily addressed to the churches in South Galatia,” but allows for it also to be sent to the disciples in the north (cf. Acts 18:23).

⁹F. F. Bruce, “Galatian Problems. 2 North or South Galatians?” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 52 (1969, 70): 243.

¹⁰Gutherie, New Testament Introduction, 472. See also F.F.Bruce, “The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text” in The New International Greek Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 43—”The dating of the letter in the context of Acts will depend partly on whether the addressees are regarded as ‘South Galatians’ or ‘North Galatians.’”

¹¹F.F.Bruce, “Galatian Problems. 4. The Date of the Epistle,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54 (Spring 1972): 251.

¹²This, of course, requires the explanation of the relationship of Galatians 2:1-10 to Paul’s visits to Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Acts. This will be addressed later.

¹³see Donald Gutherie, “Galatians” in The New Century Bible Commentary, 27-37.

¹⁴Luke records five visits of the apostle Paul to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-30; 11:27-30; 12:25; 15:1-30; 18:22; 21:15-23:35).

¹⁵Apparently Manson believes that Galatians 2:1-10 describes a visit to Jerusalem just before the first missionary journey. This view is attractive, on the one hand, in that it does not need to be ‘fitted’ directly with particular statements in the text of Acts, but may, on the other, simply be an attempt to put to rest the tension between Luke and Paul on this point by giving up on a harmony of the known data. T.W. Manson, “St. Paul in Ephesus: The Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 24 (April 1940): 59-80; cited by Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10,” 334, footnote 3.

¹⁶Stanley D. Toussaint, “The Chronological Problem of Galatians 2:1-10,” Bibliotheca Sacra 120 (1963): 334. cf. also Robert G. Hoerber, “Galatians 2:1-10 and the Acts of the Apostles,” Concordia Theological Monthly 31 (1960): 482; F. F. Bruce, “Galatian Problems, 4, The Date of the Epistle,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 54 (Spring 1972):250; Charles Talbert, “Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem,” Novum Testamentum 9 (Jan. 1967): 26, 27.

¹⁷The North Galatia theory will be evaluated first since in it’s fullest expression it antedated its rival.

¹⁸This was briefly addressed in the introduction under the ‘Nature of the Problem,’ but will enlarged upon slightly here.

¹⁹Richard N. Longenecker, op. cit., 62. For a discussion of Greek authors wherein the term is found see, J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, (London: Macmilland and Co., Limited, 1866; reprint, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians: Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957), 2-4.

²⁰F.F. Bruce, New International Greek Testament Commentary, 3.

²¹Polhill, Galatia Revisited, 438.

²²Virtually all the commentators and writers (Boice, Bruce, Burton, Gutherie, Hendricksen, Longenecker, Ramsay, Lightfoot, Thiessen, Zahn) reconstruct the historical antecedents of the arrival of the Gauls in the land of the Phrygians along similar lines. Ramsay has the fullest development of the historical background in W. M. Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899; reprint, vol. 1, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978), 1-234.

²³Pliny, Natural History, 5:146, 7. “This district is occupied by Gallic settlers. Along the North and East of Galatia is Cappadocia. . .the towns are Ancyra. . .Tavium and Pissinus. Galatia also touches on Cabalia in Pamphylia. . . and the district of Orando in Pisidia, and Obizene which is part of Lycaonia.” From the recording of Pliny (23-79 a.d.) we can tell the region occupied as the Roman province of Galatia at the time of the writing of the book of Galatians.

²⁴Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary, 5. see also Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 18.

²⁵Ibid., 7

²⁶According to Bruce, Galatian Problems, 2., (p. 250), “Lightfoot’s dismissal of the South Galatia view in favor of the traditional one was natural; when he wrote, the South Galatia view had not yet been placed on sufficiently sound basis.” Ramsay was the individual who accomplished this some time later, perhaps by 1899. Lightfoot’s commentary first appeared in 1865.

²⁷Lightfoot, op. cit., 19.

²⁸Gutherie, “Galatians” in The New Century Bible Commentary, 16.

²⁹That is, Paul established churches there and is sending the letter to them.

³⁰As opposed to evidence external to Acts like the previous argument concerning the reference to conventional use of Galatians in 1st century understanding.

³¹Lightfoot, op. cit., 19.

³²Luke refers to Antioch as Antioch of ‘Pisidia’ and Lystra and Derbe as cities of ‘Lycaonia’ (cf. Acts 13:14 and 14:6 respectively). Although these towns and cities were in south Galatia, Luke preferred the geographical term as opposed to the provincial one, i.e. Galatia.

³³Moffatt, Introduction, 93, holding to the North Galatia theory, says, “The phrase is not an equivalent for Phrygia-Galatica, or for the borderland between eastern Phrygia and Western Galatia: it denotes not one district but two.” Contra Lightfoot, (p. 22) who while also holding to the North Galatia theory, says, “the form of the Greek expression implies that Phrygia and Galatia here are not to be regarded as separate districts. The country now evangelized might be called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia. By this Lightfoot meant the region in the north; i.e. the Phrygian area before it was settled by the Gauls. F. F. Bruce “Galatians” in The New International Greek Testament Commentary, 11 says this antiquarianism is uncharacteristic of Luke.

³⁴cf. Polhill, Galatia Revisited, 440; Longenecker, Galatians, 66.

³⁵Moffatt, Introduction, 95 argued that “διέρχεσθαι” in 16:6, taken with 18:23, implies preaching activity, not simply traveling.”

³⁶cf. the similar section under arguments for the South Galatia theory for the development of the grammatical and contextual issues.

³⁷Lightfoot, op. cit. 22.

³⁸Polhill, Galatia Revisited, 441. cf. also Gutherie, “Galatians” in The New Century Bible Commentary, 18.

³⁹Bell Gall. 4: 5; cited in Lightfoot, Galatians, 15. cf. also Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary, 8.

⁴⁰This may refer to the time of their conversion or to Paul’s last visit. The context suggests the time is to be taken from when they embraced the gospel (i.e. their salvation) as Lightfoot assumes; cf. his commentary, p. 75.

⁴¹F.F. Bruce, Galatian Problems, 2., 250. Bruce’s point of view, against Lightfoot, is typical of a number of scholars who reject the comparison as proof of anything essential to the question at hand.

⁴²cf. Moffatt, Introduction, 99, “Many internal arguments on both sides to prove the character of the people addressed in the epistle are of little independent value.”

⁴³Or perhaps the participle is more specifically causal with the idea that “since they were restricted from entrance into Asia, they went into Phrygia and Galatia. cf. Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, The Language of the New Testament, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1965), 188, 89. cf. also Acts 25:13 for an aorist participle of subsequent time, though according to Goetchius (p. 189) this use is rare. This is taken up further in the following section where it will be seen that Goetchius may not be entirely accurate as far as Luke is concerned.

⁴⁴There is textual variant here, wherein a Byzantine reading, διελθόντες was taken to be original instead of διῆλθον by commentators such as Lightfoot and Ramsay (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 195; “But the strange form of construction by a succession of participles suits so perfectly the strange and unique character, the hurry, and the deep lying emotion of the passage that, as Lightfoot’s judgment, Bibl. Essays, p. 237, perceived, the inferior MSS. must here be followed.” But as Bruce (North or South Galatians, 257) points out, this was not necessary for the prohibition could have been given in enough time for the missionaries to change their plans. One might also add, that Ramsay et al. need to deal with external data more thoroughly than to just refer to the MSS. as inferior. The indicative reading is supported by MSS. such as p74 a A B C2 D E.

⁴⁵cf. Gutherie, New Testament Introduction, 467.

⁴⁶Again, it must be remembered that even if Paul went into the north in Acts 16:6 and 18;23, it does not necessarily follow that he must needs have written this letter to them. If it could be ascertained with certainty that Acts 16:6 and 18:23 referred to the northern region, all this would imply is that at least we know that Paul did work in the north.

⁴⁷ William M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire Before A.D. 170, (3rd. ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1894), 78.

⁴⁸Polhill, Galatia Revisited, 440. He cites Kirsopp Lake as one who maintained that the term ‘Phrygian’ was not an adjective form in the New Testament period, but only a substantive. Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1964), 257 states that “in both cases [Acts 16:6 and 18:23] Galatia is an adjectival form.” cf. also Robert Hoerber, “Galatians 2:1-10 and the Acts of the Apostles” Concordia Theological Monthly 31 (1960): 486. He cites Liddel- Scott-Jones as support for the adjectival use of the term ‘Galatia’ here.

⁴⁹Ibid., 78, 79.

⁵⁰Ibid., 80.

⁵¹cf. Gutherie, Introduction, 468.

⁵²Edward Harrison Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians, (London: MacMillan, 1899), 23. He says, “It is St. Luke’s habit when he’s narrating the Apostle’s travels over new ground to mention the name of the cities and to record what happened there” (p. 49). This information was taken from the book which is available only on microfilm.

⁵³Polhill, Galatia revisited, 440, 441., contra Bruce, Galatian Problems, 2., 258.

⁵⁴Some contend that it is Luke’s habit to review Paul’s travels, but each pericope must be examined on its own first. With this in mind, the phrase ἐλθόντες δὲ κατὰ τὴν Μυσίαν (v. 7) seems to imply continuous movement arising out of movement from the preceding section, namely, verses 5 and 6.

⁵⁵Moffatt, Introduction, 93.

⁵⁶ibid, 443.

⁵⁷Ibid, 96.

⁵⁸Ibid, 97

⁵⁹Bruce, Galatian Problems, 2., 259. The reference in 1 Cor. 16:1 to the churches of Galatia and the giving project for the saints at Jerusalem (i.e. most commentators take it as such), when combined with the fact that no north Galatian delegates are mentioned as being with Paul (Acts 20:4; only Timothy and Gaius of the South are mentioned in connection with project) may argue that the churches of 1 Cor. 16:1 are from the south, not the north. Again, this argument rests upon silence. Even Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 98, dismisses it as having “very little value. Timothy at least might be with Paul as a traveling companion, and several other churches have no representatives.” Moffatt, Introduction, 96, says, “besides, the Galatian contribution may have been sent independently.” According to Bruce and other commentators, the reference to ‘Galatia’ in 2 Tim. 4:10 is difficult to identify with certainty. Also, 1 Peter 1:1 seems to indicate the province in general. This is dealt with as the argument about the “Jerusalem Delegation in Gutherie, Introduction, 471.

⁶⁰Moffatt, Introduction, 94.

⁶¹Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire., 86. Ramsay finds it incredible that anyone could think that Paul preached in the north as a result of his sickness. He says that, “the truth is that no suggestion ever has been offered, and in view of the geography no suggestion can be offered, which will introduce rational coherence into the narrative in Acts on the supposition that on this journey St. Paul evangelized in Northern Galatia.”

⁶²Moffatt, Introduction, 97. It is interesting that Moffatt quotes the work of Ramsay on the geographical nature of north Galatia in support of his conclusion.

⁶³It was in this line that many advocates of the North Galatia view attacked their opponents, claiming that there is no mention of Paul’s illness in Acts 13 and 14. But, as Bruce says, “there is no hint of illness in the record of his passing through the Phrygian and Galactic region of Acts 16:6.” cf. Bruce, North or South Galatia, 260.

⁶⁴Boice, op. cit., 414. This argument will be more fully developed under the southern theory. cf. also Bruce, Galatian Problems, 2: 49.

⁶⁵Gutherie, New Testament Introduction, (p. 469) says Moffatt takes ‘Syria and Cilicia’ together indicating a Roman province. Gutherie makes the distinction that Paul is referring to his own travels, not the location of churches.

⁶⁶Lightfoot, op. cit., 19.

⁶⁷Bruce, Galatian Problems, 2., 263.

⁶⁸Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 43.

⁶⁹Ramsay, A Historical Commentary on Galatians, vol. 2, 320. He cites Tacitus as an example of the use of the term to refer to those in the south.

⁷⁰Moffatt, Introduction, 96.

⁷¹Askwith (The Epistle to the Galatians) cites Acts 25:13 (p. 39) claiming that the “predicative use for the participle is natural in Luke” (p. 43). Outside the book of Acts he references Luke 4:15 and 18:14. He says that in Luke 4:15 the emphasis is on the fact of Jesus’ preaching and not the reception he met with (p. 44). As far as Luke 18:14 is concerned he states, “the fact that the Publican went down to his house is of no importance whatever; but, that he was justified in comparison to the Pharisee is the whole point of the parable” (p. 44). The point of these examples is to demonstrate the existence of the participle of subsequent action in Luke’s writing. However, the participle is used on several occasions to refer to antecedent time as well: Acts 1:6, 8; 11:19; 13:4; 15:1; 17:1;19:1, 2; 21:11, etc. For an interesting discussion of the grammar of participles of subsequent time, see: Peter Teo, The Legitimacy of the Aorist Participle of Subsequent Time and Its Significance to the South Galatian Theory in Acts 16:6. (Unpublished Paper for Advanced Greek Grammar, DTS, 1992).

⁷²Gutherie, Introduction, 470

⁷³Conversely the Southern position is strengthened by the fact that we are reasonably sure that the churches there knew Barnabas. cf. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 97. He discounts this argument as not helpful in any regard. cf. also Bruce, Galatian Problems, 2., 252 agrees with his evaluation.

⁷⁴cf. also Moffatt, Introduction, 96. He argues that Paul’s references to “Barnabas do not necessarily imply that he was unknown to the readers.”

⁷⁵Burton, op. cit., 63. See Burton also for a reference to the minor arguments raised historically within the debate. He discusses issues such as: 1) the fact that Paul would not go into the geographical district of Galatia where Greek was not spoken; 2) the argument that Paul would have kept only to the main roads with the inference that north Galatia was off ‘the beaten path;’ 3) that the ‘marks of the Lord Jesus’ (Gal. 6:17) refer to the beating Paul received in Lystra; 4) the illusion in Galatians 5:11 to the charge that Paul still preached circumcision seems an echo of the use made among the Galatians of his circumcision of Timothy, a person known primarily to those in the South and a fact used by the Judaizers against Paul; 5) the placement of the incident between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2:11-21 as an argument for the North Galatians hypothesis. All these are based upon varying degrees of speculation and consequently add little to the rigor involved in establishing a destination.

⁷⁶The highly situational and intimate context of Galatians 2 makes it improbable that the ‘you’ is general, referring to the Gentiles, but rather is to be understood as specific, referring to the actual recipients of the letter. cf. Gutherie, Introduction, 472. Moffatt, Introduction, 97 that this “does not necessarily imply that the churches were in existence when the controversy at Jerusalem broke out. Paul was merely fighting the battle on behalf of all Gentile Christians who should believe.” However, this argument does not do justice to the personal nature of Paul’s recounting in Galatians 2:1-11.

⁷⁷In the next major section, the paper will contend that Galatians 2 is actually the famine visit of Acts 11. Acts 15 and the Council visit is assumed simply to provide the widest parameter; i.e. there is no way that Acts 16:6 ff. describes the founding of these churches.

⁷⁸Talbert, Again: Paul’s Visits to Jerusalem, 27-31. Concerning the Galatian errorists, Talbert says that the idea of Judaizers from Jerusalem was the standard interpretation at least until the 1930’s. Since then however, some scholars have contended that the errorists were one of the following; 1) Judaizing Christians and ‘Spirituals’; 2) Gentile Judaizers or 3) Syncretists, Talbert’s own thesis. He thinks that Syncretists better account for the data: 1) focus on circumcision; 2) astral worship and 3) ethical deviations.

⁷⁹Gutherie, Introduction, 472.

⁸⁰Bruce, North or South Galatians, 253.

⁸¹cf. Acts 9:26-30; 11:27-30, 12:25; 15:1-30; 18:22 and 21:15-23:35.

⁸²Toussaint, op. cit., 334.

⁸³Gutherie, Introduction, 474.

⁸⁴cf. also Lightfoot, op. cit., 123, who says, “In support of this view may be urged the positive argument from the striking coincidence of circumstances, and the negative argument from the difficulty of finding an equally probable solution.” It appears that Lightfoot having given himself rather ardently to the North Galatia position would not allow the possibility of Galatians 2 referring to anything but Acts 15. It is essential to his thesis concerning the location of the churches in the North. But, indeed, Acts 11 is “an equally probable solution” as history has shown subsequent to Lightfoot’s work. Whether Acts 11 is correct is another matter, but it is equally probable.

⁸⁵Toussaint, op. cit. 335, 336. It should be noted that those who hold to the North Galatia theory have no choice, generally speaking, but to identify Galatians 2:1-10 with Acts 15. see, Gutherie, Introduction, 474.

⁸⁶Lightfoot, op. cit., 123.

⁸⁷Boice, op. cit., 418. The following arguments are succinctly laid out by Boice, though He says that Acts 15 should be paired with Galatians 2 due to the striking coincidence of circumstances. He is following Lightfoot for the most part.

⁸⁸Ibid. 419.

⁸⁹Toussaint, op. cit. 337.

⁹⁰cf. Robert Stein, “The Relationship of Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15:1-35: Two Neglected Arguments,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17 (Fall 1974): 242. He says that at the time of the famine visit Paul had not even gone on his missionary journeys nor had much success in Troas so far as we can tell.

⁹¹Longenecker, op. cit., 81.

⁹²Ibid, 242.

⁹³Lightfoot, op. cit. 48, 49.

⁹⁴F. F. Bruce, Galatian Problems 4: 254.

⁹⁵Toussaint, op. cit. 336.

⁹⁶Longenecker, Galatians, 84.

⁹⁷F.F. Bruce, Galatian Problems, 4: 255. Bruce thinks Paul grew in his understanding of the resurrection body.

⁹⁸Burton, op. cit., 115.

⁹⁹Stein, Two Neglected Arguments, 240. Stein also discusses the similarities such as geography, the issues (i.e. circumcision); the relation between Romans and Galatians, etc.

¹⁰⁰Robert G. Hoerber, op. cit., 484.

¹⁰¹Longenecker, op. cit. 79.

¹⁰²Boice, op. cit. 419.

¹⁰³Longenecker, op. cit. 80.

¹⁰⁴F. F. Bruce, Galatian Problems, 4: 252.

¹⁰⁵This seems to be the force of the πάλιν in Galatians 2:1.

¹⁰⁶Toussaint, op. cit. 336, 337.

¹⁰⁷Ibid., 339

¹⁰⁸Longenecker, op. cit., 83.

¹⁰⁹Fourteen years back from 46 A.D. would be around 32 or 33. If Christ were crucified in A.D. 30 then there is no real problem in the chronology. Obviously this is not the place to debate the date of the crucifixion, but a date of A. D. 30 is apparently not uncommon among scholars.

¹¹⁰Walter Bauer, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 722. They say that “from a lexical point of view it is not possible to establish the thesis that Paul wished to differentiate between a later and earlier one [visit].”

¹¹¹F. F. Bruce, Galatian Problems, 4: 252.

¹¹²F.F. Bruce, Galatian Problems, 4: 266.

Related Topics: Introductions, Arguments, Outlines

8. Laodicea -- The Lukewarm Church

Related Media

Editor's Note: a lightly edited transcription of the attached audio file will be found at the end of this originally written daily study guide. Appreciation for this transcription work goes to Marilyn Fine.

The New Testament does not record anything about the founding of the church at Laodicea. However, like most of the other six churches, it was likely established during Paul’s ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19:10). The city of Laodicea was one of a triad of cities with Colossae and Hierapolis and was the southernmost of the seven cities. It lay about 40 miles southeast of Philadelphia and 90 miles east of Ephesus.

Laodicea was a wealthy town that was known as a strategic banking center. They used their own wealth to pay for the reconstruction of the city after a devastating earthquake in A.D. 60, rejecting offers of financial aid from Rome. The city was also famous for the soft, black wool it produced and its ancient medicine, particularly an eye salve. All three industries – finance, wool, and eye salve – came into play in this letter. Laodicea’s water supply was also relevant to the message in this letter as the water had to travel several miles through an underground aqueduct before reaching the city. Therefore, the water arrived foul, dirty, and tepid – lukewarm, just like the people in the church.¹

As you study this letter, ask God to speak to your heart through the message to the church at Laodicea.

DAY 1: THE DESCRIPTION OF CHRIST AND OVERVIEW

I. Looking to God’s Word

Read Revelation 3:14-22

1. How does this letter differ from the previous six letters? What is not included in this letter that is found in the other six?

2. What do the titles, “the Amen” and “the faithful and true Witness” signify in verse 14?

3. How do these verses give clarity to those titles?

Isaiah 65:16

John 14:6

2 Corinthians 1:20

Revelation 19:11

4. The NASB reads that He is the “Beginning of the creation of God.” What insight do these verses give to help you understand the meaning of that phrase?

John 1:1-3

Colossians 1:15-18

Hebrews 1:2

II. Looking Upward

5. In what situations of life are you most encouraged by His faithfulness and truth?

6. If you truly rested in God’s faithfulness and truth, how would that impact your life?

III. Looking Deeper

This is not the first time we read about the church at Laodicea. What do we know about this church from these verses?

Colossians 2:1

Colossians 4:12-17

IV. Looking Reflectively

We can always rest in God’s faithfulness and truth, regardless of our life situation.

Spend some time today worshipping Him for these attributes. Meditate on Lamentations 3:22-23. Personalize this verse to your own life.

DAY 2: THE CONCERN

I. Looking to God’s Word

Read Revelation 3:15-17

1. Describe this church.

2. What insight does verse 17 give us concerning the state of the church?

3. What is He implying by the term “lukewarm”?

4. Why would God prefer that they (and we) be either hot or cold, but not lukewarm?

II. Looking Upward

5. How would you recognize a lukewarm individual or church?

6. The Laodicean church was guilty of self sufficiency. In what areas of your life do you lean toward self-sufficiency instead of looking to Christ’s sufficiency?

III. Looking Deeper

When He describes them as “wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,” what is He referring to?

How does the story of the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16-22 relate to this church?

IV. Looking Reflectively

There is always the tendency to rely on our own sufficiency and believe we can handle things on our own. God continues to put me in situations where He shows me I am insufficient. I don’t like to be reminded of it, but it is so necessary. My tendency is to want to take care of things myself and not have to depend on someone else. Jesus Christ wants us to depend on Him. When I don’t, I am frustrated and fruitless. When I do, I find it so encouraging and uplifting to see His power in my weakness. He gently reminds me that yes, He is enough. He is sufficient.

Jesus Christ alone is our sufficiency. Do you live as if that is true?

Take some time today to reflect on your life and ask God to show you an area in which you are depending on self or others or things for your sufficiency instead of Christ.

Are you lukewarm, hot, or cold in your relationship with the Lord today?

DAY 3: THE COUNSEL

I. Looking to God’s Word

Read Revelation 3:18

1. What three things does He advise them to “buy” from Him and why?

2. Instead of real gold, they should buy “gold refined by fire.” What does that mean? (Look at Luke 12:21, 1 Timothy 6:17, and James 2:5 to prompt your thinking.)

3. Instead of the black garments popular in Laodicea, they were to “buy from Me white garments.” According to Isaiah 61:10, Revelation 7:9-11 and 19:7-8, what does He mean?

4. What is He alluding to with the “eye salve to anoint your eyes so you may see”? (Look also at Acts 26:15-18, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, and Ephesians 1:18-19.)

II. Looking Upward

5. Is He talking to believers or nonbelievers here? Explain your answer.

6. How can you “buy” gold refined by fire, white garments, and eye salve in the way Christ meant?

III. Looking Deeper

How does Isaiah 55:1-3 relate to His message to the church at Laodicea?

IV. Looking Reflectively

Look to Jesus as the source of life and fulfillment, not worldly things that have no eternal value.

We are all in danger of putting our trust in the wrong things for fulfillment and satisfaction in life. In what areas of your life are you most tempted to do that?

DAY 4: THE COMMAND

I. Looking to God’s Word

Read Revelation 3:19-20

1. What are some possible reasons why He interjects “Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline” at this point in the letter? How is it related to what He was just saying and is about to say?

2. Is Revelation 3:20 a gospel invitation to come to Christ or an invitation to intimate fellowship with Him? Is this verse directed to an individual or to the church; to unbelievers or believers or both? Explain your answer.

3. What does Jesus mean that He “will dine (or eat) with him, and he with Me”?

II. Looking Upward

4. How do reproof and discipline play a role in loving someone? (See also Hebrews 12:6-11.)

5. In Revelation 3:19, why is it necessary for them to be “zealous” (NASB) or “earnest” (NIV) along with repentance in their situation?

III. Looking Deeper

Read Ezekiel 18:30-32

What instructions does God give Israel concerning their sin and why?

What do you learn about God from this passage and how does it relate to the church at Laodicea?

IV. Looking Reflectively

“Repentance means that you realize that you are a guilty, vile sinner in the presence of God, that you deserve the wrath and punishment of God, that you are hell-bound. It means that you begin to realize that this thing called sin is in you, that you long to get rid of it, and that you turn your back on it in every shape and form. You renounce the world whatever the cost, the world in its mind and outlook as well as its practice, and you deny yourself, and take up the cross and go after Christ.”²

How do you view repentance?

Jesus desires intimate fellowship with us.

Is your relationship with Christ growing in intimacy, or is He standing outside, waiting for you to involve Him in your life? Do you desire intimate fellowship with Him; and if so, how are you bringing it about?

DAY 5: THE PROMISE

I. Looking to God’s Word

Read Revelation 3:21-22

1. What does it mean that the overcomer (or believer) will sit down with Him on His throne? (See also Luke 22:28-30, Romans 8:16-17, and Revelation 20:4-6.)

2. What insight do these verses give concerning Jesus overcoming and being seated with the Father on His throne?

Hebrews 1:1-4

Hebrews 8:1

Hebrews 12:2

3. Even though this promise will be fulfilled in the future, how does it give us hope in the challenges and stresses of life today?

II. Looking Upward

4. How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the church in the world today and why?

5. What lessons can we learn from the church at Laodicea that would make us more effective?

6. We are instructed to “hear what the Spirit says to the churches.” What would hinder you from listening to the Spirit and the messages to these seven churches?

III. Looking Deeper

Paul prayed for this church years before this letter was written to the Laodicean church. What does he pray for them according to Colossians 2:1-3?

How is this church doing in relation to what Paul prayed for them years earlier?

IV. Looking Reflectively

I long for the day when I will see Jesus face to face and will be free from the power of sin. I long for the day when we will see Him sitting on the throne and we will bow down at His feet to worship Him. I don’t want to disappoint Him, although I know I already have in so many ways. How grateful I am that He is a God who is merciful and forgives and gives us a second (and third and fourth…) chance. He offers us great hope for the future. In the meantime, as we continue our struggle on this earth in our fleshly bodies, let us press on to obedience out of love; let us take to heart the admonitions and exhortations to the seven churches of Revelation. If you sense that you are growing apathetic or lukewarm in your love for the Lord and commitment to Him, acknowledge it and allow Him to “rekindle the fire” in your heart.

Spend some time today reflecting on this study and how God has most spoken to you through these letters to the seven churches.

Introduction to the message for Lesson Eight– Laodicea – The Lukewarm Church [Begin Transcription]

Well, today we complete our study on the Seven Churches of Revelation. I have to admit I am always a little sad at the end of a study. I hate to see them come to an end. So, let me begin by asking a question of you today. How would you describe your relationship with the Lord today? Are you in close fellowship with Him or have you left your first love? Do you sense a deep need for Him or do you feel you have life under control? You have it all manageable? Have you become spiritual indifferent or apathetic or do you love Him more today than you did a month ago, a year ago, two years ago? Well, I pray that God has used this study to rekindle the fire in your heart for Jesus Christ.

Background

Today, we look at the final letter, the letter to the church at Laodicea. This city was famous for three things: wealth, it had a lot of banking centers; a soft, black wool, which they produced; and eye salve, which was produced there to treat medical conditions for the eye. However, in contrast, there was one major weakness of this city. It had no adequate water supply. So, it had to have its water pumped in from nearby Colossae or Hierapolis. By the time it arrived there via the aqueduct, the water was lukewarm. It was disgusting. All four of these areas will come into play in this letter as we look into it more deeply.

From a map of the Seven Churches, we see that Laodicea was 45 miles southeast of Philadelphia. It was about 90 miles east of Ephesus. It was the southernmost city of the seven cities. Nearby, within ten miles, was Colossae and Hierapolis.

Description of Christ

Go ahead and turn in your Bibles to Revelation 3 if you have not already done so. Jesus begins this letter as He does each of them with a description of Himself that has relevance to the Church and the message that He has for that particular church.

We begin in Revelation 3:14. He identifies himself in three ways.

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: (NASB)

First, the word, “amen,” literally means “so be it.” His words are reliable. If He says something will happen, so be it. It will happen. You can know without any uncertainty. You can know with complete certainty that it will come to pass.

Second, “the faithful and true witness” emphasizes that He is perfectly trustworthy and faithful to His Word. It goes along with “the amen.” What He says will happen. He is faithful. He is trustworthy.

We come to the third thing, “the beginning of the creation of God.” This translation in the English is ambiguous. It is a little misleading. In the NIV it says “the ruler.” In the New American Standard it says “the Beginning.” Several have taken this verse to sanction their view that Jesus was not God. He was the beginning of creation. Therefore, He was the first creature that God created. Because God created Him, He could not be God. That was the heresy that was going on in the Colossian church which we saw when we studied Colossians. So it would make sense that that might have crept into this church. But, that is not what this is saying, because the Greek word used here for beginning can also mean “first in rank” or “ruler.” That is really what He is referring to here. In other words, He is the source of creation. He is the creator. In Revelation 22, He says, “I am the first, the last; the alpha the omega, the beginning and the end.”

Thus, from this three-fold description of Himself, what Jesus is saying is that as the One who is the creator, as the One who is the source of creation, I am telling you the truth. What I say you would do well to listen to. You would do well to heed my advice.

Three Aspects to Rekindling the Fire

Well, this church is symbolic of the period of Church history that we are in today, the last age. The period of Church history before Jesus Christ comes again. This church does describe an attitude that we see so prevalent in our world today. This final letter to the church at Laodicea was the most severe of the seven letters. There is no commendation. There is nothing positive ever said to this church in this letter, only criticism, only condemnation. This church definitely needed to rekindle the fire. As we study this letter, I want to look at three things concerning their need to rekindle the fire in their hearts for Jesus Christ. We will look first at the condition, we will look at the cause, and then we will look at the cure.

1. The Condition

So, let us begin by looking at their condition. Let us read Revelation 3:15-16.

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. (NASB)

The condition of this church was one of spiritual indifference. They were spiritually apathetic. They were lukewarm. They were not hot and they were not cold. Yet, Jesus said He would rather them be hot or cold. I do not want you to be lukewarm. Some have suggested that what He is saying here is that He would prefer that they be hot spiritually, passionately, fervently on fire for the Lord or they that they would be cold spiritually. Cold toward Him, hostile to Him. I do not agree with that view because it is inconceivable that God would want anyone to be cold toward Him.

I think a better explanation is that He is saying you are completely useless to Me because of your spiritual indifference. Because of your spiritual apathy, you have no purpose. Cold water has a purpose. Cold water is refreshing. Hot water has a purpose. It can be used for medicine. Whenever you hurt yourself, we put hot pack or cold packs on. There is a purpose with hot and cold. There is nothing better for a sore throat than a sip from a hot tea, but there is nothing worse than lukewarm water. Lukewarm anything does not taste good.

If you have ever had your coffee, sat it down and come back and pick up that cup of lukewarm coffee. Do you drink it? I do not. I either quit or pour some more hot coffee in there. It serves no purpose. So, when He says that you are lukewarm, He is just saying you are of no use because of your indifference, your spiritual apathy. I would rather that you be useful. I would rather you be hot or cold. I would rather that you had some use instead of being useless. They would understand this meaning of lukewarm because of their water supply. As I mentioned earlier, they had to pipe in their water from nearby Hierapolis. Hierapolis was known for its hot spring that had great medicinal power to it. That hot water would be piped down to Laodicea and by the time it got there it was lukewarm. Or they would pipe in the water from Colossae which had cold water which was refreshing as a cold beverage. By the time that cold water got through those pipes to Laodicea it had heated up to lukewarm. They had horrible water. It is said that when people would come to Laodicea and they would drink the water, they would spit it out. It was horrible.

I do not know if you ever traveled to cities where the water just tastes like “yuck” and you just want to spit it out. I know in Dallas in the summertime the last few years that I was there the temperature would get so hot that it would heat up the water in the reservoirs to a temperature and something would grow in it. They told us it was not deadly or dangerous, but it was horrible. You could not even make coffee with it as you could not get rid of that taste. That is sort of this idea that it tasted so bad that you wanted to spit it out. They knew how disgusting lukewarm water was. That is how Jesus felt about them. He said in verse 16,

So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. (NASB)

He is not saying that they would lose their salvation. Some have said does that mean that they are going to lose their salvation. That is not what He is saying there because scripture makes it very clear that you cannot lose your salvation. That word, spit, is really a generous word because in the Greek it is literally the word, vomit. I am going to vomit you out of my mouth. You make me sick to my stomach. You nauseate me.

I pray that we never get to the place where we nauseate Jesus Christ. I pray that we never get to the place that we would disgust Him and make Him sick to His stomach. The warning here for us is to beware of spiritual apathy. Do not let yourself get there. Do not let yourself become spiritually lukewarm, spiritually useless, indifferent toward the Lord. Rekindle the fire.

2. The Cause

So, how does a church or a person become lukewarm spiritually? Let us look at the second point, the cause. What causes it? Verse 17 points out two causes and the first one is self-sufficiency.

A. Self-Sufficiency

Look at the first part of Revelation 3:17, Jesus says,

Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” (NASB)

They were a self-sufficient church, or so they thought. They had no need for anyone to help them. They had enough money. They had everything they needed. They did not help, especially not from God. They were a church which had material wealth and along with that came an arrogant, proud, self-sufficient attitude. They were so wealthy and so self-sufficient that when an earthquake destroyed the city in AD 60, the Roman government offered to subsidize the rebuilding of the city. Let us help you financially. We will pay to have the city rebuilt and they refused the money. We can do it ourselves. We do not need your help.

I am not saying that having wealth and material possession is wrong. It is not wrong as long as you do not look to that wealth for your security and your contentment in life. When we begin to put our trust in those things, in what we have instead of in God alone, we are in danger of moving toward a state of spiritual lukewarm-ness and spiritual apathy. I will be the first to admit to you that I would love to have enough money that I never had to worry about anything. I confess that. I sit at home in my house and I dream. “Man, if I just had this much money, Lord, I would buy a house in this neighborhood” or, “Lord, I wish I had enough money to decorate my house.” “I would love to buy that new car” or “I would love to have those classy clothes like so and so wears.” You can dream and I do. I tell you I do. I admit it, but I also am reminded in those times of the value of having to trust God to provide. Because if I had enough money to buy all those things, He knows if I would depend on Him or if I would not. Those times that I do not have enough money bring me to a deeper place of dependence on Him.

When I was on staff at Campus Crusade, I had to raise support for ten years. I never had a full support team until I went overseas. For some reason, when you go overseas everybody is ready to support you. So I had an abundance when I moved over seas. But, when I was in the States I never had a complete support team. So, I lived paycheck to paycheck. There were times when there would be emergency needs that would come up and I would not have the money to do it. I would say, God, I do not know how You are going to provide for this. Lord, I have a tire that totally just exploded today. I cannot drive a car with three tires. It is a need. What are we going to do? You know I do not have the money to buy a tire. Every time that I was in need He always provided. He would do just things that I would look at as miracles that someone who would not even know would just drop an envelope by. Do you know what it does for you when that happens? It just sends you to your knees. It shows you that He is dependable. You just thank Him and say, God, thank you for providing.

But, I have also been on the other side. When I worked in a hospital and worked in open heart surgery, I had enough money. I made enough to where I never had to worry about what I was going to do with it. If I wanted to go buy something I could. I have seen both sides. I did not have to trust God for money when I had enough, but I will tell you God will find something else to put you on your knees and He did. It was not money, but He will find something to keep us dependent. He never wants us to become self-sufficient.

The warning here is to beware of self-sufficiency. Do not lose your sense of dependence on God. Do not lose your sense of your needing Him. What makes you feel secure? What makes you feel self-sufficient that you have it under control that you are okay? Is it your financial wealth, your husband, your family? Perhaps it is your status in your church or the community. But, what happens if God removed those things from your life tomorrow? Will your world crumble? If your dependence is in Him, if He is your security it will be hard, but your world will not crumble. He gives us blessings to enjoy, but they should never take His rightful place in our lives. Our trust and security must be in Him alone, not in ourselves, not in anyone else, not in any material things, because we will fail and other people will let us down. Material things will come and go, but God will not. He alone is constant. He alone is completely trustworthy. So, the first cause of spiritual indifference is an attitude of self-sufficiency.

B. Self-Deception

The second cause is self-deception. Look at the second half of verse Revelation 3:17. He says,

and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, (NASB)

What is sad about their condition is not so much the condition, although that is sad. What is sadder is that they do not have a clue as to their condition. They do not know how bad off they are. They had deceived themselves into believing that they had it all together and that they were in control and that they were self-sufficient. They said they did not need anything, but Jesus tells them they are in need of everything. They were wretched, miserable and poor because their material riches could not buy them spiritual riches. They were blind because they had no idea of their spiritual poverty. They were naked because they had no clothes to fit them to stand before God. We may flatter and deceive ourselves, but He sees and He knows us as we really are. He knows our true spiritual condition. The warning here for us is to beware of spiritual blindness because an attitude of self-sufficiency will prevent us from seeing our need for Christ.

I remember the first time I shared Christ with my older brother. I was at LSU and had just started walking with the Lord and just got involved with Campus Crusade. I came home for a holiday and my brother and I were sitting there talking. I was sharing with him about how my life had changed. My relationship with Jesus Christ had just turned my life around. I ended up sharing Christ with him and took out the Four Spiritual Laws. We spent several hours. We were up to well after midnight talking through the gospel. His response was “I do not need a Savior. I am a good person.” He was a good person. He really did not do anything that was blatantly bad, but he said he did not need a Savior. “God will only send people to hell that are really bad-murderers, rapists, those kind of people. He will not send people like me to hell. So, I do not need a Savior.” He was spiritually blind to his need. He did not even realize his true condition. Today, as many of you know, he is a member of the Mormon Church. He still does not see a need for a Savior. He is spiritually blinded and I pray every day that God will just open his eyes and allow him to see the truth. When we do not see our need for Jesus Christ, we are in danger. Their condition is one of spiritual indifference and the causes were self-sufficiency and self-deception.

3. The Cure

That brings us to our third point. What is the cure? Well, three things He mentions in this letter for the cure.

A. Be Rich Spiritually

First, be rich spiritually. Jesus tells them in Revelation 3:18,

I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. (NASB)

They lacked spiritual riches so He advised them that instead of storing up material wealth they should buy gold refined by fire. Buy spiritual riches that come from Jesus Christ alone. Really, we do not buy them. We cannot buy them. They are a gift that we simply receive by faith. Instead of the black wool garments that were popular in Laodicea, He urged them to wear white garments, symbolic of righteous conduct or righteousness that would cover our spiritual nakedness. Instead of that eye salve that the Laodicean medical school produced, they should purchase spiritual eye salve. They needed their eyes open spiritually. This is probably a reference to the Word of God because it is the Word of God that enables us to clearly see God’s perspective.

B. Be Repentant

The second prescription for cure that He gives them is to be repentant. In verse 19 He tells them,

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. (NASB)

He disciplines you because He loves you. Be zealous and repent. Rekindle the fire, wholeheartedly repent, not half-heartedly. Come back to Him. Sometimes it takes discipline and God’s reproof to shake us out of our little complacency, our indifference, our lukewarmness.

C. Be Responsive

The third prescription He gives for cure is be responsive. In verse 20, He says,

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. (NASB)

Alright, we come to the verse that is the verse of much discussion, debate, I will not say controversy. Is this a gospel invitation or is this an invitation to fellowship with Jesus Christ? Is He addressing believers or is He addressing nonbelievers? Scholars disagree on this. You can read one commentary that gives you a great support for one view and turn around and read another one which gives you great support for another.

My professors at seminary did not agree on this letter. I actually had to write a paper on this letter in seminary on Revelation 3:20 when I was taking the Revelation class. Dr. Toussaint had us write a paper on, “Is this a gospel invitation or is this an invitation for fellowship?” So, I did my research. I had grown up with 10 years on the staff at Campus Crusade. I had always used the Four Spiritual Laws booklet that always used Revelation 3:20 as a gospel invitation. So, here I am in class and I am thinking, “okay, well, we are writing to churches so I think I need to really reconsider my thinking.” So, I wrote a paper and turned it in. My view was that this was not a gospel invitation. It was an invitation for fellowship and that these were believers. Well, we turned the paper in at the beginning of the class and then the professor would proceed during the class to answer the question that we had written about. Dr. Toussaint taught his view on this verse and this letter and his view was that these were nonbelievers. They were nonbelievers because they were nominal. They were a church that said that they were Christians but only by name. They had not really truly professed faith. I will tell you we were sinking in our chairs because most of us had written on the view that this was written to believers and all of a sudden he is telling us why he believes it is written to nonbelievers. He did not count us off because he just wanted to know can you defend your view.

I will tell you I have wrestled with this passage. Even this weekend writing this lecture I thought this was a hard, hard passage. So I will tell you where I come down today. I believe it is both. I am riding the fence on this one, okay. I do believe that it is both. I believe that the primary application of this letter is to the church and that there were some believers in this church. The primary application of Revelation 3:20 then is to the church and He is saying you have shut Me outside your church. You are going on with your programs, with your classes, and everything but I have no part of them. You have completely shut me out. I am standing outside the door of your church and I am knocking on the door and asking you to open the door and invite Me in.

I also believe that this is an application for the gospel. He says “if anyone hears My voice, I will come in.” I believe it is a gospel invitation also and that He is standing and He is saying, if there is one of you who will just let Me indwell you I will do it. The reason I take this kind of middle-of-the road view is because there are verses that support both in this letter. Verse 17 or verse 18 when He talks about buying from Me gold refined by fire, about white garments, and about the salve, these all seem to be things that a nonbeliever would need. Then, when He talks about reproving and loving and discipline, that goes with a believer. So, that is my answer. I believe that this is both. I believe that the primary application is to the church, the believers in the church, but it is also for those nonbelievers.

The Promise

Jesus makes a promise then to them in verse 21. He says,

He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. (NASB)

He promises us that as believers we will one day rule with Him in His kingdom. You know what excites me about that is not ruling with Him. What excites me is sitting with Him on His throne. As a little girl I could think of no better place I wanted to sit than in the chair with my daddy and the sense that came with that.

Conclusion

Well, we do not know if this Laodicean church heeded the warning or not. This city, once prosperous and complacent, was now a miserable waste. The 21st century traveler said, “Nothing can exceed the desolation and melancholy appearance of the site of Laodicea.” Will we heed these warnings? Or will our lives become a similar desolation?

¹ MacArthur, New Testament Commentary on Revelation, 135- 136.

² D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 2:248.

Downloadable Resources for Rekindle the Fire

Series resources	Download

Series Student Workbook
Map of the Seven Churches
Synopsis of the Seven Churches

Personal Study	Audio	Handout	Transcript of Audio

Introduction to Rekindle the Fire
Week 1: The Setting
Week 2: Ephesus -- The Loveless Church
Week 3: Smyrna -- The Suffering Church
Week 4: Pergamum -- The Compromising Church
Week 5: Thyatira -- The Tolerant Church
Week 6: Sardis -- The Dead Church
Week 7: Philadelphia -- The Faithful Church
Week 8: Laodicea -- The Lukewarm Church

Easter [2015]: Permanent Joy (John 16:20-22)

Related Media

April 5, 2015

Special Easter Message

We all want joyful lives, but if you’re like me, you don’t always experience it. So I’ve been asking myself lately, “How am I doing in the ‘joy department’?” “Do I experience consistent joy in the Lord?” “Am I full of joy?” I invite you to ask yourself those same questions. They are rooted in Jesus’ upper room discourse, which we’ve been working through. In John 15:11, He states, “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.” He mentions “joy” in John 16:20, 21, & 22. Again in John 16:24, Jesus states that He wants our joy to be made full. He says it again in His prayer (John 17:13), where He speaks these things “so that they may have My joy made full in themselves.” He doesn’t want us to be a quarter-full of joy or half-full or even three-quarters full. He wants us full of joy!

The apostle Paul echoes the same thought (Phil. 4:4), “Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice!” He must be exaggerating: “Always, Paul?” “Yes, always.” He repeats it in 1 Thessalonians 5:16, “Rejoice always.” After love, the second fruit that the Holy Spirit produces in us is joy (Gal. 5:22). The Psalms have repeated commands and exclamations about joy in the Lord, such as Psalm 5:11, “But let all who take refuge in You be glad, let them ever sing for joy ….” Psalm 16:11, “You will make known to me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy; in Your right hand there are pleasures forever.”

Verses like these prompted C. H. Spurgeon to remind his congregation that it is “a Christian duty for believers to be glad.” He said (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit [Pilgrim Publications], 43:325), “Joy is the normal condition of a believer. His proper state, his healthy state, is that of happiness and gladness.” More recently, John Piper often hammers on that same idea. His oft-repeated theme is, “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.” A gloomy Christian is not going to attract others to want to follow our Lord. To be effective witnesses for God our Savior, we need to be full of His joy.

That doesn’t mean that we won’t have times of sorrow and grief. Anticipating His impending death, Jesus tells the disciples (John 16:20), “Truly, truly, I say to you, that you will weep and lament ….” Jesus Himself wept at Lazarus’ tomb (John 11:35). He wept over Jerusalem because of its unbelief (Luke 19:41). Paul tells us (Rom. 12:15), “Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.” He describes himself (2 Cor. 6:10), “as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing.” He allows that when we lose loved ones in death, we grieve, but not as those who have no hope (1 Thess. 4:13). The psalmists often express their tears and depression as they struggled with problems (Psalms 42 & 43; Ps. 56:8). So being full of joy in the Lord does not exclude times of sorrow and sadness. It doesn’t mean that we all have to have exuberant, sanguine personalities. But, as Spurgeon, who himself wrestled with depression, said, joy and gladness should be our normal condition.

In our text, the Lord Jesus contrasts the temporary joy of the world with the permanent joy that He gives. We learn:

The world offers temporary joy, but Christ gives believers permanent joy through His death and resurrection.

1. The world offers temporary joy in things that will perish.

When Jesus predicts that the disciples will weep and lament while the world rejoices, He was referring to the disciples’ grief over His death, while the Jewish leaders rejoiced that they had finally gotten rid of their enemy. The disciples’ sorrow was temporary, in that three days later they saw the risen Lord Jesus and rejoiced (John 20:20). But the Jewish leaders’ joy was temporary, too. Joy that results from sin is always temporary. Even if the Jewish leaders went to their deaths smugly happy that they had gotten rid of Jesus, at death their sinful joy was instantly changed into eternal grief as they stood before the Righteous Judge.

When you read that the world would rejoice over Jesus’ death, you have to ask, “Why?” How could people be happy over the death of a good man like Jesus? John’s Gospel has already answered those questions. John 3:19-20 explains, “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.” In John 7:7, Jesus told His still unbelieving brothers, “The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.” Those who enjoy their sins are happy to be rid of someone who exposes their sins and makes them feel guilty.

But to find happiness in things that will result in God’s judgment is not wise! Hebrews 11:25 says that by faith Moses chose “rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin.” He could have enjoyed a comfortable life in Pharaoh’s palace, but he gave that up and chose instead to live his last 40 years wandering in barren the Judean desert because he was looking to the eternal reward of heaven. Any pleasure that comes from sin is temporary at best. Any joy that comes from faith in Jesus Christ lasts for eternity.

But even if we’re not indulging in the passing pleasures of sin, it’s easy to find our joy in things that aren’t sinful in themselves, but they’re temporary. When life is going well, we’re healthy, we have a loving family and good friends, and we have adequate money to provide for our needs, it’s not hard to be joyful. And it’s not wrong to enjoy such provisions: God “richly supplies us with all things to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17). But the danger is that we derive our joy from our comfortable circumstances, not from the Lord. But circumstances can instantly change for the worst. So we need to make sure that the source of our joy and gladness is the Lord Himself and the gracious salvation that He has given to us.

2. Christ gives believers permanent joy through His death and resurrection.

Jesus promises the disciples (John 16:22), “No one will take your joy away from you.” That’s the kind of joy we all want. That joy was the result of the disciples seeing the risen Lord, who transformed their understanding of the cross. To understand that process, consider these four things:

A. Christ’s path to joy went through the awful agony of the cross.

Hebrews 12:3 says that for the joy set before Him, Jesus endured the cross. The cross itself was the worst imaginable horror for Christ, but He endured it because He loved us and He looked ahead to the eternal joy of bringing many sons and daughters to glory (Heb. 2:10). The worst part of enduring the cross for Jesus was not the physical agony, as horrific as that was. Rather, it was the fact that He who knew no sin would be made sin on our behalf (2 Cor. 5:21). The eternal, unbroken fellowship between the Father and the Son would be temporarily broken during those dark moments on the cross when Jesus bore the penalty of sin for all who trust in Him.

God cannot just forgive sin without the penalty for sin being paid. If He did so, He would not be righteous and just. He has declared that the wages of sin is death, eternal separation from Him (Rom. 6:23). As the only sinless person who has ever lived, Jesus, the unique God-man, could bear that penalty of sin for others. For the joy of having those whom the Father gave Him with Him forever in heaven, Jesus bore the agony of the cross.

B. Our path to eternal joy often first goes through sorrow.

There are several reasons for this:

1) Before we can find joy in Christ, we first must feel sorrow for our sins.

If we’re happy in our sins, then we can never find true joy in Christ. Perhaps some of the Jewish leaders who rejoiced that Jesus was crucified heard Peter preach on the Day of Pentecost. Many in the crowd that day were pierced to the heart when they heard how they had crucified their Messiah, who was now risen from the dead (Acts 2:36-37). As a result of Peter’s sermon, three thousand repented of their sins and trusted in Christ. But until they felt sorrow over their terrible sins, they didn’t feel any need for the Savior.

The first step toward permanent joy in Christ is to feel deeply unhappy with your sins. Jesus has just stated (John 16:8) that the Holy Spirit would convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. It’s never pleasant to feel convicted about your sins, but without such conviction, you’ll never see your need for the Savior. And since sin always leads to pain in this life and judgment when we die, it’s far better to be convicted of sin and repent than to go on in sin and face judgment.

If you had cancer, but it was a form of cancer that had no painful symptoms or visible signs, you wouldn’t go to the doctor for treatment. The cancer would actually be killing you, but you would assume that you were okay until you started having painful symptoms. The pain would cause you to go see a doctor to find out what was wrong.

In the same way, most of us feel like we’re pretty good people. We aren’t murderers or terrorists or child molesters. We try to be nice to others and treat them as we’d want to be treated. We’re responsible, law-abiding citizens. So we don’t see our need for a Savior from sin. But when the Holy Spirit convicts you of your sin, you begin to see yourself as the Holy God sees you. You realize that you have not loved Him with all your heart, but instead have put many idols in His place. You see how you have loved yourself more than others. You’ve lied to cover your own shortcomings. You’ve cheated for your own financial advantage. You’ve committed adultery by lusting in your heart. You’ve been hypocritical by trying to keep up an image that you know is not true. The list goes on! But it’s only when you begin to feel sorrow for your many sins that you will begin to seek the Lord Jesus, who is the only source for true joy.

2) Sometimes sorrow over the loss of things that bring temporal joy is necessary to drive us to Christ for permanent joy.

It’s easy to get comfy with all of the material things that we enjoy to the point where we don’t trust in the Lord. Most of us don’t even think about where our next meal will come from. If we’re hungry, we hit the fridge or go to the store to buy whatever we need. If we get sick, we take advantage of the best medical care in the world. We watch news reports of tragedies in other parts of the world, but we change the channel and don’t worry about such things upsetting our lives. In that kind of world, God is a nice accessory, but He isn’t essential.

But when God suddenly strips us of the things that we trust in for joy and comfort, we see our need to rely on Christ for permanent joy. John Calvin astutely observed (Calvin’s Commentaries [Baker], on Zech. 13:9, p. 403), “It is therefore necessary that we should be subject, from first to last, to the scourges of God, in order that we may from the heart call on him; for our hearts are enfeebled by prosperity, so that we cannot make the effort to pray.” He’s saying that we all need God to bring trials into our lives by stripping us of our comfort, because otherwise we won’t depend on Him in prayer.

3) In order to find permanent joy in Christ, we have to die to self, which isn’t immediately pleasant.

Jesus said (Mark 8:34), “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.” The cross wasn’t an implement of minor irritation that you needed to endure. To take up your cross meant that you were going to die that very day! To follow Jesus as Savior and Lord, you have to die daily to yourself. You have to die to your self-righteousness and good works as the means of salvation. You have to realize that you’re guilty before God and that you can’t remove that guilt. You have to be willing to turn from your sin and trust in Christ alone. Only He can save you from God’s righteous judgment when you trust in what He did on the cross.

Then you have to live each day by dying to your pride, selfishness, greed, lust, and other sins. But whatever it takes on God’s part to strip you of the things that bring you temporary joy, it’s worth it the instant that He floods your life with the eternal joy of knowing Christ. When you know that He has forgiven all your sins and that nothing can separate you from His love, then as Jesus says (John 16:22), “No one will take your joy away from you.”

So Christ’s path to joy went through the awful agony of the cross. And, our path to joy usually first goes through sorrow: sorrow for our sins; sorrow over the loss of things that we’ve been trusting in for our happiness; and the sorrow of dying to self so that we can truly trust in Christ.

C. Christ promises to turn our sorrow into joy.

To illustrate, Christ uses the analogy of a woman giving birth. When she’s in labor, she’s in great pain. The cause of her pain is the baby that is moving through the birth canal. But a few minutes later, the very thing that was causing her excruciating pain is now the object of her intense joy, as she holds that beautiful child in her arms and gazes in wonder at his face.

The main point of this illustration is that the very thing that would cause the disciples overwhelming grief the next day—seeing the Lord who loved them suffer on the cross—would later be the source of their permanent joy. After He was risen, Jesus explained to the disciples that it was “necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory” (Luke 24:26). He went on to teach them (Luke 24:46-47), “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

In other words, as the disciples came to understand the significance and meaning of the cross, both for themselves and for others, it transformed the most horrible experience of their lives into the most glorious truth in their lives: their sins were forgiven and they could offer forgiveness of sins to all the nations.

John Bunyan, the author of The Pilgrim’s Progress, has a wonderful little book (in The Whole Works of John Bunyan [Baker], 1:67), The Jerusalem Sinner Saved. It’s based on Jesus’ instructions to the disciples that the good news of repentance for forgiveness of sins be proclaimed to all the nations, “beginning from Jerusalem.” Jerusalem sinners were those who crucified Jesus! Bunyan’s subtitle is, “Being a help for despairing souls, showing that Jesus Christ would have mercy in the first place offered to the biggest sinners.” Bunyan saw himself as a “Jerusalem sinner.” He titled his autobiography, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners (ibid., p. 6). He knew that the message of the cross was one of grace and forgiveness to the worst sinners who repent and trust in Jesus Christ.

Is the cross of Christ the source of your greatest joy because you know that through His death, Christ forgave all your sins? Even though it was your sin that put Christ there, which should cause you terrible sorrow, it should also cause you the greatest joy as you realize that He satisfied God’s wrath toward you when He died as your substitute there. If you don’t have that joy in the cross, it can be yours right now if you will trust in Jesus Christ.

A secondary application of Christ turning the very thing that caused sorrow into joy is that He often uses our pain and suffering to show us our need for Him, where we find true joy. If He takes from you something that you were trusting in for your happiness, it is unbearably painful at the time. But if through that loss, Christ brings you into the eternal joy of knowing Him as Savior and Lord, He has turned your sorrow into joy. Finally,

D. The source of permanent joy is that Christ is risen.

In verses 16 & 19, Jesus tells the disciples that after a short while of not seeing Him, they will see Him again. Then in verse 22, He turns it around and says, not that they will see Him again, but that He will see them again. I’m not sure that the change of perspective is significant, because both ways of saying it refer to the disciples’ encounters with Jesus after He was raised bodily from the dead. The disciples saw Jesus and Jesus saw the disciples, not once, but repeatedly over the course of 40 days before they finally saw Him ascend into heaven.

Those encounters with the risen Lord Jesus transformed these confused, fearful, doubting men into the bold witnesses that we read of in the Book of Acts. When the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem flogged the apostles for preaching the resurrection of Jesus, we read (Acts 5:41), “So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name.” There is permanent joy! Except for John, they all went on to suffer martyr’s deaths because they refused to stop proclaiming that Jesus died for sinners and that He was raised from the dead. Nothing except for the bodily resurrection of Jesus can account for that permanent joy in the apostles’ hearts.

Conclusion

Do you have that same permanent joy? Perhaps you’re thinking, “If I could see Jesus risen from the dead, I’d believe and have such joy. But I’ve never seen Him.” Peter wrote to some Christians who were suffering severe persecution at the hands of the evil despot, Nero. He said (1 Pet. 1:8-9), “And though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.” They had not seen Jesus either, but because they believed in Him, they were filled with great joy in the midst of their fiery trials.

Were they gullible to believe in the risen Lord Jesus whom they had not seen? No, because they had the credible testimony of the apostles who had seen Him. They heard from the apostles who Jesus was, what He taught, and the miracles that He performed, which substantiated His amazing claims. They saw the changed lives of the apostles. It’s not a blind leap in the dark to believe such solid testimony!

You have the same testimony and even more. It is now written down in the pages of the New Testament. In addition to the witness of the disciples who were with Jesus, you have the witness of the apostle Paul, who was transformed from a violent persecutor of the church into a man who suffered greatly for Christ’s sake (Acts 9:16). The cause of that dramatic change was that Paul saw the risen Lord Jesus Christ. Your path to permanent joy begins the moment you trust in Christ’s death for your sins and His resurrection from the dead. Jesus wants you to greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory. That permanent joy comes through believing in Him.

Application Questions

Is it wrong to enjoy material prosperity when there are so many needy people in the world? See 1 Tim. 6:17-19.
What most robs you of fullness of joy in the Lord? How can you overcome it?
What is the greatest trial that you’ve gone through? Have you seen the Lord turn it into great joy yet? How can you grow in that process?
How would you answer a skeptic who said, “If I could see a vision of Jesus or see a true miracle, I’d believe”?

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture Quotations are from the New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition © The Lockman Foundation

1. World Views

Related Media

This lesson covers what apologetics is, why it's necessary, and what a worldview is. In order to talk with people effectively, it's important to understand how groups of people commonly view the world.

2. Truth

Related Media

What is truth? Can we know it? Is science the only source of truth?

Related Topics: Apologetics

3. The Bible - Part 1

Related Media

Should we trust the Bible because it claims to be God's word? Or are there better and other reasons to trust it? We'll examine multiple evidences and the reliability of the New Testament.

Related Topics: Apologetics

4. The Bible - Part 2

Related Media

How did we end up with our current English Bible? How should we deal with claims that the Bible was "just written by men" or that we only have copies? Additionally, should we take the Bible literally? And lastly, do all Biblical promises apply to us today?

Related Topics: Apologetics

5. The Trinity & Cosmological Argument

Related Media

What does it mean for God to be all powerful? How should we describe and understand the Trinity? And how can we prove God exists without using the Bible?

Related Topics: Apologetics

6. The Problem of Evil

Related Media

"If God is all good and If God is all powerful,
Then evil should not exist
However, evil does exist.
Therefore, God does not exist."

We tackle this objection to God's existence and also examine popular groundings for morality - relativism, social contract theory, evolution, and God.

(There is no actual video, because the power was out for the entirety of the talk.)

Related Topics: Apologetics

You are here

The Date and Destination of Galatians

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Nature of the Problem

The Purpose of the Study

Overview of the Paper

Chapter 2: Two Preliminary Observations and the Destination of Galatians

Introduction

The Background and Identity of the Galatians

The Referent Behind the Term ‘Galatia’ in the North and South Theories

The Destination of Galatians

Arguments for a Northern Destination

The Use of the Term ‘Galatians’ and First Century Convention

Luke’s Use of the Term ‘Galatia’

‘Phrygia and Galatia’ in Acts 16:6

‘Galatia and Phrygia’ in Acts 18:23

The ‘Fickle Character’ of the Galatians

Acts 16:6: κωλυθέντες as a Participle of Antecedent Time

Arguments for a Southern Destination

A Different Interpretation of Acts 16:6 and 18:23

No Record in Acts of Churches in Northern Region

The Isolation of the North Galatia District

Paul’s Use of Provincial Titles

Galatia Can Refer to Those in Southern Area

The Participle in Acts 16:6

The Mention of Barnabas in Galatians 2:1-10

Help From the Epistle

The Activity of Judaizing Christians

A Summary of the Evidence

Chapter 3: The Relation of Galatians 2:1-10 to Paul’s Jerusalem Visits as Recorded in the Book of Acts

Introduction

Arguments for the Identity Between Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 15

Similarity in People and Issues

Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles

A Literary Argument

Galatians and Romans

᾿Εσπούδασα in Galatians 2:10

Two Objections

Arguments for the Identity Between Galatians 2:1-10 and Acts 11:27-30 and 12:25

Paul and the Incident with Peter

A Normal Reading of Galatians 2:1

Paul’s Work in Syria and Cilicia

Two Objections

A Summary of the Evidence

Chapter 4: The Date of the Epistle to the Galatians

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Bibliography

Books

Periodical Articles

Other Material

From the series: Rekindle the Fire (Revelation 2-3) PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

8. Laodicea -- The Lukewarm Church

Introduction to the message for Lesson Eight– Laodicea – The Lukewarm Church [Begin Transcription]

Background

Description of Christ

Three Aspects to Rekindling the Fire

1. The Condition

2. The Cause

A. Self-Sufficiency

B. Self-Deception

3. The Cure

A. Be Rich Spiritually

B. Be Repentant

C. Be Responsive

The Promise

Conclusion

From the series: Rekindle the Fire (Revelation 2-3) PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

From the series: Rekindle the Fire (Revelation 2-3) PREVIOUS PAGE

Downloadable Resources for Rekindle the Fire

From the series: Rekindle the Fire (Revelation 2-3) PREVIOUS PAGE

From the series: Easter Messages PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE

Easter [2015]: Permanent Joy (John 16:20-22)

1. The world offers temporary joy in things that will perish.

2. Christ gives believers permanent joy through His death and resurrection.

A. Christ’s path to joy went through the awful agony of the cross.

B. Our path to eternal joy often first goes through sorrow.

1) Before we can find joy in Christ, we first must feel sorrow for our sins.

2) Sometimes sorrow over the loss of things that bring temporal joy is necessary to drive us to Christ for permanent joy.

3) In order to find permanent joy in Christ, we have to die to self, which isn’t immediately pleasant.

C. Christ promises to turn our sorrow into joy.