Nation’s Notes on the Bible

Galatians 1:8

Did Paul really think he could be accursed and consequently lose his salvation?

A friend wrote an email with a question about Galatians 1:8.  It seemed to him that by saying “we” he included himself, and that Paul is at least indicating the possibility that this could happen to him.

1. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. (ESV)
   

2. ...let him be eternally condemned.  (NIV)
   

Answer:

In this verse Paul clearly put himself under a curse if he should preach anything other than the gospel he had already preached to the Galatians, namely that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, apart from works of the Law.  

Your question is whether Paul therefore implies that he is under jeopardy of losing his salvation.  The simple answer is no, and the summary explanation is that this isn’t what he was trying to say.  But since I suspect you won’t be satisfied with that, hang with me while we look at the immediate context, the deep (or background) context, and then come back to the statement itself.
 
First, the problem isn’t with the translation.  The NIV over-translates (as usual) when it substitutes “eternally condemned” for “accursed” (Greek: “anathema”), but that doesn’t change the essential meaning.  Paul calls down a curse on himself (literally “we,” himself and his whole team), and also any angel (purportedly) from heaven, should they come and preach a gospel different from the one they came and preached before.
 
Get the immediate context.  This verse is part of a thought that begins in verse 6, carries on through verse 10, and provides the springboard for the argument that begins in earnest in verse 11.
 
It’s been debated for a long time who these Galatians were. Old Galatia was in north-central Asia Minor which took its name from ethnic Gauls, a Celtic people who inhabited the area.  It’s an open question when Paul might have gone to this region, because Luke makes no mention of a specific mission to this area.  Therefore the most widely accepted theory is that Paul is writing to people who lived, not in ethnic Galatia, but in Roman political Galatia, a province that included a lot of territory south of the old region.  These would be the churches begun on the first missionary journey by Paul and Barnabas in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe.
 
The interesting thing is that, other than impacting the date of composition (the South Galatian theory means this may be Paul’s first epistle) and a few other details, the answer to that question has no significant impact on the interpretation of the epistle.  The main thing is that the Galatians are gullible (simple fools), and and Paul is trying to keep them from getting really messed up.
 
The problem is that the Galatian churches have received and welcomed people who presented themselves as representatives of the real church in Jerusalem, with the authentic message from the real apostles. My college prof called them “Judaizers,” so that’s what I call them.

They have come to “correct” the mistakes and outright falsehoods they claim that Paul foisted on them. They told the Galatians that Paul has no credentials from Jerusalem and thus no right to preach.  Even worse (they claim), Paul has preached to them a faulty gospel, insufficient for their salvation.  Paul, they say, neglected to tell them that in order to truly believe in Jesus Christ and receive his salvation they must convert to Judaism.  This is no big deal, they said: the main thing is that all the men and boys have to be circumcised.  If they do that, then it’s cool.  They aren’t telling the Galatians the full ramifications of coming under the Law.  
 
In other words they are attacking at two things that Paul cannot and will not compromise: the gospel he preaches, and his authority to preach it.
 
Paul comes out swinging, starting with the greeting in 1:1,2 and the salutation and blessing in verse 3.  Compare chapter 1 with the opening of every other Pauline epistle to the churches.  Always he begins with some word of commendation for something they are doing right—even to the Corinthians, a bad-boy church that was having problems even into the post-apostolic era.  Not here, not to the Galatians.  He is so agitated (and if you read it aloud you can hear it in the tone) that he can’t stand it.  “I’m astonished”—I can’t believe you guys are doing this!  “You are turning away from the true gospel to a gospel that doesn’t have any good news in it.”  He blames the Judaizers for throwing them into confusion and perverting the message.
 
Here’s where he puts himself under a curse.  He is not expressing a fear; he is issuing a challenge.  It’s almost a dare.  He’s not afraid of the curse; he wants it to happen, IF he ever alters his message and pollutes the purity of the gospel.  I trust you have your own Bible open to the full passage, so instead of composing another translation let me amplify it with a paraphrase:
 

1. Let me make this perfectly clear, this isn’t about WHO is preaching the gospel, it is about the CONTENT of the gospel.  We preached the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to you the first time.  Any change would be a change from truth to a lie.  So I don’t care who comes to you and what kind of credentials they’re showing you: if they’re preaching a different gospel, it’s a lie and a deception.
   
   Cursed be everyone who falsifies the gospel of Jesus Christ, regardless of who they are!  Let it start with me.  I preached the gospel to you first, so you have to believe me no matter what I say to you, right?  WRONG!  I am not above the truth of the gospel.  If the next time we show up at your place we start changing the fundamentals of the message we preached to you originally, let the curse fall on us that is put on all deceivers and false preachers.  I don’t care who it is.  Even if an angel from heaven comes and preaches a gospel to you different from the one we preached,  it only means that this angel has turned to the dark side; let him fall under the curse too.  
   
   Just to make sure you’ve got my point, let me say it one more time and make it real specific: If you’ve got somebody preaching to you a gospel that is different in kind and character from the one you accepted and were baptized into when we were with you (even if they use the Bible and the name of Jesus and claim to represent the true church), let the curse fall on him.  It doesn’t matter who he seems to be or claims to be, he is a deceiver so let him be damned.
    
   You’re welcome!  These people are telling you that I’m just a man-pleaser, that the reason I preached the gospel to you the way I did was so you would like me.  They’re even telling you  that I preach a different gospel to the Jews.  Well, now what do you think?  Do you still think I’m just trying to get people to like me now? I assure you, if I were just trying to get people to like me, I’m in the wrong business, brother.
    
   I did not invent the gospel I preach.  No human did.  Neither was it passed on to me by other (fallible) human instruments. I got it the same way all the apostles got the gospel: face to face from the mouth of the risen Jesus Christ.”
   

And then Paul goes on, and writes to defend his apostleship, and then segues into his defense of the gospel of salvation by faith.
 
So what does Paul really think about the Judaizers who have infiltrated the Galatian churches?  Does he think they are believers who have gone astray?  In 2:4 he calls them “false brothers,” indicating that he doesn’t regard them as true believers at all.  In 4:17 he ascribes to them the motive of wanting to gain disciples for themselves (compare Matthew 23:15), and in 5:12 he expresses the wish that they would be completely consistent with their doctrine and castrate themselves like the pagan priests do. (Why stop with the foreskin after all?  That won’t solve the sin problem.  Of course, neither will castration, but maybe they should find that out for themselves.)
 
Back to Paul’s statement in which he calls the curse down on his own head.  Is he serious? Of course he’s serious, but that doesn’t mean he believes he’s seriously in jeopardy of falling under it.  In order to fall under his own curse, he would have to switch his allegiance to a false gospel.  What are the odds?  Probably about the same (maybe a little better) as a bona fide angel from heaven doing so.  He’s making a conditional statement.  There are several kinds or degrees of conditional statements in Greek syntax. Sometimes “if” should be translated “since,” because it’s talking about actual conditions that are presently prevailing (ex: Romans 5:1).  Grammarians call that a 1st class conditional statement.  Galatians 1:8 is not one of these, but is a 4th class (optative) statement: the condition is real, but the situation is not factual (ex.: 1 Corinthians 15:14).
 
Paul makes a similar statement, including a self-curse, in Romans 9:3, where he actually says, “I could wish myself accursed from Christ.”  (Imagine how the media today could take that out of context!)  He’s not actually wishing to be accursed from Christ. He’s really wishing for the repentance of the Jewish people toward Christ, and is so fervent about it that, if it would do any good, he would trade his salvation for theirs.  Of course it wouldn’t do any good, and no other price of redemption is necessary or even possible than the blood of Jesus Christ.  Yet Paul is absolutely sincere in his wish, and since he cannot prove his heart, makes an oath and calls on God as his witness.
 
This is not unheard of in the rest of the Bible, by the way. For example, several places in the OT there are persons who call down curses on themselves as an expression of their seriousness.  One familiar phrase in particular, “May God do so to me and more” (possibly accompanied by some gesture, but we don’t know), appears in Ruth 1:17 and at least 4 other places in Samuel and Kings.  Elsewhere a psalmist in exile curses his own musical talents if he should ever forget Jerusalem (Psalm 139:5,6).
 
Notice how Paul’s tone changes in verse 9. The change is evident in English, but even clearer in Greek with minor but meaningful changes in wording.  In verse 8 he says that if otherwise reliable persons should preach a false gospel, a curse would and should fall on them; but the context clearly indicates that neither Paul nor angels were doing any such thing. (It is possible, though, that the Judaizers used supernatural stories of angelic appearances to validate their message to the superstitious Galatians).  In verse 9, however, it is “if anyone” preaches a false gospel, then the curse will certainly result; and there were actually people in Galatia proclaiming a false gospel.
 
Paul’s point is not that he is worried that he may betray the gospel;  he is fighting mad about those who have come among the Galatians in order to subvert his gospel. But he wants to make it clear that this isn’t a matter of personalities.  It’s not about the preacher, it’s about the content of the message.
 
Then there’s that word “accursed” (anathema).  It’s not a common word for Paul.  He only uses it a total of 5 times, and 2 of them are here (and 1 in Romans 9).  Why doesn’t he use a clearer word, like “condemned” (which he does not, the NIV to the contrary)?  He is being very careful in his choice of words. The matter is not his to judge. It is not for him to decide who is saved or condemned—including himself.  He is reminding the Galatians, and indirectly the Judaizers, that the truth is not up for a vote, and that all who would try to persuade others had better first learn the fear of God.  “If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.”  There was an earlier time when Paul was a man-pleaser.  He left that behind when he followed Christ.