Speaking in Tongues
āļāļąāļ
- āđāļāļĒāđāļāļĢāđāđāļĄāļ·āđāļ 8 āļ.āļĒ. 2024
- ð Watch the full episode:
www.nehemiaswa...
@Nehemiaswall
âĪïļ Support Nehemia Gordonâs Research and Teachings:
www.nehemiaswa...
ðŽ Follow Nehemia Gordon on Social Media:
linktr.ee/nehe...
ð° Subscribe to Nehemia Gordonâs Newsletter:
www.nehemiaswa...
ð Check out Nehemia Gordon's Books and DVDs:
www.nehemiaswa...
ð§ Subscribe to âNehemia Gordonâ on your favorite podcast app!
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D2 | Fall | āļāđāļāļāļĢāļąāļāļĐāļēāļāļāļĢāđāļĄ āļāļĒāđāļēāļĒāļāļĄāđāļŦāđāđāļāļĢāđāļāļ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/x38QsGn7A3M/mqdefault.jpg)
Good explanation for those that dont understand the annointed
Great teaching Nehemia
Great insight love itâĪïļ
PART `1 -
When itâs boiled down, most arguments for tongues at Pentecost can ultimately be said to hinge on two things; first, what the Holy Spirit actually gave the 12 apostles at Pentecost, and second, the crowdâs assumed linguistic diversity. Indeed, once can easily argue that the former completely hinges on the latter.
If one carefully examines what the Greek text says the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles (yes, just 12; not 120, but thatâs a story for another day) on Pentecost, and put the narrative into historical, cultural and linguistic perspective, one is compelled to conclude a very different view on the concept of âtonguesâ at Pentecost and, more so as âinitial evidenceâ of being baptized in the Holy Spirit. One is also forced to rethink the actual languages and role they played in the event.
At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit gave the 12 apostles what in the Greek text is âapophtheggesthaiâ - usually translated as âto give utteranceâ. This is, however, not the most accurate translation of this Greek word, but itâs the one that has come to be the more or less âde factoâ rendering.
This word is from âapophtheggomaiâ which is best translated as âto give bold, authoritative, inspired speech toâ (donât go to Strongâs and look it up - âStrongâsâ is a _concordance_ , not a lexicon; thereâs a _huge_ difference).
It refers *not* to the content/means of the speech (i.e., the language used), but rather to the *manner* of speaking. In each instance where this word occurs in scripture, the person's speech is bold, authoritative, and inspired, and it is always, by the way, in the speakerâs native language.
In short, the Holy Spirit did not give the _language_ (i.e. the means/content), it gave the _manner_ in which it was spoken.
So why is it usually translated as âto give utteranceâ? That hinges completely on the next partâĶ
The Jews present at Pentecost, as we are told, came from three areas: Judea, the Western Diaspora and the Eastern Diaspora. âAll nations under heavenâ is an idiomatic expression - Acts II: 9-11 tells us where those visiting were from.
We know that 1st century Judea was interesting linguistically - it illustrates a country/culture undergoing the process of Hellenization.....only Hellenization never fully happens in Judea. Greek ideas, thought and culture are prevalent, but Aramaic still wins out linguistically over Greek. Hebrew is still used as the sacerdotal language of Judaism, though, as we see in the Western Diasporan lands, Greek is actually becoming an accepted alternative to Hebrew.
People speak Aramaic, worship in Hebrew, but Greek is now becoming acceptable and, it's quite possible, some educated people in larger cities such as Jerusalem spoke it over Aramaic. Merchants would have had to have at least a working knowledge of basic Greek if they wanted to conduct business beyond 'local' markets and reach more 'global' markets (such that they were in the 1st century).
The land was also occupied by Rome, so Latin would have been heard, but likely not really understood. Educated Roman soldiers (as well as most upper-class Romans) would have spoken Greek, but the common soldier, likely not.
In short, the average Jew from Judea spoke Aramaic, but may have had a conversational knowledge of Greek.
Jews (as well as anyone else) from the Western Diaspora spoke Greek - all those lands had been Hellenized for centuries and Greek had long displaced indigenous languages. Indeed, in the Western Diaspora, and to some extent, even in larger cities in Judea, Greek was becoming an acceptable alternative to Hebrew for use in the temples and synagogues.
The Eastern Diaspora was different - no Hellenization, and countries had their own languages. Though people in Jewish communities in these lands spoke the local languages in varying degrees of fluency, it was never their âmother tongueâ. For Jews in the Eastern Diaspora, the language of âhearth and homeâ, the language âwherein they were bornâ was Aramaic. This language was one of the things that set them apart as being Jewish; it gave them their cultural and religious identity. Think of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity/Exile - they did not abandon their language in favor of Babylonian; they held onto it and preserved it as part of their Jewish identity.
To try and use a more modern analogy - think of the Jewish Diaspora in Central and Eastern Europe prior to WWII. Many countries, many languages, and Jewish people living in these places spoke the local language in varying degrees of fluency. But it was _never_ their native language, the language of hearth and home, the language wherein they were born - that language was Yiddish. The one language that defined them as Jews no matter where they were from. Same situation in the 1st century Eastern Diaspora, the defining language (the equivalent of my analogyâs Yiddish) was Aramaic.
Many lands, many places and people, but only two languages; Aramaic and Greek; and of course, the apostles spoke both.
Something to think about - In the entire Pentecost narrative, _not one_ language is ever referenced by name. Why do you suppose that is?
When Peter stood up and addressed the crowd, what language do you suppose he addressed them in??
The âlist of nationsâ, as itâs called, of Acts 2: 9-11 is simply that - a list of countries, lands and nations that tell us where these people were from; *not* what language(s) they spoke, as most people assume. Further, the idea that the âtonguesâ of Acts II was xenoglossy also stems from this false assumption.
They spoke in âother tonguesâ - other than what? This phrase is found in numerous Jewish texts in which Hebrew, the âholy tongue,â is contrasted with the âforeign/other tonguesâ of the Gentile nations. For example, in the apocryphal book Sirach we read, âFor the things translated into âother tongues,â have not the same force in them uttered in Hebrew.â
Judaism had something called âecclesiastical diglossiaâ. Diglossia is a the concept of using one version of a language over another. The preferred language is called the âhighâ language, the non-preferred, the âlowâ language. Switzerland has this with High German versus Swiss German. Greece has this as well with âkatharevousaâ - a more pure/refined form of Greek used as the literary language, language of newspapers, government docs, news broadcast, etc., while âdemotikiâ (demotic) is the everyday colloquial language. When it happens in a religious setting, itâs called ecclesiastical diglossia. The Catholic Church had this up to Vatican II in the 1960âs. Latin was the liturgical language of the church, and the language the Mass was offered in. Only the homily was given in the local vernacular.
It was a miracle of hearing in the languages not speaking in the languages. Imagine the chaos if 14 different languages were being spoken. Unless you were beside the one speaking in your language. It would be a big mix of indistinguishable sounds. Try it some time if you can get 14 different people together speaking different languages.
Love your explanation, I explain the Acts 2 event the same way. Because the people who heard their tongue did not have the "gift' of interpretation. Likewise, this experience continues today because of 1 Cor. 14: 1-3 "he who speaks in an unknown tongue, speaks onto God and not men". Why do we know this? Because of 100's millions in the world who have received the same experience as on the day of Pentecost.
PART 2 -
The miracle of language at Pentecost was making the God of the Jews accessible to all people and moreover, not having to do so in one prescribed language; namely, Hebrew, the sacerdotal language of Judaism.
Jewish religious custom and tradition demanded that any teaching, praying, reading, prophesying, etc. done from the temple (where the apostles were) be rendered _first_ in Hebrew, then followed by a translation into the vernacular. There even existed an ecclesiastical office for the individuals who did these translations (called the âmertugemâ). On Pentecost, the apostles broke this tradition and âbegan to speak in âotherâ (i.e. _other_ than Hebrew) languages (Aramaic and Greek), as the Holy Spirit kept giving a bold, authoritative, inspired manner of speaking to them.
The apostles, by help and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, did away with this cultural and religious tradition, and addressed the crowd in Greek and Aramaic; the mother tongue of the attendees, instead of the culturally and religiously correct, and expected tradition of Hebrew first, then translations into the vernaculars.
Hebrew was to be exclusively used during âthe declaration of first fruits,â which was the sacred liturgy associated with the festival of Shavuot, or Pentecost. In other words, during this particular festival, the crowds would have expected religious services presented in the holy tongue of Hebrew. But what they ended up hearing were powerful messages in âother tongues.â
Doing this from the Temple where they were, broke a slew of cultural and religious taboos. The shock to the crowd was that they did not first hear the expected and culturally correct Hebrew first, then vernaculars. May sound a bit silly nowadays, but at the time, to do such a thing was unthinkable. Further added to the crowdâs reaction was to hear Galileans (the âcountry bumkinsâ of their day) speak so boldly, completely inspired, and with such authority.
To suggest, as the apostles did that the God of the Jews was now available to non-Jews and in any language, completely dispensing with Hebrew altogether was tantamount to heresy; hence also part of the crowd's reaction (i.e., they must be âdrunkâ to dare to do such a thing). Sounds a bit ridiculous in todayâs times perhaps, but there was a time when many religions had specific sacred languages âattached/associatedâ with them, and it was heresy to veer from their usage in the prescribed manner.
With regards to the concept of âinitial evidence of tonguesâ, according to the Pentecost narrative, there were around 3,000 people who were baptized that day. If these 3,000 were 'baptized in the Spirit', I would think that at the very least, according to some Pentecostal/Charismatic beliefs, they should have starting âspeaking in tonguesâ. Yet *nothing* of the sort is recorded. Certainly 3,000+ people âspeaking in tongues" would at least merit a sentence or two in the narrative, wouldnât it?
If one argues they were not baptized in the spirit, but only in water, not only would the apostles have been violating a slew of work prohibitions on a high holy day (and would not likely have been allowed to do such a thing), considering one of the main focuses of the day was about being baptized in/receiving the Holy Spirit, that would be a rather anti-climactic ending to the narrative, wouldnât it?
No xenoglossy, no modern tongues-speech, just real, rational language(s). There *was* a language miracle at Pentecost provided by the Holy Spirit, no argument there; just not the one most people assume. And of course, again, when the apostles received the Holy Spirit, the only tongues (read âlanguagesâ) spoken were their own. In short, the gift of languages was not evidenced on Pentecost - it didnât need to be.
When we put all the above together, we see that in Acts 2, the actual gift being emphasized is the fact that the Holy Spirit has empowered the disciples to _prophesy_ and to boldly proclaim the Word of the Lord, and this is exactly what we find in verse 14. According to the ESV translation, Peter lifted up his voice and _addressed_ them, but perhaps a better translation would be that he lifted up his voice and _prophesied._ We tend to think of prophecy as a kind of foretelling of future events, but in the Hebrew use, it was more often associated with _speaking forth_ the Word of the Lord. I would argue that, if looking for a gift of the Holy Spirit to assign to Pentecost, it would be more the gift of Prophesy than of Languages.
This more correct historical, cultural and linguistic view negates that awkward discrepancy between the real, rational languages of Pentecost and the so-called âprayer languageâ of Paulâs letter to the Corinthians that tongues-speakers have skated around and explained away by instituting various âtypesâ of âtonguesâ. There is only one type of âtonguesâ in the Bible - real rational language(s).
In addition, in the Greek, the phrase âin their native languageâ modifies the verb âspeakingâ in verse 6, not the verb âhearing.â There was no âmiracle of hearingâ at Pentecost.
Well done and Thank You for sharing. âĪâïļ
Yes exactly this is Jewish tradition
Thanks
Wowwww! Never thought of it!!!
It says every man heard in his own language. Not that they were speaking in all those languages. Just like Mt. Sinai. Imagine the noise if they were speaking 14 different languages at the same time. A miracle of hearing not speaking.
I didn't know those people were in Egypt
Glad you have found that one out I did 40 yrs ago
Is this similar to the Tower of Babel type of event? G-d gave us different languages then. Maybe Acts 2 happened on the same dayâĶjust curious
THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST(YESHUA OR JEHOSHUA) WERE GATHERED IN THE TEMPLE FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS OF YESHUA TO WAITED IN JERUSALEM FOR THE PROMISED BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT ( ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 1: 4,5.) THE TORAH WAS GIVEN TO MOSES ON 2 TALES OF STONE, BUT NOW THE LAW IS GIVING IN THE HEARTHS OF HIS (YESHUA'S) DISCIPLES. SHALOM!
3:30 - the mixed multitude heard Hashem
Exodus XII 38. Not 'heard'', Ro'iYM, Ex-ode XX 15
Yes....but, actual languages are heard at Sinai and in Acts 2. Nowhere is there described some ridiculous yabba dabba do language that no one can understand, using it as a 'badge of holiness' to bully people into pretending they have some lack of faith in their walk.
Falling over 'drunk' with some sort of ruach for sure....just not the One they think.
What are you forgetting
Take a very long time sit down study the 5 fishes ð and 2 loaves
Paul said tho I speak in tongues of men and of angels.
bridgerbergman,
Exactly.
There is only 1 True Assembly of called-out-ones into the New Covenant, and so one of the proofs the 'speaking in tongues' isn't of Almighty Creator Yehovah is because that false religion is not obeying Yehovah's comments.
Not #1, 2, 3, 4, nor 9.
@@senatorjosephmccarthy2720 wrong answer in spades â ïļ sorry
@bridgerbergman
Absolutely. Pentecostal âspeaking in tonguesâ is a bunch of false prophets.
Paul brought that in from The Oracle at Delphi. That is a sect of the Roman religion that worships Dionysus.
That has nothing to do with what happened at Shavuot. That thing Paul teaches is infiltration and hijacking of the truth.
Matthew 13:25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away.