Featured Xenoglossy in Church History?

The 'beloved teaching' here is sticking to the actual context of to whom the charge from Christ was given. It wasn't to 120, it was to 11.

 

I don't follow you at all here. Are you saying that the great commission was only for the 11? What about Matthias? Did it apply to him? What about Paul? What about all of us?

And if the focus was on the 11 plus Matthias, why does it specially mention the others? And why did Luke not clarify that the tongues of fire and the gift of speaking in tongues only refer to the 11 or 12, instead of Luke saying, "each one of them" and "all" (see Acts 2:3-4)?

And why did Peter use the passage from Joel to explain what was going on that specifically says "your sons and daughters shall prophesy" and "even on my bondslavevs, both men and women," if there were only men speaking in tongues?

Beyond that, look at the two other incidents of tongue speaking in Acts:

Acts 10:44-48 - The people who spoke in tongues were NOT Peter and his group, but Cornelius and his family and friends. That would mean imply that Jewish believers who were in the Upper Room with the 11/12, did not receive the power of the Spirit like the Gentiles.

Acts 19:6 - The people who spoke in tongues were the disciples of John, not Paul and his team. Again, that would mean that God purposely excluded the about 100 faithful and praying believers who were with the 12, while he indiscriminately gave the disciples of John the gift.

Your view has God restricting the work of the Spirit to a few, while the scripture teaches that God gives the Spirit without measure (see John 3:34).

Your view just does not make sense. It seems the only reason to interpret it your way is to exclude women and diminish any expectation that God might work miracles through normal people.

 

In post #13 you mention an entity 13 times, "the 120".

I can count at least 18 NT references to "the twelve" and at least 5 NT references to "the eleven" but no references, OT or NT, to "the hundred and twenty".

"The 120" is strange fire.

First there were the twelve:
70 Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil?
71 Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. Jn 6

Then there were the eleven:
16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. Mt 28

Then there were the twelve again:
26 And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. Acts 1
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth unto them, saying, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and give ear unto my words. Acts 2
2 And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Acts 6

 

I do not doubt that God will dictate both the servant and message delivered by the Holy Spirit when sheep are re-titled “his adopted.”

If God desires communication in the native language, then be it by language school study, on sight interpreter or direct intervention by God, it matters little.

That humankind get the attention, the recognition, and even some attempt status seeking by such happening displays the ungodly aspects and false prophets.

No account is given concerning bragging, assigning something special, some gift, or anything other than anecdote of how the message was delivered to those who heard is presented in Scripture.

 

Good point.

For certain "the eleven" were in the room at Jerusalem:

12 Then did they return to Jerusalem from the mount that is called of Olives, that is near Jerusalem, a sabbath`s journey;
13 and when they came in, they went up to the upper room, where were abiding both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James, of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zelotes, and Judas, of James; Acts 1 Young's Literal Translation

While 'the eleven now the twelve' are not specified here...:

1 And in the day of the Pentecost being fulfilled, they were all with one accord at the same place,
2 and there came suddenly out of the heaven a sound as of a bearing violent breath, and it filled all the house where they were sitting, Acts 2 Young's Literal Translation

...neither is an entity called "the 120".

'The eleven now the twelve' is again specified here:

13 and others mocking said, -- `They are full of sweet wine;`
14 and Peter having stood up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and declared to them, `Men, Jews! and all those dwelling in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and harken to my sayings,
15 for these are not drunken, as ye take it up, for it is the third hour of the day. Acts 2 Young's Literal Translation

But no mention of an entity called "the 120".

 

That’s not an argument against the clear statement in Acts 1:15:

At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said...​

You are trying to use the frequency of terms to undermine a clear statement of scripture. Are you also going to attack Paul’s statement that Jesus appeared to 500 believers at once?:

...and that [Jesus] was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep... — 1 Corinthians 15:4-6​

Haven’t you noticed in this passage that Paul refers to Jesus appearing to Peter, “then to the twelve” — this was after the death of Judea and before the selection of Matthias, so there were only eleven of the primary disciples (aka, “apostles”) of Jesus alive at the time. Paul is either using “the twelve” in a symbolic way or is counting Matthias with the eleven at the time since he would eventually take that position after the ascension of Jesus.

People often forget that Jesus walked around with many more disciples than just the Twelve. The Twelve symbolized the 12 Tribes of Israel traveling with YHWH through the wilderness. There were many other with Jesus, such as the women who followed Jesus (see Luke 8:1-3) and those who had walked with Jesus from His baptism onward, like Joseph/Barsabbas/Justus and Matthias:

Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. — Acts 1:21-23​

Moreover, Jesus sent out 72 or 70 disciples to preach the Kingdom of God with attesting miracles recounted in Luke 10:1-20. So there were more than the Twelve who were performing miracles and announcing the kingdom.

So you insistence that it was only the newly-formed Twelve preaching and participating in the miracle of Pentecost based on your “strange fire” analysis of scripture is short-sighted and does not take into account a lot of obvious biblical evidence to the contrary.

It depends on the facility and how crowded it was. Jerusalem undoubtably had places to rent or homes large enough to hold events. The culture had weddings and bar mitzvahs on a regular basis, so there would be a need for these kinds of places. Your objection is based on a lack of imagination and a rejection of Luke’s clear statement in Acts 1:15 that there were 120 people there. Rejecting the parts of scripture that you find inconvenient for your theology will only lead to ruin.

Verse 14 names some of the women who were there, along with the mother of Jesus and His brothers. And verse 15 tells us that there were 120 persons (literally “names”) there.

Pay attention to how Luke has described this. He was a very careful writer and only includes specific elements such as names and number when it is relevant to something before or after. He wanted us to know that more than the 12 were present, so he describes the other AFTER the Twelve. The last number that was mentioned before the miracle of Pentecost was 120, not 12. By the way, you realize that in biblical symbolism 12 symbolizes faith while 10 symbolizes perfection, harmony, creation and wholeness. When God have the Law, He gave 10 Commandments, as well as more than 500 other laws. Therefore 120 is a symbolicly meaningful number (12X10=120) for a moment where God does something new in the giving of the Spirit.

That’s correct, but Luke’s carefully written context — as well as the participation of people other than the Twelve in miracles before and after this — gives us the most natural reading of the passage to be that 120 persons experienced the tongues of fire and began to prophesy.

Sure, this proves my case. Luke has to tell us that it is now only the 12 (Peter plus the other 11) who are speaking, since he previously had told us what happened with the 120.

Luke has made it extremely clear and even given you the specific number of 120. Why can’t you accept the plain meaning of the scripture?

 

Not talking about Acts 1:15. I'm talking about your insertion of "the 120" into the Pentecost narrative of Acts 2:

They're not mentioned in 2nd chapter. Only these:

13 and others mocking said, -- `They are full of sweet wine;`
14 and Peter having stood up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and declared to them, `Men, Jews! and all those dwelling in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and harken to my sayings,
15 for these are not drunken, as ye take it up, for it is the third hour of the day. Acts 2 Young's Literal Translation

@Steven Yeadon asks an excellent question:

1 And in the day of the Pentecost being fulfilled, they were all with one accord at the same place,
2 and there came suddenly out of the heaven a sound as of a bearing violent breath, and it filled all the house where they were sitting, Acts 2 Young's Literal Translation​

 

You need to know that the chapters and verses were adding many years after Luke wrote this account. Luke expects us to read the account seamlessly, not reset at every new chapter heading.

I have “inserted’ nothing. I made a clear case for my position that you have either skipped or ignored. You are simply reasserting what I have already refuted.

If you had actually read my previous response, you would have seen that I responded directly to his query about how 120 could all be in the same house. I will repeat it here:

It depends on the facility and how crowded it was. Jerusalem undoubtably had places to rent or homes large enough to hold events. The culture had weddings and bar mitzvahs on a regular basis, so there would be a need for these kinds of places. Your objection is based on a lack of imagination and a rejection of Luke’s clear statement in Acts 1:15 that there were 120 people there. Rejecting the parts of scripture that you find inconvenient for your theology will only lead to ruin.​

Since you missed my response to Steven’s query in the midst of my previous post, it is clear you didn’t read it. Moreover, you are not actually interacting with anything I wrote. The only conclusion I can draw is that you are not interesting in actually discussing something and possibly learning something new, but instead just trying to “win” an argument at the risk of misrepresenting scripture and hardening yourself against it showing you something new.

I’m not going to attempt to dialogue with you anymore about this subject.

 

"The 120" is strange fire to the Pentecost narrative. You've inserted something that is not there in the original.