In a previous post asked this question because I have pondered and studied for years the dynamics of the Acts 2 outpouring. I need to give some context to my question as to why this might even be important.
I started my journey with Jesus in non-Pentecostal and non-charismatic circles. I could say that at the time it was “anti-Pentecostal” and gave no quarter to certain manifestations, especially the concept of unknown tongues. I tell you that because I sat in graduate school under that perspective and scholarship. So, I come at this from an academic foundation that teaches when the disciples were baptized with the Spirit, they supernaturally received the ability to speak in a KNOWN language not of their own. I have read Acts 2, what seems like thousands of times (maybe embellishment), and that interpretation has never answered all my questions or satisfied certain mysteries for me. For example:
1. If GLOSSA (tongues) is synonymous with known languages, then why does Paul uses the same word in I Corinthians 14 to clearly indicate an unknown language which at times need’s interpretation? Why would a word, dramatically and substantially change meaning especially if the Holy Spirit is superintending the inspiration?
2. Why did the disciples speak in GLOSSA (tongues), but the crowd heard in DIALECTO (language or dialect)? Was the supernatural miracle in the speaking or the hearing, or perhaps BOTH? [v.8]
3. If the disciples were speaking in known languages why were they considered drunk (v.13)? Why was the crowd confused if the language was known (v.6)? Why was the crowd amazed if this language was known (v.7)? Why were they perplexed (v.12)? Why did the crowd mock them speaking in a known language (v.13)? How does a known language produce these dynamics in a crowded Jerusalem street with what would have been hundreds of personal interactions?
4. There were at least 120 people coming out into the street after the outpouring. How can potentially 16+ known languages be proclaimed simultaneously by 120 people to solicit the crowd response of, “How be it that WE hear”, (plural) indicating interaction with the crowd perhaps, rather than individuals [v.8]? How can this many known languages be spoken at once and be distinguished?
5. If Peter is street preaching to this multi-language crowd, then what language of the 16+ represented in the crowd, was he preaching to solicit 3,000 conversions (v.41) of which sheer probability indicates a multi-language crowd?
For me, the known language interpretation doesn’t adequately answer the questions of the chapter. I think the unknown “tongue” is a better interpretation that fits the context and scenario.
It answers:
1. The needed cohesion of word translation and the hermeneutical principal of scripture illuminating scripture.
2. It answers the two word challenge of GLOSSA and DIALECTO by suggesting the miracle was both what was spoken AND the supernatural act of their hearing (or interpretation).
3. It answers the unusual comments and observations of the crowd.
4. It answers the chaos of communication by again, placing the Holy Spirits activity in both voice and ears.
5. It actually may provide an answer to the original question of how Peter preached to a multi-language crowd.
Now, whether Acts 2 is a normative or an expected experience that is available for every believer -or- a one time, unique event for the launching of the church (or perhaps even both) is a follow up question I’m not addressing at the moment. I understand people are landing in different squares. But I thought I’d think out loud today.
No Comments