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, as well as answer the 5th critique which states:
Critique #5: Tongues were a known language.
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. I pastored during an early time period when my denomination superiors actively encouraged us to approach any member of our church practicing such things and exhort them to cease, even if their practice was in private. Ordination would be impossible if this manifestation was a part of your spiritual life. This stuff was serious business. So, I come at this from an initial, early disposition of great skepticism. My academic foundation taught that 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 never answered all my questions or satisfied certain mysteries for me. For example:
1. If GLOSSA (the Greek word for “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 through the Scripture, especially if the Holy Spirit is superintending the inspiration of the whole book? That type of possibility seems unlikely.
2. Why did the disciples speak in GLOSSA (tongues), but the crowd hears in DIALECTO (Greek word which always signifies KNOWN 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 (which is uncertain to this point) 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 of Acts 2. 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? Imagine a bustling street with 16 languages being shouted at once into a diverse language crowd and it somehow makes sense? The crux of the miracle that day may be the “hearing” more than the speaking. (Although both speaking and hearing were supernatural.)
5. If Peter concludes by 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 of Acts 2.
So here is what I think it looked like on the Day of Pentecost. The disciples come out of the upper room speaking in GLOSSA (unknown tongue), and the crowd is supernaturally able to hear it in their own DIALECTO (known language).
It answers:
1. The needed cohesion of word translation and the hermeneutical principal of scripture illuminating scripture. The Holy Spirit is consistent in word usage and inspiration.
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 concerning the disciples.
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 the question I will address in the final post. Again,I understand and accept that people are landing in different squares, but those who embrace this manifestation are not the heretics some believe them to be.
No Comments