JST Rom 4:5 reads:
But to him that 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.
There are two differences between the JST rendition of this verse and the KJV. Firstly, the KJV have "worketh" which the JST substitutes as "law of works," a reference to the Law of Moses (cf. Rom 3:28). Secondly, and the variation which will be examined here is the negation of the KJV statement that God justifies the ungodly.
Some opponents of LDS theology cite this verse as evidence, if not proof, that (1) Joseph Smith was biblically illiterate and (2) that “Mormonism,” if not teaching full-blown works-righteousness, comes very near such.
This post will just be some passing thoughts on the significance of this variation.
The first issue that should be raised is that of the nature of the JST. While many members of the Church presume that it represents a textual restoration, such is impossible on many counts, not the least is that what we have in the JST is an English text; the biblical texts were originally composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Furthermore, while some texts in the JST may be approached as textual restorations of a long-lost original, some variations are more representative of an expansive commentary based on previous revelatory experiences the Prophet Joseph Smith had. One example would be the insertion of “Telestial” into 1 Cor 15:40. This is clearly based on D&C 76 and the experience he and Sidney Rigdon had when the Lord revealed to them the kingdoms of glory in the hereafter. Incidentally, “telestial” has a plausible Greek etymology, from τελος meaning “last” (some claim Joseph made up the word using “Celestial” and “Terrestial”).
In his book, “A Plainer Translation”: Joseph Smith’s Translation of the Bible: A History and Commentary (1975), Robert J. Matthews discusses the JST in depth, and concludes that the JST is many things, and the various changes the Prophet made can be (1) restoration of the text to the way that it originally read; (2) material that was not originally part of the biblical text; (3) Joseph Smith's own commentary and/or (4) material added for doctrinal harmonisation.
I bring up this particular issue as some state (correctly) that there is no Greek manuscript evidence for such a negation.
Furthermore, one question that is raised about the JST is whether it was finished.
While the History of the Church does state that the JST New Testament was "completed," evidence from Joseph Smith chows at this, such as corrections by Joseph Smith in public addresses that are not included in the mss of the JST. The following are a number of such passages, discussed by the Prophet Joseph Smith, but are not found in the mss of the texts. they were all spoken of and discussed after the "completion" date of 1833:
Rev 14:13--In his personal journal, Edward Stevenson reported that in the fall of 1839 he heard the Prophet explain a correction of Rev 14:13. The Prophet Joseph Smith is reported to have said that the KJV rendering which now reads, "Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord . . . that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them" would be more correct if the verse concluded with the phrase, "they shall continue in their work." neither the mss or the marked Bible has an entry for this passage.
Gen 1:1-2--On 5 Jan, 1841, the Prophet is reported to have given this instruction: "In the translation 'without form and void' it should be read, 'empty and desolate.' The word created should be formed, or organised."
Rev 13:2--in 8 April, 1843, the Prophet delivered a discourse about the beasts of the book of Revelation. Referring to chapter 13, he said, "There is a mistranslation of the word 'dragon' in the second verse. The original word signifies the devil, and not dragon, as translated." Then he added, "In chapter 12, verse 9, it reads, 'that old serpent, called the devil', and it ought to be translated devil in this case [i.e., in chapter 13 verse 2], and not dragon." Neither the mss or the marked Bible contains this correction, too.
Matthews discussed many other instances in his tome (pp.210-13). Another key evidence is the evidence from the Doctrine and Covenants. Various sections of the D&C have pericope that reflect either textual restorations or expansions or newly revealed information about biblical episodes, and some of these do not appear in the JST manuscripts (most notably perhaps D&C 45:16ff which contains verbiage about the Christ’s teachings found in Mark 13/Matt 24).
Kevin Barney has a very good article on the JST, which can be found here.
With that brief discussion of the nature of the JST, I will offer some thoughts on Rom 4:4 and the JST.
Firstly, it should be noted that LDS scripture emphasises the necessity of grace and how, without God, we are even less than the dust of the earth. Consider the following representative texts from the Book of Mormon:
Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law by answered. Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise. Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved. And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement. (2 Nephi 2:6-10)
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine Amen. (2 Nephi 10:24-25)
I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls, yet ye would be unprofitable servants. (Mosiah 2:20-21)
Why the variation? In my own perspective, and reading of the theological literature of the time, I believe the JST is a response to Antinomian abuse of Rom 4.
Between 1636-38, where was a controversy within American Protestantism called the Antinomian Controversy, with one of the key figures being Anne Hutchinson and John Cotton. Antinomianism, which means “against the law” (νομος means “law” in Greek) is a theology that states that one is justified by a faith that is void of repentance and works, which opponents believe to be a perversion of what is a true or “saving” faith, one that produces good works, not as a prerequisite for justification, but as necessary evidence of saving faith. This debate continues today between proponents of Lordship and no-Lordship salvation theologies. Jeff Lindsay has a good LDS appropriation of this debate (LDS theology would agree more with Lordship salvation over no-Lordship salvation).
One of the key texts, both historically and in modern times, cited in favour of “no-Lordship”/Antinomian theologies is Rom 4:5 itself, with the claim that any “addition” to faith (such as calling repentance necessary, not optional, to true/saving faith) is an anti-biblical concept. I have long understood the JST to reflect a rebuttal to antinomian abuse of this pericope (simply reading the entirety of Romans refutes such a theology, such as Paul’s teachings on baptismal regeneration in chapter 6, though most Lordship-salvation enthusiasts tend to be against this biblical doctrine).
When one examines other texts in the JST of Romans, one will realise that such is not a valid proof-text for legalism. Notice how JST Rom 4:16 teaches that good works, only when done with the power of God's grace (i.e., are not works legally demanding a wage from God, something condemned by Paul) are meritorious, and it is upon this graciousness, too, that our imperfect faith (not just works) can be accepted by God (emphasis added):
When one examines other texts in the JST of Romans, one will realise that such is not a valid proof-text for legalism. Notice how JST Rom 4:16 teaches that good works, only when done with the power of God's grace (i.e., are not works legally demanding a wage from God, something condemned by Paul) are meritorious, and it is upon this graciousness, too, that our imperfect faith (not just works) can be accepted by God (emphasis added):
Therefore ye are justified of faith and works, through grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to them only who are of the law, but to them also who are of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all
Instead of reflecting gross ignorance on the behalf of Joseph Smith, I view it as a theological response to Antinomian pretensions to reflecting biblical theology. Furthermore, LDS theology states that God, while saving sinners from their sins, will not save those who remain in their sin, something explicitly taught in the Book of Mormon:
And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? And he said unto him, yea. And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you that he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. (Alma 11:32-34)
And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of the Ammoniah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins. (Helaman 5:10)