Henry Barclay Swete, "The Relation of the Pentecostal Effusion to Early Comings of the Spirit"

  

THE RELATION OF THE PENTECOSTAL EFFUSION TO EARLIER COMINGS OF THE SPIRIT

 

The Pentecostal coming of the Spirit is represented in the N.T. as a mission parallel to the mission of the Son, and consequent upon it. Cf. Jo. xiv. 24, 26 του πεμχαντος με πατρος . . . το πνευμα το αγιον ο πενχει ο πατηρ εν τω ονοματι μου; Gal. iv. 4, 6 εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος τον υιον αυτου . . . εξαπεστειλεν ο θεος το πνευμα του υιου αυτου. As the Son “came into the world” at the Advent (Jo. xvi. 28), so the Spirit came at the Pentecost there was “no Spirit” in this sense.

 

Yet the O.T. prophets claim that the Spirit was at work in Israel even in the days of the Exodus (Isa. lxiii. 11 ff.), while the broader thought of Alexandrian Judaism held that the Spirit ‘filled the world’ and was to be found in the lives of all wise and good men. Is this belief consistent with the Christian doctrine of the Pentecostal Coming?

 

The same difficulty arises in connexion with the Incarnation of the Word. If the Son was not sent into the world until the fulness of the times had been reached, yet He was in the world from the first (Jo. i. 9 ην . . ερχομενον, 10 εν τω κοσμω ην; compare with the doctrine of the Divine Wisdom in Prov. viii. 27-31). Similarly the Spirit of God has ever been in the world from the moment when it moved on the face of the waters, calling forth vitality and a cosmic order. As men emerged from the mere animal into a conscious intellectual life, the Spirit wrought upon him; and the history of Israel in particular is one long manifestation of His presence and working in the Chosen People. Yet there was no indwelling of the Spirit in men, no effusion of HIs life and power upon the face in general, till He received the special mission which sent Him to carry forward the work of the Incarnate Son. The new order involved in that mission is characterized as having its sphere in believers (Jo. xvi. 17 εν υμιν εσται). The entrance of the Spirit into the Body of the Church, and into the hearts of its members individually, corresponds with the entrance of the Word into the womb of Mary; though not like that an incarnation, it is a permanent inhabitation of humanity (Jo. xvi. 16 ινα η μεθ’ υμων εις τον αιωνα).

 

Thus, the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit in no way conflicts with the doctrine of the Spirit’s world-long activity in nature and in man, while on the other hand, it is seen to inaugurate a new association of the Spirit with humanity far more intimate and enduring than any which had previously existed. (Henry Barclay Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: A Study of Primitive Christian Teaching [London: Macmillan and Co., 1910], 375-76)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Peggy Jane Meeks-Hamilton's Late Recollection (1917) Concerning Joseph Smith's Prophetic Foreknowledge of the Move to the Rocky Mountains

The following comes from:

 

F. W. Otterstrom letter to Anthon H. Lund, Church History Catalog, CR 100 394:

 

 

Salt Lake City, Dec. 28, 1917.

 

Pres. Anthon H. Lund,

Church Historian, City,

 

Dear Brother Lund:

 

You no doubt recall the statement of Sister Hamilton, at Cedar City, September 17, 1917, regarding a conversation between her father and the Prophet Joseph Smith, but I am sending you a transcript of my notes, thinking it may assist you in making such record as you wish for the Historian’s Office.

 

Returning from Saint George the President and his party stopped for lunch in Cedar City, at the home of Franklin D. Wood. While there we met a Sister Hamilton, daughter of Priddy Meeks and Sarah Mahurin-Meeks, of Kentucky. In the presence of President Jos. F. Smith and his party (For personnel see Era, December, 1917) Sister Hamilton made the following statement, which I recorded in shorthand at the time:

 

“My name is Peggy Jane Meeks-Hamilton. I was born May 8, 1838. I was about six years of age when the Prophet Joseph Smith was killed. Our home was out from Nauvoo a little distance on a farm, close to the Kimball farm. Joseph, the Prophet, used to come out to his farm, which was farther on than my father’s farm. The Prophet would frequently stop at our home. One day when he called, he was conversing with my father, Dr. Priddy Meeks. I became interested in this conversation, and I took my chair, sat down, and listened. I distinctly remember hearing Joseph say: “We will have to leave Nauvoo.” My father then inquired; “Where will we go?” The Prophet replied: “We will have to go to the Rocky Mountains.” I could not understand that he meant by the “Rocky Mountains”; it seemed very strange to me, and I said to my father: “What is the Rocky Mountains?” “Why,” Father says, “it is a mountain built of rocks.” I thought: “We can’t live on a mountain of rocks.” During the round of talk that followed, the Prophet said: “I will never go, but you will go.” Then Father said: “Well, who will lead the Church, if you do not go?” The prophet Joseph answered: “Brigham Young.” You know what an uproar there was by some of the people who caused the division that occurred after; and it was because of this statement by the Prophet Joseph Smith that my father was so strong for Brigham Young to lead the Church, after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. I sat down and listened to this conversation, like a little girl would listen to something unusual that attracted her attention.”

 

Later, in the course of our conversation, Sister Hamilton made the remark that her grand-father fought in the Revolution, and that he had settled in Kentucky with Daniel Boone.

 

The foregoing is a verbatim report of the statement by Sister Hamilton at the time and place aforesaid.

 

With respect, I am, sincerely,

 

Your brother,

[Signed] F. W. Otterstrom.

 

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Challenge for Danial Lemmon

Recently, Danial Lemmon (former LDS who is now EO) has said that I have "lied multiple times about [Roman Catholic] history, theology, and epistemology. He's a joke."

I am challenging him to provide documentation. I openly challenge him to refute the following as one of my main areas of research is Mariology (will be a great way to show I am truly a joke):

Answering Joe Heschmeyer's Deceptive Abuse of Mary Being the New Eve to Support Roman Catholic Mariology

He can send his documented response to me at ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com. I will host it on my blog if it holds up.

Man up, Danial. If not, you are engaging in projection when you wrote that I am "one of the most disingenuous people I've ever seen."

Here is the image:

Time will tell if he can back up the claim (and I welcome being corrected if the facts one provides holds up) or (my bet) Danial is shown to be a spineless coward.

Henry Barclay Swete, "The Relation of the Ascension to the Pentecostal Effusion of the Spirit"

  

THE RELATION OF THE ASCENSOIN TO THE PENTECOSTAL EFFUSION OF THE SPIRIT

 

That the departure of the Incarnate Son to the Father was a necessary condition of the coming of the Spirit from the Father is taught explicitly in Jo. xvi. 7 εαν μη απελθω, ο παρακλητος ου μη ελτη προς υμας. And as a matter of fact, as the Evangelist writing after the event remarks, there was ‘no Spirit’, no coming or effusion of the Spirit, until Jesus has been glorified (Jo. vii. 39). The sending of the Spirit was the direct and almost immediate consequence of His glorification, i.e. His return to the Father (Lc. xxiv. 49, Acts ii. 33). There was an interval of “not many days,” which was necessary in order that the Church might be prepared by a period of waiting and prayer, an that the Coming might coincide with the Pentecost when Jerusalem would be full of pilgrims from all parts. On Christ’s part all was ready from the moment of the Ascension.

 

The two phrases which St. John uses of the Ascension explain the relation in which it stands to the Descent of the Spirit.

 

1. The Ascension was a departure, to be followed by an arrival (απελτω . . . ελθη). It was the withdrawal of a visible Presence, the terminus ad quem of the earthly life and the terminus a quo of a Presence purely spiritual. The two modes of Christ’s presence could not be conterminous or coexist; the second could not begin till the first hand reached its end. The ascension completed the days of the Son of Man, the life which He lived in the flesh. The Resurrection had begun the great change; from Easter morning He was already ascending (Jo. xx. 17 αναβαινω); the final rapture on the Mount of Olives ended the ascent (αναβεβηκα) and ushered in that life in the Spirit in which He could come to His own again, and abide with them for ever.

 

2. The Ascension was the glorification of the Son of Man (Jo. xii. 16 εδοξαστη ‘Ιησους, xvii. 5 νυν δοξασον με ου, πατερ, παρα σεαυτω): the humanity, perfected by suffering (Heb. ii. 10, v. 9) and victorious over death, entered the Divine Presence to take its place in union with the Person of the Eternal Son at the right hand of the Father. But the glorification of humanity in Christ has for its end the endowment of humanity in the rest of the race. He ascended up that He might fill all things (Eph. vi. 10) At the righteous, victorious Head of the Church He claimed and received for her the promised gift of the Spirit (Acts ii. 33) by which members of the Christ are to be in due course brought to the glory of their Head. (Henry Barclay Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: A Study of Primitive Christian Teaching [London: Macmillan and Co., 1910], 373-75)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Robert G. Boling and E. A. Speiser on the Shibboleth Incident (Judges 12:6)

  

6. shibboleth … sibboleth. The test does not turn upon the meaning of the word, which may be either “ear of corn” (Gen 41:5–7; Ruth 2:2) or “flood, torrent” (Ps 69:3, 16; Isa 27:12). The latter is more appropriate to the occasion, but both may have a common etymological origin, as pointed out by Speiser, Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, eds. J. J. Finklestein and Moshe Greenberg (University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967), pp. 143–50. Speiser argues that the merging of the spirant ṯ (tha) and the sibilant š (sha), attested for Phoenicia as early as the eleventh century, must have occurred at about the same time in western Palestine. There was, however, a lag in Transjordan; the merging of these vocables is incomplete in Arabic even today. Analogous spelling practice is well-known from Old Akkadian, Nuzi, and Amarna; “where a distinction between original ṯ and š is maintained orthographically, it is the spirant that is written invariably as š, whereas the sibilant may appear either as š or sʾ’ (Speiser, p. 149 and note). Speiser concludes, “In short, ṯ had to be written š. It could not be set down as s unless such a writing was meant to express an unsuccessful imitation of the required sound, which is exactly what happened.” There remains only to point out that the distinction between the letters shin and sin would not be clear prior to the invention of pointing systems. And this explains why the Ephraimite pronounciation is unambiguously represented by the letter samek. (Robert G. Boling, Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary [Anchor Yale Bible 6A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 212-13)

 

The following is a scan of:

 

E. A. Speiser, "The Shibboleth Incident (Judges 12:6) (1942)," in Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, ed. J. J. Finkelstein and Moshe Greenberg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967),

 

Happy Pride Month!

For Pride Month, I think we all should read this document (click to enlarge image);

Also, be sure to read this book (which everyone's fave atheist who sometimes poses as LDS tiktoker will never be able to refute):

Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon, 2001)

Henry Barclay Swete on the Dove as a Symbol of the Holy Spirit

  

THE DOVE AS A SYMBOL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

 

 

All the Gospels relate that the descent of the Spirit on the newly baptized Christ was symbolized by the appearance of a bodily form (Lc. iii. 22) which resembled a dove (Mc. i. 10, Mt. iii, 16, Lc. l.c., Jo. i. 32). Whether the dove was real or spectacular it was clearly symbolic of the Spirit which henceforth rested on the humanity of the Lord.

 

What was the exact meaning of the symbol? Why was the dove chosen rather than some other symbol of the Spirit, such as water, fire, or wind?

 

In the O.T. the dove meets us in the story of the Flood (Gen. iii. 8 ff.), and in connexion with sacrificial rites (Gen. xv. 9, Lev. I, 14, &c.; cf. Lc. ii, 24, Mc. xi, 15). Its flight is the type of swiftness and beauty (Ps. Lv. 6, lxviii. 13); its gentleness and grace supplied the Eastern lover with an image for the person or the eyes of his beloved (Cant. i. 15, ii. 14, iv. 1, v. 2, 12, vi. 9). IN other passages it seems to be used as a symbol of Israel, inoffensive and defenceless among the nations of the earth (Ps. lxxiv. 19, Hos. vii, 11, xi. 11). More than one ancient writer remarks upon the sacredness of the dove in Syria (Lucian, dea Syra 54 περιστερη χρημα ιροτατον και ουδε ψαυειν αυτων δικαιευσι; Tibullus i. 7 alba Palestino sancta columba Syro), but whether this feeling prevailed in Israel there is not sufficient evidence to shew.

 

Our Lord (Mt. x. 16) speaks of the dove as the embodiment of the harmlessness which was characteristic of His own human life (Heb. vii. 26; cf. Clem. Al. paed. i. 14), and ought to characterize His disciples.

 

Mr. F. C. Conybeare (Expositor IX. ix. P. 454) has pointed out that Philo regards the dove as the symbol of the Divine Wisdom; the τρυγων is φιλερημος, την μονωσιν αγαπωσα the περιστερα is ημερος, διαιτη τη μετα θνητων ασμενιζουσα, and Wisdom has both qualities. It is more than precarious to suppose that Philo influenced the Christian tradition of the Baptism. But it is possible that the association of the dove with Wisdom or the Holy Spirit was familiar to his generation, and if so, the choice of the symbol may be in some measure due to that circumstance.

 

But behind this or any other symbolism there probably lay the reference to Gen. i. 2 to the birdlike hovering of the Spirit of God over the waters of the chaos. At the Bpatism the New Creation took its rise out of the waters of the Jordan; the Spirit of God again moved upon the face of the waters, bringing forth an ordered life. The form of the descending birth represented this greater mystery; that the bird was a dove may be explained by the associations already mentioned. (Henry Barclay Swete, The Holy Spirit in the New Testament: A Study of Primitive Christian Teaching [London: Macmillan and Co., 1910], 365-66)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com