1551
. From Craig S. Keener, “Tongues as Evidence of the Character of the Spirit’s Empowerment in Acts,” pages
227–38
in A Light to the Nations: Explorations in Ecumenism, Missions, and Pentecostalism (foreword by Byron D. Klaus; Eugene, OR: Pickwick,
2017
). That article was in turn adapted from Keener, “Tongues,” courtesy of Brill. I also addressed Luke and glossolalia in Keener, Acts,
1
:
806–31
.
. I noted this point (much more briefly) in Keener, Gift,
180
; Keener, Questions,
69
.
. For discussion of samples, see Keener, Spirit, esp.
8–13
; with a more diverse range of activities, Turner, Gifts,
1–18
; with a fuller focus specifically on prophecy, see Menzies, Development. For one mediating approach, see Cho, Spirit and Kingdom.
. See esp. Menzies, Development, esp.
205–77
; also Stronstad, Prophethood.
. Cf. e.g., Johnson, Function,
41
; scholars often parallel Jesus’s opening speech in Luke’s Gospel (Luke
4
:
18–27
) with Peter’s opening speech in Acts (Acts
2
:
17–40
; e.g., Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 128
).
. John’s “baptism in the Spirit” undoubtedly included the entire sphere of the Spirit’s eschatological activity, in contrast with the eschatological fire baptism and John’s own baptism (Luke
3
:
16
). But Luke’s use of “baptize in the Holy Spirit” and “receive the Spirit” focuses on the dimension of empowerment, explaining how it can sometimes occur subsequent to conversion (
8
:
12–17
). Because I have treated this elsewhere (Keener, Gift,
137–69
; Keener, “Spirit,”
491–93
) I note it only in passing here.
. The eleven and those with them (Luke
24
:
33
; see Dillon, Eye-Witnesses,
291
). The term “witness” may apply in Acts especially to the Twelve as a group (Luke
24
:
48
; Acts
2
:
32
;
3
:
15
;
4
:
33
;
5
:
32
;
10
:
39
,
41
;
13
:
31
), who were with Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry (
1
:
21–22
); but application to Paul (Acts
22
:
15
,
18
;
23
:
11
;
26
:
16
,
22
) and others (
22
:
20
; cf.
10
:
43
) shows that their witness function is paradigmatic (see Keener, Acts,
1
:
525
,
689
,
695–96
). Luke narrates not disinterested history, but a paradigm for mission based on history; thus the power of the Spirit is given to all believers (
2
:
38–39
), and, despite Luke’s emphasis on the movement’s leaders, he occasionally narrates the evangelistic activity of others (
8
.
4
;
11
:
19–21
).
. Cf. also Brown, Healer, 218–20
.
. E.g., Jesus heals leprosy (Luke
5
:
12–13
), like Elisha (
2
Kgs
5
:
14
; Luke
4
:
27
); he raises the dead (Luke
7
:
14–15
;
8
:
51–55
) in manners reminiscent of Elijah and Elisha (
1
Kgs
17
:
19–23
;
2
Kgs
4
:
32–35
); he multiplies food (Luke
9
:
16–17
) as Elijah and Elisha did (
1
Kgs
17
:
16
;
2
Kgs
4
:
3–7
,
42–44
).
. See Stronstad, Charismatic Theology,
43–45
; Brodie, “Emulation,”
78–85
; Keener, Gift,
59–64
; more generally, Keener, “Spirit,”
493
.
. See e.g., Thucydides
1
:
23
:
6
; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thuc.
19
; Lucian Hist.
53
; cf. Pliny Nat. pref.
33
; Polybius
3
.
1
:
7
;
11
.
1
:
4–5
.
. With e.g., Zwiep, Ascension, 194
.
. See fully Pao, Isaianic Exodus (on the use of Isa
49
:
6
here, see esp.
85
,
92
).
. For reversal, see e.g., Moule, Messengers,
23
; Hill, Prophecy,
95
; Dominy, “Spirit, Church, and Mission”; Smith, “Hope after Babel?”; Spencer, Acts,
32–33
; Chéreau, “Babel à la Pentecôte”; for a recapitulation, e.g., González, Acts,
39
; Wagenaar, “Kumba,”
406–21
: Early Pentecostals also read their experience as a reversal of Babel (Anderson, Pentecostalism,
44
). Some scholars demur (e.g., Dunn, Acts,
24
), but they seem to miss the connection implied by the table of nations.
. Cf. Goulder, Type,
158
. For the table of nations tradition in Second Temple Judaism, see Scott, “Horizon,”
507–22
; in Acts,
525–27
.
. See e.g., Foakes-Jackson, Acts,
11
; Dupont, Salvation,
58
; Dibelius, Studies in Acts,
106
; Robinson, Studies,
167
.
. E.g., Yong, Spirit Poured,
94
,
169–73
; Venter, Reconciliation,
155
,
170
; Keener, “Acts
2
:
1–21
,”
526–27
; Park, Healing, 130–32
; Bediako, “African Culture,”
120
(for translation in the vernacular). It was so applied at Azusa Street; see Yong, Spirit Poured,
183
; Robeck, Mission,
88
,
137–38
.
. E.g., early empires, Plutarch Them.
27
.
2–3
;
3
Macc.
6
:
5
; for the Persians, perhaps Ps.-Callisthenes Alex.
1
.
23
; for Alexander, see e.g., Seneca Ep. Lucil.
94
.
63
; Plutarch Alex.
45
.
1–3
;
47
.
3
; Dio Chrysostom Or.
4
.
49
; Num. Rab.
13
:
14
; for Rome, e.g., Polybius
39
.
8
.
7
; Vitruvius Arch.
1
. pref.
1
; Dio Chrysostom Or.
3
.
6–7
; Menander Rhetor
2
.
12
,
422
.
22–23
; less favorably, Rev
13
:
7
.
. Although earlier readers may have held various understandings of what tongues was, many did see this connection, as I did not yet recognize when I first wrote the earliest version of this article: Chrys. Hom.
1
Cor.
35
:
1
(Bray, Corinthians,
138
); Leo the Great Sermons
75
:
2
(Martin, Acts,
23
); Bede Comm. Acts
2
:
3
A (Martin, Acts,
22
); also Wesley, Notes,
396
(cited in McGee, Miracles,
61
); Packer, Acts,
27
.
. Granted, given the point of this empowerment in the Lukan sense, this empowering would presumably need to be expressed sooner or later in forms of Spirit-led speech honoring Christ; cf. here Menzies, Tongues.
. This issue was debated even among some early Pentecostal leaders; see e.g., Robeck, “Seymour,”
81
–
89
; Burgess, “Evidence,”
33–34
; McGee, “Hermeneutics,”
107
–
10
; McGee, Miracles,
135
(Minnie Abrams); Wacker, Heaven,
41
; Opp, Lord for Body,
152
(on F. F. Bosworth); Williams, “Acts,”
219
(on William Seymour); Alexander, Black Fire,
130
–
31
(on Seymour); Hudson, “Strange Words,”
67
; Burgess, “Pandita Ramabai,”
195
; cf. Robeck, Mission, 178; Jacobsen, Thinking in Spirit,
10
; Kalu, African Pentecostalism,
20
(on Abrams). Some argue that Seymour played down the role of tongues rather than denied their inclusion in Spirit baptism (Jacobsen, Thinking in Spirit,
78
; Tarr, Foolishness,
379
–
80
).
. See McGee, “Hermeneutics,”
96–118
(
102
); McGee, “Radical Strategy,”
52
–
53
; McGee, People of Spirit,
77–78
; Goff, “Tongues,”
64–65; Jacobsen, Thinking in Spirit,
25
,
49
–
50
,
74
,
76
,
97
; Robeck, Mission,
41–42
,
236–37
,
243
,
252
; Anderson, Pentecostalism,
190
; esp. Anderson, “Signs,”
195
–
99
; McGee, “Shortcut”; McGee, “Logic.” For this view in the church fathers, see esp. Parmentier, “Zungenreden,”
376–98; also Talbert, Corinthians,
90
, though he notes that this was less common than the glossolalia interpretation.
. See e.g., Anderson, Pentecostalism,
11
; Yong, Spirit Poured,
33–80
; cf. similarly Berger, “Faces,”
425
; Johnson, Barrett, and Crossing, “Christianity
2010
,”
36
; Mullin, History,
211
; Sanneh, Disciples,
275
; Sweeney, Story,
153
; Tomkins, History,
220
. It should be noted, however, that many of these estimates include many groups that classical Pentecostals would not deem orthodox.