The apostle Paul describes two categories of people who should be anathema, or “eternally accursed”, as the NIV puts it. One category we all know about: those people who preach “a different gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9) should be anathema or accursed. But, most people do not realise that there is another category. In 1 Corinthians 16:22, Paul writes:
If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed [anathema] (1 Cor. 16:22, ESV)
Bad doctrine that obscures the true gospel, and a lack of love for the Lord, are both as bad as each other. A love for the Lord, with an abandonment of the biblical gospel, means nothing. Yet, so many regard a love for Jesus as a sufficient “bottom-line” for being a Christian. It is not. A love for the Lord is only of value if the ‘Lord’ is the person described by biblical revelation, and whose works are described by biblical revelation.
On the other hand, there are those who think a mental, vigorous assent to accurate biblical doctrine is sufficient to be a Christian. It is not. If anyone (including those with accurate Scriptural understanding and assent) has no love for the Lord, let him be anathema.
True biblical christianity requires a love for the Lord and a sound understanding of the gospel. God help me if I do not have either of these, and God keep me from thinking that possessing one in abundance makes up for the lack of the other.
3 Responses
A good blog, finally. Something challenging and meaty.
Although it is the common interpretation, does anathema actually mean “eternally” cursed? It could hardly be eternal, because this precludes anyone who gets the gospel wrong in such a manner coming to repentance at a later time.
Also presumably, those in Gal 1v6 who had removed from grace to another gospel were therefore also cursed?
I would hazard a guess that “anathema” means simply that they have excuded themselves from the benefits of salvation that are available for this life. ie prior to death.
The problem lies in the fact that we have changed the meaning of the word “salvation” as we go from
old testament to new testament. In the O.T. salvation meant deliverance from philistine famine and plague. It has now transmogrified into going to heaven when you die.
Strangely the O.T. gives very little coverage to heaven when you die. You get the impression that it wasn’t such a big deal to them or God at that time.
Additionally The Law of Moses gives no equivalent expression of our evangelism to “save” the world for heaven?
I love God and I love his word. However I can’t risk relying on my efforts for heaven. I would rather grab hold of his grace,mercy, and his love.
P.S.
My last comment. When I said “good blog, finally,” I didn’t mean that just this item was good and the rest of your posts were rubbish!
I meant that I had finally found a christian blogger worth reading.
I have been searching the blogosphere for ages trying to find something other than insipid trite sermons or twee gospel rubbish.
Thanks
Bob
Bob, you are right to question my suggested meaning of “anathema”. I can’t recall where I got that from. I will need to go back and do some checking.
Thanks for your comments.