When I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believed that the Book of Mormon helped to clarify the Bible. One of the ways that I thought it did this was by offering a more accurate, easy to understand, and inspired version of the text of the Isaiah chapters that it quotes.
Like many Latter-day Saints, I believed the Book of Mormon clarified the Bible, including offering a more accurate, easy to understand and inspired version of the Prophet Isaiah’s words. I recently came across a story where (then) Elder Russell M. Nelson relied on the Book of Mormon’s usage of Isaiah to demonstrate that the book is from God and that Joseph Smith translated from a purer source. According to the account, Nelson asked a missionary to compare the KJV and Book of Mormon versions:
Nelson: please read Isaiah 13:3.
Me: I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.
Nelson: Now elder, can you tell me what that scripture means?
Me: mmm, I’m not really sure
Nelson: ok I don’t blame you. Now go to the BOM 2nd Nephi, 23:3 and read that one…
Me: I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones, for mine anger is not upon them that rejoice in my highness.
Nelson: Now, doesn’t that version make a little more sense?? You see, this is evidence Joseph Smith couldn’t be making up the BOM. This example shows that he was translating from a pure source because he was correcting ancient mistranslations. If he was copying from the OT as critics say, that Isaiah verse would read in the BOM just like it did in the OT, just like many of the other verses do.
(To be clear, I don’t know for sure if this exchange happened as written, but it seems like a perfectly plausible exchange).
At the time, I would have found Nelson’s reasoning compelling. But as I began to study this verse more closely, I realized that rather than restoring a lost Hebrew original, 2 Nephi 23:3 changes Isaiah in a way that is contextually and grammatically incompatible with Hebrew, but fits 19th-century Protestant theology better than ancient biblical prophecy.
Verse
Here is the verse in the KJV, the ESV (a highly regarded modern translation), and 2 Nephi 23:3
| KJV (Isaiah 13:3) | “I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness.” |
| ESV (Isaiah 13:3) | “I myself have commanded my consecrated ones, and have summoned my mighty men to execute my anger, my proudly exulting ones.” |
| 2 Nephi 23:3 | “I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones, for mine anger is not upon them that rejoice in my highness.” |
Context
Let’s first look at the context of this verse
This chapter of Isaiah is a prophecy against the nation of Babylon, describing its certain destruction by foreign armies raised up by God. Hence, in Isaiah 13:3, the prophet speaks of the “sanctified ones” and “mighty ones” whom God has set apart to execute His judgment. This army likely represents the Medes/Persians (Isaiah 13:17) or other nations God raises up against Babylon.
God explains why he is sending these warriors. He does so because his “anger” is upon Babylon for its wickedness and these warriors are carrying out God’s wrath. The rest of the chapter elaborates on this theme describing God’s “burning anger” (v 13) and portraying the complete destruction that will leave the “land desolate” (v 9) and devastate the population (v12).
This verse does not imply that the Persian army would be particularly righteous or holy, merely that they are set apart as instruments for God’s wrath. To our ears, the term “sanctified” suggests a level of righteousness and holiness, and hence modern translations tend to translate this term as “consecrated” which conveys that these soldiers are chosen and set apart by God for his purpose without suggesting righteousness.
Nor does the phrase that the King James translates as “them that rejoice in my highness” imply faithful believers devoted to God. To the contrary, another highly regarded translation describes the warriors as “my boasting, arrogant ones,” not pious saints (Isaiah 13:3 NET translation). These warriors are “exulting” over their prowess in battle and victory over their enemies. Isaiah is not endorsing their moral character, but emphasizing that they are being used as instruments of anger and vengeance by God.
But Joseph Smith’s translation in the Book of Mormon dramatically changes things. Under this translation, this verse is no longer describing the army of the Persians, but a group of unidentified holy or sanctified people who are faithful to God and are not destroyed.
But this isn’t the picture Isaiah paints and it does not fit the context of this chapter at all. Indeed, Isaiah does not speak of Israel or the faithful in this chapter at all. His prophetic gaze is on the destruction that God will inflict on Babylon.
In short, Isaiah 13 focuses on God’s judgment of Babylon, not the sparing of the faithful, making 2 Nephi’s alteration a poor fit. So the Book of Mormon translation introduces a non-sequitur that does not fit the context or meaning of the passage at all.
Let’s next consider grammar.
Hebrew Language and Grammar
How does 2 Nephi 23:3’s translation of Isaiah fair grammatically? Not well, it turns out.
Here is the Hebrew
אֲנִי צִוִּיתִי לִמְקֻדָּשָׁי גַּם־קָרָאתִי גִּבּוֹרַי לְאַפִּי עַלִּיזֵי גֵאוּתִי
There are no substantive variations in the Dead Sea Scrolls or any other Isaiah manuscript.
So which interpretation does the Hebrew support? Is the verse speaking of warriors serving as instruments of God’s wrath, or holy men spared from God’s anger?
The key is the Hebrew word לְאַפִּי (Le apphi) which means “for my anger” and indicates that the warriors are carrying out God’s wrath—not avoiding it.
The grammar does not support the Book of Mormon’s translation which would require an entirely different constructionlike כִּי (kî) or אֵין (ʾên) which would imply negation of or avoidance of the wrath. But there’s no such negation in any ancient manuscripts.
As renowned Biblical scholar David Wright explained, 2 Nephi 23:3 is “incompatible with the underlying Hebrew” because the “Hebrew phrase that the KJV translates as ‘for mine anger’ is le-‘appî, a preposition plus noun (with possessive suffix). The phrase in the BM Isaiah involves an entirely different syntax requiring different Hebrew wording, such as kî ‘appî, a conjunction followed by the noun.”
Joseph Smith turned a sentence about soldiers into one about saints, but the original language doesn’t allow for that leap.
Response to LDS Apologetics on this Verse
The only LDS apologist that I could find analyzing this verse was John Tvedetes in his article on Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon. Like President Nelson, Tvedetes believes that the Book of Mormon’s translation sheds a “favorable light on the Book of Mormon.” Indeed, he goes so far as to claim that the KJV is “gibberish” and “require[s] some correction.” Tvedtnes suggests that a scribe accidentally omitted both a negative particle and a preposition, fundamentally altering the meaning of the verse.
But this argument runs into four major problems:
(1) The text is already grammatically sound as it stands, and the meaning fits the context of Isaiah describing the Persian army serving as agent’s of God’s wrath on Babylon. This is not “gibberish” at all.
(2) No known manuscript shows evidence of such an omission. And with the dead sea scrolls we have proof the same wording we have in our Bibles is attested hundreds of years before Christ.
(3) Tvedtnes’ reconstruction would disrupt Isaiah’s poetic parallelism and rhythm where each part of Isaiah 13:3 builds upon itself to describe God calling the army to carry out his wrath. Tvedtnes instead leaves the final phrase—“those who exult in my majesty”—disconnected from its original context, making it unclear whether these figures are agents of judgment or recipients of divine favor.
(4) It is unlikely that a scribe would omit a negating article like (לֹא, lō’) because it would completely reverse the meaning of the verse. While accidental omissions happen, such a drastic change would be an extremely rare scribal error—especially without any supporting manuscript evidence. The burden of proof, therefore, rests on those advocating for such a radical textual alteration.
19th Century Context
So if the Book of Mormon’s interpretation of Isaiah 13:3 does not represent an accurate translation and does not fit the context or grammar of the ancient text, then what does it represent? The answer is that it fits with a 19th century Protestant worldview, particularly the tendency of Puritan and Evangelical commentators to spiritualize biblical prophecies or to give them an end times focused interpretation.
Joseph Smith’s revision also fits within the restorationist themes of early Mormonism, which envisioned a latter-day Zion composed of sanctified believers spared from God’s judgments upon the wicked.
It also mirrors a pattern in Joseph Smith’s broader translation efforts, such as the Joseph Smith translation, where themes of judgment give way to the salvation of the elect. For instance, in Matthew 13:30, the parable of the wheat and tares is rewritten so the reapers ‘gather ye together first the wheat into my barn’ before binding the tares for burning—reversing the KJV’s focus on judging the wicked first. Likewise, in JST—Matthew 1: 20, the shortening of tribulation days is linked to a covenant promise to save the elect, softening the emphasis on destruction. Like 2 Nephi 23:3, these revisions turn scenarios of wrath into assurances of favor for God’s chosen, reflecting Smith’s 19th-century lens more than ancient prophecy.
Conclusion
Far from clarifying Isaiah, 2 Nephi 23:3 muddies its meaning, trading a coherent prophecy of judgment for a description of the salvation of the righteous. Context, grammar, and history all point to the Book of Mormon’s Isaiah as a product of the 19th century—not a reflection of an ancient source. This raises a deeper question: if 2 Nephi 23:3 reflects Joseph Smith’s 19th-century worldview rather than ancient Hebrew prophecy, how many other so-called ‘corrections’ in the Book of Mormon are shaped more by 1830 than by 600 BCE?