Tongues in the Temple

An exposition of Acts chapter 2

By Ian Thomason  

Introduction

It’s not my intention to refute the Revivalist position on the content of the gospel in this article. An essay on The Gospel in this site better addresses the issue. The aim of the current article is to critically evaluate the shared Revivalist position on Acts chapter 2, by reviewing the occasion and nature, the grammar and purpose of Luke’s account[2]. I’ll try to demonstrate adequately, that the various Revivalist groups have both misunderstood and misinterpreted Peter’s address to the Jews on the Day of Pentecost, and so have formulated a theology that stands at odds with Luke’s understanding of Peter’s message. I’ll also attempt to demonstrate that Acts 2:38 doesn’t suggest what Revivalists believe it to, rather, that this verse rejects the most pivotal of Revivalist doctrines.

The importance of context

In order to capture the meaning of a single passage of Scripture (such as a verse), we must cautiously consider its place within the whole. By doing this, we’re obliged to stop and think about the writer’s intent. Doing otherwise would be to risk arrogantly imposing our own preferred position against the meaning intended by the author. It’s my claim that any passage of Scripture can logically have just the one interpretation, and that’s the one intended by the author. However, the superiority of the writer in determining meaning has slipped in recent times. Postmodern literary theories[3] are frequently applied to the biblical texts during interpretation. The result can be that God’s authority as author is reduced; with the authority of Man as reader is inflated. This skeptical approach to Scripture boldly declares that "…it matters less what God intends for me to understand, as it does what I’m prepared to accept". Unfortunately, Christians sometimes apply this flawed philosophy without thinking, when they allow subjective feelings, or personal experiences, to colour the way that they approach the Bible. Perhaps the most dangerous of interpretative errors that many Christians promote, is to read the Bible through their experience, and not their experience through the Bible[4].

The unity of Luke-Acts

We should note a few points. (1) There was a definite purpose to Luke’s writing. He stated that his intention was to prepare a carefully examined, systematic account of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. He also stated that his aim in doing this was to round out, rather than replace, the teaching Theophilus had already received. (2) Luke’s writings had a deliberate addressee, a man named Theophilus. The name itself is Greek, and means "beloved of God." However, the form of address, ‘most excellent’ (Gk. krátiste) was commonly used towards men who were part of the Equestrian order, the second highest social class in Roman society.

In the companion volume (the Acts of the Apostles), Luke continues where he left off with his gospel, by providing a selective record Jesus’ ministry post-resurrection and ascension[6]. Luke-Acts, although long enough to require the use of two separate scrolls, originally formed a single ‘book’. It was only after it became common in the Church to group the four Gospels together, that the ‘book’ was divided, and used as a sort of ‘bridging’ volume between the accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus and Paul’s letters.

Luke-Acts is written in a solid and literary form of Koine Greek. The developed literary structure of the work assists scholars in understanding Luke’s intent as a theological author. The Gospel mainly focussed on the redemptive ministry of Jesus to the nation of Israel. His ‘Acts’, however, attempted to demonstrate the inclusiveness of God’s plan of redemption, by highlighting the shift in Christianity from a Jewish religion based around Jerusalem, to a predominantly Gentile faith that was forever moving towards Rome.

For these and a range of similar reasons, biblical scholars believe that Theophilus was probably a recent Roman convert to Christianity, and a man who enjoyed good social standing, personal power, prestige and authority. In other words, Theophilus was very much a person of influence. The apologetic tone of Luke-Acts, and the date they were written, indicates that the lot of Christians in Rome was becoming increasingly less secure[7]. Consequently, it’s been proposed that the letters may have functioned as a popular judicial defence for Paul’s preaching, given that he was imprisoned in Rome at the time.

Literary considerations

To properly assess and interpret a biblical passage, it’s necessary to understand the literary nature, or ‘genre’, of the writing under review. Poetry isn’t interpreted in the same way that narratives are, or apocalyptic, or prophecy. Each genre type can also be made up of a number of quite specific sub-types.

Acts chapter two

In what follows, I’ve attempted to limit myself to an overview that draws out and develops the main themes of the ‘Acts’, and which places emphasis on Luke’s own emphases. I strongly recommend that interested readers take the time to consult the standard commentaries on this book. They will help to ‘round-out’ an understanding of Luke’s purpose, and provide a better knowledge of the way in which he develops his plot[8].

The Day of Pentecost

It’s perfectly understandable that many Christians often unconsciously read-into ‘Acts’ elements drawn from their personal experiences. However, we must remember that the Pentecost account, as with every unique event recorded in Scripture, occurred at a given point in time, for a set reason in the plan and purpose of God. And historic events are, by their very natures, exclusive rather than inclusive occurrences.

The twelve apostles fully expected to receive some sort of remarkable power, which they understood would be brought about by the presence of the Holy Spirit on them. They expected that this power would enable them to be witnesses[10] to Jesus in Jerusalem, Samaria and beyond. It’s crucial that we recognise, before we go further, that the content of the promise was very specific. The passage records, very clearly, that the promise was made in the context of it being fulfilled by and through the twelve apostles alone (see vv. 2-7). Jesus wasn’t describing the preaching of the gospel by Christians throughout the Church Age, but the expansion of the gospel message from Jerusalem and the Jews to the Roman Empire and the Gentiles. And the expansion would occur through the activity and authority of the original twelve (less Judas Iscariot, of course). The fulfilment of this specific commission is clearly a primary theme in the early ‘Acts’ narrative.

The tradition reported by Philo finds a measure of later support in the Mishna, a commentary on Jewish religious tradition and belief:

Jewish tradition maintains that when the ‘Old Covenant’ was confirmed with Israel at Mount Sinai, it was accompanied by some decidedly ‘Pentecostal’ phenomena. That similar manifestations occurred at the confirmation of the ‘New Covenant’ with the ‘new’ Israel shouldn’t surprise anyone. Just as the original Pentecost was preceded by a pledge in the form of a Passover sacrifice, so it was with the New – the sacrificial type being fulfilled in the atoning death of Jesus Christ at Calvary. When we read of the fulfilment of the Old Testament types in Acts chapter two, we should do so with a first century Jewish rather than with a twenty-first century Pentecostal Christian perspective. Failing to do this will invariably result, and has resulted, in the development and promotion of a decidedly ‘wrong-headed’ theology.

Having briefly considered the history underlying the Christian Pentecost, it now becomes necessary to consider the following questions: at Pentecost, (1) on whom did the Holy Spirit fall? And, (2) who was it that miraculously evidenced the languages of the Gentile world? Most would probably state without any hesitation: the ‘one hundred and twenty’ that is referred to in the Acts 1:15.

However, as we’ve already determined, Jesus promised a very specific empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, to his twelve apostles alone. It was they who were to act as his witnesses, and it was they who were to be his representatives in Jerusalem, Judea and elsewhere. With this in mind, it’s not surprising to discover that the grammar of the passage fully supports this position.

It’s interesting to note that the crowd at Jerusalem was divided into two specific groups: native or Judean Jews, and Diasporan (‘Dispersion’) Jews[16]. The native Jews spoke Aramaic and Greek, whilst the foreigners lacked Aramaic, speaking instead the Gentile languages of the Dispersion and Greek. After a number of the local Jews had mocked the proceedings, Peter stood up with the other eleven apostles, and began to reason with his fellow Jews. He did so by appealing to their Jewish Scriptures, and their Jewish Messianic expectations.

The Old Testament Quotations

Peter referred to two, separate Old Testament authors in his defence of the events that had just occurred, and of which he was a participant: the prophet Joel and the Prophet-King David. Importantly, both his quotations were taken from the Greek language version of the Old Testament[17], rather than from the common Hebrew version that was in use throughout Palestine. This immediately identified Peter with his target audience, the Diasporan Jews, and set him against the mocking locals.

The opposition to the Christian Messiah and his message by zealous Jews is another of the significant themes of Luke’s historiography. It was precisely this opposition that led to the death of Jesus, and with it, the wholesale repudiation of his message. It was because of the unbelief and bitterness of this same group of men that Stephen was martyred, that the original Christians were forced to scatter outside of Jerusalem, and that the gospel message followed the course chartered by Jesus.

Now Peter’s quoting the prophet Joel seems, at first blush, to be a little odd. The context of the passage related to the closing of the age that would usher in the long-anticipated ‘Day of the Yahweh’. The Jews believed that this apocalyptic event would see Israel vindicated in front of the nations, with the gentiles being cast down and humbled, if not destroyed. However, the same theme also formed the basis for Jesus’ own message, in that it related to the dawning of the apocalyptic Kingdom of God/Heaven. The two perspectives, however, were considerably different. To the Jews, the apocalypse was to be a time of gloom and judgement. But to Jesus it signified the extended grace and mercy of Yahweh to humanity. To Jesus the time expressed a further opportunity for repentance to be undertaken before the eventual Consummation[18]. Israel, the nation, had long been prophesied to play a significant role in this coming to pass.

The Result

On Peter uttering these words the ‘penny-dropped’ for many of the assembled Jewish men. They had heard of Jesus of Nazareth, naturally, but they thought him to be either a misguided fool, or a demonized deceiver. The foreign visitors acknowledged that Jesus had been crucified on Passover Eve, and they knew of the rumours that were circulating about his resurrection. Now, these same men had become eyewitnesses to an event that bore too many striking parallels to the giving of the Law at Mount Sinai to be sheer coincidence. Finally, they had just received an explanation from Scripture that made perfect sense in light of the events of the past seven weeks.

Acts 2:37 was not, as Revivalists are quick to claim the response of men seeking repentance, and having a desire to convert. What it was, was the cry of men who were in fear for not only their lives, but also their souls. These men didn’t ask: "…what must we do to be saved?", as spiritual salvation was the furthest thought from the minds of men who believed themselves already saved by virtue of their having been born male Jews. They were in mortal fear of God’s immediate judgement.

Acts 2:38

Peter surveyed the frantic crowd and his heart was moved. His passionate, expressive command was simple: ‘repent!’ This simple Greek word invokes the concept of turning, or conversion. In this instance the converting was from something, to someone. Peter commanded the assembled masses to convert from their national sin of stubbornness and pride, and to turn to Jesus, who was Israel’s anticipated Messiah, their Lord, and their willing Saviour.

Peter then spoke a further command, the one that had proven offensive to Jews from the very moment John had first uttered it: ‘be baptised!’ Baptism was the way in which a Gentile repented of being born outside of the covenant of Israel. It was a part of the Jewish conversion ritual that led to acceptance into the covenant community. At the feast of Pentecost, Peter declared that they, being Jews, needed to humble themselves in precisely the same manner as did ‘Gentiles’, if they truly desired to enter into God’s New Covenant promises.

Finally, the promise ‘and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’. The gift was the Holy Spirit himself[24], the fulfillment of Moses’ prophetic plea to God, Isaiah’s declaration, and Joel’s apocalyptic promise.

Grammatically, several important points need to be highlighted from this three-fold statement. First, the word ‘repent’ is given in the active voice, and is an imperative. In other words, it is a command. Second, ‘be baptised’ is also an imperative, but is in the passive voice, signifying that the Jews were to submit to the rite being performed on them. It was to be an act of humbling that they had to accept. Finally, the inflection relating to the receiving of the Holy Spirit is in the middle voice, indicative mood. The significance of this grammatical information is that the Holy Spirit is not something that someone can strive after to receive. In other words, one can’t ‘wait-on’ or ‘seek-after’ God’s Holy Spirit. The Father and Jesus give the Holy Spirit, who is fully God, to those who act on their own behalf by repenting and by being baptised.

Summary

Acts chapter two was never intended by Luke to present a normative pattern regarding salvation, or of any sorts of spiritual manifestations that would, should or might accompany the same. Clearly, the entire chapter is drawn from and centered in Jewish history, Jewish covenant promises and Jewish national experiences. The entire event must be approached and understood in its Jewish context if it is to be meaningful in our Christian context.

Acts 2:38 doesn’t describe a step-by-step process for becoming saved. What it does describe, however, is a record of Peter’s command to Jewish men (exclusive), in a Jewish setting (exclusive), to enable them to partake in their Jewish covenant promise (exclusive). The passage refutes the concept of ‘waiting-on’ or ‘seeking-after’ the Holy Spirit. Grammar makes meaning possible, and the grammar of verse 38 clearly states that when a person repents, a person receives the Holy Spirit. He or she then (super)naturally submits to baptism, to outwardly acknowledge the inward regeneration that has already taken place. If Revivalists baptise people with the expectation that they will repent and receive God’s Holy Spirit afterwards, then, according to verse 38, the baptism is completely invalid. This is the ‘salvation message’ that has been understood and preached by the historic Christian Church from the very beginning.

The gift of tongues, as discussed at length by Paul in 1 Corinthians, is different in type, function and form to the manifestations evidenced at Pentecost. I recommend that the articles on [tongues], [following Jesus], and [spiritual gifts] be consulted by interested readers who wish to develop a balanced, and biblical perspective on the issue.

The matter, ultimately, is one of having an adequate knowledge and understanding of the matters which Luke chose to record. To reason against the clear contexts: cultural, literary and historic; and the clear grammar with which Luke used to craft his letter, without adequate research and learning, would simply demonstrate an entrenched position that’s more concerned with defending a denominational perspective than with seeking after God’s revealed truth.

The Revivalist understanding on Acts chapter two and verse thirty-eight is incorrect. It cannot be supported from what the text actually states, and how the author chose to state it.

[1] Why do Revivalists feel the need to further qualify Acts 2:38 with the addition of the words "…with the evidence of speaking in tongues"? Peter didn’t include this caveat in his address to the Jews at Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost.

[2] I recommend that the article on Revivalist Biblical Interpretation be reviewed. It highlights a number of erroneous RCI/RF philosophical and hermeneutical critical assumptions, and demonstrates the importance of an objective analysis of Scripture in the determining of proper meaning.

[3] For example, 'reader-response' criticism: a theory that promotes the role of the reader in determining meaning, but at the expense of authorial intent.

[4] Please see the article on Authority that appears on this site.

[5] Luke 1:3-4, NIV

[6] Acts 1:1-2, NIV

[7] Circa AD 62-64, immediately prior to the Roman persecution under Nero.

[8] These include F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles on the Greek Text, 3^rd ed., Eerdmans, 1990; I.H. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, Eerdmans, 1980; and perhaps the most exhaustive commentary ever written on the book opus: C.K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, T & T Clark, 1994-1998.

[9] Acts 1:8.

[10] The expression of ‘witness’ in Greek thought alludes to the fact that the apostles were to be the evidence or proof of Jesus’ divinity.

[11] Scholarship ‘best-guesses’ the date of the work between AD 20-30. I have used the mean of the two.

[12] Accounted as being seventy according to Jewish tradition.

[13] The Greek word used is pneuma (wind/spirit).

[14] Philo, De Decalogo (‘On the Ten Commandments’), 33:46.

[15] Rabbi Johanan, Mishna: Pesahim 68b.

[16] The Diaspora was the dispersion of Israel (Jewry) into the Mediterranean region that was completed by Nebuchadnezzar in 587/586 BC.

[17] The Septuagint (LXX), which was prepared between 350 BC and 150 BC.

[18] To fully explain this theme and to do it justice is well beyond the scope of this essay. I recommend Dr Graeme Goldsworthy’s, Gospel and Kingdom, Paternoster Press, 1981; to those who would learn more.

[19] Numbers 11:29.

[20] Isaiah 49:6.

[21] The fulfilment of this Covenant promise also does serious damage to the British Israel theory – a theory that looks for a ‘National/Covenant Israel’ existing outside of Jewry.

[22] Acts 2:36.

[23] The Greek expression used was "…their hearts were pierced", an idiom for acute emotional distress.