I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Galatians 1:6-10 ESV

Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the ground, crying out in lament to Yahweh the God of Israel. Their Deliverer, who rescued the nation of slaves from the mightiest nation on earth, promised to give them the land of Canaan. Although Canaan was filled with people, Yahweh said that He would drive them out before the Israelites. More than that, they would be His instruments in bringing much deserved judgment upon the Canaanites’ heads. The LORD would give them into Israel’s hands, but because the sins of the Canaanites were so great, they were commanded to devote them and all of their possessions to destruction. No man, woman, or child could be spared. Neither could Israel keep any of their livestock. It was all under the Ban. It was anathema. Even their wealth, tools, and homes were to be burned. Just as Abraham refused the riches of Sodom, his descendants would not be made rich from such wickedness; rather, their conquest would be a tangible picture of the eternal damnation that awaits the wicked.

Yahweh made good on His promise with the destruction of the first city that Israel encountered. Though Jericho’s walls seemed indestructible, the LORD brought them crumbling into rubble with only the shouts and trumpets of Israel. Within the day, that great city was desolate and cursed.

In comparison to Jericho, the next city of Ai seemed so insignificant that the spies assured Joshua that only a small force of two or three thousand men would be enough to easily conquer the city. However, that force soon returned in humiliating defeat, which is why Joshua was crying out to the LORD.

Yahweh answered the commander of Israel that they had been defeated because they had disobeyed God’s command to refrain from taking any of the spoils of Jericho. After drawing lots, it was discovered that a man named Achan had taken gold and silver for himself. In judgment for taking what belonged exclusively to the LORD, Achan, his family, and all of his possessions were burned with fire and stoned with stones.

By taking what was anathema, Achan became anathema himself. And with justice served, Yahweh looked favorably again upon Israel.

A DIFFERENT GOSPEL // VERSES 6-7

After the customary greeting, Paul typically begins his letters with a word of thanksgiving to God for those to whom he is writing. 2 Corinthians and Ephesians are notable exceptions, for instead of giving thanks to God, they ascribe blessing to Him. But Galatians is in another category altogether, for the opening word of verse 6 (which begins the main body of the letter) expresses Paul’s strong and bewildered disapproval with his recipients. Although astonishment can either be positive or negative, it comes from a Latin word meaning to be struck by lightning, which gives us a flavor of the suddenness and severity of this state of wonder. That is precisely what Paul felt about the condition that the Galatians were in. Clearly, he was not exactly at a loss for words, but he was extraordinarily disturbed. Indeed, this is the same word used to describe the astonishment that Mark 6:6 says Jesus felt about the unbelief of his hometown of Nazareth: “and he marveled because of their unbelief.”

But why was Paul so flabbergasted? I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to different gospel… The Galatians were abandoning and setting aside the salvation that they had received through the grace of Christ. Philip Ryken notes:

“Deserting” is a good translation because the word was first used in a military context for traitors and turncoats. Later it was used to describe anyone who converted from one religion or philosophy to another. The Galatians were betraying their allegiance to Jesus Christ and going over to the other side. The fact that the verb occurs here in the presence tense is significant. It describes something that the Galatians were in the process of doing at that very moment. But they had not done it yet, so there was still a chance to stop them. (16-17)

Indeed, we should keep that fact always in mind as we read this letter. The Galatians are not yet lost causes. They are in a very perilous situation, as the following verses testify, but Paul still has hope that they will repent of their error and reject those who are troubling them, for the root problem of the Galatians is that they are turning to different gospel.

But why is the apostle so shocked to find the Galatians being deceived by false teachers? The New Testament is filled with warnings about false teachers and about the dangers of not enduring to the end of our earthly race. The key to Paul’s astonishment is how quickly the Galatians had begun to fall away. His amazement is like that of Moses when he was told about the golden calf. Surely, Moses was not surprised by Israel’s drift to idolatry, since that is the default of every human heart. But it was baffling just how quickly they turned from Yahweh’s commands (Exodus 32:8). Thus, the Galatians were very unlike the recipients of Hebrews who had already suffered for Christ but had gone slothful with time. No, the Galatians ought to have still been strong and fresh in their faith, yet they were already giving way to error.

Again, even though they claimed to still follow Christ, Paul says that they were beginning to embrace an altogether different gospel, which was leading to them deserting God Himself (him who called you). While the gospel is the message of good news that God has redeemed us from our sins through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, it is fundamentally bound to God Himself. To reject the only true gospel is to reject God. In speaking of God as him who called you, John Brown gives us an idea of what Paul means:

To be called, in the New Testament sense, is, by means of the invitations of the gospel accompanied by the power of the Holy Spirit, to be induced to believe the truth, and make a profession of this faith. The Galatians were “called,” when, through the preaching of the apostle Paul, they were invited, and induced to accept of the invitation, to participate in the blessings of the Christian salvation. (39)

But through embracing a different gospel, they were deserting that calling and the One who called them. To give the utmost clarity, Paul then adds: not that there is another [gospel]. This teaching was an entirely different gospel. It was a proclamation of good news that did not come from God, but then Paul also specifies that there is not another gospel that has ever or will ever come from God. There are no variations of the gospel. Any alteration to the gospel is an entirely different gospel all together.

And this different gospel came to the Galatians through some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. The so-called Judaizers, the teachers who were convincing the Galatians that circumcision was necessary, were troublemakers causing a disturbance among Christ’s people. And they did so because it was their will to distort the gospel. By perverting the one true gospel, they had embraced an entirely different gospel. Ryken calls us to consider the danger of this reality:

The church’s greatest danger is not the anti-gospel outside the church; it is the counterfeit gospel inside the church. The Judaizers did not walk around Pisidian Antioch wearing T-shirts that said, “Hug me, I’m a false apostle.” What made them so dangerous was that they knew how to talk the way Christians talk. They used all the right terminology. They talked about how they “got saved.” They told people to “trust in Christ.” They “presented the gospel.”

Only they did not have the gospel after all. We should expect, therefore, that the most serious threat to the one true gospel is something that is also called the gospel. The most dangerous teachers are the ones who preach a different Christ but still call him “Jesus.” (21)

Even though everything feels like it’s going to hell in a handbasket, we should take comfort that God’s will is not thwarted. His council still stands, and all shall be well in the end. While we should not neglect the matters of culture, as we have so often done, we ought to always be supremely vigilant to hold to the gospel.

Anything, however good it may be, is corrupting whenever it is added to the gospel. Of course, the gospel shapes and transforms every aspect of our life, but those are effects of the gospel, not the gospel itself. The gospel will impact how we engage in politics, but engagement in politics is not a part of the gospel. Likewise, the gospel will transform our marriages and parenting, but again neither are a part of the gospel. Even commands that are explicitly given to us in the New Testament to obey are out workings of the gospel but not the gospel itself. For example, we commanded to gather together, to devote ourselves to God’s Word, to pray at all times, and to proclaim Christ to the world around us. Amen! But if we come to view these things as contributing to our salvation, we created an entirely different gospel than the Scriptures proclaim.

ANATHEMA // VERSES 8-9

In verses 6-7, Paul laid out the Galatian situation. False teachers were perverting the gospel, and the Galatians were going along them. Now in verses 8-9 the apostle pivots to making the consequences of such a desertion clear: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

In contrast to the troublemakers, Paul says that himself and the other apostles as well as an angel out of heaven should be judged primary by the gospel that they preach. Luther provocatively said, “That which does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even if Peter or Paul be the teachers. On the other hand, that which does teach Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod should propound it.” Luther certainly has a point. In Philippians 1:15-18, Paul mentions some who were preaching Christ “from envy and rivalry.” Yet because they were preaching the true gospel of Christ, Paul said, “whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice” (v. 18).

The significance here is that both the apostles and angels have authority directly from Jesus Himself. Now there are some who argue that Paul is only speaking of fallen angels. At first glance that makes sense, since only a fallen angel actually would preach a different gospel, which is why in speaking with both Muslims and Mormons I am more than willing to believe that Mohammed and Joseph Smith really did have angelic encounters. However, the phrase from heaven (ἐξ οὐρανοῦ) seems to clearly imply unfallen angels. And since Paul says we, almost certainly referring to himself and the rest of the apostles, he is clearly imagining the unimaginable and thinking the unthinkable. He is constructing a hypothetical situation to show that even the apostles and the unfallen angels would not be spared the judgment of God if they abandoned the only true gospel.

There is also some debate among theologians over the exact translation of a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you. The preposition that Paul uses (παρά) can mean either contrary to or in addition to (beyond). Both apply to the context, so it seems to me that both meanings should be kept in mind. The troublemaking Judaizers were adding to the gospel of Christ, and in so doing, they were actually preaching against the true gospel.

Let him be accursed. These are solemn and very heavy words, and Paul is not using them lightly. He knows precisely what he is saying, and he means precisely what he says. Many commentators try to soften Paul’s statement by saying that he is referring to excommunication from the church. They make this argument because the pre-Medieval theologians came to use accursed (ἀνάθεμα) in that manner. But that is not how it is used in the New Testament. In Romans 9:3, Paul employs another hypothetical situation, saying: “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Clearly, being accursed and “cut off from Christ” are describing the same thing. To be accursed is to be cut off from Christ and to be left under the eternal judgment of God.

It is also used in the Greek Old Testament to refer to the Ban, which was God’s command for Israel to devote everyone and everything to destruction. It was an act of judgment that was also a sacrifice to Yahweh. As we said earlier, it was a physical picture of eternal damnation. So, to be accursed is to be the same camp as the Canaanites.

To ensure the Galatians that he was not speaking hyperbolically, he repeats himself: As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. R. C. Sproul writes of this verse:

Repetition was a common way to emphasize a point in the Jewish literacy tradition. It’s as though Paul said to the Galatians, “I know you don’t want to hear again what I said to you, but I say to you again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be anathema, or damned by God.” This is serious business. We don’t negotiate or sugarcoat or distort the gospel. If we do, we invite nothing less than the curse of God on our heads. This is business that couldn’t possibly be any more serious.

Of course, there is a subtle difference between verses 8 and 9. In verse 8, Paul spoke hypothetically (using the subjunctive mood), but in verse 9, he speaks of actuality (using the indicative mood). If even a rogue apostle or angel would be condemned by God for preaching a different gospel, how much more those who were actually doing so among the Galatians!

Indeed, as Sproul said, nothing could be more serious than this. The anathema that God put upon the Canaanites was a physical picture of eternal judgment. By taking gold and silver from the Canaanites, Achan attached himself onto their judgment. And that was what the Galatians were in danger of doing themselves. The Judaizers who were preaching to them a different gospel were anathema, and by following them, the Galatians were on the path to share in their accursedness.

MAN-PLEASING OR GOD-PLEASING // VERSE 10

Having presented the present danger in the starkest of terms, Paul then writes: For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. Ryken argues that Paul is here responding to what the Judaizers were evidently saying about him:

Paul’s opponents said that he was a people-pleaser. They claimed that he would say or do anything to be popular. When he was with Jews, he behaved like a Jew; but when he was with Gentiles, he told them they didn’t have to keep the law or get circumcised. All he really cared about was his own reputation. For example, Paul had Timothy circumcised right in Galatia, just to keep the Jews happy (Acts 16:3). But Titus wasn’t circumcised at all (Gal. 2:3). Not surprisingly, Paul was accused of being inconsistent. After all, he was the man who said, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some” (1 Cor. 9:22).

The truth is that however inconsistent he seemed, Paul was always consistent with the gospel. Timothy was circumcised so that he could be effective in Jewish evangelism. An uncircumcised man would not have the same respect he needed for social access to orthodox Jews. The situation with Titus was different because Paul rightly perceived that some Jewish Christians were making his circumcision a matter of salvation. For Paul, circumcision was a matter of indifference until people tried to make it essential for salvation, and then it became, for them, a matter of gospel truth. For proof that Paul was not simply out to win people’s approval, look at his anathemas (Gal. 1:8-9). These are hardly the words of a man who care very much what people thought! (24-25)

Notice, however, that Paul says, in the third sentence of the verse: If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. Before his conversion, Paul did live for the approval of man. As he notes in Philippians 3, he had an impeccable resume for being highly respected among the Jews. Furthermore, he was a Roman citizen by birth and, in his sermon to the Athenians, reveals that he could easily engage with the best of pagan philosophy. He was indeed uniquely equipped to mingle with both Jews and Gentiles.

But upon his conversion, Paul became a slave of Christ. Lord was not simply an honorific title that Paul gave to Jesus; rather, he was declaring himself to be in the possession of Jesus Christ. This alone is the key to how the apostle could be “all things to all men” without being a people-pleaser. Certainly, Paul loved all people and desired for all men to be saved, yet his love for others was fundamentally rooted in his servitude to Christ. He gladly served others, but his chief aim was not to please them but to please Christ his Master.

This is a truth is in great need of recovery today, for in many ways we live under the tyranny of empathy, where saying “but you don’t know what it’s like” is an irrefutable argument. Proverbs tells us that parent who does not discipline his or her children does not love them too much but rather hates them. In the same way, we cannot truly love others if our highest goal is to make them happy. We do them no favors, and we make ourselves slaves to the emotions and desires of those around us. In so doing, we tell ourselves that we are loving our neighbor as ourselves, but the reality is that we become people-pleasers. Of this tendency, John Brown writes:

The man, whom fear of human resentment or desire of human favour can induce to keep back any part of the truth, or pervert any part of the truth, is altogether unworthy of the name of the minister of Christ. There are truths which ought to be told, and which cannot be told without displeasing some men; but then they cannot be concealed without displeasing Christ; and certainly he is not a faithful servant of Christ who, in a case of this kind, can be silent. (50-51)

Let us, like Paul, surrender ourselves as Christ’s slaves. As the Table before us testifies, He has redeemed us from our slavery to sin and purchased us for Himself as the cost of His life. He alone has fully paid the eternal debt of our sin and ransomed us from being under God’s just and righteous anathema. Therefore, as we eat this bread and drink of this cup, we proclaim that there is salvation in no other name than Jesus Christ our Lord.