Which and Who in the KJV and Their Theological Impact

The King James Version gives “which” and “who” unusual prominence. Translators of later English Bibles often replaced one with the other, so readers can mistake a modern stylistic preference for an older rule. Yet the KJV’s wording comes from a particular stage of English, not from a committee that set out to define persons by pronouns.

Modern English usually reserves who for people and which for things. Early Modern English was less exact, especially in restrictive clauses: which could refer to a person as well as an object or idea. Questions about its use therefore begin with English history, followed by the Hebrew and Greek antecedents and the syntax of each passage.

A relative pronoun can affect how a reader understands a sentence, but it does not settle doctrine by itself. To judge the theological weight of which or who, we need to ask what each one refers to, how the sentence is constructed, and whether the proposed rule existed in the translation’s own linguistic world.

Relative pronouns in early modern English

In the KJV, which operates in two principal ways. It introduces an interrogative clause, as with “Which of you…?”, asking a reader or hearer to select among known options. It also introduces a relative clause by attaching information to an antecedent. Who can do similar work, while whom marks an object and whose expresses possession.

Relative clauses can be restrictive, identifying one person or thing, or non-restrictive, adding information about an already identified referent. The KJV also uses that as a relative pronoun and employs “the which” in constructions equivalent to “that which” or “the thing which”. These forms describe reference and syntax, not whether the referent has personal dignity.

The supposed hard distinction under examination

The claim that which belongs only to inanimate things and who only to people is too simple for the KJV’s own language. Mark 15:43 calls Joseph of Arimathea “which was also called Nicodemus, which was also a disciple of Jesus”. Both which clauses plainly refer to the same living man. A translator choosing which there did not turn Joseph into an object.

Romans 9:5 places “who is Christ” beside “which is God over all”, using two relatives for the same subject. Early Modern English allowed which for people, particularly where a clause restricted or described an antecedent. The sharper who/which division developed as a stylistic preference and became common in later English; it was not a universal semantic law in 1604.

Questions, clauses, and antecedent clues

The difference between an interrogative which and who is clearer. “Which of you?” requests identification from a limited group, whereas “Who is this?” asks who someone is. Matthew 8:27 has the disciples ask, “Who is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” The question identifies a person, and its force depends on the astonishing acts reported around it.

In relative clauses, the antecedent and punctuation carry more weight than a modern pronoun checklist. A comma often marks an explanatory clause rather than an essential identifying one, but punctuation in the 1611 text was not always standardised or retained in later editions. “The which” can also function as a fused relative expression. A disputed antecedent should therefore be tested against the sentence’s structure, nearby verses and the passage’s repeated names, not one comma.

Hebrew, Greek, and translation choices

Hebrew’s common relative marker, asher, does not divide persons from things. Greek has masculine, feminine and neuter relative forms, but translators still had to choose fluent English rather than reproduce a mechanical system. A relative referring to a masculine Greek noun could become who, which or that according to context and inherited English usage. The KJV’s multiple revisions also drew on scholarly consultation and earlier English versions.

John 1:18 illustrates the point. The Greek has a masculine relative clause, but the KJV renders it “the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father”. Modern editions often use who for smoother present-day English. That alteration is not proof that the older pronoun has a different referent. Source-language study is essential, but it must be joined to historical English rather than used as a substitute for it.

Doctrine affected by grammar or context

Pronoun choice can influence theology when it changes the perceived subject of a claim. John 1:18 is weighty: “which” refers to the Son, yet the same prologue calls the Word God, places the Word with God and says the Word made all things. Calling that pronoun a denial of personal agency misunderstands both the verse and the passage’s argument.

Some King James Only arguments treat a relative pronoun as proof that an antecedent has been replaced or diminished. The KJV itself prevents a universal rule from being imposed: which can refer to Christ, as in John 1:18, and who can refer to God, as in 2 Corinthians 5:18. Theologically sound interpretation weighs the immediate clause, parallel passages, the writer’s stated subject and the work of Christ in the wider text. Pronouns guide reading, but textual and literary context carry the doctrinal claim.

Reading the KJV in contemporary Australia

Many Australian Christians meet the KJV in church reading, family worship or Bible study, often on phones and tablets as well as in print. A commuter on a Melbourne tram or a crowded Sydney bus may scan the passage, then hear someone else paraphrase it aloud. The mixture of public transport, coffee breaks and shared household screens can make an archaic word seem either obscure or newly authoritative.

Plain language is a local norm. Woolworths and Coles shoppers encounter labels that distinguish products, ingredients and suppliers, while Commonwealth parliamentary drafters, guided by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, usually apply modern conventions for who and which more consistently than the KJV does. These habits do not make an old translation obsolete. They do show why English-speaking readers should distinguish historical evidence from a personal sense of what “proper” English ought to be.

The Australian Consumer Law adds a useful civic parallel. Section 18 of Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 prohibits misleading conduct in transactions. That does not adjudicate biblical meaning, but it sharpens the standard for publishing historical claims: a confident assertion that the KJV uniquely preserves something should come with evidence, not merely the force of a pronoun. Historical criticism also benefits from the same transparency.

A disciplined way to assess disputed pronouns

A compact method can prevent either loose conjecture or reflexive dismissal of the KJV:

• Identify the antecedent by reading the complete sentence and its nearest and remote context.
• Classify which or who as interrogative, relative, fused or predicative before interpreting it.
• Check the Hebrew or Greek syntax, including gender, agreement and the likely referent.
• Compare several passages using the pronoun rather than isolated proof texts.
• Distinguish the 1611 text from punctuation introduced by later English editors.
• Test any doctrinal inference against the passage’s full argument and parallel teaching.

These steps preserve uncertainty where it exists and expose errors where certainty is unsupported. They also keep historical English in its proper place: evidence for what the KJV means, not an oracle about what the original must have meant.

Read the disputed passage, its surrounding argument and its source-language evidence, then hold each pronoun claim to that combined record.