Acts 2:2-3, 13-15: Why the bizarre response?

[Genesius]

Acts 2:2-3, 13-15 [from USCCB online bible]

2 And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.

3 Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them.

13 But others said, scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.”

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.

15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.

I have always been puzzled by the response, “They have had too much new wine.” I mean, here is a pretty significant supernatural event occurring; “a strong driving wind” filling the house they were in AND “tongues as of fire” resting on each of them.

So what is a response from some? Not something like, “Whoa! What in the world is THAT!?”, but rather, “These men are just drunk with wine.” Wouldn’t the tongues of fire over the head be a clue? Hello?

 

[roveau]

I always understood that the ‘you’re drunk’ response was when they left the house and started to preach, speaking in tongues, preaching the Kingdom etc., while they were filled with the Holy Spirit.

The noise and the descent of the tongues was when the apostles and faithful receiving the Holy Spirit were inside the house, that is, that part wasn’t a general public event. That’s my understanding of it anyway.

Rove

 

[NotWorthy]

Could the Jews actually be prophesying and not even realize it?

I mean, the Apostles are drunk on New Wine, but not as the Jews may think.

In my opinion, this is exactly what Jesus was talking about when He said, “You can’t put new wine into old wineskins”. Judaism is fixing to burst at the seams as the New Wine of the New Covenant is poured out, beginning at Pentecost!

That’s just my thoughts…

 

[puppypatrol]

Acts 2:2-3, 13-15 [from USCCB online bible]

2 And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.

3 Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them.

13 But others said, scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.”

14 Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.

15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only nine o’clock in the morning.

I have always been puzzled by the response, “They have had too much new wine.” I mean, here is a pretty significant supernatural event occurring; “a strong driving wind” filling the house they were in AND “tongues as of fire” resting on each of them.

So what is a response from some? Not something like, “Whoa! What in the world is THAT!?”, but rather, “These men are just drunk with wine.” Wouldn’t the tongues of fire over the head be a clue? Hello?

The Jews responded like they did “too much new wine” because they didn’t hear the wind nor did they see the tongues of fire. Only those in the “upper room” experienced these things and when they went out in the streets they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began their ministries in ernest.

You have to read Scripture in context and not leave any of it out.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Jews responded like they did “too much new wine” because they didn’t hear the wind nor did they see the tongues of fire. Only those in the “upper room” experienced these things and when they went out in the streets they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began their ministries in ernest.

You have to read Scripture in context and not leave any of it out.

This is especially funny since Peter points out that its only 9 o’clock in the morning.

John

 

[Benadam]

This is especially funny since Peter points out that its only 9 o’clock in the morning.

John

I imagine one of Peter’s eyebrows lifting like Spock’s. Peter thinking to himself…did he know what he said?,nah…and then out loud ,Why it’s only…

 

[chaunceygardner]

Dear Genesius: You must learn to read the whole passage! Why do you skip? Are you a spin doctor for a politician?

Anyway, as puppypatrol and others said, the spirit descended on the disciples in the room, and the commotion occurred outside.

Here is that part with the verses you skipped:

**When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together.
And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.
Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them.
And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.
Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem.
At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?
Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?
We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome,
both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”
They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, “What does this mean?”
But others said, scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.” **

Then Peter speaks up and clues them in to what is really happening.

I would second NotWorthy’s point that the Apostles were “drunk” with the new wine of the Holy Spirit, thanks to Jesus.

 

[Genesius]

Dear Genesius: You must learn to read the whole passage! Why do you skip? Are you a spin doctor for a politician?

Anyway, as puppypatrol and others said, the spirit descended on the disciples in the room, and the commotion occurred outside.

Here is that part with the verses you skipped:

**When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together.
And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were.
Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them.
And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.
Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem.
At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans?
Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?
We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya near Cyrene, as well as travelers from Rome,
both Jews and converts to Judaism, Cretans and Arabs, yet we hear them speaking in our own tongues of the mighty acts of God.”
They were all astounded and bewildered, and said to one another, “What does this mean?”
But others said, scoffing, “They have had too much new wine.” **

Then Peter speaks up and clues them in to what is really happening.

I would second NotWorthy’s point that the Apostles were “drunk” with the new wine of the Holy Spirit, thanks to Jesus.

Okay…nowhere in the passage above is there a direct transition of them regrouping outside. I can see where a person would probably assume they did simply by virtue of the crowds, but it appeared that they started speaking in different tongues WHILE they were in the house. Then the next verse simply starts out with a description of Jews from every nation gathering because of the ‘sound’. Would this ‘sound’ be the rushing wind or is it more indicative of ‘the word of mouth’ of what was happening?

But again, no indication that they ever regrouped. Now I’m not saying they didn’t. Perhaps tradition tells us that they did, and one could certainly make that assumption from the passage itself (then again, wouldn’t we be like ‘Bible only’ Christians believing that ‘the Bible interprets itself’?..(-;

P.S. The reason I didn’t present the entire passage is because it was only the bizarre response I was trying to emphasize and didn’t want to clutter w/ irrelevant info to my point, but again, I see your point about the context as well.

By the way, thank you for all your wonderful responses. Sometimes I just like to throw things out there to start the wheels rolling…(-;

 

[NotWorthy]

Okay…nowhere in the passage above is there a direct transition of them regrouping outside. I can see where a person would probably assume they did simply by virtue of the crowds, but it appeared that they started speaking in different tongues WHILE they were in the house. Then the next verse simply starts out with a description of Jews from every nation gathering because of the ‘sound’. Would this ‘sound’ be the rushing wind or is it more indicative of ‘the word of mouth’ of what was happening?

But again, no indication that they ever regrouped. Now I’m not saying they didn’t. Perhaps tradition tells us that they did, and one could certainly make that assumption from the passage itself (then again, wouldn’t we be like ‘Bible only’ Christians believing that ‘the Bible interprets itself’?..(-;

Well, let’s see.
***At this sound, ******they ***(the Jews from all over the world gathered in Jerusalem) gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

So, we know that the Jews gathered to hear the speaking.

---

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.***

Peter stood up with the Eleven would mean that the Apostles were all preaching together.

My brothers, one can confidently say to you about the patriarch David that he died and was buried, and his tomb is in our midst to this day.

According to Sacred Tradition (and, I believe, Jewish tradition), David’s Tomb was in the lower room of the Seneschal - the upper room being where the Last Supper, the 1st visitation by the Risen Jesus, and the Descent of the Holy Spirit took place. Peter was preaching to the crowds right outside this building, if I remember correctly. But we have a few more hints.

***Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

---

There could not have been 3000 gathered in a room to hear Peter. Hence, this would have had to have been outside.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have an idea; allegory. John is very precise with words; here’s what struck me today.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=362434

and yesterday’s readings too:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=362406

hmmmm…

Hey, Genesius – what parish do you go to out there?
Have you ever bumped in to a couple, eg: Kevin & Serena?

God bless you.
–Andrew R.

 

[Genesius]

Well, let’s see.
***At this sound, ******they ***(the Jews from all over the world gathered in Jerusalem) gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

So, we know that the Jews gathered to hear the speaking.

---

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.***

Peter stood up with the Eleven would mean that the Apostles were all preaching together.

My brothers, one can confidently say to you about the patriarch David that he died and was buried, and his tomb is in our midst to this day.

According to Sacred Tradition (and, I believe, Jewish tradition), David’s Tomb was in the lower room of the Seneschal - the upper room being where the Last Supper, the 1st visitation by the Risen Jesus, and the Descent of the Holy Spirit took place. Peter was preaching to the crowds right outside this building, if I remember correctly. But we have a few more hints.

***Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

---

There could not have been 3000 gathered in a room to hear Peter. Hence, this would have had to have been outside.

Yes…it certainly is implicitly implied, and it would be silly to think that 3000 actually were INSIDE the house. But again, it’s not EXPLICITLY stated. We have to use logic and deductive reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that they were gathered OUTSIDE. In other words, there is no direct transition of them regrouping OUTSIDE in the passage itself, but, as you say, ‘hints’.

 

[Genesius]

I have an idea; allegory. John is very precise with words; here’s what struck me today.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=362434

and yesterday’s readings too:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=362406

hmmmm…

Hey, Genesius – what parish do you go to out there?
Have you ever bumped in to a couple, eg: Kevin & Serena?

God bless you.
–Andrew R.

I’m not familiar with Kevin & Serena, but then again I have a hard time remembering names with faces. I am a regular member of St. Vincent De Paul parish in Salem, OR. Originally, because it was in a convenient locale to where I live (2 blocks away). Now, because it’s small enough that I have developed some wonderful relationships. We have a group that meets in the basement for coffee & rolls after mass that sit at a table where we celebrate each other’s birthdays, bringing presents, cakes, etc. We also pitch in and help people as a group.

Having said that, I also like things about St. Joseph parish downtown that I find lacking at St. Vincent De Paul, such as an apologetics class they offer where we are going over Pope John Paul 2’s Encyclicals. I was asked to outline and present Salvifici Doloris, along with my Leukemia testimony, and we all agreed that the Encyclical was the most appropriate for our modern times, reaching across both Catholic & Protestant, as well as humanity in general. It has some very wonderful insights.

Anyway, thanks for asking.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes…it certainly is implicitly implied, and it would be silly to think that 3000 actually were INSIDE the house. But again, it’s not EXPLICITLY stated. We have to use logic and deductive reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that they were gathered OUTSIDE. In other words, there is no direct transition of them regrouping OUTSIDE in the passage itself, but, as you say, ‘hints’.

Except for the one verse, "Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.

How can you assume any differently?

 

[Genesius]

Except for the one verse, "Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.

How can you assume any differently?

The above passage DOES NOT EXPLICITLY STATE they are gathered OUTSIDE. Again, STRONGLY IMPLIED. I am not assuming otherwise. I am just saying, obviously all Jews staying in Jerusalem would have to number many more than could fit in the house.

You underlined “Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them” I’m assuming for emphasis. I’m not sure how you connect OUTSIDE with this statement?

But again, I’m not saying they were NOT outside. I’m just saying the passage does not EXPLICITLY STATE that fact. However, one certainly would have to deduce it from obvious inferences in the passage (i.e. all you who are in Jerusalem; 3000 heard them; etc.)

 

[NotWorthy]

The above passage DOES NOT EXPLICITLY STATE they are gathered OUTSIDE. Again, STRONGLY IMPLIED. I am not assuming otherwise. I am just saying, obviously all Jews staying in Jerusalem would have to number many more than could fit in the house.

You underlined “Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them” I’m assuming for emphasis. I’m not sure how you connect OUTSIDE with this statement?

But again, I’m not saying they were NOT outside. I’m just saying the passage does not EXPLICITLY STATE that fact. However, one certainly would have to deduce it from obvious inferences in the passage (i.e. all you who are in Jerusalem; 3000 heard them; etc.)

Yes, it doesn’t explicity state they were outside. But from this chapter, among other things, we know two things:

1. The Apostles preached together.
2. 3000 Jews were baptized that day.

I don’t think they could have had 3000 people baptized after listening to a sermon in a room. It is simply not a stretch to conclude that this took place out in a public square in Jerusalem just outside the Seneschal (?).

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Yes, it doesn’t explicity state they were outside. But from this chapter, among other things, we know two things:

1. The Apostles preached together.
2. 3000 Jews were baptized that day.

I don’t think they could have had 3000 people baptized after listening to a sermon in a room. It is simply not a stretch to conclude that this took place out in a public square in Jerusalem just outside the Seneschal (?).

He agrees with you on the “outside” conclusion.
and I don’t know where the Seneschal idea comes from.

As a quick Q: How does Peter standing up with 11 other people prove the point (in English) or any of the previous verses cited in this thread?
For example: Why couldn’t Peter have been speaking from the upper room, out of a window, to the a crowd outside? And then, the baptism’s occur when he comes outside himself at a later time… etc.

 

[NotWorthy]

He agrees with you on the “outside” conclusion.
and I don’t know where the Seneschal idea comes from.

As a quick Q: How does Peter standing up with 11 other people prove the point (in English) or any of the previous verses cited in this thread?
For example: Why couldn’t Peter have been speaking from the upper room, out of a window, to the a crowd outside? And then, the baptism’s occur when he comes outside himself at a later time… etc.

I’ve never heard of that type of preaching. Isn’t it common to go to a public square and exchange ideas? Or often at the front gate to the city?

Although it would be harder to be stoned if one could preach from a window, wouldn’t it?

But what do you mean, “I don’t know where the Seneschal idea comes from”?

 

[Benadam]

*5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. *

I think verse 5 is describing a core group within the house and nearby eneogh to have heard the wind and investigated the event. They accomplish what is described in verse 6. And when this was noised abroad, This group imo were just a small group of foreigners within earshot of the wind.

*6 And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, *and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. 7 And they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak, Galileans? 8 And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,

These are all experiencing what Peter explained as fulfillment of prophecy. I think it’s significant that the multitude is described to be entirely made up of Gentiles. The Jewish participants are added as a kind of gloss.

11 Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.

There seems to be a decending order in the way the event is described. Those most intimate to the event get first mention to the last mentioned who participate or better said, experience the pouring out of the Holy Spirit with the gentiles first Jews and proselytes last. I don’t understand whyCretes and Arabians would be lumped with and after Jews and proselytes.

And finally:
*

12

And they were all astonished, and wondered, saying one to another: What meaneth this? *
This sentence marks the end of the description of those who are participating in the event and the entrance of gawkers who haven’t a clue of what’s happening. Those who haven’t experienced the miracle of speaking in tongues but have gathered later. Luke uses the word ‘others’ as a vehicle to mark that boundary of intimacy.

13 But others mocking, said: These men are full of new wine.

The ‘others’ are obviously not among the 'all; who are astonished.
all of them, those who heard their language, those who witnessed the Apostles speaking a language they never learned, and those who came late for the event make up the crowd that hears the first ex-cathedra teaching.

13 But others mocking, said: These men are full of new wine.

The response is not bizarre it’s very common coming from people confronted with an event that they didn’t participate in and if believed would force a radical shift in their reality. A shift they would rather avoid by denying anything extraordinary happened.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

But what do you mean, “I don’t know where the Seneschal idea comes from”?

As far as the preaching goes, I haven’t ever seen people so full of the spirit that they begin speaking out all at once and still have it be intelligible… This isn’t exactly a normal, run of the mill, speech…

As to the second part – I got the impression from what you said that the seneschal housed the burying place of king David. what is the history of the idea that David’s tomb was in the lower part of this house they were in?
From the descriptions in the debates somewhere, I do recall a remark about the location of his tomb being in the city – but I think the context was how magnificent and beautiful the tombs were – eg: the Pharisees’ fathers killed the prophets – and their son’s make the tombs white and clean looking on the outside; a tourist attraction…

I wouldn’t have expected it to be indoors; as Maccabees and other writings show that the Jews did build monuments over the tombs of the fathers; And of course, as time went on others built bigger ones…

Are the remains of this tomb still around?

 

[NotWorthy]

As far as the preaching goes, I haven’t ever seen people so full of the spirit that they begin speaking out all at once and still have it be intelligible… This isn’t exactly a normal, run of the mill, speech…

As to the second part – I got the impression from what you said that the seneschal housed the burying place of king David. what is the history of the idea that David’s tomb was in the lower part of this house they were in?
From the descriptions in the debates somewhere, I do recall a remark about the location of his tomb being in the city – but I think the context was how magnificent and beautiful the tombs were – eg: the Pharisees’ fathers killed the prophets – and their son’s make the tombs white and clean looking on the outside; a tourist attraction…

I wouldn’t have expected it to be indoors; as Maccabees and other writings show that the Jews did build monuments over the tombs of the fathers; And of course, as time went on others built bigger ones…

Are the remains of this tomb still around?

And see, here’s the problem. So much of what I gather in “tidbits of knowledge” I get from listening to MP3 files while I exercise in the morning. Its great for me, because it helps to keep me interested in exercising all while learning more and more about the Bible and the Church (Woo-Hoo!!! ). But it makes it incredibly difficult to go back through the endless files and find sources for some of these tidbits of information.

Regarding the Seneschal (the building that housed the upper room of the Last Supper and Pentecost), it was Jewish Tradition and Christian Tradition that it held David’s Tomb in the lower section. I believe I’ve heard this from talks given by Fr. McBride, but also that I’d heard it from someone else, for the information wasn’t new to me. I’ll see if I can find more out.

Moreover, the building is said to be one of the few buldings that was left standing after the sacking of Jerusalem in 70AD.

I’ll try and dig up some information on the internet regarding these two little “facts”, for I know it sounds like I could simply be making this up as I go along. Sorry.