Mishnah Eduyot 8.7: Elijah, When He Returns, Will Solve Outstanding Halakhic Disputes

In Mishnah Eduyot 8.7, we read the following tradition concerning the then-future return of Elijah and how he will solve outstanding halakhic disputes:

 

Rabbi Joshua said: I have received a tradition from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher [heard it] from his teacher, as a halakhah [given] to Moses from Sinai, that Elijah will not come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near, but to put away those brought near by force and to bring near those put away by force. The family of Beth Tzriphah was on the other side of the Jordan and Ben Zion put it away by force; and yet another family was there, and Ben Zion brought it near by force. It is such as these that Elijah will come to pronounce unclean or to pronounce clean, to put away or to bring near. Rabbi Judah says: to bring near, but not to put away. Rabbi Shimon says: to conciliate disputes. And the Sages say: neither to put away nor to bring near, but to make peace in the world, for it is said, “Behold I send to you Elijah the prophet”, etc., “and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 3:23-2. (source)

 

Andrew of Caesarea Identifying the “Altar” (θυσιαστήριον) of Revelation 8:3 with the Person of Jesus

 

8:3b. And to him was given much incense, in order to offer the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne;

This altar is Christ, upon whom is established every ministering and holy power and to whom the sacrifices of martyrdom are carried, of whom the altar was the foreshadowing shown to Moses on the mountain together with the tabernacle. The incense is the prayers of the saints, as sweet fragrances to God, as has been said. And before the throne meaning Christ, clearly the supreme [88] holy powers, as has been said, on account of the flow of fiery divine love in them and pure wisdom and knowledge. The interpretation of the names of the supreme powers who approach God shows precisely that. (Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, ed. David G. Hunter [trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou; The Fathers of the Church 123; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011], 113)

 

Nonnus of Panopolis (5th century) Using θεοπνευστος for Jesus’s Sandals

  

καὶ ὁπίστερος ὅστις ἱκάνει, Σήμερον ὑμεῖων μέσος ἵσταται, οὐ πρὸς ἄκρου, Ἀνδρομένην παλάμην οὐκ ἀξίος εἰμι πελάσσας, Λῦσαι μόνων ἱμάντα θεοπνεύστοιο πεδίλου. (Nonnus of Panopolis, Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.27 [PG 43:753])

 

And whoever comes last, today stands in the midst of you, not at the edge; I am not worthy, with a man’s hand, to draw near and loosen even the single strap of the God-breathed sandal.

 

The Use of θεόπνους in the Works of Leontius of Byzantium and George of Pisidia

Lampe, in his A Patristic Greek Lexicon, defines θεόπνους thusly:

 

θεόπνους, breathed on by God, permeated with God’s Spirit ζῶν δὲ Χριστὸς σῶμα θ. καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν σαρκὶ θεϊκόν, νοῦς οὐράνιος Apoll.fr.155(p.249.3)ap.Leont.B.Apoll.(M.86.1964b); τῶν ὑπερτέρων νόων ὑπερβέβηκεν ἡ θεόπνους ἀκρότης Geo.Pis.hex.1474(M.92.1547a). (“Θεόπνους,” in A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe [Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1961], 630)

 

Here are the two references from above:

 

Leontius of Byzantium (480-543), Against the Forgeries of the Apollinarists (Migne 86:1961, 1964):

 

Καὶ μεθ’ ἕτερα πάλιν.

 

Καὶ ἐν ταὐτῷ μὲν ἐνεργοῦν εἶδος τὸ Πνεῦμα, ποιαὐτὴν ἐνέργειαν οἷα καὶ χωρισθείη ἂν, θεῖον ἡγῇσεαυτόν, ὡς καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ σοῦ χρωτὸς ἀπερ[ρ]ιμμένον ὕφασμα, δύνασθαι νόσους ἰᾶσθαι; τὸ δὲ ἀχωρίστως θεῷ συναφθέν, καὶ ταὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν τὴν οὐσιώδη γεγονός, Ὁ Λόγος γὰρ, φησί, σὰρξ ἐγένετο, τοῦτο οὐ θεῖον οὐδὲ θεὸν ὑπελήγας;

 

Πάλιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή, «Οὐκ ἤδο- [ἢ] κρεοφαγίας παρὰ Θεῷ,» φησὶν οὕτως·

 

Οὐ μὴν ὅτι τὸ συναμφότερον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, ἀλλ’ ἠνωμένον τῷ οὐρανίῳ, καὶ πρῶτον ἐν μετ’ αὐτοῦ γεγονὸς οὐράνιον κατὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἐστίν, καὶ ὡς οὐράνιον προσκυνεῖται τῇ τοῦ οὐρανίου Θεοῦ προσκυνήσει, καὶ ὡς οὐράνιον σῴζει τῇ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δυνάμει.

 

Καὶ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον ἐπιστολῆς, ἧς ἡ ἀρχή, «Ἐμοὶ καὶ φιλίας ὑποθέσεως ἡ εἰσέ-
βεια,» μετ’ ὀλίγα φησὶν οὕτως

 

Ὅτι δὲ ἡμῖν οὐδεὶς ἐπάγειν δύναται ταῦτα κατὰ τινων λεγόμενα, δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐξ ὧν αὖθις γράφομεν· οὔτε τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ λέγοντες, οὔτε ὁμοούσιον τῷ Θεῷ καθ’ ὅσον ἐστὶ σὰρξ καὶ σύ θεός· θεῖον δὲ καθ’ ὅσον εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον ἤνωται θεότητι.

 

Πάλιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή, «Δοξάσωμεν πρεπόντως τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,» φησὶν οὕτως περὶ τὸ τέλος·Ζῶν δὲ Χριστὸς σῶμα θεόπνευστον, καὶ πνεῦμα ἐν σαρκὶ θείκον, νοῦς οὐράνιος, οὗ μετασχεῖν εὐχόμεθα·κατὰ τὸ, «Ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν»· αἰωνὶ ἁγία θεότητι συγγενής, καὶ τοῖς μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς ἐνιδρύσασα θεότητα, θεμέλιος αἰωνίου ζωῆς, ἀρχηγὸς ἀφθαρσίας ἀνθρωπείης, αἰωνίου κτίσεως δημιουργός, τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος πατήρ.

 

Πάλιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ λόγῳ συλλογιστικῷ, συνκειμένῳ εἰς τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν Ἰωάννην, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή, «Διὰ τοῦ Λόγου τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,» κατὰ τὴν εὐαγγελιστικήν, φησὶν οὕτως·

 

Πῶς οὖ θεὸς ἀληθῶς ὁ λέγων· Τόσον χρόνον μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; τὴν ὡς ἀνθρώπου συνδιάτριβην μετὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐν το σούτῳ χρόνῳ δηλοῖ, καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον θεὸν ἀποδείκνυς· ὥστε οὐκ αἰσχυντέον ὁμοούσιον τῷ θεῷ τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον λέγειν, θεότητος εἴδει τῷ πατρικῷ γνωριζόμενον, ὡς ἡ ὕλη τῷ σώματι.

 

 

Again, elsewhere:

 

And in the same way the Spirit is at work; and would you not regard that very power as divine, even as a garment taken from your own body can heal diseases? But what is inseparably joined to God, and has become one with him through union, as the Word says, “The Word became flesh,” would you not think that to be divine, indeed God himself?

 

Again, in another discourse, whose beginning is “Not [the same?] sacrifice of flesh before God,” he says this:

 

Not that both natures came from heaven, but that what has been joined to the heavenly, and has become heavenly through union, is heavenly; and as heavenly it is worshiped with the worship paid to the heavenly God, and as heavenly it saves by the power of heaven.

 

And from the letter to Dionysius, whose beginning is “For me, and for the sake of friendship, piety…,” he says a little later:

 

That no one can charge us with saying these things about certain persons is clear from what we write again: we are not saying either that the Savior’s flesh is from heaven, or that, as flesh, it is consubstantial with God; but it is divine insofar as it has been united into one person with divinity.

 

Again, in another discourse, whose beginning is “Let us rightly glorify our Lord Jesus Christ,” he says near the end:

 

The living Christ is a God-breathed body, and a divine spirit in flesh, a heavenly mind, in which we pray to share; according to “But we have the mind of Christ”: allied to holy divinity and bestowing divinity on those who partake of it, foundation of eternal life, source of human incorruption, maker of eternal creation, father of the age to come.

 

Again, in another argumentative discourse composed on the Evangelist John, whose beginning is “Through the Word all things came to be,” he says in the exposition:

 

How then is the one who says, “Have I been with you so long, and still you do not know me, Philip?” truly God? He is showing his dwelling among human beings for such a long time in the manner of a man, and thereby proving the man to be God. So one should not be ashamed to call such a man consubstantial with God, since he is known by the paternal divinity, just as matter is by the body.

 

 

George of Pisidia (580-634), Hexaemeron, Lines 1472-1490 [=(Migne PG 92:1546-47):

 

Καὶ συγχομίζειν, ὥσπερ ἄλλος τοὺς φόρους,
Ἐκεῖθεν ἔνθεν τὰς φορὰς τῶν λειψάνων
Ἀρτηρίας, καὶ νεῦρα, σάρκας, καὶ φλέβας,
Καὶ παντὸς ἄρθρου συλλογὴν κεχρυμμένων,
Συνεισάγειν δὲ τὰς ἑκάστου λοιπάδας·
Εἰσὶ γὰρ ἄχρι καὶ τριχὸς γεγραμμένοι·
Φέρειν τε πᾶσαν τὴν ἐναπόγραφον φύσιν
Τῇ πρὸς τὸν αὐτῆς δεσπότην περιστάσει·
Ὅπως ὑφέξει τοῖς ἐπείκταις ἀγγέλοις
Τοὺς συλλογισμοὺς τῶν χρεῶν καὶ τῶν τόκων,
Καὶ τὰς ἀπαρχὰς τῆς γεώδους καρδίας.

 

Σπόρου τε καρπὸν, καὶ σπορᾶς ἀκαρπίαν,
Ζυγοῦ τε λείμμα, καὶ ροπῆς εὐσταθμίαν,
Καὶ πᾶσαν ἁπλῶς ψυχικὴν λειτουργείαν.
Οὕτως ἑαυτὸν ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ἔθου
Γνωστὸν παρ’ ἡμῖν, καίπερ ὢν κεχρυμμένος·
Ὅσον γὰρ ἡμᾶς τῶν ὑπερτέρων νόων
Ὑπερέδειξεν ἡ θεόπνους ἀκρότης,
Τοσοῦτον αὐτάς αἱ μέσαι,

καὶ τὰς μέσας

 

 

And to gather them together, as another gathers taxes,
from here and there the scattered portions of the remains:
arteries, sinews, flesh, and veins,
and the hidden gathering of every joint;
and to bring together the remaining parts of each one.
For they are written down even to a hair.
And to bring back the whole nature, inscribed as it is,
to the condition of its own master,
so that it may render to the exacting angels
an account of debts and interest,
and the firstfruits of the earthy heart:
the fruit of seed and the barrenness of sowing,
the deficiency in the balance and the evenness of the scale,
and every simple function of the soul.
Thus you have made yourself known to us through your activities,
though hidden; for in proportion as the God-breathed summit
has shown us the things above the higher minds,
so much do the intermediate beings, and the middle ones

 

Methodius of Olympus (d. 311) Refering To His Sermon as being a θεοπνευστος composition

  

Λέγει Μωσαϊκῶς· Οὗτός μου θεός, καὶ δοξάσω αὐτόν, θεὸς τοῦ πατρός μου, καὶ ὑψώσω αὐτόν. Ἐχόμενα δὲ τῶν εὐχαριστηρίων (45), ἐξετάσωμεν [χριστωτάτα], τίς ἡ ἐν Βηθλεὲμ ἐξεγείρασα πρόφασις τὴν βασιλείαν τῆς δόξης. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἐν Βηθλεὲμ σωματικῶς γεννηθῆναι ἡ περὶ ἡμᾶς εὐσπλαγχνία ἐξεδίδαξε τὸν ἀθάνατον· τὸ δὲ ὑποκείμενον τυγχάνοντα (44), τὸν ἐν χρόνῳ ἄχροον, καὶ τοῖς σπαργάνοις ἐγκεκλεισμένον ἀκαλύφως, μετοικὸν τε καὶ μεταβάστην γενέσθαι, ποία ἄρα γίνεται ἀνάγκη; Εἰ δὲ βούλῃ γνῶναι καὶ τοῦτο, ὦ θειότατόν μου καὶ θεόπνευστον σύστημα, ἄκουε Μωυσέως διαπρυσίως κηρύττοντος τῷ λαῷ, καὶ εἰς γνῶσιν τῆς ὑπερφυοῦς γεννήσεως ἐγκαινίζοντος αὐτούς, καὶ λέγοντος· Πᾶν ἄρσεν, διανοῖγον μήτραν, ἅγιον τῷ Κυρίῳ κληθήσεται. (Methodius of Olympus, “Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna” [Migne PG 18:353])

 

 

Moses says in the Mosaic manner: “This is my God, and I will glorify him; the God of my father, and I will exalt him.” Next, after the thanksgiving, let us examine as carefully as possible what the occasion was in Bethlehem that brought about the kingdom of glory. For that he was born bodily in Bethlehem was taught by the loving-kindness shown toward us; but that the one who is timeless in time, and who was enclosed unseen in swaddling clothes, should become a sojourner and an exile—what necessity could there be for that? If you wish to know this too, my God-beholding and God-inspired composition, listen to Moses proclaiming clearly to the people and leading them into knowledge of the wondrous birth, saying: “Every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”

 

The Synodical Letter of Ephesus Calling Its Condemnation of Nestorius as a θεοπνευστος (God-breathed) Judgment

  

Τῷ εὐλαβεστάτῳ κλήρῳ καὶ τῷ λαῷ παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου.

 

Οὐδείς τολμήσας τῷ ἰδίῳ κτίστῃ ἐναντιωθῆναι ἔμεινεν ἔκτος θείας δίκης, ἀλλ’ εὐθὺς ὅσον ἤκε καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην ὄψιν, ἠμείφθη μερικῶς διὰ τὸ τὴν τελειοτέραν ἀμοιβὴν τῷ τῆς κρίσεως καιρῷ κατ’ αὐτοῦ φυλάττεσθαι.

 

ὅθεν καὶ Νεστόριος ὁ τῆς δυσσεβοῦς αἱρέσεως ἀνακαινιστὴς φθάσας ἐν τῇ Ἐφεσίων, ἔνθα ὁ θεολόγος Ἰωάννης καὶ ἡ θεοτόκος παρθένος ἡ ἁγία Μαρία, τοῦ συλλόγου τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων καὶ ἐπισκόπων ξενώσας ἑαυτόν καὶ κακῷ τῷ συνειδότι ἀπαντῆσαι μὴ τολμήσας, μετὰ τρίτην κλῆσιν ψήφῳ δικαίᾳ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος καὶ τῆς αὐτῶν θεοπνεύστου κρίσεως κατακέκριται καὶ ἐκβέβληται ἐγγράφως ἐπὶ πράξεως ὑπομνημάτων πάσης ἱερατικῆς ἀξίας.

 

χαίρετε τοίνυν ἐν κυρίῳ πάντοτε, πάλιν ἐρῶ χαίρετε.

 

κατήρηται γὰρ τὸ σκάνδαλον καὶ ἐξεριζώθη τὸ ζιζάνιον ἐκ τοῦ γεωργίου τοῦ πνευματικοῦ χωρίου, ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀναζωπυρήσατε καὶ λαβόντες τὸν θώρακα τῆς πίστεως ἐκποδίην ἐλάσατε τοὺς τῆς μιαρᾶς καὶ βεβήλου καινοφροσύνης ἐργάτας· ἔσται γὰρ ὑμῖν ὁ μισθὸς οὐκ ἐλάττων τῶν ἐνταῦθα κεκμηκότων.

 

πάντας ὑμᾶς ἀσπάζονται οἱ ἐνταῦθα σὺν ἡμῖν γνήσιοι ἀδελφοί. (Cyril of Alexandria, Letter from Ephesus to the Fathers of the Monastics (“Epistulae Variae”), in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. Edwardus Schwartz, 4 vols. [Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1927], 1.1.2, page 70)

 

 

To the most reverent clergy and the people, from the holy synod.

 

No one who dared to oppose his own Creator escaped divine justice; rather, as soon as he came even into human sight, he was in some measure repaid, because a fuller recompense was being reserved against him for the time of judgment.

 

Thus Nestorius, the renovator of a wicked heresy, having arrived in Ephesus, where are the theologian John and the holy virgin Mother of God, Saint Mary, and having shut himself off from the gathering of the holy fathers and bishops, and not daring to face his guilty conscience, after a third summons was rightly condemned by the vote of the holy Trinity and by their God-inspired judgment, and was formally expelled from all priestly dignity by written record.

 

Rejoice therefore always in the Lord; again I say, rejoice.

 

For the stumbling-block has been removed and the tares have been uprooted from the field of the spiritual place. You, then, rekindle yourselves and, taking up the breastplate of faith, drive far away the workers of the foul and profane new doctrine. For your reward will not be less than that of those who have labored here.

 

All the brethren here with us send greetings to you.

 

Gregory of Nyssa Using θεοπνευστος for Basil the Great's Commentary on Genesis

  

Ταῦτα ποιεῖς, ὦ ἄνθρωπε τοῦ θεοῦ; κατατολμᾶν ἡμᾶς τῶν ἀτολμήτων ἐγκελευόμενος, καὶ πράγμασιν ἐγχειρεῖν τοιούτοις, ὧν οὐ τὸ τυχεῖν μόνον ἐστὶν ἀμήχανον, ἀλλὰ οὐδὲ τὸ ἐγχειρῆσαι, κατὰ γε τὸν ἐμὸν λόγον, ἀνέγκλητον; Τῶν γὰρ κατὰ θείαν ἐπίνοιαν ἐν τῇ κοσμογονίᾳ φιλοσοφηθέντων τῷ μεγάλῳ Μωσῇ, τὰ δοκοῦντα κατὰ τὴν πρόχειρον τῶν γεγραμμένων σημασίαν ὑπεναντίως ἔχειν, ἐπέταξας ἡμῖν διὰ τινος ἀκολούθου διανοίας εἰς εἱρμὸν ἀγαγεῖν, καὶ συμφωνοῦσαν πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἀποδεῖξαι τὴν ἁγίαν Γραφήν· καὶ ταῦτα μετὰ τὴν θεόπνευστον ἐκείνην τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν εἰς τὸ προκείμενον θεωρίαν, ἣν οἱ ἐγνωκότες πάντες οὐδὲν ἔλαττον τῶν αὐτῷ Μωσῇ περισοφισμένων θαυμάζουσιν· εὖ καὶ εἰκότως, οἶμαι, τοῦτο ποιοῦντες. (Gregory of Nyssa, In Hexaemeron, “Prooemium” [PG 44:61])

 

 

Are you doing this, O man of God? Are you urging us to dare what is undaring, and to undertake things of such a kind that not only is it impossible to attain them, but even to attempt them, at least in my judgment, is not blameless? For among the things philosophically treated according to divine insight in the creation of the world by the great Moses, what seem, according to the surface meaning of the written words, to be at odds with one another, you have ordered us to bring into a coherent sequence by some consecutive line of reasoning, and to show Holy Scripture to be in harmony with itself; and this after that God-breathed exposition of our father on the present subject, which all who know it admire no less than the very things so ingeniously handled by Moses himself. And rightly and reasonably, I think, they do this.

 

Ronald L. Eisenberg on Modern Jewish Traditions Concerning the Dead

  

Autopsy

 

Whether autopsies are permitted is an extremely controversial issue among traditional Jews. It brings into direct opposition two fundamental principles—kavod ha-met (reverence for the human body after death) and pikuach nefesh (the preservation of life). Many rabbis have argued that the biblical requirement for burial as soon as possible (Deut. 21:22–23), combined with the prohibition against desecrating the corpse (nivvul ha-met), forbids mutilation of the body for post-mortem examination. However, others have countered that reverence for the corpse must yield to the superior value of life and its preservation. Indeed, the duty of saving and maintaining life, which includes even cases of a doubtful nature, overrides all but three commandments of the Torah (against idolatry, adultery, and murder).

 

It was not until the 18th century, when human bodies began to be commonly used systematically for medical research, that the permissibility of autopsies for medical research and saving lives became a practical halakhic question. The first clearly recorded ruling permitting an autopsy in the interest of the living was issued in a responsum by Ezekiel Landau of Prague. However, it was strictly limited to a situation in which, at the time of death, there was in the same hospital another patient suffering from the same symptoms, so that the autopsy could be of immediate value in saving a life. The problem became an important issue in Israel with the establishment of the Medical School of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Rav Kook, the usually liberal Ashkenazic chief rabbi of Palestine, entirely forbade the autopsy of Jewish bodies for medical purposes. However, a 1949 agreement between Hadassah Hospital and Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog, which was incorporated into Israeli law four years later, permitted autopsies in the following situations: (1) when the civil law demanded it in cases of crime or accidental death, (2) to establish the cause of death when it was doubtful, (3) to save lives (i.e., when an autopsy may yield medical information that would directly benefit another person), and (4) in cases of hereditary disease, when an autopsy may directly benefit the survivors. Before an autopsy could be performed, it was necessary to obtain the signatures of three doctors. The medical dissection must be performed with the utmost respect for the deceased. Any organs dissected were to be handed over to the hevra kadisha for burial after the necessary examinations had been performed.

 

As autopsies became more routine and after allegations of widespread abuse of the legal safeguards, certain Orthodox circles in Israel agitated to have the law amended by reverting to the strictly limited permission given by Rabbi Landau. Consequently, in 1980 (despite strenuous opposition by Israeli medical researchers), the law was changed to make it more difficult to justify the need for performing an autopsy. Autopsies are now permissible only if there is a specific legal or medical reason to warrant one in a given case.

 

Although from the halakhic point of view the objections that apply to autopsies also apply to dissection for the purpose of anatomic study, enough people bequeath their bodies for this purpose that it has not sparked substantial religious opposition. The only restrictions are that the remains be buried in a timely fashion according to Jewish law and custom and that the decision be in accord with the wishes not only of the deceased but also of his or her family. Today, medical schools in the United States have a sufficient supply of bodies of unknown, abandoned individuals from county morgues. Therefore, Jews should not volunteer to have their bodies dissected, for there is no medical need to override the respect for a corpse required by the concept of kavod ha-met.

 

There is general agreement among halakhic experts that autopsies are permitted in the case of violent or accidental death or when a crime is suspected.

 

Organ Donation

 

As with autopsies, the issue of organ donation revolves around the often-conflicting principles of kavod ha-met and pikuach nefesh. In this instance, however, these two basic tenets work in tandem, for it is assumed that deceased persons would be honored if their organs were used to preserve the life of another. Giving a person the opportunity to live by donating an organ is also the ultimate act of hesed, lovingkindness to one’s fellow human being.

 

Despite this predominant opinion that delaying burial to permit organ transplantation does not diminish respect for the dead but, on the contrary, enhances it, some rabbis have limited this practice to varying degrees. The most restrictive opinion permits donations only when there is a specific patient who stands to lose his or her life or an entire physical faculty. According to this view, if a person can see out of one eye, a cornea may not be removed from a cadaver to restore vision in the other eye. A corneal transplant would be permitted only if both eyes were failing and the prospective recipient would be in danger of losing all vision, thus incurring serious potential danger to life and limb. Moreover, since the patient for whom the organ is intended must be known and present, donation to an organ bank would not be permitted.

 

Nevertheless, since there now is a shortage of donated organs and it is certain that all will be used for transplantation, most Orthodox rabbis have relaxed the restrictions on organ donations. However, there are still major problems associated with giving permission for transplantation. One is precisely defining the moment of death. According to classical Jewish sources, there were two criteria to determine when death occurred. The majority rule was the breath test, in which a feather was placed beneath the nostrils of the patient; movement of the feather indicated life, whereas lack of movement signified death (Yoma 85a; PdRE 52). This test was based on two biblical verses: “God breathed life into Adam” (Gen. 2:7), and the Flood killed “all in whose nostrils was the merest breath of life” (Gen. 7:22). A minority view in the Talmud maintained that the cessation of heartbeat was also required to determine death (Yoma 85a). Later codifiers insisted on both respiratory and cardiac manifestations of death.

 

Moses Isserles, acknowledging the difficulty of accurately distinguishing death from a fainting spell, argued that even after the cessation of breath and heartbeat one should wait a period of time before assuming that the patient is dead. In a 1988 ruling approving heart transplantation, the chief rabbinate of Israel effectively accepted the modern definition of death as a completely flat electroencephalogram (both cortical and brainstem function), which indicates the cessation of spontaneous brain activity.

 

Some Orthodox Jews resist organ donation because of the concept that death does not come at a clear, definable moment but rather occurs in stages over time. According to rabbinic lore, the complete severing of the relation between body and soul does not take place until three days after death (Gen. R. 100:7; Lev. R. 18:1; MK 3:5). During that time, the soul hovers over the grave in the hope that it may be restored to the body, departing only when decomposition begins. This was an explanation for the belief that the grief of mourners naturally becomes most intense on the third day after the death of a loved one. Moreover, this concept led the Rabbis to permit relatives to watch graves for three days in case the interred body was still alive, “for once it happened that they watched one who thereupon continued to live for 25 years and another who still had five children before dying” (Sem. 8:1). Some even believed that the soul continues to have some relationship with the body for 12 months, until the body has disintegrated (Shab. 152b–153a). Medieval folklore often spoke of the “spirit community,” in which life continued after physical death. Thus the combination of all these factors makes it understandable why some families are hesitant to donate the organs of their relatives.

 

The Talmud (Av. Zar. 29b) and Maimonides clearly indicate that it is forbidden to use a cadaver for some other purpose or extraneous benefit. Modern rabbis have employed ingenious reasoning to argue that organ donation and transplantation do not violate this rule against deriving benefit from the body (hana’ah min ha-met). Some of the arguments are as follows:

 

            1.         The prohibition against deriving benefit from a cadaver is of rabbinic origin and thus may be overridden for medical purposes.

 

            2.         Even if the prohibition is of biblical origin, what was forbidden was only conventional uses of the cadaver, not such “nonconventional” ones as medical treatment.

 

            3.         The prohibition was designed to ensure a timely burial that would prevent dishonoring the cadaver so that, once the bulk of the remains have been properly buried, individual organs can be used for transplantation without violating the original prohibition.

 

            4.         Once an organ has been transplanted, it is no longer considered as dead tissue, since it literally has been revitalized in the body of the recipient.

 

Another objection to organ transplantation is the belief among some that one must be buried complete to be resurrected whole. According to this view, donating an organ would leave the deceased without that part when the dead are brought back to life. Medieval philosophers ridiculed this concept. For example, Saadiah Gaon pointed out that if one believes that God created the world from nothing, one should surely believe that God can revive the dead even if a few parts are missing. Except for the most extreme branches of ultra-Orthodoxy, virtually all rabbis agree that saving life in the here and now clearly and unequivocally takes precedence over whatever one believes about future resurrection. (Ronald L. Eisenberg, The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004], 110-14)

 

Question for Followers of my Blog from the USA: Pre-1830 KJV Bibles with the Apocrypha

 I am hoping to update the research a friend did back in the 1990s.

If you are near a library or some other collection that has American Bible printings of the Authorized King James Version pre-1830, (1) how many are there in the collection, and (2) of that number, how many contain the Apocrypha?

My friend, Matt Roper, did something similar back in the mid-90s. He

examined 143 American Bible printings of the Authorized King James Version published between 1800 and 1830, he found that only 40 (less than a third) contained the Apocrypha. (John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew P. Roper, "'Joseph Smith's Use of the Apocrypha': Shadow or Reality?," FARMS Review of Books 8, no. 2 [1996]: 331)

I am hoping to update this in 2026.

If you can help, you can email me the figures (with the name/location of the repository) at ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Thanks!

Robert Alter and Donald Parry on Isaiah 21:8

  

And the seer shall call out. The received text reads: “And he shall call out: A lion!” This is problematic if the danger is cavalry. The Qumran Isaiah has instead of “lion,” ʾaryeh, “the seer,” haroʾ eh, which is merely a reversal of consonants, and that looks more likely. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:686)

 

 

רְַיהֵ MT | 1 הרא ה QIsaa Syr | Ουριαν LXX | αριηλ θ′

 

א רְַי ה —The beginning of this verse in MT reads either “and he called, a lion” or “and a lion called.” The first of these two expressions makes better sense in the context of a sentinel watching for danger from his tower. But Gray (following a long line of critics) states that “the word אריה is probably corrupt.” Some have argued that during the history of the transmission of this passage in the MT tradition, a copyist inadvertently transposed the reš and ʾālep, thus reading ארי ה . Or, a copyist inadvertently wrote the ʾālep (from the preceding word) twice, thus reading ויקרא אריה . MT is followed by Vulg Tg “lion,” but this word is set in an interpretative phrase (“The prophet said, the sound of armies coming with their standard of a lion”). LXX attempted to make sense of MT’s reading by transliterating the name Ourias (“and call Ourias to the watchtower”).

 

In my judgment, based on the evidence, 1QIsa^a has the primary reading with הרא ה “the seer,” thus reading “And the seer cried.” Already, long before the Qumran scrolls’ discovery, Lowth (and others) had emended the text to read הרא ה instead of  .א רְַי ה According to Weingreen, “the lion crying out is sheer nonsense…. The Qumran text has the correct word.” And Wildberger wrote that the scroll’s reading “has resulted in almost universal acceptance (Fohrer, Eichrodt, Young, Auvray, Schoors, Kaiser, et al.).” The reading of Syr approximates that of the Qumran scroll, with “Then the watchman cried into my ears.” (Donald W. Parry, Exploring the Isaiah Scrolls and Their Textual Variants [Supplements to the Textual History of the Bible 3; Leiden: Brill, 2020], 163)

 

Robert Alter on Isaiah 19:18

  

The City of the Sun. The Masoretic Text reads “the City of Destruction,” ʿir heres, but some Hebrew manuscripts as well as several ancient translations read instead, more plausibly, ʿir ḥeres, “the City of the Sun,” which is probably the Egyptian Heliopolis. The scribal error would have been caused by the fact that ḥeres is a rather rare synonym for “sun” and by the context of destruction created in the previous prophecy. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:683)

 

Miryam T. Brand on Sirach 25:24

  

Sir 25:24: Original Sin or a Wicked Wife?

 

Perhaps the most prominent of Ben Sira’s brief references to sin is Sir 25:24:

 

LXX	Hebrew MS C
ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ἀρχὴ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὴν ἀποθνῄσκομεν πάντες.	מאשה תחלת עון, ובגללה גוענו יחד
From a woman is the beginning of sin, and because of her we all die.	From a woman is the beginning of sin, and because of her we die together/we die alike.

 

It is possible that this verse is one of the few references in Second Temple literature to “original sin,” the idea that humans have inherited sin from Adam as a result of his eating the forbidden fruit offered him by Eve. This idea existed alongside the tradition that death resulted from the first sin. Both these aspects of the “original sin” tradition are seldom found in surviving Second Temple literature. Apart from this verse in Ben Sira and the well-known passage in Paul (Rom 5: 12–21), this idea is found principally in literature written soon after the destruction of the Temple, namely 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, indicating that the idea of “original sin” may have become more popular following the destruction.

 

However, the possible reflection of “original sin” in this verse becomes far less prominent once the verse is read in its context, namely, a passage that describes the disaster of being married to an evil wife. The verse that states that the “beginning of sin” is from “woman” is immediately preceded by the declaration, “A dejected heart and a sullen face and a wound of the heart is a wicked wife; slack hands and weakened knees (are from) a woman who does not make her husband happy” (Sir 25: 23). From this perspective, the “woman” who is the beginning of sin in v. 24 is the evil wife, not the Eve of antiquity. This forms a contrast with the good wife in 26: 1, who doubles her husband’s days.

 

Thus, Sir 25: 24 is principally an observation regarding the wicked wife that may nevertheless allude to the tradition according to which death or sin came to the world through the sin of Adam and Eve. The context of 25: 24, however, determines that Ben Sira’s primary focus is on the wicked wife; this verse is not meant to reflect his primary view of sin, but testifies to a common metaphor of sin “beginning” with a woman.

 

Two other verses in Ben Sira have sometimes been cited regarding views of the evil inclination: Sir 17: 31 and Sir 21: 11. While Sir 17: 31 refers to the inevitability of sin, the verse at Sir 21: 11 explains how the inclination may be controlled. An additional section that is relevant for exploring Ben Sira’s view of sin is Sir 23: 2–6, a passage that demonstrates the significance of the prayer genre in determining how the desire to sin is portrayed in Second Temple texts. (Miryam T. Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature [Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013], 113-15)

 

Miryam T. Brand on Barkhi Nafshi Rejecting an External, Supernatural Satan

  

4QBarkhi Nafshi similarly presents the inclination as a basic trait of the speaker that is evil by nature. However, 4QBarkhi Nafshi further develops the biblical concept of the yēṣ er in the context of a parallel with the śātān (“accuser/ satan”) of Zechariah 3: 2. As Tigchelaar has demonstrated, there is an intertextual relationship between 4QBarkhi Nafshi (specifically 4Q436 1 i-ii and 4Q437 4 par 4Q438 4a ii) and Zechariah 3, evident in the verbs used in both texts: g‘r, hlbyš, h‘byr, hsyr, g‘r, and śym. An investigation into this intertextual relationship reveals that the conversion of the rebuked śātān of Zechariah to an “evil inclination” (yṣ r r‘) in 4QBarkhi Nafshi corresponds to a process of abstraction that the author of 4QBarkhi Nafshi utilizes throughout. For example, instead of the defiled clothes of the priest that are removed and replaced with pure garments in Zechariah 3: 4, the speaker in 4QBarkhi Nafshi exults that God has removed his sinful ways and “clothed” him in the spirit of salvation (4Q438 4a ii.6: ורוח ישועות הלבשתני ), paraphrasing Isa 61: 10b כִּי הִלְבִּישַׁנִי בִּגְדֵי יֶשַׁע “for he has clothed me with garments of salvation.”

 

Consequently, rather than “demonizing” sin, the author of 4QBarkhi Nafshi creates an abstraction of the śātān. The non-human, external, and demonic role played by the śātān does not suit the author’s focus, which is wholly on the internal change that has been effected within the human being and the conversion of his innermost parts. For these purposes the śātān is transformed into a wholly internal evil inclination that is the abstract representation of the human desire to sin. This evil inclination, like the heart of stone, is removed entirely and replaced with a positive counterpart. (Miryam T. Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature [Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013], 47-48)

 

Miryam T. Brand on Freedom and Predestination in the Damascus Document

  

Freedom in the Context of Predestination

 

The freedom of choice described in CD II.14–III.12a follows a passage that emphasizes predestination. The preceding section is structurally divided from CD II.14–III.12 with a vacat, and opens with an expression that corresponds to the opening of CD II.14–III.12 (“And now listen to me…”). The structural sections CD II.2–13 and II.14–III.12 appear to be parallel to each other; according to their introductions the first reveals the “ways of the wicked” (II.2) and the second the “actions of God” (II.14–15).

 

However, the passages differ greatly in their emphasis. As shown in the analysis above, CD II.14–III.12a emphasizes freedom of choice regarding the decision to sin, despite a pessimistic view of the human inclination. The passage at CD II.2–13, while assuring the reader of the possibility of repentance (II.4–5), emphasizes divine foreknowledge and predestination. God has withheld the possibility of choice from the wicked from the beginning; he knew their actions even before they were created (II.7). In contrast, God has already designated individuals (“those who are called by name,” qry’y šm) who will form the “remnant” and will fill the earth with their descendants (II.11–12). The names of these chosen individuals will be made known through God’s anointed one and the “seers” of truth (II.12–13). The passage concludes with a cryptic non-sequitur: “and that which he hated, he led astray (ht‘h)” (II.13).

 

The meaning of this concluding statement and its connection to the enlightenment promised in II.12–13 is clarified through an examination of the root t‘h and its meaning in this section of the Damascus Document. In the passage that follows the historical survey explored above, III.12b–18, the audience is assured that those who continued to hold fast to the divine commandments were rewarded by God, who revealed to them “hidden things in which all Israel had strayed (t‘w),” including Sabbaths, appointed times, and the “ways of his truth and the desires of his will ‘which a person shall do and shall live through them’ (Lev 18: 5; Neh 9: 29)” (III.14–16).

 

In this passage, t‘h (to “stray”) refers to transgressing the “hidden” commandments that are only known to the community. This specific meaning for the root t‘h is also found in the historical survey in II.14–III.12, as shown by Gary Anderson’s analysis of this text. As Anderson notes, while the Israelites in Egypt transgressed a known commandment and walked in the stubbornness of their hearts, Jacob’s sons “strayed” (t‘w) and were punished for their inadvertent errors (mšgwtm).32 Similarly, in 4Q266 (4QD^a) 11 10–11 the nations are deliberately “led astray” by God (wtt‘m), in contrast to the Israelites, who have received God’s commandments.

 

It follows that this is the manner in which God causes those he hates to “stray” in CD II.13: he does not reveal the hidden commandments to them. The chosen, in contrast, have been and will be enlightened with knowledge of these commandments. Thus the enlightenment of individuals described in II.11–13 is immediately contrasted with the non-enlightenment of the wicked, which will lead them astray.

 

However, as described in CD II.2-III.16, even those who have been enlightened with the revealed and hidden commandments may make the mistake of choosing their own will. The history of humanity in CD II.14-III.12 illuminates the possibility of such a mistake as well as its consequences.

 

Like the author of the Hodayot, the composer of CD II.14-III.12 integrates the paradigm of an innate inclination to sin with a belief in predestination. The paradigm itself, however, differs significantly from that found in the Hodayot. While the Hodayot presents human sinfulness that is inevitable without God’s intervention, this section of the Damascus Document presents a human desire to sin that is completely under human control. It is the responsibility of community members to fight their desire to sin, just as it was the responsibility of past Israelites who eventually suffered the consequences of their sins. The “logical” precondition for the ability to reject one’s inclination and to choose God’s commandments is access to knowledge of what God really wants. Without this knowledge, the unchosen are doomed to “stray.” (Miryam T. Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature [Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013], 82-84)

 

Andrea of Caesarea on Revelation 12:1 and 20:5-6 Teaching Baptismal Regeneration

  

Still another example of a baptismal interpretation is the woman wrapped in the sun with the moon under her feet (Rev. 12). For Andrew, the moon represents baptism, a classic patristic interpretation of moon imagery because of its association with tides, hence with water. It is under her feet because baptism is the foundation of the Church. Baptismal references dominate Andrew's interpretation of that section of Révélation. Again, the contrast with Oikoumenios' orientation is striking: for Oikoumenios the moon is the Law of Moses, which is waning. (Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou, “Andrew of Caesarea and the Apocalypse in the Ancient Church of the East: Studies and Translation” [PhD Dissertation; Laval University, Quebec, 2008], 151-52)

 

 

Andrew of Caesarea on Rev 12:1:

 

And the following: “She stood upon the moon. The moon I regard figuratively <to be> the faith of those who are cleansed of corruption by the washing <of baptism>, for [122] the condition of liquid substance is regulated by the moon. She labored and gave birth anew to those ‘carnal-minded into spiritually minded’ and formed and fashioned them according to the likeness of Christ.” And again he says: “We must not think that Christ is he who is to be born. For formerly, before the Apocalypse, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Logos had been fulfilled. John speaks with authority about the present and future things.” And afterwards <he mentions> other things, <and then says>, “Therefore, it is necessary to confess that the Church must be the one in labor and gives birth to those redeemed, as the Spirit said in Isaiah: ‘Before she labored to give birth, she escaped and gave birth to a male.’¹⁶ Whom did she escape? Either the dragon, certainly, in order for the spiritual Zion to give birth to virile people.” And in continuation, “so that in each one Christ is to be born in the nous. Because of this the Church is swollen and in ‘great pain’ until Christ, having been born, might be ‘formed in us,’ so that each one by partaking of Christ becomes Christ.” Moreover, the Church has been clothed in the “Sun of Righteousness.” And the legalistic light of the [123] moon, which shines by night, and the secular life, alterable like the moon, has been mastered under the feet, and round about upon her head <is> the crown of the apostolic precepts and virtues. Since <it is> from the moon that liquid substance depends, the same one <Methodios> also says that by the moon is meant baptism, figuratively called “sea,” which, on the one hand, <is> the salvation for those who are reborn and, on the other hand, ruination for the demons. (Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, ed. David G. Hunter [trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou; The Fathers of the Church 123; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011], 137-38)

 

 

Andrew of Caesarea on Rev 20:5-6:

 

20:5–6.  And the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. ⁶ Blessed and holy is he who has a share in the first resurrection! Over such ones the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him a thousand years.

From the divine Scriptures we are taught two lives and two types of deadness, that is to say, deaths. The first life is the transitory and fleshly one after the transgression of the commandment, but the other one is eternal life promised to the saints after heeding the divine commandments of Christ. And in like manner, <there are> two deaths: the one transitory of the flesh and the other through sins leading to the full payment in the age to come, which is the Gehenna of fire. And we know there is a difference among the dead. For on the one hand, there are those to be avoided concerning whom Isaiah says, “The dead will not see life,” [220] that is, those bringing stench and deadness by <their> conduct, and on the other hand, those praiseworthy ones who in Christ “mortify the activities of the body,” who are crucified with Christ and are dead to the world. Therefore, those unacceptable dead, those not “buried with and raised with Christ, through baptism,” but those remaining in <a state of> death by sins, will not live with him until the completion of the one thousand years, that is, the perfect number extending from his first coming until the second in glory, as it has been said above, but, having been born “from the earth” only and not “by the Spirit,” they will return to the earth. Their death becomes the beginning of their future punishment. Those who have a share in the first resurrection, that is, in the rising out of deadening thoughts and mortifying actions, these are blessed. For the second death will have no power over them, that is, never-ending punishment, but instead, they will exercise priesthood and reign with Christ, as we see it, these things signifying to us one thousand years until the loosening of Satan and the deception of the nations, not as being then deprived of the kingdom, but as more certainly and very clearly they will possess it by the passage of temporal things and arrival of eternal things. For the time will be short after the loosening of the devil until the judgment against him and the punishment of Gehenna. Therefore, they will be priests of God and of Christ is thought to be a repetition of the [221] foregoing. For the things seen now, through the trial and the end result of things, the rewards of the saints and wonders were then destined to be when they were seen by the Evangelist, as was said. So then, since there are two deaths, it is necessary to understand that there are also likewise two resurrections. First, then, physical death, given as the penalty for humankind’s disobedience; the second, eternal punishment. The first resurrection is being brought to life out of “dead works,” the second, the transformation from bodily corruption into incorruption. (Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, ed. David G. Hunter [trans. Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou; The Fathers of the Church 123; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011], 209-10)

 

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.