Let him be Accursed

[Eddy Fire]

in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians 1:6-9

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

we read twice, "let him be accursed" the one who preaches another Gospel, any other Gospel

1. what does this mean? 'let him be accursed'?

2. does this apply to us, today?

3. if it does still apply today, how do we apply such an instruction?

 

[james1523]

in the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians 1:6-9

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

we read twice, "let him be accursed" the one who preaches another Gospel, any other Gospel

1. what does this mean? 'let him be accursed'?

2. does this apply to us, today?

3. if it does still apply today, how do we apply such an instruction?

"let him be accursed" means put him out of your congregation, kick him out of the church. This is excommunication for a period of time, or permanently. "let him be accursed" was an expression Paul borrowed from Judaism and it had reference to how a person would be separated, removed, from the people of Israel in the Old Testament for their sins or crimes. Despite the ruling in Acts 15 that Gentile Christians did not have to obey the Law of Moses... there were still troubles with the Judaizers.. those who preached that unless they were circumcised they could not be saved. The Galatians had already received the true gospel from Paul, and were being led astray by ones who came after him preaching a gospel of works.

2. I cannot see how it would not apply to us today. But this does not mean it applies to everyone who believes a gospel of works.. it refers primarily to those who preach a gospel of works, with the intention to convert others away from the gospel of truth to the gospel of works. Specifically.. it refers to those who want to restore the Old Covenant circumcision, Sabbath keeping etc for Gentiles.. and claim that it is necessary for their salvation.

3. We apply the instruction by kicking them out of our church.

I suggest that problems in churches today is partly because of unwillingness, or inability, to kick people out of their church. The attitude of today's churches is to accept any and all people for fellowship, all in the name of "loving the sinner". But certain sins are liable to lead astray the whole church, and the only solution is to kick them out. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. This has dual purpose.. on one hand hopefully the person kicked out will see their error and come to their senses and seek restoration and forgiveness... on the other hand it protects the rest of the church.

 

[Eddy Fire]

"let him be accursed" means put him out of your congregation, kick him out of the church. This is excommunication for a period of time, or permanently. "let him be accursed" was an expression Paul borrowed from Judaism and it had reference to how a person would be separated, removed, from the people of Israel in the Old Testament for their sins or crimes. Despite the ruling in Acts 15 that Gentile Christians did not have to obey the Law of Moses... there were still troubles with the Judaizers.. those who preached that unless they were circumcised they could not be saved. The Galatians had already received the true gospel from Paul, and were being led astray by ones who came after him preaching a gospel of works.

do you mind expounding on this?
How did you come to this answer? (for the purpose of this study) (james1523 - I am not doubting or questioning YOU but asking how such an answer can be taken as the answer - are there scriptures to show this to us?

2. I cannot see how it would not apply to us today. But this does not mean it applies to everyone who believes a gospel of works.. it refers primarily to those who preach a gospel of works, with the intention to convert others away from the gospel of truth to the gospel of works. Specifically.. it refers to those who want to restore the Old Covenant circumcision, Sabbath keeping etc for Gentiles.. and claim that it is necessary for their salvation.

could such an instruction apply to other things that can get taught which become 'laws'?
for example, today I was reading about the mormon's underwear and how it was taught to them to always keep it on because it would protect them etc - which I know is wrong, but they don't - and it is only one example of how today we find a lot of 'extra' teachings as in teachings and preachings that do not adhere to the Gospel and can be accepted widely by those who know no difference.

3. We apply the instruction by kicking them out of our church.

I suggest that problems in churches today is partly because of unwillingness, or inability, to kick people out of their church. The attitude of today's churches is to accept any and all people for fellowship, all in the name of "loving the sinner". But certain sins are liable to lead astray the whole church, and the only solution is to kick them out. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. This has dual purpose.. on one hand hopefully the person kicked out will see their error and come to their senses and seek restoration and forgiveness... on the other hand it protects the rest of the church.

who is we?
who can and or should do the kicking out?
a pastor or two or the whole congregation?
how would we go about making that decision
are there avenues in place in the average church to raise concerns and who makes the choice?
what if the pastor/reverend minister/preacher/evangelist is the offending one who should be let accursed?


two more questions:
how long was this or is this 'let him be accursed' for?

could there be a repentance - meaning could the state of 'let him be accursed' be lifted/revoked etc?

 

[james1523]

do you mind expounding on this?
How did you come to this answer? (for the purpose of this study) (james1523 - I am not doubting or questioning YOU but asking how such an answer can be taken as the answer - are there scriptures to show this to us?

To gain the meaning of accursed is beyond "scripture interpreting scripture", for this reason we must look to other sources. Word search "anathema" in Google you will see it is a word with evolved meaning. Even though it can mean "to be destroyed" it also carries the meaning of excommunication.. the two are related.

Compare with:
1 Cor 5:13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

God judges the outsiders.. but God asks us (particularly the elders) to judge those within our congregation. In other words.. God's judgement on believers is executed by us banishing a person from fellowship. And then once they are outside fellowship.. they are open to God's judgement as an outsider.

could such an instruction apply to other things that can get taught which become 'laws'?
for example, today I was reading about the mormon's underwear and how it was taught to them to always keep it on because it would protect them etc - which I know is wrong, but they don't - and it is only one example of how today we find a lot of 'extra' teachings as in teachings and preachings that do not adhere to the Gospel and can be accepted widely by those who know no difference.

It depends. I think it would have to fit the same category as the the situation Paul addresses here. That is, something that leads others away from faith in Christ for salvation, by substituting with something else for salvation. It would have to be something serious enough to fit into this category and related to a person's salvation. I don't think superstitious beliefs (e.g. the Mormon underwear) would fit in this category..even though they are wrong. But a belief that said they must wear their special underwear otherwise they cannot be saved.. I think that would be in the category.

who is we?
who can and or should do the kicking out?
a pastor or two or the whole congregation?
how would we go about making that decision
are there avenues in place in the average church to raise concerns and who makes the choice?
what if the pastor/reverend minister/preacher/evangelist is the offending one who should be let accursed?

In the Bible the elders appointed by the apostles were responsible for overseeing the church. Primary responsibility would lie with them.. and also with the whole congregation via the elders. Note that the apostle claims no power or ability of his own to be able to remove people from the church. This proves that the apostles did not function as rulers over a number of churches, but served the whole Body. The day to day administration in the church was left to the spiritually older ones in the church appointed by the apostles, i.e. the elders.

"what if the pastor/reverend minister/preacher/evangelist is the offending one who should be let accursed?"

You have highlighted a shortcoming with today's church structure. In their wisdom.. the apostles appointed not just one elder per church, but a number of elders. If one of them went astray.. the whole church was protected as the other elders could remove the offending elder from his position, and banish him from fellowship if necessary. Much harder to do this if there is only one person in charge of the church, and they are the offending one.

 

[Eddy Fire]

To gain the meaning of accursed is beyond "scripture interpreting scripture", for this reason we must look to other sources. Word search "anathema" in Google you will see it is a word with evolved meaning. Even though it can mean "to be destroyed" it also carries the meaning of excommunication.. the two are related.

Compare with:
1 Cor 5:13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

God judges the outsiders.. but God asks us (particularly the elders) to judge those within our congregation. In other words.. God's judgement on believers is executed by us banishing a person from fellowship. And then once they are outside fellowship.. they are open to God's judgement as an outsider.

BORROWED FROM: Let Him Be Accursed | Learn The Bible
Let's look at the verse in question.
Galatians 1:9
“As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

First off I would like to clarify what “that ye have received” means. Please remember that the epistles were literal letters written to literal churches, people etc. Paul or someone he taught delivered the gospel to these churches so he could be confident to say that the gospel they had received was the true gospel. This does not apply directly to everyone today because some have received a gospel, but it is not the same gospel that Paul preached.

Now let us look at the phrase “let him be accursed.” Some of the modern versions will translate this phrase as “condemned to hell”. The problem with this is instead of translating it for you, they have interpreted it for you and have done so incorrectly. The best way to interpret any scripture is by letting the Bible interpret itself. Let’s look at the uses of the different forms of the word “accursed”.

Cursed

• The Serpent (Genesis 3:14)
• The Ground (Genesis 3:17)
• Cain (Genesis 4:11)
• Canaan (Genesis 9:25)
• The Anger of Simeon and Levi (Genesis 49:7)
• The Man that rebuilds Jericho (Joshua 6:26)
• Jezebel (2 Kings 9:34)

Accursed

• He that is hanged on a tree (Deuteronomy 21:23)
• The City of Jericho (Joshua 6:17)
• The Things Consecrated unto the Lord (Joshua 6:18)
• The Children of Israel (Joshua 7:12)
• The Apostle Paul wished of Himself (Romans 9:3)
• No man by the Spirit calls Jesus accursed (1 Corinthians 12:3)

Now that we have seen these occurrences in scripture, let us plug in a couple of definitions for “let him be accursed”. If it means “condemned to hell,” then we must say that the ground in Genesis 3:17, the anger of Simeon and Levi (in Genesis 49:7), anyone hung on tree (Deuteronomy 21:23), the city of Jericho (Joshua 6:17), and the children of Israel (Joshua 7:1) are all condemned to hell.
This does not fit with the rest of scripture.

Another problem with the idea of those preaching another gospel being condemned to hell is that our gospel is very plain that salvation is only by grace through faith and that there are no works involved (Ephesians 2:8-9). There are many who preach that you can only be saved by grace but you must live it in order to keep your salvation. Let’s apply the verse to this person. They got saved “by grace through faith”, yet someone taught them that they could lose their salvation and so they began preaching this to others. This is not the true gospel so according to the interpretation given by most this person would now be condemned to hell for preaching a false gospel but if they can now lose it then they were preaching the right gospel in the first place. This just goes to show that this interpretation does not work.

Deuteronomy 21:23
will give us a key for interpreting the usage and purpose of someone being accursed.

Deuteronomy 21:23
His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

The person that was hung on the tree was accursed so that the land would not be defiled. What does this mean? It means that the children of Israel were to put this man out of the congregation (death in the Old Testament) so as to not defile the land for those who were innocent. This applies very well in context with what Paul is saying in Galatians. If you have someone in the church that is preaching a false gospel, then it is very likely that there will be some young believers who will be led astray. So what were they to do? They were to “let him be accursed” or remove him from the congregation so that the rest were not defiled by his false teaching. In the New Testament we are not to kill those who do not preach sound doctrine, but we are to remove them from our church before they corrupt others.

God desires purity in the church and that includes purity in doctrine. The local assemblies are not to be defiled by someone preaching another gospel even if it is a twist on the truth.
----------------------

it is also of note that Paul writes later of Jesus in Galatians 3:10-14
10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

 

[james1523]

There is a practical reason today why excommunication doesn't have the same severity as it did in Paul's time, and so probably doesn't work. And that is the existence of many different denominations. There were no denominations in the New Testament...so if you were excommunicated , you could not simply move to another church or denomination. In Paul's time excommunication did not mean "well I can't fellowship now in the Baptists, so I will join the Presbyterians instead". It was worse than that. It was banishment from any fellowship with any Christians within the whole city. Imagine if you lived in New York.. and you were excommunicated, you could not fellowship with any Christians in the whole of New York. Imagine if every elder in New York agreed that you could not fellowship in New York. You might feel lonely, isolated, disconnected. If you wanted to stay in fellowship, you would need to move to another city.. and even then.. the other city might also be aware of you, and forbid your fellowship there too. Now frankly.. with the state of many churches today... excommunication from some of these churches would not feel like a punishment to me but a blessing lol. But in the New Testament church, it was loss of blessing of fellowship and the associated benefits of that.