Another Understanding of “Tongues” at Pentecost
I am placing this here rather than as a post on the forums simply due to length. I thought it a more appropriate spot rather than several continuous posts to the forum. That said, looks like, due to length, it will need to be done here in four parts......
The current understanding of Biblical “tongues” comes, in part, from the Pentecostal narrative of Luke found in the book of Acts. There have been mainly three different theories or beliefs advanced and debated over the ages as to what occurred with respect to language(s). These may be summarized as follows:
One belief (still held by some today) was that what happened was a “miracle of hearing”; when the apostles spoke, the audience heard it in their various native languages. This concept of speaking language X, but someone hearing language Y is sometimes called “akolalia”. A closer examination of the event rules this theory out; “they began speaking in other languages” – clearly the apostles were speaking in ‘other languages’; thus, it could not have been a “miracle of hearing”.
Another belief, similar to the above, asserts that the apostles were speaking in “tongues” (i.e. modern glossolalia) and the audience heard it in their various languages. This theory too may be ruled out as again, even a cursory examination reveals that the apostles were speaking real rational language(s).
By far the most popular theory/belief, and one which has helped shape the entire understanding of “tongues”, from Acts to Corinthians (and a few other instances where the term occurs), as well as help form the official definition of “tongues” by many churches, is the idea of xenoglossy.
Xenoglossy is the ability to speak a language one has never, in any way, shape or form, previously encountered or been exposed to. This belief entails that the apostles were given the sudden miraculous ability to speak languages they could not possibly know.
Indeed, in his article, “The Gift of Tongues: Comparing the Church Fathers with Contemporary Pentecostalism“ (TMSJ 17/1 Spring 2006), Nathan Busenitz offers a patristic definition of “tongues” and concludes that, “based on the patristic evidence, a rudimentary description of tongues (as it was understood by the church fathers) might be stated as follows: The gift of tongues was a solitary and supernaturally endowed ability, given by the Holy Spirit to select Christians, enabling those believers to speak in previously unlearned, rational foreign languages. The intended use of the gift involved either the translation of the message (by an interpreter) for the general edification of fellow believers, or the translation of the message (by the hearer who heard it in his own tongue) for the evangelism of unbelievers. The ability was not given to all Christians nor were they commanded to seek it. In fact, the gift does not even receive a high profile in the patristic literature (especially in comparison to the other gifts). While the fathers do discuss tongues-speaking on occasion, their writings do not highlight it as a normal part of the Christian experience.”
There are two key take-aways here: first, in the patristic view, the “tongues” of the Bible were rational (foreign) languages; and secondly, the acquisition of said languages was via the experience of xenoglossy as described further above.
This, in turn, has led to the definition of “the gift of tongues” as the ability to speak a language that one has no previous knowledge of; i.e. a virtual textbook definition of xenoglossy overlaid with religious overtones.
It is important to remember that the Greek word used in the texts is ‘glôssa’. It’s meaning is ‘language’.
There is however, a completely different view of “tongues” at Pentecost.
This view is not well known, but it has been published by a few individuals: Robert Zerhusen in his “A New Look at Tongues” (Biblical Theology Bulletin, 1996) and “The Problem Tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 – A New Look at Tongues Part II” (ibid., 1997), and Renton MacLachlan in his “Tongues Revisited – A Third Way” (ClearSight, Porirua, NZ, 2000).
When I first became aware of these two articles and the book in the latter part of 2017, I was rather surprised (and pleased) to discover that others held similar views and theories to my own. Since these other two views more or less echo my own, I have also drawn upon the publications listed above in what is presented below.
To summarize this view in a nutshell, it essentially strips away the religious element of the narrative and carefully examines the text from a more historical and linguistic perspective and context. The religious element is not at all dispensed with altogether, but rather redefined in light of this new understanding of the text.
I believe this view, though perhaps controversial, brings to light a more realistic understanding of the events of Pentecost with respect to language.
To set a bit of a backdrop – When reading scripture, there are a lot of misreadings and assumptions that take place. People tend to forget that each book (or letter, as the case may be) was written for a specific audience at a specific time-frame. As a result, based upon these assumptions and/or misreadings, people often tend to inadvertently interpret or read into the texts things that are just not there. These in turn become accepted as ‘truth’ over time; despite the fact they were never there to begin with. The Pentecostal narrative of Acts is no exception to this process.
Let’s take a look at a few of the definite facts. We know that the occasion was Shavu’ot, or Pentecost. We also know that during this holiday festival, Jews gathered in Jerusalem at the temple. We also know that some of these Jews were converts to Judaism. Lastly, we know that some of these Jews made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem from other lands.
Now, let’s take a look for a moment at a few things that are in the narrative, but most people sort of unwittingly gloss over.
As we are told in the text, not only were there Jews from Judea in attendance, but there were also Jews from ‘every nation under heaven’, but what exactly does that mean? “Every nation under heaven” was an idiomatic expression – today we might say something like “from all over the place”. We’ll examine this in more detail further below.
The event took place in Jerusalem. It is reasonable therefore to assume that by far, the majority of attendees would be right from the general locality – Jerusalem and its environs. To a slightly lesser extent, people from the rest of Judea. Finally, we would have a third group of people who we may presume to be the Jews “from away” as we say here in New England (i.e. those from “every nation under heaven”).
Think of this as being analogous to having say, an international “Widget Convention” in Boston, MA. Now ask yourself, ‘where would the bulk of attendees come from?’ A reasonable answer might be, from right around the Boston/New England area and then, to a lesser extent, the rest of the US. Finally, you’d have a “foreign contingent”. As far as percentages, a ‘guesstimate’ might be something like 50% from Boston and New England, 35% from the rest of the US, and the remaining 15% would make up the foreign contingent.
The point is, the bulk of attendees would have come right from Judea, with the majority of those from Jerusalem and its environs.
Coming back to our idiomatic “every nation under heaven”; exactly what and where were all these nations? Well, it seems further on down in the narrative, we are told exactly what and where they were. Acts 2:9-11 provides us with such a list. This list, by the way, is frequently referred to as the “list of nations” – we’ll get back to this list later as it plays an important role.
Before we go further, there are a few things to really think about that need mention:
First, if you read the entire narrative, not one language is ever referenced by name – not one. Why do you suppose that is?
Secondly, though there were Jews from ‘every nation under heaven’, nowhere in the entire narrative is it even remotely suggested that communication was ever an issue. Again, why do you suppose that is?
Lastly, at one point, Peter addresses the crowd – given the demographic make-up of the attendees, what language do you suppose he addressed them in?
Let’s turn back to our list of nations for a moment. Do you notice anything specific about it?
Well, the nations/lands seem to be arranged in a specific geographical order. If we examine this list more closely, we discover that what we are presented with here is a list of the lands of the Jewish Diaspora.
Considering the Pentecost holiday festival is one of three Biblical pilgrimage festivals, having fellow Jews from the Diasporan lands in attendance is really not all that surprising. One may even be tempted to ask, why waste costly parchment to state the obvious by listing them all?
Indeed, if we further examine the list, we see that the nations/lands of both the Western as well as the Eastern Diaspora are represented.
But there’s something else about the list that’s not quite right given what we now know. Upon an even closer examination, we notice that there are two places that don’t seem to be mentioned – Syria and Cyprus. Again, we’ll get back to this seeming error later.
So, with respect to the attendees at Pentecost, I think we have safely established that there were a few different “contingencies”, so to speak. There were the Jews who were from the general area of Jerusalem, Jews from further away in Judea, and finally a group of Jews from the Diasporan lands.
Let’s actually define these three contingencies like this: (1) Jews from Judea, (2) Jews from the Western Diaspora, and (3) Jews from the Eastern Diaspora.