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 The King James Version and the changing use of words.
Words in any language change over time. Not only do some words drop out of use and new words come into being but, perhaps more importantly, words change in their meaning and usage. Words that once meant one thing now often mean something completely different to present-day English speakers. These changes can impact how we read, understand, and apply older English writings without our even realizing that we are misunderstanding what the author meant. There are many examples of this in the KJV. In many places, the translation was written in the plain language of its day but, due to changes in the use of certain words, can now be easily misread. For an example of this, let’s consider the word “let.”
But was let hitherto
In the opening to his letter to the Romans, Paul writes:
“Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles,” (Romans 1:13, KJV).
There are several details in this verse that are a tad challenging. The word order is unusual by modern conventions and several words are archaic or are clearly used in archaic ways. Yet, perhaps the most challenging detail is the one the modern reader may not even catch, and that is the way in which “let” is used in this sentence. If I assured you that I wanted to come visit you, and I told you that hitherto someone had let me, it would mean that up to this point they had allowed me to come. Since I wanted to come, and since someone let me come, I should be there by now, right? What possible reason do I have not to have come? Ironically, though, Paul actually means the exact opposite. “Let,” in this context, meant to hinder, impede, or prevent. The Greek word translated “let” here is κωλύω. The KJV itself most often translates this word as “forbid,” though also sometimes as “hinder,” “withstand,” “keep from,” and other such terms. Here, they used “let,” not by mistake, but rather because let could, back then, be used as a synonym for these terms. Again, it too meant “to hinder.” Today, however, this usage is completely lost. We don’t use “let” that way. Indeed, we only use “let” to mean the exact opposite of that. This is why modern translations use terms more familiar to us, like:
“…and have been prevented so far…” (NASB).
“…but thus far have been prevented…” (ESV).
“…but have been prevented from doing so until now…” (NIV).
“…but was hindered until now…” (NKJV).
“…but was prevented until now…” (CSB).
Languages change and, as we can see in this example, those changes can sometimes not only subtly alter but actually reverse the meaning of a phrase over time. This is no fault to the original translators. Sure, if they had been more consistent and used the word “forbid” (as they had elsewhere) rather than “let,” then the problem would have been averted. But they had no way of knowing how people would talk 400 years in the future. It was just as possible that the word “forbid” would take on some new and unexpected meaning. A hundred years from now it still might! Translators are not supposed to be predictive prophets foretelling what words will mean in the distant future. Their job is to be clear, accurate, and understandable to the people of their own time. This is a major reason why new translations are needed every so often.
