It has been said on more than one occasion that “A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext.” The point is that faithful bible reading must take the historical and literary context of the text into consideration. God spoke through real people living real lives with real questions, and in order to understand His Word, we must read it on its own terms, that is to say we must seek to understand it as it would have been understood by its intended audience. We must put ourselves into their shoes, so to speak, and look at things through their eyes. Then, and only then, will we be able to draw the parallel applications that transform our own lives. However, in the academic study of the New Testament, historical reconstructions of the life and times of the biblical audience can sometimes feel overly speculative and somewhat disconnected from the actual text. This is why, no matter how sophisticated our historical reconstruction may be, we must ask the question, “How does this help me to understand the text better?,” because at the end of the day, biblical studies is an irreducibly textual endeavor.

I recently had this point reiterated to me by a brother who is preparing to teach Paul’s Letter to the Galatians in our adult Sunday school class. Of course, the basic situation in Galatians is pretty straightforward. The newly converted Gentile Christians in Galatia are facing social and theological pressure from a group of Jewish “Christians” to be circumcised, so that they can truly be part of God’s (Jewish) people. This is a position that the Apostle Paul simply will not countenance under any circumstances; in fact, he condemns it outright in some of the harshest language in all of the New Testament. “As we have said before, I now say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him!” (1.9) Of course, Paul goes on in the letter to give historical and theological arguments against the position in question in chapters 3-4, and then he uses chapters 5-6 to emphasize those virtues and habits of character that truly distinguish someone as belonging to the people of God. In other words, the message of the letter is pretty clear.

However, we must ask whether or not this is all way can say about the situation in Galatians, particularly as this relates to chapters 1-2 and their relationship with the events in Acts 9-15. In these first two chapters, Paul gives a brief history of his own salvation and his relationship with the Jerusalem church; his point is that his gospel is not based on the traditions of men, but on the supernatural revelation of God himself in the person of Christ on the Damascus road. But the correspondence between Paul’s testimony and the events in Acts is less than clear to say the least. Of course, there are some that would say that the two are inherently incompatible, and to attempt any kind of combined reconstruction is hopeless and probably not even necessary. But for those of us who hold convictions regarding the inerrancy of the Scriptures, this is simply not an option. We must ask questions regarding the text’s larger coherence with the New Testament witness, especially when that text addresses events that are recorded by another author. For example, is the Jerusalem visit that Paul mentions in 2.1-10 to be understood as corresponding his visit at the Jerusalem council as it is recorded in Acts 15, or is it the famine visit that is mentioned in Acts 11? Who are these “men from James” (2.12), and what is the purpose of their visit in Antioch? Are they part of the circumcision party? Why would Peter withdraw from table fellowship from the Gentile Christians after his transformative experience with Cornelius (Acts 10)? And the list could go on.

I don’t have the answers to all of these questions, but in the space that follows, I would like to suggest a brief timeline that attempts to reconcile Galatians 1-2 with the events of Acts 9-15. In academic scholarship, this position is known as the Southern Galatia Theory, and it is associated with names such as F.F. Bruce and Richard Longenecker, to name but a few. In general, this theory posits that the Letter to the Galatians was written around 47-48 AD to the churches that Paul started during his first missionary journey (Acts 13-14) in the southern region of the Roman province of Galatia. The alternative view, known as the Northern Galatia Theory, argues that the Letter to the Galatians was written around 56-57 AD from Ephesus to ethnic Galatians in the north, the former kingdom of Galatia. Due to space considerations, I will not lay out this opposing theory in detail.

The timeline for the Southern Galatia Theory flows as follows: AD 34 – Conversion of Paul (Galatians 1.13-16, Acts 9.1-19), AD 34-37 – Paul in Arabia and Damascus (Galatians 1.17, Acts 9.19-22, 27), AD 37 – Paul visits Jerusalem after three years (Galatians 1.18-20, Acts 9.26-29), AD 37-47 – Paul in Syria and Cilicia (Galatians 1.21-24, Acts 9:30-31), AD 47 – Paul visits Jerusalem after 14 years (Famine Visit) (Galatians 2:1-10, Acts 11.27-30), AD 47-48 – Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:1-14:28), AD 48 – Peter visits Antioch and confronts Peter (Galatians 2:11-14), AD 48 – Paul writes the Letter to the Galatians, AD 49 – Paul speaks at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15.1-29), AD 49-51 – Paul visits the Galatian churches on his second missionary journey (Acts 16-18), AD 52-57 – Paul’s visits the Galatian churches on his third missionary journey (Acts 19-21).

This theory seems to be the most widely accepted in New Testament scholarship today, but we must return to the initial question of this post, namely, “how does this help me to understand the text better?” Again, this is the fundamental question; no matter how insightful and innovative our reconstruction may be, if it does not shed greater light on the meaning of the text, then it is nothing more than pointless speculation. In particular, I think the early date offered by this theory helps explain the actions of James and Peter in chapter 2. At this point in the history of the early church, the inclusion of the Gentiles was still a relatively new phenomenon. The details were still being worked out in the lives of real people on the frontlines of the church’s ministry. So, yes, even after Peter’s incredible experience with Cornelius, it is still possible for him to waiver under the social pressures of the circumcision party. Perhaps he thought his actions in Antioch would somehow hinder the evangelistic effort among the Jews in Jerusalem.

Moreover, it explains the apparent hesitancy of James and his representatives. Of course, James will go on to give the final argument against the requirement of circumcision at the Jerusalem Council, and he will write the apostolic letter detailing the council’s decision (Acts 15.23-29). But, perhaps at this moment, before the council, he was still considering the question. We don’t know, and we may never know. But for any theory to be considered probable, it must explain the evidence better than all the other possible explanations, and I believe that the Southern Galatia Theory does just that. Moreover, it shows us that the authors of Scripture were real fallible human beings. James, Peter, Paul – they were just ordinary men who God chose to use in extraordinary ways. They didn’t get everything right all the time, but they were “men [who] spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1.21), and in so doing, the produced the inerrant words of Holy Scripture. Thanks be to God for His incredible grace!