Posted on 07/22/2013 6:38:29 AM PDT by Gamecock
???
**???**
My wife, who sometimes looks at what I’ve posted on FR said that in the past (maybe not on FR) I’ve done a much better job of answering questions about the ‘tongues in the upper room’ scenario in Acts 2. She’s right, but the last four months have been very demanding of my time at work. So, for quite sometime now, my visits to FR have been brief, avoiding threads that would require a commitment to a possibly lengthy discussion. I simply haven’t had the time.
As I mentioned before, the ‘mutitude’ consisted of Jews from other nations, that probably knew at LEAST two languages (obviously, they already knew Hebrew). The Word doesn’t say that each of the 120 only spoke one language. Maybe each was speaking several tongues, not knowing any of them.
Imagine yourself being from “the parts of Libya about Cyrene”. Now consider the reaction to hearing one of the 120 standing in front of you speaking what seems to be gibberish, then suddenly you hear your native language glorifying God, and then the rest seems like gibberish again. You would most likely be startled hear this person from Galilee speak in your tongue. But there would also be the assumption that the the speaker was drunk; seeing how there was so much said that was completely unintelligible.
However, imagine that another observer, that was from Phrygia, was standing next to you, listening to the SAME person you were listening to, and had the same experience as you; hearing a portion of the words in HIS native tongue, while the rest was unknown to him. The possiblity of drunkeness could also be assumed by the other observer, since so much couldn’t be understood.
Under those circumstances, no interpretations were needed.
Now, concerning unknown tongues, they are clearly not dismissed as foolish gibberish, since Paul acknowledged their existance.
However, imagine that another observer, that was from Phrygia, was standing next to you, listening to the SAME person you were listening to, and had the same experience as you; hearing a portion of the words in HIS native tongue, while the rest was unknown to him. The possiblity of drunkeness could also be assumed by the other observer, since so much couldn’t be understood."
I believe I am beginning to understand your perspective. If it occurred the way you describe, then it is possible that there was a "gibberish" which was heard by the individuals in their own tongues. This strikes me as implausible, however. The reason this does not fit the scenario is that if each one heard one man speaking in their own language, no one would have called it "gibberish" or considered them "drunk". No one would have known the guy next to them was hearing something different than they heard.
However, consider this scenario. The men from the upper room step onto the street and begin speaking. A man from Israel who has never been to the particular village of Phrygia from which a particular pilgrim hailed, begins speaking Phrygian with the perfect accent only known to this one fellow. He knows that the man could not have possibly grown up there, since he knows everyone in the village.
Further, the rest of the crowd now hears this language and considers it a bunch of gibberish, since it is unknown to them. However, the man is told of the works of God, in particular that Jesus had bled and died as the final sacrifice for his sins. He is astonished. How could this Israeli Jew tell him, a Phrygian Jew, in perfect linguistic constructs, tones, accents and grammar this message? A miracle.
That is why an interpreter (of that language) is always needed for the broader audience to benefit from the "gift". This same view applies in all appearances of the "tongues" matters. Tragically, many believers have fallen for a fleshly experience that amps their emotions up, but doesn't represent anything biblical. Is it deadly? No. Is it profitable? No.
**The reason this does not fit the scenario is that if each one heard one man speaking in their own language, no one would have called it “gibberish” or considered them “drunk”.**
Right. That’s why I lean to the scenario of each of the 120 speaking multiple languages. While they themselves were unaware of what they were speaking out of their own mouths, the pilgrim onlookers from various countries (most likely all were familiar with the hebrew tongue), would hear something they understood, but not all, since the language would change. The onlookers could share (in hebrew) what portion they had understood. They were amazed, and some thought the 120 were ‘full of new wine’.
**However, the man is told of the works of God, in particular that Jesus had bled and died as the final sacrifice for his sins.**
The onlookers heard the 120 speak of ‘the wonderful works of God’, and in Acts 2:12, said to one another, “what meaneth this?”. Therefore, while they may have heard testamonies of the wonderful works of God, they hadn’t yet heard of the salvation through Jesus Christ; for that message was to be preached to them, and was done so promptly (vss 14-36). Peter explained to them who Jesus Christ was and is, and even made it clear (in vs 33) that Jesus Christ was the one that poured out the Spirit “which ye now see and hear”.
**Tragically, many believers have fallen for a fleshly experience that amps their emotions up, but doesn’t represent anything biblical. Is it deadly? No. Is it profitable? No.**
Are there fakers? No doubt. Are there people deceiving themselves, and possibly others? No doubt. But, Paul made it clear that there are times of edification from unknown tongues: “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh NOT unto men, but unto God: for NO man understandeth him: howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” (1Cor 14:2). And, though a tongue might be interpretted, but no one present to interpret, Paul said such a person should “keep silence in the church”, he further said, “let him speak to himself, and to God”(14:28)(when he is not in church).
**Is it profitable?**
“He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..”. 1Cor 14:4
You may be right, here. The actual "mechanics" of which person (or how many) spoke which language is not detailed in the passage, only that at least the 17 areas represented heard the message in their own "tongue". I am not in a position to argue with your claim.
As far as the message of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection being included in their words, or limited to Peter's remarks (likely made in Aramaic, not Hebrew), we'll never know, either. But, can you imagine, if I am from a small Lithuanian village and a man from South Dakota begins speaking my specific dialect, telling me I am under God's wrath, except that God Himself stepped onto this planet and paid the price with His life...and now I am rescued by that blood? That would be fairly shocking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.