Preach Any Other Gospel - Let Him be Accursed (Galatians 1:9)

The Bible (New Testament) passage of Galatians 1:9, where Paul warns us of "other gospels", has been one of the mainstays of people who are against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it's doctrines and their denial of the restore gospel of Jesus Christ called the Book of Mormon. What Paul actually said and what these other Christians claim are two different things, because of poor and confusing interpretations, let alone bad doctrines. Their interpretation of Galatians 1:9 by all other Christians, in effect says,

Their use of the words, "other gospel" is the focal point, and the focus is the same as "the other person", as they say, "is that other person Bible focused"? Did Paul refer to the "other gospel" in the same usage as the "other person"? To clarify this, we need to look at this manner of interpretation as the other gospel. (Please note, when I use the word "Bible" I refer to the New Testament for this article).

When we are faced with "interpretations" of God's word, we must remember that any interpretation must maintain the consistency and harmony between all words of God. There must not be one word or thing contrary to the other.

Why is this? - It is because in the state of contradiction there is "confusion" and such is not the word of God because he does not promote or teach confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). This means that if one person reads and interprets the Bible and finds things contradicting and confusing, then that person has not interpreted it properly. This is why Paul wrote his words as found in 1 Corinthians 2:13

We must ensure that we understand God's word in the context of scriptural harmony, not scriptural confusion. As a result, scriptural harmony becomes a template that we can use to discern the interpretations made by others. In light of this, we then need to see the contrast between what other interpretations have said about Galatians 1:9, against this template. But first, allow me to use the manner of interpretation of Galatians 1:9 as depicted by others above, to see if it promotes and coincides with scriptural harmony.

Interpretation Causing Disharmony & Contradiction

The interpretation by others says that they are actually matching the framework of the Bible to the separate framework of the Book of Mormon. Such as "this book is not from God because we already have the Bible". In addition, they believe that the Bible is complete in itself, or is the complete word of God and there is no other book required. Now ask yourself, "Are these the same views as what Paul had when he wrote his epistle to the Galatians?"

This question is important because in order to understand what Paul said, we must understand the context in which he spoke and the manner of thought he used. IF a person fails to understand these basic elements, then any interpretation will be wrong.

Let us continue by assuming that Paul did mean to say that the Bible is the complete word of God, even though the Bible never existed when Paul wrote that epistle. In order for this interpretation to have a full affect, it must apply to all gospels, both in and out of the Bible, including any "gospel" preached by others and any gospel that was made after Paul's epistle to the Galatians. In other words, for Paul's word to be the word of God, it must show a universal or equal application, which then a person can rightly divide the word (2 Timothy 2:15).

(The words "rightly dividing" in the King James Bible version refers to the Greek word "ojrqotomevw", which means in English, - "setting forth without perversion, distortion, to proceed on straight paths, to make straight. / King James translation put it as "rightly dividing")

In addition, many others believe that the Bible is "closed". Then, in proper application of that interpretation against the Book of Mormon, means Paul's words must also achieve that same closure. Else, if Paul's words did not close the Bible, in accordance to this interpretation, then his words or this manner of interpretation is therefore false.

The question that arises from this asks, "Did Paul close the gospel to all future writings?" - let us see.

Paul wrote his epistle to the Galatians in or around 57-8 AD¹. Keeping in the manner of interpretation and use by other's this means that if Paul closed the gospel to any other additions, then any gospel created after Paul's words in 57-8 AD is not of God, and that makes all other writers of any gospel as accursed.

Does this present a problem with the Bible as we have it today? - It certainly does.

IN about 96 AD², some thirty or so years after Paul wrote his epistles, John the Divine and revelator wrote the Book of Revelation. John was definitely separate from Paul in that John's writing of the Book of Revelation was far after the death of Paul, who died around 66 AD. Some believe that John wrote the Book of Revelation around 68-69 AD during the reign of Nero, but this does not change the fact that Paul was still dead when the Book of Revelation was written. This shows that the epistles of Paul did not close the Bible and neither did the Book of Revelation since it was written separately from Paul. Neither of these two gospels existed together until centuries later, and the combining of John's Book and Paul's Epistles, was not done by either of them, but by the early Catholic church.

Can the Book of Revelation and the Epistles from Paul be rightly combined to make what we call the gospel?

It is important to note that the compiling of the New Testament was progressive over several centuries. Both the Epistles of Paul and the Book of Revelation existed as separate books for some 200-300 years after their origin, and existed as smatterings of writings spread among several Christian groups. Paul's and John's writings were never combined as a canon of texts until 367 AD by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria³. This means, that if either Paul or John closed the Gospel, then neither of these books could be logically combined into the official canon called the New Testament, because one would cancel the other out.

As a result, we learn that if we solely depend on the date, authors name to any book (gospel), or determining if one is physically separate from the other, we will fail in discerning if the "gospel" preached is of God. Basing such discernment's on these factors, the entire Bible would be in disrepute. Therefore, such is not what Paul meant. This shows that any interpretation that depends solely on the dating of texts, or who wrote them, or if they were part of the Bible (in its entirety) is a poor interpretation because it would cause contradictions and disharmony between the various books and epistles of the Bible.

This teaches that we must properly understand what Paul says and learn how he applied his understanding of God's word and for us to do the same, else the epistles of Paul will have no value or purpose.

What did Paul Mean?

When researching the history of the New Testament, the manner in which these books were brought together to make the official canon, was not solely determined by date, or by author, but by whether or not the texts chosen were inspired of God. Therefore, when applying the words of Paul, in the manner that other Christian's currently use, means that such an interpretation is impossible or unworkable in light of the history of the New Testament. The word "gospel" and what made up the gospel of Jesus Christ is therefore not solely determined by date, or by author, but whether or not it was "inspired" or revealed by direct revelation to the writer.

When we learn of Paul, we see that he had to contend with false preaching and false gospels when he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians because many others were providing "false (and uninspired) interpretations" of God's word. Many were mixing the teachings of Jesus Christ with what the Pharisee's taught. One of these mixtures was the claim by many that circumcision was still required.

Back then, the Bible as we have it, did not exist. Paul did not have John's "Book of Revelation" or many of his other epistles, therefore Paul did not rely on "other New Testament writings" as we can today. Therefore, we need to take Paul's words within the proper context and focus in order to see what he said and to determine the principles he advocated.

Other Gospel

One important fact we must all remember is that the Bible holds many gospels. It is a compilation of collected gospels, which are supposed to be inspiration or revelation from God. If we take the meaning of "other gospels" from Paul's epistle to mean "other" as "physically separate from", then we must deny the Bible in its entirety. Since the gospels within the Bible were definitely separate, in that they existed as separate gospels for centuries before they were complied into one book. Since we cannot take the term "other gospels" to mean a separate physical existence, then we need to understand what "other gospel" really means in order to establish from it's meaning, a harmony of separate gospels that fit together.

The meaning of "other gospel", therefore depends on how Paul defined it in his epistles.

What did Paul mean by "Other Gospel"

In his first epistle to the Galatians, Paul told us what defines a "gospel" of God, how it is obtained and what manner of discernment we are to use.

Read Galatians 1:10-12 (King James Version)

Read the New International Version of the Bible for that same passage.

Let's determine what Paul said of what makes a proper gospel by way of a "question - answer" format.

Paul said that gospel of God can only arrive by revelation and inspiration, not by personal intellect alone. Therefore, in the same manner, we are to discern any gospel preached by others in this same manner. This is very important because when we look at history, we see that during Paul's time, there were many diverse beliefs created by personal intellect, as with the influence of Greek theology. Such an influence was great upon the early Christian Church, along with many Pagan doctrines that were prominent in those times.

Does this interpretation of Paul's words fit within the context, meaning and principles shown in the Bible? - Yes it does, allow me to show you.

By Paul's words in his epistle to the Corinthians, we have the following word of God,

It is clear from the teachings of Paul that the things he speaks of are not of man's wisdom, but of God's wisdom because the Holy Ghost taught him. This confirms and supports Galatians 1:9-12, and the following scripture from the Bible supports it as well.

Let us continue further in order to properly understand what Paul is saying.

In John 6:63, Jesus tells us that his words are "spirit" which means "spiritual". Using this knowledge we go back to 1 Corinthians 2:13 where it says that the Holy Ghost teaches and gives God's spiritual word through revelation or inspiration allowing us to make a "spiritual comparison". After all, the entire word of God or his gospel, in accordance to Jesus Christ, are spiritual words, spiritual content, principles, laws and ways. This is what it means when Paul said to walk after the Spirit and be spiritually minded (Romans 8:4,6 ).

We are now achieving the scriptural "harmony" and "consistency" I referred to earlier. It is this manner that we can develop proper and clear interpretation of the word of God in the Bible. It shows that God's word here supports and sustains his word there.

Back to Galatians 1:10-12, Paul is saying that he walks his talk. He took the words of others, in particular the claims by the Galatians, and compared them in a spiritual manner, which is to compare "spiritual with spiritual". In addition it suggests that Paul was also inspired at the time when he made such discernment's, therefore it fits with 1 Corinthians 2:14, where God's gospel and anything matched to it is "spiritually discerned".

By this method of spiritual discernment, coupled with inspiration, Paul denounced false gospels calling them "another gospel". The meaning of "other gospel", as Paul alluded to, means a gospel that is not inspired from God and not of his Spirit. So long as the gospel preached is inspired from God, then it is unified with all other gospels God inspired through men. Interesting enough, the "inspired nature" can only be discerned by those who have been inspired. It cannot be discerned by men's wisdom, which is exactly what 1 Corinthians 2:14 means. Therefore, those who are not inspired will fail in interpreting God's word, whether in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. That is the meaning of "diverse doctrines" in the Bible (Hebrews 13:9 ).

As we take the same frame of mind of Paul, which is a spiritually discerning mind, then by proper spiritual comparison, Paul denounced the "words created by the power of men" as the "other gospel as accursed". With the many intellectual dissertations from the Greeks and Jews at the time, Paul needed to teach us how to protect the word of God within us so we would not be led astray. This is the meaning of God's word as being like a two edged sword ( Hebrews 4:12), because its power is spiritual, by the Spirit, not by human intellect and interpretation. There we have it. When Paul wrote the epistle called Galatians 1, and spoke of "another gospel", he was speaking of ideas and ways that others obtain from the world, from men's ideas and personal interpretations, which are not inspired or revealed by God.

"AH!", says others, claiming that what I just said denies the Book of Mormon. Well, to these others, I have not denied the Book of Mormon. Read on and I will explain.

Paul's example shows that he followed and walked by the Spirit, to think in a spiritual manner, to interpret the same way and to receive and follow inspiration or revelation. Paul showed us that he defended against false gospels, where people were harbouring bad and poor interpretations of God's word. That by proper spiritual interpretation and with the help from God through revelation or inspiration given by the Holy Ghost, (which Jesus Christ promised as read in John 14:26 ) we can discern what is of God and what is not, or what is God's gospel and what is not.

Does this not fit with the words of Moroni, where he says to call on God and ask for a spiritual confirmation as to whether the Book of Mormon is God's word and gospel also?

There it is. The "other gospel" is determined by inspiration and teachings from the Holy Ghost that allows us to spiritually discern. It has nothing to do with thinking or believing the Bible is closed or the only word of God.

Conclusion

The common interpretation of other Christians attribute the word "gospel" to mean the physical bindings and pages of the Bible, but they fail to see that Paul did not refer to the physical presence of the gospel. Paul clearly told us that he spoke against bad interpretations and beliefs and that it was the Spirit of God that made the gospel what it is.

The fact that Paul exhorts us to follow inspiration and to learn the word of God as to its "spiritual meaning and application" presents a serious problem for others. The proper interpretation of Galatians 1 makes it difficult for other Christians to use it properly. I use the term "other Christians" to mean those who are not inspired, who follow divers doctrines and ways and do not follow the Spirit of God.

When we use the words of Paul in the way and manner he intended, it means that a person must seek the Lord for revelation or inspiration to teach him/her how to properly discern. It is in that manner that a person can learn the truth about the words held within the Bible and Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, many other self-proclaimed Christians cannot properly discern and have not been inspired by God, because they hold to the false belief, that all revelation has stopped with the Bible, in particular with the end of the Book of Revelations. Irrespective if some other Christians believe in inspiration, they act and follow the false doctrine that revelation has stopped. Else they would have to give allowance to Joseph Smith and his First Vision. Since they refuse to accept modern-day revelation, they force themselves to follow the false belief and doctrine that all revelation for the gospel has stopped. In doing so, they have therefore rejected the teachings of Paul.

This makes it impossible for other Christians to use Paul's words properly, thereby, causing them to create false doctrines and beliefs, which actually makes their preaching as "another gospel". Where does that leave them, if they are to adhere to their false gospel? It leaves them right back to where their interpretation sits as described in the beginning of this article, which is the same as being "confused", and there is no salvation in confusion.

MWarbinek

1. Eden Communications, WebBible Encyclopedia, Galatians, Epistle to
2. Eden Communications, WebBible Encyclopedia, Book of Revelation.
3. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, The New Testament.

• WebBible Encyclopedia, Eden Communications.
• Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
• Armstrong, Karen, "A History of God", (The Random House Publishing Group, 1993).
• CrossWalk.com - Interlinear Bible - KJV Strongs Version of 2 Timothy 2:15