A Critical Evaluation of Translational Differences
The theological implications of Romans 4:25 are of critical importance to the study of soteriology and the doctrine of justification. This verse, used by the Apostle Paul to articulate the connection between Christ’s atoning death and His resurrection, is rendered differently in two major translations of Scripture: the Authorized Version (AV or KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV). The AV reads: “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25, AV). By contrast, the NKJV translates it as: “who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification” (NKJV).
In a recent exposition, Pastor Scott Ingram of Omega Baptist Church defended the NKJV’s rendering of Romans 4:25. He dismissed concerns over the NKJV’s choice to translate the preposition dia (διά) as “because of” instead of “for,” arguing that it reflects contextual preferences rather than theological differences. However, an in-depth examination of the theological and translational issues reveals significant concerns over the implications of this distinction. The following analysis explores why the AV’s rendering of “for” preserves the theological integrity of Paul’s argument, while the NKJV’s choice introduces ambiguity and potentially causes believers to stumble.
The Semantic Range of Dia and Its Implications for Romans 4:25
The Greek preposition dia plays a crucial role in the interpretation of this verse. Pastor Ingram acknowledges that dia can be rendered as “for,” “on account of,” or “because of,” depending on context. Greek lexicons such as Strong’s Concordance confirm this flexibility, indicating that dia with an accusative case can denote purpose or result, while with the genitive, it often conveys causation. Nevertheless, context and theological coherence must guide translational choices.
The AV’s rendering of dia as “for” aligns with Paul’s theological emphasis in Romans. The phrase “raised again for our justification” suggests that the resurrection of Christ was instrumental in securing the believer’s justification. By contrast, the NKJV’s choice of “because of our justification” risks implying that justification existed as an independent reality, separate from and antecedent to the resurrection. While the NKJV’s rendering might not intend to convey such a notion, this phrasing introduces ambiguity and fails to preserve the soteriological argument of Paul.
Arthur Farstad’s Perspective and the NKJV Translation
Arthur Farstad, co-editor of the Believer’s Bible Commentary and one of the architects of the NKJV, defended the NKJV’s choice of “because of.” Farstad and co-author William MacDonald sought to convey that Christ’s resurrection was God’s public declaration of His satisfaction with Christ’s atoning work. Their intent was not to imply that justification was a pre-existing condition independent of the resurrection but rather to affirm the divine ratification of Christ’s work. However, despite these intentions, the choice of “because of” creates the potential for theological confusion by introducing the idea of an antecedent state of justification [Believer’s Bible Commentary: Second Edition– ChurchSource]
Avoiding Stumbling Blocks in Translation
A translation team bears a grave responsibility to convey the truths of Scripture with clarity, precision, and fidelity to the original intent. Any ambiguity that risks altering fundamental doctrines or confusing believers must be avoided. Translators must not put a stumbling block before the church by creating openings for erroneous interpretations (cf. Romans 14:13). The NKJV’s choice to render dia as “because of” opens the door for misunderstanding by implying a causative relationship between pre-existing justification and the resurrection of Christ.
The AV’s choice of “for” reflects the theological purpose of the resurrection in achieving and securing the believer’s justification. It establishes the resurrection as the divine act by which God declares the righteousness of those who are in Christ. Such precision guards against misinterpretations that could lead to serious doctrinal errors.
The Role of the Resurrection in Paul’s Doctrine of Justification
Central to Paul’s theology is the assertion that justification is realized through Christ’s death and resurrection. In Romans 3:24, Paul explicitly states that believers are “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24, AV). Justification is not an inherent quality in humanity but a divine act grounded in Christ’s atoning death and victorious resurrection. Paul elsewhere insists that “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17, AV). This demonstrates that the resurrection is not merely declarative but constitutive of justification, effecting the application of Christ’s redemptive work to believers.
Pastor Ingram’s appeal to the intentions of Arthur Farstad does not address the inherent ambiguity in the NKJV’s phrase “because of.” This ambiguity risks suggesting that justification was a prior reality separate from the resurrection, a dangerous implication that could confuse believers and distort the doctrine of justification.
Theological and Hermeneutical Considerations
The phrase “raised again for our justification” in the AV reflects a theological precision grounded in Paul’s larger argument. John Calvin, in his commentary on Romans, emphasizes that the resurrection serves as the divine seal upon the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death. Calvin states that “as by his death sins were expiated, so by his resurrection righteousness was obtained.” The resurrection, therefore, is not merely a confirmation but the divine act that actualizes justification (Calvin, Commentary on Romans, Romans 4:25).
The AV’s use of “for” maintains the essential connection between the resurrection and the act of justifying believers. By contrast, the NKJV’s phrasing suggests a justification that exists independently of the resurrection. The AV’s clarity is essential for preserving the doctrine of justification, particularly in light of historical debates over soteriology and the Protestant Reformation’s emphasis on sola fide.
Addressing the Argument of Cults’ Use of the AV
Some argue that cults like the Mormons exclusively use the AV to lend credibility to their teachings, claiming that its authority supports their false doctrines. This, however, is a flawed argument. The issue at hand is not whether a translation can be misused—any translation can be twisted to suit a false narrative, especially when removed from its historical and theological context. Instead, the focus should be on the faithfulness of the translation to convey the original text’s meaning. The AV’s fidelity to the biblical text should not be blamed for the heresies of those who misuse it; rather, it should be defended against translations that introduce ambiguity or misinterpretation.
Conclusion: Preserving Doctrinal Clarity and Avoiding Stumbling Blocks
The debate over Romans 4:25 is not a mere linguistic matter but a doctrinal issue with far-reaching implications. The AV’s rendering of “for our justification” aligns with the broader Pauline corpus, affirming that justification is not a pre-existing human reality but a divine act secured through the death and resurrection of Christ. The NKJV’s choice of “because of” introduces ambiguity that risks undermining the connection between Christ’s resurrection and the believer’s justification.
Pastor Ingram’s defense of the NKJV overlooks the potential stumbling block this translation introduces. Translation teams have a duty not only to render the original text accurately but also to avoid creating pitfalls for believers. The AV’s clarity in Romans 4:25 serves as a safeguard against theological confusion and faithfully conveys the truth that Christ’s resurrection is the divine instrument through which believers are declared righteous.
Ultimately, the Authorized Version remains a reliable and steadfast witness to the gospel of grace. Its clear articulation of central doctrines, such as justification, should be upheld, not disparaged, due to the misuse by cults. The focus should be on preserving the integrity of the text and ensuring that believers are not led astray by ambiguous translations. For those committed to the authority of God’s Word, the phrase “for our justification” in Romans 4:25 remains a bulwark of doctrinal clarity and theological precision.
