Some afterthoughts on the above:
Spoken vs. written –
What is interesting to me, and admittedly a bit problematic, is that that when Paul describes the “gift of tongues” it does not seem to include the written language; just the spoken. The same with “interpretation”. This begs the question, could the reason be that most people in his time could neither read nor write their own language, let alone a foreign one; thus, the concentration was on the spoken language? It could also serve to indicate that because Paul was mainly referring to a public worship setting/scenario, it would be rather unusual for a person to be reading off something written.
Regarding the number of languages spoken –
Even if one were to propose there were a few other languages spoken by the attendees (the only other real possible contenders would have been Latin and possibly Parthian), I believe one could argue that their speakers were minimal in number at best and, to put it somewhat bluntly, somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme of the narrative.
One could argue this by taking a look at the word “all” as in “we all hear them speaking in…..”. Does this mean literally “every single person” or, is the meaning more ‘the vast majority’??
Let’s take an analogy. If I’m in a room with twenty people and you walk in and I say “Hey, we’re all going to the beach, you coming with us?”, does it mean literally every single person is going, or does it mean the vast majority is going (i.e. there may be four or five people not going for whatever reason, but for the most part, we’re ‘all’ going)?
I would argue that in virtually all cases, unless otherwise specifically indicated, it’s probably the latter, i.e. ‘vast majority’.
So, if there were in fact a few speakers of Latin and/or Parthian, they most certainly did not make up the majority of attendees. In fact, their numbers were likely minimal at best. So ‘all’, as used in the narrative, likely carries the connotation of ‘the vast majority’, ‘just about all of us’; not literally every single person there.
Let’s not forget too, that the author was telling a story and, as such, may have taken a bit of ‘poetic license’. Could the word “all” here (with the intent of literally everyone), the people’s utter amazement, their bewilderment, etc. have just been ‘played up’ a little for dramatic effect? I don’t think that’s out of the realm of possibility.
Granted the above may be somewhat of a weaker argument, but if indeed there were a few other languages represented (which I think is unlikely), I would have to argue the above and say that their numbers were so minimal so as to not really play into the overall story of the narrative and, as such, ‘all’ in this case should be understood to mean “the vast majority”.
The concept of accessibility of (the ‘Jewish’) God to Gentiles (and in various languages) –
To paraphrase from an article by David Cloud of Way of Life Ministries – The concept of the Jewish God being accessible to non-Jews bordered on heresy; indeed, the mere suggesting that non-Jews could benefit from His goodness was to risk one’s life.
This concept is evidenced in Acts 22:1-22 where Paul addresses the people in Aramaic* and silence falls on them as he is speaking. The moment he indicates that he is being sent out among the Gentiles, the sentence sort of freezes in mid-air. The crowd immediately turns on him and virtually threatens his life saying that (for such a statement) he is not “fit to live”.
*[though the word ‘Hebrew’ is used in the text, the actual language would have been Aramaic – the two are oftentimes interchangeable.]
Why the sudden turn of the crowd? What tripped the wire that caused them to explode as they did?? In this case, it was the indication by Paul that the Jewish God could/should be made available to everyone and (presumably) in whatever language they spoke. This was seen by the Jews as unacceptable, almost unthinkable.
Here we see an example which evidences the idea of a Jewish God, prayed to, taught about, etc., etc. was to be just for the Jews and just in prescribed languages, i.e. Hebrew first, then a translation into Aramaic and Greek (the two languages of the Jewish population in Judea as well as the Diaspora).
The idea that God could be accessible to anyone and in any language, was the “sign” for the Jews with respect to “tongues (i.e. languages). It is now perhaps easier to understand why “speaking in tongues (languages)” is the sign of this great truth and that for the Gentiles it (the local vernaculars) was the means of access.
The Jews alone had to be convinced to abandon this particular unbelief and to consider no longer impure the people and the languages that God considered pure, languages pure enough to be spoken by His Holy Spirit. ... This sign in foreign languages taught them that salvation was for ‘whosoever,’ for ‘all flesh,’ for ‘every tongue (language).’ ...
This was the original purpose of “tongues” (i.e. [foreign] languages) – to make God accessible to all people in any language.
On the concept of “Baptized in the Spirit” and “evidence of tongues” –
I believe in Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition the sequence goes something like this: being “Baptized in the Spirit” equates to being ‘saved’, and baptism in the Spirit is ‘evidenced’ by “speaking in tongues”.
If this concept is essentially based on the Pentecost narrative, the 'infilling' (not sure if I’m using the correct terminology here) of the Holy Spirit occurred in such that there were three ‘components’, if you will: a strong wind; tongues of fire; and after that, “speaking in tongues”.
If people get “baptized in the Spirit” today, and the concept is derived from the Pentecostal narrative, it seems reasonable to suggest that all three elements/components would need to occur to have a true “infilling” of the Holy Spirit; i.e. it’s an all or nothing situation – why is the only necessary component “speaking in tongues”? Why are the other two criteria/components discarded and not required to also occur? Or is it simply a matter of keeping it ‘in the spirit’ of the actual requirements?
If the answer is that these other two things should also occur, then how is what’s happening today considered being ‘baptized in the Spirit’ given that two of three criteria/components are absent? If the answer is that just “tongues” is enough, then I would suggest that the definition of “infilling of the H/S” or "being filled with the H/S" has been completely redefined in the Pentecostal/Charismatic traditions.
Let’s take an analogy. If you want to have something called a ‘thunderstorm’, let’s say, according to an ancient document where the concept of a thunderstorm first occurred and was described, you need rain, lightning and thunder; i.e. it’s all or nothing – if you don’t have all three components, you don’t have a ‘thunderstorm’. If a particular group of people believed that only the ‘evidence of lightning’ constituted a thunderstorm, then either the definition of thunderstorm needs to be redefined for everyone (unlikely), or that group of people have redefined the concept of thunderstorm to fit their ‘evidence of lightning’ only belief.
The modern concept doesn’t quite stand up to what is actually ‘documented’ in Acts.
Further, according to the narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were converted on Pentecost. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to Pentecostal/Charismatic belief, they should have starting “speaking in tongues”. Yet nothing of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative (?).
The bottom line here is that “tongues” of Pentecost were rational languages. With respect to the actual languages themselves, nothing supernatural occurred – they were languages the apostles already knew; they just circumvented ecclesiastical diglossia and eliminated the Jewish tradition/custom of Hebrew first, then vernaculars.
A bit on Corinthians –
Since the terms for ‘language’ used in Pentecost and Corinthians is exactly the same; even without any further analysis of Corinthians, there is no reason to suggest that “tongues” refers to anything other than rational languages. Lending further support are two things that typically go unnoticed: The word ‘tongue(s)’ itself is used both in the singular and in the plural – a reference to one language or several languages. If modern “tongues” were the intent, this distinction would not be necessary. The other is the phrase ‘various (“divers”) kinds of languages’. The word for ‘kinds’ here contains the Greek root ‘gen-’ denoting ‘family’; thus, the phrase better translated would be something like “various families of languages.” A clear indication that real/rational language(s) is the intent.
Specific passages in Corinthians have been commented on almost to the point of ad nauseum as ‘evidence’ that the concept of modern “tongues” was Paul’s intent. This is not the place for a complete analysis of these passages in light of real/rational language (perhaps a ‘blog for another day’), but suffice to say that absolutely nowhere does the text ever suggest that the person/people speaking do not understand what they themselves are saying; no matter how hard one may want it to be, it’s just not there.
Spoken vs. written –
What is interesting to me, and admittedly a bit problematic, is that that when Paul describes the “gift of tongues” it does not seem to include the written language; just the spoken. The same with “interpretation”. This begs the question, could the reason be that most people in his time could neither read nor write their own language, let alone a foreign one; thus, the concentration was on the spoken language? It could also serve to indicate that because Paul was mainly referring to a public worship setting/scenario, it would be rather unusual for a person to be reading off something written.
Regarding the number of languages spoken –
Even if one were to propose there were a few other languages spoken by the attendees (the only other real possible contenders would have been Latin and possibly Parthian), I believe one could argue that their speakers were minimal in number at best and, to put it somewhat bluntly, somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme of the narrative.
One could argue this by taking a look at the word “all” as in “we all hear them speaking in…..”. Does this mean literally “every single person” or, is the meaning more ‘the vast majority’??
Let’s take an analogy. If I’m in a room with twenty people and you walk in and I say “Hey, we’re all going to the beach, you coming with us?”, does it mean literally every single person is going, or does it mean the vast majority is going (i.e. there may be four or five people not going for whatever reason, but for the most part, we’re ‘all’ going)?
I would argue that in virtually all cases, unless otherwise specifically indicated, it’s probably the latter, i.e. ‘vast majority’.
So, if there were in fact a few speakers of Latin and/or Parthian, they most certainly did not make up the majority of attendees. In fact, their numbers were likely minimal at best. So ‘all’, as used in the narrative, likely carries the connotation of ‘the vast majority’, ‘just about all of us’; not literally every single person there.
Let’s not forget too, that the author was telling a story and, as such, may have taken a bit of ‘poetic license’. Could the word “all” here (with the intent of literally everyone), the people’s utter amazement, their bewilderment, etc. have just been ‘played up’ a little for dramatic effect? I don’t think that’s out of the realm of possibility.
Granted the above may be somewhat of a weaker argument, but if indeed there were a few other languages represented (which I think is unlikely), I would have to argue the above and say that their numbers were so minimal so as to not really play into the overall story of the narrative and, as such, ‘all’ in this case should be understood to mean “the vast majority”.
The concept of accessibility of (the ‘Jewish’) God to Gentiles (and in various languages) –
To paraphrase from an article by David Cloud of Way of Life Ministries – The concept of the Jewish God being accessible to non-Jews bordered on heresy; indeed, the mere suggesting that non-Jews could benefit from His goodness was to risk one’s life.
This concept is evidenced in Acts 22:1-22 where Paul addresses the people in Aramaic* and silence falls on them as he is speaking. The moment he indicates that he is being sent out among the Gentiles, the sentence sort of freezes in mid-air. The crowd immediately turns on him and virtually threatens his life saying that (for such a statement) he is not “fit to live”.
*[though the word ‘Hebrew’ is used in the text, the actual language would have been Aramaic – the two are oftentimes interchangeable.]
Why the sudden turn of the crowd? What tripped the wire that caused them to explode as they did?? In this case, it was the indication by Paul that the Jewish God could/should be made available to everyone and (presumably) in whatever language they spoke. This was seen by the Jews as unacceptable, almost unthinkable.
Here we see an example which evidences the idea of a Jewish God, prayed to, taught about, etc., etc. was to be just for the Jews and just in prescribed languages, i.e. Hebrew first, then a translation into Aramaic and Greek (the two languages of the Jewish population in Judea as well as the Diaspora).
The idea that God could be accessible to anyone and in any language, was the “sign” for the Jews with respect to “tongues (i.e. languages). It is now perhaps easier to understand why “speaking in tongues (languages)” is the sign of this great truth and that for the Gentiles it (the local vernaculars) was the means of access.
The Jews alone had to be convinced to abandon this particular unbelief and to consider no longer impure the people and the languages that God considered pure, languages pure enough to be spoken by His Holy Spirit. ... This sign in foreign languages taught them that salvation was for ‘whosoever,’ for ‘all flesh,’ for ‘every tongue (language).’ ...
This was the original purpose of “tongues” (i.e. [foreign] languages) – to make God accessible to all people in any language.
On the concept of “Baptized in the Spirit” and “evidence of tongues” –
I believe in Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition the sequence goes something like this: being “Baptized in the Spirit” equates to being ‘saved’, and baptism in the Spirit is ‘evidenced’ by “speaking in tongues”.
If this concept is essentially based on the Pentecost narrative, the 'infilling' (not sure if I’m using the correct terminology here) of the Holy Spirit occurred in such that there were three ‘components’, if you will: a strong wind; tongues of fire; and after that, “speaking in tongues”.
If people get “baptized in the Spirit” today, and the concept is derived from the Pentecostal narrative, it seems reasonable to suggest that all three elements/components would need to occur to have a true “infilling” of the Holy Spirit; i.e. it’s an all or nothing situation – why is the only necessary component “speaking in tongues”? Why are the other two criteria/components discarded and not required to also occur? Or is it simply a matter of keeping it ‘in the spirit’ of the actual requirements?
If the answer is that these other two things should also occur, then how is what’s happening today considered being ‘baptized in the Spirit’ given that two of three criteria/components are absent? If the answer is that just “tongues” is enough, then I would suggest that the definition of “infilling of the H/S” or "being filled with the H/S" has been completely redefined in the Pentecostal/Charismatic traditions.
Let’s take an analogy. If you want to have something called a ‘thunderstorm’, let’s say, according to an ancient document where the concept of a thunderstorm first occurred and was described, you need rain, lightning and thunder; i.e. it’s all or nothing – if you don’t have all three components, you don’t have a ‘thunderstorm’. If a particular group of people believed that only the ‘evidence of lightning’ constituted a thunderstorm, then either the definition of thunderstorm needs to be redefined for everyone (unlikely), or that group of people have redefined the concept of thunderstorm to fit their ‘evidence of lightning’ only belief.
The modern concept doesn’t quite stand up to what is actually ‘documented’ in Acts.
Further, according to the narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were converted on Pentecost. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to Pentecostal/Charismatic belief, they should have starting “speaking in tongues”. Yet nothing of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people “speaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative (?).
The bottom line here is that “tongues” of Pentecost were rational languages. With respect to the actual languages themselves, nothing supernatural occurred – they were languages the apostles already knew; they just circumvented ecclesiastical diglossia and eliminated the Jewish tradition/custom of Hebrew first, then vernaculars.
A bit on Corinthians –
Since the terms for ‘language’ used in Pentecost and Corinthians is exactly the same; even without any further analysis of Corinthians, there is no reason to suggest that “tongues” refers to anything other than rational languages. Lending further support are two things that typically go unnoticed: The word ‘tongue(s)’ itself is used both in the singular and in the plural – a reference to one language or several languages. If modern “tongues” were the intent, this distinction would not be necessary. The other is the phrase ‘various (“divers”) kinds of languages’. The word for ‘kinds’ here contains the Greek root ‘gen-’ denoting ‘family’; thus, the phrase better translated would be something like “various families of languages.” A clear indication that real/rational language(s) is the intent.
Specific passages in Corinthians have been commented on almost to the point of ad nauseum as ‘evidence’ that the concept of modern “tongues” was Paul’s intent. This is not the place for a complete analysis of these passages in light of real/rational language (perhaps a ‘blog for another day’), but suffice to say that absolutely nowhere does the text ever suggest that the person/people speaking do not understand what they themselves are saying; no matter how hard one may want it to be, it’s just not there.