Daniel J. Treier on 1 Timothy 3:16

 

The ascension, visibly, even liturgically, marked the end of Jesus’s earthly mission and announced his future return. Despite Jesus’s apparent departure, the disciples could be joyful because they knew they would not be abandoned. His Spirit would be with them, and someday he would return. Since the ascension returned the Son to prior glory, the new element of exaltation involved his theandric identity as the God-man. Now, as Daniel 7 anticipated the Son of Man has received royal-priestly authority at God the Father’s right hand. For Jesus to share in the name above every name (Phil 2:9) exalted a human life to inaugurate our promised participation in God’s reign. Justification terminology is used for Jesus’s vindication by the Spirit (1 Tim 3:16); in the resurrection and ascension he attains divine approval that we come to share. The active obedience form which our justification follows is not merely a spartan compliance with divine commands but a heroic self-offering with which God is pleased. (Daniel J. Treier, Lord Jesus Christ [New Studies in Dogmatics; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Academic, 2023], 283, emphasis added)

 

Stephen G. Morgan on Joseph Smith being "the one mighty and strong" (D&C 85:7)

THE ONE MIGHTY AND STRONG—JOSEPH SMITH

 

In Doctrine and Covenants 85:7, the Lord states:

 

And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a foundation of truth, to set in order the house of God.

 

An example of Joseph Smith taking upon himself the attributes of the one mighty and strong was recorded by Parley P. Pratt as follows:

 

Following the shameful and wicked treatment of our people at Far West, Parley P. Pratt and others spent eight months in jail in Missouri, six months in Richmond, Ray County, and two months in Columbia, Boone County, and escaped from prison on the 4th of July, 1839. All through the bitter persecution of that period, he and the other leaders were subjected to the most inhuman and barbarous treatment. Brother Pratt relates the following circumstance that took place in the Richmond jail:

 

I had listened to the vile and foul-mouthed guards till I became so disgusted, shocked, horrified, and so filled with the spirit of indignant justice that I could scarcely refrain from rising upon my feet and rebuking the guards, but had said nothing to Joseph or any one else, although I lay next to him and knew he was awake. On a sudden he (the Prophet) arose to his feet, and spoke in a voice of thunder, or as the roaring lion, uttering, as near as I can recollect, the following words:

 

SILENCE, ye fiends of the infernal pit. In the name of Jesus Christ, I rebuke you, and command you to be still. I will not live another minute and hear such language. Cease such talk, or you or I die THIS INSTANT.

 

He ceased to speak. He stood erect in terrible majesty. Chained and without a weapon, calm, unruffled and dignified as an angel, he looked upon the quailing guards, whose weapons were lowered or dropped to the ground, whose knees smote together, and who, shrinking into a corner, or crouching at his feet, begged his pardon, and remained quiet till a change of guards.

 

I have seen the ministers of justice, clothed in magisterial robes, and criminals arraigned before them, while life was suspended on a breath, in the courts of England; I have witnessed a Congress in solemn session to give laws to nations; I have tried to conceive of kings, of royal courts, of thrones and crowns, and of emperors assembled to decide the fate of kingdoms, but dignity and majesty have I seen but once, as it stood in chains, at midnight, in a dungeon in an obscure village of Missouri. (Bryan S. Hinckley, Parley P. Pratt, a Gifted Poet and Preacher, 115-16, quoting from Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 3d ed., 228-29)

 

During the early part of 1839, Joseph was falsely charged along with other leaders of the Church, and they spent several months in Liberty Jail. This was a difficult time for Joseph, who was away from his wife and children. In this time of sorrow and grief, Joseph cried out unto the Lord in frustration. The Lord’s response to Joseph is set forth in Sections 121 and 122 of the Doctrine and Covenants. In part, Joseph received the following revelation:

 

[The author then quotes from D&C 121:1-3, 7, 26-28, 32; 122; 1, 4, 7-9]

 

. . .

 

Joseph Smith was also the one that Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, prophesied was to come forth in the latter days, restore the gospel and prepare the way for the second coming of Jesus Christ. . . . The Book of Mormon, when talking about the latter-day Joseph, says:

 

[The author quotes 2 Nephi 3:11, 24]

 

Joseph Smith was the “one mighty and strong” that was “an instrument in the hands of God” through whom all the truths taught by all the holy prophets were restored to the earth. Doctrine and Covenants 135:3 states:

 

[The author quotes D&C 135:3]

 

(Stephen G. Morgan, Hidden Treasures of Knowledge: An Abridgement of Ancient Religious Documents Which Support the Revealed Word of God [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Distributors, 2006], 468, 470-71, 472)

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum on Jesus's Limited Knowledge During Mortality

 

8. His Limited Knowledge

 

In His humanity, He had limited knowledge; there were things He did not know. Two examples of this limited knowledge are Mark 13:32 and John 11:34. (Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Messiah Yeshua, Divine Redeemer: Christology from a Messianic Jewish Perspective [San Antonio, Tex.: Ariel Ministries, 2015], 99)

 

Francis Turretin on David as an Example of Justification in Romans 4 (cf. Psalm 32)

 

Fourth, the examples of Abraham and David conveyed by Paul in Romans 4 are not about them before conversion and faith, but abut them already converted. If he had spoke about Abraham when he was first called out of Ur of the Chaldees, he could have restricted it with an exclusive true species to work that had preceded his calling. But he speaks about him already converted and established amid the course of godliness, in which, undoubtedly, he had already performed many good works, and yet when he asks the method of his justification, he declares that faith was imputed for righteousness not to the one who works but to the one who believes. In this day, David, when he proclaims the blessed (μακαρισμον) of man in the forgiveness of sins and begs for God’s judgment (Pss. 32:1; 143:2), he does not speak about himself as an unbeliever and unregenerate person, but already a believer and converted. (Francis Turretin, “A Textual Theological Exercise concerning the Harmony of Pual and James on the Articles of Justification” (1687), in Justification by Faith Alone: Selected Writings from Theodore Beza (1519-1605), Amandus Polanus (1561-1610), and Francis Turretin (1623-1687) [trans. Casey Carmichael; Classic Reformed Theology 6; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Press, 2023], 190)

 

Francis X. Doyle (RC) on John 6:64

 

Ver. 64. The flesh profiteth nothing. Dead flesh separated form the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man’s flesh, that is to say, man’s natural and carnal apprehension (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ) profit anything. But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ’s flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. (Francis X. Doyle, Defense of the Catholic Church: Combined with a Study of the Life of Christ Based on the Gospels [1927; repr., Pekin, Ind.: Refuge of Sinners Publishing, Inc., 2022], 469)

 

Francis X. Doyle (1927) on the Catholic Teaching of the Indefectibility of the Church

The expression “the consummation of the world” [in Matt 28:20] means the end of the world; “all days” means constantly, i.e., without any interruption, always. Therefore, Christ will be with the teaching-body which He established in His Apostles always and to the end of the world. Therefore, this same teaching-body will remain always and to the end of the world. But this would not be true unless the teaching-body were also perpetual and unchangeable, at least in its substantials. The teaching-body in its doctrines is unchangeable, for it cannot reject any doctrine of Christ; nor explain any doctrine in a sense contradictory to that already attributed to it; nor can any public relation be added which is altogether new. For

(a) If the teaching-body ever rejected any of Christ’s doctrines, it could err, and we have proved that it cannot err.

(b) If the teaching-body explained a doctrine in contradictory senses, it would have to reject one of these senses and admit its error.

(c) If the teaching-body added any new revelation to Christ’s doctrine, then this new revelation would be a truth of the Christian religion. But Christ promised: “But when, the Spirit of truth, is come he will teach you all truth” (John XVI, 13), and this certainly means that every truth of the Christian religion was entrusted to the Apostles. This, too, is the way they understood the promise, for e.g., Paul urges Timothy to guard the deposit of faith and to avoid all novelties (I Tim. VI, 20, 21; Galatians I, 6 to 9). And from the very beginning of Christ’s Church, it was an axiom among the foremost teachers that after the Apostles there would be no new public revelations. (Francis X. Doyle, Defense of the Catholic Church: Combined with a Study of the Life of Christ Based on the Gospels [1927; repr., Pekin, Ind.: Refuge of Sinners Publishing, Inc., 2022], 203)

 

The Holy Spirit always watches that the teaching-body does not make a mistake, and directs the teaching-body if it should be about to make a mistake. If, for instance, a false doctrine is about to be taught, the Holy Spirit would prevent it. Or if there is hesitation in the minds of the teachers as to what Christ taught, the Holy Spirit would excite clear and distinct ideas and true judgments on the matter, and suggest words and phrases which would convey the true doctrines accurately.

 

If the Holy Spirit did not continually watch, He would not assist, and the Apostles could err. And while, ordinarily, this watchfulness would suffice when matters are proceeding properly; still, since the teaching body of itself is an organization of weak human beings open to error, the Holy Spirit must at times effectively direct the teachers either by preventing the error, or by suggesting the true doctrine of Christ.

 

With such watchfulness and directions on the part of the Holy Spirit, the teaching-body can never make a mistake in teaching Christ’s doctrines. (Francis X. Doyle, Defense of the Catholic Church: Combined with a Study of the Life of Christ Based on the Gospels [1927; repr., Pekin, Ind.: Refuge of Sinners Publishing, Inc., 2022], 171)

 

 

Rosamond McKitterick on Canon 6 of the Council of Chalcedon

 

Canon 6 of the 318 holy fathers

 

16. The church of Rome has always had primacy. Egypt is therefore also to enjoy the right that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, since this is the custom for the Roman bishop also. Likewise both the one appointed in Antioch, and in the other providences the churches of the larger cities, are to enjoy primacy. It is entirely clear that, if anyone were to be ordained bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this holy council has decreed that he ought not to be a bishop. But certainly, if the common consent of all is rightly approved and determined according to the ecclesiastical rule, and some two or three oppose it through their own contentiousness, that decision is to prevail which has the support of the priests who are greater in number. Since ancient custom and old tradition has held that deference is to be shown to the bishop of Aelia, that is, Jerusalem, he is consequently to enjoy this honour, saving, however, the proper dignity of the metropolitan. (85-86)

 

This is the western version of Canon 6 of Nicaea, which w translate from the Latin version. The authentic Greek version is given below (17); it differs in not asserting Roman primacy. This was actually crucial for the issue in debate at this session, which concerned not the relative standing of Rome and Constantinople but the jurisdiction of the latter in the east. (Ibid., 85 n. 36)

 

Canon 6 of the holy fathers

 

17. Let the ancient customs in Egypt prevail, namely that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over everything, [38] since this is customary for the bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch also and in the other provinces let the privileges be preserved in the churches. It is clear that if anyone should become a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great council has decreed that he ought not to be a bishop. But if however the common vote of all, being reasonable and according to the ecclesiastical canon, is opposed by two or three through their own contentiousness, let the vote of the majority prevail. (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 3 vols. [trans. Richard Price and Michael Gaddis; Translated Texts for Historians 45; Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005, 2007] 86)

 

The authentic text of the canon reads, ‘Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, namely that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over them all.’ The omission of Libya and Pentapolis echoes the same omission in the Roman version of the canon, and is perhaps to be attributed to copyists rather than to Aetius. (Ibid., 86 n. 38)

 

The Liber pontificalis recast Eusebius’s account in a way that reinforced the fundamental aspects of Peter’s role as Bishop of Rome. In every respect the author of the Liber pontificalis augmented his sources or offered a different perspective on the information they contained. The subsequent direct reference to Antioch and the allusion to Mark are perhaps also to be taken as an oblique reference to Alexandria. This might be taken, moreover, as a subtle enhancement of Rome’s relationship with that see and what Philippe Blaudeau has referred to as Rome’s ‘géo-ecclésiologie’. In this respect, with the implied superiority of Rome over Antioch and Alexandria, two of the principal patriarchal sees of late antiquity, it might also be read as echoing the sixth clause in the account of the Council of Nicaea, that Rufinus offered in his translation and extension of the Historia ecclesiastica of Eusebius. Rufinus notes Alexandria’s responsibility for Egypt and the Bishop of Rome’s charge of the suburbicarian churches of Italy. (Rosamond McKitterick, Rome and the Invention of the Papacy: The Liber Pontificalis [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020], 78)