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 are not permanent things. Some once-popular terms are now long forgotten while new words unknown to our forbearers are regularly added to our vocabulary. But perhaps more importantly, words change in their meaning even while remaining in use. Words that meant one thing just a few generations ago may now mean something completely different to present-day English speakers. Such changes can impact how we understand and apply older English writings without our even realizing it, leaving us with a completely wrong impression of what the original writer or translator actually meant. The words in the KJV are no exception. There are many places where the translators used words that meant one thing then but have come to mean something very different now, and this can lead to confusion. For an example of this, let’s consider the word “quit.”

Quit like men

Today, “quit” means to cease or stop. When applied to one’s employment, it means to resign. Thus, when you “quit your job,” you cease working there. It can, in some contexts, carry a negative connotation of giving up prematurely, such as when we tell someone not to be a “quitter.” All of these uses, however, revolve around the same concept: to stop, cease, or desist.  Based on this definition, the Apostle Paul seems to give us some unusual advice:

“Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong,” (1 Corinthians 16:13).

If I am to “stand fast in the faith,” why would I quit? And what does it mean to quit “like men”? Were men in the ancient world especially known for quitting? We probably all get the gist of the verse, but that particular phrase is not especially clear. As is often the case, the explanation lies in the fact that the word “quit” had other meanings in the past that it no longer holds today. In this case, the word “quit,” when applied to oneself, meant that one ought to behave in a certain way. To “quit yourself” like men simply meant to “conduct yourself” like men. In the original Greek, Paul uses a word that has no direct, one-word translation in English. The word is ἀνδρίζομαι (andrizomai) and is simply a verb form of the Greek word for “man.” In English, there is no form of the word “man” that can be used as a verb, so English translators have always done the best they could with the words we have. In the 14th-century Wycliffe Bible, for example, the word is rendered “do ye manly,” which is probably as close to literal as you can get, though not particularly easy to understand. The KJV and other post-reformation translations used “quit (conduct, behave) you like men.” Modern translators generally say, “act like men,” which is a perfect modern equivalent of what they KJV  was saying in its own day.

Then shall he be what?

There are also passages in the KJV that use the word “quit” in yet another way. For example, in Exodus we read:

“And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed,” (Exodus 21:18-19, KJV).

So two guys are fighting. One guy hits the other guy with a stone. Obviously, if the wounded guy dies, the one who hit him with the rock will be guilty of murder. If the wounded man lives, however, the man who hit him with the stone should “be quit.” What does that mean, exactly? That he should be stopped? No, the incident is already over. There is nothing left to stop. What, then, is being said? In the English of 1611, when someone was “quit” regarding a crime, it means that the court does not convict him or find him guilty. It is the early root of today’s word for the same thing: acquit. He would not be held guilty of murder (though he would still have to pay the victims medical bills and cover the lost wages for the time he can’t work). The man would be acquitted. Similarly, later in the same chapter, we read:

“If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit,” (Exodus 21:28, KJV).

Here again, we see the same thing. “Quit” means that the court will not find the person guilty. This is why modern translations read things like:

“…the owner of the ox shall go unpunished,” (Exodus 21:28, NASB).

“…the owner of the ox shall not be liable,” (Exodus 21:28, ESV).

“…the owner of the bull will not be held responsible,” (Exodus 21:28, NIV).

“…the owner of the ox shall be acquitted,” (Exodus 21:28, NKJV, see also MEV, NET).

“…the ox’s owner is innocent,” (Exodus 21:28, CSB).

All of these translations are saying the same thing that the KJV says, but they say it in words that modern readers more readily understand and minimize the chances of confusion over the meaning.