Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 1:7
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
7. but there be some that trouble Christ ] Only so far can it be called another gospel, as it is a perversion of the Gospel of Christ. It does not profess to be a distinct revelation; it claims to be ‘the Gospel’, Just as we might speak of spurious coin, though it was not issued from the mint.
some that trouble you ] The Judaizing teachers (ch. Gal 5:10) who were drawing them away from their allegiance, and raising factions among them.
and would pervert ] ‘Would’ is not a mere auxiliary. Their desire and determination are to ‘reverse, to change to the opposite, and so stronger than to pervert or distort’ (Lightfoot). St Paul regarded the new doctrine as subversive of the truth and utterly incompatible with the Gospel which he preached.
the gospel of Christ ] Christ is at once its Author, its theme, its substance. Elsewhere it is termed the ‘Gospel of God’ (Rom 1:1), and the ‘Gospel of His Son’ (Rom 1:9).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Which is not another – There is also a great variety of views in regard to the meaning of this expression. Tyndale translates it: which is nothing else but there be some that trouble you. Locke, which is not owing to anything else but only this, that ye are troubled with a certain sort of people who would overturn the gospel of Christ. But Rosenmuller, Koppe, Bloomfield, and others, give a different view; and according to them the sense is, which, however, is not another gospel, nor indeed the gospel at all, or true, etc. According to this, the design was to state, that what they taught had none of the elements or characteristics of the gospel. It was a different system, and one which taught an entirely different method of justification before God. It seems to me that this is the true sense of the passage, and that Paul means to teach them that the system, though it was called the gospel, was essentially different from that which he had taught, and which consisted in simple reliance on Christ for salvation. The system which they taught, was in fact the Mosaic system; the Jewish mode, depending on the rites and ceremonies of religion; and which, therefore, did not deserve to be called the gospel. It would lead them again with burdensome rites, and with cumbrous institutions, from which it was the great purpose of the gospel to relieve them.
But there be some that trouble you – Though this is most manifestly another system, and not the gospel at all, yet there are some persons who are capable of giving trouble and of unsettling your minds, by making it plausible. They pretend that they have come direct front the apostles at Jerusalem; that they have received their instructions from them, and that they preach the true gospel as they teach it. They pretend that Paul was called into the office of an apostle after them; that he had never seen the Lord Jesus; that he had derived his information only from others; and thus they are able to present a plausible argument, and to unsettle the minds of the Galatians.
And would pervert – That is, the tendency of their doctrine is wholly to turn away ( metastrepsai), to destroy, or render useless the gospel of Christ. It would lead to the denial of the necessity of dependence on the merits of the Lord Jesus for salvation, and would substitute dependence on rites and ceremonies. This does not of necessity mean that such was the design of their teaching, for they might have been in the main honest; but that such was the tendency and result of their teaching. It would lead people to rely on the Mosaic rites for salvation.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. Which is not another] It is called a gospel, but it differs most essentially from the authentic narratives published by the evangelists. It is not gospel, i.e. good tidings, for it loads you again with the burdens from which the genuine Gospel has disencumbered you. Instead of giving you peace, it troubles you; instead of being a useful supplement to the Gospel of Christ, it perverts that Gospel. You have gained nothing but loss and damage by the change.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Which is not another; another doctrine it is, but another doctrine or glad tidings of salvation, or another gospel of Christ, it is not; for there is no other. In and by the new notions they bring they do but
trouble you, and pervert the true doctrine of the gospel; though they use the name of Christ, and of his gospel, they do it falsely; for by making the works of the law, and the observance of them, necessary to be by you observed in order to your salvation, they quite destroy and pervert the glad tidings of salvation; viz. that we are saved by Christ alone and faith in him, and by a righteousness without these works.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
7. anotherA distinct Greekword from that in Ga 1:6. ThoughI called it a gospel (Ga 1:6),it is not really so. There is really but one Gospel, and noother gospel.
butTranslate, “Onlythat there are some that trouble you,” c. (Gal 5:10Gal 5:12). All I meant by the”different gospel” was nothing but a perversion by “some”of the one Gospel of Christ.
would pervertGreek,“wish to pervert”; they could not really pervert theGospel, though they could pervert Gospel professors (compare Gal 4:9;Gal 4:17; Gal 4:21;Gal 6:12; Gal 6:13;Col 2:18). Though acknowledgingChrist, they insisted on circumcision and Jewish ordinances andprofessed to rest on the authority of other apostles, namely, Peterand James. But Paul recognizes no gospel, save the pure Gospel.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Which is not another,…. It is no Gospel, no joyful sound, no good news, and glad tidings; the doctrine which attributes justification to the works of the law, or mixes grace and works in the business of salvation, which was the doctrine of these false teachers, is no Gospel; not truly so, however it may be called; nor does it bring any solid peace and joy to distressed minds. There is but one pure Gospel of the grace of God, and Christ, and his apostles; there is not one and another; there is but one faith, one doctrine and scheme of faith; the Gospel is single and uniform, all of a piece, has no yea and nay, or contradiction in it; this trumpet gives no uncertain sound, nor any dreadful, but a joyful one:
but there be some that trouble you; meaning the false apostles, whose names he does not think fit to mention, as being unworthy to be named, and to have their names transmitted to posterity. These troubled the churches with their doctrines and principles, by raising disputes and controversies among them, injecting doubts and scruples into their minds, which puzzled and confounded them, and made them uneasy, and which broke in upon that peace of soul which the Gospel brings and establishes; for no true solid peace is attained to, and enjoyed, but by the doctrine of justification by the righteousness of Christ, pardon by his blood, and atonement by his sacrifice, which the doctrine of justification by works, c. tends to destroy.
And would pervert the Gospel of Christ which has Christ for its author, subject, and preacher; and particularly the doctrine of justification by his righteousness, which they sought to change, to throw into a different shape and form, to adulterate by mixing it with the works of the law, and so, if possible, destroy it: to this they showed a good will, but were not able to effect, for the Gospel is an everlasting one; it is immovable, and so is that particular doctrine of it; it remains, and will remain in spite of opposition to it. Thus the apostle prudently lays the blame of the Galatians removing from the Gospel to another upon the false teachers, hoping he should be able to reclaim them by solid arguments, and gentle methods.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Which is not another ( ). It is no “gospel” (good news) at all, but a yoke of bondage to the law and the abolition of grace. There is but one gospel and that is of grace, not works. The relative (which) refers to (a different gospel) “taken as a single term and designating the erroneous teachings of the Judaizers” (Burton).
Only ( ). Literally, “except,” that is, “Except in this sense,” “in that it is an attempt to pervert the one true gospel” (Lightfoot).
Who disturb you ( ). The disturbers. This very verb is used in Ac 17:8 of the Jews in Thessalonica who “disturbed” the politarchs and the people about Paul.
Would pervert ( ). “Wish to turn about,” change completely as in Acts 2:20; Jas 4:9. The very existence of the gospel of Christ was at stake.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Another [] . A different gospel is not another gospel. There is but one gospel.
But [ ] . Rev. only. As if he had said, “there is no other gospel, but there are some who trouble you with a different kind of teaching which they offer as a gospel.”
Some that trouble [ ] . The article with the participle marks these persons as characteristically troublesome – the troublers. Comp. Luk 18:9, of those who were characteristically self – righteous. For trouble in the sense of disturbing faith and unsettling principle, see Gal 5:10; Act 14:24. Not necessarily, as Lightfoot, raising seditions.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Which is not another,” (ho ouk estin allo) “which is (exists) not (as) another (gospel),” For there actually exists only one true gospel, Joh 14:6; Act 4:12; Act 10:43.
2) “But there be some that trouble you,” (ei me tines eisen hoi tarasontes humas) “Only there are some continually troubling you all; They were self-appointed,” independent evangelists, religious egotists, who had gone out on their own from the Jerusalem church, as a “self -authorized” “truth-squad” of religious politicians, hounding Paul in his ministry labors; See Act 15:1; Act 15:5; Act 15:24; Gal 5:10; Gal 5:12.
3) “And would pervert the gospel of Christ,” (kai thelontes metastrepsai to euangelion tou Christou) “and strongly wishing to pervert the gospel of Christ;” as Paul warned 2Co 2:17; 2Co 11:13-15; Act 15:24.
NOTE: in Act 15:1; Act 15:5; Act 15:24 those “certain ones,” who “went out” from the Jerusalem church, “of their own independent, isolated accord, without sanction of the church, were and became doctrinal and moral leaven to pollute, despoil, and pervert the gospel of Christ.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
7. Which is not another thing (20) Some explain it thus, “though there is not another gospel;” as if it were a sort of correction of the Apostle’s language, to guard against the supposition that there were more gospels than one. So far as the explanation of the words is concerned, I take a more simple view of them; for he speaks contemptuously of the doctrine of the false apostles, as being nothing else than a mass of confusion and destruction. As if he had said, “What do those persons allege? On what grounds do they attack the doctrine which I have delivered? They merely trouble you, and subvert the gospel. They do nothing more.” But it amounts to the same meaning; for this, too, I acknowledge, is a correction of the language he had used about another gospel. He declares that it is not a gospel, but a mere disturbance. All I intended to say was, that, in my opinion, the word another means another thing. It resembles strongly the expression in common use, “this amounts to nothing, but that you wish to deceive.”
And wish to pervert. He charges them with the additional crime of doing an injury to Christ, by endeavoring to subvert his gospel. Subversion is an enormous crime. It is worse than corruption. And with good reason does he fasten on them this charge. When the glow of justification is ascribed to another, and a snare is laid for the consciences of men, the Savior no longer occupies his place, and the doctrine of the gospel is utterly ruined.
The gospel of Christ. To know what are the leading points of the gospel, is a matter of unceasing importance. When these are attacked, the gospel is destroyed. When he adds the words, of Christ, this may be explained in two ways; either that it has come from Christ as its author, or that it purely exhibits Christ. The apostle’s reason for employing that expression unquestionably was to describe the true and genuine gospel, which alone is worthy of the name.
(20) “ ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο. Some have questioned the genuineness of ἄλλο,— conjecturing that some one first introduced ἀλλὰ into the margin as an interpretation of εἰ μή, and then some other person changed it into ἄλλο, per incuriam , and introduced it into the text. This is ingenious, but, like all conjectural criticism on the New Testament, is of no value.” — Brown
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(7) But there be some.The force of the Greek, conjunction is, rather, except that, as the word only is used idiomatically in English. So far from being a second gospel, it is really no gospel, only there are some . . . , i.e., the only sense in which there can be any mention of a second gospel is that there are some who pervert the old gospel. The existence of this party is the only excuse for the name. And it is a mere excuse. They do not deserve any such dignity. They really lay themselves under the curse of God.
That trouble you.The Judaising party, with its restless factiousness and bigotry, causing schisms and divisions in the Church.
Pervert.The Greek is even still strongerreverse, or change to its very opposite. This they did by substituting a doctrine of righteousness by worksself-justification before God by performing the precepts of the Mosaic lawfor the doctrine of reconciliation with God through the free forgiveness which He has promised to faith in Christ.
The gospel of Christ.Where combinations of this kind occur, the question naturally suggests itself: What is the relation of the two words to each other? For instance, in the present case, is it the gospel taught by Christ, or the gospel concerning Christ? The following rule has been proposed:In such phrases as the gospel of salvation, the gospel of the kingdom, the genitive is that of the objectof is equivalent to concerning. In the phrase the gospel of God it represents rather the cause or authorship: the gospel of which God is the Author. In the present phrase, the gospel of Christ, it may be either one or the other, according to the context. We must not, however, narrow too much the Apostles use of language. A somewhat vague and ambiguous term sometimes best expresses the fulness of his meaning. In English we might use the phrase Christs gospel to include at once the gospel which proceeds from Christ, and the gospel which relates to Christ, all, in fact, which makes it in any sense belong to Him and bear His name.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Not another Paul, as it were, corrects himself. His last words, another gospel, might indicate that a return to Judaistic circumcision was a parallel gospel. He now denies that it is any gospel, or good news, at all. The word another, twice used in English here, is represented by two different Greek words. The former signifies different, the latter additional.
The former might mean that there are two gospels; but Paul adds that the supposed different is none.
But It is a gospel, but only as a trouble you is a gospel.
Pervert Literally, transform. They would substitute circumcision for the crucifixion as a mode of salvation.
Pervert the gospel of Christ And make it become, essentially, the law of Moses again.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gal 1:7. Which is not another; I take the Greek here to signify, says Mr. Locke, which is not any thing else. For, first, the words themselves, the context, and the business the Apostle is upon, do all concur in this sense. Secondly, It is suitable to St. Paul’s design here to tell them, that to their being removed to another Gospel, nobody else had contributed, but it was wholly owing to those Judaizing seducers. Dr. Heylin renders this and the preceding verse as follows: I wonder you have so soon deserted unto another Gospel from me, who called you by the grace of Christ; which comes only from this, that there are some who perplex your minds, and would subvert the Gospel of Christ.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 1:7 . The expression just used, , was a paradoxical one, for in the true sense there is only one gospel: it seems to presuppose the existence of several , but only serves to bring into clearer light the misleading efforts of the Judaists, and in this sense the apostle now explains it.
, . . .] which , to which ye have fallen away, is not another , not a second gospel, alongside of that by means of which ye were called ( , not again), except there are certain persons who perplex you , etc. That is, this is not another by the side of the former, only there are certain persons who perplex you; so that in this respect only can we speak of as if it were an . So in substance Wieseler and Hofmann; comp. Matthias. It must be observed that the emphasis is laid first on and then on ; so that, although Paul has previously said , he yet guards the oneness of the gospel, and represents that to which he applied the words . as only the corruption and perversion of the one (of the . ). Thus retains its general meaning nisi , without any need to assume (with Matthies) an abbreviation for , . . . [18] The two emphatic words and preserve, however, their difference in sense: meaning absolutely another , that is, a second likewise existing (besides the one gospel); and one of another kind, different ( Plat. Conv . p. 186 B). Dem. 911. 7; Soph. Phil . 501, O. C . 1446; Xen. Anab . vi. 4. 8 (and Krger in loc .); Wis 7:5 ; Jdt 8:20 . In the N.T., comp. especially 1Co 12:8-10 ; 1Co 15:40 ; 2Co 11:4 ; Act 4:12 ; also 1Co 14:21 ; Rom 7:23 ; Mar 16:12 ; Luk 9:29 . Comp. also the expression , Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed . p. 71 A., Rep . p. 337 E. The interpretation most generally received (Peschito, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Wolf, Bengel, and many others; also Morus, Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld) connects merely with , [19] and for the most part understands adversatively, “Neque tamen est ulla alia doctrina de Jesu Christo vera; sunt vero homines,” etc., Koppe. Against this interpretation may be urged, first, the fact that previously had the chief emphasis laid on it, and is therefore quite unwarrantably excluded from the reference of the relative which follows; secondly, that Paul must have logically used some such expression as ; and lastly, that never means anything else than nisi , not even in passages such as Gal 2:16 ; Mat 12:4 (see on this passage); Luk 4:26 ; 1Co 7:17 ; and Rev 9:4 ; Rev 21:27 . Comp. Hom. Od . xii. 325 f., , , and the passages in Poppo, ad Thuc . III. 1, p. 216. Others , as Calvin, Grotius (not Calovius), Homberg, Winer, Rckert, Olshausen, refer to the whole contents of , “ quod quidem ( sc . vos deficere a Christo) non est aliud, nisi , etc., the case is not otherwise than ” (Winer). But by this interpretation the whole point of the relation, so Pauline in its character, which bears to , is lost; and why should the more special explanation of the deficere a Christo be annexed in so emphatic a form, and not by a simple or the like? Lastly, Schott (so also Cornelius a Lapide) looks upon as a parenthesis, and makes . . . depend on . . . ; so that that, which is expressed in the words . . . , by . . . “ limitibus circumscribatur proferenda defectionis causa, qua perpendenda illud vel minuatur vel tollatur .” This is incorrect, for logically Paul must have written ; and with what arbitrary artifice is thus set aside and, as it were, abandoned, and yet the reference of the to the emphatic is assumed!
] The participle with the article designates the as those whose characteristic was the of the Galatians, as persons who dealt in this, who were occupied with it. Comp. the very usual ; also Luk 18:9 ; Col 2:8 . See generally Winer, p. 104 [E. T. 136]; Krger, 50. 4. 3; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luk . p. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor . p. 238. On , in the sense of perplexing the faith and principles, comp. here and Gal 5:10 , especially Act 15:24 ; Sir 28:9 .
] “re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe,” Bengel; “ volunt sed non valent ,” Jerome. On the other hand, the of the Galatians actually took place.
The article before . refers to as well. See Seidler, ad Eur. El . 429; Fritzsche, ad Matth . p. 52; Khner, ad Xen. Mem . i. 1. 19.
, to pervert , that is, to alter so that it acquires an entirely opposite nature. Comp. LXX. 1Sa 10:9 ; Sir 11:31 ; Hom. Il . xv. 203; Dem. 1032. 1.
. .] see generally on Mar 1:1 . The genitive is here not auctoris , but, as expressing the specific characteristic of the one only gospel in contradistinction to those who were perplexing the Galatians, objecti (concerning Christ). This is evident from Gal 1:6 , where indicates the contents of the gospel.
[18] Fritzsche, ad Marc . vi. 5, takes ironically, and in the well-known sense, people of importance (see on Act 5:36 , and Hermann, ad Viger . p. 731): “ nisi forte magni est facienda eorum auctoritas, qui ,” etc. But the article which follows renders this interpretation not at all necessary (see below). Besides, in this sense Paul uses only the neuter (see Gal 2:6 , Gal 6:3 ; 1Co 3:7 ). Lastly, he is fond of designating false teachers, adversaries, etc., as , that is, quidam, quos nominare nolo (Hermann, ad Viger. l.c .). See 1Co 4:18 ; 2Co 3:1 ; Gal 2:12 ; 1Co 15:12 ; 1Ti 1:3 .
[19] So already the Marcionites, who proved from our passage that there was no other gospel than theirs! See Chrysostom in loc .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Ver. 7. There be some ] That would fain have blended Pharisaism and Christianity, Act 15:5 .
That trouble you ] . As camels with their feet trouble the waters they should drink of.
And would pervert the gospel ] They pretended only to bring in a Jewish rite or two, and yet are said to pervert the gospel, . Ea quae post tergum sunt, in faciem convertere, as Jerome hath it, to turn that before that should be behind; to speak distorted things, , such as produce convulsions of conscience, Act 20:30 . A little thing untowardly mingled mars all. The monstrous heresy of Nestorius lay but in one letter, , and of Arius, but in one syllable, .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7 .] Meyer’s note appears to me well to express the sense: “the preceding was a paradoxical expression, there being in reality but one Gospel . Paul appeared by it to admit the existence of many Gospels , and he therefore now explains himself more accurately, how he wishes to be understood , &c.,” i.e. which “different Gospel,” whereto you are falling away, is not another , not a second, besides the one Gospel ( , not again; see above), except that there are some who trouble yon &c. That is: ‘This . is only in so far another , that there are certain, who &c.’ Notice that the stress is on ; so that Paul, though he had before said ., yet guards the unity of the Gospel, and explains what he meant by to be nothing but a corruption and perversion of the one Gospel of Christ . Others, as Chrys., c., Thdrt., Luther, De Wette, &c., take as all referring to , “ which is (admits of being) no other ” (= ): and then is merely adversative, ‘ but ,’ or ‘ only ,’ a meaning which it will hardly bear, but which, as De W. remarks, is not necessarily involved in his interpretation: ‘except that’ answering for it quite as well. The objection to his view is (1) that the meaning assigned to is very harsh, taking the relative from its application to the concrete ( .), and enlarging it to the abstract ( . in general) (2) that the juxtaposition of and in one sentence seems to require, as in 1Co 15:40-41 , that the strict meaning of each should he observed. Others again (Winer, Olsh., &c.) refer the to the whole sentence from &c. to ‘ which (viz. your falling away) is nothing else but (has no other cause, but that) &c. ’ To this the objection (2) above applies, and it is besides very unlikely that St. Paul would thus have shifted all blame from the Galatians to their false teachers (‘hanc culpam non tam vobis imputo quam perturbatoribus illis,’ &c. Luther), and, as it were, wiped out the effect of his rebuke just after uttering it. Lastly, Schtt., and Cornel.-a-Lapide, take . as a parenthesis, and refer to , which should thus have been ( ). This would besides make the sentence a very harsh and unnatural one. The nature of this ‘different Gospel,’ as gathered from the data in our Epistle, was (1), though recognizing Jesus as the Christ, it insisted on circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic ordinances as to times, &c.: (2) it professed to rest on the authority of some of the other Apostles see Chrys. quoted below.
. ] The article points out in a more marked manner the (notorious) occupation of these men, q. d. ‘ certain your disturbers , &c.’ Add to reff., Herodot. ix. 70, . . Xen. An. ii. 4. 5, : and compare the common expression .
. . . ] perhaps here not ‘ Christ’s Gospel ,’ but the Gospel of (i.e. relating to, preaching) Christ. The context only can determine in such expressions whether the genitive is subjective or objective.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 1:7 . . The translation of this clause in A.V. and R.V. ( which is not another ) has caused great embarrassment by its apparent identification of the spurious Gospel with the true. Lightfoot pleads ingeniously that may mean another besides the true Gospel, and so interprets the clause to mean that it is no Gospel at all; but this will hardly be accepted by most other scholars. The American revisers suggest the rendering which is nothing else than . But these difficulties arise from making the subject of the sentence: surely it is in fact a connecting adverb ( touching which, as to which, whereas ), as it is again in Gal 2:10 , and probably in Gal 2:20 . If the clause be rendered, whereas there is no other Gospel ( i.e. , than the true), the sense becomes perfectly clear, and it forms an appropriate introduction to the succeeding anathemas by its emphatic testimony to the one true Gospel. This clause qualifies the former “there is no other Gospel,” only a spurious semblance (on the use of see note on Gal 1:19 ). . There is a studied vagueness in this and other references to the agitators. They were evidently not Galatian Christians, but strangers from abroad, whom the Apostle treats with real or affected contempt.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
another. Greek. allos. App-124.
but. Greek. ei me.
some. Greek. tines, App-124:4. Compare Gal 2:12. 1Co 4:18. 2Co 3:1, 2Co 10:2.
trouble = are troubling. Compare Gal 5:10. Act 15:24.
and would = wishing to. Greek. thelo. App-102.
pervert. Greek. metastrepho. See Act 2:20.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
7.] Meyers note appears to me well to express the sense: the preceding was a paradoxical expression, there being in reality but one Gospel. Paul appeared by it to admit the existence of many Gospels, and he therefore now explains himself more accurately, how he wishes to be understood- , &c., i.e. which different Gospel, whereto you are falling away, is not another, not a second, besides the one Gospel (, not again; see above), except that there are some who trouble yon &c. That is: This . is only in so far another, that there are certain, who &c. Notice that the stress is on ; so that Paul, though he had before said ., yet guards the unity of the Gospel, and explains what he meant by to be nothing but a corruption and perversion of the one Gospel of Christ. Others, as Chrys., c., Thdrt., Luther, De Wette, &c., take as all referring to , which is (admits of being) no other (= ): and then is merely adversative, but, or only, a meaning which it will hardly bear, but which, as De W. remarks, is not necessarily involved in his interpretation: except that answering for it quite as well. The objection to his view is (1) that the meaning assigned to is very harsh, taking the relative from its application to the concrete ( .), and enlarging it to the abstract ( . in general) (2) that the juxtaposition of and in one sentence seems to require, as in 1Co 15:40-41, that the strict meaning of each should he observed. Others again (Winer, Olsh., &c.) refer the to the whole sentence from &c. to -which (viz. your falling away) is nothing else but (has no other cause, but that) &c. To this the objection (2) above applies, and it is besides very unlikely that St. Paul would thus have shifted all blame from the Galatians to their false teachers (hanc culpam non tam vobis imputo quam perturbatoribus illis, &c. Luther), and, as it were, wiped out the effect of his rebuke just after uttering it. Lastly, Schtt., and Cornel.-a-Lapide, take . as a parenthesis, and refer to , which should thus have been (). This would besides make the sentence a very harsh and unnatural one. The nature of this different Gospel, as gathered from the data in our Epistle, was (1), though recognizing Jesus as the Christ, it insisted on circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic ordinances as to times, &c.: (2) it professed to rest on the authority of some of the other Apostles see Chrys. quoted below.
.] The article points out in a more marked manner the (notorious) occupation of these men, q. d. certain your disturbers, &c. Add to reff., Herodot. ix. 70, . . Xen. An. ii. 4. 5, : and compare the common expression .
. . .] perhaps here not Christs Gospel, but the Gospel of (i.e. relating to, preaching) Christ. The context only can determine in such expressions whether the genitive is subjective or objective.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 1:7. O, which) This word relates to the Gospel, not to the words a different gospel.- , is not another) [aliud] another differs from , [alterum] a second and different.[2] Paul not merely rejects that so-called Gospel, which the Galatians had allowed to be thrust upon them, but any other whatever.-, some) unhappy persons, Gal 1:8, ch. Gal 5:10; Gal 5:12.-, that trouble) ch. Gal 5:10.-, wishing) They really were not able, but yet they were earnestly wishing to do it. Paul often glances at the Galatians and their seducers by this expression; ch. Gal 4:9; Gal 4:17; Gal 4:21, Gal 6:12-13. So Col 2:18.-) is frequently translated by this word.- , the Gospel of Christ.) Those, who troubled them, did not quite deny Jesus Christ; but Paul acknowledges nothing but the pure Gospel.
[2] , one of many; , one of two. Diversity is more strongly expressed in than .-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 1:7
Gal 1:7
which is not another gospel:-Paul replied that what they preached differed so greatly from the true gospel that it was no gospel at all. He could not even allow them the name gospel. [Paul preached salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8), they preached salvation by the law through works, saying, It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses or they cannot be saved (Act 15:1; Act 15:5); the two are incompatible, and are antagonistic to that end (Rom 11:6). Thus at the very beginning he closes the door against compromise, and throughout the epistle this attitude is maintained. Obedience to their teaching puts in bondage (Gal 2:4) and entanglement (Gal 5:1), and could not result in justification (Gal 2:16), or freedom (Gal 5:1); it made Christ to be of no profit (Gal 5:2), and the death of Christ, which is the essence of the gospel, a superfluous thing of no account (Gal 2:21); and so far from bringing blessing it puts him under a curse (Gal 3:10); and all who accepted it fell away from grace (Gal 5:4).]
only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.-Those who troubled them with false teachings perverted the gospel of Christ. Christ died to redeem all nations from sin. It was a perversion of the gospel to claim that they could not be saved by Christ save through keeping the Jewish law. It was turning them from a sole reliance in Christ back to the Jewish law.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
but: Gal 2:4, Gal 4:17, Gal 5:10, Gal 5:12, Gal 6:12, Gal 6:13, Gal 6:17, Act 15:1-5, Act 15:24, Act 20:30, Rom 16:17, Rom 16:18, 2Co 11:13
pervert: Gal 5:10, Gal 5:12, Jer 23:26, Mat 24:24, Act 13:10, Act 15:1, Act 15:24, 2Co 2:17, 2Co 4:2, 1Ti 4:1-3, 2Ti 2:18, 2Ti 3:8, 2Ti 3:9, 2Ti 4:3, 2Ti 4:4, Tit 1:10, Tit 1:11, 2Pe 2:1-3, 1Jo 2:18, 1Jo 2:19, 1Jo 2:26, 1Jo 4:1, 2Jo 1:7, 2Jo 1:10, Jud 1:4, Rev 2:2, Rev 2:6, Rev 2:14, Rev 2:15, Rev 2:20, Rev 12:9, Rev 13:14, Rev 19:20, Rev 20:3
Reciprocal: Jer 23:36 – for ye Mat 26:10 – Why Act 15:19 – that Act 20:27 – I have Rom 1:16 – the gospel 1Co 1:13 – Christ 1Co 3:11 – General 2Co 11:4 – another gospel 2Co 11:12 – them 2Co 11:29 – and I burn Eph 4:5 – one faith Eph 4:14 – tossed Phi 1:27 – the gospel Phi 3:18 – enemies 1Ti 1:3 – charge 1Ti 6:3 – any 2Ti 2:14 – the subverting
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 1:7. , -which is not another, save that: it is no new or additional gospel-, the negative being emphatic,-there is only one gospel. The expressed after stands vaguely and imperfectly, as the Judaizers might so name their system, but the . implied after is used in its strict and proper sense. The connection with the following clause is variously understood.
1. Schott, preceded by a-Lapide, connects with , making the previous clause a parenthesis: Miror vos tam cito deficere ad aliam doctrinam salutarem (quanquam haec alia salutaris nulla est) nisi nonnulli sint. But such an utterance requires : I should have wondered that you fell away so soon, unless there had been some troubling you. The sentence also becomes disjointed, and would make the apostle give only a hypothetical statement of the cause of his surprise.
2. Some make the whole previous sentence the antecedent to , such as Calvin, Grotius, Winer, Rckert, Olshausen: Your defection to another gospel is nothing else but this, or has no other source but this, that some are troubling you. But why should the apostle, after the censure implied in the last verse, really lift it by throwing the entire blame on the Judaizers? It would be to blame them in one breath, and make an apology for them in the next; and to refer to Paul himself, as Gwynne does, does not remove the difficulty.
3. Others, again-and this has been the prevailing opinion-take as the antecedent: which is no other gospel, because indeed there can be no other. So the Greek fathers, with Luther, Beza, Koppe, Borger, Usteri, De Wette, Hilgenfeld; the Peschito, , which does not exist; and the Genevan, seeing there is no other. But it seems plain that and , occurring together, must be used with some distinctiveness, for the one sentence suddenly guards against a false interpretation of the other.
4. The antecedent is, as Meyer, Hofmann, Wieseler, and others suppose, .: which different kind of gospel is no additional or co-ordinate gospel. The apostle does not say, it is not gospel; but it is not a second or other gospel, which may take a parallel or even subordinate rank with his. And he adds,
-save that. By this phrase, not equivalent to , as Dr. Brown argues in support of his exegesis, an exception is indicated to a negative declaration preceding, and it signifies nisi, unless, except, even in Mat 12:4, 1Co 7:17. Klotz-Devar. ii. p. 524; Herodotus, 4:94, , ; Xen. Cyrop. 2.2, 11, , ; Aristoph. Eq. 615, ; Poppo, Thucyd. vol. iii. P. 1, 216; Gayler, Partic. Neg. p. 97. The Vulgate has, quod non est aliud nisi. The meaning is, this gospel is another, only in so far as
-there are some who are troubling you. In this participial phrase, as Winer says, the substantivized participle is a definite predicate to an indefinite subject. A. Buttmann, p. 254. The apostle says of the , that it was their function or their characteristic to be disturbing the Galatian converts. Luk 18:9; Col 2:8. Bernhardy, p. 318. neither marks insignificance, (Semler), nor infelices (Bengel), nor yet paucity, pauci duntaxat sunt (Winer). Though not named, they were well known, but the apostle would not further characterize them. An extraordinary interpretation of is given by Wordsworth, who takes it as the predicate: unless they who are troubling you are somebody, persons of some importance. The exegesis is not sustained by any of the examples which he has adduced, for in them is marked by its position as a predicate, and the use of is not to the point. Nor would the clause so misunderstood bring out any self-consistent meaning. The verb , used physically (Joh 5:7), signifies to put in fear or alarm (Mat 2:3), then to disquiet (Joh 12:27), to perplex (Act 15:24). The apostle adds of those disturbers, what their desire or purpose was:
-and desiring to subvert the gospel of Christ. The verb is to change, to change into the opposite (Act 2:20; Jam 4:9), or to change to the worse. Aristot. Rhet. 1.15, p. 60, ed. Bekker; Sept. 1Sa 10:8; Sir 11:31. The genitive may either mean the gospel which is Christ’s as proclaimed by Him, or that which has Him for its object. One might say that the former is preferable, as then the different gospel preached by the Judaizers would stand in contrast to that proclaimed by Christ Himself. Still there would in the latter exegesis be this contrast, that as the gospel preached by them was conformity to the Mosaic ritual, it was in antagonism to that gospel which has Christ for its theme, for by its perversion it would render Christ of none effect. Whatever would derogate from the sufficiency of Christ’s gospel, or hamper its freeness, is a subversion of it, no matter what guise it may assume, or how insignificant the addition or subtraction may seem. Bengel’s oft-quoted remark, Re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe, is true in result. Yet they in their preaching revolutionized the gospel, and such is the apostle’s charge against them.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 1:7. This verse might seem to contradict the preceding one, but the explanation is in the difference between the original words for another. (See verse 6 for the meaning of the word in that instance.) In this verse the word is from ALLOS, which means another something of the same kind. As there is but one true Gospel, there cannot be another like it or of the same kind. That is why Paul says this doctrine that the Judaizers were giving was not another Gospel like the one he was preaching; and for a good reason, for there is no other like it. To pervert the Gospel means to corrupt it by mixing it with something else. The Judaizers were trying to combine the law of Moses with that of Christ, and in so doing Paul charges them with perverting the Gospel, and it was causing trouble for those who otherwise had been faithful.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 1:7. Which (pseudo-gospel of the heretical teachers) is not another, i.e., no gospel at all, but a perversion and corruption of the one unchangeable gospel. The gospel of Paul teaches that man is justified by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ; the pseudo-gospel of the Judaizers teaches that man is justified by grace and works through faith in Christ and the circumcision of Moses. The former makes good works the effect, the latter the cause, of justification; and this is thus in fact a relapse into the Jewish standpoint under a Christian name.
Save that there are some troubling you. Only in this sense is it another gospel that it is a perversion of the true gospel of Christ by those well-known troublers of your conscience.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
which is not another gospel: only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [This verse defines the meaning of that which precedes, so as to correct the false impression that there might be two gospels, similar in sonic respects and equally effective. The folly of such a thought is ironically set forth at 2Co 11:4 . There is, says the apostle, emphatically but one gospel, but there are some who would revolutionize you (the word “trouble” has this force) by perverting the gospel, making it an unholy, ineffectual compound of living truth and obsolete Jewish forms. His failure to name the leaders in this movement shows his contempt for them. They were parties unknown and deserving to remain unknown. One can not help wishing that modern churches would waken to the truth here spoken by the apostle. There is and must ever be but one gospel. There is not a separate gospel suited to the prejudices or so-called “tastes” of each sect or denomination. There is but one gospel, and hence all church divisions result from perversions of that gospel, and all such secessions or revolutionary divisions are but the beguiling of Satan, drawing disciples from “the simplicity and purity that is toward Christ”– 2Co 11:3 ]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 7
Which is not another; not another gospel, but only a perversion of the gospel, as is stated in the close of the verse. A similar mode of expression, or rather turn of thought, occurs in 2 Corinthians 11:4.
Galatians 1:8,9. The meaning is simply that it is utterly impossible that there should be another gospel; that is, another system of religious truth, inconsistent with what had been revealed to him.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Paul seems to be confused – he says they are taken away to another gospel, but it is not another gospel. So, how is that? I think what he is saying here is that they thought they were called away from the gospel of grace to another gospel, a gospel of works. However, in truth there is no other gospel than the gospel of grace, so the gospel of works is not really a gospel.
If this is what he is saying, then apply that one to our society today. How many ways are there to heaven? One, through the gospel of grace, and you can label all other gospels as gospels not being gospels – all are false teaching, and false gospels.
He goes on to explain that the people that they are listening to are PERVERTING the gospel of Christ. Their gospel was not true – it was a perversion of the true gospel of Christ. The gospel of Christ is pure and simple, but these Judaizers were perverting that simple and pure gospel by adding requirements to what God had set for the ages before the foundation of the world.
Humm, does that seem a little arrogant to you – someone looking at the gospel that God set down before the foundation of the world and saying it isn’t quite good enough – I think we have to work a little for it as well – in essence, God isn’t able to define and institute a gospel that can save, but we – those that need to be saved – know what is lacking and we can supply it – I hope that sounds ludicrous to you for indeed it truly is ludicrous for man to be able to assist God in his own salvation.
These will “trouble” you – or cause commotion within, to disquiet, to strike with fear, or to render anxious or dreadful. This word describes well the emotions of one that has accepted the gospel of Christ, and has been given teaching that brings into question that simple and pure gospel.
One that questions their salvation, is often fearful of loosing their salvation, anxious about how they are living their life – afraid that they are disappointing God. In reality many brought up in the 50-60’s Bible belt environment were as described – fearful and anxious about their salvation and their life before God. Many questioned whether they were even saved, many thought they were total failures in their Christian lives.
The cure to all this fear was to stop listening to that inner voice that troubles you – that voice of doubt in the God that said He had saved you. He designed it, He instituted it, and He delivered it to you and you sit in your arrogance and question whether He did it right or not! Please, have confidence in the God that called you unto Himself for His own glory.
Please, also do not allow a mere man or mere book bring total upset to your soul when they try to add to the requirements that have already been met for your salvation – God did it all and no matter what someone tells you, HE DID IT ALL and YOU CAN DO NOTHING TO ASSIST HIM – NOTHING. He did it in the past and it is complete, so how in the world can you do anything to help in the completed process? You simply and unequivocally cannot.
The thought of the word “troubled” is the exact opposite of the term translated peace in the previous verses. They were taking away the peace that the Gospel can give to the soul. They were causing turmoil in the lives of the believers when they should have been enjoying peace and tranquility.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
1:7 {4} Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would {f} pervert the gospel of Christ.
(4) He warns them in time to remember that there are not many Gospels; and therefore whatever these false apostles pretend who had the Law, Moses, and the fathers in their mouths, yet these ones had indeed corrupted the true Gospel. And he himself, indeed, also the very angels themselves (and therefore much more these false apostles) ought to be held accursed, if they go about to change the least thing that may be in the Gospel that he delivered to them before.
(f) For there is nothing more contrary to faith or free justification, than justification by the Law or by deeds.