The Different Gospel of Galatians

I’m sure many of us are familiar with the verse, right? If you haven’t used it on someone, you have probably had it used against you:

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.

I have been on both sides. Recently, it was used indirectly towards me. And if some of you were active on HHZ back in ‘o1, ‘o2, then you have probably seen me use this verse quite often. (eternal? lol) As a rowdy, postmillennial, reformed baptist, i would use this scripture to beat up arminians, dispensationalists, premillennialists, a few amills, and even people who did not like homeschooling. Basically, i would use this for just about anyone that did not agree with my strong convictions. “Jesus never said he was going to come back to the earth to establish a literal, 1,ooo year period, with the earthly city of Jerusalem as the H.Q. and the Temple rebuilt. Therefore, different Jesus…Different Gospel”… arminians and premill teachers were teetering with hell.

But is that the application Paul had in mind? Are we free to plug in whatever we want, or does the rest of the letter to the Galatians not having any bearing on what this “different Gospel” was that had Paul’s blood running hot?

Thankfully, by God’s mercy, i came to see the mistake i was making. Thankfully, my attention was drawn to the letter as a whole, and the “different Gospel” of chapter 1 was defined, thus correcting my misuse of the text, which in turn caused some unnecessary ill towards fellow believers.

So what is this “different Gospel”? Galatians is not long at all. The answer can be found rather quick.

First thing you will notice is Paul’s brief bio concerning his advancement in Judaism.

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers.

Then we hear about his trip to Jerusalem and the issue of Titus being circumcised or not. Paul and Titus did not yield in submission to those false brothers who insisted on it, “so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved…” Paul would not have Titus submit to “slavery”, for they had “freedom…in Christ Jesus.”

Immediately then, we see that this “different Gospel” issue involved themes of Judaism, freedom, slavery, circumcision, Jews, and Gentiles. Let’s continue….

The “truth of the gospel” is addressed again in Paul’s encounter with Cephas:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Again, we see the themes of Jew/Gentile relations and circumcision. Paul does not leave that context. He then gets more specific:

We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

ah, now see…if you were beginning to wonder where all this was going…all this talk about Judaism, Gentiles, slavery, and circumcision…this little section here starts to clarify. The issue was justification by works of the law (torah) vs justification through faith in Jesus Christ.

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

That is strong, ain’t it? If righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. The cross was meaningless. Clearly then, the “different gospel” in chapter 1 is centered around this specific issue. This is confirmed, as Paul goes to rebuke the Galatians:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?

Is this not the same “quickly deserting” that Paul started the letter off with? Certainly seems so to me…..

It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or byhearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

I don’t know how anyone can miss this. I can’t believe i missed it for so long. Paul’s “different gospel” in chapter 1 has nothing to do with homeschooling, millennial views, whether you sprinkle or dunk, or anything else. We are simply not at liberty to plug anything we want into chapter 1 and use that to beat people over the head with.

The context clearly speaks to the issue of justification that comes through faith vs justification that comes through works of the law. That’s it. Now, that does not mean that the Gospel is limited to that specific doctrine. Anyone who has read Isaiah, for example, would know better. The Gospel also includes a historical reality that came in the person of Christ, being established as king. “Our God reigns” was the good news of Isaiah.

However, that is not Paul’s concern here in this context. Here, he is battling Judaizers who perverted the Gospel by teaching that justification/righteousness would come to a person on the basis of their performance of torah. Fact was and is, that NO ONE could satisfy the Law in its entirety. We all fall short and are thus guilty. Furthermore, the promised inheritance was given 430 years prior to that law. Why then the law?

It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

Paul basically said the same thing in Romans:

Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The intent of the law was to drop us to our knees, begging for the mercy of God. Not based on our works, which are filthy rags, but on the basis of the grace of God through the work of Christ, who bore our sins.

The Judaizers’ message destroys all of that. It nullifies the work. It exalts man. It turns the mercy and grace of God into an earned and deserved paycheck.

This is why Paul’s language is so strong in chapter 1. THAT was the danger he saw; not whether someone believed in immersion or sprinkling.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

Remember how we started off by pointing out the words of slavery and freedom? Well, here they are again and in the context of circumcision and keeping the whole law.

Again, THAT is the context throughout.

Paul continues the rebuke:

You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is.

Are we not right back to chapter 1 again? Sure we are. And again, what is this “truth” that Paul is concerned with….

But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

Someone recently suggested that i should “emasculate” myself, based on a pet doctrine of mine that has NOTHING to do with Paul’s context here. It grieves my heart that Christians would say such things, as it has grieved my heart to know that i have said such things as well.

As one can see, Paul NEVER leaves the theme that runs throughout the letter – justification by works of the law (circumcision) or by faith. Plugging any other issue into this is a severe mishandling of God’s word, which, ironically, runs the risk of doing exactly what Paul warned us not to do:

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.

Such was my perversion. It still blows my mind to this day how i could miss the whole point of this letter, thus missing the point in chapter 1, and rip a verse out of its context to “devour” others, over issues that Paul is not even concerned with here.

Paul ends:

It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

He never left the theme.

The “different gospel” of Galatians centered around this issue of false brothers forcing circumcision upon people, thinking that such an act would bring them in favor with God. That’s it.

Now, we don’t talk about circumcision much anymore; so we might be tempted to think that this letter has little to bear on our present, 21st century context. Yet, i came to see that i merely swapped circumcision for other things. I wanted to “force” a millennial view, a mode of baptism, a means of schooling…or whatever the fight called for….on people, justifying it with a text that had nothing to do with any of that.

The irony…I was attempting to enslave people to my pet doctrines, using a verse, which in reality, was a call to freedom. Oh, the goofiness of man.

I believe that what i have laid down here, though brief, is enough to demonstrate the foolishness of such use. Don’t get me wrong, these other issues are important. They need to be discussed, they need to be debated. But let us not use this letter to bite and devour other professing believers on issues that this letter is not concerned with.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.