No Other Gospel!

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. [1]

An Exposition of Galatians 1:6-10

[Lewis Johnson regularly ministered the Word at Believers Chapel in Dallas for more than thirty years. From 1950 to 1977, he taught New Testament and systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. He also served as professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, from 1980 to 1985.]

Introduction

The early Roman writers have given us a very clear picture of the character of the Gauls. They were noted for their sharp and quick minds, prompt and vigorous action, and impressionability. That was the good side of their nature. On the other side was their inconstancy, treachery, quarrelsomeness, and ease of discouragement, and the ancient writers dwelt on these more adverse aspects of their character. There is one aspect, however, that seems to fit very well the picture of the Galatians that emerges in Paul’s epistle. It is their fickleness of temperament. Julius Caesar, in his Gallic War, mentions this instability and complains that almost without exception they were driven by the desire to change. [2] It is this feature that reveals itself in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, and it comes to the fore in his opening paragraph, “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him” (1:6; cf. 3:1). This combination of warmhearted impulsiveness and fickleness has led some to speak of the Galatians as “the Americans among the churches.” Or, perhaps we should speak of the Americans as the Galatians among the nations.

We do not wish to push this too much, for we have concluded, with some tentativeness, that the churches to which Paul wrote were in the southern part of Asia Minor, while the Gauls had primarily settled in the northern part. The likeness between the ancient picture of the Gauls and the Galatians of Paul’s letter is, nevertheless, striking.

The principal point that the apostle made in verses 6–10 is simply this: There is but one gospel, the primitive gospel, the gospel of the apostles. It is a gospel of grace. It is a gospel about Christ and His penal substitutionary sacrifice. And it is a gospel that is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes it. Amid the changing years, then, there is the one unchanging good news.

The Apostle Paul makes some exceedingly strong statements about those who would like to change his gospel, and it is not tactlessness for us to ask why the apostle speaks as he does. Such language as, “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!” (1:8), cries out for comment. Why such unyielding and ironhanded language?

There are two pointed answers to the question. In the first place, the apostle perceived that the glory of Jesus Christ was at stake. To make it necessary for men to supplement the finished work of Christ by a sacramental work, such as circumcision, was to degrade the cross. It was to declare that the cross was a redundant and superfluous work. In Paul’s own words from this letter, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly” (2:21). The thought is preposterous.

And, second, Paul correctly perceived that the souls of men were at stake. The gospel is not some trivial and inane topic. It is the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of the souls of men. To hold false views about the gospel is to hold false views about the deepest question of all human life, and the relation of a man to his God. In fact, Paul says elsewhere that he would be willing to be accursed himself, if his kinsmen could be saved (cf. Rom. 9:1; Mark 9:42). But, since that cannot take place, his thoughts naturally turn to the curse of God falling upon the enemies of the truth. And if we cared for the glory of Christ and the souls of men as the apostle did, we would feel the same way.

Paul’s Astonishment at the Galatians’ Desertion

I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another. (6-7a)

Where They Had Been, verses 6a

The apostle was amazed at what was happening to the believers that he himself had brought into the family of God (cf. 4:13–16). It was as if they had become spellbound under the allurement of the false teachers. As he put it later, “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” (3:1).

And they had been so closely related to the Lord through the apostolic gospel that it could be said that in turning from the gospel they were turning from Him. “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you” (1:6). Their defection in theology led to a defection in experience. To accept that which is inconsistent with the mediation of Christ on the cross is to be removed from Him. [3] And the fact that it had happened so soon after their conversion made it worse. [4]

The verb translated, “you are so quickly deserting” (μετατίθεσθε, metatithesthe) is of some importance here. Its tense is present, and so the apostle is speaking of something that is in process. Further, its voice is middle, not passive, the idea of personal responsibility being involved. The verb was used of a military or political defection, and of a change in religion, philosophy, or morals. Lightfoot renders it here, “are turning renegades.” [5] Thus, the Galatians were like military deserters, or spiritual turncoats. And it was “from (ἀπό, apo) Him” (AV), for He cannot be separated from His gospel.

Their calling was “by the grace of Christ.” The AV more literally follows the Greek text with the rendering, “into (εἰς, eis) the grace of Christ.” The sphere of God’s dealing with them was the grace of Christ, that is, He was dealing with them, not on the basis of what they deserved, but on the basis of that which Christ had done for them (cf. Acts 20:24).

Where They Were Going, verses 6b–7a

Their destination was “to a different gospel” (NIV)—from God to a false and damning gospel; what a trip!

Paul went on to characterize the message that they were in danger of receiving and relying upon as, “not another.” In the Authorized or King James Version the word “another” occurs twice in verses 6 and 7. In the original text, however, the underlying Greek words are not the same. The NASB captures the difference with the translation “for a different gospel; which is really not another.” In the phrase that occurs at the end of verse six, “for a different gospel,” the Greek word is ἕτερος (heteros), while the word translated by “another” in verse seven is ἄλλος (allos). The distinction between the words in Classical Greek was this: ̓́Αλλος denoted numerical difference, while ἕτερος denoted qualitative difference. Or ἄλλος is another as “one besides,” while ἕτερος is another as “one of two.” [6] Or, to make it even more simple, ἄλλος is another of the same kind, while ἕτερος is another of a different kind. In the common everyday Greek of the day of Paul this distinction was not always observed, [7] but in this context, since the two are used so close together and in evident contrast to one another, this distinction seems applicable. [8] Thus, what the apostle was saying is this: I am astounded that you are turning so quickly from God to a different gospel, a gospel of a different substance, which is not another of the same kind (cf. 2 Cor. 11:4).

In Paul’s eyes the gospel of the Judaizers was a so-called gospel, a different message entirely, a counterfeit, a fake, a pretense, a real “rip-off,” to use today’s slang. “Its proponents,” Lenski says, “call it a gospel only to gain its acceptance as brass is sold for gold; those who buy are cheated.” [9] A legalistic gospel is a mangled gospel, not an alternative word. It is a perverted message. It is as different from the true Word as a counterfeit dollar from a gold-backed dollar (those were the days! I started to say, “as different as a Swiss franc from a dollar”!). It is as different as sterling is from plate, as the Koh-i-noor, Jonker, and Cullinan diamonds from those made from paste and glass.

There are a couple of things to notice at this point. In the first place, it must be noted that the facts of the gospel were the same for both the party of Paul and the party of the Judaizers. There is no indication that the Judaizers did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, who had died for the remission of sins and had been raised from the dead. They believed the facts about His ministry. They differed with the apostle over the terms upon which the benefits of Christ’s death were conveyed by God to men. The apostle believed that those benefits became ours through faith alone, while his opponents said that, while faith was necessary, it was also necessary to be circumcised and keep the Law. “In other words,” Stott points out, “you must let Moses finish what Christ has begun. Or rather, you yourself must finish, by your obedience to the law, what Christ has begun. You must add your works to the work of Christ. You must finish Christ’s unfinished work.” [10] Heaven simply will not tolerate this doctrine.

It appears to me that, if the apostle were alive and heard that professing Christian teachers were insisting on baptism for salvation in addition to faith in Christ, he would have the same words for them. Circumcision and baptism are both sacramental in character and lend themselves to this misinterpretation of their meaning.

A second thing: In what other ways is it possible to preach a false gospel? By the addition of other terms to faith, such as the requirement that one “pray through” for salvation, that one pay for salvation, that one perform other good works, whether religious or philanthropic, etc.

Finally, it is to be noticed also that Paul’s argument against ceremonies is grounded in the general claim that salvation is by grace, not works. He does not tell us how circumcision is classified as a work. Its physical, visible, material nature makes that obvious to him, it seems. Thus, a principle is established: Particular errors may be refuted by universal principles. The general has its proper application to the particular. Inferring from Scripture is a valid part of biblical interpretation. [11]

Paul’s Explanation of the Desertion

Only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

They were Troubling the Churches, verse 7b

The “but” of the second clause of verse seven (AV) is literally “only” (εἰ μή, ei mē) as in the NASB. That is, the only sense in which the gospel of the Judaizers is a gospel is that there is an attempt going on to pervert the true gospel! [12] In other words, as Calvin so deftly puts it, “He declares that it is not the Gospel but a mere disturbance.” [13]

The verb translated “are disturbing” (ταράσσω, tarassō [AV has “trouble”]) means to agitate, or to shake. It may refer to the troubling of the mind (cf. Matt. 2:3; 14:26), but in this context it seems to mean to raise seditions among the Galatians, to shake their allegiance to the Pauline gospel, and thus set up factions that war against one another. It is the natural continuation of the word used in verse six, “turning renegade” [μετατίσεσθε, metatisesthe, “deserting,” NASB] (cf. Acts 15:24). It suggests the opposite of peace. The participle (ταράσσοντες, tarassontes) is in the present tense and in a construction that emphasizes that the activity is going on at the time of the apostle’s writing. [14]

As General Franco marched on Madrid with four columns of troops during the Spanish Civil War (1936), he was asked how he expected to take the city. He answered that he had a fifth column in the city. He was referring to sympathizers in the city ready to rise and betray it. These “fifth columnists” appeared to onlookers to be peaceful residents of the city, but they were actually secret sympathizers with the enemy and were ready to act traitorously and subversively to support him. The work of the Judaizers, then, may be likened to seditionists seeking to destroy a city or country by “fifth-columnist” activity, thus subverting the souls of the people (cf. Acts 15:24).

They were Transforming the Gospel, verse 7c

The perversion of the gospel, for which the Judaizers were responsible, was an intentional one, as the word want (θέλοντες, thelontes, lit. wishing) [15] indicates.

The verb translated “pervert” (AV, NIV, μεταστρέψαι, metastrepsai) [16] is a word that means to change, or to alter. It has here the idea of changing to the opposite, i.e., to corrupt. [17] In other words, the Galatian heresy is a reversal of the true gospel. If the apostle were living in later times, this is what he would call the many attempts that have been made to modify and pervert the Christian good news. Arian Christs, exemplary atonements, moral influence atonements, spiritual atonements, and other similar heresies are all perversions of the Word of God. For example, when John Knox, not the reformer but a modern transformer, insists that Jesus was a man in the same sense as other men (true), but yet not possessed of full deity, then the gospel has been perverted. When F. W. Dillistone insists that ideas of the death of Christ as involving substitutionary penalties and punishment must be rejected, then he has perverted the gospel of Christ. When men such as Professor Nels Ferré insist that God has no permanent problem children, thus espousing the heresy of universalism, then the genuine apostolic gospel has been changed to something that is the opposite of its real nature. It has been corrupted.

Since these attempts to dilute the gospel of its real character are so persistent in our day, it is no wonder that the professing Christian church is so troubled. The perverters and the heretics have become the powers in the professing church, and Christian theology has been replaced by a weak and faulty ethical system that permits such evils as homosexuality to thrive in the midst of the church. “To tamper with the gospel is always to trouble the church,” John Stott correctly affirmed. [18]

Paul’s Reaction to the Situation

His Indignation over the False Gospelers, verses 8–9

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! 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!

Surprise and astonishment give way to hot indignation. Paul does not ride into town holding up the banner, “Make love, not war!” No, it is the opposite, “Make war, not love!”

The strong words of verses eight and nine affirm with all solemnity the hatred of God against all attempts to change the apostolic message. The apostle, it is plain, is in dead earnest about theology! He is concerned with the plan of salvation, in spite of what some modern theologians say. There are several points made by Paul here. In the first place, it is clear that the outward form of a person does not validate his gospel. Even an angel cannot veer one iota from the apostolic gospel. The apostle himself cannot change the gospel he preached in Galatia at his first visit, when they received it and lived.

Further, any variation from the truth of the biblical gospel brings one under the divine curse. The word translated “accursed” (ἀνάθεμα, anathema) came to refer through usage to something “devoted” in the bad sense (i.e., to destruction), because it was hateful to God. [19] In this context it does not mean excommunication, but it refers to the state of the person who is alienated from God because of sin. It refers to man as under the divine curse, the curse of spiritual death. This is the end of the legalist.

Was this statement of Paul’s simply an “intemperate outburst?” [20] Is it inconsistent with Christian love? There are good reasons why it should not be regarded as an unworthy sentiment. It is, first, a universally applied sentiment. The apostle relates to it every perverter of the truth. And, second, it was uttered deliberately, for he expressed it twice. Finally, if Paul’s words were “intemperate,” then so were our Lord’s in Matthew 23:13–39, for His were even more severe than the apostle’s. “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites…. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell” (vv. 13, 33)?

The apostle evidently approved of engaging false teachers in battle, and he gave us a hint about the proper methodology. He explained his apostolic authority, then expressed his concern over their activity, and, finally, closed with an indignant warning to them.

His Justification of His Indignation, verse 10

For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

The apostle concluded the section with some words in answer to the claims by his enemies that he was a timeserver, a man who attempted to be all things to all men. Some of the apostle’s views left him open to the charge, as, for example, his permission of Timothy’s circumcision and prohibition of Titus’ (Acts 16:1–3; Gal. 2:3–5). There was no question about the present, however. As he put it, “Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? The “now” (ἄρτι, arti) is emphatic in the original text, [21] and it supports Paul’s claim that he is not currying favor from men. Lightfoot has caught the sense:

Let him be accursed, I say. What, does my boldness startle you? Is this, I ask, the language of a timeserver? Will any say now that, careless of winning the favor of God, I seek to conciliate men, to ingratiate myself with men? If I had been content thus to compromise, I should have been spared all the sufferings, as I should have been denied all the privileges, of a servant of Christ? [22]

If Paul’s goal had been to please men, he would never have abandoned Judaism and the doctrines of the Judaizers. And if he had not abandoned it and them, he could never have been Christ’s bondslave.

Conclusion

There is, then, only one gospel, the primitive gospel of the apostles, and to abandon it is to expose oneself to the curse of the divine condemnation.

How may one recognize this one true gospel? There are some guidelines that we must follow. First, the source of the apostolic gospel is the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. v. 12). Once coming to that we must prefer His apostles’ doctrine even to the doctrine of angels (cf. v. 8). The test is: What does the Word of God say? All so-called messengers of the truth are to be judged by the gospel; their gospel is not to be judged by them. The message validates the messenger.

Second, the substance of the gospel is the message concerning Christ and the work of the cross (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1–4).

Third, the principle that pervades the message, and the terms of its reception, is the principle of grace (cf. v. 6; 2:21; 5:4). With these guidelines the message of God may be heard, recognized, and received to the glory of God.

Notes

1. This is article two in a sixteen-part series, “Expositional Studies in the Epistle to the Galatians.”
2. Caesar, The Gallic War 2.1; 3.10; 4.5 in LCL, trans. H. J. Edwards (Cambridge: Harvard, 1917), 90–91, 150–53, 186–87.
3. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker (1556, ET, Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1965), 13.
4. The adverbs οὕτως ταχέως (“so quickly”) must mean “‘[so quickly] after your conversion,’ as the words following show.” Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians (1865; reprint ed., Grand Rapids; Zondervan, 1982), 75.
5. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 75.
6. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 76.
7. BDF § 306.4 (p. 160) sees no essential distinction. Cf. also: K. Weiss, “ἄλλος,” in EDNT, 1 (1990): 63-64; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 80–81.
8. The distinction in this context is maintained in a careful note by Ernest De Witt Burton, The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 420–22. Cf. also: Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (9th ed., London: Macmillan, 1880; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 357–61 (esp. 360–61); K. Haacker, “ἕτερος,” in EDNT, 2 (1991): 66 (“ ̓́Αλλος and ἕτερος are here, as in Acts 4:12, not interchangeable”).
9. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to the Philippians (1937; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 35–36.
10. John R. W. Stott, The Message of Galatians, BST (London: Inter-Varsity press, 1968), 22. The italics are mine.
11. Cf. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, 6.
12. Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 76.
13. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, 14.
14. The NIV translates, “Some people are throwing you into confusion.”
15. The AV translates the participle “would,” while the NIV has “trying to.”
16. The NASB translates, “to distort.”
17. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “μεταστρέφω,” 641.
18. John Stott, The Message of Galatians, 23.
19. Cf. BDAG, s.v. “ἀνάθεμα,” 63.
20. John Stott, The Message of Galatians, 24.
21. The adverb ἄρτι is the very first word in the sentence.
22. J. B. Lightfoot, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, 78.