In Part 1 of this series we introduced the landscape of Pentecostalism. We then journeyed into a Biblical theology of the baptism in the Spirit, landing firmly on the historical position of the Baptism in the Spirit. Here in Part 2 we will take a closer look at the revelatory gifts of the Spirit, and determine their applicability to the church age.
Do Revelatory Gifts Accompany the Baptism in the Spirit today?
We have already established that the initial Jewish (Acts 2) and Gentile (Acts 10) outpourings, both of which included the gift of tongues, were highly inaugural. Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled first for the Jews, and secondarily for the Gentiles. We shouldn’t expect tongues to accompany the baptism in the Spirit today any more than we would expect literal tongues of fire and rushing winds, or any more than we would require water baptism and apostolic laying on of hands to precede it (Acts 2:38, 8:12-17, 19:1-10). In fact, most Pentecostals and charismatics believe that the office of “apostle” has ceased, which would make the latter impossible!
In addition, Paul rhetorically asks, “do all speak in tongues?” (1 Cor 12:30), expecting an obvious answer of “no”. He also confirms that ongoing tongues are not purposeful “in the church” but are signs for unbelieving cultures outside of the church, similar to their inaugural purpose for Jews – see 1 Cor 14:18-22.
Although the purpose of the baptism in the Spirit is spiritual empowerment, it is not restricted to any specific gift.
A Temporary Cessationist Proposal
As demonstrated above, many aspects of the book of Acts were foundational. These include the foundational offices of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20), the definitive revelation of Christ through their canonical witness (Heb 1:1-2, Col 1:27), and the signs that validated such revelation (Heb. 2:4). Nevertheless, there are several reasons we cannot limit revelatory gifts to the First Century.
The “last days,” in which “all flesh,” including “sons and daughters,” “maidservants,” “young men,” and “old men,” would prophesy, were inaugurated at the commencement of the church age. Yet the prophecy also includes features associated with the consummation, such as the sun being “turned to darkness.” This reflects the already-not-yet principle and suggests a future fulfillment. Accordingly, 1 Corinthians 13 teaches that revelatory gifts will not permanently cease until the “perfect” comes—the age in which “we shall know even as we are known” (13:12). Saucy states:
The statements in the context about seeing “face to face,” suggesting a complete direct knowledge as opposed to the indirect vision of a mirror, and of coming to “know fully, even as I am fully known” (v.12), clearly speak of the state of glorification (v.13). These statements refer to the coming of Christ, when perfection arrives.” This text, therefore, does not indicate that certain gifts will cease before that state comes.[viii]
He concludes, “It is, therefore, impossible to say, on the basis of biblical teaching, that certain gifts cannot occur … according to God’s sovereign purpose.”[x]
In fact, “Genuine manifestations of prophecy are predicted for the future (e.g. Rev. 11:3, 10)”[ix]. According to the major interpretations of Revelation 11, the two witnesses prophesy, potentially in a time of tribulation at the end of the church age, just preceding the coming of Christ. This provides an intriguing possibility of temporary cessationism: the New Testament church was explicitly commanded to desire prophecy (1 Cor. 14:1, 39), not to despise prophecies (1 Thess. 5:20), and actually contained prophets and believers exercising the prophetic gift (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12–14). Yet these revelatory ministries belonged to the foundational era of the church, in which the apostles and prophets laid the foundation upon which the church was built (Eph. 2:20; 3:5). Once that foundation was laid and the apostolic witness preserved in the canonical Scriptures, the revelatory gifts ceased as ordinary features of the church. Nevertheless, Scripture may anticipate their temporary revival at the close of the age: just as major redemptive-historical events such as the Fall, Exodus, Incarnation, and Pentecost were accompanied by extraordinary divine revelation, so too may the consummation be marked by renewed prophetic witness (Rev. 11:3–12) immediately preceding the revelation of Jesus Christ, when He will finish His story.
Does a temporary cessation of revelatory gifts mean that there is an infinite gap between classical Protestants and Pentecostals during the church age? I don’t believe so.
Not so great a divide:
Evangelicals are closer to Pentecostals than they think
I often hear evangelical pastors use phrases like:
- “I felt like God was telling me to call Frank and pray for him”
- “God gave the leadership team a peace about this land purchase”
- “We sensed that God was leading us in that direction”
- “I planned to preach on love today, but God placed another topic on my heart last night”
Aren’t these all examples of extra-Biblical revelation in some sense? Of course they are! Most evangelicals don’t call these “prophecies” or “words of wisdom” (as Pentecostals do), but they acknowledge the providential guidance of the Holy Spirit nonetheless. Keener argues,
Some noncharismatics have reproved charismatics for using terms such as revelation and inspiration for something other than Scripture, yet they agree that God’s Spirit can lead our daily lives, which is what most charismatics mean by the terms.[xi]
On the other hand, Pentecostals and charismatics are very loose with their use of the phrase “prophecy”. A true prophecy is an infallible authoritative word from God revealed via His audible voice, a vision, a vision-like dream, or some other undeniable direct communication from God; not a nudge or random thought (See Num 12:6-8). If it is predictive, it is razor sharp in accuracy (Deut 13:1-5, 18:21-22). Real prophecy in the First Century was just like prophecy in the Old Testament, as the word “prophecy” did not change meanings between the time Joel 2:28 was written and the time of its fulfillment in Acts 2:17. Both Keener and Saucy agree:
In prophecy, one was inspired to speak directly as God’s agent, essentially declaring, “Thus says the Spirit” (Acts 21:11; Rev. 2:1; 3:1).[xii]
If prophecy is truly an inspired revelation from God, it is authoritative no matter who is the vehicle through whom it is received. The biblical question that is still pertinent today is not that of levels of authority, but rather whether it is genuine prophecy.[xiii]
If Pentecostals were told that their alleged prophecies were to carry the same authority as Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, would they be more hesitant to call their words “prophecy”? Would they test their prophetic words much more critically? Too many are giving prophecies that either contradict scripture or prove to be false predictions — a natural fruit of the view that prophecy is a fallible report of revelation and that God is okay with varying levels of authority and accuracy. In the early church, this would not fly. The judgment of prophecy was essential (1 Cor 14:29). In fact, the testing of all things was essential (1 Thess 5:21). Even a brief revival of revelatory gifts in the eschaton would not cancel that mandate—not even for the two witnesses of Revelation 11!
In sum, I do not find any support in Scripture either for the definition of prophecy as the [fallible] report of revelation or for prophecy with error. This does not necessarily preclude the manifestation of prophecy in the church today, but it does raise questions concerning much of what is purported to be prophecy by the continuationist today.[xvi]
I believe that if Pentecostals and charismatics change their terminology a little, they can be in the middle ground with most other evangelicals. They should simply stop calling spontaneous nudges “prophecies”, and stop adding the verbiage “thus says the Lord”. Jeremiah gave stern warnings about this:
Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord … 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the Lord, who use their tongues and declare, ‘declares the Lord’ … 38 Because you have said these words, “The burden of the Lord” when I sent to you, saying, “You shall not say, ‘The burden of the Lord,’” 39 therefore, behold, I will surely lift you up and cast you away from my presence … (Jeremiah 23:16, 31, 38b-39, emphasis added)
In light of this warning, lesser forms of “revelation” (or perceived guidance) should be conveyed using phrases other evangelicals use, like “I sense …”, or “I have a peace about …”, or “I feel led to …”, rather than “thus says the Lord”. Saucy discusses this semantical tension:
God does guide or reveal his mind to us today in matters that transcend the explicit teaching of Scripture-for example, in specific directions in personal or even church decisions. Strong divergence, however, remains over the nature and place of contemporary “prophecy” in this guidance. While I remain personally convinced that all biblical prophecy is inspired infallible utterance, I am not at all sure what difference there is between some “fallible prophecy” accepted by many continuationists and the “guidance” or “leading” of God that the church has always taught, except that “prophecy” may appear to be more miraculous. In this area, I believe that care should be taken that our disagreements are really substantive and not merely semantic.[xvii]
Pentecostals are closer to other evangelicals than they think
On the other hand, Pentecostals and charismatics aren’t as far from other evangelicals as they think. Most would agree that there is a difference between today and the initial covenant transition in Acts.
- Most would agree there were more spectacular miracles then. “The apostles in their miracle-working were different from others in the church both in the New Testament and subsequently”[xviii] (e.g. limbs growing out, dead people rising, etc.)
- Most would agree there were non-repeatable signs (e.g. flames over heads at Pentecost, thousands of people hearing tongues in their languages, etc).
- Most would agree that the canon of scripture closed and God stopped giving new universal revelation
- Most would agree there is no office of Apostle (capital A) today. “Even those who hold a present church ministry as successors of the apostles agree that the original biblical apostles were in some sense unique.”[xix]
If they agree with these differences between today and Acts, then they should have no problem accepting the inaugural nature of the gift of tongues in the book of Acts, and the proposal to remove tongues as a necessary component of the baptism in the Spirit today.
I’ll go one more step and ask Pentecostals to consider rethinking what tongues are altogether.
Reassessing the Nature of Tongues Today
As I pointed out earlier, it is evident that in Acts 2 the tongues spoken were real languages. They weren’t unintelligible ecstatic speech, such as the repetition of the same syllable over and over again. They could be readily understood by someone who either already knew that language or was miraculously endowed with such an understanding.
Keener boldly confesses, “In contrast to some Pentecostals, I believe that “tongues” in both Acts and 1 Corinthians refers to genuine languages, albeit languages unknown to the speaker.”[xx] Saucy concurs:
The important point is that they were all language, i.e., they conveyed conceptual thought. The gift of tongues could be interpreted with understanding … some studies have shown that many expressions of contemporary tongues have no linguistic characteristics.[xxi]
Since Acts 2 is the first real narrative of tongues in practice, we should be very wary of claiming that the definition changed between Acts 2 (real languages) and 1 Corinthians 12-14 (supposed unintelligible ecstatic speech), as many Pentecostals do. Right in the middle of Paul’s discourse on the gifts, 1 Corinthians 13:1 explicitly states that the Pauline tongues are “tongues of men”:
1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Here Paul explains that even if we employ our spiritual gifts to a hyperbolic (perhaps unattainable) degree, they are useless without love. For example, in verse 2, Paul states, “Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge … and have not charity, I am nothing.” We know from the same chapter that prophecy and knowledge are only endowed “in part” during the church age (v9). Therefore Paul is using hyperbole when he refers to understanding “all mysteries” and “all knowledge”. He is making the point that even if such a degree of prophesying were possible, without love, it is useless. With that pattern, we should understand 13:1 as defining tongues as the “tongues of men”. Paul only mentions “tongues of angels” to make the point with hyperbole that, even if we could speak the languages of divine beings (which by the way would also be real languages as opposed to gibberish), without love it would be useless. This corroborates with what we discovered in Acts 2. “Tongues” are “tongues of men”, not unintelligible ecstatic utterances.
Many Pentecostals have asserted that there is a self-edifying personal prayer language, which is distinct from the public kind of tongues that occurred on Pentecost. This category can allegedly include unintelligible ecstatic utterances, or even real languages, which occur in private and don’t require interpretation. Such a notion is based on 1 Corinthians 14.
1 Cor 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church.
The key here is to read the whole chapter in context, and really get Paul’s point. First, we are told in verse 22 that the gift of tongues is not designed for believers, but is rather a sign for unbelievers (cf Mk 16:17). It has the most value, not “in the church”, but outside the church (v29); not in our prayer closets at home, but out on the mission field. I have heard of occasions where this gift has manifested in the presence of foreign unbelievers, and they heard and understood, and were converted. If God did sovereignly grant the manifestation of tongues during the post-apostolic era, that’s what they would look like!
Secondly, Paul’s context from chapters 12-14 is one of body life and edification. Therefore Paul is addressing the negative, self-serving nature of uninterpreted tongues, in contrast with the positive body-serving effect of prophesying in verses 3-4. The former is cast in a negative light, while the latter is encouraged. When someone speaks in a miraculously endowed language that most (or all) of the congregation doesn’t know, he is wasting the congregation’s time. He is not speaking to men, but only to God (v2). Why? Because no one understands a word he is saying. “With his spirit”, or his innermost being, he is speaking but it’s not “fruitful” to those around him (v14). It’s only edifying to himself. This is not the purpose of the gifts of the Spirit. “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.” (12:7).
Even if one argues for self-edification based on verse 4, if edifying the church means “giving the church intelligible information they can understand”, then self-edification should have a similar requirement. Therefore, the edification he is receiving must be very minimal at best, as he doesn’t understand a word he himself is saying. He is speaking “mysteries” that neither he nor the church understands. He is only edified to the degree that he is actively praying and knowing that God is hearing him and answering the prayer. However, the edification would be much greater if he prayed, not just with his spirit, but also with his mind, which is precisely Paul’s solution, “I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also” (v15). Even Mary, prior to ever receiving the gift of tongues prayed with her spirit: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour” (Lk 1:46-47). Therefore, praying “with the spirit” is not limited to speaking in a tongue, any more than serving “with the Spirit” (Rom 1:9) is serving in tongues, or loving in the spirit (Col 1:8) is loving in “tongues”. The New Covenant is a spiritual covenant.
In contrast to the Old Testament economy, which was filled with physical types and shadows, New Testament worshippers now worship “in Spirit” (Gr. en pneumati) and “in truth” (John 4:23). Surely an English speaking Christian who sincerely prays in English is not merely praying with her brain to the exclusion of her spirit. That would mean that all of her English prayer is fleshly and carnal. The truth is, whether a person prays in a different tongue or in her native language, she is praying with her spirit. The difference is in the understanding, or lack thereof, in those who hear her. If no translator is present and I don’t have the gift of translating my miraculously endowed language, then I should simply pray in the common language which is both “with my spirit” and “with my understanding”, simultaneously! This provides maximal edification and fruit for both me and those around me. Isn’t this exactly the teaching of Jesus – “The good ground is he that hears the word, and understands it; which also bears fruit” (Mt 13:23).
The human language interpretation is the only interpretation that makes sense given Paul’s emphasis on interpretation. The word “interpret” (Gr. diermeneuo) commonly means “to translate” (e.g. Acts 9:36). So Paul’s context of interpretation means that human languages, not gibberish, are involved. If tongues consisted of gibberish, there is no way of knowing if someone is present who can or will interpret it. Therefore, Pentecostals often speak out in shear faith that someone, normally the pastor, will step up and attempt an “interpretation” of the ecstatic speech – an approach which has been demonstrated to yield multiple conflicting interpretations. If tongues consist of human languages, on the other hand, the presence of an interpreter of that language (whether by recent miraculous gifting or natural knowledge) would be readily known beforehand.
The fact that Paul quotes Isa 28:11 in 1 Corinthians 14:21 is yet another proof that Paul is speaking of human languages. He writes,
1 Cor 14:21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign not for unbelievers but for believers.
In Isaiah 28, God is telling Israel that when they hear the language (“tongue”) of another people group, namely the Babylonians, it will be a sign that God’s judgment is upon them. In the same way, the plethora of tongues spoken by the first century Christians was a sign, especially to the Jews, that God had now opened up the covenant to all people groups. Both Acts 2 and Acts 10 corroborate this fact about tongues. In both cases we see explicit references to Jews being confounded when they hear tongues spoken (2:6, 10:45).
What about Romans 8:26? Doesn’t it advocate unintelligible groaning?
Doesn’t Romans 8:26 teach that all believers should intercede in tongues when they don’t know how to pray? No. The word “tongues” is not mentioned at all in this verse, nor do any historical commentaries ever suggest that tongues is in scope. Let’s look at the passage in context:
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
Notice when we read the context, Romans 8:26 has nothing to do with intercessory tongues. The “groaning” is not tongues, or else creation is also speaking in tongues (v22). No, the groaning is figurative language emphasizing the pain and agony that the curse has brought upon creation only to be alleviated by the future redemption of the body. Until then, we may not even know what to pray for in the midst of our anguish, but the Holy Spirit is silently interceding for us with groanings that are too deep for words (Gr. Alaletos – unutterable, not verbalized, in any language or tongue)! To claim that this verse is speaking of any spoken language, whether ecstatic or intelligible, is to miss Paul’s entire point. Paul is emphasizing the Spirit’s silent sympathy for our weaknesses, as He asks the Father, in our stead, for those things that are His ultimate will. We don’t know those things, but He does – “And he who searches the hearts [the Father] knows what is the mind of the Spirit [the Holy Spirit], because the Spirit [the Holy Spirit] intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.” (v27). This is why all things ultimately work out for our good, even when we don’t know how (vv28-30).
Concluding Thoughts
To summarize, the Spirit’s work—New Birth, Indwelling, and Baptism—is something every believer receives at conversion. He gives us a new nature and empowers us to live as witnesses for Christ. But the Christian life doesn’t end there. We can continue to be filled with the Spirit as we worship, study the Word, give thanks, serve, and submit to one another (Eph. 5:18ff; Col. 3:16ff). We should eagerly desire the spiritual gifts God has given His church (1 Cor 14:1), while resisting the temptation to manufacture what He has not given. We don’t need to teach people to repeat unintelligible syllables “by faith,” nor should we call every passing thought or feeling a “prophecy.” The genuine work of the Spirit needs no help from our imagination. Our task is simply to remain prayerful, discerning, and orderly (1 Cor 14:40)—welcoming whatever God truly gives while refusing to manufacture what He has not. And through it all, Scripture remains our anchor: every gift, impression, and spiritual manifestation must ultimately be tested by the Word of God.
That is why Scripture is the “canon,” the “measuring stick,” hence, the final arbiter of revelation. To fail to evaluate our claims to hear the Lord is arrogance and invites the discipline of the Lord. Can we possibly think that any one of us hears God accurately if we contradict the apostles and prophets God inspired through the centuries[xxiii]
End Notes:
[i] Some might classify Keener in the third wave category, but I placed him in the open but cautious category because of his insistence on tongues being intelligible language, prophecy being infallible, and all revelatory gifts being scrutinized meticulously
[ii] Keener, Craig. Gift and Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today [E-book]. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker’s Academic, 2001. “The Spirit and Salvation”
[iii] Saucy, Robert (Article). Grudem, Wayne (General Editor). Gundry, Stanley (Series Editor). “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views”. Zondervan Academic (October 11, 2011). Pg 98.
[iv] Keener. “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”
[v] Those who are dogmatic about the necessity of water baptism for new birth should consider this, especially since we are in the times of the Gentiles (Lk 21:24). A strict adherence to the Acts 2:38 pattern seems misplaced in the church age. Some may argue that Acts 2:39 places the repent–be baptized–receive the Spirit “promise” on all future people that the Lord will call, including Gentiles. However, the “Promise” does not include the conditions. The “Promise” is the “Spirit” Himself (Acts 1:4, 2:33), and God sovereignly decides how and when to grant the Spirit (John 3:8). In the case of the first Jews, He desired a more stringent Acts 2:38 sequence. However, in the case of the Gentiles, such a sequence was not as important. Nevertheless, water baptism still served an important role for Gentiles, as Peter immediately wanted to baptize Cornelius’ household after they believed (Acts 10:47). So even though the water baptism/Spirit baptism sequence wasn’t as rigid, the two events should still be proximate to each other.
[vi] Saucy. Pg 303.
[vii] Keener. “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”
[viii] Saucy. Pg 123.
[ix] Saucy. Pg 128.
[x] Saucy. Pg 100.
[xi] Keener. “When are we Baptized in the Spirit?”
[xii] Keener. “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”
[xiii] Saucy. Pg 148.
[xiv] Keener. “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”
[xv] Saucy. Pg 161.
[xvi] Saucy. Pg 232.
[xvii] Saucy. Pg 331.
[xviii] Saucy. Pg 329.
[xix] Saucy. Pg 101.
[xx] Keener. “Tongues and the Spirit”
[xxi] Saucy. Pg 131.
[xxii] Saucy. Pg 128.
[xxiii] Keener. “A Closer Look at Some Spiritual Gifts”
The Middle Ground 