2. _Galatia:_ "The name 'Galatia,' however, is ambiguous. Originally it was restricted to the region possessed and inhabited by the descendants of the invading Gauls; a tract of country separated from the Black Sea by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, and bounded on the east by Pontus and Cappadocia and on the south by Phrygia. This country had been known as Galatia since the beginning of the third century B. C., when three tribes of Gauls (Galatinas, Celts), who had attempted to overrun Greece, were driven back, and finally found a footing in this part of Asia Minor. In 189 B. C., Galatia became a Roman dependency, and in 25 B. C. Augustus added to it Lycanonia, Pisidia, Pamphylia, and a large part of Phrygia, and constituted the whole into a Roman province, under the name 'Galatia.' And it is not easy to determine whether we are to seek for the churches here addressed among the northern Galatians, or in Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. Perhaps, on the whole, the evidence is somewhat in favor of the belief that St. Paul addresses the last-named churches. Of the founding of these we have a full account in Acts xiii: 13-14, 24." (Bible Treasury, p. 139.) 3. _Object of the Epistle:_ During the absence of St. Paul from the churches of Galatia, Judaizing teachers had found access to them. These persistent enemies of the Apostle of the Gentiles taught his young churches that it was only through the gate of Judaism any one could enter the Christian fold. They demanded that the Gentile converts should be circumcised, and should keep the whole law. And they had much that was plausible to advance in favor of the idea. The law was a divine institution, and could not be abrogated. The promises had been made to Abraham and to his seed. The Messiah was the Messiah of the Jews. Jesus himself had been circumcised and had kept the whole law. The original apostles followed his example. Besides, if the Gentiles were not enjoined to keep the law, how were they to escape from the immoralities in which they had been reared? And who was Paul, that he should presume to introduce this novel doctrine? He had not known Christ while on earth. He was merely the messenger of the church at Antioch, and had no commission from the apostolic circle at Jerusalem. And vehemently as he declaimed against circumcision, he enjoined it when it suited him; witness the case of Timothy. The very speciousness of these arguments convinced St. Paul that a great crisis had arrived, and that, if Christianity was to become the universal religion and not a mere Jewish sect--if religion was to be spiritual and not mere ritual--if union with Christ really meant emancipation from bondage of every kind, then it was time that he should, once for all, make clear the relation of Christ to the law" hence the epistle. (Bible Treasury, p. 139.)