Joseph Smith’s “New Translation”of Romans 4:4-5

Post Author: Darrell

Romans 4:4-5 are two absolutely beautiful verses of scripture, for they put the gospel message into thirty-five short words. The King James Version reads as follows.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [emphasis mine]

What a glorious message!! We don’t work to get to God. In fact, we can’t! Instead, God justifies us when we don’t work, i.e., when we seek not to justify ourselves and simply trust in God for our salvation.

The founder of the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, revised portions of the Bible that he believed to be in error. His work was published by Herald Publishing House and is titled Joseph Smith’s “New Translation” of the Bible. In addition, Smith’s alterations are included in the LDS Publication of the King James Version of the Bible.

Romans 4:4-5 contains, in my opinion, one of Smith’s more startling changes. It reads as follows.

Now to him who is justified by the law of works, is the reward reckoned, not of grace, but of debt. But to him who seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [emphasis mine]

Besides the fact that Smith destroyed a beautiful piece of scripture, there are numerous problems with his “translation”. First, there is absolutely no support in the Greek for the addition of the word not after justifieth. In Greek the word for not is mē. only appears once in the original Greek version of verse 5, being applied to ergazomenō, the word that has been translated as works.

As a result, there are no grounds in the Greek for Smith applying not to justifieth. Of course, no student of Mormonism will find this surprising as Smith demonstrated little regard for his source text in most all of his translations. When the papyrus that he “translated” The Book of Abraham from was later analyzed by experts, it was discovered to be nothing more than an Egyptian Funeral Text, having absolutely nothing to do with Abraham. So much for Smith’s attention to detail!

A second problem with Smith’s addition of not is that it is counter intuitive to Paul’s entire message in Romans. In the first three chapters, Paul builds the case for how all of mankind is ungodly.

Romans 2:1 says, “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.” [emphasis added]

Romans 3:10 says, “There is no one righteous, not even one… .” [emphasis added]

Romans 3:12 says, “…there is no one who does good, not even one.” [emphasis added]

As these verses demonstrate, Paul believed and preached that all mankind is unrighteous and in need of a Savior. Therefore, the idea of him stating that God does not justify the ungodly makes no sense, for he held the view that everyone is ungodly! Unfortunately for Mormons who believe Smith to be a prophet of God, it appears that Smith’s “prophetic” ability failed him in his task of “correcting” the Bible. In reality, he completely overlooked these verses when he so willingly added the word not.

Fortunately, those who trust in Christ for their salvation need not worry about Smith’s butchery of the Bible. We are knowledgable of the fact that God does, in fact, justify the ungodly. We realize how ungodly we truly are, and we realize that our salvation is not dependent upon anything that we do. Instead, it is dependent upon Him, and He has already paid the price.

All praise be to our Lord, God, and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Darrell

If Jesus Is God, Why Did He Get Tired?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

If Jesus is God, and God is uncaused, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal (and lots of other things), then don’t we have a problem with Jesus being a real man who lived in 1st century Palestine?  After all, Jesus grew tired, but God doesn’t get tired; Jesus sometimes didn’t know things, but God knows everything; Jesus died, but God can’t die; Jesus has a human body, but God doesn’t have a body.  I think you get the point.  How does the Christian church deal with this problem?

Well, before we get to the Christian church, one approach that has been taken by some religious groups over the last two millennia is just to give up on the idea that Jesus is God.  If he is less than God, then all these questions go away.  Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are two groups that took this approach, but they are just the latest in a long line.  The problem with this approach is that it contradicts the Bible’s clear teaching that Jesus is God (see the series of posts on how we know Jesus is God).  So this approach fails to take seriously the biblical data.

The approach that the Christian church has taken is to accept the fact that the Bible teaches that Jesus is both God and man.  In the early church, there was a couple centuries of debate about how this works, until the Council of Chalcedon came together in AD 451 to settle the issue.  Here is the creed that resulted from the Council:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

What does all that mean?  It means, among other things, that Jesus is one person composed of two natures: human and divine.  The creed repeats the words Godhead and Manhood several times to hammer the point home.  So, whenever we ask any question about Jesus, we have to specify whether we are asking about his divine nature or his human nature.  In his divine nature, he is omniscient, eternal, and uncaused.  In his human nature, he was tired, he needed food, he didn’t know everything, and he even died.  Two natures, two sets of questions about Jesus.

The church never went so far as to try and explain how exactly Jesus’ two natures interacted; they set boundaries around what was acceptable, based on Scripture, and captured it in the above creed.  Many theologians have attempted to go further with this doctrine and explain in more detail how this is possible, but these details, to my knowledge, have never been formally adopted into creeds of the church.