Archives - Redeeming God

The following study of Galatians 1:8-9 is drawn from my Gospel Dictionary Online Course, which defines 52 key words of the Gospel, and considers hundreds of texts from the Bible related to these key terms. See details at the bottom of this article for how you can take the entire course. Here is a video that provides the basic answer to what Paul is saying in Galatians 1:8-9.

In Galatians 1:8-9 Paul calls down anathema on any person or teacher who presents a different gospel than the one he himself taught when he was among the believers in Galatia. Paul is so emphatic he says this not once, but twice in these two verses.

The Galatian believers have abandoning the gospel of grace which Paul taught to them, and have instead turned to a gospel of works, which is no gospel at all (cf. Galatians 1:7). So as Paul sits down to write this letter of correction to the Galatians, he begins in Galatians 1:8 by saying that anyone who preaches something different than what he preached, let them be accursed; let them be anathema.

Among those who knew Paul, such a statement would have been shocking. Paul does not go around cursing people. So Paul, knowing that his statement would have caused the readers in Galatian to scratch their head and wonder if they were hearing him correctly, repeats himself in Galatians 1:9.

Christians have used Galatians 1:8-9 to justify cursing others to hell

These two verses by Paul have caused so much bad behavior by Christians over the years.

Back during the Reformation, the Reformers pronounced anathemas on the Catholics, and the Catholics pronounced anathemas on the Reformers.

In more recent years, it is not at all uncommon to hear some Christian go around pronouncing curses and condemnation on people, and when you challenge them about their unloving behavior, they quote Galatians 1:8-9 and say, “Paul cursed people for the sake of the gospel; so can we.”

What did Paul mean in Galatians 1:8-9 when he announced an anathema on others?

You are about to learn that this way of reading Paul’s message in Galatians is completely wrong. I will show you a key to understanding Galatians that will allow you to read the Galatians in a whole new light.

You will not only understand the book more than ever before, but will also smile a little bit when you read his anathemas here in Galatians 1:8-9. You will understand why Paul states this anathema twice in these verses, and why we can never, ever, ever curse or condemn people who disagree with us, because, as we will see, that is not what Paul is doing either.

While it is tempting once again to see in these statements a vindictive Paul calling down a death curse upon his theological opponents, we must understand that such behavior does not fit the wider thought and theology of Paul.

What Paul writes in Galatians 1:8-9 must be understood in light of the wider context of this letter as a whole.

Galatians 1:8-9 in the context of Galatians

Let me give you a little hint right now about how to read this letter. If you want to read Galatians properly, you need to read it with a little smirk on your lips. You need to read it with a twinkle in your eye. You need to read it with a half-smile and a wink.

Why?

Because that is what Paul was doing when he wrote this letter. If you can read Galatians with the idea that Paul was writing with a somewhat sarcastic, or ironic, tone of voice, the letter will make a whole lot more sense to you.

Oh, and by way of fair warning, the explanation of Galatians 1:8-9 below is rated PG-13.

Let us begin by looking at a later “curse” that Paul pronounces on the teachers in Galatia with whom he disagrees.

In Galatians 5:12, Paul states his wish that those teachers who make circumcision a requirement for new believers would just go ahead and emasculate themselves entirely. Paul’s theological satire is quite evident. The teachers in Galatia were arguing that if believers in Jesus really wanted to please and obey God, faith in Jesus was not enough; men needed to also get circumcised.

So in Galatians 5:12, Paul, with a little smirk on his lips, argues that if God is pleased with us when men cut off part of their penis, maybe God will be even more pleased if men cut off the whole thing!

You have to love Paul, for only Paul can use a penis to make a theological point.

But what exactly is that point?

Well, the issue of circumcision is not just about pleasing God. The issue is much larger.

Under the Mosaic Law, circumcision was a sign of separation. It was a sign that only the circumcised were part of the people of God. Only the circumcised were the “insiders” with God. Everybody else was an “outsider.” Circumcision then, was a way of dividing humanity. It was “us vs. them.”

Yet one central themes of Paul’s letters is that in Jesus Christ, all such divisions have been dissolved. There is no more wall separating insiders from outsiders (Ephesians 2:11-22). In Jesus Christ, all are insiders.

So when certain Christians in Galatia began to make circumcision a requirement for fellowship once again, Paul saw it as a return to divisions and a rebuilding of walls. This was to live not according to the Spirit but according to the flesh (Gal 5:16-26), especially since, in more ways than one, circumcision was of the “flesh.”

The factions, divisions, and lusts that were present in the community were further signs that some in Galatia were living according to the flesh rather than according to the Spirit. The pressure to get circumcised was creating an atmosphere of some men comparing his “flesh” to that of others to see who was more spiritual.

But such comparisons are not spiritual, but fleshly. To put it bluntly, Christians were comparing dicks to see who was more spiritual. Paul’s criticism is that the entire argument is “fleshly” and he wants it to stop. For Paul, this whole argument is ridiculous.

N. T. Wright explains it a little more circumspectly:

The opponents, after all, whoever they were, were seeking to establish a way of being, a grand story, a form of knowing, a type of identity, upon the converts. The pressure to get circumcised was precisely an insistence on establishing one kind of ethnic or para-ethnic identity over against others. Paul deconstructs these claims, showing that they themselves are dehumanizing, based on “the flesh.”

It really is quite a humorous argument when understood.

Paul’s letter to the Galatians has a whole different feel if you understand that Paul wrote it with a smirk instead of a scowl.

Paul had a sense of humor after all!

Paul is writing about “the flesh” in Galatians

This imagery of “the flesh” is found throughout this letter. The image of the sowing with the flesh in Galatians 6:8 and making a good showing in the flesh in Galatians 6:12 as two further examples.

The “flesh” (Gk. sarx) is the word used to translate the Hebrew word for “flesh” (basar) which is often used in the Hebrew Scriptures as a euphemism for the male sexual organ.

This understanding gives us a completely different reading of Galatians 1:8-9, especially when we remember that the word anathema is exactly equivalent to the Hebrew concept of cherem. In Israel, only outsiders were under cherem, and circumcision was one of the defining characteristics used to separate the insiders from the outsiders. This is why it was so important for all male Israelites to get circumcised before they entered into Canaan (Joshua 5:3-7).

Yet in Jesus Christ, all of these divisions and separations had been done away with and set aside.

Paul’s message in Galatians is that Golgotha has done away with Gibeath-haaraloth, the hill of foreskins (Josh 5:7).

There is no longer any “us vs. them” or “insiders vs. outsiders.” Paul is now saying if we demand circumcision, we are only going back to that old way of dividing the world between insiders and outsiders.

But the reality is that, through Jesus, we are all insiders. The only real outsiders are those who claim that they are insiders and everyone else is an outsider. If you do that, then you are an outsider, and this places you under cherem, under anathema.

When Paul introduces his letter to the Galatians, he is not calling down judgment and condemnation upon his theological opponents. Instead, he is saying that if they are right in what they teach, then we must go back to the old way of dividing the world, and if we do that, then they will be cherem, anathema. Nobody wants that, including Paul, so he calls them to return once again to the gospel he preached to them, which is the gospel of inclusion and embrace.

Paul closes out his letter with a call for peace and mercy (Galatians 6:16) and that we “do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10).

We must not think that Galatians begins with a curse ends with a blessing.

Paul has been blessing his readers all the way throughout, while using irony, sarcasm, humor, and even sexual innuendos to point out the error of their ways.

Understanding the Gospel requires us to properly understand the key words and terms of the Gospel. Take my course, "The Gospel Dictionary" to learn about the 52 key words of the Gospel, and hundreds of Bible passages that use these words.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

Epistolary Diatribe in the Letters of Paul (No, really! It’s Interesting. I promise!)

By Jeremy Myers

13 Comments

What a blog post title! Epistolary Diatribe … what???

But have no fear … it’s not as scary as it sounds. This article will really help you understand the letters of Paul. I promise.

Let me begin by asking you a question … If you had no quote marks, how would you indicate in a book or letter that you were quoting someone? Well, you would probably just state the quote anyway, and then use words like “said” to tell you reader you are quoting something.

Here’s an example:

Gary said I love elephants.

But notice that without quote marks, the sentence loses clarity.

It could be understood this way:

Gary said, “I love elephants.”

Or this way:

Gary said [that] I [Jeremy] love elephants.

Do you see? Without quote marks, one sentence can have at least two different meanings.

But it gets trickier than that. What if I am writing a dialogue between two or more people, and I now have to record what each person says … still without quote marks.

Here is an example:

Gary said I love elephants.
Tom said I love them too.
But I said both of them are wrong.

So you see? What EXACTLY was said is a little vague, but the context gives you some idea of what Gary, Tom, and I were talking about.

Ah, but now watch this …. if I quote someone without any quote marks, and if I don’t use the word “said” or even tell you who said it, I can almost guarantee you will know who said it and what they said:

That’s one small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind.

Do you know who said that and the context in which it was said? Of course you do (I hope). I didn’t have to use quote marks, and I didn’t have to use the word “said.” You automatically knew. (And yes, I quoted it correctly … according to the man who said it.)

Now, take the little bit you’ve learned here about quote marks and easily-recognized quotations and think back to the days of the early church when Paul was writing letters to the various churches he had planted. Many times, Paul wrote these letters to correct and refute some of the false ideas and teachings that were being taught within the various churches.

But guess what? There were no quote marks in Koine Greek (the language Paul used to write his letters).

So what did he do?

Well, he used a style of writing which was quite common for other letter writers in his day, which modern scholars have labeled “Epistolary Diatribe.” This is a fancy way of saying “A letter written to correct the wrong ideas of someone else.” And since this method of writing letters to refute others was quite common, people quickly and easily recognized it when it was happening in a letter.

This is especially true when we recognize that trained “readers” often “performed” the dialogue portions of the letters to a listening audience … many of whom could not read.

Some of the distinguishing marks of Epistolary Diatribe are as follows:

Famous quotes from the letters, writings, teachings of the person being refuted
The word “say” or “said” might be used (e.g., “You have heard it said,” Or “But someone will say.”)
A refutation begun with an adversative conjunction (e.g., “But” or “Of course not!”)
A gentle mocking, or name-calling, or the person being refuted (e.g., “Who are you, Oh man?” or “Oh foolish man!”)

These four clear signs are not always present, and so it is sometimes difficult to know whether a certain verse is Paul’s idea or a quote from someone Paul is refuting, but there are several very clear examples of this sort of “Epistolary Diatribe” going on in the New Testament.

Below are three clear examples (and yes, I know the last one is not from Paul, but it still gives a good example):

Clear Examples of Epistolary Diatribe

Romans 9:19-20

In this passage, Paul introduces the person who is objecting to Paul’s words by saying “You will say to me then.”

After this, Paul quotes what this objector is saying: “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”

Paul begins his response in the typical way, by using an adversative conjunction followed by a gentle name-calling of the person. Paul says, “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?”

From this, we see that Paul thinks that God has set up the world in a way that God’s will can be resisted. The objector disagrees and says that nobody can resist God’s will. Paul responds with a bit of irony, telling the objector, “By saying nobody can resist God’s will when God has said that people can resist His will, you are resisting God’s will.” It’s a brilliant move by Paul. I write more about this in my book, The Re-Justification of God, which looks at Romans 9.

1 Corinthians 15:35-36

Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is full of Epistolary Diatribe, especially since he is responding to a letter they wrote to him. So he quotes some of their letter, or what he heard that some people were teaching in Corinth, and then he responds to it.

In Paul’s discussion about the resurrection, he introduces the quote from another teacher by writing, “But someone will say.”

Then Paul quotes what they are saying, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” In other words, the objector says that the idea of a resurrection is foolish unless we understand how it works and what our new bodies will be like.

Paul then sets out to refute this objection with a little gentle name-calling. He introduces his refutation with the words “Foolish one” and then goes on to explain more about the resurrection.

Note that the adversative conjunction was missing, but it was still quite obvious that Paul was engaging in dialogue with this other teacher.

James 2:18-20

It is not just Paul that uses Epistolary Diatribe. As mentioned earlier, this form of writing was very common. James, the brother of Jesus, uses it as well in his letter.

A clear example is found in James 2:18-20. In fact, recognizing Epistolary Diatribe in James 2 helps clear up a lot of the confusion surrounding James 2 and the role of faith and works in the life of the believer.

James is writing about the relationship between faith and works, and he introduces the objection by someone else in the normal way. He writes, “But someone will say.” And then James goes on to quote this ideas of this person who is objecting.

The interesting thing about this is that few Bible translations understand where the quote from this imaginary objector ends. If you consult some of the various Bible translations, you will see that in English, the end quote is inserted at different places in different translations.

The NKJV puts the end quote half-way through verse 18. The NAS puts the end quote at the end of James 2:18. But when we understand the signs of Epistolary Diatribe, we recognize that the quote of the objector goes all the way through verses 18 and 19. How do we know this?

Because James 2:20 has the adversative conjunction and then the gentle, derogatory name-calling. James indicates that he is now refuting the objector when he writes, “But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?”

When we realize that James 2:19 and what it says about the faith of demons is not the ideas of James, but the ideas of someone who disagrees with James, this helps our overall understanding of the passage. I wrote more about this in my article “Even the demons believe” and have also taught about it in my study on James 2:14-26.

So those are just three clear examples of Epistolary Diatribe in the New Testament. There are several other clear examples, but I just wanted to point these out.

Now, there are many, many other passages in the Bible that likely contain Epistolary Diatribe.

Other Possible Epistolary Diatribe Passages

The problem with several of these other possible passages that contain Epistolary Diatribe is that they don’t always contain all four of the markers that I mentioned above. They might only contain one or two. Or none.

But again, what we have to recognize is that while it might be difficult for us to discern when Epistolary Diatribe is taking place, it was not difficult for the original audience.

They likely would have had someone play-act the dialogue out for them, with the reader using different voices, or maybe different hand gestures to indicate when a different person was talking. Also, they would have quickly and easily recognized the ideas and quotes from the teacher that Paul was refuting in his letter.

What if I wrote a letter to you which said this:

Sometimes I look at everything going on in the world, and I am afraid for the future. We must remember, however, that we have nothing to fear, but fear itself. And besides, God loves us, and perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. Nevertheless, although I know this to be true, I am still afraid sometimes. So when I am afraid, I remind myself of two things. First, I say “No fear!” and then I also say “Fear not!”

There were four intentional quotes from other sources in that paragraph. The first was from Franklin D. Roosevelt, the second from 1 John 4:18, the second was the old marketing slogan from the 80’s and 90’s, and the final quote came from Isaiah 41:10.

It is possible you picked up on all of them, though maybe you only recognized one or two. Now, if I had changed my voice in all the quotes, you would have recognized that I was quoting someone else, even if you didn’t know the source of the quote.

This, I believe, is exactly what was happening in the early church as the letters of Paul circulated around and were read in the various churches.

So here are a few possibilities of where this is happening.

Romans 1:18-32

Paul’s letter to the Romans almost certainly includes numerous Epistolary Diatribes in which Paul quotes and then refutes a prominent teacher in Rome.

Romans 1:18-32 is sort of the introduction to what this other teacher was saying. Therefore, much of what we read in Romans 1:18-32 is not Paul’s ideas, but the ideas of someone that Paul wants to refute.

This is extremely significant, for it is only here in Romans that wrath is clearly attributed to God. Also, it is here that we read about God handing people over to their sin.

And all of these ideas do not come from Paul, but rather from a legalistic teacher whom Paul sets out to refute in his letter to the Romans.

And indeed, in Romans 2:1, we do have the clear sign that Paul picks back up with his own ideas to refute the ideas he just quoted. He does a little gentle name-calling and sets out to refute what he just quoted. “Therefore you are inexcusable, Oh man, whoever you are who judge…”

To read more on this, here are two articles which lay this out more:

Do you read Romans like an Arian?

A Rending of Romans 1:1-4:3 in Dialogue Form

This way of reading really helps bring clarity to Paul’s argument in Romans and his theology as a whole.

Romans 3:1-9, 27-31

Another sign that Paul is using Epistolary Diatribe in Romans in found in Romans 3:1-9, and 27-31. There is a back-and-forth dialogue that seems quite obvious and natural in the letter.

When we rightly discern which ideas are Paul’s and which ideas belong to the legalistic religious teacher Paul is refuting, the entire text makes much more sense.

Read the two articles linked to above for more help on this.

1 Corinthians 6:12-14

As with Romans, the book of 1 Corinthians is full of Epistolary Diatribe. With almost every new topic Paul addresses, he first quotes what was being taught in Corinth, or what they wrote to him in a letter, and then he sets out to answer their question or refute what they are doing and teaching.

Here is how to read 1 Corinthians 6:12-14 in light of this:

Corinth: All things are lawful for me.

Paul: But all things are not helpful.

Corinth: All things are lawful for me.

Paul: But I will not be brought under the power of any.

Corinth: Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods.

Paul: But God will destroy both it and them.

Paul: (Extrapolating out to sexual immorality from this point about the stomach and food) Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

We can do something exactly similar in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2.

Paul: Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me [and I quote]:

Corinthian Letter: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”

Paul cautions against this: Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

Do you see? In this way, it is not Paul who is saying that it is good for a man to not touch a woman. It is the Corinthians who were saying this, and Paul is cautioning them against such practices. He goes on to explain why in the following verses.

I could go on and on. There are numerous other examples of Epistolary Diatribe in Scripture. For an exhaustive (it’s also an exhausting read … and a workout to even lift) explanation of this technique in Paul’s letters, get The Deliverance of God by Douglas Campbell. It’s an expensive book, and I don’t recommend that everyone read it, because of how technical it is, but he does provide a very good explanation and defense of Epistolary Diatribe.

Why am I bringing this up?

I had an on-stage 5-minute discussion with Greg Boyd at his ReKnew conference last September, and in my closing comment, I hinted at my belief that something else is going on in Romans 1 than what Greg Boyd thinks is going on. My discussion with Greg Boyd begins at about the 20:00 mark.

Romans 1:24 says that God gave people up, or handed them over, to their vile passions and depraved hearts. Greg Boyd thinks that this is Paul’s own idea. I think that since this idea does not at all reflect what we see in Jesus, or even what we see elsewhere in the writings of Paul, that we must conclude that something else is going on in the text.

And what is that something else? It is Epistolary Diatribe.

Romans 1:24 and the surrounding verses are not the ideas of Paul, but the ideas of a legalistic law-based religious teacher in Rome, whom Paul is quotes so that he can then refute him.

There are extensive clues all over in Romans 1-3 that this is happening, and I think that this approach helps make sense of these opening chapters of Romans in light of everything else in this letter.

So I have mentioned it to Greg, and I have mentioned it to you, but let me say it again: I do not believe that God hands us over to sin and Satan. He does not deliver us up to the destroyer. He does not withdraw His protective hand. He does not “Release the Kraken!” to have its way with us.

As we see in Jesus Christ from first to last … God always forgives, only loves, and will never, ever, ever leave us or forsake us, but will be with us, even unto the end of the age.

The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence

By Jeremy Myers

5 Comments

I always love reading books that attempt to explain all the violence in the Bible … especially the violence that is attributed to God. I have written two books on the subject myself, but love seeing how other people deal with this difficult topic.

So when Matthew Fleischer asked to send me a review copy of his book, The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence, I readily accepted.

As I read the book, there was much that I loved and agreed with, but a few things that did not sit well with me. Let me start with the positives.

3 Things I LOVED about this Book

First, the book is very readable. It is not overly technical and provides a good overview of some of the views, issues, and texts related to the topic of violence in Scripture.

Second, despite the title of the book, it actually presents a New Testament case for nonviolence as a way of reading and interpreting the Old Testament. I love this approach to Scripture, and have written elsewhere about the importance of “reading the Bible backwards.” Though the New Testament chronologically follows the Old, it provides us with the theological and hermeneutical framework through which to read and interpret the Old Testament.

Third, and related to the first point, Fleischer not only encourages people to read the Old Testament through truths revealed in the New Testament, but specifically points people to the truths revealed through Jesus Christ on the cross (e.g., chapter 10). In one of my books, I call this the “crucivision” lens. I completely agree that the death of Jesus on the cross provides the clearest explanation of all violence in Scripture.

There are other things I love about the book, but let me briefly discuss two things I disagreed with.

2 Things I Disagreed With

First, Fleischer places a lot of emphasis in the book on progressive revelation (which he calls incremental revelation). This is the idea that as human history progressed, God revealed more and more of Himself to humanity, so that the later portions of Scripture more accurately reveal the true nature of God than the earlier portions (see chapters 2, 11). I have never been a fan of this view.

I know … I know. It seems that earlier I said exactly the opposite when I praised the practice of reading the Old Testament in light of the New. Let me try to clarify.

In the progressive revelation view, we see humanity at its lowest in the early chapters of Genesis, and then as God calls Abraham, then Israel, then Judges, then Prophets, and then Kings, each successive step gets us higher up the ladder of truth until we ultimately arrive at Jesus, who then encourages us to keep learning and moving upward toward truth. So in this view, the revelation from God can be drawn like a slope that moves higher as human history progresses, so that we are smarter and wiser and know more truth than did the people of 500 years ago, and especially the people of 5000 years ago.

C. S. Lewis called this view chronological snobbery, and I agree.

In my view, we probably know less today about God and “true” theology than did people of the past, such as Adam, Abraham, and Moses. While we do have a superior revelation in Jesus Christ, we have so drastically failed to understand what most of what Jesus revealed about God, we are still theologically inferior to Adam, Abraham, and Moses.

So in my view, rather than a constant upward slope toward “truth,” human history actually made a downward slope into sin and ignorance. Jesus Christ came at the deepest trough of this slope, and turned things around. His life, ministry, and teachings provided the correction, so that we are now generally on an upward trajectory, but we are still “below” some of the biblical saints of the past when it comes to what we know to be true about God.

This may seem like a minor point, but really, it makes a world of difference in how we approach some of the ancient biblical texts, like those of Moses and David. Rather than approaching them with a morally and theologically superior attitude, we instead approach them with humility, asking and hoping and praying that we can see what they saw and know what they knew.

This brings me to my second criticism of Fleischer’s excellent book.

Due to his view of progressive revelation, he frequently mentions that since people of the past did not have the full revelation that we have today, God had no choice but to occasionally accommodate their violent tendencies by engaging in some violence Himself.

Fleischer especially argues this in his chapters on “Just War” (chapter 7; see esp. pp 121-122), and then reinforces this idea in some of the concluding words of the book where he writes that God “may have temporarily used limited violence to advance his nonviolence agenda, but his use of such violence was always good and just” (p. 230).

I simply cannot agree, based on what is revealed about God in Jesus Christ. Jesus reveals what God is truly like, and Jesus shows us that there is no violence in God and never has been.

So should you read this book?

Of course. And you can get it here on Amazon. It is a good introduction to the difficult theme of violence in Scripture. But as you read, just recognize that there are other ways of dealing with the violence in Scripture than by assigning these activities to God and calling them “good and just.” God does not accommodate such violence, nor does He withdraw and allow it to fall upon us.

Instead, He dives into the mess and sin of life with us, and bears the blunt and the blame for sin on His own beaten and bloody back. This is what we see in Jesus. I present this idea in one of my other books, which is also available on Amazon.

Does Paul curse those who don’t love Jesus in 1 Corinthians 16:22?

By Jeremy Myers

3 Comments

In my Gospel Dictionary course, one of the words we look at is the word anathema, which is often translated as “cursed” or “accursed” in the Bible. One of the places this word is found is 1 Corinthians 16:22, where, at the end of his letter, Paul writes this: “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.”

On first glance, this sounds like a rather harsh statement, even coming from Paul. Is Paul really pronouncing a death wish on all who are not Christians and do not love Jesus?

Such a sentiment seems so unlike Paul, and yet of all the words in 1 Corinthians, these are among those he claims to have penned himself (1 Cor 16:21). The rest of the letter was dictated to a scribe (or amanuensis).

So what is Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 16:22?

It is the final word of this statement in 1 Corinthians 16:22 that helps sort out Paul’s words.

In English, it says “O Lord, come!” but the Greek is maranatha (which is actually Aramaic).

The final two words of this verse sound like this: anathema maranatha. You can very clearly hear the repeated sound of anatha in both words. And of course, one word ends with ma while the other begins with ma.

So what we have in 1 Corinthians 16:22 is a typical Pauline play on words. Paul, more than any other New Testament author, loved to make theological points through word play.

In Philemon, for example, Paul uses the words achrēston (useless) and euchrēston (useful) as a way of making a point about Onesimus (whose name means “Useful”) and his relation to Paul and Philemon in Christ (Christos).

A play on words helps us understand 1 Corinthians 16:22

Paul knows that some of the Christians in Corinth have been saying that Jesus was accursed (We we discussed previously in our discussion of 1 Corinthians 12:3).

So he now makes the ironic and pun-filled statement that we have a choice between anathema and maranatha.

One can either look eagerly for the Lord’s coming, maranatha, and so reveal their love for Jesus Christ, or one can believe that Jesus was anathema, and therefore want nothing to do with Him and so be anathema themselves.

Those are the choices which Paul masterfully, ironically, and playfully lays out here at the end of this letter to the Corinthian church.

But even still, being anathema is not about being cursed to hell. That is not what the word means. I discuss the meaning of the word more (along with 51 other words and various passages related to each) in my online course, “The Gospel Dictionary.” Start taking the course today and learn along with others.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

Is 1 Corinthians 12:3 the test of a true Christian?

By Jeremy Myers

19 Comments

Some people teach that 1 Corinthians 12:3 provides the test of a true Christian. I have also heard some people say that 1 Corinthians 12:3 can be used to help you know if someone is demon possessed. The verse says this:

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3).

So what does 1 Corinthians 12:3 mean?

In 1 Corinthians 12:3 Paul makes two opposing statements which have led to much confusion among Christians.

Paul first says that nobody can say “Jesus is accursed (anathema)” when they are speaking by the Holy Spirit. He then states the opposing truth, that nobody can say “Jesus is Lord” unless they are speaking by the Holy Spirit.

Now, I just tried it, and I was able to say both statements as I read this verse out loud. Go ahead, you try it too. I bet you can verbally express both statements.

Similarly, I guarantee that if you ask an atheist or even a Satanist to say both statements, they will be able to say both as well.

So whatever Paul is actually saying, he cannot mean that only Christians are able to say “Jesus is Lord” but not say “Jesus is accursed” while those who are not true Christians can only say “Jesus is accursed” while being unable to utter the words “Jesus is Lord.”

Certainly the same thing was true in Paul’s day as it is in ours.

So 1 Corinthians 12:3 is definitely not a way to determine who is a Christian and who is not.

But what about demon possession?

Here too, it seems that there are times in the gospels where demons recognize and verbally stated the identity, power, and authority of Jesus Christ. There may not be any specific examples of demons saying “Jesus is Lord” but to say “Jesus is Lord” is to verbally recognize His power and authority, so to call Jesus “the holy one of Israel” or that Jesus is “the Son of God” (cf. Matt 8:28-29; Mark 1:24).

I wrote here about 1 John 4:2-3, which teaches a similar truth. No, Paul is not teaching in 1 Corinthians 12:3 about how to determine who is demon possessed.

So what did Paul mean when he wrote 1 Corinthians 12:3?

The letter of 1 Corinthians is focused around some issues and questions that had arisen in the Corinthian church. When Paul sets out to address the other issues and questions, he begins with a short summary of what the issue or question was (cf. 1 Cor 7:1; 8:1; 16:1). Chapters 12–14 deal with the issue of spiritual gifts, and ultimately, the gift of speaking in tongues (1 Cor 14), and so 1 Corinthians 12:1-3 is apparently the opening summary statement of what issue or question the Corinthian Christians were facing.

Since this is so, 1 Corinthians 12:3 likely provides an indication of what some of the tongue-speakers were saying. It appears that some of these “super spiritual” leaders were speaking with ecstatic utterances and in the process, saying things like “Jesus is accursed.” When challenged about these words, they claimed that they were speaking by the Holy Spirit and could only say what the Spirit gave them to say.

Paul calls them out on this and says that if someone is speaking by the Holy Spirit, he will not say, “Jesus is accursed.” Instead, when someone is speaking by the Spirit, the Spirit will lead them to say “Jesus is Lord,” and other such things that edify the body of Christ and glorify the name of Jesus.

But why would people who are speaking in tongues say that Jesus is accursed?

So what is it that these “super spiritual” ones in Corinth were claiming when they stated that Jesus was accursed?

Were they claiming that Jesus was separated from God and was spending eternity in hell? This idea is doubtful, since the resurrection of Jesus and His glorification to the right hand of the Father pretty clearly refutes such an idea (Of course, some were arguing that there was no such thing as a resurrection. See 1 Cor 15:12).

No, what seems most likely in light of other uses of anathema in the Bible (See my Gospel Dictionary Course for explanation of these texts) is that certain Corinthian teachers were saying (while supposedly under the influence of the Holy Spirit) that the reason Jesus died is because He was suffering the consequences for sin, or for living in a sinful, human body.

The Corinthian Christians suffered from an early form of Gnosticism where they saw a deep separation between the physical and the spiritual worlds so that what happened in one did not affect the other. One related belief was the idea that the physical world was evil and the spiritual world was good. Therefore, if Jesus had a truly human body, then it must have been evil or sinful, and if so, then Jesus was accursed and died as a sinful human in the flesh so that God could set Him free into the spiritual realm.

Paul spends much of his time in his letter arguing the exact opposite. In fact, this is partly why Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians 15 to argue about the physical resurrection of Jesus. Paul wanted to show that the physical world, and our physical bodies, were not inferior to the spiritual, but were partnered with the spiritual to accomplish God’s will in this world (John argues against similar beliefs in 1 John).

Jesus did have a physical body, and He was raised with a physical body, but this does not mean that He was sinful or accursed, as some of the teachers in Corinth were claiming. And even though they claimed to be “speaking by the Spirit” when they taught such things, Paul says that when people are speaking by the Holy Spirit, they will not say “Jesus is accursed” but rather, “Jesus is Lord.”

So 1 Corinthians 12:3 is not a litmus test for who is a Christian and who is not.

It is instead Paul’s introductory summary statement about some of the false ideas that various leaders in Corinth were teaching. It is also possible that the Corinthian leaders were saying such things in an attempt to explain Deuteronomy 21:23 (which Paul mentions in Galatians 3:13).

What do you think about 1 Corinthians 12:3 and the explanation above? Leave your comments below!

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

Read Divine Echoes, and start rediscovering prayer (and God).

By Jeremy Myers

5 Comments

Lots of Christians struggle with know what to pray for and how to pray. And all Christians struggle with wondering why they don’t see more “answers” to prayer. The new book by Mark Karris, Divine Echoes, seeks to answer some of those questions, especially the issues surrounding petitionary prayer.

By reading it, you will learn that many of the common beliefs about prayer are simply wrong. For example, if the common beliefs about how and why God answers prayers are correct, then this proves that God is capricious. Why does God heal some people from the flu and give them parking spots at the mall, but not others? Why does God rescue some people from violence, but not others. But God is not capricious, and so there must instead be something wrong with our understanding of prayer and it works in connection to our loving, gracious, and relational God.

So read this book, and start rediscovering prayer (and God).

The author, Mark Karris, also asked me to write an endorsement for his book, which you can read in the first couple pages. Here is what I wrote:

This is one of the best books on prayer I have ever read. It not only addresses the questions of why we should pray and what prayer is, but also the more important questions of how prayer works and how God works with us to see more of our prayers answered. After reading this book, you will stop praying to God and start conspiring with God to be the vital change we desperately desire to see occur in the world.
–J. D. Myers, Author of What is Prayer? How to Pray to God Like You Talk to a Friend

You can get Divine Echoes here on Amazon. There is also a workbook that goes along with it, which is also available on Amazon. And as long as you’re getting good resources on prayer, you might as well get my book on prayer as well (Mark Karris wrote the foreword).

Did Paul wish that he could go to hell in Romans 9:3?

By Jeremy Myers

9 Comments

In Romans 9:3, Paul writes, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh.”

Is Paul saying that he wished he could go to hell if it would mean that his Jewish brethren would believe in Jesus and become Christians?

No, Paul Does Not Desire to Go to Hell in Romans 9:3

First, hell is not mentioned in Romans 9:3. Paul states his desire to be accursed if this would allow his brethren, the Jewish people, to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

When people believe that the word anathema, or accursed, means “going to hell when you die,” they think that Paul is wishing he could go to hell if only all his fellow Israelites would receive eternal life instead. This sounds very noble and extremely spiritual, but Paul isn’t saying he wants to go to hell for the sake of the Jewish people.

Paul is saying that he would be willing to lose his life if it meant that his fellow Israelites would recognize Jesus as the Messiah. It is interesting that while the Jewish men in Acts 23:14 announce a curse on themselves if they don’t kill Paul, Paul here announces a desire to be cursed if it would lead to the deliverance of the Jewish people.

Indeed, Paul’s life was quite often on the line as he sought to declare the gospel to the Hebrew people. So these were not mere words on Paul’s part, but were actually indicative of Paul’s regular approach to ministry.

The Translator is the Traitor

The objection to this way of understanding Romans 9:3, of course, is the phrase “from Christ.” In the NKJV, Paul says that he wishes he “were accursed from Christ,” but other translations are not so vague. The NAS has Paul wishing to be “separated from Christ” while the NIV has Paul stating a desire to be “cut off from Christ.” Yet neither “separated” nor “cut off” are in the original Greek, but were added to the text by the translators in an attempt to explain what they thought Paul was saying.

However, rather than clarifying his point, it appears they have muddied it. While Paul’s statement could be understood as a desire to be eternally separated from Jesus Christ, this does not fit with all other uses of the term anathema in the Bible, and so it is the least likely way to understand this text.

Two other possible ways of understanding Romans 9:3 are preferable.

Two Ways of Understanding Romans 9:3

First, when Paul states his desire to be “accursed from Christ,” he could be saying that Jesus Christ is the originator of the anathema. In this way, Paul would be stating that if he were put to death (anathema), it would be something that came from Christ.

A second option, however, is more preferable still. When Paul writes about “Christ,” he usually does not have only Jesus in mind. The word Christ (Gk., Christos) is equivalent to the Hebrew word for Messiah (Heb., Messiach), and means King. But in reference to the way Paul uses the title Christ, it does not only refer to Jesus, but also to all those who are in Jesus Christ and rule and reign through Him.

In Paul’s letters, the word Christ is shorthand for “the body of Christ” or “Jesus Christ and all who are in Him.” Since Christ and Messiah are kingly terms, when Paul speaks of the corporate life of Christ in the church, he is also thinking of the rule and reign of God on earth through the body of Christ, the church.

This final option provides the best way of reading Romans 9:3.

When Paul writes about being anathema from Christ, he is not stating a desire to be eternally cut off or separated from Jesus, but is instead stating his desire, if it were possible, to give up his life and his ministry within the Kingdom of God if such a sacrifice would help Israel come to the knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah.

This, of course, would still allow Paul to spend eternity with God and with all the saints.

In Romans 9:3, Paul does not have a wish for hell, but a willingness to sacrifice himself for the sake of those he loves.

Such sacrificial willingness is supremely Christlike, which only goes to show that if Paul were indeed to die for Christ as he desires, this would not separate Him from Jesus but would instead be the perfect representation of Jesus in His sacrifice for us.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

Vindicating the Vixens

By Jeremy Myers

5 Comments

I recently taught through the creation account in Genesis 1–4 for my podcast, and in the process discovered that Eve is not actually presented in the text as being guilty for the alleged crime of leading humanity into sin by eating the forbidden fruit.

This means that every time you read a book or hear a pastor say that Eve led the world into sin, she is being wrongly condemned.

Yet throughout the centuries, Bible teachers and theology professors have continued to (wrongly) blame and scapegoat Eve for why sin came into the world.

As a result of this study, I began to wonder how many more of the “bad girls of the Bible” were actually bad. I began to think that maybe most of these women where actually just scapegoats for the sins of others.

So I was thrilled to be asked by Kregel Publishers to review a copy of Vindicating the Vixens, edited by Sandra Glahn. And since I earned my Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary, I was also thrilled to discover that many of the authors in this volume have graduated from or are currently teaching at my alma mater.

As a result, I knew that this book would be based on some of the best exegetical practices and scholarly material available today.

I was not disappointed.

The book looks at female characters in the Bible who have often been judged, condemned, marginalized, ignored, or ridiculed, and shows how these women are actually presented by the text as heroes to emulate or examples to be followed.

The book not only contains a chapter on Eve, but also looks at heroic women such as Rahab, Bathsheba, Hagar, Deborah, Vashti, and the unnamed woman at the well.

As I attempt to encourage and support my wife and three daughters to follow God into greatness and glory, I hope to encourage them to follow the examples of some of these great women of the Bible.

If you have women in your life (and who doesn’t?), do yourself and them a favor: buy and read this book.

You will not only learn what Scripture truly teaches, but will also learn to respect and value women for the central and critical role they play in God’s plan for this world.

Does 1 John teach that believers will not sin?

By Jeremy Myers

11 Comments

The book of 1 John is a battleground book regarding the issue of good works and sin. I remember in Bible college listening to a student debate with a professor about what 1 John teaches about whether or not a Christian can commit sin. Here is how the debate went (I am quoting this debate verbatim):

Student: No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God (1 John 3:9).

Professor: If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us (1 John 1:10).

Student: No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God (1 John 3:9).

Professor: If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us (1 John 1:10).

Student: No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God (1 John 3:9)

Professor: If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us (1 John 1:10)

Obviously, the professor (it was Dr. John Hart, by the way) then said something about how these verses cannot contradict, and so we would need to understand both in light of the other and the overall message of 1 John as a whole.

This is exactly right.

One of the keys to understanding the book of 1 John is to understand the word “abide” or “remain.”

“Abide” is the first word I look at in my Gospel Dictionary Online course and here is a brief summary of how a few of the texts from 1 John can be understood when we properly define the word “Abide.”

The word “Abide”

The word abide means to remain, continue, or to dwell. It can refer to living in a house or dwelling place, or to following the rules of a particular game or contest.

The Greek word for abide is menō (3531) and just like its English translation, menō means to abide, remain, stay, continue, or dwell. It does not mean “to have, own, or possess.”

1 John 2:6

He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

The first use of the word abide is in 1 John 2:6. In speaking of our life as a follower of Jesus, John writes that the one “who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.”

John is stating the truth that if we are abiding, or remaining, in fellowship with Jesus, then we will follow Jesus wherever He leads so that we will live and love like Jesus. There is nothing here about how to know that you have eternal life, but there is much truth here about how to know whether or not you are truly following Jesus in discipleship.

So it is extremely inaccurate to translate this verse as we find it in the NIV: “Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” The implication is that if you want to have eternal life in Jesus, you need to walk as Jesus did. But this verse is not about whether or not we eternal life, for that life is a free gift of God to anyone who simply believes in Jesus for it.

Instead, 1 John 2:6 is about how to follow Jesus in our earthly lives. John says that if we are following Jesus, our lives will look like Jesus. John is not saying that if we do not walk as Jesus did then this means we do not actually have eternal life. If we do not walk as Jesus did, then we cannot claim to be His follower, and therefore, we will not have fellowship with God or with one another.

1 John 2:17

And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

A similar understanding can be drawn from 1 John 2:17.

Again, the NIV unhelpfully makes the reader think that doing the will of God is a requirement for eternal life (“the man who does the will of God lives forever”). But John is not writing about living forever, but about abiding forever.

If you want to remain in fellowship with God, then you must do what God says. You can be a member of the family of God without being in fellowship with God. Just as the Prodigal Son did not have fellowship with his father while he was in the far country (Luke 15:11-32) yet continued to be a son the entire time, so also, those who are children of God will stay a member of His family even when they stray into sin and rebellion, but they will not abide or remain in fellowship with God when they are away from Him.

John says that if we want to remain forever in fellowship with God, then we must do God’s will. John goes on to say that this is not only how we remain in fellowship with God, but also how we abide or remain in fellowship with each other (1 John 2:19).

1 John 3:14-15

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

Astute readers may object to the explanation above that a few passages in 1 John do talk about eternal life. First John 3:14-15 is one of those.

Once again, however, the NIV translation is most unhelpful when it completely removes the word abide in its translation of 1 John 3:15. It reads “… you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.” From this verse, some people teach that a murderer can never be forgiven or go to heaven. John disagrees, as do Moses, King David, and the Apostle Paul (for they were all murderers).

John put the word abide in this statement for a reason and we must not take it out.

When a person murders, John says, it is because they were not abiding or remaining within the reality of eternal life, that is, in the reality of their life with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ would never lead one of His followers to hate or murder someone else.

So if a Christian lives in hate toward someone else (as frequently happens) or even ends up murdering someone (as occasionally happens), it is not because they are following Jesus, but because they have failed to follow Him. Jesus does not lead us toward hate and murder, but toward love and light.

That this is what John means is clearly indicated by the following context, especially in 1 John 3:17 where John writes that when the love of God abides in us and we are living in light of God’s love, we will help our brothers in need rather than hate them (Once again, the NIV unhelpfully deleted the word abide from 3:17).

John is not saying that if you hate your brother, you do not have eternal life. He is saying that if you hate your brother, you are not abiding in eternal life. In other words, when you hate others, it is not the eternal life you have from God that is leading you to do so, but is instead because you are following the principle of death which comes from this world.

So what about 1 John 3:9?

Well, it does contain the word “abide.” It talks about God’s seed “abiding” or “remaining” in the one who is born of God. Based on what you learned above, can you understand what John means? Feel free to offer your input in the comment section below, or join us in the Discipleship Area of RedeemingGod.com to learn more about this passage.

This course costs $297, but when you join the Discipleship group, you can to take the entire course for free.

LAST DAY to get $250 of teachings on prayer for $2.99

By Jeremy Myers

Bonus Materials on Prayer

Here is what you get:

4.5 Hours of teaching about prayer (from my course on prayer) – Value: $197
4 Hour audiobook recording of the book – Value $30
PDF version of the book – Value $10
Several Videos of me answering questions about prayer – Value $5
The ability to receive further instruction about prayer via email – Value $10

To get these additional resources about prayer, just follow these two steps:

Buy the book at Amazon
Send an email to pr********@**********od.com saying you bought the book.

That’s it! I will send you the bonus materials later this week.

What People are Saying about the Book

There have already been some great reviews of the book. Here are a few:

I highly recommend this book to help anyone wanting to learn how to comfortably pray and actually enjoy prayer time. -Jim Maus

The book appears to be too simple but as you progress Jeremy covers many aspects of prayer in a way that is like a breath of fresh air. -Pete Nellmapius

I especially enjoyed section on praying before a meal, always felt something wrong about that in the back of my mind, good to see expressed on print for first time. -Jon Albeanu

It is a book that can change your life. J.D.Myers has the gift of making Jesus and his teachings very simple for every man in any christian denomination. -Nikos Varalis

This is a must-read! People make prayer out to be something mystical, hard-work, and even frustrating. After reading this book you might even stop using the word prayer. You might just tell people that you are “talking to my very good friend, God.” -Michael Wilson

If you wonder what praying means, if you wonder what praying should be like, or even if you wonder why on earth people should even pray, READ THIS. This is, so far, my favorite Jeremy Myers book. -B. Shuford

This is not your typical book on prayer. Jeremy has written something truly helpful that bypasses the religious mumbo jumbo we have attached to prayer and made it something simple, joyous and easy to do. -Wesley Rostoll

Each chapter has some great ideas that can put us on the path to exploring how praying can be more natural and less confusing or frustrating. -Mike Edwards

Always stressing God’s love for us, he shows us how we can have honest, meaningful conversations with God. While he doesn’t claim to have all the answers, with humor and compassion, Myers instructs and inspires. -Imani42

Have you ever wondered how Paul can tell us to pray without seizing? Do you think it is possible? I challenge you to read this book and find out for yourself how easy it is. -Wickus Hendriks

Don’t expect to pray and stay the same, as most of the time you are the answer to your prayer. -ThePilgrimm

J.D Myers presents a practical and very clear understanding of who God is ,who we are and how life looks in prayer. Easy to understand concepts with shackle breaking power this book is a must read. -David DeMille

You too can experience what these reviewers are talking about above. You too can gain freedom and confidence in your prayers, and also begin to see more answers to your prayers.

Get this book today for $2.99, and then receive $250 in additional teaching on prayer absolutely free.

Christians have used Galatians 1:8-9 to justify cursing others to hell

What did Paul mean in Galatians 1:8-9 when he announced an anathema on others?

Galatians 1:8-9 in the context of Galatians

Paul is writing about “the flesh” in Galatians

Clear Examples of Epistolary Diatribe

Romans 9:19-20

1 Corinthians 15:35-36

James 2:18-20

Other Possible Epistolary Diatribe Passages

Romans 1:18-32

Romans 3:1-9, 27-31

1 Corinthians 6:12-14

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

Why am I bringing this up?

3 Things I LOVED about this Book

2 Things I Disagreed With

So should you read this book?

So what is Paul saying in 1 Corinthians 16:22?

A play on words helps us understand 1 Corinthians 16:22

So what does 1 Corinthians 12:3 mean?

But what about demon possession?

So what did Paul mean when he wrote 1 Corinthians 12:3?

But why would people who are speaking in tongues say that Jesus is accursed?

No, Paul Does Not Desire to Go to Hell in Romans 9:3

The Translator is the Traitor

Two Ways of Understanding Romans 9:3

The word “Abide”

1 John 2:6

1 John 2:17

1 John 3:14-15

So what about 1 John 3:9?

Bonus Materials on Prayer

What People are Saying about the Book

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers