Galatians 1:6-9
6 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— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble 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 the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 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.
Paul's fierce and uncompromising attitude in face of the threat to the Galatians'
well-being is noteworthy. Twice, in successive verses (8, 9), he very bluntly puts the issues: preaching 'another gospel' - and this may be regarded as any wrong emphasis, or
over-emphasis which leads to a perversion or reversal of the true gospel - deserves and
will bring the curse of God upon men. In the first statement Paul puts it in a hypothetical
way - 'If we, or an angel...' but in the second it is spoken of as having actually happened. It is no theoretical matter; nor is the anathema theoretical either, but solemnly
real and factual. The implications here are important. Clearly it is the truth of the gospel
that is the all-important thing. And no one, angel or apostle, is exempt from the anathema if he departs from that truth. Apostolic office will not safeguard a man here, if he is
unfaithful; not even angelic status will avail. As Cole puts it (in the Tyndale
Commentary): 'The outward person of the messenger does not validate his message;
rather, the nature of the message validates the messenger.' But why an 'angel from heaven'? Perhaps what is in Paul's mind is the Jewish belief that the law was given through
angelic mediators at Sinai, and the legalists had stressed the validity of keeping the law
because of this. On the other hand, there may be something in his mind like the reference he makes in 2 Corinthians 11:14 to the devil appearing as an angel of light. This
last may be very significant; for, of course, it is possible to be led astray by a strong personality, who 'impresses' and 'deceives' the elect into 'believing a lie'. The touchstone
must always be the biblical 'kerygma', the apostolic gospel; and it is significant that in
this epistle Paul underlines its main thrust quite unmistakably: justification by grace,
through faith (1:4); identification with Christ in His death and resurrection (2:20); the
glorious liberty of the children of God (5:1); the fruit of the Spirit (5:22, 23). This is the
criterion by which to judge whether teaching is wrong, unbalanced or heretical.
Intolerance, then, is an essential ingredient of the apostolic gospel. But, that being insisted upon, two other things must be said: the first is that intolerance of anything that denies the gospel is not to be confused with intransigence and bigotry with regard to, for example, methods. It is one thing to insist on the necessity of conversion, but another to insist in a bigoted manner that conversion must be of a certain kind! We must learn to distinguish things that differ. Secondly, we must learn the distinction between faithfulness to the gospel on the one hand and offensiveness on the other. Intolerance of error can be expressed - and needs to be! - in the most courteous of ways, and with grace. Firmness of conviction is not the same as boorishness and fanaticism. We read recently a notable expression of this in an American Presbyterian Journal. The quotation is well worth pondering! 'One of these days, Presbyterians are going to realise that the Reformed Faith stands before the Church and the world with its arms open, not with its arms folded across its chest. When that day comes, there'll be a great renewal within the kingdom'. That has surely something very pertinent to say to us!