View PDF

This essay examines Mormon founder Joseph Smith’s treatment of Romans 7 in the Joseph Smith Translation or “Inspired Version” of the King James Bible QST). First, Smith’s modifications of the chapter are compared to the King James Version (KJV), upon which it is primarily based, and to the Greek manuscript tradition. Second, the early nineteenth-century interpretation of the chapter is outlined as background to understanding Smith’s rendition. Finally, Smith’s rendition of the chapter is investigated. 

Joseph Smith’s Modifications, the King James Version, and the Greek Text

Basic sources for the study of the relation between the JST and the KJV for Romans 7 are (1) the Joseph Smith-Oliver Cowdery Bible (SCB) and (2) New Testament Manuscript 2 (NT MS 2) of the JST. The SCB (or “Marked Bible”) is a stereotype edition of the KJV printed by H. & E. Phinney in Cooperstown, New York, in 1828. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery bought it jointly from Palmyra printer and bookseller Egbert B. Grandin on 8 October 1829. The SCB is an 8-by-ll-by-2-inch pulpit-style Bible weighing just under five pounds. Into it marks were entered (with varying consistency) indicating where and what sort of changes were to be made. These changes were then entered into separate hand-written manuscripts. The manuscript containing Romans 7 is commonly referred to as NT MS 2. NT MS 2 is made up of four folios and totals 154 pages. Romans 7 is treated on pages 123-25 of folio four. 

The following is the full text of Romans 7 with all the changes made in the SCB and NT MS 2 noted. 

(1) Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man ONLY as long as he liveth? (2) For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to >her< husband, ONLY {so} AS long as he liveth; {trot} FOR if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of >her< husband. (3) So then, if, while >her< husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adultress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adultress, though she be married to another man. (4) Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, {evert} to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. (5) For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were {by} NOT ACCORDING TO the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death. (6) But now we are delivered from the law <wherein we were held>, {that} being dead <\> TO THE LAW, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not >in< the oldness of /the / the letter. (7) What shall we say then? >Is< the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. (8) But sin, taking occasion by the command ment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law, sin >was< dead. (9) For <once> I was alive without TRANSGRESSION OF the law <\>, but when the commandment OF CHRIST came, sin revived, and I died. (10) and WHEN I BELIEVED NOT the commandment OF CHRIST WHICH CAME, which >was ordained< to life, I found {to-be} IT CON DEMNED ME unto death. (11) For sin, taking occasion, {/by/} DENYED the commandment, AND deceived me; and by it {slew me} II WAS SLAIN. (12) {Wherefuie} NEVERTHELESS I FOUND the law {is} TO BE holy, and the commandment TO BE holy, and just, and good. (13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid; But sin, that it might appear sin </> by that which is good, <working death in me>; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinfulL. (14) For we know that the {law} COMMANDMENT is spiritual; but WHEN I WAS UNDER THE LAW,] I {am} [WAS YET carnal, sold under sin. (15) BUT NOW I AM SPIRITUAL For that which [I AM COMMANDED TO DO,] I do; AND THAT WHICH I AM COMMANDED NOT TO ALLOW,] I allow not. (NT MS 2 = vs 16) For what I] KNOW IS NOT RIGHT,] <I (1)> would <not (2)> {that} do <1\> <2\>; {bul whal} FOR THAT WHICH IS SIN,] I hate {that dtrf}. (vs 16 = vs 17) If then /I/ I do NOT that which I would not ALLOW, I consent unto the law, that >it is< good, AND I AM NOT CONDEMNED, (vs 17 = vs 18) Now then, it is no more I that do {it} SIN; but [I SEEK TO SUBDUE THAT sin {that} WHICH dwelleth in me. (vs 18 = vs 19) For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing; for to will is present with me; but {how} to perform that which is good I find not, ONLY IN CHRIST, (vs 19 = vss 20-21) For the good the I would HAVE DONE WHEN UNDER THE LAW, I FIND NOT TO BE GOOD; THEREFORE,] I do IT not. (NT MS 2: vs 21) But the evil which I would not DO UNDER THE LAW, I FIND TO BE GOOD; that, I do. (vs 20 = vs 22) Now if I do that, THROUGH THE ASSISTENCE OF CHRIST,] I would not DO UNDER THE LAW, /f-rto more/1 AM NOT UNDER THE LAW; AND it is no more /I/ <that> I [SEEK TO <\> do {it} [W]RONG, but TO SUBDUE sin that dwelleth in me. (vss 21-2 = vs 23) I find then {a} THAT UNDER THE law, that when I would do good evil {is} WAS present with me; (SCB: vs 22) for I delight in the law of God after the inward man. (vs 23 = vss 24-/25/ vs 18) {but} AND NOW] I see another law, EVEN THE COMMANDMENT OF CHRIST, AND IT IS IMPRINTED IN MY MIND (NT MS 2: vs 18; JST: /25/) {in} BUT my members ARE warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me in to captivity /unto sin/ to the law of sin which is in my members. (24 = JST: 26) AND IF I SUBDUE NOT THE SIN WHICH IS IN ME, <but with the flesh /is subject lo/ SERVE the law of sin>; O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (25 = JST: 27) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord, <then>, THAT /[wit] (?)/ so <\> with the mind, I, myself serve the law of God <vs 23\>. 

Sigla: 

1. Additions to the SCB are in capital letters (where confusion might arise due to the close proximity of “I,” this is marked by [ or ]).

2. Deletions from the SCB: {-} 

3. Italicized words in the SCB which were not marked for removal: > <

4. Transpositions from SCB order: < > with </> or <\> in the place from which it was removed. The direction of the slash marks indicate whether the word(s) has been moved forward or backward in the text.

5. Words crossed out in NT MS 2: /—/ 

6. Words written between the lines in NT MS 2 are underlined. 

Joseph Smith’s adaptation of the SCB for Romans 7 is conservative with regard to deletions. In contrast to the 168 words introduced by Smith (thirty-seven in 7:14-15 alone), only twenty-seven words were deleted from the entire chapter. Of these, ten are due to minor clarifications or stylistic changes; five are due to changes in verb tense or mood; and four are due to the removal of italicized words. This leaves only nine deletions unaccounted for, all of which Smith probably considered unimportant: “by” twice (vv. 5 and 11); “that” three times (vv. 6,15 = 16); “do” (v. 15 = 16); “I” (v. 15 = 16); “a” (v. 21 = 23); and “in” (v. 23 = 25). Considerable pains then were taken to retain as many original SCB words as possible. Seven transpositions, however, do occur (vv. 6,9,13,15 = 16,20 = 22,24 = 26, and 25 = 27), but these are handled in such a way as to keep as many original SCB words as possible. Indeed, the very act of transposing suggests resto ration of words and phrases from incorrect secondary locations to correct original ones. 

That Joseph Smith felt the KJV contained many errors and corruptions is well known. The kinds of modifications he made in Romans 7 lead us further to conclude that he understood such corruptions to consist primarily of things removed or left out. This observation confirms certain of Smith’s own statements from around the same time. In Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, prefacing a “revelation” dated 16 February 1832 (now D&C 76; 1835 ed., XCI), Smith reports: “Upon my return from the Amherst conference, I resumed the translation of the Scriptures. From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled” (italics added). 

This remark provides insight into Smith’s approach to the Bible within at most only a few months of his “translation” of Romans 7. A similar statement occurs in a “revelation” dated June 1830 in which God tells Moses of a time when: “[T]he children of men shall esteem my words as nought, and take many of them from the book which thou shall write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee [i.e., Joseph Smith], and they shall be had again among the children of men…” (italics added; HC 1:245-52; Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:41 [1851 ed., 10]). The conservatism in handling the SCB for Romans 7, then, in light of these statements, suggests that Joseph Smith did intend to restore the ancient text of the New Testament. He apparently felt this could be best accomplished by rearranging the words of the SCB, leaving out as little as possible, and then adding whatever seemed to be lacking. 

However, we shall seek to demonstrate here, in agreement with several earlier studies, that JST Romans 7 does not represent a restoration of the original text. If the JST is not a restoration, what is it? If what we have said is true—that Joseph Smith claimed to restore the text to its original form but did not actually do so—the issue of the validity of the JST as a revelation comes to the fore. Broadly speaking, Mormon scholars have responded to this in two ways. Some have attempted to undermine the validity of modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament by asserting that the earliest extant Greek manuscripts already represent a widely corrupted text. These writers seek to place the JST earlier still and thus for all practical purposes beyond contradiction. However the abundance of early evidence makes such a position difficult to maintain. Others have sought instead to cast doubt on Smith’s restorational intent. Though this position is more plausible in that it deals realistically with the textual data, it still suffers from a seeming readiness to assume that if the JST is not a restoration, Smith never intended it as one. But this does not necessarily follow. Perhaps Smith honestly believed he was restoring the ancient text but failed in reality to do so. Or, worse, perhaps he was consciously involved in imposture. If Smith did not intend a restoration, why is it that “many of the early Mormon people were conditioned to think of the revision [of the Bible] as a restoration of original, lost texts,” and why did Smith himself say in his journal for 15 October 1843: “I believe in the Bible, as it ought to be, as it came from the pen of the original writers”? Or why a decade earlier did he allow statements like the following to appear in The Evening and the Morning Star (July 1833): 

As to the errors in the bible, any man possessed of common understanding, knows, that both the old and new testaments are filled with errors, obscurities, italics and contradictions, which must be the work of men. As the church of Christ will soon have the scriptures, in their original purity it may not be amiss for us to show a few of the gross errors, or, as they might be termed, contradictions [italics added]. 

And later: 

With the old copy full of errors; with Dickinson’s and Webster’s polite translation, with Campbell’s improved, and many more from different persuasions, how will a person of common understanding know which is right without the gift of the Holy Spirit? …the bible .. . must be PURIFIEDl . . . O what a blessing, that the Lord will bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit, upon the meek and humble, whereby they can know of a surety, his words from the words of men! [italics added] 

Or again why did he say, as already noted, that “I resumed the translation of the Scriptures… it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled”? And finally why does the very manner in which Smith treats the text of JST Romans 7 imply (in agreement with his statements on the matter) that he considered the language of the KJV to be essentially authentic except where (1) transpositions have occurred or (2) something has been left out? In view of these facts it seems clear that Philip Barlow’s claim that “Joseph Smith himself never explained exactly how he understood his revision of the Bible” is misleading. Rather the message communicated to early Mormons, whether by Smith himself or other representatives of the church, was that the JST was to be a restoration of the scriptures to their original purity. The actual manner in which Smith modified the text of the SCB indicates that he was attempting to carry out in practice what he had elsewhere indicated was necessary due to textual corruption. But the principles he used, starting with an English text, proceeding with a mix of common-sense corrections and harmonizations plus sporadic revelations and his own doctrinal expansions—without knowledge of the original languages and without an adequate grasp or even an interest in textual criticism—were simply not adequate to accomplish his restorational task. 

Does the evidence of JST Romans 7 suggest that Smith either through “revelation” or the employment of available resources bring readers closer to the original Greek text for the chapter? From a historical point of view, a comparison between the JST and current critical editions of the Greek New Testament is out of order because Smith could not have had access to them. The appropriate procedure is to compare the JST with the Greek New Testament as it was known in his day. Still the view of some recent writers—that the JST represents, in some sense, a supernatural restoration of the original Greek text—lifts the question to another level. Smith would not need to have access to more modern editions since he would have already moved beyond them. His modifications, if fact, should be increasingly confirmed as textual criticism brings us closer to the original New Testament text. The fact that this restorationist view exists makes at least a brief comparison of the JST with the most current edition of the Greek New Testament relevant. 

As represented in the Nestle-Aland, the following activity is recorded for the Greek manuscript tradition for Romans 7: At four points insertions have been made; at four more, deletions occur; and at eleven, variant readings occur. In each of these cases Smith follows the SCB whether it reflects the best and earliest manuscript evidence or not. In addition, not one of the 168 words Smith introduces, nor any of the seven transpositions of words and phrases, has any manuscript support. The situation is the same when comparing JST Romans 7 with the New Testament Greek text as understood in Smith’s day. 

Comment should be made in two cases having to do not with the Greek manuscript tradition but with the conjectural emendation of it. In Romans 7:6 an erroneous reading, without support from any Greek manuscript, found its way into the so-called Textus Receptus, where it passed into the KJV: “But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead [apothanontos] wherein we were held …” This, by way of a deletion, a transposition, and an insertion, Smith changed to “But now we are delivered from the law <wherein we were held>, {that} being dead <\> TO THE LAW . . .” The genitive apothanontos is linked to tou nomou (the law) in the text underlying the KJV, but in the JST it now refers to the subject of the sentence (i.e., “we”): “we are delivered… being dead to the law.” In this Smith agrees with the Greek manuscripts, most of which have the nominative participle apothanontes. Yet he need not have depended on revelation for this correction since it had already been made in a number of English sources familiar to his circles. Through his Methodist connection, Smith might have come into contact with it either in Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament(1754) or with Clarke’s Commentary (1825); or, through the Campbellite connection of Sidney Rigdon (who served as scribe for JST Romans 7) and several other early Mormons, in Alexander Campbell’s edition of the Bible. But Smith may have simply changed the passage independently because the idea of the law dying seemed unacceptable to him, either doctrinally or because of its conceptual peculiarity.

A second and similar instance is the relocating in the JST of the latter half of verse 25b to a position between verses 23 and 24 (after some words added by Smith): 

(v. 24 = JST v. 26) AND IF I SUBDUE NOT THE SIN WHICH IS IN ME, <but with the flesh /is subject lo/ SERVE the law of sin>; O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (v. 25 = JST v. 27) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord, <then>, THAT /wit [?]/ so <\> with the mind, I, myself serve the law of God <v. 23\>. 

Here again there is no evidence for this in the Greek manuscripts themselves. A similar suggestion, however, had been made by eighteenth century Dutch scholar Herman Venema. Venema, however, favored moving the whole of verse 25b rather than only half of it, as Smith did. In suggesting this modification, both men were responding to a difficulty in the text that continues to trouble interpreters: how is it that we find sandwiched between the two upbeat remarks of verses 7:25a and 8:1 the decidedly downbeat restatement of verse 7:25b? In the present century a number of scholars have dealt with this problem either by considering verse 25b a secondary gloss or by rearranging the passage in which it stands (usually 7:23, 25b, 24, 25a, 8:2,1, 3). 

Smith was probably unaware of Venema’s position, since it does not seem to have been widely known in America at the time. That is not to say, however, that no one struggled with the apparent difficulty Venema was trying to correct. Campbell’s Bible, for example, which incorporated James MacKnight’s translation of the epistles, dealt with this by casting verse 25b as a question, a “diatribal false conclusion,” such as occurs throughout the Romans letter (for example, 3:1, 6:1, 7\7, 13; 9:14). First, the phrase is transformed into a question, and then a standard Pauline form of emphatic denial me genoito! (by no means) is added: “Do I myself then as a slave serve with my mind the law of God but with the flesh the law of sin? [By no means.]” Campbell includes a note setting forth MacKnight’s reasoning: 

Translated in this manner, interrogatively, the passage contains a strong denial, that the person spoken of, after being delivered from the body of this death, any longer serves, as formerly, with the mind only, the law of God, and with the flesh the law of sin in his members, whereas, translated as in our English Bible [KJV] … it represents the delivered person as still continuing in that very slavery to sin … 

As it stands, according to MacKnight, the KJV rendering of verse 25 is “utterly wrong, and even dangerous.” Yet in the 1832 revised edition Campbell dropped this reading in favor of one much closer to the KJV: “Wherefore, then, indeed, I myself serve, with my mind, the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.” 

That Smith was not interested in correcting the SCB in light of the best available manuscript evidence of his day is demonstrated on a larger scale at those points where the JST adopts readings from the SCB which were even then widely recognized as inferior. This becomes immediately apparent, for example, in reference to the most familiar disputed texts: the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20, the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1-11), the replacement of “tree” with “book” (Rev 22:19), and—by far the most debated biblical verse in Smith’s day—1 John 5:7, the so-called comma fohanneum. All of these were known to Smith’s contemporaries.

This is not to say Smith did not intend to restore the Bible to its original condition, which I believe he did, only that in doing so he did not pay attention to the work of scholars. Perhaps their efforts were beyond him. The nearest we come to seeing this in JST Romans 7 is in verses 18b = 19b, where the JST takes over from the SCB a reading based on the inferior oux eurisko. The best manuscripts have simply ou here, which makes for an abrupt termination. 

At a relatively early stage in the history of the manuscript tradition oux eurisko was introduced as a stylistic improvement. The shorter and more difficult reading had been adopted by Mill, Griesbach, and Lachmann. Still it is not at all certain that this textual decision had trickled down to the circles in which Smith lived and moved. Campbell’s Bible, for example, while resorting to Griesbach on several occasions, still prefers oux eurisko: “Indeed to incline lies near me; but to work out what is excellent, I do not find near me” (italics mine). Even Charles Hodge, while noting the variant, insisted in 1835 that the “common text is retained by most editors on the authority of the great majority of MSS. versions and fathers.” 

Romans 7 in Early Nineteenth-Century America

Interpretation of Romans 7 in the first decades of the nineteenth century was closely linked to the lively debated issue of the extent of human depravity and the nature and existence of original sin. The Old-Calvinist interpretation—which would have been the time-honored one in America, and at this time was most ardently defended at Princeton Seminary— read the chapter in a way consistent with the reformed doctrine of total depravity, as set out in the classical reformed statements such as the Westminster Confession (VI, 2,4); the Canons of Dort (III-IV, Art. 4,6; and “Rejection of Errors,” Par. 4); the Belgic Confession (Art. XIV); and the Heidelberg Catechism (Lord’s Day III). The corruption of the unregenerate is so complete that it is not possible to describe them with phrases like “I delight in the law of God after the inner man” (Rom 7:22) or “I consent to God’s law” (Rom 7:16). Therefore the struggle described in 7:14-25, by a simple process of elimination, has to reflect Christian experience. Once this is admitted, it further follows that, even after regeneration, indwelling sin remains a real and constant problem in the Christian life. Thus, Princeton’s Charles Hodge who without doubt would have been the most representative defender of the Old-Calvinist view, remarks in his 1835 commentary: 

Paul merely asserts that the believer is, and ever remains in this life, imperfectly sanctified; that sin continues to dwell within him; that he never comes up to the full requisitions of the law, however anxiously he may desire it. Often as he subdues one spiritual foe, another rises in a different form; so that he cannot do the things that he would; that is, cannot be perfectly conformed in heart and life to the image of God. 

So intense was this tension for Paul as he wrote Romans 7 that, as Matthew Henry’s popular commentary said, it was “as if he had a dead body tied to him, which he must have carried about with him.”

This dark vision of human nature, however, did not strike a sympathetic cord with the self-confident temper of the newly formed nation, in which even the religious outlook was, to use Nathan Hatch’s apt term, quickly becoming “democratized.” On most fronts the general attitude was one of self-reliance and confidence, even over confidence, in human potential. In addition, the Old Calvinism had begun for many to take on, if not the sinister appearance of a tyrannical clerical elite, at least the near ridiculous appearance of high-flying irrelevance. Nowhere is this more symbolically portrayed, and perhaps with more historical significance, than in Charles Finney’s refusal to study at Princeton on the ground “that I would not put myself under such an influence as they had been under. I was confident that they had been wrongly educated and were not ministers that met my ideal of what a minister of Christ should be.” It was in some part due to this shift in temper that the second dominant view, the Methodist-Revivalist interpretation, would increase in importance as the century progressed. 

The famous 24 May 1738 entry in Wesley’s Journal, where he tells how his heart was “strangely warmed” while listening to Luther’s Preface to the Epistle of the Romans at Aldersgate Street, already contains the understanding of Romans 7 which was to become standard in Methodism. All his prior religious experience is described there in terms of Romans 7:14-25: 

9. All the time I was at Savannah I was thus beating the air. Being ignorant of the righteousness of Christ… I sought to establish my own righteous ness, and so labored in the fire all my days. I was now properly under the law. I knew that the law of God was spiritual; I consented to it that it was good. Yea, I delighted in it after the inner man. Yet was I carnal, sold under sin. Every day was I constrained to cry out, What I do, I allow not: for what I would, I do not; but what I hate, that I do .. . I find . .. the law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and still bringing me into captivity to the law of sin. 

10. In this state I was indeed fighting continually, but not conquering. Before I had willingly served sin; now it was unwillingly, but I still served it. 

The “I” of Romans 7:14-25, then, is not a Christian but one who is yet “under law,” for whom the religious life is one of almost continual frustration. By applying the passage to himself, Wesley reveals his belief that it does not describe an experience unique to Jews—such a view had been championed by the English Unitarian John Taylor—but rather, as he says in another place, to “the state of all those, Jews and Gentiles, who saw and felt the wickedness both of their hearts and lives, and groaned to be delivered from it.” Essentially the same view is given later in Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (1754). Except there, perhaps only because the explanation is more pointed, Wesley gives the whole chapter from verses 7-25 a developmental pitch. For verse 7 he comments: “The character here assumed is that of a man, first ignorant of the law, then under it and sincerely, but ineffectually, striving to serve God”. By verse 24 the “struggle is now come to the height; and the man, finding there is no help in himself, begins almost unawares to pray, Who shall deliver me?” At the very end of the chapter, he “is now utterly weary of his bondage, and upon the brink of liberty.” The liberty itself only comes in 8:1. In reading the chapter as a dramatic narrative Wesley reveals his close dependence on the Pietist Johann Albrecht Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testament! (1742). 

Of equal importance for our period is Adam Clarke’s Commentary, which presents the same view in greater depth. Clarke’s Commentary, not to mention Clarke himself, was immensely popular in America. And this in spite of its disproportionate size (six large volumes for both Testaments). As we have already related, Emma Smith’s uncle Lewis seems to have owned a set. Clarke’s position on Romans 7 was essentially that of Wesley’s, though set forward with greater erudition. (Even the great German F. A. G. Tholuck thought fit to familiarize himself with Clarke’s remarks on the chapter, and he quotes from them in his own 1824 commentary on Romans). Also Clarke does not bring in from Wesley and Bengel the desire to read the chapter as a dramatic narrative. Rather he grounds the argument in the contrasting affirmations of verses 5 and 6, which are then understood as expanded upon in 7:7-25 and 8:1-11 respectively. 

This view gained a new impetus beyond the boundaries of Methodism in the influential Moses Stuart, professor at Andover from 1812. The importance of Moses Stuart to early nineteenth-century American Christianity is hard to overestimate. He is viewed as one of the key figures in the resurgence of critical biblical scholarship in America and a great defender of the Orthodox cause against Unitarianism. As a student of Yale’s Timothy Dwight, Stuart was closely tied to the “moderate Calvinism” of New Divinity circles, and was thus able to provide a way for those circles to entertain an understanding of Romans 7 that previously might have been viewed with suspicion because of its connection with Methodism and Unitarianism. 

When tracing lines of dependence, therefore, for the interpretation of Romans 7 as held by the later perfectionists of Oberlin College and by John Humphrey Noyes and his Oneida Community, we are lead first back to Stuart rather than Methodism. In 1831 Noyes learned this position under Stuart himself at Andover as did Oberlin’s future president, Asa Mahan, a few years earlier. So even though Stuart’s commentary on Romans did not actually appear until 1832, his interpretation of Romans 7 had already been exercising wide influence through his students. Despite the difference of confessional context, Stuart’s arguments are not essentially different from Clarke’s. Again the contrast between 7:5 and 6 is seen painted large in 7:7-25 and 8:1-11 (or 17), thus limiting the entire discussion of Romans 7:7-25 to those yet under law. Indeed, insists Stuart, the language of 7:14-25 could not possibly refer to Christian experience since “if Chris tians, who are of course under grace and are dead to the law (6:14. 7:6), are actually in the state here represented, then would it follow, that neither grace nor law hinders them from being the servants of sin.” 

Closer to Joseph Smith’s circle, Alexander Campbell championed his own version of this view according to which the “I” had a more generalized symbolic reference to Israel, Paul “in his own person represents the Jew from the days of Abraham down to his own conversion.” In the 1827 Christian Baptist, Campbell paraphrases several key passages in the chapter. Israel was “alive without law” (v. 9) in the days of the patriarchs before the law of Moses had been given. At that time “I [=Israel] never felt myself subject to death, for where no law is there is no transgression.” But with the coming of the commandment from Sinai, sin “revived or came to life, and .. . death was inflicted upon us Jews in a way of which there was no example before the promulgation of the law … ” In verse 14 the law is called “spiritual” because it “has respect not only to the outward actions, but in some of its precepts reaches to the thoughts.” In contrast, the “I” is called “carnal” because “the people, of which I am one, to whom that law was given, were a fleshly people enslaved to appetite.” “[I]t was not,” Campbell goes on to say for verses 22-23, “owing to any defect in the law, nor in my perceptions and approbation of it mentally, but in the inclinations and propensities to which a human being in this present state is unavoidably subjected—that I failed in finding happiness, peace, or com fort under the law.” As to the question whether JST Romans 7 clearly depends on the Campbell Bible, the answer is: it does not. 

The Joseph Smith Translation and Romans 7

Joseph Smith’s rendering of Romans 7 appears to be motivated by two concerns: (1) finding a solution that strikes a balance between the two dominant interpretations of his day, and (2) furnishing a “biblical basis” for his own restorationist program in relation to the idea of Christianity as a renewed and, therefore, a better kind of law-keeping, and (perhaps) the legitimation of “polygamy.” 

With the Old-Calvinist interpreters, Smith sets as the overall temporal horizon of verses 14-25 the apostle’s present Christian experience. Yet at the same time he tempered those statements deemed by Methodist-Revivalist interpreters to reflect sub-Christian sentiments of regular spiritual frustra tion and defeat; placing at least some of these in the past. This is evident at a number of points, most obviously at 7:14 itself: “For we know that the {law} COMMANDMENT is spiritual; but WHEN I WAS UNDER THE LAW,] I {ant} [WAS YET carnal, sold under sin.” Smith further makes the chapter refer not to one law but to two: (1) the Mosaic law, which the “I” used to be under (e.g., vv. 6,14, 21 = 23), and (2) the “commandment of Christ,” which the “I” is now under as a Christian (vv. 9,14,23 = 24). This “commandment of Christ” is imprinted on the mind of the believer, and it is against it that the indwelling sinful principle is at war (v. 23 = 25). The cry of wretchedness (v. 24 = 26) has to do not with the ongoing state of the “I”—as was the case in both contemporary prevailing interpretations—but with the condition of a Christian who fails for whatever reason to subdue indwelling sin. 

Also more in line with Old-Calvinist than the Methodist-Revivalist interpreters is Smith’s not making the chapter turn, in any sense, on a radical change of nature within the regenerated believer; i.e., there is no hint of latent perfectionism. Instead the old law/restored law contrast is pivotal. The basis for this is Smith’s idea that the Mosaic law had been intentionally made deficient by God. According to JST Exodus, after the original set of tablets of the law had been broken in anger by Moses (Ex. 32:19), a second set was prepared and God again wrote. But this time, Smith tells us, the Lord left out certain essential matters originally included in the first set: “[B]ut it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst: therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them .. . But I will give unto them the law of a carnal commandment…” (34:1-2; also JST Deut. 10:1-2). The phrase “law of a carnal commandment” was imported from the KJV Hebrews 7:16. The law then is inadequate for salvation not because it is “weakened by the flesh,” as Paul would have it (Rom. 8:1), but because it had been made defective by God. The new law is better and more effective because it is a restored law, while the old “law of a carnal commandment” was part of an inferior “preparatory gospel” (D&C 34:26; 1835 ed. IV:4). 

The same old law/restored law distinction is reflected at a number of points in JST Romans where the issue of the relation of the law and salvation is being discussed. Thus in 4:5 the SCB’s “him that worketh not, but believeth” is changed in NT MS 2 to “him that {worketh} SEEKETH not TO BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OF WORKS, but believeth”; and in 4:6 “righteousness without works” is changed to “righteousness without THE LAW OF works.” The “law of works” in each case appears to be synonymous with the “law according to a carnal commandment.” This same understanding continues into JST Romans 7. Interestingly, however, it is not the law of Moses, the “law of a carnal commandment,” that strikes the “I” of Romans 7 dead. Rather this occurs in relation to the “commandment of Christ.” Throughout the chapter the instrumentality of the law in the death of the “I” is played down and the blame laid exclusively at the feet of sin: 

(5)… the motions of sins, which were {by} NOT ACCORDING TO the law, did work in our members, to bring forth fruit unto death. 

(10) And WHEN I BELIEVED NOT the commandment OF CHRIST WHICH CAME, which >was ordained< to life, I found {to-be} IT CONDEMNED ME unto death. 

(11) FOR sin, taking occasion, {/by/} DENYED the commandment, AND deceived me, and by it {slew me} I WAS SLAIN. 

The last two verses quoted reveal that the “I” dies because it has been tricked by sin into not believing the commandment of Christ.

Also intriguing in light of the overall restorational focus of the chapter is verse 19 (= JST vv. 20-21): 

For the good that I would HAVE DONE WHEN UNDER THE LAW, I FIND NOT TO BE GOOD; THEREFORE] I do IT not: (JST 21) but the evil which I would not DO UNDER THE LAW, I FIND TO BE GOOD; that, I do.” 

Certain behavior, previously considered evil, has now under the restoration become acceptable. But what behavior does Smith have in mind? Certainly this might be nothing more than a general reference to the comparative level of freedom enjoyed under the new law of Christ. But the language seems too strong for this. There is some evidence, in fact, that the reference may be to a more specific concern: providing a theological justification for the reintroduction of polygamy. Perhaps a clue is to be found in possible psychological self-legitimation implied in the next verse (20 = 22). When he does the “evil” which he formerly would not do, “it is no more <that> I [SEEK TO <\> do {it} [W]RONG, but TO SUBDUE sin that dwelleth in me.” 

Significantly, the same basic argument appears a full decade later in an 1842 letter to Sidney Rigdon’s unmarried daughter, Nancy. A day or two after an attempt at winning her as one of his plural wives was rebuffed, Smith dictated a letter, apparently intended to weaken her resolve by insinuating that her resistance amounted to disobedience to God’s law. His arguments echo significantly the language of the JST rendition of Romans 7:19-20 (= JST 20-22): “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another… Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it i s . . . even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of Heaven only in part, but which, in reality, were right, because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.” It seems especially fitting that a consideration of Smith’s changing sexual standards and practices should come to mind in the context where the old “law of a carnal commandment” is being contrasted with the restored “commandment of Christ.” Needless to say, explicit reference to what remained a secret practice until after Smith’s death would not have yet been possible, especially in a work slated for public consumption like the JST. If this understanding of the JST rendering of Romans 7:19-20 (= 20-22) is correct, then it represents one of the earliest justifications of polygamy from the hand of Smith. 

Although the revelation permitting plural marriage (D&C 132 in LDS editions) was not given until 12 April 1843, it is now widely recognized that even long before that time Smith’s sexual activities exceeded the limits laid down by it—most notably in his taking of married women as plural wives. Allegations of sexual impropriety had dogged Smith’s heels from the earliest days of the church. Our interest in this regard is limited to the period around the time Smith was involved in the production of the JST. In 1834, an affidavit by Emma Smith’s cousin, Levi Lewis, referred to a remark by Martin Harris five years previous that “he [Harris] did not blame Smith for his attempt to seduce Eliza Winters &c.” The year 1832 (especially important as that in which Smith produced JST Romans 7) was particularly eventful in this regard. Since these facts are known and have been investigated, only a brief review, drawing primarily on Richard Van Wagoner’s Mormon Polygamy: A History, will be necessary. On 24 March 1832 Smith was tarred and feathered, according to one account, for seducing Nancy Marinda Johnson, in whose father’s house he was residing. A certain Eli, identified (apparently erroneously) as Nancy’s brother, is said to have called for Smith’s castration. Later testimony also mentions liaisons in this year between Joseph and two servant girls employed in the Smith household: one named Miss Hill, and the other unnamed. Another name coming down to us from roughly this period is Vienna Jacques. Emma Smith spent much of 1832 pregnant with Joseph Smith III (b. 6 November 1832). 

Later evidence further suggests that Smith was already at this time trying to hammer out a theological basis for an eventual turn to open polygamy. Joseph B. Noble, a close friend of the Mormon leader, later related that Smith had become convinced of the legitimacy of polygamy “while . .. engaged in the work of translation of the Scriptures.” Orson Pratt, noted Mormon missionary and apostle, also pointed to early 1832 as the time when Smith told certain individuals that “the principle of taking more wives than one is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practiced.” 

Four points, then, suggest that JST Romans 7 may reflect this same concern: (1) the parallel argumentation in the letter to Nancy Rigdon ten years later; (2) the evidence implying that Smith was involved in various extramarital liaisons in that year, behavior that could be described as “evil which I would not DO UNDER THE LAW”; (3) the later testimony of friends pointing on the one hand to 1832 and on the other to the time of the production of the JST as when Smith began to formulate his reasons for an eventual return to open polygamy; and (4) the overall restorational focus of JST Romans 7 itself. 

Conclusion

Joseph Smith’s rendition of Romans 7 offers little in terms of real insight into Paul’s meaning, and Smith’s “restorations” bring us no closer to the form of the text as it “came from the pen of the original writers.” Still it provides an interesting window to understanding the passage as it was debated in the early decades of the nineteenth century and to the Mormon prophet himself; his developing teaching and character, and his methods and motives for producing the JST. Whatever else might be said, one of the secrets of Smith’s success was his ability to focus the attention of followers around some revelational project; thereby keeping the sense of eschatological expectation high. The first such project, of course, was the Book of Mormon. The JST followed quickly in June 1830, only two months after the organization of the church. Romans 7 provided a special opportunity in this regard. Not only was Smith able to rule authoritatively in a passage that had been debated for centuries (with the inevitable consequence of increasing his prestige in the eyes of his followers) but at the same time he was able to use the occasion to create a “biblical basis” for his own restorationist program through the “clarification” of obscurities in this difficult chapter.