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.
Words change in meaning and usage over time. Words that meant one thing even a few generations ago may now 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, for example, many passages in the KJV that were quite clear in their own day but, now that the words they use have acquired new meanings and lost their former sense, can and often do leave modern readers with a mistaken idea of what the passage is actually saying. For some examples of this, consider the simple term “want.”
I shall not want
Today, “want” means to “wish for” or “desire.” In centuries past, however, to “want” meant to “lack.” Today, if I say “I want bread,” I am telling you that bread is the food I wish to eat. In 1611, “I want bread” would more likely mean “I don’t have any bread.” Today, “I want bread” might be stated as a request or a demand. In 1611, it would perhaps have been a way of saying “I am hungry” or “I am so poor I cannot even afford food.” This is fairly clear in places like Psalm 23:1, “the LORD is my Shepherd, I shall not want.” It does not mean “I shall be purged of all desires.” Rather, it means “I lack nothing,” (NIV) or “I have what I need,” (CSB). Indeed, the sense is so clear in this context that even many prominent modern translations have maintained the familiar poetic form of the KJV here, “I shall not want,” (see, for example, the NASB, ESV, and NKJV).
Yet, in other places, the use of the archaic sense of “want” has led to misinterpretations of the text. For example, Deuteronomy 15:8 reads:
“But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth,” (KJV).
Having worked for years in homeless shelters and food pantries, I have heard this text abused to say that one must supply not only what someone needs, but beyond that, whatever they want (i.e., whatever they desire). This is not, however, what the KJV translators meant. Again, “want” meant “lack.” The KJV is actually saying exactly what modern translations are saying:
“…lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks,” (NASB).
“…lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs,” (NKJV).
“…lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be,” (ESV).
Thus, the KJV and modern translators actually agree on what the passage is saying. Because language changes over time and “want” no longer means “lack” to us anymore, however, the wording of the KJV, which was perfect in its own time, has now become somewhat misleading.
Wanting wine
In an almost humorous example, a favorite among certain prosperity preachers is John 2:3, where at the wedding in Cana it is said:
“And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine,” (KJV)
Jesus then goes on to turn the water into wine, and the prosperity preachers cheer. “You see! When they wanted wine and Jesus gave them wine. Jesus will give you anything your heart desires!” But this is, of course, not at all what the text is actually saying. “Want” doesn’t mean “wish for” or “desire” here. It means “lack.” They were trying to have a wedding feast but they ran out of wine. They lacked wine. They didn’t have any. This is why modern translations read:
“When the wine ran out,” (NASB, see also ESV, CSB).
“When the wine was gone,” (NIV).
“When they ran out of wine,” (NKJV).
This can also be seen by looking even at other older English translations. Every major English translation before the KJV rendered it “When the wine failed.” This, too, is an outdated use of the word “failed,” but together with our other translations, we can see that the common meaning among all of them is the idea of lacking or running out of wine, not desiring or wishing for wine. The KJV translators were not wrong here. The term “wanted” was a perfectly good way to express the point in their day. Four hundred years later, however, the use of “wanted” is no longer as clear as it once was.
Wanting nothing
To take up just one more example, Buddhists believe that all desire of any kind is destructive and the source of suffering. Some western promoters of Buddhism latch onto the old rendering of James 1:4 to claim that the Bible teaches their view:
“But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing,” (James 1:4, KJV).
They claim that the perfect and complete state is a state of no desires, to “want nothing.” Again, however, this is not what the verse means. It does not mean that you will desire nothing but rather that you will lack nothing. And once again, not only do all modern translations render this passage “lacking nothing,” this is also the rendering found in every older English translation from William Tyndale right up through the Bishops Bible. The KJV changed it to “wanting nothing,” which was a fine translation at the time because “want” meant “lack,” but it has proven to be the less timeless alternative.
