included Pisidia. Further he actually enumerates Antioch, Iconium and

Lystra as cities of Galatia.

(3)

Hadrian conferred the rank of Colonia upon the city of Iconium and in Paul's

day Iconian citizens called their country Galatike eparcheia "Province of

(4)

In a Greek dedicatory inscription of the year 56A.D. (and so of the very period

under discussion ) the writer describes his patris, Apollonia, as being the

land of the Galatians. A glance at a map will show Apollonia to be over

40 miles west of Antioch and Pisidia.

When therefore Paul addressed converts at Iconium as Galatae, he gave them their

due as Roman citizens. Had he called them by their national and not by the political

name, that is Lycaonians, he would have insulted them, giving them the name reserved

only for slaves. To be a "Phrygian" was to be rude, ignorant, slavish. To be addressed as

"Men of the Province of Galatia" was honourable. Paul could no more have hoped to

gain a hearing in Antioch by persisting in the use of "Phrygians" than a candidate for

Parliament could hope to secure the votes of a constituency in Scotland by persistently

using the name "English" instead of "British".

If therefore the cities evangelized in Acts 13: and 14: were cities of Galatia the

argument for a later place in chronology that is based upon Gal. 4: 13, ceases to be

sound. The fact that the Galatians knew Barnabas (Gal. 2:) is another strong proof that

the epistle was written early. Paul had to explain who Titus was, but Barnabas needed no

introduction. Now Barnabas played an important part in Acts 13: and 14:, but he

served his association with Paul at the end of Acts 15: and there is no record that he ever

again visited these Galatians cities. If we adhere to the North Galatian view, then Paul

did not visit Galatia until after Barnabas had left him.

We can now consider the chronological place of the epistle. In the fight for the truth

seen in the epistle to the Galatians, no mention is made of "the decrees" of Acts 15:, and

Peter's defection of Gal. 2: is much more difficult to understand if it be held that it took

place after Acts 15: We believe that the private conference of Gal. 2: took place upon

the second visit of the apostle to Jerusalem (Acts 11: 30), and the reference to the "poor"

coincides with the errand of mercy there indicated in that same verse. While Paul abode

at Antioch for "a long time" the emissaries from Jerusalem went to Galatia and troubled

the church (Gal. 1: 6). The apostle's immediate reaction was the writing of the epistle to

the Galatians. The self same contention that necessitated the conference of Acts 15:

necessitated the epistle. If Paul had already received the decrees formulated by the

Council at Jerusalem, he would have been in duty bound to have said so in his epistles,

and moreover they would have provided him with his strongest weapon with which to

overthrow the Judaisers who were spoiling his great work, yet he never refers to these

decrees when writing to the Galatians.