guages (in this case the word is glossais, “ tongues” ). There is no record of their being im pressed by some sort of incoherent babbling; in fact, the record says that the disciples were utter ing words about the wonderful works (literally, “ splendors” ) of God. And lest someone say that it was a miracle of hearing rather than speaking, let it be remembered that it was upon the speakers, not the listeners, that the Holy Spirit came. The only defensible conclusion, therefore, is that on the day of Pentecost the disciples spoke in the languages o f the different peoples enumerated in Acts two. In regard to this conclusion Henry Alford has written, “ All attempts to evade this are connected with some forcing of the text, or some far-fetched and indefensible exegesis” (The Greek Testament, II, 15). Once this feature of speaking in tongues is dis cerned in Acts two, there is no sufficient ground for departing from it in the subsequent occurrences o f the gift. Thus Peter’s words regarding the house hold of Cornelius confirm that their experience was strictly analogous to that on the day of Pentecost (see Acts 11:15, “ as on us at the beginning” ). It is also to be assumed that the nature o f the gift is the same as in Acts 19:6 because of the identical terminology used. There is no reason to believe that there were two distinct kinds of tongues in this book._______________________________________ Tongues in First Corinthians Having reached a conclusion as to the nature of tongues in Acts, one must next compare these re sults with the classic passage in First Corinthians (chs. 12-14). The reason most often advanced for finding a difference between the phenomenon of tongues in Acts and that in First Corinthians is that in the former, tongues are intelligible lan guages while in the latter they appear to be unin telligible. When the evidence for the latter book is examined closely, however, the argument is re vealed to be quite inadequate. Different from Acts. To support the idea o f in articulate forms of speech, such passages as I Co rinthians 13:1 are cited, and it is adduced from the context that the verse refers to inarticulate forms of speech (G. C. Findlay, “ First Epistle to the Corinthians,” Expositor’s Greek Testament, II, 896-97). But as Alford points out, “ the tongues of men” must mean the tongues spoken by men in general, if language is to have its natural sense (The Greek Testament, III, 585). The same is true o f the tongues of angels, whatever their languages may be. Mistranslations in the King James Version un doubtedly have contributed to the conviction in favor of ecstatic speech. For instance, the word unknown, used throughout the chapter to charac terize “ tongue” or “tongues,” is actually without basis in the original Greek. This undoubtedly has
suggest intelligible speech; and (3) in the house of Cornelius there is no hint of or need for foreign languages (Acts 10:46; 11:15). (1) Taking these arguments in order, one may agree as to the fact o f the universal prevalence of the Greek language, but he also remembers that these utterances had to be comprehended so that the miraculous element could be discerned by the listeners. Otherwise, this incoherent babb ling would have been dismissed without a second thought. Although the disciples could have been un derstood if speaking in Greek, it was far more im pressive for them to address the listeners in the languages o f the provinces from which they had come. (2) Rackham’s second argument recalls another passage where drunkenness is contrasted to the fill ing of the Holy Spirit. In Ephesians 5:18 the be liever is commanded not to allow himself to be un der the influence o f wine, but rather to submit to the control of the Holy Spirit. In the Ephesian pas sage, however, Spirit-control is not associated with anything unintelligible, but with coherent speaking, singing, and thanksgiving. Therefore, the accusa tion of drunkenness in Acts two need not be taken to imply unintelligibility; instead, it resulted from the ability of these men to speak in a way which was normally impossible for them. (3) Rackham’s third objection to understand ing tongues as a reference to foreign languages is taken from the experience in the house o f Cornelius. It is contended that there was no need for foreign languages here. But was this actually the case? Were there not Jews present who would be greatly impressed by hearing these new Gentile converts speak in a language, such as Aramaic, which was foreign to them? It is not only possible, but prob able, that the Jewish companions of Peter were convinced of the reception of the Spirit by these Gentiles on just such a basis. Foreign languages. The above arguments, se lected as typical of those used to prove a reference to inarticulate utterances, are seen to be inherently weak. In fact, Rackham himself sees the necessity of at least some foreign words at Pentecost. That the gift consisted in the ability to communicate in a language normally unknown to the speaker is obvious from at least two factors. First, there is the Greek word dialektos, which in the King James Version is translated “ language” in Acts 2:6, 8. The word is found four other times in Acts (1:19; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14), and in each case it refers to a language commonly spoken. It cannot be doubted that the word has the same meaning here, being a reference to the languages and dialects spoken by the persons listed in verses nine through eleven. Secondly, verse eleven reveals the feature of the experience that made the greatest impression upon the listeners: the disciples were speaking their lan
THE KING'S BUSINESS
24
Made with FlippingBook Online document