While miraculous healing is explicit shmei/on kai te,rata, the function of speaking in tongues as shmei/on is implicit in the book of Acts. Pentecostals perceive the function of speaking in tongues as a sign that is based on three key texts: Acts 2:4ff; 10:46; and 19:6. Scholarly opinions about Luke’s mention of speaking in tongues are
139
diverse.104 Stronstad conceives tongues as manifestation of inspired prophecy (Acts 2:17).105 He does not explore further on the function of tongues as a sign; rather, he views it as the inspired word of praise and worship.106 Menzies concurs with Stronstad that tongues indicate the Spirit’s active guidance of the disciples in inspired speech.107
Menzies goes a step further and asserts that ‘the product of this divine gift should not be understood simply as praise directed to God. It is, above all, proclamation. This is confirmed by a miracle of language and by the content of the inspired speech’.108 Similarly, Keener argues that nothing could better symbolise empowerment to cross cultural barriers than the ability to speak, by the Spirit’s inspiration, in languages one has not learned.109 Menzies and Keener explore the function of tongues on the day of Pentecost but they do not investigate its function as a means of divine guidance. Turner approaches the event of Pentecost from a different point of view. He states,
He (Luke) understands Acts 2 as a new covenant Christological fulfillment of the Sinai theophany, in which now Jesus ascends to God in heaven to receive the gift of the Spirit, instead, and pours it out on his assembled people. For an event of such unique import he would probably have regarded tongues of fire and miraculous speech as entirely appropriate rather than unexpected.110
In Turner’s opinion, speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost indicates the outbreak of invasive charismatic speech that accompanies endowment with the Spirit.111 He does not attach any universal or contextual significance for the tongues, and neither is it a regular phenomenon even in Acts.112 Turner asserts that since the phenomenon is absent in Judaism it is a new phase in God’s dealings with his people. He further adds that Acts does not give any evidence that it will be widespread.113 The previous studies have not explored the function of tongues as a means of guidance. Among various elements present in the Pentecost narrative, the disciples’ experience of speaking in tongues as the Spirit gave utterances and the audience’s response serve as a sign.
The evaluation of the early Pentecostals’ experience of speaking in tongues as a sign (in § 2.2. above) indicates three major functions based on their reading of Acts: (1) It is a sign to the nonbelievers, (2) it guides people to conviction, and (3) it is a sign of
104
Keener gives an overview of the setting of tongues in the first century Jewish milieu as well as the modern scholarly study on the topic. Keener, Acts, 806-830.
105 Stronstad, Charismatic, 56. 106 Ibid. 107 Menzies, Empowered, 177. 108 Ibid. 109 Keener, Acts, 803. 110
Turner, ‘Early Christian’, 6.
111 Turner, Power, 357. 112 Ibid. 113 Ibid.
140
infilling of the Spirit, to the recipient as well as for the listeners. This section will analyse further Pentecostals’ normative use of Acts with regard to tongues as a sign.
The events staged on the day of Pentecost are fundamental for the early Pentecostals’ view of tongues as a sign. According to the text, all those who gathered there began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance (2:4). Keener observes that tongues, at least on this occasion, function as a sign to unbelievers.114 The validation of speaking in tongues as a sign to the non-believing Diaspora Jews on the day of Pentecost depends on the function of the tongues in the narrative. While the narrator explains the events related to the outpouring of the Spirit in four verses (2:1-4), the rest of the major narrative space (2:5-41) is focused on the crowd. According to the narrator, the fwnh/j (voice/noise) attracted the large crowd (2:5). The narrator’s incorporation of a list of seventy nations present at the event, along with their mixed response, certainly highlights the effect of tongues on the listeners rather than the speakers of the tongues. Luke has not included any response of the 120 disciples who have newly experienced speaking in e`te,raij glw,ssaij, except for Peter’s explanation in response to the mixed reaction of the crowd. Polhill observes that the response of the crowd Luke mentioned here is a new motif that runs throughout Luke-Acts, that without the element of personal faith and experience, even the most profound aspects of the good news are not self-confirming but can lead to skepticism and even rejection (Luke 24:11; Acts 17:34; 26:24).115
Luke’s inclusion of the crowd’s amazement caused by the disciples’ speaking in tongues is an indication of their response to a supernatural event. As mentioned before, ‘amazement’, ‘awe’ and ‘wonder’ are common responses to irruptive events in Luke- Acts.116 Amazement is followed by faith affirmation in several cases.117 At least in this occasion, Luke has presented speaking in tongues as intelligible language (xenolalia).118 Thus, on the day of Pentecost, the language miracle functioned as a sign for the Jews who gathered to witness the event. Scholars perceive that different language groups recognising the disciples’ ‘declaring great things of God’, in their own language, indicate the cross-cultural empowerment for mission.119
The second mention of speaking in tongues is by the Gentiles gathered in Cornelius’ house mentioned in 10:46. Pentecostals perceive this passage as a strong
114 Keener, Acts, 814. 115 Polhill, Acts, 104. 116
A few examples are: Luke 1:65; 7:9, 16; 8:25, 56; Acts 3:10; 8:13.
117
(Luke 7:9; 8:26, 57; Acts 3:11ff; 8:13, 14).
118
Turner, Power, 352; Keener, Acts, 814.
119
141
attestation for tongues as a sign. Turner rightly points out that this episode does not envisage xenolalia.120 He adds that here, tongues are only a mild linguistic parallel in that the charismatic doxology of Pentecost announces the greatness of God.121 Peterson agrees with Turner that in this case and also in 19:6, tongues were not intelligible language as in 2:4-13 but they were like tongues mentioned in 1Cor. 12-14, which requires interpretation.122 Menzies too concedes that ‘lalou,ntwn glw,ssaij’ is unintelligible inspired speech distinct from ‘lalei/n e`te,raij glw,ssaij’ of Acts 2.123
The Gentiles’ experience of speaking in tongues is not to communicate a message to the audience in tongues; rather, the outbreak of speaking in tongues serves as a supernatural sign. Lukan scholars rarely explore the function of tongues as a sign that afford guidance for Peter and his companions.
The entire episode progresses through divine guidance at every step.124 This includes an angelic appearance to Cornelius through a vision in 10:3-7. Peter was led to the Gentile centurion’s house by divine guidance through a vision along with a voice from heaven (10:10-18) and speech by the Spirit (10:19). The outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentile audience accompanied by speaking in tongues (10:44-46) is placed as the climax to the series of divine intervention and guidance in this episode. The narrator’s careful choice of words125 and the response of the hearers of the tongues126 indicate the function of tongues as a sign. Dibelius asserts that Luke has presented this unique conversion story in which the conversion of the Gentiles was caused without any human effort but purely by God’s initiative.127
He adds that through this story Luke intended to drive home the key message that Gentiles should be received into the Church without obligation to the law.128
Obviously, speaking in tongues is presented as a significant sign at the climax, not for nonbelievers but for the apostles in this occasion (10:46 cf. 11:17). Menzies rightly points out that Luke has explicitly presented the Spirit baptism as a sign of God’s acceptance of Gentiles into the fold of people of God.129
He adds that miraculous
120 Turner, Power, 380. 121 Ibid. 122 Peterson, Acts, 340. 123 Menzies, Empowered, 215. 124
Ibid.; Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of Apostles (London: SCM Press, 1956), 117.
125 ‘peritomh/j pistoi.; h;kouon ga.r auvtw/n lalou,ntwn glw,ssaij.’ 126evxe,sthsan (also in 24:22 indicates divine intervention) 127 Dibelius, Studies, 117. 128 Ibid. 129 Menzies, Empowered, 216.
142
audible speech accompanied the experience of baptism.130 Just as on the day of Pentecost, the Jewish audience was astonished by the speaking in tongues. On this occasion, Luke has clearly portrayed the astonishment of Peter and his companions. Thus, for Luke, the reception of the Spirit accompanied by speaking in tongues serves as a sign that guided the apostles to conviction about God’s acceptance of Gentiles. Peter reiterated this event in 11:17 as well as 15:8.
The analysis of the early Pentecostals’ testimonies indicates that they perceived tongues as a sign to the nonbelievers, especially based on the event in Acts 2. The noise drawing the crowd to the apostles on the day of Pentecost and their amazement are often explained as an evidence of experiencing divine guidance. The discussion in § 2.2 demonstrates that the early Pentecostals were not in consensus about the significance of tongues as a sign. Furthermore, as mentioned before, when Peter declared to the crowd gathered there ‘this is that’, by quoting Joel’s prophecy, it does not include tongues as a significant sign, rather visions, prophecy and signs in heavens and the earth.
Therefore, though some of the early Pentecostals perceived tongues as a sign to the nonbelievers the text of Acts does not present it as a major means of God’s guidance at par with other signs. In the rest of the narrative, Luke does not mention any instance of nonbelievers accepting Christ through the tongues speaking as a sign. Furthermore, the study establishes that the second instance of tongues in Acts 10:45 serves as a sign for the evangelist. However, the early Pentecostals records do not indicate any instances of Pentecostal missionaries perceiving tongues as a sign for them as it is narrated in the case of Cornelius’ house incident.