Thank goodness I'm a Charismatic and not a
Pentecostal then, because I have a differing POV comment here. Hope that's OK.
You’re forgiven!!
Even though I am theologically a Pentecostal, where I connect our ability to speak in tongues with the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (
but we do not need to speak in tongues to be saved); my theology is essentially built on the work of scholarship that is primarily charismatic where some could be deemed to be “open-but-cautious” with a number who are Pentecostal but not classic-Pentecostal (as the TV advert says here in Australia – simplezzz!).
Tradition has taught that these 120 were all at someones residential house. Uh that's a pretty big house for a bunch of poor 'out of work' evangelists.
Even though as you say,
tradition has it that the 120 were meeting in a house or the ‘upper room’; this could have been possible as they were apparently hold-up in the temple precinct which apparently contained numerous wealthy occupants along with their more sizable homes where a wealthy benefactor could have offered his support. The more popular view appears to be that the 120 were meeting each day in one of the temple courts where on the Day of Pentecost this would have allowed the crowd to observe what was happening.
There is a third view which suggests that the 120 were meeting in some large benefactors home when the Spirit fell upon them, where they then moved from the home to the nearby Temple which would have allowed the crowd to observe what was happening. This is certainly acknowledged as being a possibility but it lacks the general support of the second view where they were meeting in one of the Temple courts.
This means that any of the three are possible, where the options begin with one of the Temple courts, a large home or finally a large home that was adjacent to the Temple precinct.
Craig Keener addresses these issues in his work on Acts and the following is a brief example of where he looks at some of the pro’s and con’s of the temple viewpoint and how the Greek word
οἰκία oikia could mean either house or temple.
Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, Craic C. Keener (2012) pg.796-99
“As suggested above, the “entire house” mentioned here sounds neither like the temple (though it was a “house”). The term “house” cannot decisively settle the question of the location; the temple or tabernacle is a (specially designated) house in Luke 6:4 and 19:46 (quoting Isa 56) and Acts 7:46-47; but the term also appears in
contrast to the temple (Luke 1:23; Acts 2:46; 5:42), and Luke’s emphasis on house meetings makes that sense more likely (Acts 2:46; 5:42; 20:20). One could think that the wind “filled” the “whole household” (18:8), except that Luke gives no indication of that metaphor for the church in the immediate context.
Perhaps Luke deliberately leaves the location ambiguous because he emphasizes both the importance of the temple early in Acts and of the house meetings (cf. 2:46 and 5:42 for both), Especially if the original venue was a house, the ambiguity may allow his probable temple allusion to the wind’s “filling the house” here, as smoke filled God’s “house” in Isa 6:4 (cf. the fire of Act 2:3); cf. also Ezek 43:5). The cloud of God’s glory filled the tent in Exod 40:34-35 and God’s “house” in 1 Kgs 8:10-11 at their dedications – appropriate to a reappropriation of the temple for God’s kingdom here. But while the noise filled the house in Acts 2:3, those inside it were filled with the Spirit in 2:4 perhaps making them like the temple of old”.
ACT 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house/oikos where they were sitting.
So, what 'tongue' might they have all received FIRST when the Spirit came UPON them? Why not the tongue for their born again holy spirit? And why couldn't it have been a language that was unintelligible to all the other Jews who were AT THIS SAME HOUSE/OIKOS and first hearing what? Not languages they understood, but "NOISE/SOUND/PHONE". And guess what this 'noise/sound' may be translated as? BESTIAL OR ARTIFICIAL!!!! Or, as a 'tongue talker' I like to think, "angelic/heavenly" and the "unlearned" like to call it 'gibberish/babbel'.
5456 phone: a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by impl. an address (for any purpose), saying or language
After hearing this bestial/artificial sounding "sound/noise" what did these Jews celebrating Pentecost a little ways off in this great big HOUSE/TEMPLE/OIKOS then do?
Yes, contrary to what we see within many of our English translations in 1 Cor 14:7-11 where they often employ ‘languages’ for the Greek
φωνή phone which is particularly unhelpful in 14:10 where it should read “There are, perhaps, a great many kinds (
genos, cf. 12:10)of sounds (phonos) in the world, and no
kind is without meaning”. In these passages most of our English translations tend to fail to convey Paul’s connection with tongues as
apparently not being so much a language where they are ‘language-like’.
In the past couple of decades there has been a lot of scholarly interest with Rom 8:26 “…but the Spirit Himself intercedes for
us with groanings too deep for words”. Now we know that Paul is referring to praying in the Spirit (tongues) in Rom 8:26 but is there a direct correlation between ‘groanings’ and the ‘sounds’ of 1Cor 14:10? Over the past few years I have moved over to this position.
NOW after they "came together" with the disciples they 'then' hear the disciples speaking not in the 'noise' language of their spirit, but they are manifesting the charisma "gift of tongues" from The Holy Spirit which is in the visitor's own languages, and the disciples are no longer speaking in the prayer tongue of 'their holy spirit'.
As I said earlier, no one ever taught me this. And since you seem to be the 'biblicist' with an apparently big library of 'smart' books.
I'd like your opinion. Is there any reason that what I've shared could not be a reasonable rendering? Don't just check with your head/books, also listen to the sSpirit.
I liked the “big library of ‘smart books’”. My interest with trying to formalise a Pneumatic theology started back in 1992 but things began to peak maybe five years ago when I obtained a casual administrative position at a local State University. This had the advantage (beside that of the salary) of giving me access to an amazing amount of scholarly material with the benefit that they also have some connections with a few theological resources as well.
Even though I currently have 14 paper copies on First Corinthians where they address every known viewpoint on a given passage, at a pinch, if I had to suggest two books, they would be with Anthony C. Thiseltons work on First Corinthians (2000) and with Craig Keeners four volume work on Acts (2012). My reasons for suggesting these two works is that the authors address each of the popular opinions on a given passage which helps us to expand our understanding. Thiselton released a second book on First Corinthians in 2005 which was less technical than his monumental 2000 book, but interestingly enough he changed his mind on a few points in response to some work that came out after he released his first book. Then he produced another book on the
History of the teachings of the Holy Spirit in 2013 which had a few more changes. It would be safe to say that if anyone were to purchase his three books then you would have a summary of the best theological views that exist in our day.
And now to return to what we’ve been discussing . . .
As for Acts 2:2 “there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind” this would not be referring to the sound of the many ‘angelic voices’ where they were all praising God at once; where it was most likely a theophany where the ‘sound’ would be symbolising the arrival of the Holy Spirit.
As to what the crowd would have heard when the 120 were praising God in the Spirit, if it were to have been in a large room where the crowd was on the outside, then they would have probably presumed that there were a number of people speaking in the various languages of the Empire, but most of them would have noticed the strong rustic Galilean accents which certainly would have gained their attention. If it were in the Temple precinct (which is the view that I lean toward), other than with the rustic Galilean accents that the crowed would have heard then it would have sounded little different to a large contemporary Full Gospel congregation where the sound is essentially harmonious. If the sound of Acts 2:2 was indeed a theophany where there was an intended allusion to the arrival of the Holy Spirit, then this strange loud noise certainly would have grabbed the attention of the crowd; then to hear these rustic Galileans speaking disjointedly in their respective languages, then the whole thing would have been understandably perplexing for them.
Not 'a tool'? I'd disagree. What brought this great big crowd of unsaved and VERY RELIGIOUS people together?
My point here is that when the 120 were praising God in the Holy Spirit, that it was not as popularly believed an evangelistic message. The event (along with the "sounds like a rushing wind" and possibly with the "tongues of fire") that this would undoubtedly served to gain the attention of the crowd; but in spite of these incredible occurrences the 'day would have been lost' if Peter had not provided an evangelistic message in Armamaic.
MY issue here is the fact that one believes it is The Holy Spirit praying when I don't. Paul said "his spirit prays" and bibles correctly don't capitalize spirit. Why? Then they wrongly capitalize h and s over 50 times in the NT, according to EW Bullinger in his book 'Word Studies on the Holy Spirit'. Not sure if we've had this conversation before or not. Also, why would The Spirit pray 'to God'. I though The Holy Spirit was God. Anyway, my thoughts.
Okay, I guess that by now that you’ve come to realise that your perspective probably wouldn’t be all that well received by the churches in your area! Unfortunately your perspective is more than just a bit problematic where I doubt if even the more hardened rationalist cessationist would be all that comfortable with your position. Even though I am thoroughly convinced from within the testimony of the Scriptures alone, that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that it is the Holy Spirit who is interceding on our behalf to the Father; from memory, I cannot ever recall any scholar or commentator who has even entertained the idea that it is our
supposed human spirit that is speaking to God.
Having said this, I would not be all that surprised to hear where your view could be promoted from within the wof movement as they tend to place a lot of weight (and power) on the
supposed human spirit but the various teachings that are unique to the wof movement tends to relegate their views to the fringe of Biblical theology or even completely outside of theology completely. You may have notice my use of italics for
supposed human spirit. As I am a dichotomist (or more properly a functional-dichotomist), this means that I do not accept that we have a separate human spirit. My position is that man is comprised of a body and a soul; where I break from the dichotomist position to where I become a ‘functional’ dichotomist, is that I recognise that the Scriptures certainly differentiate between our spiritual soul and when the Scriptures speak of our ‘spirit’ that this is referring to our temperament, character and personality where I can also add in our demeanour, attitudes and presence of mind.
With particular reference to 1Cor 14:14-15
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.
This problematic passage was addressed by Gordon D. Fee back in 1987 (The First Epistle to the Corinthians) where he proposed that we should see Paul’s use of Pneuma as “S/spirit”. I think it was Fee who later coined the phrase “the S/spirit of me” where it allows for how we are able to have the Holy Spirit (‘S’) who resides within us (“spirit”) praying to the Father.
Even though Paul is undoubtedly referring to the Holy Spirit in 14:14-15, he also applies pneuma in another sense:
Col 2:5 For even though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good discipline and the stability of your faith in Christ.
We know that Paul’s
supposed human spirit was not outside of his body or that the Spirit of God that was within Paul had travelled to the Colossian church where it seems to speak of his attitude or thoughts being present.
. . . this has been a very interesting post for me.
