The first scripture verse I was taught in Sunday School as a child was
Acts 2:38, and I'm sure it is still the first verse most children of the faith are taught to memorize.
Acts chapter two seems to be the main reference for all things "Holy Ghost" related. When someone asks about tongues or the infilling of the Spirit, we always point them to Acts chapter two - the birth of Pentecostalism. Even Peter, in Acts chapter 11, refered back to the first Holy Ghost experience when defending the Gentiles receiving of the gift. Acts chapter two is the foundation of the Apostolic/Pentecostal faith. And I believe it is also the foundation upon which every other recorded Holy Ghost out-pouring or reference in the Bible stands.
However, everytime I read this passage, or any other similar passage, I always encounter conflicts between what I've been taught is Holy Ghost, and what is recorded in the Word. I'd like to discuss some of these inconsistencies. They may seem small and insignificant, but I'd like to cover them nonetheless, just to be thorough.
1. These are not drunken, as ye suppose - the signs of the out-pouring
I've always been fed that Peter's words meant "These men and women are not drunk in the way you think they are. That somehow what Peter is saying is "These men and women ARE drunk, but not like you think they are. They are drunk on the Spirit!"
This is an error. When the onlookers heard the disciples
speaking in tongues, they were amazed,
confused (1 Cor. 14:2), doubtful, and some mocked - calling them drunken.
Look at Peter's words:
"...for these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day..."
Notice the how the "
as ye suppose" is offset by commas. I believe this means, "You suppose these are drunken, but they aren't. It's only the third hour of the day!"
I must disagree with every preacher/evangelist who ever said, "Peter didn't deny they were drunk! He knew they were drunk!" I believe Peter was saying just the opposite.
If I'm right, and this is what Peter was saying, then it leaves a whole lot of explaining for those who embrace our more...modern...signs of the out pouring as "drunkeness," because now they have no firm ground to stand on when trying to explain:
Slain in the Spirit
Slurred Speach
Moaning/Wailing
Sobbing/Screaming and tears
Reeling, running and jumping
I believe I am right, by Peter's next words...Read on in
Acts 2
Peter informs them that what is going on (which is, by the way, ONLY speaking in tongues) is the fulfilled prophecy of the out-pouring of God's Spirit. He then lists what the effects of the out-pouring will be:
prophecy
visions
dreams
Why are none of our modern signs recorded in this list? And why are they nowhere to be found in
Acts 4, 8, 10, or 19 either when the Holy Ghost was again poured out?
I'm not seeking to rid the church of all emotion. LOL!!!!! Just pondering this.
2. We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Everytime someone recieves the "Holy Ghost" nowadays, they speak in a "heavenly language," just like in
Acts 2, right?
Wrong.
In Acts chapter 2 the tongues were not a "heavenly" language. They were earthly languages. We can argue all day about this, but the Word is very clear. What those onlookers heard were the tongues of earth. The substance of those words was heavenly (praise to God) but the words themselves were undeniably earthly.
So, who invented the idea that the intial evidence of recieving the Holy Ghost is speaking in a "heavenly" language?
That's all I can think of right now. Maybe more later.
God Bless!
Threaded Mode
