Growing up
as I did within the movement of Oneness Pentecostalism, the experience of
speaking in tongues was highly valued as a constituent part of conversion-initiation.
Indeed, it was often and emphatically stressed that until one had spoken in
tongues, one was not fully saved. This theology of speaking in tongues as a
crowning sign of salvation was almost entirely taken from the narratives in Acts
2:1-4, 10:44-46 and 19:5-6. On the basis of these passages, it was urged that
the gift of the Spirit was accompanied by the gift of tongues, and the one
without the other was not possible. I can clearly remember, though it has been
over half a century ago, one preacher taking off his shoe during his sermon and
pointing out that the “tongue” in the shoe was an essential part of the
shoe—you couldn’t have the shoe without the tongue.
While Luke
offers more than twenty descriptions of conversion-initiation in the Book of
Acts, only three unambiguously describe the phenomenon of speaking in tongues
with perhaps one other occasion where it might be implied (Ac. 8:17-19). Of
course, the Pentecostal group to which I belonged largely ignored all the other
occasions of conversion except the three mentioned earlier. Still, on these
three occasions Luke does, indeed, describe converts receiving the Spirit and
speaking in tongues. I should clearly say, at this point, that Luke seems to
envision these experiences as genuine miracles of speaking in known human
languages (Ac. 2:6-11). This is the normal meaning of the Greek terms Luke
uses, glossa and dialektos. More importantly, however, is how Luke understands the
meaning of this experience in the larger context of his work.
Luke’s
larger purpose in the Book of Acts is to show how the gospel, which began
within the context of Judaism, spread outwardly so that it eventually included
the nations. The paradigm from Jesus’ words in Ac. 1:8, Jerusalem, Judea,
Samaria and the ends of the earth, forecasts the progress of the book. The crossing
of ethnic barriers came neither immediately nor smoothly, however. Luke shows
how this happened in a series of “steps”, beginning with the choosing of the
Seven, one of whom was a Greek proselyte (Ac. 6:1-6), to the conversion of some
Samaritans (Ac. 8:4-5, 25), to the conversion of an African (Ac. 8:26ff.), to
the conversion of Saul, who was divinely commissioned as a missionary to the
gentiles (Ac. 9:15), to the conversion of a Gentile military officer (Ac.
10:1ff.), to the preaching of the gospel to Greeks in Antioch, Syria (Ac.
11:19-21), and finally, to the great missionary journeys of Paul to Asia Minor
and Greece (Ac. 13:1-3). Each of these ethnic expansions was a serious
theological challenge to the earliest Jewish Christians. The Book of Acts
climaxes with the description of Paul “…proclaiming the kingdom of God and
teaching the things about the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness—unhindered”
(my translation). The final word in the Greek text of Acts is the word
“unhindered”. That this is Luke’s final word is often obscured in the English
Versions, which tend to place it earlier in the sentence, but it is certainly
important as the crowning word of Luke’s treatise, given his emphasis on the
progress of the gospel as it crossed the various ethnic boundaries of the
Greco-Roman world. If we are to understand Luke’s theological intent in those
passages that describe tongues-speaking, we should do so within this larger
context.
The initial
occasion, the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost (Ac. 2:1-4), is essentially a reversal
of what happened in Genesis 10-11, the story of the scattering of the nations
from Babel, all speaking different languages. In this ancient account, humans
had refused to obey God’s command to “fill the earth” (Ge. 9:1), preferring
instead to stay together in order to build a great ziggurat into the heavens as
the “gate of God” (Ge. 11:3-4). It was a rebellion for which God confused their
languages and scattered them over the earth (Ge. 11:9). By contrast, at
Pentecost, Jewish representatives from the nations of the world came together
at the Feast of Weeks in Jerusalem, where they were amazed to see the Spirit
descend upon Jesus’ disciples, all of them speaking the languages of the
Greco-Roman world and prompting the question, “What does this mean?” What,
indeed? Was there sign value to this occasion of tongues-speaking? Certainly,
there was! The fact that the languages spoken were from Rome, Asia Minor, North
Africa, Mesopotamia, Crete and Arabia—Luke’s hyperbole indicated they were from
“every nation under heaven” (2:5)—pointed toward the international scope of the
gospel. The sign value of the tongues was hardly a sign of personal salvation
for the apostles and disciples, however. After all, of the disciples who received
the Spirit, Jesus already had indicated their names were “written in heaven”
long before Pentecost (Lk. 10:20). Tongues, then, held a sign value, not to
point out that these disciples were now “saved”, but to point out the larger
context of Luke’s literary goal, to describe the gospel as it would cross
ethnic barriers and be carried to all the world.
Much progress toward internationalism was made
over the next several months. In Jerusalem, the apostles appointed the Seven to
rectify the problem between the Aramaic-speaking Jews and the Greek-speaking
Jews, and the fact that all the appointees had Greek names suggests they may
have been drawn from the Hellenistic side of the Christian community (6:3-6).
At least one of them was a non-Jew, the proselyte called Nicolas of Antioch,
probably a Greek. Then, after Stephen’s martyrdom, Philip’s preaching of Christ
in Samaria became the next bold initiative (8:4-5). Here, the Holy Spirit was
withheld from those believing Philip’s message, and indeed, the Samaritans
would not receive the Spirit until the coming of apostolic representatives from
the Jerusalem Church. Hearing of what happened, the Jerusalem church had felt
it necessary to send Peter and John to investigate this new venture (8:14), and
it was only after Peter and John were there that the Samaritans were blessed
with the gift of the Spirit (8:15-17). There is no mention of tongues-speaking
in this narrative, though it might be inferred from Simon Magi’s plea to buy
this wonderful new power (8:18-19). Still, even if there was an experience of
tongues-speaking, the sign value would have been primarily for the sake of the
apostolic representatives from the Jerusalem church, a clear indication from
heaven that these Samaritans were now to be included in God’s people. So
convinced were Peter and John that this new outlet for the gospel was acceptable,
they also continued to preach in other Samaritan towns before returning to
Jerusalem (8:25).
The second
occasion where tongues-speaking is described by Luke is at the house of the
Roman centurion at Caesarea, the Roman provincial capital on the seacoast. This
incident featured Peter, the big fisherman, who was staying at the home of a
tanner at Joppa. Already, he had come some distance in his appreciation that
God was rearranging his cultural priorities. The fact that Peter was staying at
the home of a tanner—a despised trade which rendered him and everyone in his
home unclean because of the constant contact with blood—meant that Peter was
already traveling in new social territory. Here, in a vision of non-kosher
animals, God made it vividly clear that Peter was not to call anyone unclean whom God had made clean
(10:9-16), and Peter was directed to accompany some men to Caesarea (10:17-23).
At God’s instruction, Peter went with them, though fortuitously he also took
with him six Jewish brothers (10:23; 11:12), Christian Jews who would later
serve to corroborate Peter’s experience. Peter’s opening words to Cornelius
immediately indicated the discomfort he felt at entering a Gentile home
(10:27-29). Still, he frankly told them that that he now understood more
completely that God did not show favoritism (10:34). In the end, Peter told
them the story of Jesus, and at the climax, the Holy Spirit fell upon these
Gentiles, an outcome which none of them had expected (10:44). Indeed, the Jews
accompanying Peter were absolutely astounded that God had given the gift of the
Spirit to these uncircumcised non-Jews, but they could hardly deny it, for they
heard them speaking in tongues (10:45-46)! Later, Peter would face an
inquisition back in Jerusalem for this foray into Gentile territory (11:1-3).
However, after he had explained what had happened—a story corroborated by the
six Jews who accompanied him—they had no further objections (11:18). The
salient point is this: the phenomenon of tongues-speaking in this incident
was the clinching point to convince the Jerusalem church that Gentiles now
could be included in the people of God. Peter phrased it like this, “…the Holy
Spirit came on them as he had come on us in the beginning” (11:15), and
later, “God gave them the same gift he gave us” (11:17). Peter’s
language that the Spirit came on these Gentiles like it had come on the
apostles “in the beginning”, almost certainly was a reference to the phenomenon
of tongues-speaking at Pentecost, and it immediately suggests that
tongues-speaking was extraordinary—something not usually to be expected in
conversion-initiation. Was there a sign value in this tongues-speaking?
Certainly! However, it’s sign value was for Peter and the six Jews who
accompanied him, and later, the Jerusalem church. It was convincing evidence
that God had led Peter into this crossing of the final ethnic boundary.
Shortly,
more Gentiles would hear the gospel even farther afield, this time in Antioch,
Syria (11:19-21). Here, conversion-initiation follows the more common pattern
in the Book of Acts in that they “believed and turned to the Lord” (11:21b).
There was no need for tongues-speaking in this case, since the Gentile barrier
already had been breached and approved. To be sure, the Jerusalem church sent
Barnabas to investigate, just as Peter and John had been sent to Samaria, but
all was well in Antioch (11:22-23). Indeed, Antioch became the sending church
for Paul’s outreach to Gentiles in Asia Minor and Greece, and on all these
occasions, conversion-initiation is described simply in terms of faith, not in
terms of tongues-speaking.
The only
remaining incident of tongues-speaking in Acts came when Paul encountered some
disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus. Here, also, those who were converted
spoke in tongues (19:6). The sign value of tongues-speaking is less clear in
this narrative. Were these twelve disciples Jews? Luke does not say, though
presumably they were. Clearly, by their own admission, they were not aware that
John the Baptist’s prediction of the messianic gift of the Spirit had been
fulfilled (19:2). We know, for instance, of John the Baptist sects as late as
the 3rd century who claimed that John, not Jesus, was the messiah
(cf. Recognitions of Clement I.liv).
Perhaps Luke saw this as yet another boundary crossed, not so much an ethnic
one as a theological one. In any case, there is no reason to suppose that the
tongues-speaking here held a sign value substantially different than the other
two occasions when it had happened.
Hence, the
inherited theology of my childhood, the belief that tongues-speaking was
salvific and that the gift of the Spirit was always accompanied by this
phenomenon, was promoted by doubtlessly sincere people who were doubtlessly
wrong. Their reading of the Book of Acts, sincere though it may have been, was
tendentious and flew in the face of the larger context of the Luke’s work. The
repeating pattern for conversion-initiation in the Book of Acts is simply faith
in the gospel of Christ. This was true at Pentecost, where converts
“accepted the message” (2:41), in Jerusalem where they “believed” (4:4; 5:14)
and were “obedient to the faith” (6:7), in Samaria where they “believed” and
“accepted the Word of God” (8:12, 14), on the Gaza road where the Ethiopian
“believed” (8:37, Western Text), at Lydda and Sharon where they “turned to the
Lord” (9:35), in Joppa where they “believed in the Lord” (9:42), at Caesarea
where they “believed” and “received the Word of God” (10:43, 11:1), in Antioch
where they “believed” and “turned to the Lord” (11:21), in Paphos where Sergius
Paulus “believed” (13:12), in Pisidian Antioch where they “believed”,
“continued in the grace of God” and “honored the word of the Lord” (13:39, 43,
48), at Iconium where they “believed” (14:1), at Derbe where they “put their
trust in the Lord” (14:21-23), in Asia Minor where God “opened the door of
faith” so that the people were “converted”, “believed the message of the
gospel”, “were purified by faith” and “turned to God” (14:27; 15:3, 7, 9, 11, 19), at Thyatira where Lydia “opened her heart”
along with her household (16:14-15), at Philippi where a Roman jailor
“believed” along with his whole household (16:30-34), in Thessalonica where
both Jews and Gentiles “were persuaded” (17:4), at Berea where they “believed”
(17:12), in Athens where a few “believed” (17:34), at Corinth where
“many…believed” (18:8), in Achaia where Apollos was a great help to “those who
by grace had believed” (18:27), in Ephesus where they “heard the word of the
Lord” and “believed” (19:10, 18), to the thousands of Jews in Jerusalem who
“believed” (21:20), to the Gentiles whose “eyes were opened” (26:18), to those
in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea and beyond who “turned to God” (26:20), and
finally, to some of the Jewish leaders in Rome who were “convinced” (28:23-24).
The three occasions of tongues-speaking in Acts notwithstanding, the normal
experience of salvation clearly is expressed in faith—and to borrow Luther’s
extension—faith alone.
