Which

After centuries of debate, the use and rules of usage of the relative pronouns that and which has not yet been firmly settled.  However, general principles can be applied and a basic understanding can help the reader grasp the text of the Authorized English Bible (KJV).

Essentially, when a clause begins with,

That — the clause beginning with that is providing defining information (restrictive) about the previous clause (typically an event).   This clause (introduced by that) is necessary for the sentence to make sense and is, therefore, considered ‘restrictive.”

Which – the clause beginning with which is introducing a nonrestrictive (non-defining) clause.  This type of clause gives additional information (but not necessary) about the previous clause.  You could, technically, remove a nonrestrictive clause and the sentence would still function (albeit with less definition).

Who — the clause beginning with who is linking someone (typically a proper noun) from the previous clause, giving addition and necessary information about that person.

Let’s put on our grammar thinking cap and give it a try:

“After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name” – Matthew 6:10.

Here, the which introduces a nonrestrictive clause – art in heaven.  This is information about our Father, but it is not necessary for the sentence to function.  It could be re-written: Our Father, Hallowed be thy name….  So, per our definition, which introduces extra but not necessary information.

Note: some modern versions replace which for who.   This generates two errors:

1.) Changes the introduced clause from a nonrestrictive (not essential) to a restrictive clause; but it is not!

2.) Who narrows the focus entirely on the previous proper noun, a person.  Which looks broadly back at what was previously stated, which can include the person and also the event, and the action.

Philippians 4:13

“I can do all things through Christ which strentheneth me”

“…which strengtheneth me” is a nonrestrictive clause  (because it is introduced by which).  It is additional information (not essential for a complete sentence).  You could, technically write the sentence and leave the non-defining clause out and it would still be sensible: I can do all things through Christ.

Again, by changing which to who (or ‘the One’) as some versions do, they consequently misrepresent the meaning of the text (they are wrong).  Who strengthens me narrows the focus to a person (Christ).  Whereas which expands our view and looks at the entire clause (I can do all things through Christ).  This is the correct perspective, for ‘doing’ is the context:

“Those things …and seen in me, do…” - 4:9; ‘I know how to ….” - 4:12; “I can do….” - 4:13; “…ye have well done…” - 4:14.

In 4:13, Paul adds a non-defining clause to add information.  All that he has been through, all that has been done to him, and all that he has done, has not weakened him; it has actually  strengthened him!  (Of course, all is possible for he is in Christ!)

It is an error to change this which to who, or ‘the One.’  (Besides, Who’s on first…What’s on second….)

And another:

“…I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written…” - Exodus 24:12

Another example of a nonrestrictive clause - “…which I have written” - remove those words from the sentence and the sentence is still clear , it remains valid: …I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments, that thou mayest teach them.   

And another (and I’m out on thin ice with this one)

Notice the single genealogy sentence regarding Jesus (supposed son of Joseph) in

Luke 3:23 - 38.  Every clause is non-defining (each starts with which, not who).  No other genealogy is written this way (with which).  Curious.  So, by removing the which clauses, the sentence would read,  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.   All those verses (24-38) were just extra info!  Wow!

The supposed genealogy of Jesus via Joseph (his father wasn’t actually Joseph) could be, and should be, listed as nonrestrictive (not necessary).  Why? Because it was only supposed; not actual, not necessary, and technically not the truth.  Therefore, by using which instead of who or that, the deity of Christ is hinted - Joseph wasn’t his father and this isn’t his genealogy.  This is all just additional and supposed information, not facts necessary to complete the sentence.   Interesting!