Coming To Terms With An Evangelical Heritage

Part 2: Pentecostals And Evidential Tongues

Robert P. Menzies

[Read Part 1: Pentecostals And The Issue Of Subsequence]

As an educator, I frequently travel to various places to teach. Wherever I go, irrespective of the course or topic of discussion, I can always count on one question being asked: What about tongues as initial evidence? The fact that the question is asked so frequently and in a variety of settings indicates that Pentecostals have not effectively dealt with this issue. We have failed to provide convincing biblical and theological support for our position that glossolalia is the “initial physical evidence” of Spirit-baptism (Acts 2:4).¹ This is the case largely because we have failed to speak to this issue in a manner which makes sense in today’s hermeneutical context. Too often in the past we have relied on social pressure rather than clear theological arguments. The result is wide-spread confusion within our churches and unnecessary estrangement from many Christians without. The following essay is offered with the hope that it might encourage further much-needed theological reflection on this important issue. It represents my response to the question which I so frequently encounter and my own attempt to integrate my Pentecostal convictions and experience with my Evangelical heritage and schooling.

A Tale Of Two Questions

In Part One, I suggested that Pentecostals have shed fresh light on an extremely important question: What is the nature of the Pentecostal gift? We now focus our attention on a second, separate question: What is the nature of the relationship between tongues (glossolalia) and the Pentecostal gift? It is imperative to recognize that these are two, distinct questions. Indeed, much of the confusion surrounding these questions stems from the failure to distinguish between them. On one hand, this failure has led many Pentecostals to erroneously equate the Pentecostal gift with tongues. On the other hand, it is the reason why many Evangelicals, with tunnel vision, have focused on the hermeneutics of historical precedent and missed the fundamental question concerning the nature of Luke’s pneumatology.

It is imperative to distinguish between these questions because they must be approached and ultimately answered in different ways. The question concerning the nature of the Pentecostal gift is a question of biblical theology. It is a question which Luke himself clearly addresses. Indeed, in Part One we examined evidence from Luke-Acts which supports our contention that Luke consistently presents the Pentecostal gift in charismatic terms as the source of power for effective witness; and furthermore, that he consciously encourages his readers to experience this gift. Here, Luke’s intent is clear. However, the question of tongues as initial evidence ushers us into the realm of systematic theology. In biblical theology, we focus on the agenda of the biblical authors. We seek to hear the questions they raise and the answers they offer. G.B. Caird has aptly described the task of biblical theology as one of listening to the dialogue of the biblical authors seated at a roundtable.² In biblical theology, we listen to their discussion. By way of contrast, in systematic theology we frequently begin with the agenda and questions of our contemporary setting. We bring the pressing questions of our day to the biblical text and, as we wrestle with the implications that emerge from the text for our questions, we seek to answer them in a manner consistent with the biblical witness. In systematic theology, we do not simply sit passively, listening to the discussion at the roundtable. Rather, we bring our questions to the dialogue and listen for the various responses uttered. Ultimately, we seek to integrate these responses into a coherent answer.

The question concerning the relationship between tongues and Spirit-baptism is a question of systematic theology. Larry Hurtado correctly notes that “the question of what constitutes ‘the initial evidence’ of a person having received the ‘baptism in the Spirit’ simply is not raised in the New Testament.”³ Luke, as we shall emphasize, is no exception at this point. That is to say, neither Luke nor any other biblical author deliberately sets out to demonstrate that “tongues” is the initial physical evidence of that empowering experience (and dimension of the Spirit’s activity) Pentecostals appropriately call, “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” However, as Hurtado notes, this does not necessarily “render the doctrine invalid” nor indicate that the questions associated with the doctrine are inappropriate.⁴ Nevertheless, Hurtado goes on to suggest that in this instance the doctrine is invalid, but we shall treat his objections later. For the moment, it is important to note that it is not only legitimate, but often necessary, to bring our questions to the text or (as Caird might put it) the dialogue at the roundtable. Here we must also carefully listen to the voice of Scripture. Although the biblical authors may not directly address our questions, our goal is to identify the implications for our questions which emerge from the various theological perspectives they represent.

The Limitations Of Biblical Theology

The doctrine of evidential tongues is often treated purely in terms of the categories of biblical theology. This is true of Pentecostal presentations and non-Pentecostal evaluations. Pentecostals have generally supported the doctrine by arguing that the various accounts in Acts present a normative pattern for Christian experience. Although it is not always clearly articulated, implicit in this approach is the notion that Luke consciously crafted his narrative in order to highlight the normative character of evidential tongues. Yet, as Gordon Fee has pointed out, this sort of argument has not been persuasive.⁵ In Part One we noted that Fee’s critique of arguments based on historical precedent was significant because it challenged Pentecostals to deal with this fact.

Our inability to offer clear theological support for our doctrine of evidential tongues is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the recent publication of Initial Evidence.⁶ The articles by Hurtado and J. Ramsey Michaels represent further elaborations of the basic message voiced by Fee over a decade ago.⁷ Pentecostals have failed to convince because they have not been able to demonstrate that Luke intended to present in the key narratives of Acts a normative, model of Christian experience. The problem again is twofold. First, the evidence is not uniform: If Luke intended to teach evidential tongues as normative, why does he not consistently present tongues as the immediate result of Spirit-baptism (for example, Acts 8:17; 9:17f.)? Second, even when tongues is connected to Spirit-baptism, it is doubtful whether this connection is made in order to present evidential tongues as a normative doctrine. In other words, it is difficult to argue that Luke, through his narrative, intended to teach this doctrine as articulated by modern Pentecostals. This does not appear to be his concern.

As noted above, we should be careful not to jump to the unwarranted conclusion that this judgment necessarily invalidates the doctrine of evidential tongues. Nevertheless, this is precisely the conclusion that is usually drawn. The reason is clearly articulated by Fee, who suggests that normative theology at this point must be grounded in Luke’s “primary intent” or “intention to teach.”⁸ But surely this is overly restrictive. Not all questions of normative teaching are rooted directly in the intention of the author. Hurtado notes the oft-cited illustration of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is not taught explicitly in the New Testament but developed on the basis of inferences from biblical teaching. Is it not valid to inquire about the character of Luke’s pneumatology, and then to wrestle with the implications which emerge from his pneumatology for our contemporary questions? Only “the most severe form of biblicism” would deny the validity of this sort of exercise.⁹

An exclusive focus on an author’s “primary intent” or “intention to teach” too often leads to a form of tunnel vision which ignores the implications of an individual text for the theological perspective of the author. This myopia is illustrated in Fee’s treatment of the Samaritan episode in Acts 8:4–17.” He argues that this passage is ultimately irrelevant to discussions concerning the doctrine of subsequence for Luke’s “primary intent” lies elsewhere. Now, the primary intent of the narrative, as Fee suggests, may be to stress that the expansion of the gospel beyond the bounds of Judaism had “divine and apostolic approval.” And, I would agree, it is unlikely that Luke consciously sought to teach here that the gift of the Spirit is normally separate from saving faith. Yet this does not allow us to ignore the clear implications of the narrative for Luke’s pneumatology. Indeed, the fact that Luke does separate the gift of the Spirit from saving faith clearly reveals his distinctive pneumatological perspective. Paul would not — indeed, I believe, could not — have interpreted and narrated the event in this way. Furthermore, this separation refutes the commonly accepted interpretation of the Lukan gift as “the climax of conversion-initiation.” In other words, the value of a passage for assessing the theological perspective of a given author cannot be reduced to its “primary intent.” A passage must be understood in terms of its original setting and intention, but the theological freight it carries may transcend its “primary intent.” Each piece of evidence must be taken seriously as we seek to reconstruct the theological perspective of the biblical author.

This leads to an important conclusion regarding theological method. The quest for normative theology is often a two-fold task, embracing both the disciplines of biblical and systematic theology. First, we must reconstruct the theological perspective of the biblical authors, thereby enabling them to take their rightful places at the roundtable. This task of reconstruction cannot be limited to a survey of the “primary intent” of isolated passages; rather, it calls for a careful analysis of the theological significance of the author’s entire work. Secondly, after the task of theological reconstruction is finished, we must bring our questions to the roundtable and listen attentively to the ensuing dialogue. Here we seek to hear the answers (by inference) to our questions which emerge from the various theological perspectives of the biblical authors. In the following sections we shall seek to employ this two-fold method in an attempt to evaluate the Pentecostal doctrine of evidential tongues.

The Contributions Of Biblical Theology

Let us then gather the biblical authors together at the roundtable. For our purposes, Luke and Paul will be sufficient. However, before we raise our question, it would be well for us simply to listen. We must listen to their discussion of significant matters related to the manifestation of tongues and prophetic speech. Paul is the first to respond. And, although his statement is not definitive for our question, it is significant nonetheless. Paul affirms that every Christian may — and indeed should — be edited through the private manifestation of tongues.

This statement is significant, for some have suggested that Paul limits tongues-speech to a few in the community who have been so gifted. Don Carson’s comments in Showing the Spirit are representative of this position.¹¹ On the basis of the rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 12:30 (“Do all speak in tongues?”), Carson argues that it is inappropriate to insist that all may speak in tongues: Not all have the same gift. This principle is central to Carson’s dismissal of tongues as evidence of a distinctive post-conversion experience. Yet Carson fails to acknowledge the complexity of the issue: 1 Corinthians 12:30 must be reconciled with 14:5 (“I would like everyone of you to speak in tongues”). Furthermore, he does not consider whether the reference in 12:30 is limited to the public manifestation of tongues. If, as the context suggests, this is the case, then the way is open for every believer to be edified personally through the private manifestation of tongues. It is striking that Carson fails to discuss this exegetical option when he acknowledges that, although all are not prophets (12:29), all may prophesy (14:31). Paul’s comment in 14:18 (“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.”), coupled with the reference in 14:5 noted above, indicates that Paul considered the private manifestation of tongues to be edifying, desirable, and available to every Christian.¹² It would appear that Carson has misread Paul and inappropriately restricted tongues-speech to a select group within the Christian community.

We now turn our attention to Luke. His contribution is multi-faceted. First, Luke reminds us of the prophetic character of the Pentecostal gift. We noted in Part One that Luke describes the gift of the Spirit exclusively in charismatic terms as the source of power for effective witness. That is to say, Luke does not, in a manner analogous to Paul, present the Spirit as a soteriological agent (the source of cleansing, justification, and sanctification). If we ask more specifically concerning the impact of the Spirit in Luke-Acts, we see that Luke’s perspective is quite similar to that of the Judaism of his day. First-century Jews identified the gift of the Spirit as the source of prophetic inspiration. This view was dominant for the Judaism which gave birth to the Early Church, with Wisdom of Solomon and the Hymns of Qumran providing the only exceptions.¹³ Thus, for example, Isaiah. 44:3 (“I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring,”) was interpreted by the rabbis as a reference to the outpouring of the Spirit of prophecy upon Israel; and the transformation of the heart referred to in Ezekiel 36:26f. was viewed as a prerequisite for the eschatological bestowal of the Spirit, generally interpreted in light of Joel 2:28f. as restoration of the Spirit of prophecy.^l4

As the source of prophetic inspiration, the Spirit grants special revelation and inspired speech. These twin functions are exemplified by the many instances where the rabbis speak of “seeing” or “speaking in the Spirit.” One early citation (probably pre-Christian), Aboth de Rabbi Nathan A.34, is also illustrative: “By 10 names was the Holy Spirit called, to wit: parable, metaphor, riddle, speech, saying, glory, command, burden, prophecy, vision.”¹⁵ Notice here how the various “names” identified with the Holy Spirit feature charismatic revelation (for example, “prophecy,” “vision”) and speech (for example, “speech,” “saying,” “command”).

Luke also presents the Spirit as the source of prophetic inspiration. This is apparent from the outset of his Gospel, which features outbursts of prophetic speech by Elizabeth (Luke 1:41,42) Zechariah (Luke 1:67), and Simeon (Luke 2:25–28). It is highlighted in the programmatic accounts of Jesus’ sermon at Nazareth (Luke 4:18,19) and Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:17,18). Both accounts indicate that the Lukan gift of the Spirit is intimately connected to inspired speech. Furthermore, references to Spirit-inspired speech punctuate Luke’s two-volume work (for example, Luke 10:21; 12:10–12; Acts 4:31; 6:10). Thus, when Luke reminds us of the prophetic character of the gift of the Spirit, he is in fact affirming that the Pentecostal gift is intimately linked to inspired speech.

The Contributions Of Systematic Theology

We are now in a position to press beyond the initial and foundational contributions of biblical theology, and particularly Paul and Luke. We must now put our questions before them: What is the nature of the relationship between tongues (glossolalia) and the Pentecostal gift? More specifically, is tongues the “initial physical evidence” of the baptism in the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5; 2:4)?

Paul must remain silent at this point. We have already noted that Paul’s theology does not stand in contradiction to evidential tongues. Nevertheless, since Paul does not speak specifically of the Pentecostal gift¹⁶ we are unable to reconstruct his contribution to the discussion at this point.

Luke, however, has much to say. Concerning the question of “initial physical evidence,” one might be inclined to hear in his answer an allusion to charismatic revelation and inspired speech, including both intelligible and unintelligible (glossolalia) utterances. Certainly Luke presents the Pentecostal gift as the source of prophetic inspiration, and this inspiration includes all three of these activities (charismatic revelation; intelligible speech; and glossolalia). Yet as we reflect on the question and listen attentively, we can hear that Luke’s answer is more precise. After all, “physical evidence” suggests visible or audible signs which verify reception of the Pentecostal gift. Thus, we can, without further ado, eliminate charismatic revelation from Luke’s response. Charismatic revelation, unless uttered in some way, cannot serve as “physical evidence,” for it lacks a visible or audible dimension. Furthermore, how is one to distinguish inspired intelligible speech from that which is uninspired? Although we may all be able to think of instances when intelligible speech was uttered in a manner which indicated the inspiration of the Spirit (spontaneous, edifying, appropriate), the point is that judgments of this kind are rather tenuous or approximate. Tongues-speech, however, because of its unusual and demonstrative character (the very reason it is both often maligned or overesteemed), is particularly well suited to serve as “evidence.” In short, if we ask the question concerning “initial physical evidence” of Luke, tongues-speech uniquely “fits the bill” because of its intrinsically demonstrative character.

There is evidence, apart from Luke’s larger pneumatology, that suggests this conclusion is harmonious with Luke’s perspective. The decisive sign of God’s favor on the Gentiles is their reception of the gift of the Spirit, manifested in tongues-speech (Acts 10:46). It is this sign which astonishes Peter’s circumcised companions and results in his command to baptize the Gentile converts (Acts 10:45–48). This emphasis on the sign-value of tongues speech is rooted in Luke’s prophetic pneumatology.

Since according to Luke reception of the Spirit is the exclusive privilege of “the servants” of God and produces miraculous and audible speech, by its very nature tongues-speech provides demonstrative proof that the uncircumcised members of Cornelius’ household have been incorporated into the community of salvation. The sign-value of tongues-speech is also emphasized in the Pentecost account (2:4f.; 17–20). Whether from the lips of a Jew in Jerusalem or a Gentile in Caesarea, the manifestation of tongues-speech marks the speaker as a member of the end-time prophetic community.

We are now in a position to summarize our findings. I have argued that the doctrine of “tongues as initial evidence,” although not explicitly found in the New Testament, is an appropriate inference drawn from the prophetic character of the Pentecostal gift and the evidential character of tongues speech. Although tongues speech, as a form of inspired or prophetic speech, is integral to the Pentecostal gift, Paul makes a significant contribution to the discussion by highlighting the potentially universal character of tongues-speech. Let us now turn to an evaluation of our approach and findings.

The Limitations Of Systematic Theology

Our approach to the “tongues” question is not based on arguments from historical precedent. I have not, on the basis of an analysis of isolated passages from the Books of Acts, sought to demonstrate that Luke intended to teach evidential tongues. Rather, drawing from the full scope of Luke’s two-volume work, I have focused on the nature of Luke’s pneumatology and, from this theological framework, sought to answer our contemporary question concerning “initial evidence.” Significant evidence from Paul has also been considered. The normative character of evidential tongues thus emerges, not from Luke’s primary intent, but rather as an implication from Luke’s prophetic pneumatology and Paul’s complementary perspective.

Larry Hurtado, as we have noted, acknowledges that doctrines cannot be judged invalid simply because they are not explicitly taught in Scripture. In principle, it is valid to base doctrine on inferences drawn from the text. And in practice, although we acknowledge that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture, we affirm its validity. However, Hurtado suggests that the doctrine of evidential tongues cannot be compared to that of the Trinity, and that while the latter is valid, the former is not. The Christian movement, from its earliest stages “was engaged in attempting to understand God in the light of Christ.”¹⁷ Thus later Trinitarian statements represent the culmination of a process which can be traced back to the apostolic age. Hurtado contrasts the apostolic origins of Trinitarian thought with the relatively modern origin of evidential tongues:

Unlike such matters as the Christian doctrine of God, the question of whether there is a separate level of Spirit empowerment subsequent to regeneration, with a required ‘evidence’ of it, seems not to be reflected at all in the New Testament.¹⁸

Yet Hurtado’s judgment needs to be re-examined. As we have noted, a careful analysis of Luke-Acts indicates that from its earliest days the Early Church was cognizant of “a separate level of Spirit empowerment subsequent to regeneration.” This level of empowerment was described by Luke in terms of the Pentecostal gift and promise. Furthermore, a process of development in the Early Church’s understanding of the work of the Spirit is clearly reflected in the writings of Mark, Matthew, Luke, Paul, and John. The evidence, I have argued, suggests that Paul was the first Christian to attribute soteriological significance to the gift of the Spirit and that his insight did not impact non-Pauline sectors of the Early Church until after the writing of Luke-Acts (probably around A.D. 70). This means that from its earliest days the Early Church knew only of “a level of Spirit empowerment subsequent to [or at least logically distinct from] regeneration.” Paul’s fuller understanding had to be integrated with this more primitive perspective. This indicates that the Pentecostal doctrine of Spirit-baptism also has apostolic roots.

I would acknowledge that “initial physical evidence” is a relatively recent theological formulation. Indeed, even the wording of the phrase is conditioned by historical circumstances. The focus on “evidence” reminds us of a day in which the scientific method had seized the imagination of the American people. Nevertheless, this modern formulation is related to a process of doctrinal development which is reflected in the New Testament and which has been largely ignored by modern exegetes. What is the nature of the Pentecostal gift? This question has been with the church since that first Pentecost day. The question with which we have been wrestling in this essay, What is the nature of the relationship between tongues (glossolalia) and the Pentecostal gift undoubtedly generated considerable discussion among Peter’s colleagues. Thus it is virtually certain that it accompanied the expansion of the church among the Gentiles.¹⁹ And it appears to be an inevitable question for those who would try to reconcile Paul’s gift-language with Luke’s Pentecostal gift. It appears that the pedigree of Pentecostal doctrine is not as shabby as Hurtado would suggest.

This is not to suggest that modern Pentecostal formulations are inspired. All theological formulations are the product of human beings and thus, for better or for worse, are human attempts to come to terms with the significance of the Word of God. All such formulations stand under the judgment of the Word of God. The phrase “initial physical evidence,” as all theological formulations, has its limitations. The focus on “evidence” can easily lead to a confusion of the gift with the sign. The Pentecostal gift is not tongues. It is rather an empowering which enables its recipient to effectively participate in the mission of God. The manifestation of tongues is an evidence of the Pentecostal dimension of the Spirit’s work, but not the gift itself. An inordinate focus on “evidence” may result in Christians who, looking back into the distant past, can remember the moment they “got it,” but for whom the Pentecostal dimension of power for witness is presently unknown.²⁰

Yet, this human formulation also captures well the sense of expectation called for by Luke and Paul: Tongues-speech is an integral part of the Pentecostal gift, edifying, and universally available; therefore, when one receives the gift, one would expect to manifest tongues. Furthermore, the manifestation of tongues is a powerful reminder that the Church is, by virtue of the Pentecostal gift, a prophetic community empowered for a missionary task.

This, of course, does not exhaust the theological significance of glossolalia. Frank Macchia, in a stimulating article, appropriately calls Pentecostals to further reflection on the theological significance of tongues-speech.²¹ In my judgment, Macchia highlights three areas of special significance. (1) Missiology: Is it not significant that “tongues” accompanies (and is a decisive “sign” of) God’s initiative in breaking through racial and economic barriers?²² (2) Eschatology: The manifestation of tongues reminds us that we, like those on that first Pentecost, live in the “last days” — that period of God’s gracious deliverance which immediately precedes the Day of the Lord (Acts 2:17) — and that God has called us to be a part of His glorious plan of salvation. (3) Ecclesiology: Tongues has been described as a Pentecostal “sacrament” (a visible sign of a spiritual reality), but one that is not bound to clergy or institution, and therefore one which has a powerful democratizing effect on the life of the Church. Is it purely coincidental that tongues-speech has frequently accompanied renewed vision for ministry among the laity?

Conclusion

We have argued that the Pentecostal doctrine of evidential tongues is an appropriate inference drawn from the prophetic character of Luke’s pneumatology (and more specifically, the Pentecostal gift) and Paul’s affirmation of the edifying and potentially universal character of the private manifestation of tongues. Our argument may be summarized as follows:

1. Paul affirms that the private manifestation of tongues is edifying, desirable, and universally available. In short, all should speak in tongues.

2. Luke affirms that the Pentecostal gift is intimately connected to inspired speech, of which tongues-speech is a prominent form, possessing a unique evidential character.

3. Therefore, when one receives the Pentecostal gift, one should expect to manifest tongues, and this manifestation of tongues is a uniquely demonstrative sign (evidence) that one has received the gift.

Although the doctrine of evidential tongues is formulated in modern language and addresses contemporary concerns, it is linked to a process of doctrinal development which extends back into the Apostolic Age. Indeed, the question it addresses undoubtedly accompanied the expansion of the Church among the Gentiles and it appears to be unavoidable for those who would try to reconcile Paul’s gift-language with Luke’s Pentecostal gift. The doctrine calls us to retain a biblical sense of expectancy, for it reminds us that the manifestation of tongues is an integral part of the Pentecostal gift, edifying, and universally available. Above all, the manifestation of tongues is a powerful reminder that the Church is, by virtue of the Pentecostal gift, a prophetic community empowered for a missionary task.

—Robert P. Menzies, is adjunct faculty for Asia Pacific Theological Seminary.

Endnotes

1. Minutes of the 44th Session of the General Council of the Assemblies of God (Portland, Oregon, August 6–11, 1991), 130.

2. Caird’s approach is summarized by L.D. Hurst, “New Testament Theological Analysis,” p. 145 in ed. Scott McKnight, Introducing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989).

3. Larry W. Hurtado, “Normal, but not a Norm: Initial Evidence and the New Testament,” in ed. G. McGee, Initial Evidence (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 191.

4. Ibid., 191.

5. Gordon Fee, “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent — A Major Problem in Pentecostal Hermeneutics” in ed. R.P. Spittler, Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), pp. 118–l32; see also “Baptism in the Holy Spirit: The Issue of Separability and Subsequence,” Pneuma 7:2 (1985), 87–99.

6. This is the case in spite of Donald A. Johns’ excellent article, “Some New Directions in the Hermeneutics of Classical Pentecostalism’s Doctrine of Initial Evidence,” 145–167. Johns’ article focuses on methodology and thus, by design, represents a provisional statement.

7. Hurtado, “Normal,” 189–201 and J. Ramsey Michaels, “Evidences of the Spirit, or the Spirit as Evidence? Some Non-Pentecostal Reflections,” 202–218 in ed. G. McGee, Initial Evidence (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991).

8. Gordon Fee, “Hermeneutics and Historical Precedent — A Major Issue in Pentecostal Hermeneutics” in Gospel and Spirit (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 83–99.

9. Hurtado, “Normal,” 191.

10. Gordon Fee, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), pp. 94–96; see also Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 97.

11. Don Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987).

12. Note also 1 Corinthians 14:4: “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself … ”

13. Robert Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to Luke-Acts (JSNTSup, 54; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 52–112.

14. Menzies,Development, 91–111.

15. ET from J, Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (1955). On the dating of ARN A.34, see Menzies,Development, 97–99.

16. Although Paul does not specifically relate the empowering dimension of the Spirit to the Pentecostal gift, this Lukan contribution accords well with Paul’s theological perspective.

17. Hurtado, “Normal,” 192.

18. Ibid, 192.

19. P.F. Esler, “Glossolalia and the Admission of Gentiles into the Early Christian Community,” Bib Theol Bull 22 (1992), 136–142.

20. The phrase “accompanying sign” is a possible useful alternative.

21. Frank D. Macchia, “The Question of Tongues as Initial Evidence: A Review of Initial Evidence, edited by Gary B. McGee,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 2 (1993), 117–127.

22. See M. Dempster, “The Church’s Moral Witness: A Study of Glossolalia in Luke’s Theology of Acts,” Paraclete 23:l (1989), 1–7.