[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Gift of languages

>Perhaps you could explain then when the disciples literally and
>historically received the Holy Spirit - at Pentecost (Luke), or on the
>first Easter Sunday (John), since they were both "eye-witnesses of the
>events that they described"?
                                                                                                                    
Historically and literally they are two separate events and incidents
with two separate meanings.  Why do you desire to link the two?  I
can give a few thoughts on the subject, if you are the least bit interested.

Jesus "breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Ghost".
The word for breathed is only once used by the LXX translators in
Gen 2:7 where God breathed on Adam and he became a living soul.
Just as the original creation was completed by and act of God, also
the new creation was completed by an act of God, by the head of
new creation.

When Jesus said, "Receive the Holy Ghost", He anticipated Pentecost.
In Acts 1:4, Jesus commanded them to "wait for the promise of the
Father which you have heard of me".

>Furthermore, were the disciples *speaking* in different languages at
>Pentecost, or were the onlookers miraculously *hearing* them in
>different languages. "Parthians and Medes and Elamites and Mesopotamians
>... ". Would there have been enough disciples to go round for all these
>different languages? Or did they each say a couple of sentences in one
>of the various languages, one after the other - a bit like the Pope
>giving his Easter blessing? It is a bit hard to "see" the event. A
>desciption of what was actually taking place would be much appreciated.
                                                                                                                    
I was not there, otherwise I would be happy to give you a description of
the event.  I wish I was.  You probably wish you were too.  But since we
were not, we must depend on the witness of those who were.  Either they
recorded accurately what they saw and experienced to the best of their
ability, or they made up a story and attempted to pass it off as fact.  I
believe they accurately recorded their experiences.  I am sorry that they
did not describe the event well enough for you.

>I'm afraid the long quotation from Joel looks more like the stimulus and
>source for the "miracle" rather than just pointing to its fulfilment. This
>was the way the Bible writers often worked. Matthew even has the holy
>family dashing off to Egypt (in complete contradiction of the Lukan
>choreography) just so as to be able to fulfil the rather curiously
>redirected "prophecy", "Out of Egypt did I call my son".
                                                                                                                    
I'm afraid it looks more like the stimulus to you.  Our perceptions differ
decidedly.  I perceive the fulfillment of Joel in Acts (I'll reserve that work
for another day).  I also do not see a contradiction in the Lukan
choreography.  God has his reasons for having one author omit and
another author include the trip into Egypt.  Just because Luke wrote
"when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord,
they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth", does mean that
they didn't go into Egypt for a spell.  Luke merely omits it.  Omission
does not imply that it didn't happen.

kh



Ken Hall                  | Voice: 404 894 5559 | Internet address:
Ga Tech                   | Beeper:404 651 0362 | ken.hall@business.gatech.edu 
Financial Data Technology | FAX:   404 894 5520 | I put this here for balance
Follow-Ups: