Liberating you from bad ideas about God
Stop relying on pastors and Bible teachers to tell you what the Bible means.
Read this book and learn to study the Bible for yourself. Available now on Amazon.
The book discussion questions with each chapter to make it perfect for a home study group. There is also a LONG appendix on how to understand the violent passages in Scripture.
Several years ago, I was interviewed by Jason Wiedel for his podcast.
For some reason, he never aired this interview.
I don’t know why.
Maybe he forgot about it. Maybe he didn’t like what I said.
Maybe it was because my facial hair wasn’t as good as his.
Whatever the reason, I am putting this out now as a bonus episode for my podcast.
Enjoy!
The podcast episode above looks at Romans 8:17, and the video below looks at Romans 9:4. Both texts are greatly aided by a proper understanding of how adoption worked in biblical times.
Below is a recording of my first attempt at a Facebook Live video. In it, I discuss the concept of adoption from Scripture and how it helps us understand Romans 9:4.
I am definitely not an expert videographer by any means … Oh well. As mentioned in the video, the information is drawn from my Gospel Dictionary online course, specifically from the lesson on “Adoption.” Members of RedeemingGod.com can take this course for free. You can join here.
Here is a text version of what I was teaching:
While modern adoption is when we take an orphan and adopt them into our family, this is not how adoption worked in Paul’s day.
Back then, the children who were adopted already had parents. Adoption was a way of uniting two rich and powerful families together so that one powerful family adopted the child of another powerful family. Or sometimes, a father who had multiple children would adopt one of his younger children as his heir, thereby displacing the oldest son as the heir.
So adoption was not about giving parents to those who had none, but was about naming a child (of other parents, or even one of your own children) as an heir. Adoption was about glory, honor, and privilege; not about joining a family.
Romans 9 is a confusing chapter. Since it is about the election and rejection of Israel for God’s purposes, many believe that Romans 9 teaches that even after we receive eternal life, if we fail to live according to God’s purposes, we either lose our eternal life or we prove we never had it in the first place.
This is, after all, what happened to Israel, is it not? No, it is not.
Election is not about how God, from eternity past, chose who would receive eternal life and who would be condemned to hell forever. Instead, election is about purpose and privilege within the plan of God (see my book, The Re-Justification of God).
It is no surprise, then, that at the beginning of this discussion of Israel’s purpose and privilege within the plan of God, Paul mentions the fact of Israel adoption by God (Rom 9:4). Paul also refers to glory, covenants, the law, service, and promises.
Right at the introduction to Romans 9, Paul shows that he is not writing about how the people of Israel were part of God’s family and then were rejected as members of His family, but is instead writing about the favored members of God’s family who have position, power, and privilege within the family because of how they live.
Though Israel began with the position of being the adopted son, they lost it through disobedience and rebellion. This is why Paul warns us, who are now in the position of adoption, that we must take heed to how we live, or else we too might be cut off (Romans 11:19-23).
This is not about losing eternal life or proving that we were never children of God, but is instead about losing out on the privileged position within the plan and purpose of God for this world.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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!
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.
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:
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):
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
