The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Galatians 1:8,9

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

I was just reading Galatians 1:8,9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse! (NIV - italics added)

In my 1984 edition of the NIV it actually has “eternally condemned” for “under God’s curse”.

I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the meaning of “under God’s curse” in this passage? Whatever it means, it sounds like he is wishing something “not nice” on them. Do you think he meant “under God’s loving discipline and correction” or “something very horribly bad”?

Also, is this something we should wish on people who speak the wrong gospel?

Thanks.

#2

Hi Craig, I’d tend to understand that as let them be dealt with, but I’m no expert in the original language. If they are doing something harmful it can’t go unnoticed. I’m sure it must not feel nice, consequences rarely are. We all want to avoid hell even if we don’t think it’s endless. I imagine God’s got a good purpose in it. I think we should wish for God to discipline in so far as it’s beneficial, but I don’t think we just be wishing retribution with no purpose. For that would seem to contradict what love is all about.

#3

Hi Craig
I do not have many resources on Galatians but what I have points to the Greek word ‘anathema’ which refers to something that is dedicated to God for either a blessing or a curse. John Stott in his ‘The Message of Galatians’ (p24) reckons this word was used in the LXX (the Greek OT) for the divine ban as seen in, for example, the story of Achan. In this story the spoil of the Canaanites was under God’s ban - meaning it was devoted to destruction. I would need to do further research to verify this but Stott was an exceptional scholar.

Now the reason Paul uses the word in Galatians 1:8-9 is fairly clear to me. In 1:6-7 he is clearly perturbed that his readers where in the process of abandoning the Gospel for a perversion of the true Gospel. Paul’s point is simply this, the false Gospel does not lead you to salvation but to destruction/curse simply because it is false. It cannot lead you to salvation. Ergo anyone preaching such a Gospel is, ipso facto, still under God’s judgment.

I do not think this necessarily is a barrier to a belief in universalism since I have not yet a firm enough grasp on whether this divine ban explicitly involves an eternal aspect to it. I will have to do more reading on the OT contexts and the use of ‘anathema’ in the NT (see Luk 21:5, Act 23:14, Rom 9:3, 1Co 12:3; 16:22 for instances of its use) As I read Robin Parry and Thomas Talbot I find that they have a clear place for God’s judgment/punishment as God’s way of bringing all to salvation since He purifies all sinner after the final judgment so they all will eventually choose salvation.

I have given all I have for the moment but it should point you in the right direction for places you can research for yourself. I hope it helps.

#4

I think Darren’s thoughts above are good. As far as Paul being “perturbed” by the “perversion of the true Gospel” – this false gospel that riled Paul to the extent of his rich rhetoric against its advocates was none other than the ‘return to law righteousness’ as the means of attaining covenant faithfulness; that as opposed to realising the sufficiency of Christ’s once for all faithfulness, i.e., “the faith of Christ”.

If it wasn’t certain gentile believers “exclusiveness” against Israel Rom 11:19-22; 1Cor 15:12] then it was certain Israelite believers “reversion” Gal 1:6-9, 2:11-21, 3:1-4] to law righteousness that were constant problems against which Paul locked horns. Either way Paul had no trouble being rather terse with his language in identifying the graveness with which he held these things.

#5

I am hopeful that you are correct Amy, because this would make the most sense to me.
Jesus said to love our enemies and in other posts today, Wormwood said “the desire to see ones enemies in hell is a simple human one, similar to the urge to break all the other commandments.”
Also Roger Tutt quoted Tony Hinkle & Gary Amirault “He overcomes His enemies with good and tells you to do the same.”
If Paul was just cursing them with no thought of benefit to them it would seem to be inconsistent with loving his enemies.

#6

Thanks Darren and Davo for emphasising the seriousness of the error of the false teachers in Gal 1.

It is interesting Darren what Stott says about the divine ban.
I wonder whether the man in 1 Cor 5 could have been “cursed”,“anathema”, “under God’s ban” or “under God’s wrath or judgement” and yet this was for a good purpose “so that his sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." 1 Cor 5:5
Also Hymenaeus and Alexander were handed over to Satan, which could be a similar thing- but again for a purpose- to be taught not to blaspheme. 1 Tim 1:20

The reference you gave in 1 Cor 16:22 is interesting - “If anyone does not love the Lord- a curse be on him”. This sounds similar to Gal 1 but it could hardly be final and for no purpose otherwise Paul himself nor anyone else who has not loved the Lord could ever have been saved!

So Gal 1:8,9 may not be as final and vindictive as it sounds.

Thanks everyone for your help. If anyone has any further thoughts, please share them.

#7

From time to time in the epistles, I think we hear Saul speaking, not Paul. Paul confessed he was far from perfect, and occasionally his writing demonstrated the point.

#8

Yes Allan. That brings in a whole different topic that I have only just begun to consider. At this stage (a bit reluctantly) I have to agree that it is a possibility but I would like to think that there may be some other explanation such as the ones we have been discussing so far.

I must admit, I have also wondered about your explanation as a possibility to consider where David in the Psalms prays for God to do some nasty things to his enemies.
Both Paul and David seem to be displaying different attitudes to Jesus and Stephen when facing death - “judge and destroy them” vs “father forgive them”.
I wonder though if the prayer of Paul and David can end up actually being the same prayer as Jesus and Stephen.

#9

I think Allan makes a very valid point… which is why also I used the terms “rich rhetoric” in my thoughts above. There is little doubt in my thinking that although Paul came to consider his past vocation in life as “dung” he had little trouble when giving a good tongue lashing reaching back into his ‘Pharisee of the Pharisees’ bag of vocabulary goodies and taking aim.

#10

eirEnopoiEsas

#11

“To same out of dead ones rousing”. What a wonderful translation!

#12

eirEnopoiEsas

#13

Hi Robin. I simply used your “translation” as an example of what I consider to be an incomprehsible translation. I wasn’t even considering this verse in particular.

I know I ridiculed your translation on another thread and called it a “gobbeldy-gook translation”. However, if your unusual “translation” means something to you, who am I to criticize it? Notwithstanding, I don’t see how it can help anyone to understand the scripture better. Most of the time I can’t make heads or tails of it. It’s not the way I learned Greek (and I studied it for several years).

If you really want people to understand the original intent of the authors, you need to use real English. Otherwise, they will simply ignore you, and your efforts will be wasted.

#14

eirEnopoiEsas