Artists for twenty centuries have tried to capture the well-known story of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-13) in paintings and murals and icons. The in- breaking of the Holy Spirit—sometimes in the form of a dove, sometimes as strong rays of light, sometimes both in a creative combination—has been a significant element in nearly all representations. What I find more interesting, however, and what has struck me on recent explorations of these images, is the expression on the faces of the people in the paintings. They are not, as one might expect, filled with great joy and amazement at this incredible experience. Rather, they are confused and perplexed. Indeed, it appears that the in-breaking of the Spirit is unsettling!

This is not the picture we in the church typically have in mind as we prepare our Pentecost services. In most churches, Pentecost is a time of great color and excitement. Sanctuaries are decked out in reds and oranges, and the church is aglow with the Spirit. It is not uncommon on Pentecost Sunday to participate in a service in which members throughout the congregation simultaneously read aloud a prayer in many different languages, celebrating what is known throughout Christendom as the “birth” of the Church. While there is much to be said for this bright and festive celebration of Pentecost, perhaps we need to return to the text, read it again, and listen anew to the story of Pentecost.

A Reading of Acts 2:1-13

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. The followers of Jesus were gathered together to celebrate one of the three most significant festivals of the Jewish year, Pentecost or Shavuot This harvest festival was a thanksgiving for the first fruits of the spring harvest and it took place fifty days after Passover. By the time of the writing of the New Testament it was also associated with the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai.

And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. As we read this line we are not surprised by this imagery of the power of God. The “rush of a violent wind” is reminiscent of ruah, the wind of God’s presence in Ezekiel 37:9-14 that animates the dry bones or the “wind” of John 3:8 which you may hear yet never know whence it comes or where it goes.

Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them and a tongue rested on each of them. This image is ubiq- uitously reflected in many written and visual images of the Pentecost experience. It is from this line that we get the bright lights and colors of our Pentecost services, the reds and oranges of the flame. Fire is indeed a com- mon image of theophany. In this verse we hear echoes of the promise of John the Baptist as he announces one coming after him who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Luke 3:16,17).

All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them abili- ty. Many English translations of verse 4 say “tongues” rather than “languages,” leading readers to hear echoes of the “gift of tongues” as we know it from the letters of Paul. But clearly, as we will see in the following verses, this gift is one that requires translation, interpretation, and not the ecstatic speech of 1 Corinthians 14.

Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. The scene changes and suddenly we have many people from many nations a part of our Pentecost picture, many hearing the cacophony of the spirit-filled folk. This verse vali- dates our conclusion that the “speaking in tongues” was not the unintelligible language of the Spirit. Rather what appears to be going on here is that despite the variety of nations represented in this story, each was able to “hear” and “understand” what was being spoken because it was spoken in each one’s own language!

Amazed and astonished, they asked, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us in our own native language?” . . .    All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” But others sneered and said, “They are filled with new wine.” Too good to be true, perhaps. Certainly too good to consider valid. The only reasonable expla- nation is the effect of too much drink.

A Re-reading of Acts 2:1-13

We have long read and interpreted this story to be one of great joy that on this occasion in the nascent days of the Church God’s magnificent in-breaking empowered the disciples to speak in a multiplicity of languages so that the Gospel could be heard and understood by many people from many nations. (But we must not forget the requisite skeptics.) Interpretations of this story focus on the unifying act of the Spirit, and interpreters frequently refer to the story of the tower of Babel in contrast to this story of Pentecost.

The story of Babel, told in Genesis 11:1-9, describes a time when “the whole earth had one language and the same words,” and the people worked together to build a city and a tower that would reach to the heavens so that they might remain where they are and not be scattered. The story tells us, however, that God sees what is taking place and confuses their language and scatters them abroad over the face of the earth. Commentators and preachers often set these stories up as opposites, argu- ing that the story of Pentecost is the reversal of the story of the tower of Babel. Language, so confused in Babel, is restored at Pentecost to the common language of the Spirit, which is understood by everyone. People once scattered (in Babel) are now brought together in community in the story of the birth of the church.

It is indeed interesting to read these two stories together, but I would argue that they are not best seen as point/counterpoint but rather as strangely parallel renderings of the unsettling nature of the in-breaking of the Spirit.

In both stories the characters are tucked safely away in comfortable places. In the tower of Babel story all are tucked within the walls of safety and are one. They are so well ensconced in that place that they are under the illusion that if they work hard enough they can reach the heavens, make a name for themselves, and not be scattered. In the Pentecost story, the apostles are gath- ered together all in one place. We have the idea certainly that they are gathered there in safety, keeping to themselves and keeping others out as they determine how to begin this work of theirs.

In both stories God clearly makes God’s self known, and the result is great confusion! (Note that the Greek word used in Acts 6 for “confusion” is the same word used in the Septuagint version of Genesis 11:7.) In the Babel story we read that God decides to “go down and confuse their language” (11:7), and confuse it God does. This confusion forces them from their safe place; they must go out from there and live in their diversity. It is interesting to note that recent interpretations of the story of Babel have moved from the typical interpretation of this story as punishment for the fallen nature of these evil folk to a look at the story in light of God’s realizing that they will never reach their potential if they stay safely in one place with one language. By having diversity thrust into their midst they are forced to go out and reach their potential. Regardless of which interpretation one accepts, the movement in this story is from unity to diversity.

In the story in Acts the apostles are safely in one place, and with the in-breaking of the Spirit comes the incredible experience of multiplicity of languages. While many have understood this to be the unifying act of the Spirit, the text tells us not that all then speak in one language but that they are speaking and hearing each in their own! This is not a story about imposing a uniform expression of the Gospel. Rather it is about speaking and hearing the Gospel in a diversity of languages. This act of the Spirit does indeed make the story understandable to many, but it also—as in the story of Babel—leaves many confused and others skeptical.

Such a rereading of the Pentecost story (and the story of Babel) shows that in both cases the people of God are called on to look outside themselves in order truly to be God’s people. By shifting our focus from the unifying nature to the unsettling nature of the Spirit, we begin to see that the birth of the Church was not an imposition of uniformity but a blessing of multiple expressions of the Gospel. Sometimes the work of the Spirit pushes us out of the familiar into the unknown.

A Reading of Acts 2:1-13 in Light of Current Biblical Scholarship

This rereading of the Pentecost story with its focus on the unsettling nature of the in-breaking of the Spirit has prompted me to reflect on the significance of this reading for my own work both as a professor of New Testament and as a minister of Word and Sacrament in the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). It is my privilege to teach at one of the most multicultural, multi-ethnic theological institutions in the U.S.A. (American Baptist Seminary of the West and the Graduate Theological Union of Berkeley, California). I am amazed and delighted on a daily basis with the diverse student body as we struggle together to understand the sacred text of the New Testament. I also have the privilege of preaching and teaching in churches throughout California, also home to great diversity. As I have looked anew at the story in Acts, I am aware that the discipline of biblical studies is making great efforts to overcome the hegemonic rule of historical-critical interpretation of the text because it has proven to be insufficient for the task of reaching the great diversity of readers.

The shift from the regnant historical interpretation paradigms of the first half of the twentieth century to the variety of paradigms from the 1970s to the present has not been without its critics. Much like the skeptics of the Pentecost story, the skeptics of new paradigms have wondered at the sanity or value of such shifts. Why confuse the study with these “fads” ? But the shift is still taking place, and we are today in a place of great excite- ment. Never before have so many doors to the biblical text been opened. In many ways, we have dared to come down from our ivory towers, dared to leave our safe places and to engage in dialogue with others.

Inevitably in a New Testament class one question that recurs is “What does this text mean?” And, in good pedagogical form, I answer a question with a question, saying, “What do you mean by ‘mean’?” Yes, the more we study the New Testament the more aware we become that texts don’t have a meaning; they have what Brian Blount, an African American New Testament scholar, rightly calls “meaning potential” (Cultural Interpretation: Reorienting New Testament Criticism). How do we access this “meaning potential”? We access it contextually.

Granted, this is not new to those of you who have done any study of the Bible. We have, of course, for years been concerned with the context of the text. This is what drives our “background checks” before we try to unravel what a text is saying. For example, we attempt to learn (and teach) something about the first-century Roman Empire, first-century Judaism, first-century Greco-Roman religions, and so on. It’s this kind of research that helps us understand what the text is talk- ing about with its references to centurions, praetori- ums, tetrarchs, ethnarchs, and denarii. It’s this kind of research that helps us understand what the text is talking about with its references to Sadducees, Pharisees, prophecies, synagogues, and shekels. It is this kind of research that helps us understand what the text is talking about with its references to magicians, idols, and altars to unknown gods.

No, we have not ignored the impact of cultural context on the interpretation of the biblical text in the past. But, the culture we have been most concerned with is the culture of the people about whom and by (or to) whom the text is written. Attention to these aspects is important, and it has helped us see what we might call the “windows and mirrors” of the text. The biblical stories serve both as windows onto the events and as mirrors of the writer’s own situation. What recent scholarship has suggested, however, is the idea that the cultural context of the reader also shapes the interpretive process in significant ways.

What difference does such a discovery make? Does it really affect the work of New Testament scholarship? Does it really affect our work as ministers? The answer is a loud and definitive Yes. Our historical approaches have shown that the biblical texts reflect not only the period and culture about which they are written but also the period and culture out of which they are writ- ten. What recent sociolinguistic and sociocultural stud- ies have done is to broaden our understanding. In other words, what the new approach to cultural interpreta- tion suggests is that it is not only the cultural context of the events and the writer of the events that are signifi- cant but also the cultural context of the reader.

No reader can interpret any text without cultural prejudgments and personal presuppositions formed in his or her own context. And it is not as if, once aware of this, we can then remove this factor and do a “pure” reading to discover the “pure” meaning of the text. Nor should we. Biblical scholarship has for too long operated under what Anthony C. Thisleton calls a “naive objectivism” (The Two Horizons). For too long we thought that if we paid close attention to historical and linguistic analysis we could jettison all bias so as not to distort the Bible’s meaning. We are beginning at last to recognize that no reader can see the meaning potential of a text without his or her own cultural lens.

Many of us are aware of the power dynamics that have operated in biblical studies in the past, the way that dominant (European American) culture has presented an interpretation as the interpretation. It is important to note, however, that biblical scholars from a wide range of cultural contexts have cried out against this injustice and have been heard. A recent monograph by Daniel Patte, a European American New Testament scholar, has answered those accusations. In his book Ethics of Biblical Interpretation, he acknowledges the criticisms about white male biblical scholars who hide behind “objective exegesis,” and he challenges his own assumptions. He describes his personal move from operating out of the fallacy of detached exegesis to operating in the world of multidimensional readings of the text.

To read the text through one’s own cultural lens is to discover a text that is no longer bound by a foreign perspective. It is to see and hear the text anew. Many fresh perspectives are offered today. Ahn Bung Mu, for example, reads through the lens of his church’s experi- ence with the Korean political struggle for justice among the minjung (mass of the people). Of the many Latino voices that are bringing their various cultural contexts to bear on the text, Virgil Elizondo rethinks the identity of Jesus and defines him in Mestizo terms. African American New Testament scholars, such as Cain Hope Felder and Vincent Wimbush, call attention to the simple historical observation that despite the typical depictions we’ve seen, Jesus was not blond and blue-eyed.

The new voices are not, however, being raised only from cultural or ethnic locations but also from the per- spective of gender relations as well. The work of such feminist and womanist scholars as Rosemary Radford Ruether, Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza, Kelly Brown- Douglas, and Renita Weems calls attention to how tra- ditional patriarchal interpretations have not been liberating for women. In the words of Elizabeth Schüssler- Fiorenza, the cry is for “a discipleship of equals.”

Each of us is aware of the great cultural diversity of the United States in the twenty-first century. Many of us live and work and serve in places that are microcosms of that reality, and so we have a responsibility to be attentive to the multiplicity of voices. These voices may at times seem no more than a great unsettling cacophony, but we must continue to strive for excel- lence in living out the goal of recognizing and honoring diversity in our midst. We must embrace the plurality of race and ethnicity as we bring our many voices to the interpretation of our texts, and we must work to see that in so doing the voices of those once marginalized come to the center and that no one claim that a particular voice is the universal. If we come openly and honestly to the task, then we may find that we can celebrate our diversity in such a way that there can be a free-flowing exchange of ideas.

In our efforts toward open dialogue we may find, amid the diversity, the unity that is ours in Christ. Our work will not lead us to a final, conclusive interpretation of the biblical text. But ours is a living text. It is a witness in and of itself to the power of cultural circumstances on interpretation. We must raise our voices in a mighty chorus of interpretations and in the humble awareness that we are called to listen across boundaries. The Gospel was born in and transmitted through complex times. It is our privilege and responsibility to hear and embody the Gospel anew in these difficult days.

The story of Pentecost is indeed the story of how unsettling the in-breaking of the Spirit can be. But it is the story of spiritual transformation, as all the people in the crowd were empowered as they heard the Gospel in a way they understood. Perhaps we ought to pray again that God send that unsettling Spirit among us to con- fuse us and shake us loose from our safe places. As we learn to speak and hear “in other tongues,” it may bring new light to shine on familiar matters.