Original Meaning

WHILE THIS LETTER appears to begin as typical ancient letters began (Writer … Addressee … Greetings …),1 the careful reader observes not only variations but also the themes that motivate the letter. In general, Paul’s introductions are longer, just as his letters are longer than the average ancient letter. Furthermore, Paul’s greetings emphasize his own apostolic status (cf. Rom. 1:1; 1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1) and the divine origin of salvation. More importantly, Paul’s introductory greetings are truly introductions: in each of them he begins to express his concerns for the entire letter. In this letter Paul begins to speak of his unquestionable apostleship (v. 1: “sent not from men nor by man” is an early criticism of the status of the Judaizers) and of salvation by grace (1:4); both of these themes, of course, dominate the letter.

This introduction comprises two sections: (1) the salutation (vv. 1–5) and (2) the occasion of the letter (vv. 6–9). The salutation includes Paul’s particular status (v. 1), the addressees (v. 1), those who are with Paul (v. 2), and the greeting of grace and peace (v. 3). Paul greatly expands the greeting by speaking of the true origin of grace and peace (vv. 4–5). The occasion of the letter begins with a statement expressing Paul’s befuddlement at the fickleness of the Galatian churches (v. 6). This Paul clarifies in verse 7 when he states that, in fact, the message to which the Galatians were being attracted was not the gospel at all. Paul’s convictions are so strong about their departure from the pure gospel that he invokes an eternal curse on those who distort the gospel of Christ that he received and preached to them (vv. 8–9).

Paul’s salutation has some interesting features that we need to examine, including the significance of the title “apostle” (v. 1) and the meaning of “the present evil age” (v. 4). To use the title “apostle” as the second word of the letter is to claim authority and to expect agreement on the part of the churches of Galatia. While our age may be essentially dialogical in its orientation, Paul’s world was more hierarchical and authoritarian. To understand this we must sketch what an apostle was in the Jewish and early Christian world.2 The Greek term for “apostle” (apostolos) is parallel to the Hebrew word shaliach. This Hebrew term was used to describe a personal agent, representative, or ambassador. In fact, a post-first-century definition has become standard for how we understand what an apostle was, even in the first century. I quote from the third-century Jewish Mishnah: “One who prays and errs—it is a bad sign for him. And if he is a communal agent [who prays on behalf of the whole congregation], it is a bad sign for them that appointed him. [This is on the principle that] a man’s agent is like [the man] himself” (Mishnah Berakhot 5:5).3 Notice in this definition that others make inferences about a given authority on the basis of his agents. (The term “agent” is a translation of the Hebrew shaliach.) That is to say, one’s agents become the very representations of the person who sent them, much as international ambassadors are official representatives of the national leader himself. With this in mind, we can clearly see that Paul saw himself as an official representative of Jesus Christ. He knew he had been called by Jesus Christ and been appointed an official apostle of Jesus Christ, and he knew the implication of being called an apostle.

Paul worked this out in several directions. While he knew there was a special class of apostles, the Twelve (cf. 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:17, 19), he knew he was also an apostle in a parallel sense, even if he was “last of all” (1 Cor. 15:8; cf. Rom 1:1; Gal. 1:1; etc.).4 While it is clear that Paul at times had to struggle with others over his status (e.g., at Galatia and Corinth), his own convictions were firm. Paul knew he had been called by the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8; Gal. 1:15–16) and that the Lord had revealed to him in that call the specifics of his ministry: Paul was to go to the Gentiles (Gal. 1:16; 2:7). This call was confirmed in Paul’s missionary successes and in his miracles (cf. Rom. 1:5; 11:13–16; 15:19; 1 Cor 3:5–6; 4:15). In fact, Paul tells the Corinthians: “you are the seal of my apostleship” (1 Cor. 9:2). We should also observe that Paul, along with the testimony of the church, saw the role of the apostles to be a special one in history; he knew that they performed a crucial function in the period just after the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 4:9; Eph. 2:20; 3:5–6; Col. 1:24–27).

Paul, then, writes as an apostle—as one who has been called personally by Jesus Christ, who therefore represents Jesus Christ, and who has a crucial role in the history of the church. He claims at least that much in the second word of this letter. He expects the Galatians to listen; he knows that disagreement is no longer dialogue; disagreement is heresy when it comes to the essentials of the gospel as made known through the apostles and prophets. Even Paul himself must submit to his own gospel (1:8, 10).

Paul’s greeting is the typical early Christian mixing of the Greek and Jewish greetings (“grace and peace”). However, Paul’s greeting is not simply from one mortal person to another; the grace and peace Paul invokes upon the Galatians is the grace and peace “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul, in adding the origins of his greetings, distances his greetings from the secular world and makes them sacred and religious. This greeting is one shared only by Christians.

In describing the origin of the greetings, Paul goes on to comment on Jesus, saying that Jesus Christ “gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age” (v. 4). Forgiveness of sins is important for Galatians but it plays a mediating role there. For this letter forgiveness implies that work of Christ is sufficient (2:21). To bring up forgiveness, then, implies that the Galatians have not yet grappled enough with how potent the work of Christ was. To put this another way, while the Galatians may have thought they were forgiven by Christ (2:15–21; 3:10–14), they did not realize that this forgiveness was also sufficient to rescue them from “the present evil age.” It was the present evil age that concerned Paul because he believed that those who consistently lived in Christ would not succumb to it.

What is “the present evil age”5 from which one is rescued through the cross (cf. 3:13)? How is one rescued from a “time period”? While it may be correct to say that in comparison, the present for Paul is evil and the future is good (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1–10), this is not nuanced enough for what Paul is getting at. Judaism frequently distinguished “this age” from the “age to come,” the latter a description of the establishment of God’s justice and peace. But the revolution that took place in Paul’s understanding of history when he encountered Jesus Christ adds a new dimension to “this age.” It is probably best to regard this expression as describing “life dictated by the law.” Because Christ has eclipsed the age of the law and brought history to a new era (see notes at 3:19–25), life under the law, whether lived now or in the past, is considered “an evil age” (cf. 4:3, 9; 5:1; see also 5:16–26). One who trusts in Christ is rescued from the present evil age: “he gave himself for our sins to rescue us” (1:4). This expression, then, probably reflects the polemical situation of Galatians: the present evil age is the age in which the Galatians are being seduced to live, and life in Christ is a life of freedom (5:1–12).

Paul’s introduction moves next to a description of the occasion for the letter (vv. 6–9). It has often been observed that this is the only surviving letter of Paul’s that does not contain a thanksgiving for the church to whom he is writing. It is then usually inferred that since Paul does not give thanks, he is either not thankful to God for them or he is so angry with what has taken place he cannot express his thanks. These observations, in some form, are probably accurate. However, we should also observe that many hold this letter to be the first canonical letter Paul wrote and that, in light of this, it is hard to argue a departure from his typical practice since that practice had not yet begun. It is just possible that Paul’s practice of expressing thanksgiving in his letters developed later or that such a practice developed out of his harsh experience at Galatia.

The reason why Paul wrote this letter, and the reason we have it, is because the Galatians had “changed positions” on a crucial subject: the means of acceptance with God and the role Christ played in that acceptance. Paul is amazed that their change took place “so quickly” (v. 6). At 5:4 Paul states that this change was opting for a system in which grace was not crucial and in which Christ’s work was not sufficient. Paul states here that they were “deserting the one who called you” (v. 6); that is to say, their move was not just an intellectual one. Rather, it was a desertion of God as made known in Christ; it was abandoning of their personal relationship with God. If we use the categories of 3:19–25 (see notes there), their departure was a decision to live in B.C. days when the A.D. days had arrived. It was a decision to recede back in time into the days of Moses and to reject the epoch-altering revelation in Christ. While Paul suggests this was a move to a “different gospel,” he goes on in verse 7 to clarify this by saying that this is “really no gospel at all.”6 The move of the Galatians was not one of those views of legitimate Christian differences; it was total and devastating. Paul counters here any suggestion of simple Christian differences. When the gospel of grace in Christ is supplemented with the system of Moses, the result is not a perfected, fully mature gospel; rather, it is a gross perversion and a totally different message.

Gross perversions of the gospel are heresies. Paul’s final words here are potent. He invokes a curse on anyone (including himself!) who distorts the gospel. Paul’s sentences in verses 8–9 are largely parallel and synonymous with one interesting variation. The expression “the one we preached to you” in verse 8 has its parallel in verse 9 in “than what you accepted.” The latter expression is related to his apostolic calling. Paul uses here the technical language of passing on sacred traditions (“what you accepted”; Gk. parelabete) in such a way as to guarantee authenticity and heredity. It is the same language used by rabbis for handing on their sacred traditions, and it is the same term Paul uses for the tradition of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23). The message Paul preached is the message that ultimately derives from the Lord because it is has been transmitted to others through his apostles.

Those who distort this message are rejecting the authority of Christ and are therefore cursed (anathema). This word is used in the Old Testament for something consecrated to God for his destruction (cf. Deut. 7:26; Josh. 6:17–18). Paul is not talking here about church discipline; his language is far too strong for that. He is invoking God’s final damnation and wrath on people who distort the gospel of grace in Christ and substitute, in effect, Moses’ law as the preeminent form of revelation. They are like those who reject the message of the prophets (1 Kings 11:30–31) or apostles (Matt. 10:14).

Paul’s introduction encompasses much: it moves from wishing God’s grace and peace on believers to cursing those who refuse that grace; it moves from Paul’s titled status (apostle) to the severest form of that status (cursing). It introduces us to the heart of the Galatian problem: a gospel of grace at war with a gospel that minimizes Christ.

Bridging Contexts

ANY BIBLE READER knows that reflection and meditation upon even the smallest of words and sentences of God’s Word can produce applications for life. Because of the scope of this commentary we cannot suggest applications for everything Paul says in these first nine verses. We have to examine the land and find the more significant contours. This is usually done by finding the more logically important words, the most theologically significant ideas, and the more practically relevant issues. Even then we will omit some important things. For example, the resurrection of Christ is crucial both for Christian life and for apologetics.7 Paul mentions the resurrection in verse 1, but the resurrection does not play a critical role in the theology of Galatians. Since this is not a word-by-word commentary, we will not be able to trace out the applications of every expression. In this particular section (1:1–9), we point out three elements of “bridging the context.”

(1) It is clear to any reader of this letter that Paul faced different problems than we face. He was a Diaspora Jew, probably raised in Jerusalem, and he encountered traveling missionaries who distorted the apostolic gospel of Christ by adding Moses to it in such a way so as to make life in Jerusalem (and elsewhere) more socially comfortable. I have rarely heard of Christians converting to Judaism in such a way that they thought they were bringing Christianity to its fullest form. I have heard, sadly, of some who have rejected Christ and opted for Judaism (or some other faith). Put differently, when we apply even this introduction, we must be aware of the differences as well as the similarities. We must be aware of the social context of the Judaizers as a potential clue for application. Perhaps we will find groups of Christians who are deeply influenced by leaders who themselves are seeking acceptance with some social group. Perhaps they, like the Judaizers, are imposing a message on others to avoid persecution of some sort.

What is needed is an ability to understand both what Paul meant by “which is really no gospel at all” (v. 7) and what currents and ideas today have altered the gospel itself. This is the burden of the letter to the Galatians. We fail to understand this letter if we become absorbed with legalism as the main application. Legalism was wrong not because laws are somehow wrong, but because legalism supplanted Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. As we pointed out in the introduction, we need God’s grace to discern when Christ has been minimized or decentralized and when the important role the Spirit has in our Christian life has been eliminated. The thrust of the entire letter of Galatians makes this clear. If we simply move from Paul’s context to ours, we might think only in terms of heresies that distort the gospel of grace by supplementing it with Mosaic law. We might even broaden this to include any form of supplementing the gospel with legalism. But this misses the heart of Galatians. Paul urges on us here the centrality of Christ and the cruciality of the Holy Spirit. The specific kind of distortion is much less important than what happens to Christ and the Spirit in that distortion. As we seek to apply Galatians we must be looking for ideas, practices, and people who supplant the sufficiency of Christ and the power the Spirit plays in our life.

Again, we must be on guard against the idea that every rule or regulation in Christian living is a necessary form of Galatian legalism. In fact, we are persuaded that rules can be educationally useful for Christian development. What we are looking for in applying the message of Galatians are rules or regulations that distort the gospel. We are looking for systems analysis, an ability to discern the workings of various messages so that we can see each part in the light of the whole.

Heresies are transformations of the real thing. In seeking for parallels in our current world we need to see what happens when the gospel is supplemented, augmented, altered, or changed. What happens when we emphasize, for instance, that salvation is solely by grace? Do people develop a complacency? Do Christians begin to sense that Christian holiness is an option? Then we need to ask if this is consistent with the gospel of grace. Of course, it is not. In other words, we must explore where our gospel is giving off such an impression and to alter our original statements. What happens when we emphasize the demand of the gospel? Do Christians begin to develop a lack of confidence in the sufficiency of Christ? Do they begin to sense that the gospel is a burden? What happens when we emphasize the disciplines of the Christian life? Do Christians, especially young Christians, begin to neglect the dynamic the Spirit brings into our life? What we need, in all of this, is a balance that comes only as a result of God’s grace, a balanced appreciation of both God’s grace and the demand that grace has upon our lives. We must preach both God’s grace and the transforming powers of the gospel. Perhaps we can move at our problems from the other end: if we see people who are complacent, who are independent of the Holy Spirit, or who do not seem to live in total dependence on Christ, then we need to examine our gospel to see if it is leading people astray from these centralities.

(2) It is not unusual for me to receive letters at my office from prospective students whose letters begin with a near-Pauline salutation. Imitation of Paul is not wrong, but I am not persuaded that Paul is teaching us here how to write letters. He is not instituting a form of Christian communication. Our form of letter writing is different: “Dear David, etc.” Letters that begin “Scot McKnight, a preacher and teacher of the Bible, etc.,” sound stilted and peculiar today. Rather, what I must emphasize here is that the integral connection between Paul and his churches at Galatia remains the same: we are greeted, like the Galatians, because we are, like the Galatians, also ones who have been rescued from the present evil age (with its perversions of the gospel) by trusting in Christ. While we learn something here about the relationship Christians have with one another (and indirectly how those with more authority need at times to relate to those in their charge), the enduring lesson does not revolve around the nature of letter writing. It revolves around our spiritual unity as a result of Christ and how we can approach one another in that unity.

(3) What does it mean for us that Paul was an apostle? Anything? Are we to have apostles today? For most of us (and I include myself) it should be said that we do not have apostles around who can direct our minds authoritatively toward theological orthodoxy and point out heresies that confront the church today. How do we relate to apostles like Paul, and how does our relationship to Paul affect our relationships to other authorities in the church today? While we who believe in the Bible, and in particular in the letter of Paul to the Galatians, are the first to admit that we want to submit to Paul’s authority enshrined in his letters, we want to do this as a result of reflection. Such reflection demands both the investigation of the ancient text and its meaning then and the investigation of our contemporary society and churches.

But surely our approach today is to recognize that we still have apostolic guidance in this letter and that this letter can lead us in a way that is consistent with the gospel. While we may need, at times, Christian pastors and teachers who can point us in our modern society more decisively, we are persuaded that this letter, when read properly and applied discerningly, can guide us in our times of heretical deviations and doctrinal distortions.

Contemporary Significance

HAVING BRIEFLY STUDIED the text in its ancient context and also having mentioned some of the steps taken when a reader moves the ancient text to our modern world, we need now to arouse the reader’s attention by highlighting some potential applications. Sometimes the material presented in this section might be useful for those who are involved in teaching or preaching the gospel, but our design is to make each application useful for the life of all Christians.

First, our response to Paul’s letter is an indication of our attitude toward Christ. Jesus said: “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me” (Matt. 10:40). If it is true that an apostle is a personal agent of Jesus Christ, and if it is true that an agent is a personal representative, then it follows that Paul’s message is a message from Jesus Christ. Acknowledging this implies that every Christian must accept apostolic letters as authoritative, for their message is a message from Jesus Christ. Of course, this works out in various ways. For instance, we may be inclined to add to the gospel ourselves; encountering Galatians will challenge us to drop any such additions. We may be charmed by radical pluralism today with its attractive suggestion that all will eventually be saved. But if we accept the earliest definitions of an apostle, then we must also accept the message of Paul that states that additions to the gospel bring the wrath, not the acceptance, of God.

Submission to the apostolic message because it is a message from Christ is why believers today are concerned with studying the Bible and anchoring their views in the Bible. Whether we read about “Home Bible Studies” in South America, Europe, Romania, or the United States, we are reading about a central affirmation necessary for the Christian: submission to the Bible. A quick glance at almost every published picture of Billy Graham’s preaching shows Billy holding the Bible and preaching from the Bible. Church architecture confirms the authority that the Bible plays in the church: in most churches there is a podium (lectern, etc.) in the front, either in the middle or to the side, and this placement of the pulpit symbolizes the front place the Bible has for the church’s ministry.

Yet another example of this may be taken from the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, as part of the Confessing Church, was the sole teacher of an underground seminary (in Finkenwalde). Students here were taught the authority of the Word of God and the fundamental importance of meditating and praying over it. It has even been said that Bonhoeffer did not permit his students to critique other sermons because the proclaimed Word was to be heard and heeded, not evaluated and debated.8 John Stott says it well:

This, then, is our dilemma. Are we to accept Paul’s account of the origin of his message, supported as it is by solid historical evidence? Or shall we prefer our own theory, although supported by no historical evidence? If Paul was right in asserting that his gospel was not man’s but God’s (cf. Rom. 1:1), then to reject Paul is to reject God.9

However, we must also urge that such a submission involves interpretation of the text. While some may say that this is the slippery escape from full submission to the text, I am persuaded that all readings of a text are interpretations and that it is the Christian’s responsibility to interpret a text as accurately as possible. Our stance is submission to whatever the text says, regardless of what that means for our thinking and lifestyle. We are using a slippery escape when we distort the interpretation so that it fits our predispositions; we are not finding a slippery escape when we accept the text as it stands, regardless of its implications for life. Every honest interpreter can give countless examples of finding himself or herself to be simply wrong and in need of God’s grace as a result of reading the Bible with the purpose of hearing God’s word.

Second, a crucial note is sounded by Paul in verse 1: “sent not from men nor by man.” An application from this verse is both simple and penetrating. Put simply, we need to guard our ideas and scope our practices to see if they are constructed in order to please people or if they have been constructed by people. We need to be constantly reforming our theology and our practices by checking each against the revelation of God in Christ and in his written Word. Paul knew that the Galatian heresy of legalism was constructed by a group bent on gaining the approval of others. He also knew that the notion of perfecting Jesus by adding Moses was not from God; rather, it was a human-oriented and human-based system of religion. How we track our interpretation of God’s Word is both difficult and simple: it is difficult because of the complexity of Christian systems today and simple because ultimately we need only to check our ideas and our practices against the biblical revelation and, I believe, against the historically significant creeds and confessions of the church that have withstood the tests of time. Ultimately, however, the final check of all things is the Word of God.

In my own lifetime I have experienced pressure from different groups that I now realize was almost certainly a reflection of a human-oriented message. I have gone through the period when the only permissible translation was the KJV. I once had a youth pastor tell me that while I could read the NASB at home, I was never to bring it to church. I now believe this was social pressure from higher authorities who did not want to see their cherished translation give way to newer (and better) translations. I have heard preachers rant and rave about going to movies, social dancing, television, nuclear warfare, and the like. I am also certain that, while the motivations were usually a desire to be consistently Christian, there was much more social and peer pressure than any of these leaders would ever admit. I have seen the same from other leaders who refuse to associate with Christians of a differing political stripe. On the one side we have those who believe in more government involvement in the moral and economic issues that face us, and on the other those who believe in less government involvement. I have seen Christians on both sides who severely curtail their involvement with those on the other side less they lose face in their own crowd. This, sadly, is too often motivated by a “fear of people” and not a “fear of God.”

Another area for consideration is that our unity as Christians transforms our approach to one another. We can perhaps learn a lesson from Paul’s greetings. While the world around Paul greeted one another with “graces” and “peaces,” Paul greets the churches of Galatia with the grace and peace that come from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Our connection with other Christians transcends our social relationships; our connection owes its origins to God’s gracious work for us in Christ and his workings of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it would be better if Christians of all persuasions learned to greet one another with: “May the peace and grace of the Lord be with you.” This may be uncomfortable for some outside of a liturgical context, but it may also be much more effective and a source of spiritual dynamic in our lives.

Like the situation facing the Galatians, the age of grace can become an age of rescue, but it can also become “a present evil age” if we distort the gospel. According to Paul, God’s grace in the cross of Christ has rescued us from this present evil age. As we will see in chapters 5 and 6, this rescue brings forgiveness, love, and the freedom that come from the Spirit. This is the typical Christian life. However, I argued above that this present evil age in Galatians describes a life under the law after Christ has come to deliver us from that law. And what Paul says is that if we distort the gospel in minimizing the centrality of Christ or the Spirit, we slip back into an age when Christ is not the rescuer and where the Spirit is not the one who brings us a life of freedom and love.10 Paul urges us to watch our gospel lest it be transformed into a “different gospel” that prevents acceptance with God.

Let us be careful to understand that tampering with the gospel is not Christian experimentation with new ideas. The gospel is a sacred trust that remains, like Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Society and culture change; applications change; Christian lifestyle and even specific doctrinal formulations change; but the gospel of Jesus Christ does not change. We are given every freedom to explore the vast domains of life and reality that are still unknown frontiers to us.11 We are given every freedom to explore the implications of the gospel for our world today. But we are never given any freedom to alter the original gospel of the grace of God in Christ.

The outcome of perverting the gospel is God’s wrath, and this truth we need to keep in front of us as we discern our message and the message of others. This is perhaps the most distasteful dimension of the gospel as revealed throughout the pages of the New Testament. Our society is inherently pluralistic and finds its ability to cope with the massive diversity of our world by appealing to pluralism. In the United States, the constitution makes freedom of religion a cardinal virtue. But Christians, while they may believe that freedom of religion is a necessary law for a diverse society to live in peace, cannot at the same time infer that all religions are true just because tolerance is needed in a diverse society. Here our current Christianity has gone astray; here we have succumbed to the forces of our age. While we may defend the rights of others to worship in the manner they choose, we do not at the same time minimize the truth of the gospel by suggesting that these other faiths are also the truth.12 What Paul teaches—and here again we touch upon his apostolic authority—is that distortions of the gospel, whether they are protected by constitutional rights or not, are contrary to God’s will and subject to God’s final displeasure.

Examples in our culture abound.13 The following example is, of course, extreme, but its extremity forces the issue upon us. As a college student I was involved in the Billy Graham Crusade in Brussels (Belgium); along with a large number of other American students I had spent the early part of the summer assisting different Greater Europe Mission missionaries. Our routine was a morning worship time—led by such notables as John Stott, Festo Kivengere, and Luis Palau, followed by small group Bible study. In our small group were two young women who were part of what they called “The Children of God.” I had never heard of such a group, but one of the missionaries in Austria pointed out to me that they were a “borderline cult group.” Both appeared to us to be sincere in their attempts to follow the Lord, and both seemed to know the Bible quite well; their prayers were rather typical, and nothing about them gave away that they had more than a few strange ideas. While I did not know much about them at the time, I have since learned much more.14 Tucker says the Children of God “is a graphic illustration of how a religious movement can move from orthodoxy to aberrant beliefs and practices—beliefs and practices that sometimes defy the imagination.”15 David “Moses” Berg, the founder of this movement, began his evangelistic ministries in Huntington Beach, California, attempting to reach the Hippie generation; but, as is often the case with cultic leaders,16 he moved more and more on his own until he virtually formed a cult group around himself. Berg himself degenerated into a polygamist and occultist and was eventually chased from the United States; he settled in England in 1972 (and it was in 1975 that we were in Brussels for Eurofest 75). To make a long, and tragic, story short, Berg eventually combined religious prostitution with evangelism in what is called “flirty fishing” and moved on to Tenerife (an island off Africa), changing the name of his group to the Family of Love. While the movement still exists (under various names), Berg’s attraction has declined significantly.

Here is a classic example of a heresy, even to the point of being ludicrous in its final, essential orientation, but a heresy that started as little more than an evangelistic ministry that sought to reach out to a modern generation with methods that would speak to that very generation. Those young women who were part of our Bible study group may or may not have been involved in Berg’s perversity, but they were nonetheless lured into his tent of operations and became part of a tragic cult. Distortions of the gospel, no matter how slight at first, can eventually degenerate into an obnoxious perversion of the gospel.

But how do we talk about such perversions? Do we use the same kind of harsh rhetoric that Paul used? Again, our culture is different from Paul’s. What was seen as an acceptable form of disagreement then may not be seen as acceptable today. In reading ancient literature I have seen this difference. The ancient world simply loved inflammatory language for expressing its differences. I can document a great deal of such language in their literature, but I have not been able to document any who thought such language was personally biased and out of line. The ancients delighted in overstatement, and overstatements were effectively countered with similar overstatements. Today, however, we have become, if anything, over-sensitized to offending special interest groups. So today we have editors who, admirably, reread our texts to see if they will offend racial, religious, and gender-sensitive groups. Ours is not the ancient world. For this reason alone I believe we need to state our decisions more carefully and in a less inflammatory manner than Paul did in Galatians 1.17

From Galatians, then, I believe we can learn some things about how to speak about the severe consequences of distorting the gospel. Paul speaks about the damnation of the heretics by clarifying that they were disagreeing not so much with him as with the gospel (v. 8). In other words, Paul made it clear that he was as subject to that gospel as they were and that he was in as much danger as they were if he distorted it. In our own warnings about heresies we should perhaps make it third person (“this is the case for this expression …”) rather than second person (“you will be damned if you distort the gospel”). Furthermore, Paul makes it quite clear what was wrong; he did not simply erupt into a dogmatic tirade against some people. The letter of Galatians is a carefully laid-out argument, both against the distortion of the Judaizers and for the expression of the gospel of grace. What we need today is less tirade, less emotional outburst, and much more carefully constructed arguments that vindicate the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Finally, Paul’s entire letter focuses on the freedom and love that come from the Spirit. If in our preaching, teaching, and apologetics we fail to express ourselves in such a way that obscures the glorious freedom of the gospel or in a manner that hides God’s love for these people, then we fail from the outset to convey what the gospel itself is. Yes, we must be willing to confront; but we need to confront in such a way that is consistent with the gospel itself. Clearly and compassionately the Christian advocates the gospel of Christ, and in doing so in that manner the gospel of Christ is seen.