Sharing Reformed Christian Resources Around The World
				Does God Speak Today Apart from the Bible?
				Rev. William DeJong

An evaluation of the argument for ongoing-revelation with specific attention given to tongues-speaking.

By Bill DeJong, pastor E-mail
Covenant Reformed church (URC)
Grande Prairie, AB

Does God speak today apart from the Bible? Evangelical or orthodox Protestantism has always affirmed that God speaks through the Bible and only through the Bible. Recent evangelicals, however, have added an interesting proposition: God does speak apart from the Bible, though never in contradiction with it. Consider this quotation by Jack Deere, a former Dallas Theological Seminary professor, now PCUSA pastor:
 
 

In order to fulfill God's highest purposes for our lives we must be able hear his voice both in the written word and in the word freshly spoken from heaven ... One of [Satan's] most successful attacks has been to develop a doctrine that teaches that God no longer speaks to us except through his written word. Ultimately, this doctrine is demonic even [though] Christian theologians have been used to perfect it.⁽¹⁾

At this point we must concede that God has spoken apart from the Scriptures in history. The question is, does he and will he do so today? Jack Deere argues that he does and that the words he spoke long ago to Moses and others are on par with the words he speaks today.
 

Most evangelical Christians view Deere's understanding of prophecy as suspicious at best. The most compelling case by an orthodox evangelical for God speaking today apart from the Bible is put forward by Wayne Grudem. Grudem argues that God speaks apart from the Bible today through the gift of prophecy, which he understands as fallible practical guidance. Thus Grudem distinguishes between two forms of prophecy, infallible prophecy -- given to Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul, etc. (this has passed) and fallible prophecy which remains today. We reject this distinction for the following two reasons.
 

1. Positive -- all biblical evidence points to only one form of prophecy: revelation of God's very words -- therefore always infallible. We must affirm on the basis of Scripture that when God spoke alongside or apart from the Scriptures in history He spoke nothing but His very own words. We discover this, for example, in Deuteronomy 18, where God says, "I will put My words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I command him ... Whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him" (vv.18-19).The same applies to the New Testament where apostles were inspired by God to speak only what the Spirit taught them (John 14:16; 16:13-14; cf. 1 Cor.2:10-13). Agabus spoke whatever the Holy Spirit told him to say (Acts 11:27-28; 21:10-11).
 

2. Negative -- no biblical evidence points to two forms of prophecy -- one fallible, the other infallible. Wayne Grudem disagrees by appealing to 1 Cor.14:29 and 1 Thess.5:20.
 

I. Grudem appeals first to 1 Corinthians 14:29: "Let two or three prophets speak and let the others pass judgment." What do they pass judgment on? Grudem argues that they pass judgment on the true and false elements in each oracle or prophecy.
 
 

a. This view has been critiqued by R. Fowler White who argues that others are to pass judgments not on the true and false elements in each prophecy, but on the true and false prophesies among the many they would hear. In defense of his view, White draws attention to the plural of prophets speaking their revelations in 14:29-30. The apostle, therefore, presupposes that the churches would be hearing--and thus would need to distinguish between--multiple prophecies from multiple prophets.⁽²⁾
 

b. Grudem's view has received a better critique by O. Palmer Robertson who argues that the 'passing judgment' has to do, not with prophesies (Grudem) nor elements in prophesies (White), but with persons. The Greek word for 'passing judgment' is (diakrino). It can also be rendered, 'discriminate.'

Most frequently, this verb is used to make a distinction among people. If we keep this use in mind, consider the text: "Two or three prophets should speak and the other (prophets) should discriminate." In other words, a judgment is being made regarding persons. Someone must determine who among the prophets is to speak and who is not to speak. These prophets are to maintain order among themselves. All prophets will receive opportunity to speak (v.31), but everything must be done decently and in order (v.40). The context is about order in the church, not about true and false teachings.⁽³⁾
 

II. Grudem appeals secondly to 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22, "Do not despise prophesies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil." The Thessalonian zeal for prophesy was not what it should have been. Apparently an influx of false prophesies were confusing them and leading some astray (see 2 Thess.2:1-3, 15). What the Thessalonians were to test here was not good and bad elements in prophesy, but good or bad prophesies (note the plural in v.20). There would be multiple prophesies, some of which would be good, some of which would be evil.
 

The discrimination or passing judgment or testing which the New Testament calls for was: a process of evaluating the prophesies in order to pass judgment on the prophets themselves. Were they true or false? Christians were called not to tolerate false prophets (Matt.7:15-20 with 12:32-37 and 24:23-26; 1 John 4:1-6; 1 Thess.5:22; 2 Thess.2:3,15; Rev.2:20-23; cf. Rom.16:17-19).Therefore there is only form of prophecy -- divine, infallible revelation.
 

This begs the next question -- Do we still receive divine, infallible revelation today? And the answer is and must be: NO. Here's our thesis: God spoke apart from the Scriptures in history only while the Canon of Scripture (the Bible as we know it today) was being completed and not after. But when the writing of Scripture ended, so did all forms of ongoing revelation. The Canon is closed. Hence the apostle Paul warns us "not to think beyond what is written" (1 Cor.4:6).
 

In the space that follows, we will provide some reasons why the church has maintained the completion of revelation:
 

1. The completion of redemption (God's saving work) is accompanied by the completion of revelation (God's saving word). Historically speaking, God's giving of revelation was always joined to and qualified by God's work of redemption. Now that God has accomplished His work (salvation through Christ) once-for-all, He has also spoken His Word (the Bible) once-for-all in Christ and in those He empowered especially for that purpose (Heb.1:1-2; 2:3-4; Matt.16:15-19; John 14:26; Eph.2:19-20; Jude 3). The completion of salvation in Christ brings with it the cessation of revelation. God's revelation had a goal, a purpose. It was: to make known the way of salvation for sinful people who are hopelessly lost apart from the Lord Jesus Christ. This goal has been completed. This is what we learn from Heb.1:1-2. God spoke in various ways in the past, but now that his Son has come, the last stage of human history has arrived and He has spoken definitively through His Son. Through knowing Him, we may know the Creator. The completion of this goal should not be lamented, it should be celebrated. Throughout history, God was lifting the lid on the treasure chest of salvation and now through the Lord Jesus Christ, it has been completed opened.
 

The Greek word (hapax) means, "once-for-all, never to happen again." This word describes the completion both of Christ's redemptive work and of God's revelation. Consider in the Heb.7:27 where it is said of Christ, in contrast to the Old Testament priests, that he sacrificed "once for all (hapax) when He offered up Himself" and Heb.9:12, where we read that Christ "entered the Most Holy Place once for all (hapax), having obtained eternal redemption." It is this same word, hapax, which later describes God's revelation. Jude summons us in verse three to "contend for the faith which was once for all (hapax) delivered to the saints." Here 'the faith' refers to the sum of Christian teaching or the sum of God's revelation.
 

2. The revelatory gifts of the apostolic community were the vehicle -- apart from the oral teachings of Jesus Christ -- that God chose to communicate His new covenant message to the church and future generations. Once the canon of Scripture was completed, the function of these gifts was fulfilled and they disappeared.
 

Take speaking in tongues as an example: Now there are two things we should know before we get into this issue of speaking in tongues:
 

1. The religious ecstatic (exhilerated, hysterical) speech many identify today with tongues-speaking is: a phenomenon also found in many non-Christian groups. The Greek philosopher Plato (B.C. 429-347) indicated an acquaintance with this sort of speech.⁽⁴⁾ In the twentieth century such ecstatic speech is found in Islam, Buddhism and among the Eskimos (see letter to the editor). So the fact that speaking in tongues exists and that Christians do engage in this practice, does not prove that it is good nor that it is biblical.
 

2. History suggests that: the tongues speaking of the New Testament ceased sometime during the Anti-Nicene Period (A.D 100-325) and certainly by the Post-Nicene Period (A.D.311-600). John Chrystom (A.D. 345-407), the greatest expositor and preacher of the Greek church, in his commentary upon the spiritual gifts (1 Cor.12:1-2), wrote: "This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur, but now no longer take place."⁽⁵⁾

The Nature of Tongues Speaking
 

A. New Testament tongues were revelational. The gift of tongues was a gift through which God gave direct verbal revelation to disclose the wonderful realities of the New Covenant before the completion and recognition of the Bible as we know it today. To deny this truth requires the conclusion that the tongues we hear today are different than those of the New Testament.
 

The apostle Paul teaches us in no uncertain terms that the gift of tongues was a direct revelational gift. In I Cor.14:2, he writes, "He who speaks in a tongue utters mysteries." What does Paul mean by 'mysteries?' The word 'mystery' (µ) in the New Testament refers to: a truth about God's way of redemption that was once concealed, but now has been revealed (see, for example, Matt.13:11; Rom.11:25; Rom.16:25; Eph.1:9; Eph.3:3-9, etc.). In 27 out of the 28 times the word 'mystery' occurs in the New Testament, it refers to something once hidden, but now revealed. So when a tongues-speaker utters 'mysteries' he does not conceal truth, but he reveals truth. Tongues, then, were a divine instrument for communicating revelation.
 

If tongues were an instrument for communicating revelation, why then does "no one understand him" (1 Cor.14:2)? No one understands him because the tongues-speaker speaks in a language foreign to his audience which cannot be understood without interpretation. The situation in Corinth, by the way, differs from the situation in Jerusalem (Acts 2) where there were people from various parts of the world who heard in their own language the wonderful works of God (apparently without interpretation).
 

That tongues were a divine instrument for communicating direct revelation can also be seen in the relationship between tongues and prophecy. Paul says, "He who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets" (1 Cor.4:5). Interpreted tongues, therefore, are the equivalent to prophecy. And if prophecy is a revelational gift, a gift by which God discloses revelation, than so is tongues.
 

How did tongues function? How did they edify God's people? Was it the sensations created by the voice of the prophet? Was it the physical vibrations in the ears of the hears? Was it the emotion of the prophet himself? How did 'tongues' edify God's people? NO! Rather: People were edified by understanding the revelation of God's truth.
 

Why then does Paul say: "He who speaks in tongues, edifies himself" (1 Cor.14:4)? He edifies himself, not by the vocal sensations of speaking, not by the physical vibrations in his mouth, not by the emotional feelings in his heart, but by: coming to understand and believe the truth he speaks. A preacher is not edified merely by speaking, but by understanding what he speaks. But no one is edified if no one understands (1 Cor.14:2).
 

The apostle Paul, however, appears to contradict this principle in 1 Cor.14:14, where he says: "For if I pray in a tongue my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." Does this mean that he fails to understand? Certainly not! We cannot separate spirit from mind so as to make spirit a non-rational entity, something which cannot understand!
 

We read in Mark 2:6, for example, that "Jesus knew in his spirit" what his opponents were thinking. The word 'knew' there has the same root as the word 'mind' (, nous) in 1 Cor.14 and the word 'spirit' (µ, pneuma) likewise is identical in both passages. Therefore Jesus possessed rational knowledge in his spirit. The spirit, therefore, does not refer biblically to something irrational, to something which cannot understand, to something purely emotional. Praying 'in the spirit' is with rational understanding and thereby Paul is edified.
 

At the same time, his 'mind,' that instrument by which thoughts are formulated for the purpose of communicating them, remains 'unfruitful.' He is edified, but he cannot communicate his thoughts to others. 1 Cor.14:16-17 provides strong confirmation for this: "If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say 'Amen' to your thanksgiving since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified." How can the speaker 'give thanks' without know what he is saying? Obviously he does know what he is saying.
 

Tongues has a purpose: to communicate something, to communicate God's verbally inspired and infallible Word! The tongues-speaker understands what God is revealing, but cannot communicate it. This reality is similar to that which translators experience. They can understand a sentence perfectly well in one language and yet are unable to convey it in another language they know equally well.
 

B. New Testament tongues were foreign languages. This is obvious from Acts 2:6 where we read: "each one heard them speaking in his own language." The book of Acts provides no evidence that the tongues at Pentecost were any different than those manifested later in the book (see Acts 10:47; 11:15; 19:7, etc.). It is true that no mention is made of tongues-speaking at Corinth in the book of Acts (cf. Acts 19:1-18), but it would seem rather strange if one kind of tongues-speaking manifested itself differently in Corinth than in all the places in Acts before and after Corinth. In addition to this, the terminology used for tongues in both Acts and Corinthians is identical (cf. "other tongues" in Acts 2:4 and 1 Cor.14:21). Conclusion: Since tongues clearly refer to foreign languages, much of what passes today as tongues-speaking is simply outside the realm of the biblical accounts.
 

C. New Testament tongues were for public hearings, not private use. All gifts of the Spirit were for the benefit of Christ's church, for the sake of edifying the body of Christ (see 1 Cor.12:4-7). By a 'gift' one person is enable to minister to others. With this mind, consider 1 Cor.14:18-20 where Paul says, "I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church, I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."
 

The contrast here is not between private and public utterances, as some think, but between Paul's use of tongues to advance Christ's kingdom and the use of tongues by those who promoted tongues for the sake of tongues. The order of the words in Greek text is this: "In relation to all of you, I speak more in tongues." Then Paul says, "But with reference to the church I prefer to speak five words for understanding (v.19).
 

Paul is saying, "Don't talk to me about speaking in tongues as though I am ignorant about it because I've spoken in tongues more than any of you. I know about it first hand. But with reference to the church, I would rather speak in a language that edifies." Conclusion: Tongues were meant for public hearings.
 

At first glance, I Cor.14:28 may seem to endorse the private use of tongues-speaking: "If no interpreter is present, the speaker must keep silent in church and must 'speak to himself and to God.' But the context deals with orderly functioning of gifts within the assembly. Paul makes the point in this context that the tongues-speaker without an interpreter is to remain silent, speaking to himself and to God (v.28). The two actions are simultaneous. As he restrains himself until an interpreter is present, he speaks within himself while communing with God.
 

D. New Testament tongues were a sign. Paul identifies tongues as 'a sign' (1 Cor.14:22). They were a sign, a signal from God that a change was taking place, that God's way of working in the world was taking a new direction. God does not surprise his people. He prepares them so they can understand what is happening. The phenomenon of tongues at Pentecost was not introduced for the first time there. No, there were many Old Testament prophesies which set the stage for the tongues that were to come.
 

Notice how Pentecost is the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy that one's sons and daughters would prophesy (i.e speak God's Words). It doesn't say that one's sons and daughters would speak in tongues. Why, if Pentecost was the great day of tongues-speaking, is this prophecy about prophesying fulfilled? The application of Joel's prophecy to 'tongues' points to a basic understanding about the nature of tongues. Tongues are a subset of prophesy.
 

Even more significant for understanding tongues, however, is the citation from Isaiah by the apostle Paul in 1 Cor.14:21. His Old Testament quotation refers to 'other tongues.' Tongues are mentioned by three different authors in three different books in the Old Testament. In each case, the Old Testament indicates that tongues are a sign of covenantal curses for Israel.
 
 

I. Isaiah 28 (in 1 Cor.14:20-22). Paul quotes one of these prophesies in 1 Cor.14:20-22 where he exhorts the Corinthians to stop being childish. They were using the gift as if it were a toy. He grounds his admonition in the Old Testament Scriptures that speak about 'other tongues.' He says: 'In the Law it is written: 'Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to the Lord'" (1 Cor.14:21, quotation of Isa.28). Because of their childishness, God must speak to them in childish ways (cf. Isa.28:9-10 -- a rule here, a command there. Make your bed! Brush your teeth! Etc.).
 

Then the prophet pronounced God's judgment on the people for their folly: 'Very well then, with foreign lips and with strange tongues, I will speak to this people' (Isa.28:11). God will speak to you in foreign words and you will be like a child, hearing adult conversation, but not being able to understand. If you are going to act like a baby, God will speak to you like a baby. Mother's words to a child are gobbledy-gook, babblings. But although a baby cannot understand the words, he or she can discern anger. The tongues (languages) of foreigners represent the arrival of God's judgment. The army of babbling Babylonians/Assyrians' represents for Israel the return of God's judgment (which first brought the confusion of tongues at the tower of Babel.
 

II. Deuteronomy 28:49. Among the curses listed for disobedient Israel, we find this one: "The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose tongue you will not understand" (Deut.28:49). Tongues serve: as a warning sign that judgment has come for Israel.
 

III. Jeremiah 5:15. The same message is found in Jer.5:15, where the prophet anticipates the judgment that was to fall in his day, where the Lord was going to bring a 'distant nation against you ... whose tongue you do not know, whose speech you do not understand.'

In light of these passages, Paul explains that tongues 'are a sign.' A sign points to something else. A sign serves as an indicator, highlighting another object worth noting. A sign may indicate a change in the direction of the road. In this case tongues function as a sign in the history of redemption indicating that God is making a change. The change is that: God will no longer speak a single language to a single nation (the language Hebrew to the Israelites). Now, beginning with Pentecost, God indicates that he intends to speak many languages to many peoples -- peoples of every tribe, tongue and nation.
 

Tongues, therefore, were a sign of judgment upon rebellious Israel, of whom Jesus said, "The kingdom shall be taken from you and given to a people bring forth the fruit thereof" (Matt.21:43). Hearing the babbling Babylonians or Assyrians was a sign that Israel had persisted too far in her rebellion. No longer would God speak exclusively to her. But where there is judgment, there is also grace. The tongues at Pentecost were a sign of blessing to all the nations of the world. God's favor and the blessings of his covenant would extend to all of them.
 

Signs like this are by nature temporary. Once you have passed the curve in the road, you no longer need the road sign. The sign has fulfilled its purpose, its usefulness. At one point, people must have presumed that Christianity was a Jewish religion. It has a Jewish Messiah and leader and 12 Jewish apostles. But through the sign of tongues, God gave an indicator to all that: Christianity had become a world-wide religion. Who today would question that Christianity is a world-wide religion? Tongues as a sign, also in this respect, are no longer necessary.
 

Tongues are sign "not for believers, but for unbelievers" Paul says in 1 Cor.14:22. Tongues exist to represent God's judgment on unbelief and unfaithfulness. The gospel today must contain this aspect of judgment on unbelief, but it must move on to proclaim salvation. On must move from tongues to prophecy (1 Cor.14:24). And that's why prophecy, in its inscripturated form, will continue throughout the present age. It is the living, the powerful word of God, a two-edged sword (Heb.4:12).
 

For more information on this consult Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1979), O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1993), Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Downer's Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1996), Edmund P. Clowney, The Church (Downer's Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1995) and Robert L. Thomas, "Correlation of Revelatory Spiritual Gifts and NT Canonicity," The Master's Theological Seminary Journal (Spring 1997) 5-28.
 

<RETURN>  1. This quotation, originally taken from a conference speech, is cited without denial, qualification or retraction by Deere in his essay "Vineyard Position Paper #2: The Vineyard's Response to The Briefing (Anaheim,CA: Association of Vineyard Churches, 1992) 22-23.

<RETURN>  2. R. Fowler While, "Does God speak apart from the Bible," in The Coming Evangelical Crisis, ed. John Armstrong (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996) 84.

<RETURN>  3. O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1993) 17.

<RETURN>  4. Plato, "Dialogues of Plato," trans. Benjamin Jowett, Vol. VII of Great Books of the Western World, ed. R.M. Hutchins (Chicago: Encyclopedian Brittanica, Inc., 1952) sec.244.

<RETURN>  5. Chrysostom, as quoted by Robert G. Gromacki, The Modern Tongues Movement (Philadelphia, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967) 16.