Conclusion
Global Reading: The Biblical Model of Pentecost
Reading from the vantage point of Pentecost also means a cross-cultural, globally sensitive reading. Before examining the value of global readings today I must briefly draw attention to the connection in Acts 2 between the Pentecost experience of the Spirit in Acts 2 and the embracing of the contributions of fellow believers from all cultural settings.
The connection seems clear from the apparent reversal of (or, on some views, parallel with) Babel in Acts 2:5–13, a narrative that also highlights the cross-cultural element in Luke’s pneumatology (1:8) and specifically his mention of prayer in tongues (2:4). Although Peter presumably does not recognize the significance of his words within the narrative world, in the larger context of Acts his “all flesh” (2:17) and “all who are far away” (2:39) presumably include Gentiles. Pentecost is for all peoples; its repetition among Samaritans (8:14–17) and Gentiles (10:44–48) emphasizes that believers from among new groups of people also receive empowerment for mission and become earlier believers’ partners in mission.
Many scholars understand Acts 2 as a reversal of the Babel story and believe that Luke patterned his narrative after it; 2 some ancient commentators made the same connection. 3 Such an approach would certainly fit Luke’s theme of mission transcending cultural and linguistic barriers. 4 Some object that although the connection may be a legitimate theological inference to draw for Luke’s sources or others, 5 the text gives no indication that Luke made the connection. 6
I contend, however, that the accumulation of various specific allusions seems compelling reason to affirm a deliberate connection, 7 and Luke offers subtle allusions even in the narrative’s structure. If we surmise that the table of nations in Genesis 10 informs Luke’s list of nations in Acts 2:9–11 (as Gen 10 informed most Jewish lists of nations), an allusion to Babel in Gen 11:1–9 in the same context seems likely. 8 This suggestion becomes even more likely when we consider that Babel represents the only scattering of languages in the OT and hence the only potential background for Luke’s story shared by all his ideal audience. This is Scripture’s seminal “language miracle.” (Certainly, the Babel story, as part of the very popular book of Genesis, was widely told and retold 9 and was reapplied for new settings.) 10
When the author of the Qumran War Scroll refers to a “confusion of tongues,” 11 we know that he refers to Babel because this mention follows the creation of Adam and his seed and it parallels scattering. Luke’s use of a table of nations and his mention of scattered languages seem similarly transparent. Whatever the date of the triennial Jewish lectionary readings, 12 at least some of them reflect earlier traditions, and so it would probably not be a coincidence if we concluded on other grounds, with some, that the cycle’s first year used Genesis 11 as a reading for Pentecost. 13 Even if the lectionary connection is pure coincidence, however, the Babel allusion in this narrative is clear enough. For what it is worth, at least some Jewish people also envisioned an eschatological reversal of Babel (cf. Test. Jud. 25:3). 14
Differences between the narratives are clear, of course. God scattered nations at Babel for trying to deify themselves (Gen 11:4), paralleling Adam’s revolt and his expulsion from the garden (3:5, 22–23). By contrast, the disciples at Pentecost are waiting in obedience to a divine command (Acts 1:4–5); instead of trying to reach heaven, they are waiting for their Lord, who has ascended to heaven (1:9–11), to send them the Spirit. In Gen 11:7, God descended to confound the transgressors (the wording reflects their rebellion in 11:3–4), but at Pentecost God descends, in one sense, in a different way (Acts 2:33). In Genesis, God descended and scattered tongues to prevent unity; in Acts, the Spirit descends and scatters tongues to create multicultural unity (1:14; 2:1, 42, 44–46).
Narrative Function of Tongues in Acts 15
My interest here is not a full theology of tongues, but how they function in this context. Paul emphasizes a different aspect of tongues, but Luke uses the experience to emphasize that the Spirit empowered witnesses, and hence ultimately the church, to cross cultural barriers with their prophetically inspired message. What better symbol of this cross-cultural empowerment for mission could have been available than the phenomenon of tongues, which Luke understands as inspired speech in languages the speakers had not learned? 16
That Luke emphasizes tongues is no surprise; as Barrett notes, “Speech is in Acts the characteristic mark of the Spirit’s presence, sometimes in glossolalia (2.4; 10.46; 19.6), sometimes in prophecy (2.17, 18; 11.27; 13.1–3; 21.(4), (9), 10, 11), sometimes in proclamation (e.g., 4.31).” 17 As the Spirit’s activity often produced prophetic speech in ancient Israel, Bruce observes, so now it produced “prophetic speech,” but “of a peculiar kind.” 18 Luke explicitly uses tongues to identify the activity of the Spirit of prophecy (2:17–18), yet by focusing particularly on crossing cultural boundaries.
Presumably, the prophetic aspect of the Spirit’s empowerment that he articulates in general includes and could be evidenced by any speech inspired by the Spirit or perhaps by prophet-like miracles as well, provided they testified about Jesus. But in view of his likely thesis statement at 1:8, Luke’s primary concern is not simply prophetic speech in general but especially prophetic speech that extended to other peoples (promoting what scholars typically identify as Luke’s emphasis on the “Gentile mission”).
Thus tongues function here as a sign of prophetic empowerment for the continuing cross-cultural mission. In contrast to this portrayal of the apostles early in Acts, Luke, toward the beginning of his first volume, reports a priest who initially disbelieved the divine message and was struck mute (Luke 1:20). When he was later filled with the Spirit, however, even he prophesied the divine message (1:67). 19 More in parallel with the scene here, Jesus, filled with the Spirit, foreshadows the Gentile mission (4:1, 14, 24–27). Tongues thus offer one kind of prophetic speech (Acts 2:16–18), one particularly relevant for Luke’s emphasis on cross-cultural mission.
Association with Baptism in the Spirit in Classical Pentecostal Interpretation
Different revivals of the Spirit in subsequent history have had varying emphases; 20 although tongues occurred sporadically before, 21 the contribution of widespread personal worship in tongues has been one valuable emphasis of the twentieth-century Pentecostal revival. Even in the early Pentecostal revival, however, views varied regarding its necessity. Many influential early Pentecostal proponents of tongues (e.g., Agnes Ozman, F. F. Bosworth, Minnie Abrams, and, according to many, even Azusa Street leader William Seymour) apparently denied or came to deny that tongues speaking was a necessary evidence of the seminal experience of the Spirit described in Acts. 22 This perspective was probably even more prevalent outside the United States. 23 Some other early Pentecostal leaders wished to place the focus of the movement elsewhere than on tongues. 24 This consideration will be important when we consider, later in the book, whether there is a single Pentecostal hermeneutic; even the most distinctive doctrine of early Pentecostalism was not a unanimous conclusion.
Despite dissent from some of Pentecostalism’s early leading figures, 25 however, tongues as the “initial evidence” of baptism in the Spirit became the dominant view among classical Pentecostals. 26 This might be a minority view today among global charismatics and certainly among charismatics in most traditional denominations. 27 Without a legacy of the initial evidence doctrine behind them, perhaps even some traditional Pentecostal denominations, were they formulating their doctrines in today’s climate, would have welcomed greater diversity of views. 28 Indeed, even the primary formulator of the largest Pentecostal denomination’s doctrine of initial evidence apparently held that tongues sometimes culminated a process rather than always accompanying an initial Spirit baptism experience. 29
Although interpreters even in Pentecostal and charismatic traditions differ as to whether tongues marks every individual who is baptized in the Spirit, a more general connection between tongues and baptism in the Spirit is grounded in a genuine observation about the text and Luke’s overall narrative pattern, one that some earlier interpreters may have overlooked precisely because it was so foreign to their own experience. (This despite the fact that some of the earliest Christian interpreters apparently did recognize the connection.) 30 Both the early classical Pentecostals and their modern scholars who associate tongues with Spirit baptism observed a genuine feature of Luke’s story. 31
Nor are Pentecostals the only readers to notice this connection. James D. G. Dunn, who is known for challenging classical Pentecostalism by identifying Spirit baptism with conversion-initiation rather than with a subsequent experience, has noted, “It is undoubtedly true that Luke regarded the glossolalia of Pentecost as an external sign of the Spirit’s outpouring.” Luke used tongues the same way in 10:45–46 and 19:6, and Dunn thinks that tongues probably occurred in 8:17, though it is not mentioned. 32 Since these passages exhaust the “initial” fillings that are described in Acts (9:17 predicts but does not describe Paul’s), Dunn recognizes that the case “that Luke intended to portray ‘speaking in tongues’ as ‘the initial physical evidence’ of the outpouring of the Spirit” makes far more sense than most scholars have noticed. 33
Yet Dunn nevertheless demurs from the dominant traditional Pentecostal conclusion: Luke’s intention is to demonstrate the Spirit’s presence through tongues, not to “teach” that tongues will always accompany the Spirit (Luke does, after all, omit its mention in 8:17). 34 The majority of interpreters here agree with Dunn’s conclusion, based on the very limited evidence we have in Acts: he concludes that Luke regarded tongues as one verbally inspired manifestation of the prophetic Spirit among several, along with praise (2:11; 10:46), prophecy (19:6; cf. 2:17–18), and boldness (4:8, 31). 35 Such expressions underline the prophetic character of the empowerment. Likewise, as noted further below, tongues speech evidences the experience of baptism in the Spirit (i.e., reveals its purpose and function), not the individual recipients of this baptism; it thus would not need to occur on every occasion to maintain its symbolic function. 36 Nevertheless, Luke’s highlight of tongues is not arbitrary, but reflects a connection with cross-cultural mission.
Tongues and Cross-cultural Mission
Debates on this matter continue, but Luke’s own emphasis may lie especially with what tongues signify theologically. The most conspicuous manifestations of the Spirit reported by Luke, especially in key, paradigmatic texts, are vocal (1:8; 2:4, 17–18). Luke does not focus on every aspect of the Spirit’s activity mentioned by other early Christian writers; he focuses on inspired speech flowing from the prophetic Spirit (2:17–18). At the same time, Luke has a reason for emphasizing a particular form of inspired speech, namely, tongues, where he can (which is why I am more skeptical than Dunn, though not dogmatically so, that Luke found it in, or felt free to infer it for, his source for Acts 8): this particular form of prophetic speech provides the most obvious symbol of people empowered to cross cultural and linguistic barriers with the gospel, which fits Luke’s emphasis (1:8).
Tongues speaking itself is not simply one sign among many, only arbitrarily connected with Spirit baptism. Rather, it is intrinsically connected with Luke’s emphasis on the Spirit’s empowerment to proclaim Christ cross-culturally (1:8). 37 This experience may not be necessary to evidence the cross-cultural facility of every individual recipient, but in Luke’s narrative it does evidence the character of Spirit baptism itself, explicating for Luke the nature of that empowerment.
Some historians have noted that some nineteenth-century Holiness advocates initially sought the “gift of tongues” because they believed it relevant to missionary endeavor. 38 Following this expectation, many of Pentecostalism’s early exponents understood tongues as a form of missionary xenoglossy, 39 a view attested also among some church fathers. 40 Although some cases of xenoglossy have appeared, most tongues experiences have not functioned this way (either in the New Testament or today). 41 Although most early Pentecostals fairly quickly abandoned the “missionary tongues” view after it generally failed the empirical test, 42 the early Pentecostal teacher Charles Parham insisted on it to the end, criticizing others for abandoning it. 43 Early Pentecostals continued to embrace both power for mission and tongues speaking, but with the latter as a more symbolic sign of the former.
Yet whereas most traditional Pentecostals no longer claimed a direct “missionary” function for tongues, and xenolalia is not the usual function of the gift, the doctrine’s first advocates had noticed a genuine connection that most subsequent interpreters (including most Pentecostals) have missed: the connection in Luke’s theology between tongues speech and the empowerment for global mission. 44
The aspect of Spirit baptism on which Luke focuses is empowerment for cross-cultural mission; although tongues speaking provides a key illustration of this empowerment in Acts when Luke has it available, Luke’s real pneumatic focus is prophetic inspiration to communicate Christ’s message cross-culturally. 45 Recognition of this association is not limited to modern interpreters. As John Chrysostom noted, the Corinthians exalted tongues because it was the first spiritual gift on Pentecost; but it was first “because it was a sign that they were to go everywhere, preaching the gospel.” 46 Similarly, the Venerable Bede believed that Acts 2:3–4 “indicated that the holy church, when it had spread to the ends of the earth, was to speak in the languages of all nations.” 47
For Luke, tongues is not an arbitrary evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit but is highlighted because it is intrinsically related to the point of what Luke means by this experience. 48 From a narrative perspective, it seems evident that tongues is a sign that attests or explains the nature of the experience, even if Pentecostal scholars debate whether it is a mandatory sign of every individual’s reception of that experience.
It should therefore come as no surprise that many interpreters today view the globalization of Christianity, the church’s global multiculturalism, or the Christian mission’s sensitivity to indigenous languages and cultures as a theological extension of Pentecost. 49
The Bicultural Hellenists (Acts 6)
Despite the birthing of Pentecost in a multicultural way in Acts 2, cultural and social divisions have strained the Jerusalem church by the time that the reader reaches Acts 6. (Similarly, the fruits of the interracial, multicultural Azusa Street Revival were eventually forcibly split by Jim Crow and other worldly social factors.) 50 Widows from the Hellenist faction complain against the dominant “Hebrew” faction of the Jerusalem church. “Hellenists” probably refers to those who spoke Greek exclusively and were more prone to Greek customs—in many cases, probably immigrant Diaspora Jews from elsewhere in the Mediterranean world. 51 Diaspora Jews already appear in 2:7–12 and 4:36 and are plainly in view here (see 6:9).
The Twelve respond to the widows’ complaints in a manner rare if not almost unprecedented in antiquity: they hand the food distribution over to mutually acceptable members of the offended minority, provided they are full of the Spirit and wisdom (6:3). Their Greek names suggest that these seven all belonged to the Hellenist minority. Granted, some Judeans had Greek names, 52 but some of those Judeans so named clearly were Hellenists. Overall, it was more likely for Diaspora Jews to bear biblical names than for even rich Judeans to bear Greek ones. 53 In Rome, where three-quarters of all Jewish inscriptions are in Greek and only 1 percent are Semitic, 15.2 percent of the Jewish names included some Semitic elements. 54 The linguistic mixture of names of the putative LXX translators in Pseudo-Aristeas is also informative. 55 Even centuries later, Palestinian rabbis recognized that Gentile names were particularly common in the Diaspora but much rarer in the Holy Land. 56
That all seven here, by contrast, have Greek names is hardly a coincidence, was surely deliberate, 57 and would be recognized by Luke’s ancient audience in regions where such Greek names were common; Luke’s informed hearers are suddenly on ground familiar from their own environment. Most scholars concur that the Seven are members of the Hellenist faction. 58 As the “Twelve” (Acts 6:2; Luke 8:1; 9:1, 12; 18:31; 22:3, 47; cf. Mark 3:16; 1 Cor 15:5) led most of the church, the “Seven” (Acts 21:8) would provide recognized and universally accepted leadership for the minority subculture in the Jerusalem church. 59
These new leaders, one of them even a proselyte (6:5), foreshadow leaders who would arise in the Diaspora (13:1) and for the Gentile mission. Their bicultural competence made the Hellenist Jewish Christians a natural bridge to reaching non-Jewish Hellenists (11:20). 60 Thus the bilingual milieu of the Jerusalem church already in this period provided a groundwork for the transition that would come. 61 Commissioned by the apostles (6:6), these Hellenists now expand the apostles’ sphere of ministry theologically (Acts 7) and geographically and culturally (Acts 8). In so doing, they are led by the Spirit to push forward toward the work’s goal specified by Jesus in 1:8.
As noted earlier, the repetition of the Spirit’s outpouring among Samaritans (8:14–17) and Gentiles (10:44–48) emphasizes that believers from among new groups of people also are empowered for mission and become earlier believers’ partners in mission. Although Luke’s focus is empowerment to spread the good news, this mission must also include understanding and applying the Scriptures to their own new contexts.
Sometimes alternative frameworks prove more accurate than those we started with, a situation that also appears among the apostles in Acts. Why is it that bicultural Hellenist believers such as Stephen (theologically) and Philip (practically; Acts 6–8) were able to begin bridging cultural gaps before the Jerusalem apostles did? The apostles were the ones whom Jesus directly instructed to bring the good news to “the ends of the earth” (1:8), but initially they may have expected it to spread indirectly or by a sovereign miracle while they continued to work in Jerusalem. Yet once Peter and John witnessed and supported Philip’s success in Samaria, they also began preaching in Samaritan villages (8:25). Is it possible that cultural lenses influenced who first understood Jesus’s instructions most clearly?
If we read from the vantage point of Pentecost, we recognize that God speaks all languages and reaches out to all cultures. Different cultures may hear different aspects of the Spirit’s voice more readily. A reading from the vantage point of Pentecost, then, invites us to trust the Spirit’s work in the global church enough that we dialogue with one another, listen to one another, and share with one another.
The Spirit speaks through different gifts in the local church, and we all provide a safety net of discernment for one another’s blind spots (1 Cor 14:29). 62 The same will be true with the global church; sometimes what others hear from the Spirit in the global church will challenge us, and sometimes what we hear will challenge others. Yet we are together one body in Christ, needing one another. The one Spirit is heard best through the one body into which the Spirit has baptized us (1 Cor 12:13; Eph 4:4–6).
This chapter has suggested that a reading from the standpoint of Pentecost must be a reading ready to engage multiple cultures. The next three chapters offer suggestions concerning how best to implement this vision exegetically.