Acts 2:6Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Since by the Law they could appear in the temple three times a year, devout men from all nations were living there. Observe from the present case how the writer does not flatter them. He did not say that they gave their voice. What, then? 'The multitude came together and was confounded.' This was natural. They thought that the present event threatened them with destruction because of what they had dared to do against Christ. On the other hand, conscience also shook their souls, since the murder was still, so to speak, in their hands. Everything frightened them.

'The multitude was confounded.' This was natural, because those who ran together thought that the event threatened them for the crime they had committed against Christ. Their conscience tore their souls, since the killing of Christ was still fresh in memory, and they were afraid of everything. But this strengthened the Apostles, since the hearers themselves informed them that this was a miraculous gift. The Apostles did not understand that a given expression was Parthian, but learned this from the hearers.

We Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, (verse 10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene. There are also among us visitors from Rome, Jews and proselytes, (verse 11) Cretans and Arabs. We hear them speaking in our languages, preaching the great works of God.'

Even the hour of prayer was forgotten. All who were going to the temple surrounded those who proclaimed the greatness of God.

Some wondered whence simple Galileans had knowledge of such a multitude of diverse languages. Others, perhaps local inhabitants, did not understand what they heard and mocked.

Examination of the Question of the Gift of Tongues

Having explained the circumstances of the event with which the existence of the Church of Christ begins, we must pay special attention to the gift communicated to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Many learned theologians understand the Apostles' gift of tongues in an improper sense. They say that the gift of tongues is nothing other than the sending down of the ability and power to speak to the people in an inspired and captivating manner.

They explain that λαλείν έτέραις γλώσσαις (Acts 2:4) means the same as γλώσσαις καιναίς in Mk 16:17. They say this is the same as Mt 10:19-21 or Lk 21:15, that is, to speak with an inspired tongue, with unconquerable and captivating force.

At the same time they suppose that among the so-called Galileans there were some who did not speak the Galilean dialect. On the other hand, they suppose that among the foreign languages heard here one should not seek the languages of all the nations enumerated by St. Luke.

Several neighboring peoples could speak one language. They might understand Greek or Roman.

Finally they add that, when the Evangelist notes the amazement of those who heard the Apostles' preaching, Luke wishes to mark only one thing. Carnal Jews, instead of attending to the preaching of the heralds of the Gospel, merely wondered whence Galileans had such learning that they could speak foreign languages.

Some did still worse. They mocked the speeches of the Apostles, which they did not understand.

But first it must be noted that all who spoke were generally disciples of Jesus Christ. Moreover, through long association with Him, they had been counted worthy of the name believers. All these were Palestinian Jews.

Only at the end of the ministry of Jesus Christ did Greeks begin to come (Jn 12:21). Yet these Greeks had not become so close to Him as to receive the name believers or to enter the number of His disciples.

If so, then in all probability the disciples could know only their native language. Some knew Greek, and others perhaps Phoenician, but no more.

Meanwhile the astonishment of foreigners from many nations shows that far more diverse languages were heard on this occasion. The supposition that "the languages of not all the nations named by Luke were heard among the Apostles" rests on nothing.

On the contrary, all these nations heard "each his own language" (Acts 2:8).

The words of Mk 16:17 are not explained by the words of Luke (21:20) or Matthew (10:19-21). These are not parallel passages.

In Mark the Lord speaks of general signs that will accompany believers. In Matthew and Luke He speaks of help given to the Apostles if they are brought to judgment before authorities.

They say: 1. The Apostles used interpreters, or translators, for example Peter used Mark (Eus. H. E. III, 39; Clem. Strom. VII, 7.765).

2. The Apostles Paul and Barnabas did not know the language of the Lycaonians (Acts 14:11).

3. The Greek language of the New Testament writers contains a great deal of Hebrew. In the Apostles' manner of expression it is evident that they learned Greek by way of Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic. Their Greek is not pure.

4. They did not need knowledge of many languages. First, their preaching was limited to the boundaries of the Roman Empire, and for many only to Palestine or to Jews in general.

In the Roman Empire one could act quite successfully with knowledge of one dominant language. Second, this gift was revealed and communicated only for prayer (1 Cor 14:13-17).

5. The passages Acts 10:46; 19:6 and 1 Cor 14:13 compel us to understand by γλώσσαις λαλέιν something different from a suddenly awakened ability to speak foreign languages.

6. Finally, only from the third century, from the time of Origen, did people begin to teach that on the day of Pentecost the Apostles received knowledge of languages unknown to them.

Irenaeus and Tertullian, speaking of the gift of tongues as still existing in their time and as having existed before, bring it close to the gift of προψητεία.

Against the first point we answer: 'Ερμηνευτής need not mean a translator. Mark could even have been a translator into a language unknown to the Apostle Peter. For Peter certainly did not know all languages.

The Apostle Paul also tells the Corinthians that he speaks in tongues more than they do. Yet he does not say that he can speak in all tongues.

The last observation also stands against the second point.

Against the third point it is enough to say this. When the Apostles received the ability to speak a new language, they were not deprived of all their previous concepts, which came from a Hebrew source. Therefore it is natural to find much that is Hebrew in their speech.

Against the fourth point, first, we note that even if the limits of apostolic preaching were truly confined to the Roman Empire, one still could not say that knowledge of one dominant language was enough for them.

In very many places that dominant language was inaccessible to the common people, with whom they generally first had to deal.

In Asia Minor alone there were many different languages, according to Strabo (Geogr. Lib. 12, p. 524). Mithridates, king of Pontus, who ended his course a little more than sixty years before Christ, knew twenty-three languages of the peoples subject to him (Plin. Hist. natural, Lib. 7, c. 24; A. Gell. Noct. Attic. Lib. 17, c. 17).

But if one gives full meaning to the Savior's words, "Go and teach all nations," then no doubt remains. With ordinary methods of learning languages, the Apostles would have extended their preaching very little.

Second, the Apostle censures the use of the gift of language in prayers without interpretation. Yet this does not mean that it was revealed only in this case.

Otherwise the Apostle would be censuring the Spirit Himself, who distributes these gifts. Rather, he teaches how to handle this gift in the Church. This in no way excludes the possibility of using it on other occasions and for other purposes.

Against the fifth point: sound philology requires that the meaning of a word or expression appearing more than once in a work be determined, if possible, by its first use.

Now the expression γλώσσαις λαλείν in chapters 10 and 19 of Acts does not explain itself. It is clearly taken from the history in chapter 2 of the same book.

There and here the action is one and the same. But in chapter 2, as we have seen, γλώσσαις λαλείν cannot mean merely inspired speech.

The Apostle Peter says (Acts 11:15) that in this case the same thing happened to the house of Cornelius as to the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. It is evident that such cases were rare.

Therefore the former passages should not explain the latter, but the latter should explain the former.

As for 1 Cor 14, there too one cannot understand only an ecstatic language. One cannot understand it as an expression of praises intelligible only to the one who utters them.

Rather, one must understand the gift of speaking in foreign languages.

First, if in this chapter the expression γλώσσαις λαλείν is given the former meaning, then it cannot be said to be the same as γλώσσαις έτέραις λαλείν (Acts 2:4). Those who heard the Apostles understood what they were saying (v. 11).

On the contrary, in both places, both 1 Cor 14 and Acts 2, the same circumstances are supposed. There is speaking in tongues, and there are foreigners present who understand those languages (cf. 1 Cor 14:23).

Second, the Apostle says, "Tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers" (1 Cor 14:22). Brief unintelligible sayings cannot in themselves be a sign even for an unbeliever.

On the contrary, from disconnected words that have no clear meaning, the hearer could conclude that the speaker is ignorant. Tongues will be a sign also for unbelievers when a man who previously did not know a language suddenly speaks in a new language.

Third, in verse 21 the Apostle cites the words of Isaiah (28:13), which speak precisely of foreign and unknown languages. He applies these words without any limitation to the matter of his discussion about tongues.

In Isaiah the Lord tells His people that He will speak in a foreign language, in the language of those who have taken them captive. As there no other meaning of the word tongue can be understood, so also here.

Fourth, only in the sense of proper languages can these words of the Apostle have meaning: "to another, kinds of tongues" (1 Cor 12:10). Chrysostom also understood it this way (Hom. 29 in 1 Cor.).

Against the testimonies we answer that none of them says anything directly in favor of the stated supposition.

On the contrary, Irenaeus clearly shows that the tongues of these "perfect" people must be understood in the proper sense as foreign languages. He says of himself that he did not have the gift of tongues, and that, having come to Gaul, he had to learn the native language.

Yet he writes that in his time there were those who had prophetic gifts, spoke through the Spirit in all kinds of languages, and revealed human mysteries (advers. Haer. 5, 6; Euseb. H. E. 5, 6).

He notes that the Apostle has in mind these people, who received the Spirit of God and spoke in all languages by the Spirit of God, where he says, "We speak wisdom among the perfect."

From the Apostle's words, "I thank my God..." one can conclude that this ability could also depend on the moral qualities of the person.

Traces of the antiquity of this understanding of the event of Pentecost, and of the gift of tongues in the Apostolic and later Church generally, may also be seen in Philostratus.

When describing the life of Apollonius of Tyana, whom he wished to set against Jesus Christ, he noted that Apollonius knew not only all human languages, but also the language of animals (Phil. de vita Apollonis L. I, cap. 13; cf. Euseb. contr. Hieroclem p. 521).

In Church history later examples occur of miraculous understanding of foreign languages, for example in Ephrem the Syrian.

Christ's disciples, mostly Galileans by origin, were known to be unlearned and uneducated men. No knowledge of any foreign language could be expected from them, apart from their Galilean dialect. Yet each of these men was speaking in some foreign language. Therefore, however diverse the crowd was in origin and language, each heard among those speaking of the great works of God someone who praised God in the language of his own land.

Then they began inspired speech. It poured irresistibly from their mouths, formed of words in which each word was their heart, their embodied faith and love for their heavenly Teacher. What were the most famous orators of the classical world before them? They composed their speeches according to the rules of art, speeches animated only by their poor vanity. The inspired speeches of the Apostles thundered like thunder shaking mountains. They acted with the force of a hammer breaking rocks. Countless crowds listened in silence to the wondrous speeches. They marveled more at these speeches than at the dread manifestations that had drawn them there.

Under the first irresistible impression of these speeches, the masses of the people did not notice their miraculous outward feature. They only felt that these speeches were extraordinary. They felt that they pierced to the marrow and burned the listeners' hearts like fire. But when the first impression had passed, the multilingual masses looked at one another to share what they had experienced. Then they noticed with amazement that each had heard the speeches just delivered in his own native language. From astonishment, everyone's face seemed to freeze.

How could this be? The Egyptian, who until then had prided himself that his language was known only to those born in the land of the pyramids, now heard his own language. The Greek and the Roman, who considered their language the possession only of educated men, also heard each his own language. And from whom? From these ignorant, obscure, poor Galileans, whose very name sounded contemptuous. At first their silent amazement began to express itself in words and exclamations. A murmur of exclamations and questions ran through the masses. All turned to one another for an explanation of the mysterious event. 'Are not all these who speak Galileans?' they asked one another in astonishment. 'And how do we hear, each in our own native language, how we hear them speaking in our languages of the great works of God? And again all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another: What does this mean?'

Therefore it is not surprising that a multitude gathered at the house.

After the Apostle Peter's speech, about three thousand people were added to the Church that day. From this one can see how great was the number gathered around the house where the assembly was held.

Perhaps it was even larger than this number, since it may be supposed that not all who heard Peter's speech were baptized, and that some did not believe.

Because of such a large number of people gathered, one must suppose that around the house there was a significant open space, a square, where such a crowd could fit.

“They were confounded,” and so forth. The unusual sound from heaven gathered the people to the house. What the people then heard brought them into confusion and bewilderment.

The character of this confusion is indicated further by the words “they were amazed and marveled,” and “they were amazed and perplexed” (vv. 7, 12).

The people were struck by the extraordinary, unexpected, and inexplicable character of what they saw and heard, and so they were confounded.

“Each heard them speaking in his own dialect”: the Greek expression does not mean that each of Christ's disciples spoke in different dialects.

It means only that each of those gathered heard his own dialect. That is, some of the disciples spoke one dialect, others another, and still others a different one.

In their speech the Parthian heard his own dialect, the Mede his own, and so on. However, the ancient interpreters supposed that each of the disciples spoke, or could then speak, in all the languages of the world.

“Each heard them speaking”: pause here a little and consider how to divide the speech. There is an ambiguity in the phrase, removed by punctuation.

Did each hear in his own dialect in such a way that, so to speak, one voice went forth, but many voices were heard because of a trembling in the air? Or, to speak more clearly, did many voices proceed from one voice?

Or should we pause after the word “heard” and join the words “speaking in their own voices” to what follows? Then the sense would be that they uttered voices which were proper to the hearers, that is, foreign-language voices.

I agree more with the latter. The former would be a miracle belonging more to the hearers than to the speakers. They were the ones accused of being drunk.

This shows that, by the action of the Spirit, they themselves performed the miracle in the uttering of the voices (Gregory the Theologian).

“Dialect”: the expression points partly to different languages and partly to different dialects of one or another language.

Among those named below, the different languages include Persian, Greek, Roman, and Egyptian. The dialects of the same languages include Parthian, Median, and Elamite, which are dialects of Persian.

Cappadocian, Pontic, Phrygian, and Pamphylian are dialects of Greek, and so forth.

Thus Christ's disciples spoke both in different languages and in different dialects of languages. The very letter of the narrative under consideration speaks positively and definitely in this way.

Every other interpretation of this narrative would be arbitrary, forced, and a deviation from the true meaning of the account.

They spoke of the great works of God, accomplished now and recently. They knew that these works were of interest to all (see Lk 24:18), and they were drawn to this by the Spirit of God (see Acts 2:4, 11). Since among those gathered there were people whose languages differed sharply and others whose languages differed only slightly, the writer of Acts calls all the languages dialects. In this he seems to follow those who heard their own dialect with all its particular features, distinguishing it from others and understood only by those born among speakers of that language. From this it is revealed that the Apostles' speech in foreign languages was not only intelligible to different people, but also pleasing as fully native and fully perfect speech.

'So many years are needed, with the help of grammar and other sciences, to learn to speak only Greek well, and not everyone speaks alike. But the Holy Spirit teaches many languages at once, languages wholly unknown to those taught by Him,' said Saint Cyril of Jerusalem. 'By the action of the Spirit they worked wonders in the utterance of foreign sounds,' says Saint Gregory the Theologian.