Is Galatians 1:9 Misunderstood?

Although some of the word choices are different, pretty much every English translation of Galatians 1:9 reads the same. Here are a few examples:

“As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (NIV)

“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.” (ESV)

“as we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be!” (YLT)

“As we have said before, I now say again: if anyone preaches to you a gospel contrary to what you received, a curse be on him!” (HCSB)

“As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (NKJV)

“As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (NASB)

Collectively then, hundreds of well studied scholars with considerable knowledge both of Greek words/grammar and biblical knowledge to provide insight on the probable meaning based on the principle of contextual consistency, have all come to a similar conclusion as to what Paul was saying in Galatians 1:9.

However, James 3:1-2 indicates it is possible that well-meaning and well-studied teachers can stumble, so it seems biblical to me that they might be wrong, not in their translation but in their understanding of the passage. Of course, it is far more likely that I am wrong, so read what comes next critically.

If you look at the Greek text from the Nestle/Aland, here is how the transliterated Greek reads:

hos proeirEkamen kai arti palin lego ei tis humas euaggelizetai par ho parelabete anathema esto.

If you do a word/meaning in English direct substitution, here is how the text reads in English:

As we said before and now again say if any to you preach beside that you received anathema let him be.

When I look at this, and remember I am clueless as to Greek grammar construction, I do not see the idea of someone else preaching to the Galatians, all I see is Paul addressing the behavior of those to whom he is speaking. The doers of the preaching do not seem like outsiders; rather they are folks who have knowledge from Paul of the gospel of grace. Is the “different gospel” different from the one those preaching received, or different from the one those being preached to received or different from what both received? In other words should it be understood to mean, “beside that they received” or “beside that you received” or “beside that you and they received?” The question is not based on attacking the translation, you received is what it says; the question is based on contextual consistency.

I believe “if any among you preach to you beside that you and they received, anathema let him be” is a more contextually consistent understanding of the verse than "if anybody preach to you beside that you received.” This alternate understanding of the verse is based on what the passage and other passages imply. Here is the NASB version of the passage, Galatians 1:6-9.

“6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!”

In verse 6, Paul is amazed because the Galatians are deserting God for a message from men. In verse 7, we see that whoever is disturbing them wants to distort the gospel, so they had to have received the gospel of grace, and now are knowingly distorting it. Whoever they are - they are trying to distort it, they are not distorting it unwittingly. In verse 8 Paul says truth is superior to personality, it is the message and not the messenger that is important. Using hyperbole, Paul says that even a messenger from heaven, who would definitely know God’s gospel of grace, should be damned if the Angel presents another gospel. Thus, I believe in verse 9, Paul is addressing the same thing (distorting the gospel on purpose) and applying it to the audience - if any of you who know the gospel of grace because you were called by the gospel of grace (verse 6) preach another gospel, let him be anathema. To point the curse at people who did not receive the true gospel and therefore are unwittingly passing on a distortion misses the point of the passage in my opinion.

Popular understanding also misses the mark when it holds that “another gospel” only refers to legalism, rather than anything different from the pure gospel of grace. Anything “beside that you received” - the pure gospel of grace – is what Paul is saying is a different or another gospel in my opinion. So based on internal evidence from the passage, the verse should be understood to say, “As we said before and now again say if any (among you) preach to you beside that you (and they) received, let him be anathema!” The curse is reserved for only those who have received the pure gospel of grace and knowingly preach a distortion to others. Thus if an Ariminian or a Calvinist or a Catholic or anybody else preaches a distortion they received, or mistakenly derived from scripture, the curse is not applicable to them.

In addition, I think this understanding is more consistent with other passages such as James 3:1-2; Acts 20:28-30; and 2 Thessalonians 3:6. James did not say teachers who stumble and thus present a message that is off target in some respect should be anathema. They will be judged by God, but as Jesus told Peter, if you love Me, feed my sheep, so we are to teach even though we have not reached maturity (John 21). In Acts 20:28-30 we see that Paul addresses two threats to the flock of believers, savage wolves that come in from outside the flock, and “from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.” So the second threat – perversion from within – had been addressed before and so in Galatians 1:9, Paul says it again. If you received the pure gospel and you knowingly turn it into something else, you have a corrupt perversion and then if you present what you know is a perversion to others, you should be condemned according to Paul.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:6 Paul addresses another deviation from the message received, this time loose living instead of preaching, but the parallel provides insight.

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which they received from us.”

In summary, the accepted understanding of Galatians 1:9 seems to me to be in error because Paul directed the curse at those who knowingly pervert the gospel rather than at anyone who preaches a gospel that misses the mark in some respect. Acts 18:24-26 demonstrates the proper response to someone who unwittingly preaches a message that misses the mark. No curse is mentioned in this account of Apollos preaching a “different gospel.”

 

Hi Judith, your view does not fit with treating Apollos with love and kindness. Doctrine must be based on all scripture, not selected verses. In Matthew 18:6 it is difficult to tell whether the person causing the little one to stumble is doing it on purpose See Luke 17:2-3 which advocates teaching those who err.

 

Lets Discuss

No, the idea is "we all stumble in many ways." So here is a reference to a teacher who will suffer God's judgment who stumbles - does not always hit the mark.
This verse does indeed address teachers who stumble and teach other than the pure gospel.

My point is that it may be off the mark. Note Deuteronomy 13:1-11 is addressing those that come from outside the flock. Like the noble bereans, we must check the orthodox understanding found in past writings against scripture.

I addressed that they were presenting something different than what they had been taught. So the number one candidate would be adding to scripture through speculation. Speculation is the mother of false doctrine.

I think you are asserting a fact not in evidence. These teachers are teaching a gospel different from the one they received. Apollos was teaching some things (about Jesus) accurately but was missing the mark in other areas, i.e. the baptism of the Spirit. Acts 20:30 specifically addresses the same issue as Paul in Galatians, perverse teachings arising from within.

That is what I was endeavoring to do.

I took a stab at that.

Yes, the gospel of Christ is aimed at restorative change of mind!

 

I will look up Wright and offer comments. I reject some orthodox teachings, considering those views as non-truths. I certainly do not consider myself the maven of all truth. Not sure what is being asserted with maverick of all truth.

 

I spent a few minutes trying to find some specific commentary by N.T Wright or Tom Wright on Galatians 1:9 but could not find it. He seems to be advocating views springing from his imagination, rather than from the text.

I am not sure if he believes we are justified by faithfully following Christ, i.e. an on going process, but if that is his view, it is not orthodox nor biblical. My view of justification is clear and simple, we are justified when God spiritually transfers us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son. When we are spiritually baptized into Christ, we undergo the circumcision of Christ, our sin burden is removed, and we become holy, blameless and righteous in Him, thus we are justified. God does it all. The statement we are justified by faith simply means when God credits our faith as righteousness, he places us in Christ, thus God justified us through His crediting of our faith.

 

I watched two of them, long on generalities and motherhood statements, short on specifics.

Interestingly, in reading some "bash NT Wright" blog, the orthodox view of Galatians 1:9 was trotted out to condemn Mr. Wright.

If we treat everyone who teaches differently than we have been taught as anathema, what would we do to Jesus who said we should repent and stop believing as we had understood, and go this new way?

The orthodox view is mistaken, it misses Paul's message, in my opinion.

 

Yeshua1 denies God chooses us for salvation through faith in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is clear, therefore Yeshua1 denies scriptural truth in favor of man-made doctrine. He also redefines adoption as rebirth, yet another fiction, because Romans 8:23 is also clear, our adoption as sons refers to our bodily resurrection.

My view of justification is clear and simple, we are justified when God spiritually transfers us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son, Colossians 1:13. When we are spiritually baptized into Christ, we undergo the circumcision of Christ, our sin burden is removed, and we become holy, blameless and righteous in Him, thus we are justified. God does it all. The statement we are justified by faith simply means when God credits our faith as righteousness, he places us in Christ, thus God justified us through His crediting of our faith.

 

My view on salvation agrees with all scripture, yours does not.

God does indeed choose those to be saved, but He makes that choice through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. You deny this scripture, and have no scripture to support your man-made doctrine.

Scripture says we are saved by grace through faith, not saved by grace and given faith. Calvinism is simply unbiblical.

If we treat everyone who teaches differently than we have been taught as anathema, what would we do to Jesus who said we should repent and stop believing as we had understood, and go this new way?

The orthodox view is mistaken, it misses Paul's message, in my opinion.

 

Yet another Calvinist making assertions but providing no scriptural support. And the assertion is unscriptural and false. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen through faith, therefore we are individually chosen based on God crediting our faith as righteousness.

Next, presenting yet another falsehood, making it two for two, the claim is made that Christ died for only the elect, instead of all mankind from which the elect are chosen based on faith. Does we are saved by grace through faith ring a bell?

Should a person who openly says scripture can be ignored in the name of supporting man-made doctrine be rebuked using God's word, or treated as anathema?