But wait!! Why were people astounded and bewildered?? Why did they react the way they did? Some even accused the apostles of being drunk!
The above simply doesn’t make sense, nor does it stand to reason! How can you possibly account for that?? Clearly something happened with respect to language!
Well, actually it does make sense….at least to someone living back then.
We have to take look at where the apostles were when this occurred. Many Biblical scholars assert that the “house” referred to in the narrative actually refers to the temple in Jerusalem; not, as many assume, the building the Last Supper took place. The apostles were at the temple. Further possible evidence for this is that the 3,000 people who became Christian on that day were likely baptized by being submerged in one of the dozen or so mikvahs that have been recently excavated at (I believe) the base (?) of the temple.
When the apostles at the temple started addressing the crowd, the culturally and (more importantly) religiously expected language was Hebrew – this is the language the crowd should have been addressed in first, followed then by a translation into Aramaic and Greek.
They would never expect to hear ordinary people boldly prophesying in the ‘low’ languages (Aramaic and Greek) in this situation, particularly during a religious holiday; as strange as it may sound to us today, it would not have been the culturally or religiously acceptable thing to do. It just wasn’t done.
When the crowds heard the disciples boldly proclaiming in the “other languages” of Greek and Aramaic; the languages they were “born in”, the result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule at, presumably, such an obvious breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better! Another often overlooked reason for the crowd’s amazement was that Galileans were looked at as sort of uneducated ‘yokels”. Because of this anti-Galilean prejudice, some of the crowd may have been surprised to hear the disciples “proclaiming the mighty works of God” with such incredible authority.
What I believe we are witness to here is the breaking of a cultural barrier that was necessary in order to spread the message of Christianity to the world. Indeed, the real miracle of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost may simply have been to give the disciples the courage and spiritual strength to “spread the word” and to dispose of the cultural necessity to do so in one (or two) language(s) (i.e. observe strict adherence to ecclesiastical diglossia). That cultural barrier would now be broken without fear of any reprise and local vernaculars would be used to teach the people and spread the message. The barrier of a “holy language” was removed; and, as one writer puts it, “it reminded me of the temple curtain being torn from top to bottom, removing what was also a ritual way of allowing only a select group of people to interact directly with God.” With this cultural barrier now broken, the disciples, one could almost say, “paved the way” for the quick spreading of a new religion called Christianity.
They spoke with “other languages”, i.e. Greek and Aramaic – “other languages”? Other than what?? Other than the expected Hebrew! Hebrew was completely dispensed with – for many people there, I dare say this would have been quite shocking and cause for amazement and bewilderment – a sort of “what the heck just happened here?” or even a “how dare they do that!” kind of thing.
Let’s quickly get back to our list for a moment. Was there any significance to the ‘list of nations’ we find in the narrative? As we have just seen, the list was obviously not included, as many suppose, to represent or hint towards any sort of linguistic diversity; there was none.
So, if this ‘list of nations’ does not represent linguistic diversity (i.e. a diversity of ‘tongues’), what was the purpose of its inclusion into the narrative?
One of the reasons to include the list was to show that the Jews gathered in Jerusalem represented the Jewish Nation, as a whole (Diaspora included). On a more religious note with respect to the spreading of the message of Christianity, the list may very well have also indicated that the first apostolic mission was meant for the Jewish Nation as a whole (Diaspora included).
But was there another reason for including the list? It seems hardly necessary to “spell out” and waste costly parchment for what would have been common knowledge (i.e. the specific lands of the Diaspora). It is particularly interesting to note that the list starts with Parthia, includes Judea but excludes Syria, and ends with Rome.
This seems then to allude to the notion that this list must have been included for some other reason entirely, but what reason?
The most prevalent school of thought by far is that the list was placed in the narrative for political reasons (with Syria purposely omitted, and the nations/territories listed in a specific order). It was put there to make a statement. Lists such as this were commonly used by the Romans for lands they had conquered. Indeed, this list from Luke, as one writer puts it, “is anti-Roman political propaganda witch advocates kenotic politics at its finest.” There are several well written articles on the subject and I would encourage the reader to explore this further; it’s quite interesting! One of the better ones may be found here: https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf
Interestingly, as a sort of an aside, if you plot out these places on a map in the order given, I seem to recall that they start in the north, go to the south and then the west and finally east. i.e. they form a cross. Never tested this one out, but if true, seems like an extra bit of uh…..“in your face”, to put it nicely, given to the Roman occupiers.
Pentecost - no modern concept of ‘tongues’, no xenoglossy, no akolalia, no language miracle needed here folks; simply Greek and Aramaic instead of the culturally correct and expected Hebrew. The miracle was breaking through established cultural barriers and making “God”, directly accessible to anyone, in any language. A concept which, as silly as it sounds today, was virtually unheard of at that time. A ‘sign’ for the Jews that their God was now going to be made accessible to any nation in any language and anyone could benefit.
Given the above, I believe the whole concept of “spiritual gifts” must be re-examined – I believe them to be simply God-given talents and not limited to just the dozen or so Paul mentions in his writings (he refers to these in three places and in each place, the list is slightly different). Any special talent/knack/ability qualifies. If these are used specifically to better the church and for the glory of God, one may say that they are “spiritual” gifts. Therefore, the “gift of tongues” may be essentially redefined in this context to mean theknack/ability for learning languages more easily than others, but more so, as far as Paul was concerned, using that ability in spreading the message of Christianity and edifying the community, and to the further glory of God.
The above simply doesn’t make sense, nor does it stand to reason! How can you possibly account for that?? Clearly something happened with respect to language!
Well, actually it does make sense….at least to someone living back then.
We have to take look at where the apostles were when this occurred. Many Biblical scholars assert that the “house” referred to in the narrative actually refers to the temple in Jerusalem; not, as many assume, the building the Last Supper took place. The apostles were at the temple. Further possible evidence for this is that the 3,000 people who became Christian on that day were likely baptized by being submerged in one of the dozen or so mikvahs that have been recently excavated at (I believe) the base (?) of the temple.
When the apostles at the temple started addressing the crowd, the culturally and (more importantly) religiously expected language was Hebrew – this is the language the crowd should have been addressed in first, followed then by a translation into Aramaic and Greek.
They would never expect to hear ordinary people boldly prophesying in the ‘low’ languages (Aramaic and Greek) in this situation, particularly during a religious holiday; as strange as it may sound to us today, it would not have been the culturally or religiously acceptable thing to do. It just wasn’t done.
When the crowds heard the disciples boldly proclaiming in the “other languages” of Greek and Aramaic; the languages they were “born in”, the result was amazement, wonder, astonishment and even ridicule at, presumably, such an obvious breach of cultural “etiquette”. These men were Galileans after all; they should know better! Another often overlooked reason for the crowd’s amazement was that Galileans were looked at as sort of uneducated ‘yokels”. Because of this anti-Galilean prejudice, some of the crowd may have been surprised to hear the disciples “proclaiming the mighty works of God” with such incredible authority.
What I believe we are witness to here is the breaking of a cultural barrier that was necessary in order to spread the message of Christianity to the world. Indeed, the real miracle of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost may simply have been to give the disciples the courage and spiritual strength to “spread the word” and to dispose of the cultural necessity to do so in one (or two) language(s) (i.e. observe strict adherence to ecclesiastical diglossia). That cultural barrier would now be broken without fear of any reprise and local vernaculars would be used to teach the people and spread the message. The barrier of a “holy language” was removed; and, as one writer puts it, “it reminded me of the temple curtain being torn from top to bottom, removing what was also a ritual way of allowing only a select group of people to interact directly with God.” With this cultural barrier now broken, the disciples, one could almost say, “paved the way” for the quick spreading of a new religion called Christianity.
They spoke with “other languages”, i.e. Greek and Aramaic – “other languages”? Other than what?? Other than the expected Hebrew! Hebrew was completely dispensed with – for many people there, I dare say this would have been quite shocking and cause for amazement and bewilderment – a sort of “what the heck just happened here?” or even a “how dare they do that!” kind of thing.
Let’s quickly get back to our list for a moment. Was there any significance to the ‘list of nations’ we find in the narrative? As we have just seen, the list was obviously not included, as many suppose, to represent or hint towards any sort of linguistic diversity; there was none.
So, if this ‘list of nations’ does not represent linguistic diversity (i.e. a diversity of ‘tongues’), what was the purpose of its inclusion into the narrative?
One of the reasons to include the list was to show that the Jews gathered in Jerusalem represented the Jewish Nation, as a whole (Diaspora included). On a more religious note with respect to the spreading of the message of Christianity, the list may very well have also indicated that the first apostolic mission was meant for the Jewish Nation as a whole (Diaspora included).
But was there another reason for including the list? It seems hardly necessary to “spell out” and waste costly parchment for what would have been common knowledge (i.e. the specific lands of the Diaspora). It is particularly interesting to note that the list starts with Parthia, includes Judea but excludes Syria, and ends with Rome.
This seems then to allude to the notion that this list must have been included for some other reason entirely, but what reason?
The most prevalent school of thought by far is that the list was placed in the narrative for political reasons (with Syria purposely omitted, and the nations/territories listed in a specific order). It was put there to make a statement. Lists such as this were commonly used by the Romans for lands they had conquered. Indeed, this list from Luke, as one writer puts it, “is anti-Roman political propaganda witch advocates kenotic politics at its finest.” There are several well written articles on the subject and I would encourage the reader to explore this further; it’s quite interesting! One of the better ones may be found here: https://www.ibr-bbr.org/files/bbr/BBR_2000_b_01_Hengel_IoudaiaGeography.pdf
Interestingly, as a sort of an aside, if you plot out these places on a map in the order given, I seem to recall that they start in the north, go to the south and then the west and finally east. i.e. they form a cross. Never tested this one out, but if true, seems like an extra bit of uh…..“in your face”, to put it nicely, given to the Roman occupiers.
Pentecost - no modern concept of ‘tongues’, no xenoglossy, no akolalia, no language miracle needed here folks; simply Greek and Aramaic instead of the culturally correct and expected Hebrew. The miracle was breaking through established cultural barriers and making “God”, directly accessible to anyone, in any language. A concept which, as silly as it sounds today, was virtually unheard of at that time. A ‘sign’ for the Jews that their God was now going to be made accessible to any nation in any language and anyone could benefit.
Given the above, I believe the whole concept of “spiritual gifts” must be re-examined – I believe them to be simply God-given talents and not limited to just the dozen or so Paul mentions in his writings (he refers to these in three places and in each place, the list is slightly different). Any special talent/knack/ability qualifies. If these are used specifically to better the church and for the glory of God, one may say that they are “spiritual” gifts. Therefore, the “gift of tongues” may be essentially redefined in this context to mean theknack/ability for learning languages more easily than others, but more so, as far as Paul was concerned, using that ability in spreading the message of Christianity and edifying the community, and to the further glory of God.