Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm not demeaning everything in the P/C movement. After all, it was my family heritage and my Christian walk for 25 years. There is likely as much good in it as there was in the Reformed movement. I'm simply trying to address the tongues issue, and to say there is a good reason for it being so controversial.
So what you say here about hermeneutics, I've got a question for you. Do you believe in Biblical precedent, namely that what is first mentioned in the Bible supervises later mentions of the same thing? IOW, do you believe that Paul's description and process concerning tongues and the nature of tongues should follow Acts 2, because he assumes that what he has and what is practiced in the churches is the same thing?
Then, if so, the application of that would assume that if you speak in tongues, that it is a real language carrying real meaning, and it could be translated into English if someone knew that language. Do you practice tongues, and (if so) do you believe that what you speak is a real language (that is, not a pseudo-language or just repeated random syllables)?
If I were to form an 'law of first reference' rule out of Acts 2 I would soon have to abandon it as I read the other accounts that do not match my theory.
I think I need to take all of the scriptures and the context of each concerning speaking in tongues and get an entire picture by the contribution of each mention. I believe there is progressive revelation at play in the subsequent events and mentions. It is obvious that there are differences.
Also if one does formulate some kind of measuring rod with Acts 2 to judge all other instances that occur in scripture one better have the correct measurement of they will be far afield very quickly.
As already mentioned, a careful analysis of Acts 2 suggests that the reason for the amazement was not just that they had run into bilingual people. They were so confounded and
Marveled because they could not figure out how it was possible for themselves and another person who spoke a different language, to both hear them speaking in their own languages.
Mind boggling How can this Be?
Now you may not agree with that interpretation but it is what the text says and I am being as faithful to it as possible without having to change the meaning to fit my bias or prejudice.
If this is what it means it adds to the supernatural element of this event.
5Now there were Jews staying in Jerusalem, devout people from every nation under heaven.
6When this sound occurred, a crowd came together and was
confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7They were astounded and amazed, saying,
A “Look, aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans?
8How is it that each of us can hear them in our own native language? 9Parthians, Medes, Elamites; those who live in Mesopotamia, in Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,
10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts),
11Cretans and Arabs — we hear them declaring the magnificent acts of God in our own tongues.”
12They were all astounded and perplexed, saying to one another,
“What does this mean? ”
13But some sneered and said, “They’re drunk on new wine.”
If you read it carefully you can really get the sense that Luke is highlighting the impact it had on those who could not make sense of how people who spoke different languages could understand the same speakers in their own language. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? How is the possible? They were astounded and perplexed by this. It is way more than finding out someone can speak your own language that would cause all of these emotions and have this kind of impact.
It is also the fact that others who don't speak your language could understand the same speakers in their own language and you don't understand their language. How can this be?
At this point I lean toward the interpretation based on the plain reading of the text that it is a case where they understood all of the 120 speakers in their own language and others understood in their own language. But I cannot contend for that. Maybe they only heard some of the 120 that were near them and noticed that others of another language also understood them.
At this point I believe that the supernatural element of two or more people who spoke different languages understanding the same speakers in their own language were aware that others who spoke another language also understood the same speakers was the reason for their amazement and perplexity and this is what Luke was presenting. This boggled their minds at the supernatural event they were a part of.
Also that others mocking and accusing them of being drunk does not match what someone would think if they thought you had just learned a language instantly. They did not understand them. They thought they were speaking nonsense, babbling incoherently, like a drunk person. That is the most obvious interpretation that would not need further explanation from Luke.
If you insist that it was each 120 speaking a known foreign language such that one could record them send the recording to linguists and identify the language (which I do not believe is what is going on here) then you will have difficulty reconciling much of what Paul wrote about the use of the gift latter.
If you do use Acts 2 to insist that each of the other events in Acts has them speaking in foreign languages and yet there is no foreigners there to hear them, then what was the purpose. And some modifications to the "law of first reference' formulated from Acts 2 is immediately required. Also there is no mention of the cloven tongues of flame setting upon anyone else after the Acts 2 event in which case further modifications to the the rule of Acts 2 must be made.
When Paul writes so much about the use of the gift and says that his own understanding is unfruitful when he prays in tongues we cannot ignore the fact that these kinds of additional details give us a whole picture that makes it very difficult to insist on an identifiable language that can be recorded and sent to linguists for identification.
I believe that is not how the gift of tongues works. Nor can you record someone praying in tongues or even someone who gives a tongue in a church service to be interpreted and then take that recording and give it to someone who claims to have the gift of interpretation and have them interpret. If they really are used to give interpretations of tongues in their local church they will tell you that they cannot help you with that. That the Holy Spirit will not give them the interpretation under such a challenge circumstance like that. That the Holy Spirit will not cooperate with their challenge. That the Holy Spirit gives them interpretations in the moment of the utterance in the assembly to edify those that are there and not to answer a skeptics recording challenge.
1
