This article is part of a series on the changing meaning of English words and its impact on the King James Only debate. To see the introduction to this series, click HERE.

Over the course of time, the meaning and usage of words change. This is true of every language, and certainly true in English over the last four hundred years. Many words that used to mean one thing now mean something completely different to present-day English speakers. These changes can impact how we read older English writings without our even realizing that we are misunderstanding what the author meant. Many passages in the King James Version are affected by this principle. Though they were quite clear to readers of their own day, the words no longer carry the sense they did in 1611, and modern readers can walk away with a mistaken understanding of what the text means. As an example of this principle, consider the word “equal.”

Give unto your servants that which is just and equal

The term “equal” gets a lot of play in today’s political discussions. We are all familiar with conversations about “equal wages,” or the idea that people should receive the same pay. There are discussions of “wealth inequality” which means that some people have much more wealth than others. The hope of those who raise such issues is to make things more “equal,” i.e., to make them the same for everyone. Regardless of how one feels about these discussions, the point is that “equal” today means that everyone has or gets the same thing. In this cultural context, we come to Paul’s words to the Corinthians:

“Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven,” (Colossians 4:1).

The command to give your servants what is “equal” today sounds like Paul is saying that you should give all your servants the same thing. That, however, is not what is in view. That isn’t what “equal” meant to the KJV translators in 1611. The point is to give each servant what is appropriate for the work he has done. You are to pay what is right and fair. You are not to short-change him or be stingy in his wages, giving him less than he deserves. Note how modern translations render this:

“…grant to your slaves justice and fairness…” (NASB, see also ESV, CSB, MEV).

“…provide your slaves with what is right and fair…” (NIV, see also NKJV).

Paul was not writing against paying one servant more than another. The point was not that everything always had to be “equal” in the way we mean by that word today. Rather, Paul was urging masters to always pay each servant the full wage that they deserve for the work they have done. The issue was justice and fairness, not a modern sense of strict “equality.” The word “equal” carried the sense of what is good, appropriate, or fair.

The legs of the lame are not equal

We see this in a variety of other contexts. For example, note what one proverb says:

“The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools,” (Proverbs 26:7, KJV).

Today, this sounds like the author is saying that the lame have one leg that is shorter than the other, or perhaps one leg that is weaker than the other. They can’t walk, it would seem, because their legs are uneven. That seems to make sense. Unequal legs would be one possible cause for someone being lame. Yet, the author here is not talking about just those particular cases, but rather the crippled or lame in general. He is not using “equal” the way we would today. He is not claiming that the lame man’s legs are uneven. He is instead claiming that they are not right, not appropriate or proper for legs. They don’t do what legs are supposed to do. Note, again, how modern translators render the phrase:

“Like a lame man’s legs, which hang useless, is a proverb in the mouth of fools,” (ESV, see also NASB, NIV).

“Like the legs of the lame that hang limp is a proverb in the mouth of fools,” (NKJV, see also CSB).

The legs of the lame are useless. Legs that don’t make a man walk are inappropriate. They don’t do what legs are supposed to do. So, too, are proverbs spoken by fools. A few pre-KJV English translations also phrased it in a manner that helps illuminate the issue:

“Like as it is an unseemly thing to have legs & yet to halt even so is a parable in the fool’s mouth,” (Coverdale, see also Matthew Bible).

This rendering has its own difficulty, but once we realize that “halt” once meant to limp or stumble, we can see that author’s point. It is unseemly for a man to have legs and yet be unable to walk properly. His legs are not doing what is appropriate for legs. It is unfair, improper, and out of place. So, too, for a man to have wise proverbs on his lips but still be a fool. The issue, again, is not “equality” as we mean that word today. “Equal” had a very different sense here that was understood in 1611 but is not so clear today.

Let thine eyes behold the things that are what?

To take just one more example, note the Psalmists words here:

“Let my sentence come forth from thy presence; let thine eyes behold the things that are equal,” (Psalm 17:2, KJV).

The Psalmist is not calling for God’s eyes to behold the things that are merely the same as one another. Equivalence is not in view. That is not what is meant here by “equal.” Instead, the term was saying then what modern translators are saying now:

“…Let Your eyes look on the things that are upright,” (NKJV).

“…may your eyes see what is right,” (NIV, see also ESV, CSB, MEV).

What is “equal” here is what is appropriate, what is right, just, or proper. Interestingly, some translations (both before and after the KJV) inhabit a kind of mid-point that allows us to see how the old meaning transitioned. Note, for example:

“…let thine eyes behold equity,” (Geneva Bible, see also Wycliffe Bible, Bishops Bible).

“…Let Your eyes look with equity,” (NASB).

The term “equity” obviously derives from the same root as “equal,” but implies the idea of “justice” rather than that of evenness or sameness. So, we can trace through the existing translations the transition from the old use of “equal” through the idea of “equity” to the modern wording of “upright” or “right.” These were all saying the same things in their own times, though today “upright” is much clearer and “equal” could now be misleading. This is the way languages change over time, and it is healthy for translations of important documents to keep up with those changes.