Early Christian Interpretations of Luke 16:16-17

  

16:16–17 Teaching About the Law and the Prophets and the Kingdom of God

 

The Good News of God’s Kingdom is Opened Through the Violence of Christ’s Death and Resurrection. Cyril of Alexandria: He says that Moses and the company of the holy prophets announced beforehand the meaning of my mystery to the inhabitants of earth. The law declares by shadows and types that I should even endure the death of the flesh to save the world and by rising from the dead abolish corruption. The prophets also spoke words meaning the same as the writings of Moses. He says, “It is not strange or not known before, that you reject my words and despise everything that would benefit you. The word of prophecy concerning you and me extends until the holy Baptist John. From the days of John, the kingdom of heaven is preached, and everyone takes it by force.” The kingdom of heaven here means justification by faith, the washing away of sin by holy baptism, and sanctification by the Spirit. It also means worshiping in the Spirit, the service that is superior to shadows and types, the honor of the adoption of children, and the hope of the glory about to be given to the saints. Commentary on Luke, Homily 110.

 

Jesus’ Baptism by John. Ephrem the Syrian: The Law and the Prophets reached as far as John did, but the Messiah is the beginning of the New Testament. Through baptism, the Lord assumed the justice of the Old Testament in order to receive the perfection of the anointing and to give it in its fullness and entirety to his disciples. He ended John’s baptism and the law at the same time. He was baptized in justice, because he was sinless, but he baptized in grace because all others were sinners. Through his justice, he dispensed from the law, and through his baptism, he abolished baptism [of John]. Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron 4.2.

 

Old Things Pass Away. Tertullian: The Creator promised that old things would pass away because he said that new things were to arise. Christ marked the date of that passing, saying, “The law and the prophets were until John.” He set up John as a boundary stone between the one order and the other, of old things thereafter coming to an end, and new things beginning. The apostle necessarily, in Christ revealed after John, also invalidates the old things while validating the new. His concern is for the faith of no other god than the Creator under whose authority it was even prophesied that the old things were to pass away. Against Marcion 5.2.

 

To Take the Kingdom by Force. Cyril of Alexandria: He says that the kingdom of heaven is preached. The Baptist stood in the middle saying, “Prepare the way of the Lord.” He has also shown that he is already near and, as it were, within the doors, even the true Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world. Whoever hears and loves the sacred message takes it by force. This means that he uses all his eagerness and strength in his desire to enter within the hope. He says in another place, “The kingdom of heaven is taken by violence, and the violent seize upon it.” Commentary on Luke, Homily 110. (Luke, ed. Arthur A. Just [Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005], 258-59)

 

Transcription of Zerah Pulsipher statement, March 17, 1855

 The following is a transcription of

 

“Zerah Pulsipher statement, 1855 March 17” (CHL call no.: CR 100 396)

 

Page 1:

 

Zera Pulsiphers statement, made in the Historian's

Office G. S. L. City, March 17th 1855

 

* In the early part of 1838, while a large persecution extended

over Kirtland against the Latter Day Saints, Joseph

Smith with the principal authorities of the Church, fled

from the place to save their lives, leaving a number of the

Presidents of the Seventies, viz Joseph Young, Zera Pulsipher,

Henry Harriman, James Foster, [who] stayed behind with the

greatest share of the poorest members of the Church, We

got together in Counsel, having added three to our number

pro tem., in order to make up seven Presidents. We resolved,

if possible, to move all together to Missouri, yet were much

threatened by the mob against going out in a body, or even

two wagons at a time. The Counsel resolved to pray at

least two evenings each week in the attic story of the Lord's

House. One night, after we had retired, the Methodist

Meeting House, standing near the Temple was burnt down, we

suppose, by the mob & next morning a brand which had been

on fire was found in the Temple, having been thrown in at

the window, but had done no damage. The next day the

Mob circulated News that the Council of Seventies had burnt

down the Methodist Meeting House. The mob raged

exceedingly in consequence, but we attended to our own

business in prayer. Within a day or two Jacob Bump, who

was with the mob continually, said he knew it was not that

Council who had burnt the House. he also said he knew

who it was, and that the Council were not connected with

them or have any knowledge of the plot. This allayed

their feelings a little. We continued in prayer. One evening

while we were in the attic story of the Lord's House and while

I think Joseph Young was at prayer, I saw a heavenly

Messenger, who appeared to be a very tall man dressed in

a white robe from head to foot. He cast his eyes on me

and on the rest of the Council and said, "Be ye and ye

shall have enough", and soon the way was opened

before us that we receive money and means for clothing

 

Page 2:

 

Sec 21    To License, tax & Regulate theatrical and other

          Exhibitions, shows & amusements

 

Sec 22    To tax restrain, Prohibit & suppress, tippling

          houses, Dram shops, gaming Houses, Bawdy and

          other Disorderly Houses

 

Sec 23    To provide, for the prevention & extinguishment of

          fires; to regulate the fixing of chimneys & the

          flues thereof and stovepipes & to organize &

          Establish fire Companies

 

Sec 24    To Regulate the storage of Gun Powder, tar

          Pitch & Rosin, & other combustible Materials

 

Sec 25    To regulate & order Parapet Walls & other partition fences.

          To Wall in the

          City or any part thereof, & [crossed out: other partition fences]

 

Sec 26    To establish standard weights, measures & Reg-

          ulate the weights & measures to be used in

          the City in all cases not provided for by law

 

Sec 27    To Provide for the inspecting & measuring of

          Lumber & other Building Materials & for the Mea-

          surement of all kinds of Mechanical Work

 

Sec 28    To Provide for the inspection & weighing of hay, lime,

          & Pit coal & measuring of charcoal fire wood

          or other fuel to be sold or used within the city

 

Sec 29    To Provide & Regulate the inspection of Tobac-

          -co Beef, Pork, flour, meal; also Beer, whiskey, &

          Brandy & all other spirituous or fermented

          Liquors

 

Sec 30    To regulate the weights quality & price

          of bread sold in the city

 

Page 3:

 

the poor and to prepare for our removal. James Foster,

and Jonathan Duncan also saw the angel at the same

time I did. Not many days after this, while I was at

work in the woods, with a number of workmen, about 9 oclock

in the morning on the 4th of March, I heard a great sound to the

south of me of the rattling of wagons. I continued listening

for a minute or two till it came nearer to me, and it appeared

to be in the air accompanied with the puffing of a steamboat.

The sound came immediately over my head when I was at

work, and then continued towards the Kirtland Temple over the thick

woods. I was afterwards informed that at the same time of the

day, a number of persons near old Father Bosley's house saw

a steamboat in the air with old Father Beaman (who have

died a few months before) standing in the bow, waving his

hat, and singing. He had been president of the Elders and

anointed them at the time of the Endowment. The boat came

directly to the front of the Temple and then immediately divided

in two, one half turned black and went to the north

and the other half turned white, and went to the west.

We continued our exertions as a counsel, and went out

of Kirtland the first part of July following, nearly six

hundred persons in company, with all our wagons and

cattle, as we agreed to do at first. At the time we went

out the mob seemed to be confounded, and in a day

or two got together and swore that they would follow and

destroy us. Jacob Bump, who was then a man of influence

with the mob, went among them at the same time, and

swore he knew we were honest men, and if they attempted

to follow us, he would destroy them, if he had it in his

power. We continued on our way to Missouri, and got

in Daviess county early in October following. X

 

Page 4:

 

Sec 14    To establish hospitals & make regulations for the

          Governments of the same; to make regulations

          to secure the Genl health of the Inhabitants to

          declare what shall be nuisances & to prevent

          & remove the same

 

Sec 15    To provide the city with water to dig wells lay

          pump logs & pipes & Erect pumps in the streets for

          the Extinguishment of fires & the convenience of

          the inhabitants

 

Sec 16    to open, alter, widen, & Extent & Establish

          grade, pave, or otherwise improve & Keep

          repair streets avenues lanes & alleys; & to

          ablish Erect & Keep in repair - aqueducts &

          Bridges

 

Sec 17    To provide for the lighting of the streets

          Erecting lamp posts & to Establish support

          regulate night watches; to Erect Market houses

          Establish markets & market places and provide

          for the Government & Regulation thereof

 

Sec 18    To provide for Erecting all needful buildings for the

          use of the City, & for enclosing improving & Regula-

          ting all public grounds belonging to this city,

          to regulate and control the live trees & shrubbery

          & the Water courses & Water privileges in this city & so

          far as may be necessary the water courses leading

          thereto in the immediate vicinity thereof

 

Sec 19    To License, tax & Regulate auctioneers merchants

          Retailers, Grocers, taverns, Ordinaries, Hawkers, Ped-

          lars, brokers, Pawnbrokers & money changers

 

Sec 20    To License tax & Regulate hackney carriages, Wag-

          ons carts, & Drays, & fix the rates to be charged for

          the carriage of Persons & for the wagonage Cartage

          & drayage of Property; as also to License and regulate

          Porters - and fix the rates of Portage

 

William M. Schniedewind on Solomon's Prayer in 1 Kings (cf. 2 Samuel 7) Assuming "YHWH's physical dwelling place is in the temple"

  

There is a broad consensus that the prayer(s) of Solomon in 1 Kings 8 depends on the Promise from 2 Samuel 7. This is especially true of the second (vv. 14-21) and third (vv. 22-61) prayers. The first prayer is independent, but there are some points that may associate the first prayer with 2 Samuel 7. It bears no indication of Deuteronomic influence, and Weinfeld describes it as an "ancient song" which was "apparently recited by Solomon during the temple inauguration ceremonies. First Kings 8:12-13 reads,

 

אז אמר שלמה יהוה אמר לשׁכן בערפל בנה בניתי בית זבל לך מכון לשבתך עולמים

Then Solomon said, "YHWH has said that he would dwell in thick darkness. I have built you a house of habitation, a place for you to dwell in forever."

 

The language here alludes to 2 Samuel 7. According to this source, YHWH will dwell (לשׁבתך) in the temple which Solomon is building. Likewise, David wants to build a place for YHWH to dwell (2 Sam 7:5, לשׁבתי), and although YHWH rejects David's offer to build a temple it is still clear that YHWH himself dwells in earthly edifices like the tent and tabernacle (vv. 6-7). The relationship between 1 Kings 8:12-13 and 2 Samuel 7:1-17 is only thematic; both assume YHWH’s physical dwelling place is in the temple. (William M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1-17 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 43-44)

 

William M. Schniedewind on the Ark of the Covenant in Psalm 132:8-10 (cf. 2 Chronicles 6:41-42)

  

Psalm 132:8-10 (//2 Chr 6:41-42) emphasizes YHWH's actual presence in the temple. In this processional song, the actual presence of YHWH is enjoined to enter his resting place in the temple. Chronicles thereby underscored the importance of the temple by emphasizing YHWH's actual presence in the face of the theology of the name, which implied that only God's name dwelt in the temple. Indeed, name theology would have been one of the main arguments against the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple. (William M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1-17 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999], 45)

 

Robert H. Stein on Luke 16:16

  

16:16 It is difficult to understand how this verse relates to what has preceded.

 

The Law and the Prophets. This cannot refer to the OT because for Jesus and Luke the OT did not cease with the coming of the kingdom as the next verse shows. See comments on 1:6; Introduction 7 (2). The contrast is also not between the OT and NT Scriptures. This expression must refer here to the OT period or age.

 

Until John. The crux in interpreting this verse is the understanding of how “until” should be interpreted. It can be interpreted “up to but not including” or “up to and including” John. In the second instance John the Baptist is understood as not being part of the realized kingdom. According to this interpretation, he was a Jewish preacher of repentance before the coming of the kingdom. Contrary to Conzelmann and others who hold this view, Luke understood John the Baptist as a bridge between the old age and the new age. Thus he was also part of God’s kingdom. This finds support in the following: (1) John the Baptist preached the “good news” just as Jesus did (cf. Luke 1:19; 3:18). (2) John’s mission was associated with the fulfillment of Scripture (3:4–6) just as was Jesus’ (4:18–19), Peter’s (Acts 2:17–21), and Paul’s (13:47). (3) Luke 3:1–2 introduces the coming of the kingdom temporally with John’s appearance. There is no such introduction for Jesus’ coming because there is no need for one—the NT era began with John’s appearance. (4) John’s message was the same as that of Jesus and the early church. (5) John’s coming was associated with the Spirit’s coming (1:15, 17, 41, 67, 80). He thus fulfilled Elijah’s role (1:17). (6) John’s teachings are presented as normative for the church (3:8–14; see comments on 3:10). (7) Matthew 11:12, the parallel to Luke 16:16, portrays John as part of the NT age. It now is generally agreed that if Conzelmann had included Luke 1–2 as part of the Gospel, he would not have been able to argue so strongly for placing John in the OT era (see comments on 1:68).

 

Since that time. “That time” is the time of John the Baptist’s coming.

 

Good news of the kingdom of God is being preached. The Greek expression that this translates is awkward (the “kingdom of God ‘is being evangelized’ [euangelizetai]”).

 

Everyone is forcing his way into it. The verb can be a middle (“everyone is forcing his way”) or a passive (“everyone is being forced”). The parallel in Matt 11:12 (cf. also Luke 14:23) favors the passive. This view would emphasize the resistance the kingdom receives from Satan, the demons, and Jesus’ opponents and how only through urgent, demanding preaching people enter the kingdom. The middle probably is better, however, and this emphasizes the “violent” decision one must make in order to enter the kingdom (cf. 13:24). Compare 14:25–35. (Robert H. Stein, Luke, [The New American Commentary 24; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992], 418-19)

 

Source-Checking the Quotation from Vasily Bolotov from the Ubi Petrus/Erick Ybarra Debate

During the Ubi Petrus (Denny Sallen)/Ybarra debate on the papacy from 2024, Ybarra, during his opening statement, referred to the work of Vasily Bolotov. Ybarra quoted Bolotov to the effect that

 

All the Roman prerogatives of supremacy are to be found exactly as they have been defined by the Council of the Vatican.

 

He provided Sallen with the following reference:

 

Vasily Bolotov, Lektissi po Isotorii drvnei Tserkvi, vol. 3, ed. A. Brilliantov (St. Petersburg, Russia 1913), 281-85

 

I think I found it on a Russian Website. I am providing a fuller reference (translated from the Russian; emphasis in bold added):

 

All these unfinished thoughts and expressions about the primacy of the bishop of Rome finally find fulfillment in the remarkably clear, powerfully expressed, and complete system of the first doctor ecclesiae on the Roman see, Leo the Great (440–461). He expounded this teaching primarily in his sermons, delivered on the day of his consecration before the assembly of Italian bishops. Some passages are repeated literally in these words. Here are the main points of this teaching.

 

1. Apostle Peter a) is the princeps of the entire order of apostles, surpassing all others in authority (while there was equality of honor and election—par electio, in similitudine honoris—among the apostles there was also a quaedam discretio potestatis (a certain difference in authority)). The danger of falling threatened all the apostles, but Christ especially, proprie, speciali cura (with special care), prays for Peter: may the princeps apostolorum remain steadfast—and the steadfastness of others is assured in his steadfastness. b) Apostle Peter is the foundation of the entire Church. He himself rests on the indestructible strength of the one foundation, Christ, but this steadfastness, inherent in Christ propria potestate (by his own authority), is imparted to Peter participatione (by participation). Peter is received into the closest communion of inseparable unity with Christ—in consortium individuae unitatis assumptus—and represents the mediator between Christ and the entire Church. Linked to the latter as a head to a body, he concentrates within himself the gifts of grace, which only through him descend upon the apostles themselves. The fullness of grace and authority is abundantly communicated first and foremost to Peter, and through him, as head, it flows organically, manat, to the entire body of the Church. Thus, Peter is totius ecclesiae princeps ^, primus of all bishops. He is entrusted with the care of all the sheep; upon him are entrusted the concerns, sollicitudo, of all the pastors of the Church.

 

"Everything," says Sermo IV, "earth and heaven, was submissive to the incarnate Word; everything served the purposes of the divine dispensation. Yet, from the entire world, Peter alone is chosen and placed above all the apostles and all the fathers of the church. The Lord asks all the apostles what people think of Him, and only so far do they collectively respond, conveying the wavering opinions of human ignorance. But as soon as the disciples themselves are asked what they think, the one who was first in apostolic dignity emerges first in confessing the Lord." And when he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for blessed are you, because My Father has taught you that I am His only begotten Son. And as My Father has revealed My divinity to you, so I also confess to you your superiority. You are Peter. That is, I am the immovable rock, I am the cornerstone that makes both one, I am the foundation besides which no one can lay another. Yet you too are a rock, because you are established by My power, so that what is proper to Me by virtue of My authority is shared with you by Me. And upon this rock I will build an eternal temple, and the height of My church, ascending to heaven, will be erected on the firmness of this faith." Thus, "as a reward for his faith, the Lord granted to the most blessed Apostle. Peter received the primacy of apostolic dignity, building the universal church on this firm foundation, on Peter's steadfastness. Consequently, there was not complete equality among the apostles: "And among the most blessed apostles, despite the similarity of honor, there was some difference in authority, and although the election of all was equal, nevertheless, one was granted preeminence over the others." Peter is the prince of the apostles, their head and center, in whom the spiritual interests and privileges of their council are organically concentrated, and the mysterious mediator between Christ and them. All the apostles faced the common danger of temptation and seduction before Christ's suffering. "And yet the Lord is especially concerned for Peter, and actually prays for his faith, as if demonstrating that the position of the others will be safer if the mind of (their) prince remains unshaken. Thus, in the person of Peter, the steadfastness of all is protected, and the assistance of divine grace is distributed so that the strength that Christ bestows upon Peter is communicated through Peter to the apostles." To this end, received into the communion of inseparable unity with Christ, Peter was favored in a special way: he alone received much, and nothing is imparted to anyone else except through communion with him. In him, as the supreme apostle, are concentrated, above all, the rights and duties of the apostleship common to all the apostles, and from him, as head, these gifts flow to the entire body. Peter is the organic center of the priesthood and pastorate. "The Lord has honored him with such communion in His authority that if Peter has anything in common with other leaders of the church, He gives to these latter only through Peter himself what is not denied them." "He is the prince of the whole church,and to him belongs the care of all the shepherds for the sheep entrusted to him, so that, although among the people of God there are many priests and many shepherds, yet in the proper sense Peter rules over them all, just as Christ in the primary sense rules over them.”

 

2. All other pastors of the Church, the apostles and priests, received their authority from Christ Himself. He is its source. Consequently, they are not delegates of the supreme apostle. But a) all the gifts and prerogatives of the apostleship, priesthood, and pastorate were given fully and primarily to Peter and through him, and only through his mediation, are conferred by Christ and all the other apostles and pastors; b) Although there are many priests and many pastors among the people of God, the entire universal Church is governed principaliter by Christ Himself and proprietor by Peter. On these points, the jus proprium episcopatus (the proper right of the episcopacy) approaches the jus delegatum (delegated right) (not in principle, but de facto).

 

3. Primatus, principatus an. Peter's office is not temporary, but permanent, because the truth of his confession is eternal: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And just as Christ is the Son of God forever, so Peter, having taken the reins of the Church, does not abandon them. Invisibly , beyond any doubt, he still personally shepherds the flock of Christ, and now even more fully fulfills what has been entrusted to him and fulfills his duties comprehensively in Christ Himself and with Christ Himself, who glorified him. And visibly, he shepherds the Church through his successors in the Roman See, where his power resides and his authority shines.

 

4. The communion of the Roman bishops with the chief apostle is very close – both in depth and in results – to the consortium potentiae Peter with Christ, a) in depth, because this communion is almost personal: the Roman Church, in the person of the new bishop, receives Peter on the Peter's See; moral dignity does not diminish in the apostle's successors, despite their personal moral shortcomings; Peter speaks through the lips of his successors, b) in results, because the gracious power bestowed upon Peter through this consortium se transfundit spills over onto his successors: they are the heirs of his plenitudo potestatis  Not alongside others, but before all other bishops, they succeed Peter. The Roman See is the spiritual center of the entire Christian world. While other bishops are obliged to care only for the flocks entrusted to them, the successor of Peter is required to have that all-embracing love to which the entire universal church is entrusted, and “cura cum omnibus communis”, and there is no church unit in whose governance he would not take part.

 

Thus, Leo the Great envisioned a universal church, governed in parts by bishops, consolidated by metropolitans, and, through the vicars of the apostolic throne, brought into contact with its center and united within it. The entire ecclesiastical structure is a reflection of the relationships that existed among the apostles. Just as there was equality of election but no equality of power, so too the bishops are equal in hierarchical dignity, but not in their canonical rights, nor in their participation in church governance. Among them are metropolitans, whose jurisdiction is limited to a particular province. Above them rise those whom the Bishop of Rome appointed as his vicars, calling them to participate in the labors of church governance, albeit without full authority. They are to act as intermediaries in the provinces' relations with the single center of the universal church, the See of Peter, where the successor of the chief apostle, vested with plenitudo potestatis, sits. The care of all churches belongs to the Bishop of Rome, principaliter ex divina institutione. However, Leo the Great also recognizes metropolitan authority as "divinitus datum," and only the papal vicars possess their authority in the strict sense of jure delegate. The episcopatus universalis of the Roman pontiff, outlined by Leo the Great, does not exclude the hierarchical (sacramental) equality of all bishops; only the latter do not possess plenitudo potestatis.

 

From this theory Leo the Great drew the following practical consequences (against Hilary of Arles):

 

1) Since the entire church is founded on the firmness of Peter, then he who moves away from this stronghold places himself outside the mysterious body of Christ – the church.

 

2) He who encroaches on the authority of the Roman bishop and refuses to obey the apostolic throne does not want to obey the blessed apostle Peter.

 

3) He who rejects the authority and primacy, principatum an. of Peter, cannot in the least diminish its dignity, but, puffed up with a spirit of pride, casts himself down to hell.

 

At the same time, Valentinian III (July 8, 445), under the influence of Leo the Great, wrote to Gaul: "Let no one attempt anything not authorized by this See, and let what the authority of the Apostolic See has decreed be law for all. A bishop summoned to Rome must be compelled to appear by the civil authority. For only then is universal ecclesiastical peace possible when the entire universe recognizes its ruler... And is there anything in ecclesiastical matters that exceeds the authority of such a pontiff?"

 

The expressions of other Roman bishops pale in comparison with this developed system and only from it receive full illumination.

 

Even if the idea of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was beyond Leo the Great's comprehension, all the prerogatives later confirmed at the Vatican Council had already been granted on a legal basis. A trial of the Bishop of Rome was unnecessary: even if he had shortcomings, they were atoned for and covered by the virtues of Peter, who held the See of Rome as Bishop. Thus, it is assumed that the Bishop of Rome should be free of serious sins. It would be quite interesting to know how Leo the Great viewed his predecessors, some of whom even renounced the true faith, but Leo the Great does not comment on this. Leo's speeches on the day of his consecration must have been all the more significant because bishops from regions near Rome came there to offer their congratulations to the Pope. Later documents indicate that it was even considered improper for bishops not to be in Rome on the anniversary of a pope's consecration. Pope Gregory the Great even wrote letters of dismissal to some bishops. Therefore, Leo the Great spoke with careful consideration. If some of his expressions lack the desired clarity, it must be remembered that the Church at that time was still living in the forms of classical education, and Leo the Great was a distant successor to Cicero and Julius Caesar. A distinctive feature of this education is the aesthetic quality of language. The mathematical and logical nature of our exposition was inappropriate for the concepts of that time. We use the same term throughout our speech for the sake of precision, and any addition is an attempt to change its meaning. The Pope, however, varied words for aesthetic purposes and to avoid repetition. Leo the Great expressed the position that all the apostles received supreme authority from Jesus Christ, but received it through the Apostle Peter as their head. The Pope analogizes his relationship with other bishops to that of the Apostle Peter, but this is unclear. We await the Pope's answer to the question: are the powers of other bishops transmitted to them through the Bishop of Rome or not? The Pope did not answer, and this would have been very important. Subjects receive their powers from the sovereign and lose them upon his death; the successor must restore them. The legate enjoyed the pope's powers only during his lifetime, and after his death, he had to await new powers. If all powers were received through the living pope, how can we explain the state of the church after the pope's death? All these questions, so essential for us, did not arise for Leo's contemporaries, or did so less insistently.

 

Enough has been said to survey the breadth of the conclusions drawn from Leo the Great's views. If Peter's powers are exceptional, then the popes necessarily have plenitudo potestatis not only over the West but also over the East. History must determine the extent to which this necessity was recognized and implemented. (Vasily Bolotov, Lektisii po Istorii drvnei Tserkvi [St. Petersburg, Russia: 1913], volume 3)

 

Ubi Petrus, btw, has an excellent two-part review of the debate on his “members only” section of his youtube channel. I would strongly recommend subscribing, even for just one month, and watching both to see the quote-mining Ybarra engaged in during that debate. It was truly eye-opening.

Ezra Taft Benson Making Open Theistic-Leaning Comments During the October 1981 General Conference

 Many Latter-day Saints who are not Open Theists tend to be inconsistent. As one notable example:

 

In 1832, he prophesied that the southern states and northern states would shortly be divided in civil war, that this war would be the beginning of world wars which would eventually involve all nations and result in the death and misery of many souls. Specifically, he said that the great Civil War would begin with a rebellion in South Carolina. (See D&C 87.) This prophecy was published to the world in 1851.

 

As every schoolboy knows, the Civil War began with the secession of South Carolina from the Union, and other states followed. When Lincoln sent provisions to the Union forces at Fort Sumter, South Carolina, the Confederate forces opened fire on the fort. Since that fateful day in 1861, the world has seen as a result of warfare the death and misery of many souls.

 

The desire of the Prophet Joseph Smith was to save the Union from that bloody conflict. He recognized the iniquity of slavery and urged Congress to abolish it and to pay the slaveholders from the sale of public lands. The message went unheeded, and nearly one-half million souls died in the Civil War. (Ezra Taft Benson, "Joseph Smith: Prophet to our Generation," General Conference, October 1981)

 

It appears that Benson (who was not an Open Theist) believed that there was a real possibility that things could have happened differently had people heeded the warning of what is now D&C 87.

 

On D&C 87 itself, as well as other issues relating to Joseph Smith’s prophecies, see:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies