- Galatians 5:12
-
- (KJV)
I would they were even cut off which trouble you. - (1611 KJV)
I would they were euen cut off which trouble you. - (1526 Tyndale)
I wolde to God they were seperated from you
which trouble you. - (1382 Wycliffe)
Y wolde that thei weren cut awei, that
disturblen you. -
- Counterfeit Versions
-
(CSB) I wish those who are disturbing you might also let themselves be
mutilated!
- (NIV) As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and
emasculate themselves!
- (NASV) I wish that those who are troubling you would even mutilate
themselves.
- (THE MESSAGE) Why don't these agitators, obsessive as they are about
circumcision, go all the way and castrate themselves!
- (NLT) I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by
circumcision would mutilate themselves.
- (ESV) I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
- (CEV) I wish that everyone who is upsetting you would not only get
circumcised, but would cut off much more!
- (1901 ASV) I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond
circumcision.
- (NLV) I wish those who are so willing to cut your bodies would complete
the job by cutting themselves off from you.
- (HCSB) I wish those who are disturbing you might also get themselves
castrated!
- (NCV) I wish the people who are bothering you would castrate
themselves!
- (RSV) I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!
- (NAB-Roman Catholic) Would that those who are upsetting you might also
castrate themselves
- (NWT- Jehovah’s Witnesses) I wish the men who are trying to overturn YOU
would even get themselves emasculated.
-
- Textus Receptus - Traditional Text
- ojelon kai apokoyontai oi anastatounteV umaV
- Hort-Westcott - Critical Text
- ojelon kai apokoyontai oi anastatounteV umaV
-
- Corrupted Manuscripts
- None
-
- Affected Teaching
- This verse has to be one of the most sloppiest yet typical translations
in the modern versions. If you will notice the modern versions are
advocating castration and mutilation. The CEV advocates the cutting off of
the male organ. God strictly forbids mutilation of the human body in any
form.
-
- (Deu 14:1 KJV) Ye are the children
of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness
between your eyes for the dead.
-
- (Lev 19:28 KJV) Ye shall not make any
cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am
the LORD.
-
- (1 Ki 18:27-28 KJV) And it came to pass at
noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god;
either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. {28} And they cried
aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till
the blood gushed out upon them.
-
- Since the Gnostics believed in castration and mutilation of the body, it
is not surprising that this teaching has been maintained by the modern
translators and their bootleg versions. We can read in 1 Kings 18 when
Elijah challenged the false prophets on Mt. Carmel, that one of the
responses the false prophets did to call upon their god was to cut
themselves till the blood gushed out. The word “gushed” carries with it the
meaning of “pouring out like a libation.” Nowhere in the pages of Scripture
(real Scripture that is) do we find God advocating the mutilation of the
human body. We were made in the image of God and are not to mar that image
by any type of pagan slashing of the body.
-
- Let us look at the Greek word behind “even cut off” to see if the modern
translators are misunderstanding the meaning. It is the word “
apokopto”
(apokopto) which carries with it the meaning of “cut off or cut loose.” Now
Classical Greek in the fourth to the fifth century BC added another meaning
to this word and that is “to castrate or make a eunuch of.” In the Koine
Greek, the style in which our New Testament is written, the word maintained
the definition of “castrate” from Classical Greek. Now the question remains,
would God the Holy Spirit, violate the Scriptures He penned in the Old
Testament by advocating bloodletting from the body? Also would Paul, a
trained Jew in the Hebrew Scriptures, would he write something which would
violate the Scriptures? The answer, of course, to both these questions is
no. - How then are we to understand the usage of this word? The word is used
in Mark 9:43 & 45.
-
- (Mark 9:43 KJV) And if thy hand offend
thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life
maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never
shall be quenched:
-
- (Mark 9:45 KJV) And if thy foot offend
thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into
life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never
shall be quenched:
-
- As we see in both instances the Lord is using the word metaphorically.
He is not advocating the mutilation of the body to prevent further sinning.
He is advocating the cessation of sin in a person’s life and that comes
through salvation. When a person becomes saved, the sin that can send them
to Hell has been abolished through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ.
-
- Now let us look at another usage of the word which actually speaks of a
physical cutting off of something.
-
- (John 18:10 KJV) Then Simon Peter having a
sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off
his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
-
- Here we have the account of Peter drawing his sword and cutting off the
ear of Malchus. So we see that the word can be used of both symbolic cutting
and actual cutting. The question now comes down to which way do we interpret
according to the context of the passage. Here is where common sense
translation work takes over. If a word holds several different meanings,
then how do we know which one to apply?
-
- First of all in light of the Old Testament passages, we see that the
physical mutilation of the body is sin and therefore cannot be advocated by
the true Scriptures.
-
- Next, we look at the context of Galatians 5:12 and we read:
-
- (Gal 5:11-12 KJV) And I, brethren, if I yet
preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of
the cross ceased. {12} I would they were even cut off which trouble
you.
-
- In verse 11, Paul states that he is being persecuted for preaching the
offence of the cross. If he was still preaching that circumcision was
necessary for salvation, then he would no longer suffer persecution. He then
goes on to say in verse 12 that he wishes they were cut off who were
bringing the doctrine of grace plus circumcision. He is not advocating for
them to emasculate themselves but that they be cut off or separated (Tyndale
had it right) from the Galatian Christians so their heresy would not affect
the Christians.
-
- The King James Bible has it correct by using the word symbolically that
these people who were bringing the amalgamated gospel would be cut off from
the people. Keep in mind that the term “cut off” is used many times in the
Old Testament for people who disobeyed God.
-
- (Exo 12:15 KJV) Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first
day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth
leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be
cut off from Israel.
-
- (Lev 7:27 KJV) Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of
blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
-
- So when we compare Scripture with Scripture we can safely conclude that
Paul was speaking of the separation of the Judaizers from the Galatian
Christians to prevent an incursion of false teachings. Once again we see how
the King James Bible has it correct by not advocating the mutilating of the
human body.
Back
-