Galatians 1:7

1:7 The “different way” (1:6) was a distortion, not the Good News of salvation at all. The only way to be saved is by faith in Christ. Adding any requirements makes the message no longer the Good News. • those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ: The Judaizers knew they were changing the Good News to fit their views.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Gal 1:7. ‘O, which) This word relates to the Gospel, not to the words a different gospel.—οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, is not another) ἄλλο [aliud] another differs from ἕτερον, [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.—τινές, some) unhappy persons, Gal 1:8, ch. Gal 5:10; Gal 5:12.—ταράσσοντες, that trouble) ch. Gal 5:10.—θέλοντες, 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.—μεταστρέψαι) הפך is frequently translated by this word.—τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the Gospel of Christ.) Those, who troubled them, did not quite deny Jesus Christ; but Paul acknowledges nothing but the pure Gospel.

[2] ἄλλος, one of many; ἓτερος, one of two. Diversity is more strongly expressed in ἔτερος than ἄλλος.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_1:7. The expression just used, εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, was a paradoxical one, for in the true sense there is only one gospel: it seems to presuppose the existence of several εὐαγγέλια, but only serves to bring into clearer light the misleading efforts of the Judaists, and in this sense the apostle now explains it.

ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή κ.τ.λ.] which ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, to which ye have fallen away, is not another, not a second gospel, alongside of that by means of which ye were called (ἄλλο, not ἕτερον again), except there are certain persons who perplex you, etc. That is, this ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον 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 ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον as if it were an ἄλλο. So in substance Wieseler and Hofmann; comp. Matthias. It must be observed that the emphasis is laid first on οὐκ and then on ἄλλο; so that, although Paul has previously said εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, he yet guards the oneness of the gospel, and represents that to which he applied the words ἕτερον εὐαγγ. as only the corruption and perversion of the one (of the εὐαγγ. τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ). Thus εἰ μή retains its general meaning nisi, without any need to assume (with Matthies) an abbreviation for εἰ μὴ ἄλλο ἐστὶ διὰ τοῦτο, ὅτι τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες κ.τ.λ.[18] The two emphatic words ἕτερον and ἌΛΛΟ preserve, however, their difference in sense: ἌΛΛΟ meaning absolutely another, that is, a second likewise existing (besides the one gospel); and ἕτερον one of another kind, different (ἕτερον καὶ ἀνόμοιον Plat. Conv. p. 186 B). Dem. 911. 7; Soph. Phil. 501, O. C. 1446; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 8 (and Krüger 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 ἕτερον παρά τι, 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 ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο merely with ΕὐΑΓΓΈΛΙΟΝ,[19] and for the most part understands εἰ μή 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 ἝΤΕΡΟΝ 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 ΜῊ ὌΝΤΟς ἈΛΛΟῦ; and lastly, that ΕἸ ΜΉ 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., οὐδέ τις ἄλλος γίγνετʼ ἔπειτʼ ἀνέμων, εἰ μὴ Εὐρός τε Νότος τε, and the passages in Poppo, ad Thuc. III. 1, p. 216. Others, as Calvin, Grotius (not Calovius), Homberg, Winer, Rückert, Olshausen, refer ὅ to the whole contents of ὍΤΙ ΟὝΤΩ ΤΑΧΈΩς … ΕὐΑΓΓΈΛΙΟΝ, 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 ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο bears to ἝΤΕΡΟΝ, 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 γάρ or the like? Lastly, Schott (so also Cornelius a Lapide) looks upon Ὅ ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ ἌΛΛΟ as a parenthesis, and makes ΕἸ ΜΉ ΤΙΝΕς Κ.Τ.Λ. depend on ΘΑΥΜΆΖΩ Κ.Τ.Λ.; so that that, which is expressed in the words ΘΑΥΜΆΖΩ Κ.Τ.Λ., by ΕἸ ΜΉ ΤΙΝΕς Κ.Τ.Λ. limitibus circumscribatur proferenda defectionis causa, qua perpendenda illud θαυμάζειν vel minuatur vel tollatur. This is incorrect, for logically Paul must have written ἐθαύμαζον ἄν … εἰ μή τινες ἦσαν; and with what arbitrary artifice Ὅ ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ ἌΛΛΟ is thus set aside and, as it were, abandoned, and yet the reference of the Ὅ to the emphatic ἝΤΕΡΟΝ is assumed!

ΟἹ ΤΑΡΆΣΣΟΝΤΕς ὙΜᾶς] The participle with the article designates the ΤΙΝΈς as those whose characteristic was the ΤΑΡΆΣΣΕΙΝ of the Galatians, as persons who dealt in this, who were occupied with it. Comp. the very usual ΕἸΣῚΝ ΟἹ ΛΈΓΟΝΤΕς; also Luk_18:9; Col_2:8. See generally Winer, p. 104 [E. T. 136]; Krüger, § 50. 4. 3; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luk. p. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 238. On ταράσσειν, in the sense of perplexing the faith and principles, comp. here and Gal_5:10, especially Act_15:24; Sir_28:9.

ΚΑῚ ΘΈΛΟΝΤΕς ΜΕΤΑΣΤΡΈΨΑΙ] re ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe, Bengel; volunt … sed non valent, Jerome. On the other hand, the ταράσσειν of the Galatians actually took place.

The article before ταρ. refers to ΘΈΛΟΝΤΕς as well. See Seidler, ad Eur. El. 429; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 52; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19.

μεταστρέψαι, 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.

τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ Χ.] 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 ἐν χάριτι Χριστοῦ indicates the contents of the gospel.

[18] Fritzsche, ad Marc. vi. 5, takes εἰ μή ironically, and τινές 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 τινές, 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 1:7 . ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο . 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 ἄλλο 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 ὅ 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. εἰ μή … This clause qualifies the former “there is no other Gospel,” only a spurious semblance (on the use of εἰ μή see note on Gal 1:19 ). τινές . 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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He warneth them in time to remember that there are not many Gospels, and therefore whatsoever these false apostles pretend which had the Law, Moses and the Fathers in their mouths, yet they are in deed so many corruptions of the true Gospel, insomuch that he himself, yea, and the very Angels themselves, (and therefore much more these false apostles) ought to be holden accursed, if they go about to change the least iota that may be in the Gospel, that he delivered to them before.

For there is nothing more contrary to faith or free justification, than justification by the Law, or by our deserving.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

another--A distinct Greek word from that in Gal 1:6. Though I called it a gospel (Gal 1:6), it is not really so. There is really but one Gospel, and no other gospel.

but--Translate, "Only that there are some that trouble you," &c. (Gal 5:10, Gal 5:12). All I meant by the "different gospel" was nothing but a perversion by "some" of the one Gospel of Christ.

would pervert--Greek, "wish to pervert"; they could not really pervert the Gospel, though they could pervert Gospel professors (compare Gal 4:9, Gal 4:17, Gal 4:21; Gal 6:12-13; Col 2:18). Though acknowledging Christ, they insisted on circumcision and Jewish ordinances and professed to rest on the authority of other apostles, namely, Peter and James. But Paul recognizes no gospel, save the pure Gospel.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. Which is not another thing 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 stronger—reverse, or change to its very opposite. This they did by substituting a doctrine of righteousness by works—self-justification before God by performing the precepts of the Mosaic law—for 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 object—“of” 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 Apostle’s use of language. A somewhat vague and ambiguous term sometimes best expresses the fulness of his meaning. In English we might use the phrase “Christ’s 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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] ταρασσοντες. 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, μεταστρεψαι. Ea quae post tergum sunt, in faciem convertere, as Jerome hath it, to turn that before that should be behind; to speak distorted things, διεστραμμενα, 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, θεοδοχος, and of Arius, but in one syllable, ομοιουσιος.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 (μεταστρέψαι 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In aliud Evangelium, quod non est aliud; Greek: eis eteron euaggelion, o ouk estin allo. Volunt convertere, Greek: metastrepsai, invertere, evertere, pervertere. St. John Chrysostom, Lat. edit. p. 812. E. ubi sunt igitur, qui nos ut contentiosos damnant, eo quod cum hæreticis habemus dissidium, dictitantque nullum esse discrimen inter nos & illos.... Audiant Paulum (p. 813. A.) illos subvertisse Evangelium, qui paululum quiddam rerum novarum invexerant. And in the Greek edition of Savil, p. 717, linea 3, Greek: pou nun eisin, &c. ....akouetosan ti phesin o Paulos, &c.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Which is not another (o oujk estin allo). Already, in these very words, the apostle means to assert that essential unalterableness of the gospel, which, with solemn emphasis, he in the two following verses more fully affirms. Thus much seems plain. But, owing probably to the impassioned eagerness of tie moment, he here, as not unfrequently elsewhere from the like cause, expresses himself in language, the grammatical analysis of which is obscure and in some degree uncertain. For

(1) the relative "which" may be taken as reciting the term "gospel" only, that is, the gospel which is properly so called; in which case we may read the sentence thus: "But the gospel is not "never can be other other, i.e. than it is as already preached to you;

(2) the relative may recite the "other or, "new" sort of gospel" of ver. 6; and then we should have "But this other-fashioned gospel is not another gospel really," or, "is not the real gospel reappearing in another form." The former method presents undoubtedly, of the two, the harsher way of construing; but constructions as harsh do occasionally present themselves in the apostle"s style when writing under strong emotion. The exact analysis, however, is merely a matter of grammatical nicety; the substance of the thought is quite clear. But there be (eij mh... eijsin); only there are. This construction, of eij mh followed by a finite verb, is found also inpeuse, Mar_6:5, Eij mh... ejqera "Save that he healed them." The force of eij mh, "except," in this passage as well as in some others, may be described as partially exceptive; that is, it denotes an exception taken, not to the entire foregoing sentence, but to part of it only. Thus in Luk_4:27, "There were many lepers in Israel... and none of them was cleansed, save Naaman the syrian:" where the pronoun "them" recites the "lepers in Israel," but the "save" refers to "lepers" only; Rev_9:4, "That they should not hurt the grass, neither any green thing, neither any tree, save the men who," etc.: where the "save" points back only to the words, "that they should not hurt;" so again Rev_21:27, "Save they which are written in the Lamb"s book of life," points back only to the words, "there shall in no wise enter into it." In all such cases the rendering "only" or "but only" would exhibit just the amount of exception which appears intended. In the present instance the most probable explanation is this: the gospel can never be ether than it is; except that among (i.e. only among) those who proclaim it (i.e. profess to proclaim it) there are some who so misrepresent its import as to completely reverse its character. There be some that trouble you (tinev eijsin oiJ tarassontev uJmav); there are certain who are disquieting you. The form of expression is the same as in Col_2:8, "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you." The sentence as it stands differs from the supposable substitute, "certain persons are disquieting you," by directing attention me, re to the persons referred to than merely to their action viewed in itself; it marks them out as meriting strong censure, or (in Colossians, loc. cit. ) as persons to be carefully guarded against. Who these troublers were and where they came from is uncertain (see note on ver. 2). The verb tarassein frequently means "to alarm" or "disquiet," as Mat_2:3; Luk_1:12 Luk_24:38; Joh_14:1 1Pe_3:14. And this is probably the sense in which it is used here and in the similar passages, Gal_5:10; Act_15:24. It describes the action of those who came to believers reposing in a sense of acceptance with God through Christ; and filled their minds with uneasiness and apprehension, by telling them that they were not safe as they were, but must do something else if they wished to really possess the Divine favour. Others, however, connect the verb with the notion of civil disturbance, as inqesqe Act_17:8, and thus with raising seditions and shaking men"s allegiance, in conformity with the metaphor of metati in ver. 6. And would pervert the gospel of Christ (kailontev metastrwyai tolion tou Cristou); and would fain turn into its clean contrary the gospel of Christ. The verb metastrefein is an appropriate one to use with reference to such a misrepresentation of the gospel as the one now in the apostle"s view; for this converted it from a doctrine of emancipation into a doctrine of renewed bondage (comp. ch. 5:1-4). So the verb is used in the only other passages in which it is found in the New Testament, Act_2:20, "The sun shall be turned into darkness;" Jam_4:9, "Let your laughter be turned into mourning." So in RAPC Sir 11:31, "Turning good things into evil." Liddell and Scott ("Lexicon") cite metastreyav = contrariwise," Plato, "Gorg.," 456 E; "Rep" 587, D. In the phrase tolion tou Cristou, the addition of the genitive, "of Christ," with the twofold article, marks the words with a stately emphasis. It was no less than THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST that these men were tampering with. "The gospel of Christ" means here the gospel of which Christ is the Author, as in "the gospel of God". (Rom_1:1) and which he had sent forth his apostles to proclaim. The peculiar emphasis and the connection forbid our taking the genitive as denoting merely the subject-matter.

The true character of the perverters.

The apostle says that the "different gospel" to which they were verging was really not another (ajllo) not a second gospel. He abruptly corrects his phraseology so as to forbid the idea of the possibility of another gospel. There is only one gospel gospel of Christ." The gospel of the Judaists, though it formally accepted Christianity, revealed a different way of justification. If it is a gospel at all, it is only in this sense, that it is an attempt to pervert the gospel of Christ. The passage suggests

I THAT THE PERVERTERS WERE WELL-KNOWN PERSONS. "Certain persons." The allusion is not to their fewness or their insignificance. He speaks of them in this manner without conferring any celebrity upon them, or exciting personal animosity against them. They may well rest in oblivion.

II IT SUGGESTS TWO CHARACTERISTIC QUALITIES IN THEIR CAREER.

1. Their unsettling influence. "They trouble you." They disturbed the minds of quiet and honest Christians by unhinging doubts. They disturbed the peace of Churches by the cleavage of new doctrines. They created schisms and rivalries that led to the weakening of Christian love, and ultimately made way for Christians "biting and devouring one another". (Gal_5:15)

2. Their downright perversions of the gospel. "They would pervert the gospel of Christ. So far as the Galatians were concerned, it had not become a case of actual perversion. But there could be no doubt about the tendency of the Judaist teaching. It was a reversal of the gospel, not merely by mingling law and gospel, but by practically neutralizing all the merit of Christ which is the great characteristic fact of the gospel.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Which, indeed, is not properly another gospel. For what ye have now received is no gospel at all; it is not glad, but heavy, tidings, as setting your acceptance with God upon terms impossible to be performed. But there are some that trouble you - The same word occurs, Acts xv, 24. And would - If they were able. Subvert or overthrow the gospel of Christ - The better to effect which, they suggest, that the other apostles, yea, and I myself, insist upon the observance of the law.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

VERSE 7. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you.

Here again the apostle excuses the Galatians, while he blames the false apostles for disturbing their consciences and for stealing them out of his hand. How angry he gets at these deceivers! He calls them troublemakers, seducers of poor consciences.

This passage adduces further evidence that the false apostles defamed Paul as an imperfect apostle and a weak and erroneous preacher. They condemn Paul, Paul condemns them. Such warfare of condemnation is always going on in the church. The papists and the fanatics hate us, condemn our doctrine, and want to kill us. We in turn hate and condemn their cursed doctrine. In the meanwhile the people are uncertain whom to follow and which way to turn, for it is not given to everybody to judge these matters. But the truth will win out. So much is certain, we persecute no man, neither does our doctrine trouble men. On the contrary, we have the testimony of many good men who thank God on their knees for the consolation that our doctrine has brought them. Like Paul, we are not to blame that the churches have trouble. The fault lies with the Anabaptists and other fanatics.

Every teacher of work-righteousness is a trouble-maker. Has it never occurred to you that the pope, cardinals, bishops, monks, and that the whole synagogue of Satan are trouble-makers? The truth is, they are worse than false apostles. The files apostles taught that in addition to faith in Christ the works of the Law of God were necessary unto salvation. But the papists omit faith altogether and teach self-devised traditions and works that are not commanded of God, indeed are contrary to the Word of God, and for these traditions they demand preferred attention and obedience.

Paul calls the false apostles troublers of the church because they taught circumcision and the keeping of the Law as needful unto salvation. They insisted that the Law must be observed in every detail. They were supporters in this contention by the Jews, with the result that those who were not firmly established in faith were easily persuaded that Paul was not a sincere teacher of God because he ignored the Law. The Jews were offended at the idea that the Law of God should be entirely ignored by Paul and that the Gentiles, former idol-worshippers, should gratuitously attain to the station of God’s people without circumcision, without the penitentiary performance of the law, by grace alone through faith in Christ Jesus.

These criticisms were amplified by the false apostles. They accused Paul of designs to abolish the law of God and the Jewish dispensation, contrary to the law of God, contrary to their Jewish heritage, contrary to apostolic example, contrary to Paul’s own example. They demanded that Paul be shunned as a blasphemer and a rebel, while they were to be heard as true teachers of the Gospel and authentic disciples of the apostles. Thus Paul stood defamed among the Galatians. He was forced to attack the false apostles. He did so without hesitation.

VERSE 7. And would pervert the gospel of Christ.

To paraphrase this sentence: "These false apostles do not merely trouble you, they abolish Christ’s Gospel. They act as if they were the only true Gospel-preachers. For all that they muddle Law and Gospel. As a result they pervert the Gospel. Either Christ must live and the Law perish, or the Law remains and Christ must perish; Christ and the Law cannot dwell side by side in the conscience. It is either grace or law. To muddle the two is to eliminate the Gospel of Christ entirely."

It seems a small matter to mingle the Law and Gospel, faith and works, but it creates more mischief than man’s brain can conceive. To mix Law and Gospel not only clouds the knowledge of grace, it cuts out Christ altogether.

The words of Paul, "and would pervert the gospel of Christ," also indicate how arrogant these false apostles were. They were shameless boasters. Paul simply had to exalt his own ministry and Gospel.

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. Which is not another. Is not a gospel at all, but only a perversion of the only gospel of Christ, due to false teachers.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

7. ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο εἰ μὴ κ.τ.λ. εἰ μὴ = πλὴν ὅτι (Act 20:23; Rom 14:14). Two interpretations are now possible:

(1) Perhaps “unto another gospel (I mean that promulgated by the older Apostles) which is not a different gospel (from mine, for they really agree with me), except in so far as there are some that … would pervert” etc. But this seems to read too much into the sentence.

(2) More probably “unto a different gospel; which is nothing else save that there are some that … would pervert” etc. (so American Revisers’ marg., Ramsay, Winer-Schmiedel, § 26. 6 d). For ἄλλο εἰ μὴ cf. Herod, I. 200 οὐδὲν ἄλλο σιτέονται, εἰ μὴ ἰχθῦς μοῦνον. They are proclaiming another gospel which pretends to be more, but really they are only troubling you and wishing to overthrow the true.

τινές εἰσιν κ.τ.λ. St Paul here gives his opinion of their action, in (a) its primary effect, the disturbance of the proper attitude of the Galatian Christians, and (b) its purpose.

ταράσσοντες. Continuing the metaphor of μετατίθεσθε, i.e. raising seditions among you, cf. Gal 5:10. So even Sir 28:9 (Heb. not extant) ἀνὴρ ἁμαρτωλὸς ταράξει φίλους. In Act 15:24 the Church at Jerusalem employs the same term with reference to the same controversy.

μεταστρέψαι. Elsewhere in the N.T. Act 2:20; Jas 4:9 W.H. marg.[45], in each case of complete change into something of the opposite nature. So also here. Cf. Sir 11:31 τὰ γὰρ ἀγαθὰ εἰς κακὰ μεταστρέφων.

[45] Is affixed to a word it means that all the passages are mentioned where that word occurs in the New Testament.

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ χριστοῦ. In itself the genitive may be subjective, the gospel preached and sent by Christ (so doubtless ὁ λόγος τοῦ χριστοῦ, Col 3:16, see note there); or objective, the gospel of Christ’s coming and work, as probably in 1Th 3:2. But St Paul’s claim to preach the gospel that he had received from Christ Himself, Gal 1:12, and his insistence upon its all-importance, suggest the former interpretation here.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7.] Meyer’s note appears to me well to express the sense: “the preceding εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον 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—ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή &c.,” i.e. which “different Gospel,” whereto you are falling away, is not another, not a second, besides the one Gospel (ἄλλο, not ἕτερον again; see above), except that there are some who trouble yon &c. That is: ‘This ἕτερον εὐαγγ. is only in so far another, that there are certain, who &c.’ Notice that the stress is on οὐκ; so that Paul, though he had before said εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγ., yet guards the unity of the Gospel, and explains what he meant by ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον to be nothing but a corruption and perversion of the one Gospel of Christ. Others, as Chrys., Œc., Thdrt., Luther, De Wette, &c., take ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο as all referring to εὐαγγέλιον, “which is (admits of being) no other” (= μὴ ὄντος ἄλλου): and then εἰ μή 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 ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο is very harsh, taking the relative from its application to the concrete (ἕτερον εὐαγγ.), and enlarging it to the abstract (τὸ εὺαγγ. in general) (2) that the juxtaposition of ἕτερον and ἄλλο in one sentence seems to require, as in 1Co 15:40, 1Co 15:41, that the strict meaning of each should he observed. Others again (Winer, Olsh., &c.) refer the ὅ to the whole sentence from ὅτι &c. to εὐαγγέλιον—‘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, Schött., and Cornel.-a-Lapide, take ὃ οὐκ ἔστ. ἄλλο as a parenthesis, and refer εἰ μή to θαυμάζω, which should thus have been ἐθαύμαζον (ἄν). 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.

οἱ ταρ.] 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, τὴν σκηνὴν τ. Μαρδονίου οὗτοι ἔσαν οἱ διαρπάσαντες. Xen. An. ii. 4. 5, ὁ ἡγησόμενος οὐδεὶς ἔσται: and compare the common expression εἰσὶν οἱ λέγοντες.

τὸ εὐαγγ. τ. χρ.] 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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή “which is not another except in the sense that.” The relative ὅ should undoubtedly be taken as referring neither to εὐαγγέλιον alone, nor to the whole statement μετατίθεσθε … εὐαγγέλιον (reasons given below), but, as the manifest emphasis upon ἕτερον in the preceding clause and the use of the partly antithetical ἄλλο in this clause suggests, to ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον taken as a single term and designating the erroneous teaching of the judaisers. The clause is thus a qualification of the preceding statement, intended to exclude the possible implication that that which the Galatians were urged to accept was really a gospel which might legitimately be substituted for that which Paul preached. On εἰ μή meaning “except” and introducing not a protasis but an exception, see Th. εἰ, III 8 c; BMT 274, 471. On εἰ μή meaning “except that,” see Mar 6:5, Rom 14:14, and cf. Th. εἰ, III 8 b.

Οὐκ ἄλλο εἰ μή is taken in the sense “nothing else than” by Winer (Com. ad loc.), Grot., Rück.. as also by Grimm (Th. εί III 8 c ε), ARV. marg., and Ram. (first choice; see also below), ὅ being in this case referred not to ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, but to the fact related in μετατίθεσθε … εὐαγγέλιον. To this construction there are several objections: (1) It makes the antithesis between ἕτερον and ἄλλο only seeming and accidental, which is in view of Paul’s usage rather improbable. See below on N. T. usage of these words. (2) It necessitates the supposition that Paul left the application of the term εὐαγγέλιον to the teaching of the judaisers unretracted. (3) The reference of ὅ to the whole preceding sentence is awkward and improbable. Following immediately upon ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, and agreeing with it in gender and number, ὅ could scarcely be taken by the reader otherwise than as referring to this expression. If Paul had intended ὅ to refer to the entire preceding clause he would naturally have written ἅ (cf. 4:24) or τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν or τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν.* (4) It gives to οὐκ ἄλλο εἰ μή the sense “not other than” (denying qualitative distinction), which is unsustained by usage. See for classical writers Jelf, 773, 5 860. 7; Kühner-Gerth, 597 m. For this idea the Lxx use οὐκ ἄλλʼ ἤ (Gen 28:17), τί ( = οὐκ) ἅλλο ἤ (Mal 2:15), οὐκ εἰ μή (Neh 2:2); N. T. writers use οὐκ ἅλλος ἀλλʼ ἤ (2Co 1:13), οὐκ εἰ μή (1Co 10:13), τίς ( = οὐκ) εἰ μή (Rom 11:15, Eph 4:9), but neither Lxx nor N. T. use οὐκ ἄλλος εἰ μή.†

By a still older view (Chrys., Thdrt., Luth., Beza, Beng., Koppe, de W., and Hilg., cited by Sief. ad loc.) ὅ is referred to εὐαγγέλιον in the sense of the true gospel, the relative clause is taken as equivalent to οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἄλλο, and the εἰ μή clause is taken as adversative. This view is now generally recognised to be erroneous, and requires no extended discussion. Each element of it is in itself impossible: ὅ cannot refer to εὐαγγέλιον alone in the sense of the (true) gospel, since this would involve an abrupt dropping from the mind of the emphatic element in the antecedent clause, and the mental substitution of a word (τό) having practically the opposite force; ὁ οὐκ ἔστιν might possibly mean “for it is not,” but can not mean, as this interpretation requires, “there is not,” since the substantive element of ὅ in this case altogether disappears; nor can εἰ μή be merely adversative in force (see on 1:19).

Ram., as stated above, prefers the first of these views, but as his second choice translates “another gospel, which is not different (from mine), except in so far as certain persons pervert the gospel of Christ.” ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον he refers to the teaching of the Twelve, which Paul affirms to be not really different from his own; the perverters of this gospel, which is common to Paul and the Twelve, he supposes to be the judaisers. Aside from the question whether Paul could by this language convey so complex an idea, and whether Paul really regarded his gospel as quite so closely identical with that of the Twelve as this interpretation supposes, the crucial question is whether it does justice to the relative meanings of ἕτερος and ἄλλος, and to this question it seems necessary to return a negative answer, and consequently to reject Ram.’s interpretation of the passage. See detached note on Ἕτερος and Ἄλλος, p. 420.

The balance of evidence therefore seems to require taking ἕτερον as meaning “different,” ἅλλο in the sense “another” (additional) and translating ὅ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο εἰ μή as above, “which is not another except in the sense that.” The only alternative is not, with Ram., to reverse this distinction between ἕτερος and ἄλλος, but to suppose that the two terms are entirely synonymous, the change being simply for variety of expression. In the latter case both words might consistently with Greek usage in general mean either “another” (second) numerically distinct, or “different.” But the interpretation advocated above is more probable than either of these latter. In any case εἰ μή retains its exceptive force, meaning here “except (in the sense that).”

τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. “there are some who are troubling you and desire to pervert the gospel of the Christ.” This is the first mention of those who were preaching the other gospel among the Galatians. The present tense of the verb indicates that they are still in Galatia, and that this letter is intended to combat them while they are in the very midst of their work. The verb ταράσσω, prop. “to agitate physically” (Joh 5:7), much more frequently in N. T. means “to disturb mentally,” with excitement, perplexity, or fear (3Jn 1:14:1, Act 15:24). Concerning the participle, or other attributive, with the article after an indefinite word like τινές or a noun without the article, see W. XVIII 3; XX 4 (WM pp. 136, 174), BMT 424, Bl. § 412 (73:2), Rad. p. 93, Gild.Syn. p. 283, Rob. p. 277. W. implies that τινές is here subject and οἱ ταρ. pred.; but the attributive construction is more probable; cf. chaps. 2:20, 3:21. Observe in the use of θέλοντες another indication that the Galatians have not yet succumbed to the influence of the judaising missionaries. The troubling is a present fact. The perversion is as yet only a wish of the disturbers.

Μεταστρέφω (in N. T. Act 2:20, here, and Jas 4:9 only) means (1) “to turn,” “to transfer,” (2) “to change from one thing into another or from one state to another”; whether for better or for worse is not involved in the meaning of the word (Deu 23:5, Sir. 11:31 [33]); yet when the thing changed is right and good, to change it is naturally thought of as being to pervert it.

On the meaning of χριστός, see detached note on The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, III, pp. 395 ff. Note that we should here translate “the gospel of the Christ,” χριστός with the article being here, as usually, and always after τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, not a proper name but a descriptive title, with tacit identification of the person referred to; as one would say “the Governor” or “the President,” leaving the hearer to supply the personal identification.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Another [αλλο] . A different gospel is not another gospel. There is but one gospel.

But [ει μη] . 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 [οι ταρασσοντες] . 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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.