The Gift of Tongues and the Big Picture

Welcome back to the Holy Nope podcast. I am the Holy Nope, and with me is David Loewe, the

Holy Dope. Hello, everyone. What are we talking about today, David? We're talking about part two of our discussion on tongues as just a kind of a probably more brief follow -up to the doctrine of tongues and its overall purpose in God's historical redemptive plan.

Right. So last time we were looking at the purpose of tongues, how the

Bible understands tongues, how it introduces tongues and why, and understanding that in light of the larger story of the

Bible, what's going on in this metanarrative and the place of tongues within that larger story.

And so it was very insightful, enlightening to hear you talk about the

Tower of Babel and leading us through the Old Testament's development of the doctrine of tongues as judgment upon unbelieving

Jews, and then to see that great reversal of the confusion of languages at Babel happen at Pentecost, where the disciples are suddenly proclaiming the mighty deeds of God in the languages of the nations who understand what they're saying.

And on that day, 3 ,000 people believe. And so we were able to get a better sense of the nature of tongues because that's really where the controversy tends to land.

Are tongues heavenly languages, angelic languages that we use for private prayer, or are they earthly languages?

And when we get to the purpose of tongues, we are able to more clearly understand the nature of tongues and what they actually were.

And so we're going to look more particularly in the Gospels today and something that Paul says in Romans, just to see, just to get a better understanding of how the gift of tongues fits with the overall, the overarching plan of God for bringing the gospel to the nations.

Yeah. I want, before we even get into it, I want to ask you, were you surprised at some of the comments that you received on the posts when you were putting various clips and posts up from people who were against what we were arguing?

Was there anything in particular that you felt like stood out? In other words, my question is, did anyone reply with anything biblically substantive to demolish the argument that you and I are making?

Or were literally all of the comments that we received more like, you guys are stupid.

You don't know what you're talking about. Which one was it, Austin? Well, I would say that overall, it was the latter.

It was the latter. I don't think the average listener is likely able to offer any refutation to the case laid out in that podcast.

Certainly not in the limited space of a comment section. And so it did create some follow -up opportunities for further discussion as we released some of these clips.

But I think you're right, David. Overall, that case that you laid out was pretty irrefutable.

So I am curious to see the response to this podcast that we're making.

And my request would be that if you're going to try to post and say that we are wrong in the case that we're making, then use the

Bible to do so. Use an actual argument. Use logic and reason.

As Martin Luther said when he stood before the Diet of Worms at great threat to his own life, he said,

Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, here

I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen. And I must say the same thing.

At really no danger to my life by saying this, but I still must say the same thing. If you want to try and convince us that tongues is something other than what we're saying, you can't just say, you guys are dumb.

What are you talking about? You have to actually make a biblical argument and respond to what we are claiming here from the

Bible. I think that's how real growth happens. That's how furtherance of understanding

God takes place when we see in the scriptures that we have been wrong about something.

And unless you can show that to me, here I stand. What else can I do? I have to believe these things because I think the

Bible is actually pretty plain about them. There was one guy who made a comment. I don't know if you saw it, Austin.

Who said that there were no Gentiles who were saved before Cornelius.

Did you see that guy who said that? I don't recall that, but that's a pretty wild take. There's no

Gentiles who were saved before Cornelius. And I said, well, that's plainly clearly not true because the

Ethiopian eunuch was saved before Cornelius was saved.

How can a person make that kind of a claim? I believe, I mean,

I would even say apart from the gift of tongues, the Roman centurion in the book of Matthew was saved and he was a

Gentile as well. Oh, yeah. I mean, I believe that Egyptians were saved who left

Egypt with the people of Israel. Yeah, no doubt. No doubt. God's been saving Gentiles since the beginning.

Absolutely the case. Yeah, it says that a mixed multitude went up with the

Jews who were leaving Egypt. Nevertheless, when we're talking about tongues being not only the sign of judgment to unbelieving

Jerusalem to the Jews who were there during the time of Jesus and just after Jesus earthly ministry and they were being judged for their rejection of Jesus.

Isaiah 28, 11 to 13, very plainly says they will be broken and snared and taken captive because they made and then later on after verse 13, because they made a covenant with death and they made lies their refuge.

I mean, it sounds pretty much like what the Pharisees did to Jesus. They made a covenant with death.

Caiaphas says in end of John chapter 11,

Caiaphas says it is better for one man to die than for the whole nation to perish. They made a covenant with death.

They wanted to destroy Jesus and that is the reason why Tisha B 'Av happens.

The temple is destroyed in AD 70 because they did not recognize the time of their visitation.

That's why not one stone is left upon another and tongues was the sign of the gospel then going out to the world, which is a case that we laid out in our last podcast together.

But what I'd like to do, maybe we can jump into it here. There's three places that I would like to look at, maybe four places if you don't mind, that I would like to look at today.

First two are in John's gospel. I've been preaching through John's gospel.

It's been a wonderful blessing to me to preach through this book.

I've been in it with my congregation for two years and when

I got to John chapter 10 and verse 16 is really when

I started to systematically lay out the case that tongues is for the purpose of Jesus reeling in, pulling in his sheep, which are not of this fold.

So in John chapter 10, starting at verse 11, if you don't mind, I'll just jump in there. Jesus says in verse 11,

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees.

And the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he's a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep.

I am the good shepherd and I know my own and my own know me.

Even as the father knows me and I know the father and I lay my life down for the sheep or I lay down my life for the sheep.

By the way, just as a side note here, I think that that is one of the most beautiful and wonderful texts which prove, you might say proof text, but in this case, it is an accurate proof text for the doctrine of limited atonement or definite atonement that Christ lays down his life for his sheep.

And I know you believe that, Austin, as a Calvinist. Yeah, I think John 10 is heavily teaching the atonement.

I think it's teaching penal substitutionary atonement. He is substituting himself.

He lays down his life for the sheep. Of course, if it's true penal substitution, then it must be limited to the sheep for whom he lays down his life.

That's a great point, man. At some point, we should actually come back and do a show on what is the atonement and what is the penal substitutionary atonement.

Yeah, in the light of all this deconstruction and denial of penal substitutionary atonement, we definitely should do that.

But you know, man, people have always hated penal substitutionary atonement. Why, David?

Because it is the heart of the gospel. That's right. And because Satan hates the gospel, and he hates true preaching, and he hates the true doctrines of the

Bible. And so he will do whatever he can to twist them, to deny them, to lie to people about them, to make people think that like, oh, you're limiting the atonement in some way.

He has always done that. Okay, and that's a good thing for us to cover.

But so Jesus says this, I lay down my life for the sheep. And then he says, verse 16,

I have other sheep, which are not of this fold.

I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice, and they will become one flock with one shepherd.

Ah, what a wonderful text that is. Amen. Jesus came to America and gathered all of the

Americans, right? And came up to Joseph Smith. No, no. That's right. No.

What is Jesus saying there? I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. Well, what fold? The fold of Israel.

I have sheep which are of the Gentiles, those who are outside, who have long been living in the land of deep darkness.

And he says, I must bring them also. It's so beautiful.

It's just a testimony to God's plan that when he says, he must bring these sheep, which are not of this fold.

For everyone who is watching this, who is a believer in Jesus, who is not

Jewish, that is talking about you, man. It's so beautiful.

It's so wonderful. You can thank God for John chapter 10 and verse 16, that Jesus says,

I have sheep that are not of this fold and I must bring them also. All you

Swedish people, all you Irish, all you Germans, all you Chinese, all you

Koreans, all you who are in Africa, all of you in the heart of Native America, right?

All the people, all the people. I have sheep from every tribe and language and people and nation and I must bring them also.

That's what Jesus says. But he doesn't only say, I must bring them also. He says, and they will hear my voice.

So then the question is, how are they going to hear his voice? That's the question.

And I believe the answer is because the good news of the

Jewish Messiah is going to go to every tribe and language and people and nation and that we see the very foundation of that, the beginning of that in Acts chapter two, as God gives the gifts of languages so that those who are from places which are very far off,

Phrygia, Pamphylia, Arabia, all of these different places, they're hearing the wonders of God proclaimed.

When they say the wonders of God in Acts two, what it's talking about is the gospel. That's the wonders of God. They're hearing the gospel proclaimed in their own tongues.

And this is the first foundational fulfillment of Christ saying that he must bring these sheep who are not of this fold.

That's what the gift of tongues is about. Yes. Right. So I absolutely agree with you that the sheep not of this fold is referring to Gentiles.

What is your argument, or do you have proof, that hear my voice?

Are you saying that Jesus is referring to tongues specifically or that Jesus is referring to that inward effectual call of the gospel, which is going to the

Gentiles through the gift of tongues? Yes, the latter, the second one that you said.

Okay. Yes, of course, they will hear him effectually.

I mean, again, John 10 teaches the doctrines of grace.

It teaches the tulip. But in this case,

Christ is going to call them to himself. They must come. He must bring them.

They will hear his voice. But the way in which they hear his voice inwardly is first to hear his voice outwardly.

In other words, how can they come unless someone is sent? The gospel has to go out to those people, and it has to be proclaimed to them in their own language by the preacher.

The preacher preaches the good news in the vernacular of the place where he is going,

Paul, for instance, as he's going to Malta. He speaks Maltese to those people.

Now, does the text actually say he's speaking Maltese? It doesn't say Maltese, but we are left to assume that that's the case.

These people are like tribal people on an island. So I just wanted to make sure that we understood that distinction, that you're not saying that Jesus is referring specifically to the gift of tongues when he says they'll hear my voice, yet that gift of tongues is that prophetic vehicle through which his voice is reaching the

Gentiles. And he says in John 10, 27, he used the same words, my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

And so he is referring to that effectual call. And we understand theologically that that effectual call is received through the external call or the general call of the gospel, where we use our tongues to proclaim.

And then the Holy Spirit, working with the word of God, issues new life to the believing sinner.

I mean, I've always said I like John Bunyan's book, Holy War, and how he talks about that we have gates.

There's the eye gate and there's the ear gate. And faith comes through hearing and hearing through the word of Christ that we must have the gospel proclaimed to us.

It goes into our ear gate. And then for his sheep, that word that goes into the ear gate, the

Holy Spirit takes it and applies it to the heart, takes out the heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh and draws and calls people to himself.

That that is what must happen. That's how Christ gathers the sheep, which are not of this fold.

The gospel is going to go to them. They will hear his voice, and they will hear his,

I will say this, they will hear his voice in their own tongues, and they will hear his voice effectually in their hearts, and they will be drawn to him and come to him.

So I wouldn't even say it's either or. I would say it's both and, that when

Christ is saying that they will hear him, that they will hear his voice, that he's speaking, they will hear the gospel and they will believe the gospel because he will effectually call them.

That's my argument anyway. I don't know that we can separate those two things.

And I think it's important even to make this point about it, that we can't really separate the auditory hearing of the gospel or the seeing of the gospel, as we're reading the

Bible, from the call of God. No, of course not.

God uses means, and his means is that seemingly foolish proclamation of the gospel through his church.

Yeah, because otherwise what happens is what the charismatics love to harp on, this idea of like God's giving dreams and visions and revelations to people in foreign lands like Muslims.

And so, hey, why go and send missionaries into Muslim lands?

Because God is revealing himself in dreams in those places. And that's really

Satan's logic. That's not what's happening. The Lord saves through the proclamation of the gospel in Romans 10.

That's the argument that Paul makes. I want to go to a second place. So John 10,

Jesus says, I have sheep which are not of this fold. And I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice, and they will become one flock with the shepherd.

By the way, one flock with one shepherd, that means that Jews and Gentiles will be one new people of God together.

There will be a body, the body of Christ that is made up not only of Jews and not only of Gentiles, but of Jews and Gentiles being together, one flock, not two flocks, one flock.

That's just an important thing for us to remember as well. And then if we just flip over two chapters to John chapter 12.

So these Greeks had heard about Jesus coming there.

And in verse 20, it says this. Now there were some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast.

These then came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and began to ask him saying,

Sir, we wish to see Jesus. And Philip came and told

Andrew. And Andrew and Philip came and told Jesus. I want to say this is the same

Philip who brought his brother Nathanael. He told Nathanael, we have found the

Messiah way back in John chapter 1. We found the Messiah. Philip loves to bring people to Jesus.

Also, who else does? Andrew loves to bring people to Jesus. Andrew's the one who brought the boy with five loaves and two fish.

Andrew's the one who brought Simon to go and meet with Jesus. So the two disciples who are doing like personal evangelism a lot.

These two, the Greeks come up to Philip and Philip and Andrew come up to Jesus. And look at what it says.

Philip came and told Andrew. Andrew and Philip came and told Jesus. And Jesus answered them saying, the hour has come for the son of man to be glorified.

What? Isn't that kind of a bizarre thing for Jesus to say when

Philip and Andrew say, hey, these guys want to meet you. Guess what? They're from Greece or they're from Rome.

They want to see you, Jesus. What should we tell them? Jesus knows what time it is.

Jesus knows what time it is, but why? Here's the question. Why does that signify what time it is?

That now is the time for the son of man to be glorified. Why is that the signal?

Well, his glorification is the cross. His lifting up on the cross.

And it is from the cross that he draws all men to himself.

There you go, man. And through Pentecost then is the instrument through which he's going to draw all men to himself because the

Holy Spirit is poured out at Pentecost. The gift of tongues is poured out at Pentecost and people from Greece and people from all over the whole world, they're there listening to the disciples speak about the wonders of God in their own language.

And the reason that Jesus knew as these Greeks are seeking him, he took that as a harbinger of his own impending death, resurrection, ascension, and the pouring out of the

Holy Spirit, which then would be the time for the Gentiles to receive the good news of Christ.

Okay, this is like the reason why Jesus has the reaction that he has to the

Syrophoenician woman. It is why in another place when he sends out the disciples, he tells them not to go to the regions of the

Gentiles because the gospel is to the Jews first and also to the

Greeks. And Jesus sees the Greeks seeking him as now the time has come for the

Greeks to actually seek him, and that that means he must die, rise again, ascend, and pour out the

Holy Spirit. Okay. Yeah, you know, I think the average reader of the Bible underestimates how prominent and significant this theme of the gospel going from the

Jews to the Gentiles, how significant it is in the pages, especially of their

New Testament. You know, you mentioned the Syrophoenician woman who comes falling down at Jesus' feet and begging him, and he likens her in a sort of parable to a house dog that does not eat at the table.

And a lot of modern deconstructionists and progressive Christians want to say that Jesus was racist or that he was being misogynistic, but the reality is that he is speaking to a

Gentile woman who accepts the position of the dog in the parable, likens her own self to it, and says even dogs get the crumbs.

And Jesus says there actually something to indicate, not a flat -out rejection of her request, but he indicates that the blessings of his messiahship are coming to the

Gentiles. He says it belongs to the children first, and indicating therefore it is going to the

Gentiles. And this Gentile woman believed for crumbs, and through her demonstration of faith she will receive much more than crumbs.

And here is the significance illustrated even further, this theme of Jews rejecting their messiah and the gospel therefore going to the

Gentiles. She believes for crumbs, but receives the loaves, as it were, of Jesus' messiahship.

And in the very next chapter is the feeding of the 4 ,000, where Jesus multiplies loaves for Jews, the very people who will cry out, crucify him later on.

I'll just say too, and probably we don't want to go too far on a rabbit trail, but I'll just say this, that you're right.

She accepted. She was not offended by Jesus implying that she's a dog.

And here's the reality. It's not dogs that cause the ruin of the earth and the universe and the curse, okay?

It's not dogs that cause that. It's human beings that cause that, all right?

We're the wretched ones, really. Human beings are the wretched ones. So look at what else

Jesus says here in John 12. He says, truly, truly,

I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the earth and dies, it remains alone.

But if it dies, it bears much fruit, okay? Well, what's the much fruit?

I think the much fruit— The ingathering of the people of God. Yes. John comments in the previous chapter, verse 1152, he did not say that of his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation and not for the nation only, but in order that he might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Dude, so you're absolutely right when you say that people tend to gloss over the prominence of this theme throughout the

New Testament. It is incredibly prominent. As a matter of fact, it is the thing that Paul almost always ends with when he's talking with the

Jewish people. And he says to them, and therefore the gospel is going out to the

Gentiles. Yeah, right. This is a theme, a theme that most of the unbelieving or all of the unbelieving

Jewish people do not like that. They don't like it, even though that's the promise that God makes to Abraham that he would be a blessing to the whole earth.

Now, I want to show one more thing. And that is Romans chapter 11,

Romans chapter 11. And then after that, one more place.

All right. So Romans chapter 11, and the Lord is talking about Israel.

He says, maybe I could just read it from verse one, and then we're going to get the point I want to make is in verse 11.

But so my old seminary professor, Don Carson, used to say, a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text.

So we should always know the context. I say, then, God has not rejected his people, has he?

May it never be, for I, too, am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

Or do you not know what the scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?

Lord, they've killed your prophets, and they've torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life.

But what is the divine response to him? I have kept for myself 7 ,000 men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

In the same way, there has also come to be in the present time a remnant, according to God's gracious choice.

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works. Otherwise, grace is no longer grace. What then?

What Israel is seeking it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened.

By the way, people have such a problem with that, hardened, the rest were hardened.

And Paul answers that in Romans 9 and says, does not the potter have a right over the clay to do whatever he wants with it?

So the rest, so those who were chosen obtained salvation, the rest were hardened.

Verse 8 just says, it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor. Yeah, sorry, just to piggyback off what you just said, people not liking that, that's a passive verb, that's something that's happening to them, that Paul is not speaking there about them actively, willfully hardening their hearts, but a hardening happening to them.

Yes, and that is God's prerogative. And if someone wants to argue against that, they are simply arguing against God.

I mean, all you have to do is just read the text itself to see what it is saying.

It is not of him who wills nor runs, okay? That's not how a person is saved. God must be the one who chooses.

He's sovereign, we're not sovereign. Anyway, but look at what it says in verse 8. Just as it is written,

God gave them. Who gave them? God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes to see not and ears to hear not, down to this very day.

And David says, let their table become a snare and a trap and a stumbling block, a retribution to them. Let their eyes be darkened to see not and bend their backs forever.

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? Let me pause and say,

Paul's asking here, the Jews didn't stumble so as to be utterly cut off to fall and never get up, to be gone forever, cast off forever, did they?

May it never be. But by their transgression, salvation has come to the

Gentiles to make them jealous. So Paul says, again, here, this is why he says in 1

Corinthians 14, that tongues are a sign to unbelievers. It is a sign of judgment.

So it sounds like what we're about to get into is something that we touched on last time from the

Old Testament that we're going to see repeated here in the New Testament. And that is that pattern that you so eloquently established moving through the

Old Testament, that when Israel is judged, the word, salvation, the word of God goes to the

Gentiles. It's a pattern established in the Old Testament. Now here, Paul says quite explicitly, by their transgression, salvation has come to the

Gentiles. Now you're going to connect this to the gift of tongues. I mean, dude, let me even just say, why was the first temple destroyed?

The first temple was destroyed for rampant idolatry. Okay, the people turned their backs upon God.

That's the reason why the Bible is quite plain and clear about that. That's why God raised up Nebuchadnezzar to come in and sack

Jerusalem, because the people of Judah had rebelled against him. The wicked kings had turned the nation against the

Lord. They were worshiping Baals and Asherahs. Okay, even in that case, then the

Babylonians come, destroy Jerusalem, sack the temple, destroy it, burn it to the ground.

They kidnap, take captive Daniel and Shadrach and Meshach and Abednego.

And who do Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and other faithful men of that day, who gets to hear the gospel then?

The Babylonian Gentiles do, right? By their transgression,

I believe Nebuchadnezzar was a saved person. Yeah, I think after the

Lord humbles him, he eats grass like an animal, he ends up confessing that the

Lord, Yahweh, is the true God. I think we're going to see Nebuchadnezzar in heaven.

So look at that. By the transgression of the Jews, way back, hundreds of years before the first appearance of Christ, salvation comes to the

Gentiles through transgression, salvation through judgment. And here he's saying the same thing, except in the rejection of the

Jewish leadership, of the Jewish Messiah, now salvation goes out to the

Gentiles. But he doesn't end there. So the transgression he's speaking of is their rejection of Jesus, they're crucifying

Jesus, that's their transgression. That's their transgression. Which John describes as his glorification.

Yep. If we were to reference that back to John 12 there. Yep, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's exactly right.

Their transgression is how Jesus Christ is glorified through his death and his resurrection and his ascension and the pouring out of the

Holy Spirit, whereby the gospel, initially through the gift of tongues, goes out to the

Gentile nation. Salvation comes through judgment. By their transgression, salvation has come to the

Gentiles. That's right. But it doesn't stop there. It says salvation has come to the

Gentiles to make them jealous, not the Gentiles jealous, to make the

Jews jealous. To make the Jews jealous of the salvation that the

Gentiles have now received. And I can honestly say, just as my own personal testimony as a

Jewish man, it was not a Jewish man who first shared the gospel with me.

It was a Korean medical doctor at Harper College in Palatine, Illinois, who came up to me in the hallway and invited me to Bible study.

And I saw over three years of Bible study with Dr. Paul Coe, I saw with him a relationship with God that I did not have.

I'm a Jewish man. I did not have that relationship with the Messiah that he had.

And it did make me jealous. It did make me jealous of him. I remember driving home from Bible studies thinking,

I wish I knew God like how he knows God. That that's like, even now, even today, right now, still happening.

The fulfillment of this is still taking place today. The gift of tongues has absolutely nothing to do with what the

Charismatics say that it has to do with. Absolutely nothing. And there is absolutely no purpose in Charismatic theology to the gift of tongues.

All the purpose is that Charismatic tongues serve, according to them, is that it's like so impressive to people who, when they see you like shabbala, babbala, dabbala like that, it's so impressive that, you know, many people are going to come to faith when they see you doing that.

I would add to that self -edification. They take Paul's words about self -edification as if he's permitting that and encouraging them in that way.

Which of course he goes on to say, he goes on to talk extensively about if people can't understand, then they're not being edified.

And if you can't understand what you're saying, you can't be edified because edification is through truth.

Edification is through communication. And if you're talking in an unintelligible speech, no edification can happen for you or for anybody else who doesn't understand.

Yeah, exactly right. So what you're saying is their purpose for tongues, this inward focused purpose for tongues that they claim to have with their heavenly language, really is foreign to the

Bible's understanding of tongues. These biblical themes that we've been describing of the

Jews' rejection of their Messiah and that being the event, the vehicle through which the gospel is going to the

Gentiles, initially through the miraculous gift of languages, tongues is fitting right there in this theme that we've already said is so prominent and so significant throughout the scriptures.

Genesis 12, God's promise to Abraham, to Paul's words here in Romans 11, this theme is just central, a central thread in the overarching

Bible story in tongues fits very, very nicely. And I think when you look at that and you look at the gift of tongues, we're seeing how it scratches the edge.

It fits in place as that gift by which the gospel is going to the

Gentiles. Yeah, yeah. Amen. And this has always been the Lord's plan and he's fulfilling it.

It's happening and it has been happening. The gospel has been going out to the

Gentiles and we have the Bible in our vernacular.

And that's actually the reason why every tribe and language and people and nation may be saved because God's word goes out to the ends of the earth.

His revelation is special revelation. In Psalm 19, it says that the heavens declare the glory of God.

The skies proclaim the work of his hands. And that's general revelation.

But the Bible is God's special revelation. And that special revelation was given to the

Jews until Acts chapter 2, when it's disseminated through the amazing and wonderful and marvelous gift of the

Holy Spirit, which is the gift of tongues. Praise God. Yeah, and it's given to demonstrate this truth that we've been talking about, that it is indeed not for the

Jews only, but to the Jews first, and was needed before the scriptures were completed as revelation and confirmation of the gospel message that it is for all men that Jesus, having been lifted up, is actually drawing all men.

And of course, by that, we don't mean every single individual that's ever lived because we affirm penal substitutionary atonement and therefore particular redemption.

But all kinds of men, Jew and Gentile alike. Because it was needed before the completion of the canon of scripture, we would expect this gift, which is a revelatory gift, a gift by which revelation is being given for the edification of the church and for a sign.

As with other revelatory gifts are going to fade out of the historical narrative.

So here are a few quotes that, you know, listeners can do with what they will.

I know that when we start quoting early church fathers, we can really go back and forth.

And you know, what's an interesting phenomenon, David, is when you read the New Testament apostles, and then you read the church fathers, and there's just like this dip in the depth, the beauty, the construction of thought.

You can just tell that the writers of the New Testament were inspired by God and the early church fathers.

So we don't want to overemphasize the testimony of fathers. Nevertheless, they're obviously important too.

As Gregory of Nazian said, they used to speak in tongues, but now they do so no longer, for it is now thought to be superfluous since we are established in the faith.

So it's no longer needed. It's redundant, he's saying. And then we have

Augustine, of course, in the fifth century here. For those who receive the

Holy Spirit spoke with the tongues of all nations. These signs were appropriate for the time, for it was necessary that there be this sign of the

Holy Spirit in all tongues to show that the gospel of God was going to run through all the languages of the earth.

That was done as a sign, and it passed away. We also have

Chrysostom in the fourth century. He writes, this whole place is very obscure.

He's commenting on 1 Corinthians 12. But the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts, which we have other theologians commenting on the gift of tongue saying the same thing, that even continuations like Wayne Grudem and other scholars also like D .A.

Carson really coming to the conclusion that no matter how much we argue for the nature of tongues, whether it was this kind of language or this kind of language, angelic or earthly or whatever, at the end of the day, we really don't know because we weren't there.

Now, we can make we can make arguments, obviously, from the scripture and interpret the scriptures appropriately and properly.

But we were not there. And that seems to be sort of what Chrysostom is saying here. This whole place is very obscure, what

Paul's saying in 1 Corinthians 12. 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.

So these are a few quotes from early church fathers, and they point obviously to the cessation of the gift of tongues and other other revelatory gifts.

What do you think about this analogy? I thought of this the other day. I don't know if anyone's thought of it before. It might be really dumb.

All right. The Holy Spirit was poured out, right? He's poured out. And so he's poured out.

And imagine you pouring out a full glass of water on the ground, on the solid ground.

What happens? Well, it makes a big splash right at the impact point at the epicenter.

And then as you continue to pour the water out, as it's poured all the way out, there are splashes splashing out away from that epicenter.

And some go in this direction and some go in this direction. Some go in that direction and some go this far in that direction.

But only this far in this other direction. Some go really far in this direction. And so one argument from continuationists is that, well, the

Bible doesn't say they ceased, and it certainly doesn't say when they ceased, as if there is a specific day, we are saying, on which these revelatory gifts like tongues stopped happening.

But I don't think that's the case. That's not our understanding. But rather, these gifts began to fade out as the need for them faded out.

And so we as cessationists simply argue that these spiritual gifts, these revelatory gifts were given to fulfill a need.

And when the need became fulfilled, the gift began to cease. And so what do you think about that splashing, that pouring out of water and the splashes going out, that analogy?

Bit dumb. I would say as long as I like it as an analogy, as long as we know that that's what it is, is an analogy.

In other words, that, you know, as you well know, the

Holy Spirit is not liquid. And so even though the Bible does refer to the pouring out of the

Holy Spirit, I think as an analogy, it works quite well what you're talking about.

That, yes, there seems to be by the

Lord's sovereign direction. That's another thing maybe where an analogy might fall short is, you know, we tend to think of pouring out water and the water just having no direction whatsoever, just willy nilly going where it does.

But God is, of course, sovereign, and the Holy Spirit is sovereign, and he can be poured out in whatever direction that he wants to be, right?

So as long as we keep that in mind. Yeah, he can splash whichever way and how far he wants to splash.

All right, I'm going to patent this analogy and call it

Holy Dope approved. Yeah, good, good. I mean, I would just say that one argument that's really interesting that I heard for the first time as we were just making the film, somebody said, well, what's interesting is there's in the first century, some early fathers who like Irenaeus and some others who would say that some of these things were continuing at that time.

And one of the arguments, I don't remember if it was Chad Vegas who said it, was this, that it was an apostolic prerogative to impart the gifts to others.

That's why Paul says in Romans 1, he desired to come to Rome that he may impart some spiritual gift to the

Romans. Therefore, the apostles were able to impart spiritual gifts. We are not able to impart spiritual gifts.

I can't lay my hand on you and give you a specific gift, even like whatever gift you don't have.

You're probably very hospitable. I've never been to your house, though, but I'm sure you are. But let's say you're not, right?

I can't even give you the gift of hospitality by putting it on your shoulder or whatever. The apostles could impart spiritual gifts.

So the argument goes this way. It would make sense that there would still be spiritual, miraculous, spiritual gifts going on after the death of John.

If indeed he imparted spiritual gifts in the 90s AD, right?

Let's say he imparted. He had the apostolic authority and prerogative to impart spiritual, you know, miraculous spiritual gifts on people who he was with who were not apostles.

And so a couple of hundred years before Chrysostom and Augustine that we read earlier,

Irenaeus says this in his Against Heresies Book 5. He says, we do also hear many brethren in the church who possess prophetic gifts and who through the

Spirit speak all kinds of languages and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men and declare the mysteries of God.

And so he seems to be referring to prophecy, tongues, and special knowledge, those three gifts, which

I think you and I would argue for, as listed in 1 Corinthians 13, 7 and 8, around that area, are things which

Paul says are going to fade out when the scripture is completed. Now, obviously, we can go back and forth on the interpretation of that text.

But to your point, Irenaeus, you know, who lived 130 through 202, he would be one who would see those gifts being in operation because they had been imparted to men through the apostles.

Yes. It actually makes perfect sense. If we believe that the apostles could impart miraculous abilities to those who are not apostles, like Paul says in Romans— So the

Holy Spirit is sovereignly splashing out into the 100s through the impartation of that apostolic gift.

Yeah. I mean, as a cessationist, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that that like, oh, no, cessationism is wrong now.

What I'm saying is this, that miraculous ability hasn't splashed to 2024.

Okay. It hasn't gone, hasn't splashed that far, hasn't gone that far.

Okay. And you know how I know that? Because there's not one single post -apostolic prophet who is a prophet who speaks only the true words from God and is never wrong.

There is not one single one that any charismatic person can ever point to.

There's never been one. I've asked, I've put this challenge out. I will put this challenge out right now.

Show me, give me the name of the 100 % accurate modern prophet.

I'll wait. I'm waiting right now. Tick -tock, tick -tock. I will die before you ever give me the name because there is none in the world today.

And the same goes for tell me one person who has the ability to do one person on the whole face of the earth, who has the ability to do what

Peter did in Acts chapter five, where every single person who came out, even

Peter's shadow was passing over them. Every single person was healed. Just one person in the whole world who has that kind of authority, that ability.

That's something we should talk about sometime too, man. That word authority, how in Matthew 10,

Jesus gives his disciples authority to cast out demons and to heal every sickness, that that's an authority that he gives, that it's his prerogative to give that authority.

And that's actually part of my argument about why it's actually not, well, the apostles just couldn't do it whenever they wanted to.

It just, no, no, no. They could because God gave them the authority.

Christ gave them the authority to do those things. They had authority. There's no one today who has apostolic authority.

And my consistent challenge always to the critics of cessationism is show me one person, just one, just one person who can speak foreign languages that they have not previously learned.

Just show me one person who is able to heal on command as Peter and John did at the gate called

Beautiful. In the name of Jesus, get up and walk. And the man walks. And they have that authority. Show me one person who is a prophet, who is 100 % correct all the time.

And I will recant my cessationism on anybody. All right. David has issued the challenge.

David has issued the challenge. All right. So as we close, let's circle back to Pentecost.

Let's circle back to Pentecost. The last quote I read from Irenaeus, he certainly indicates that the tongues being spoken are earthly languages.

He references kinds of languages. There's nothing in his writings to indicate,

I don't think, that he is referring to the gibberish that's spoken today. And so we've highlighted

Pentecost, especially in this episode, as that pivotal moment of the Spirit being poured out and the gospel being proclaimed in languages, earthly languages, that Gentiles understand.

Now, there's something called the analogia scripturae, right, the analogy of Scripture, clearer text, interpret, less clear text, right?

I think it's a very interesting point I'd love maybe for someone to interact with. 1

Corinthians is one of Paul's earliest letters. And so the logic goes like this.

Acts was written after 1 Corinthians. Acts was written by Luke. Luke was the companion of Paul.

Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Luke understands tongues as Paul understands tongues.

Luke recorded tongues as earthly languages in Acts 2, which is written after 1

Corinthians. 1 Corinthians is therefore about earthly languages. The clear text of Acts 2 and the various moments where tongues are given in Acts are the clearer text, which help us to interpret the less clear text of 1

Corinthians 12 through 14. What Gregory says—no, it wasn't

Gregory. What Augustine says—no, it wasn't Augustine. What Christendom says is an obscure passage, an obscure passage.

And so the clearer light of Acts 2 ought to shed clear light on these passages.

And the data clearly indicates that Luke's understanding, being the same as Paul's, Paul's understanding, therefore, is that tongues are earthly languages.

Man, that's a great argument and one that I have never considered or thought of before.

It's a fantastic thing. I need to really think about that and chew on it. You know, I'm just spitballing here.

I'm just spitballing, just thinking out loud. Yeah, I think it's a wonderful—

No, I heard someone else present that. Yeah, I think it's a wonderful argument, really powerful.

I need to really consider it. One thing I think that is important for us to remember and to convey to others is this.

At least I will say, man, I don't have everything figured out, and I don't know everything.

I don't know everything about theology. I don't know everything about tongues. I don't know everything about charismatic stuff.

I don't know everything about the gifts of the Spirit. I don't know everything about the Bible. I feel as a pastor, as a teacher, that I really kind of only barely scratched the surface of God's Word every time

I preach and every time I teach. I know that my ability to convey the truth is stammering and stuttering and that I'm still learning, man.

I'm still learning. I know that you are as well. We are truly beggars telling other beggars where to find bread.

I just think that that's important for us to convey that. I have convictions, and I know that you also have convictions as well.

It's fine and good, and we should hold to convictions, but I'm able and willing to learn.

I think that that should be the case for every true Christian, especially those who are teachers.

We should still want to learn. Amen. I've certainly learned some things listening to you, especially in these last two episodes covering the topic of the spiritual gift of tongues.

I think it's been profitable for my soul, and I hope it's been profitable for the listeners. If you've been helped by these podcasts, if you've learned something, if you have something you need to teach us, let us know in the comments.

I have been the Holy Nope, and with me has been David Loewe, the