Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Bible was intended as a response to a problem he believed he had identified: that “many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” But in his translation efforts, did Joseph Smith restore and clarify lost truths—or did he instead distort the text and impose false and anachronistic teachings upon it?
One of Joseph Smith’s less heralded changes suggests to me that the JST often reflects Joseph Smith’s imagination and theological assumptions more than a genuine restoration of ancient truth.
In Galatians 3:19–20, Paul explains how Israel received the Law of Moses in order to draw a sharp contrast between the Law and the promise God had previously given directly to Abraham. While this contrast is somewhat obscured in the KJV, it is much clearer in modern translations that better reflect the Greek text.
Here is the KJV:
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
Here is a more modern translation (CSB):
19 Why, then, was the law given? It was added for the sake of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come. The law was put into effect through angels by means of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not just for one person alone, but God is one.
Finally, here is the JST version:
19 Wherefore then, the law was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made in the law given to Moses, who was ordained by the hand of angels to be a mediator of this first covenant (the law).
20 Now this mediator was not a mediator of the new covenant; but there is one mediator of the new covenant, who is Christ…
The Problem with the JST
Paul’s point in this section of Galatians is that the promise was given to Abraham 430 years before the Law was given at Sinai. He emphasizes that the Law did not invalidate or nullify God’s promise, which rested on faith rather than obedience to the Law.
The JST undermines this argument at the outset by conflating the Law and the promise, situating the promise “in the law given to Moses.” That move completely collapses Paul’s careful chronological and theological contrast.
When Paul says the Law was given through angels, he is drawing on a well-established Jewish tradition, referenced multiple times in the New Testament. Stephen refers to the Law being delivered “by angels” in Acts 7:53, and Hebrews 2:2 speaks of “the word spoken by angels.” This tradition likely derives from the Septuagint’s rendering of Deuteronomy 33:2, where the Hebrew qedoshim (“holy ones”) is translated as angels. The idea also appears in Jewish sources such as Josephus (Antiquities 15.5.3) and apocryphal texts like Jubilees.
Paul draws on this well-known framework to make a subtle but theologically crucial point: the Law was mediated through angels and a human mediator, while the promise to Abraham was given directly by God, without mediation. God alone acts to establish His covenant with Abraham, and He does so by promise rather than by law.
Paul immediately presses this argument further:
“Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.” (Gal 3:21)
For Paul, the Law’s mediated nature proves it was temporary, subordinate, and incapable of giving life.
Why “Ordination by Angels” Is Anachronistic
Joseph Smith’s translation obscures all of this. It removes the authentic Jewish concept of the Law being delivered through angels and replaces it with the anachronistic notion that Moses was “ordained” by angels to an office or a priesthood role. This idea appears nowhere in the Bible, Jewish tradition, or early Christian interpretation. The concept of angelic ordination reflects Joseph Smith’s 19th-century priesthood framework, not Paul’s first-century argument.
By introducing this notion, the JST eliminates Paul’s contrast between the unmediated promise and the mediated Law, and with it, the theological force of the passage.
Conclusion
When we evaluate the JST at this point, we do not find a restoration of Paul’s authentic meaning. Instead, we find Paul’s argument obscured and distorted, as later theological categories are projected backward into the text. What Paul presents as a contrast between promise and Law is transformed into a discussion of priesthood mediation — a move that fundamentally misses Paul’s point.