Page 8

them to respond to his statement (in this case the imperative e[stw). Vanhoozer argues that viewing the
Bible as "Scripture" focuses on the perlocutionary function of communicative action. "That is, Scripture
intends, by and through its communicative action, to function in a way that leads to Christ and to the
righteousness of God . . . . All texts . . . have a certain claim on the reader."

The Spirit of God would not

only press upon the reader the illocutionary point but also achieve in the obedient, the perlocutionary
effect.

There are several elements of the desired effects that can be gleaned from exegetical observations.

First, Paul is using casuistry in a positive sense (if . . . then . . . ), and thus seeks a moral response due to the
fact that the curses are in two conditional sentences. The first statement is a third class hypothetical
condition (eja;n with aorist subjunctive), whereas the second is a first class (ei[ with present indicative)
assertion of a fact for the sake of his argument, which could be stated, "whoever is preaching to you . . . ."

Thus the second statement takes the anathematization out of the hypothetical and makes it axiomatic.
Morland observes that the clauses in 1 Cor 16:22 and Gal 1:8, 9 are models of casuistic laws where the
crime is defined in the protasis, and its distinctive curse penalty prescribed in the apodosis.

Therefore, the

anathemas, like all divine laws, are meant to elicit a response from the community to which they are given.
They are not simply given as resulting penalties, but, as with all laws, opportunities for moral decision.

A second element of the desired effect is in Paul's self-imprecation, "But even if we . . . should

preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be anathema." Why would Paul apply the
curse to himself? First, the third class condition indicates that his self-imprecation is similar in purpose to the
one he uses in Rom 9:3. If it were possible that he could have brought them a different gospel, then he
would be anathematized. Like the impossibility of his becoming an atonement for Israel's unbelief in Rom
9:3, it is impossible for Paul's gospel to be anything but from God as he argues in Gal 1:11-2:21. Calvin is
helpful at this point in showing the necessity of Paul's potential self-imprecation.

It was also necessary for him to begin with himself. In this way he anticipates a slander from his ill-
wishers: "You want to have everything that comes from you received without hesitation because it is
your own." To show that there is no foundation for this, he is the first to surrender the right to
advance anything against his teaching. By doing so, he does not subject himself to others, but, as is
fair, puts them all along with himself into one rank, that they should be subject to the Word of God.

The test of orthodoxy applies to everyone who might pervert the gospel, and failure implies
anathematization. Paul subsequently shows that his gospel bears up under scrutiny. The Galatians should
choose his over that of the anathematized seducing apostates.

A third element of his desired effects is in the angelic anathematization. Why potentially

anathematize angels? Eadie's words are instructive: "An angel from heaven is the highest created authority,
but it cannot exalt itself against a divine commission."

Angels were instrumental in mediating the law from

God (Gal 3:19). Paul later indicates that he was well aware of Satan masquerading as an angel of light who
by deception leads many sincere believers away from their pure devotion to Christ.

In other words, even

seducing angelic messengers are to be anathematized.

There is an important Old Testament precedent concerning angelic mediation. During the apostate

reign of Jeroboam, a lying old prophet claimed to have received the word of the Lord by means of an angel.
His intent was to cause the man of God to disobey the Lord's expressed command to disassociate himself
from Bethel and its idolatry (1 Kings 13:11-34, esp. 18). Subsequently, immediate divine retribution came
upon the man of God for his disregard of the warning of the Lord when he was mauled and killed by a lion
(18:24-26). The principle of immediate divine retribution upon those who disregard the Lord's word in
favor of those of a messenger claiming angelic mediation is identical to Paul's argument in Gal 1:8-9. In light
of the angelic anathematization (and possibly from this precedent as well), Paul desired the Galatians to
avoid associating with the seducers (the Judaizers) and thus avoid God's imminent retribution.