The excitement and clamor over what constitutes the “simple gospel” seems to have abated for now, but I want to offer this final tidbit as I drain the dregs from the cup.

As was hinted at previously by myself and others, it is important to define the term “simple gospel” as it will be used in the debate. Here’s why: Paul says to the Galatians,

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (Gal 1.8-9).

Disagreeing over the gospel has serious implications and consequences. The word “accursed” in vv. 8-9 is anathema in Greek, itself a very strong term. The LXX used anathema to translate the Hebrew word herem, which means to banish and give over to God. What I understand Paul to be saying, therefore, is that someone who preaches a different gospel should be banned and given over to God for immediate judgment and punishment.

It is tempting to see this punishment as eternal, but it is not necessarily so:


Paul wishes that he were anathema for the sake of the Jews (Rom 9.3). Surely he is not declaring that his love for his countrymen is greater than his love for Christ! Would he have been willing to yield his own relationship with Christ for the sake of others? It is hard to imagine. More likely, Paul was saying that he was willing to be banned and immediately judged by God; the consequence of the judgment would have been “the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1 Co 5.5). Loss of life, but not loss of eternal life.

But what is the content of the gospel that Paul is discussing in Gal 1? This is the critical question that must be answered as we debate the “simple gospel.” Is it that which he describes in 1 Co 15.1-8?

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.” (NASB)

Here the gospel is two things: Christ died for our sins (proof: He was buried) and He was raised from the dead (proof: His numerous appearances). That’s it.

Or is the gospel in Gal 1 that which Paul describes in Rom 1.1-4, 15-17?

“Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord . . . So, for my part, I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.”

In Romans, the gospel is the whole book, and especially chapters 1-11. Is this what he meant in Gal 1, that anyone who did not declare the entire gospel as explained in the Book of Romans should be banned and destroyed? Does sharing the gospel with unbelievers mean covering condemnation, justification, sanctification, vindication, and application? Is Paul banning and turning over to God anyone who does not include the whole teaching?

Closer to home, is this the (temporal) fate that we declare upon those who do not agree with all our points in the “simple gospel”? I do not believe in limited atonement or a secondary baptism of the Holy Spirit: should I pronounce as anathema those who believe otherwise? Should I desire, literally, that they they drop dead? Should I call down fire from heaven?

I know where I come out on this matter of what constitutes the “simple gospel” in its salvific sense. All of us need to think it through prayerfully and biblically. Otherwise, we may not understand what is truly at stake.


2 Cor 1.13