Alastair's Adversaria

And they were all filled with the Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. – Acts 2:4

The terminology of being ‘filled with the Spirit’ is found in the lxx, where it is used on five occasions. The artisans involved in constructing the tabernacle are all filled with the Spirit for the purpose (Exodus 28:3; 31:3; 35:31). Joshua is filled with the Holy Spirit as Moses’ successor as leader of the children ofIsrael(Deuteronomy 34:9). Finally, the term is used with reference to the figure of Isaiah 11:1-2.Marshallprovides a helpful summary of the usage of this terminology with the NT:

This word [‘fill’] is used when people are given an initial endowment of the Spirit to fit them for God’s service (9:17; Lk. 1:15) and also when they are inspired to make important utterances (4:8, 31; 13:9); related words are used to describe the continuous process of being filled with the Spirit (13:52; Eph. 5:18) or the corresponding state of being full (6:3, 5; 7:55; 11:24; Lk. 4:1).[1]

Witherington warns of the danger of treating such terminology in too technical a fashion, given the broad range of its usage in Luke-Acts.[2]

In its Lukan usage, the concept of being filled with the Spirit is closely related to prophecy. On a number of occasions Luke uses ‘filled with the Spirit’ and other related terminology as part of his characterization of prophetic figures (Luke 1:15; 4:1; Acts 6:3, 5; 9:17). On other occasions Luke uses this language as ‘an introductory formula to describe a moment of prophetic inspiration’ (e.g. Luke 1:41, 67; Acts 4:31; 13:9-11).[3] Marshall claims that we encounter such a usage in Acts 2:4, the glossolalia being the Spirit-inspired utterance.[4] Stronstad’s suggestion that Luke also frames Peter’s Pentecost sermon as a prophetic utterance is supported by Luke’s repetition of the verb αποφθεγγομαι, previous used in verse 4, in the introduction to Peter’s sermon in verse 14.[5]

The ‘filling’ that the disciples receive at Pentecost is both an initial bestowal of the Spirit and a temporary inspiration for a particular purpose.[6] As the initial gift of the Spirit, it is also referred to as a ‘baptizing’ (Acts 1:15; 11:16): as Marshall stresses, unlike the term ‘filled’, the verb ‘baptize’ is only used in connection with the initial reception of the Spirit.[7] As in Number 11, the temporary manifestation of prophetic speech is a sign of the Spirit’s abiding anointing.

Purifying the Lips of the Nations
The echoes of the OT account of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) in Acts 2 have frequently been commented upon, many seeing in the account of Pentecost ‘the old language-based division of humanity’[8] established at Babel being overcome, the ‘unbabbling of tongues’. Wedderburn objects to this reading in light of the fact that Acts 2 ‘does not describe a reversion to a single, universal language as one might expect if this symbolism were intended.’[9]

In Isaiah 19:18, it is prophesied that five cities in Egypt will speak the ‘language of Canaan’. Although more recent commentators tend to interpret this as a reference to the Hebrew language (or Canaanite languages more generally), a number of commentators in history have favoured a more metaphorical reading of the phrase, understanding it in terms of the language of true worship. In commenting on Acts 2:3, Calvin writes:

These cloven tongues made every man speak the language of Canaan as Isaiah foretold (Isa. 19.18). For whatever language they speak they all with one mouth and one Spirit call upon the same Father in heaven (Rom. 15.6).

A related passage can be found in Zephaniah 3:9, which speaks of God’s restoration of a ‘pure lip’ to all of the nations, generally understood to refer to a re-establishing of the unity of the nations in true worship.[10] Others have explicitly connected this prophecy with the events of Babel and Pentecost.

The argument for such a connection between Zephaniah 3:9 and Acts 2 may be strengthened by the quotation of Joel in Peter’s sermon:

For then I will restore to the peoples a pure language, that they all may call on the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one accord. – Zephaniah 3:9

And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. – Acts 2:21

The restoration of a pure lip or speech[11] to the nations will enable them to invoke the name of YHWH aright. Although ‘calling on the name of the Lord’ in the context of Acts 2 is generally understood in the narrower sense of seeking deliverance, the broader sense that the language has elsewhere in Scripture (e.g. Genesis 4:26; 12:8; 2 Kings 5:11; Acts 9:14; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:22) is not necessarily absent.[12] At Pentecost God takes up the languages of the nations by his Spirit, making possible truly worldwide worship. As such it is an event in which we can discern echoes of the prophecies of Isaiah 19:18 and Zephaniah 3:9.

There is a strong relationship between prophecy and worship in the context of Luke. In Luke the prophet is the true worshipper and Spirit-inspired speech is frequently presented as the speech of worship (Luke 1:64, 67-79;2:25-32, 36-38;10:21-22). In Acts 2 that which is spoken in tongues is ‘the wonderful works of God’.[13] It is as God makes tongues glad (cf. Acts2:26) that true worship will be rendered. In ancient Jewish mysticism, the visionary who ascended into God’s presence was often permitted to participate in the angelic hymns, ‘speaking in the diction appropriate to the level of ascent.’[14] The Spirit-transformed tongues of Acts 2 can be seen as the tongues of prophets, who have been granted to join with the angels in their worship.[15]

Robert Zerhusen presents a strong case for understanding the groups mentioned in Acts 2:5-13 as ethnic, rather than linguistic, groupings.[16] Most of the people mentioned in these verses would have been fluent in Aramaic and Greek. Zerhusen argues that the account of Pentecost needs to be understood in light of a diglossic language situation, in which the Judean community functioned with Hebrew as its ‘high’ language and Aramaic and Greek as its ‘low’ languages.[17] The ‘other tongues’ of verse 4 are thus languages other than the ‘holy’ language of Hebrew. The significance of Pentecost was to be seen in the prophetic use of low languages in the temple context.

Whether or not we choose to adopt Zerhusen’s rather radical diglossia thesis, the issue that he raises is an important one. The religious priority of Hebrew was a position that was most likely widely held in Jesus’ day, being based in part on readings of the narrative of the early chapters of Genesis.[18] For those who believed that all languages apart from Hebrew resulted from the curse at Babel, the divine inspiration of people speaking languages other than Hebrew may well have been shocking. Understanding such an occurrence against the background of the prophecies in Isaiah and Zephaniah mentioned above, we can provide an answer to Wedderburn’s objection: Babel is reversed, not by the return to a universal language, but by the purification of all languages for prophetic utterance.

Acts 2 and the Prophetic Speech Impediment
Highlighting a common feature of many prophetic call narratives—the identification of an impediment and God’s encouragement or rectification of the impediment—Daniel Fredericks suggests that the call of Ezekiel can also be seen to manifest this pattern.[19] Detailing some of the weakness of previous explanations given for the ‘cumbersome’ grammatical style of the opening chapter of Ezekiel, he proposes that we understand it as an expression of Ezekiel’s own awkward vernacular speech.[20] Ezekiel’s impediment of speech (cf. Exodus 4:10; Isaiah 6:5; Jeremiah 1:6) is rectified by his swallowing of the scroll of divine revelation in 3:1-3.

The contorted grammar and style of chap. 1, then, is perhaps a rhetorical prop that gives the book a context in which to elevate and authenticate a prophetic message that transcends any “deep-lippedness” or “heavy-tonguedness.” A cultic message must only be conveyed in the proper literary language. Eloquence is everything.[21]

Ezekiel is sent primarily to the elite of Judah, who would expect a prophet to adopt a more elevated style of speech. The agrarian population would have been less offended by a prophet who spoke in a vernacular dialect.[22] Fredericks concludes:

What appears to be happening in Ezekiel 1-3 is a reaffirmation of an official, literary language that tolerates no deviance from the norm.[23]

In light of this background, the events of Pentecost (which, as we have already observed, echo those of Ezekiel 1-3 in a number of respects) appear all the more startling. God prepares the lips of his prophets, but what they utter is not the elevated, literary Hebrew, but ‘deep-lipped’ and ‘heavy-tongued’ common dialects. Pentecost thus elevates the vernacular, or makes the holy tongue common to all men.

Rejection and Failure to Perceive
The theme of the rejected prophet is a recurring one in the context of Luke-Acts. Marguerat observes that the rejection of Jesus in Luke 4 ‘confirms ironically his status as a prophet.’[24] The rejection of the early church and its message proved that it stood in line with the prophets and Christ (Luke 6:22-23).[25] In Acts 2:13 we see an initial occurrence of this theme, when the tongues-speaking of the disciples is met with derision.

The rejection of the prophet is frequently foretold in the context of prophetic call narratives (Exodus 4:21; Isaiah 6:9-10; Jeremiah 1:19; Ezekiel 3:7). The significance of this theme in the context of Luke-Acts is underlined by Luke’s citation of Isaiah 6:9-10 at the conclusion of Acts, in a section that has been described as ‘a clue to understanding the whole of Luke-Acts.’[26] Blaine Charette suggests that Isaiah 6:9-10 provides us with a framework within which we can better appreciate the purpose of glossolalia in terms of divine hardening.[27] Tongues-speaking in Acts 2:4 demonstrates the fact that the word of YHWH is being given in languages other than Hebrew and serves as a sign of the judgment that results from unbelief. It is a sign of the exclusion of the Jews in unbelief, a point that Paul develops in 1 Corinthians 14:21-22.

The fact that the mockers perceived tongues-speaking as drunken speech suggests a number of further scriptural resonances. Isaiah 28:11-12, verses that Paul uses in his teaching on the gift of tongues (1 Corinthians 14:21), originally occur in a context where the themes of prophecy, drink and lack of spiritual perception are prominent (Isaiah 28:7-8). Peter Leithart has also highlighted the possibility of a connection between Acts 2:13 and 1 Samuel 1:13-14, where Eli’s accusing Hannah of drunkenness is a sign of his loss of spiritual perception.[28] In light of the contrast between being filled with wine and being filled with the Holy Spirit that occurs elsewhere in the NT (Ephesians 5:18), there is also the possibility that Luke wishes to use the theme of drunkenness to introduce an element of irony to his account.[29]

Conclusion

We began our study by observing the intertextual relationship between the ascensions of Elijah and Jesus and the granting of the Spirit to their successors. We then proceeded to examine the manner in which the accounts of the Sinai theophany in Exodus 19 and the participation of the seventy elders in the Spirit of Moses in Numbers 11 serve to illuminate Acts 2 as a narrative of corporate anointing. Exploring the importance of theophany in the context of prophetic call narratives, we highlighted the resemblances between Acts 2:1-4 and OT theophanies, and presented the case for a connection between theophany and temple.

In our treatment of verse 3, we studied the significance of fire as a sign of divine authorization and favour, and suggested the possibility of a symbolic connection between the tongues of fire and the empowerment of the disciples’ speech. We then drew attention to the manner in which the descent of the Spirit upon the disciples at Pentecost can be understood as a consequence of the final stage in Jesus’ three stage relationship with the Spirit.

Our examination of verse 4 began with an exploration of the meaning of being ‘filled with the Spirit’, after which, making use of Robert Zerhusen’s diglossia thesis, we advanced an understanding of the gift of tongues as the establishment of prophetic worship in all languages. Having read Acts 2 against the backdrop of YHWH’s rectifying of the prophet Ezekiel’s common speech, we concluded by demonstrating the way in which Pentecost fits within the broader Lukan theme of prophetic rejection and failure of perception.

While some of the intertextual relationships suggested within these posts are relatively tentative, there is robust support for the claim that Luke frames his account of Pentecost as a prophetic call narrative. The significance of these connections is to be found in the manner in which they provide the means for the Church to grasp the nature of its prophetic identity.

Endnotes
[1] I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1980), 69. See also James D.G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM, 1970), 70-71.
[2] Ben Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 1998), 133.
[3] Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 67; Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 71.
[4] Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 69.
[5] Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers, 67-68; Kenneth Duncan Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts: Telling the History of God’s People Intertextually (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 160-161.
[6] For the connection between the filling of houses and the filling of persons (cf. Acts 2:2, 4), see Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980), 45-46.
[7] Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 69.
[8] Scott in Jostein Ådna and Hans Kvalbein (eds.), The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 105.
[9] A.J.M. Wedderburn, ‘Traditions and Redaction in Acts 2.1-13.’ Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 17:32n14.
[10] Elizabeth Rice Achtemeier, Nahum-Malachi (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1986), 82-83; Allen P. Ross, ‘The Disperson of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9.’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 138:120.
[11] J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 219 claims that Zephaniah 3:13 serves to explicate 3:9. Ehud Ben Zvi, A Historical-Critical Study of the Book of Zephaniah (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1991), 226 suggests Psalm 15 as a parallel text. The connection between mouths purged from deceit and cultic worship can be seen in Revelation 14:5.
[12] See Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 2005), 197-200, for a discussion of early Christian usage of such language with reference to Christ.
[13] Cf. Acts 10:46; 1 Corinthians 14:2.
[14] Markus Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 1990), 169.
[15] We find a passage with a number of similar features (the coming of the glory cloud to Mount Zion) in Revelation 14, with a reference to a song of worship that no one could learn except the 144,000.
[16] Robert Zerhusen, ‘An Overlooked Judean Diglossia in Acts 2?’ Biblical Theology Bulletin, 25:118-130.
[17] David Aaron (in Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Judaism. [Oxford: Blackwell, 2000]) claims that ‘the notion that Hebrew is a holy language is found among Jews of every era’ (268), going on to observe that

By relating to their language as holy, Jews transformed Hebrew into a kind of ritual object, parallel, in many ways, to the Torah scroll itself. In this sense, Hebrew is part of a religious system. (268)

[18] James L. Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 235-237 observes that the view that Hebrew was the primordial language, lost at Babel and later taught to Abram by God, was held by many Jews and Christians in the early centuries C.E.
[19] For the following see Daniel C. Fredericks, ‘Diglossia, Revelation, and Ezekiel’s Inaugural Rite.’ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41:189-199.
[20] Ibid. 192.
[21] Ibid. 196.
[22] Fredericks suggests that this is that which is referred to in Ezekiel 3:5-6 (cf. Exodus 4:10).
[23] Ibid. 198-199
[24] Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles.’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 140n34.
[25] V. J. Samkutty, The Samaritan Mission in Acts (London: Continuum, 2006), 205. Stephen’s speech plays on this theme (Acts 7:9, 25-29, 35, 39, 51-53).
[26] Steve Moyise and M.J.J. Menken (eds.), Isaiah in the New Testament (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 95; Blaine Charette, ‘‘Tongues as of Fire’: Judgment as a Function of Glossolalia in Luke’s Thought.’ Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 13:182. For discussion of Luke’s use of Isaiah 6:9-10 in this context see Litwak, Echoes of Scripture in Luke-Acts, 183ff, Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, 803ff and Moyise & Menken, Isaiah in the New Testament, 95ff. Moyise wonders whether Luke’s wish to save the full force of the Isaiah quotation to the end of his two-volume work explains his failure to give it as prominent a place within his gospel as it is given in the others (Steve Moyise, The Old Testament in the New [London: T&T Clark, 2001], 57-58).
[27] Charette, ‘Tongues as of Fire’, 184.
[28] There are also a number of suggestive parallels between the account of 1 Samuel 1 and the account of Luke 1 that could be explored.
[29] In 1 Samuel 1 the theme of wine is also exploited to highlight the irony of the situation. Eli accuses Hannah of drunkenness at the very moment that she is taking the Nazirite vow for her son and ‘pouring out’ her soul to YHWH (J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993], 45-47).

And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. – Acts 2:2

The context having been set in the previous verse, the events associated with the first Christian Pentecost begin in Acts 2:2. Given the significance of the event which he is recording, Luke is surprisingly economical in his account of the Day of Pentecost.[1] However, the few details that he does provide grant the narrative more than merely a measure of colour and realism. The pyrotechnics of verses 2-4 should alert us to the character of the event that is taking place. Roger Stronstrad observes:

In the light of Israel’s history the meaning of the first two signs, the metaphorical wind and fire would be self-evident signposts, both to the disciples and to the assembled crowd, that a theophany was happening.[2]

Theophany and Prophetic Call
Jeffrey Niehaus defines a theophany as ‘an actual manifestation of God’s presence’.[3] Theophanies can take many forms and are found in a variety of different biblical contexts.[4] Theophanies generally occur at critical junctures in the biblical narrative, for instance, in the context of covenant formation (Genesis 15:12-21; Exodus 19), or in the context of the dedication of buildings for future worship (Exodus 29:42-43; 1 Kings 9:3).

Looking at the account of Acts 2, we can see that it displays many of the characteristic features of an OT theophany. The divine initiation of the event, an important characteristic of theophanies, is quite clear.[5] The sound as of a mighty rushing wind recalls accounts such as Ezekiel 1:4, where the sound heralds the arrival of YHWH’s ‘wind-driven cloud-chariot’.[6] The appearance of tongues of fire is also associated with the appearance of YHWH.[7]

The event of Pentecost is presented as ‘a momentous and epochal episode in the forward movement of the history of salvation.’[8] It involves the impartation of holiness, consecrating the community of the disciples for future service. An adumbrated eschatology is also present, as a number of authors have recognized, and Peter’s use of the prophet Joel makes clear.

Luke’s account of Pentecost bears a number of immediate similarities to various theophany narratives that we find elsewhere in the Scriptures. The elliptical and metaphorical language in which the account is framed is similar to that which characterizes accounts such as those of Ezekiel 1 and Revelation 1, the visions of the prophets being shrouded in simile. In Acts 2 the sound from heaven is as of a rushing mighty wind; the divided tongues of the following verse are as of fire.

The simile-laden style that one finds in such theophany accounts almost seems to be designed to frustrate any attempt on our part to gain anything more than the most impressionistic image of the phenomena in question. The language serves as a veil, preventing our vision from fully penetrating to the divine reality that it simultaneously attests to.

Theophany and Call
Cecil Staton observes that theophanies are often associated with prophetic calling narratives,[9] and Savran argues that such call narratives should in fact be classified as a subset of theophany narratives.[10]

The connection between the setting apart of prophets and the witnessing of theophanies may be closer than we might originally think. Savran’s suggestion that call narratives must be read as a subset of the initial theophany narrative is significant, based as it is upon the recognition that the theme of theophany is never mere window-dressing in the context of call narratives.[11] It is the experience of the theophany itself that serves to set the prophet apart.

The theophany is an event that specially privileges its witnesses and distinguishes them from others, giving them a sign of peculiar divine favour. Even when others are present, as in the case of Saul’s vision on the road to Damascus, they are seen as somehow excluded from the full experience that the intended witness of the theophany is having (Acts 9:7; 22:9). The event of the theophany constitutes someone as a witness of YHWH, one who can then proceed to ‘externalize’ the vision in the form of prophetic testimony.

The incapacity of mundane vision to perceive accurately or safely the divine self-manifestation of theophany sets the one with the capacity to witness it apart from others.[12] As YHWH makes himself known to someone in a theophany, that person is given to know YHWH in a manner that most will not. The theophany marks a definitive change in the character of their relationship to YHWH, the ‘singular experience’ becoming ‘the basis of a continuing relationship.’[13] Even were the recipient of the theophany never to witness one again, it would nonetheless mark him out from all of his contemporaries from that moment forward as one specially privileged by YHWH.

Within Luke-Acts there are at least three major theophany call narratives—Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan, the Day of Pentecost and Saul’s encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Particularly significant for our purposes is the theophany that occurred at Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan.[14]

The importance of John’s baptism as a basis for Jesus’ vocation should not be underestimated. The voice from heaven identifies Jesus as God’s beloved Son and he is empowered by the Holy Spirit that descends and rests upon him.[15] The fundamental significance of the experience of Jesus at his baptism can be seen in the prominence that the event is given in all of the gospels, by the role that it plays in Jesus’ defence of his authority (Luke 20:1-8),[16] and by the place that it is given within the apostolic kerygma (Acts 1:21-22; 10:36-38).

A theophanic vision of God is foundational to the ministry of many of the major biblical prophets. The vision prepares them for their mission in a number of ways, granting them the strength and resources for their task (Exodus 4:15-17; 1 Kings 19:16; Isaiah 6:5-7; Ezekiel 2:2; 3:8-9; Acts 26:17), giving them a firm awareness of their personal vocation (Exodus 3:12; Ezekiel 3:16-21; Acts 26:16) and loosely sketching the contours of their mission (Exodus 3:10; 1 Kings 19:15-18; Isaiah 6:9-13; Ezekiel 3:4-9; Acts 26:17-18).

At Pentecost the disciples are granted such a theophanic vision. The vision does not involve divine speech, but its significance was already articulated by Jesus prior to his ascension (Acts 1:4-8). At Pentecost the disciples are empowered for their mission, and given an authenticating sign assuring them of their vocation (as witnesses of the Risen Christ), having already been informed of the basic shape that their subsequent mission will take. The event of Pentecost will subsequently be foundational for the church’s self-understanding, in much the same way as the Sinai theophany was for the children ofIsrael. The Pentecost theophany is the seal that God places upon the church, granting the church, like its master, a theophanic call as a firm assurance of divine approbation and its vocation. Its future ministry will spring out of this encounter.

The Filling of the House
There are differences among the commentators regarding the location where the disciples met on the Day of Pentecost. Marshall remarks: “some scholars think that they were in the temple, in view of the word ‘house’ in verse 2, but ‘house’, used on its own like this, cannot mean the temple.”[17]

In the surrounding context of the Pentecost account, the temple seems to be the location on which most of the action is focused. As Stronstad observes

In adjacent contexts both before and after his Pentecost narrative (Acts 2.1-41) Luke reports that the disciples were continually in the temple (Lk. 24.53), and met in the temple day by day (Acts 2.46).[18]

Within the early chapters of the book of Acts the temple has a central narrative function, providing a location for many of the church’s activities (e.g. Acts 3:1-10; 5:42). Acts 5:12 suggests that the early church were accustomed to meeting in Solomon’s portico, which ‘lay along the eastern wall of the temple precincts across the Court of the Gentiles’ (cf. Acts 3:11).

Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, provide a possible way to harmonize Luke 24:53 and Acts 1:13, suggesting that the upper room is the place where the disciples ‘stayed waiting’.[19] They argue that the ‘upper room’ should be understood as ‘a room in the Temple as a place of meeting for the community,’[20] drawing attention to the use of the term υπερωον to refer to certain rooms in the temple within the lxx.[21] B.B. Thurston suggests that this upper room would probably have been built into the walls of the temple’s outer court, and may possibly have been located to the east of the court of the women.[22] Such a theory would serve to illuminate certain features of Luke’s narrative that might otherwise remain confusing, such as the public impression made by the sound of the disciples’ tongues-speaking.[23] As Bruce observes, the temple is the most likely place for the disciples to have gathered on the day of a pilgrim feast and would also be the most appropriate location for a gathering of 3000 people.[24] Such a reading would also dispense with the need for the assumption of a shift in location part way through the narrative.

In Acts 2:2, Luke declares that house was filled with the sound as of wind. Similar language is used in a number of places in the OT to refer to the glory cloud, variously described, filling the temple or tabernacle (Exodus 40:35; 1 Kings 8:11; 2 Chronicles 7:1; Isaiah 6:4; Ezekiel 10:4).

In light of this background, and the association of the phenomena of the sound of a rushing wind with the glory cloud, echoes of such accounts would not seem to be far from the surface of Acts 2:2.[25]

Acts 2:2 is reminiscent of Isaiah 6:4. There are a number of levels at which the text of Isaiah 6 relates to Acts. Both texts involve a theophany which sets people apart for a prophetic mission. The panoramic view that Isaiah is given of his mission in that passage is presented in a defining citation at the end of Acts (28:26-27) as congruent with the shape that the church’s own mission has taken to that point. If the οικος of Acts 2 is indeed the temple we have a further significant connection with the account of Isaiah 6.

The connection between a glory cloud theophany and the temple follows from the fact that the tabernacle/temple was regarded as the connection point between God’s dwelling place in heaven and the earth (Exodus 25:21-22; Leviticus 16:2; Numbers 9:18-23; 1 Kings 8:10-13; Ezekiel 10). The presumption that any manifestation of YHWH’s glory would begin from the temple or tabernacle was thus quite natural, particularly in light of the widely held belief that God continued to dwell in the temple (a belief articulated by Christ himself—Matthew 23:21).[26] The disciples’ gathering in the vicinity of the temple to receive the Spirit is reminiscent of Numbers 11:24. That these events should occur at the temple is also worthy of note in light of the connection that we find between prophecy and the temple elsewhere in Luke-Acts (e.g. Luke 2:27-38; Acts 22:17).

One established image of the eschatological gift of the Spirit within the OT is that of the water that flows from the temple in Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:8; Joel 3:18; Ezekiel 47:1-2).[27] The reception of the life-giving baptism of the Spirit in the context of the temple would have charged the event with greater significance, particularly when we consider the importance given to the east gate of the temple in Ezekiel’s prophecy.[28]

Water images for the Spirit are present at a few points in the narrative surrounding the account of Pentecost, not least in the image of ‘baptism’ itself (Acts 1:5; 2:17, 33). The connection between the eschatological flow of living water from the temple inJerusalemand Pentecost draws our attention to a further dimension of the event that we have not properly touched upon to this point. Unlike most of the OT events that we have already referred to, the significance of Pentecost is not to be found primarily in the event considered by itself, but in what it represents—the beginning of the outpouring of the Spirit of prophecy.

In contrast to the events of Numbers 11, there is no stemming of the flow of the Spirit. The gift of the Spirit is not limited to those who immediately experienced the initial outpouring, but flows through them to others (Acts2:38). Pentecost is a pouring out of the Spirit on all flesh, not merely on those who were assembled together in Acts 2:1.

Endnotes
[1] Luke Timothy Johnson refers to it as ‘slender and spare’ (The Acts of the Apostles [Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992], 45).
[2] Roger Stronstad, The Prophethood of All Believers: A Study in Luke’s Charismatic Theology (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 55.
[3] Niehaus in Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 4:1247. George Savran (‘Theophany as Type Scene.’ Prooftexts, 23:120), speaks of the importance of ‘a visual component in addition to verbal interaction.’
[4] David Noel Freedman (ed.), Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 2000), 1298.
[5] “The designations of time (“suddenly”) and place (“from heaven”) highlight divine, not human, control of the Spirit’s action (Acts 1:2; cf. Acts 16:26; Luke 3:21-22).” William H. Shepherd, Jr., The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit as a Character in Luke-Acts (SBL Dissertation Series #147: Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994), 160.
[6] Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980), 100-102.
[7] Cf. Exodus 19:16-19; 1 Kings 19:11-12; Ezekiel 1; Hebrews 12:18-19. Jeffrey Niehaus (‘In the Wind of the Storm: Another Look at Genesis III 8’ [Vetus Testamentum, 44:263-267]) and Meredith Kline (Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview [Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2006], 129) suggest the presence of a storm theophany in Genesis 3:8, Kline claiming that this event is the ‘prototypical mold in which subsequent pictures of other days of the Lord were cast’.
[8] Stronstad, Prophethood of All Believers, 70
[9] In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 1298. Staton cites 1 Kings 22:19; Isaiah 6:1, 5; Ezekiel 1:1, 27-28; Amos 9:1 as examples. To Staton’s examples we should perhaps add Exodus 3-4: the theophany associated with the calling of Moses is perhaps one of the most significant in Scripture.
[10] Savran, ‘Theophany as Type Scene,’ 126.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Although there are gradations of perception among the prophets (Numbers 12:6-8; Moberly 2006, 137-138).
[13] Savran, ‘Theophany as Type Scene,’ 135.
[14] James Dunn (Jesus and the Spirit [London: SCM, 1975], 65) over-psychologizes the significance of this event, but he rightly appreciates its constitutive significance for Jesus’ vocation.
[15] The reference to the heavens being opened could be read as an echo of Ezekiel 1:1.
[16] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 495-497.
[17] I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1980), 68. See Isaiah 6:1, 4 lxx for a counterexample. Haenchen 1971, 168n1 claims that Luke always refers to the Temple as το ιερον, never as οικος. However, there are a number of noteworthy exceptions to this, including Acts 7:47, Luke 6:4, 11:51, 13:35, and 19:46.
[18] Stronstad, Prophethood of All Believers, 55n2.
[19] Josep Rius-Camps and Jenny Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 100-101.
[20] Ibid. 101.
[21] They reference 1 Chronicles 28:11, 20 (some mss); 2 Chronicles 3:9; Jeremiah 20:2; Ezekiel 41:7.
[22] Cited in Rius-Camps & Read-Heimerdinger, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae, 101n88.
[23] It is also unlikely that there would have been many private residences with rooms capable of seating 120 people.
[24] F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1965), 55-56.
[25] This imagery is also taken up in Revelation 15:8. Observe the lxx’s tendency to use the term οικος of the temple in these verses.
[26] Klaus Baltzer, ‘The Meaning of the Temple in the Lukan Writings,’ The Harvard Theological Review, 58:266-267; Joan E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 153ff. We should also observe the focal role played by the temple in Luke-Acts (‘The Meaning of the Temple in the Lukan Writings,’ 271ff).
[27] Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:725-727. Cf. John 7:38-39, which many believe connects the promised Pentecostal gift of the Spirit with the prophesied opening up of a fountain in Jerusalem.
[28] Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, 56n8.