Again, in a public discourse he dealt with the following passage:
Among those that are born of women, there hath not arisen a greater prophet than John the Baptist: nevertheless, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Taking up the first part of the question, viz: the greatness of John, he thus expounded it:
Firstly, he [John] was trusted with a divine mission of preparing the way before the face of the Lord. Whoever had such a trust committed to him before or since? No man. Secondly, he was intrusted with the important mission, and it was required at his hands to baptize the Son of Man. Whoever had the honor of doing that? Whoever had so great a privilege and glory? Whoever led the Son of God into the waters of baptism, and had the privilege of beholding the Holy Ghost descend in the form of a dove, or rather in the sign of a dove, in witness of that administration? * * * Thirdly, John at that time was the only legal administrator in the affairs of the kingdom there was then on earth and holding the keys of power. The Jews had to obey his instructions or be damned by their own laws, and Christ Himself fulfilled all righteousness in becoming obedient to the law which He had given to Moses on the mount, and thereby magnified it and made it honorable, instead of destroying it. The son of Zachariah wrested the keys, the kingdom, the power, the glory, from the Jews, by the holy anointing and decree of heaven; and these three reasons constitute him the greatest Prophet born of women.
Taking up the second part of the subject—"He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he," [i. e., greater than John]—it was made easy to understand in the following manner:
How was the least in the kingdom of heaven greater than he [John]? In reply, I ask who did Jesus have reference to as being the least? Jesus was looked upon as having the least claim in all God's kingdom, and was least entitled to their credulity as a Prophet, as though he had said: "He that is considered the least among you, is greater than John—that is myself."
Explaining the matter of interpretation itself, he said:
What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads. I have a key by which I understand the Scriptures. I inquire, what was the question which drew out the answer or caused Jesus to utter the parable? * * * To ascertain its meaning, we must dig to the root and ascertain what it was that drew the saying out of Jesus.
While this was said especially in relation to the parable of the prodigal son, it may well be given a wider application; and it will be found a great aid in arriving at the truth of many supposedly hard sayings of the Scriptures. But while this key or rule of interpretation was doubtless of great service to the Prophet in his study of the scriptures, he was helped in another and a more important way to understand them; to understand them in a manner which I cannot explain better than by quoting a passage with which he dealt at an earlier date than the period with which I am now dealing, but which is of such moment and helps to illustrate the work we find him doing at Nauvoo during this interim of peace, that we can well afford to stop and consider it. As early as 1831 the Prophet with Sidney Rigdon set about the task of bringing forth a new and inspired translation of the Bible. Their work extended also into the year 1832. On the 16th day of February of that year, they came, in the course of their work, to the twenty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John's Gospel, speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and shall come forth, and which in our common version stands:
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.