Toto

Scott - this is interesting, but it appears to me to be just a way of tap dancing around the fact that the "prophecy" did not stand up to the test of time.

The example of "pshat" that you give is most likely the NT writers "historicizing" prophecy, by writing a story line that makes it appear that the prophecy was literally filfilled.

The "remez" is close to that - the NT writers picking up an OT theme and working it into the gospel story line.

Your "drash" is just a prophecy that has not been fulfilled, but shows a literary allusion to a prophecy, in this case a prophecy that remains unfulfilled after 2000 years.

Two posts back you said:

But this prophecy is not in fact being fulfilled, has not been fulfilled, shows no signs of being fulfilled (unless its adherents jump the gun on god and start the final war on their own.)

Are you seriously contending that some prophecy has been fulfilled? So far, you have just called attention to the fact that the prophecies Jesus seemed to make for the end times have not been fulfilled.

Geoff Hudson

I am not sure what speaking in tongues is. I think it should be something like "speaking in their spirits" and not necessarily speaking in foreign languages, or nonsensically. Seeing and hearing the disciples, each bystander would have heard the Spirit of God speaking not "in his own language" but in his own spirit. In the epistle of James, the tongue is the spirit of deceit or darkeness - a small part of a persons spirit that causes people to disobey God.

In Acts 2, The disciples were not Galileans but Judeans. They were not in Jerusalem, but Rome. The "God-fearing Jews" are a nonsense - they were God-fearing Gentiles. Rome was the only place where there could be such a cosmopolitan gathering. The Pentecost of Acts 2 was in Rome. The "visitors" were not "from Rome" but from Jerusalem.

Geoff

Toto

Speaking in tongues, or glossolalia is a pretty well known phenomenon in the modern Pentecostal churches. People get up and babble on, and it sounds like they might be speaking, say, Tagalog (unless you actually understand Tagalog.)

There are no know modern examples of spontanious xenoglossia, or the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language without instruction. The phenomenon described in Acts, where each spirit filled apostle spoke and was understood by each of his hearers in the hearer's own language, as if each had been outfitted with a babelfish in his ear, is just 1st or 2nd c. science fiction. It doesn't even seem to be the same phenomemon that Paul described, where no one could understand the spirit talkers.

The phenomenon, whatever it is, does involve either speaking a foreign language or speaking nonsense that needs a special interpreter. It may be motivated by the holy spirit, but it is a linguistic phenomenon.

Geoff Hudson

Toto,

So, the answer is to stick to reality. The tongues never happened - they were an editor's dramatisation of the events. The disciples simply spoke to Gentiles as the Spirit enabled them - this would no doubt have been unusual given that the disciples were Jews. The language barriers were not great given the common knowlege of Greek.

Geoff

Toto

Well, that depends on what the question is. Is your question "can we find some naturalistic explanation for what is written in Acts?" Or is it "Do we have any reason to think that there is any historical basis for this scene in Acts?"

There is no other historical record of the disciples at this time, or what language they might have been speaking. My guess would be that the author of Acts wrote a fictional account of how it might have happened, but there was no original scene to dramatize.

I have to say that I do not understand your conversion scheme for these events, or why you want to put this scene at Rome.

ScottDNV21

I think it might be useful here to understand the eschatology (or unfolding of end-times events) of the Old and New Testaments. The prophecy in Joel is generally understood to be referring to the "day of the Lord", or the day when God finally judges the earth and Israel.

The prophecy made in Joel 2:28-29, with regard to God pouring out his Spirit "upon all flesh", is in contrast to the Old Testament pneumatology, in which the Holy Spirit was limited to a few selected, anointed individuals (i.e., the prophets), and would not take up full residence within the spirit of those individuals. The reason for this was because man was sinful and his sins had not yet been atoned for fully, and thus, open access to the Holy Spirit was denied the people of Israel.

However, God's Spirit being poured out upon all people, or whomever called upon the name of the Lord (in keeping with the spirit of the passage), would eventually come after Christ was crucified, atoning for the sins of the world, thus enabling men to come into complete fellowship with God.

Now, this prophecy obviously has a literal fulfillment ("pshat") in the context of God pouring out his Spirit upon the nation of Israel at the end of time, and it also has an application to the beginning of the church at Pentecost. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit witnessed by Peter in Acts 2 is the type of outpouring of the Holy Spirit described in Joel, and is, in fact, a precipitation of that time when all Israel would be saved (c.f., Romans 9-11) after a long period of rejecting their Messiah.

Peter's language in the passage lends itself to the "drash" fulfillment, because he does not say that every thing in this passage is fulfilled. Obviously not, because it could plainly be seen by everybody in view that the moon had not turned to blood, the stars were not shaken from their place, etc. Rather, he is saying that this is the type of Holy Spirit outpouring that will take place at that time, and this is the first such outpouring.

Just for clarification, I only recently discovered these types of rabbinical interpretations of prophecy. Previously, Acts 2 and a number of other prophetic allusions in the Gospel of Matthew had seriously confused me and cast serious doubt upon my faith. But I do believe that this way of interpreting Old Testament prophecy is consistent with the Judaic understanding of prophecy in the first century, and thus, there is no contradiction in Acts 2 with regard to the fulfillment of Joel 2.

Hope that helps.

Shalom,
Scotty D.

ScottDNV21

This is really an arbitrary argument from ignorance. On what basis do you say any of this? In keeping with the verbal plenary inspiration of Scriptures, Acts 2:6 says, "When they (the "godly Jews") heard this sound, they came running to see what it was all about, and they were bewildered to hear their own languages being spoken by the believers" (NLT).

In terms of Jerusalem not being "cosmopolitan" enough, I would like to point out that a large number of Jews had been scattered throughout the world for the past several centuries, and it was custom for many of them to return to Jerusalem for the Passover and a number of other Jewish festivals. It is also likely that a number of them had relocated to Jerusalem after the Roman conquest, since the Romans generally permitted free travel along the vast network of roads they constructed throughout their empire.

Toto

So in anticipation of the end times, the Holy Spirit fills these disciples some time in the first century, and then what happens? Year after year, century after century, Christians keep waiting for the end time, and when it doesn't come, figure out even more clever ways to reconcile the facts on the ground with the Holy Writ. This happens again and again. Islam overtakes Christianity in a number of categories, Christianity starts to die out in Europe, science provides a better explanation of events.

If you are looking for a contradiction, don't spend your time trying to reconcile Acts 2 and Joel 2. That's too easy. Try to figure out why Jesus predicted that he would return within the lifetime of those then living 2000 years ago, and people still try to pretend that the Bible is essentially inerrant.

Secular Pinoy

I speak Tagalog/Filipino. But I get your point. If I were to speak in tongues, I'd use pig latin.

ScottDNV21

Toto,

I think your post is filled with question-begging:

1. Where precisely did Jesus predict that he would return within the lifetime of the Apostles? (book:chapter:verse?)

2. The New Testament itself points out that the return of Christ might not be for a long time: "But you must not forget, dear friends, that a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent." (2 Peter 3:8-9 NLT). 2 Peter was written in approximately A.D. 67, so it was within the timeframe of the authorship of most of Paul's epistles and the synoptic gospels that the church came to believe that the Second Coming could be a long way off.

3. What does it matter that Islam "takes over" Christianity in a number of different categories? The promise of Christianity is not, first and foremost, cultural renaissance or political dominance, but individual and corporate salvation from sin. Throughout the New Testament era, millions have placed their trust in Christ, some in smaller numbers, some in larger. What's your point?

4. I remain unconvinced that science somehow has disproven the biblical accounts. If you are referring to the supposed macroevolution of species, I'd ask you to please lay out your evidence.