the gift of speech allows man to

Chapter 6: The Right to Freedom of Speech

The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man; and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.

Free speech is our most fundamental—and our most contested—right. It is an essential freedom because it is how we protect all of our other rights and liberties. If we could not speak openly about the policies and actions of government, then we would have no effective way to participate in the democratic process or protest when we believed governmental behavior threatened our security or our freedom. Although Americans agree that free speech is central to democratic government, we disagree sharply about what we mean by speech and about where the right begins and ends. Speech clearly includes words, but does it also include conduct or symbols? Certainly, we have the right to criticize the government, but can we also advocate its overthrow? Does the right to free speech allow us to incite hate or use foul language in public?

The framers of the Bill of Rights understood the importance of free expression and protected it under the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Both English history and their own colonial past had taught them to value this right, but their definition of free speech was much more limited than ours. Less than a decade after the amendment’s ratification, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, making it a crime to criticize the government. Many citizens believed government could forbid speech that threatened public order, as witnessed by numerous early nineteenth-century laws restricting speech against slavery. During the Civil War, thousands of antiwar protestors were arrested on the theory that the First Amendment did not protect disloyal speech. Labor unrest in the 1800s and 1890s brought similar restraints on the right of politically unpopular groups, such as socialists, to criticize government’s failure to protect working people from the ills of industrialization and economic depression.

Freedom of speech did not become a subject of important court cases until the twentieth century when the Supreme Court announced one of the most famous principles in constitutional law, the clear and present danger test. The test was straightforward: government could not restrict speech unless it posed a known, immediate threat to public safety. The standard sought to balance the need for order with the right to speak freely. At its heart was the question of proximity, or closeness, and degree. If speech brought about an action that was dangerous under the immediate circumstances, such as falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, then it did not enjoy First Amendment protection. With this case, Schenck v. United States (1919), the Court began a decades-long process of seeking the right balance between free speech and public safety.

The balance, at first, was almost always on the side of order and security. Another case decided in 1919, Debs v. United States , illustrates how restrictive the test could be. Eugene Debs was a labor leader from Indiana who had run for President four times as the candidate of the Socialist Party of America, once polling more than one million votes. At a June 1918 rally in Chicago, while U.S. troops were fighting in World War I, he told the working-class crowd, “You need to know you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.”

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

He was sentenced under an existing federal statute to twenty years in prison for inciting disloyalty and obstruction of military recruitment, which the Supreme Court upheld.

For the next five decades, the Court wrestled with the right balance between speech and order. Much of what defined freedom of speech emerged from challenges to the government’s ability to regulate or punish political protest. Each case brought a new set of circumstances that allowed the justices an opportunity to modify or extend the clear and present danger test. Many decisions recognized the abstract right of individuals to speak freely, but each one hedged this right in important ways. Always in the background were conditions that pointed to disorder, dissension, and danger—the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War, among them—so the justices were cautious in expanding a right that would expose America to greater threats. These cases, however, gradually introduced a new perspective on the value of free speech in a democracy, namely, the belief that truth is best reached by the free trade in ideas.

The belief that society is best served by a marketplace of ideas open to all opinions, no matter how radical, ultimately prevailed. In 1927, the Court had endorsed what came to be called the bad tendency test: if officials believed speech was likely to lead to a bad result, such as urging people to commit a violent act, it was not protected under the First Amendment even if no violence occurred. By 1969, however, similar facts produced a different outcome. Ku Klux Klan members in Ohio invited a television station to film their rally. Waving firearms, they shouted racist and anti-Semitic slurs and threatened to march on Congress before their leader was arrested and later convicted under a state law banning speech that had a tendency to incite violence. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction in Brandenburg v. Ohio and established the rule still in effect today: the First Amendment protects the right to advocate the use of force or violence, but it does not safeguard speech likely to incite or produce an immediate unlawful act. The Brandenburg test has allowed Nazis to march, Klan members to hold rallies, and other extremist groups to promote views far outside the mainstream of public opinion. With few exceptions—fighting words and obscenity, for example—government today cannot regulate the content of speech.

Even as society was coming to accept a wide range of political ideas, opposition to an unpopular war raised other questions about the limits and forms of free speech. By the mid- to late 1960s, the Vietnam War divided Americans. Although many citizens supported the use of U.S. troops to stop communism in Asia, a growing minority, including many draft-age young people, took to the streets to oppose the war. The protestors did not limit their efforts to antiwar speeches; they also wore shirts with obscene slogans, burned draft cards, and desecrated American flags. Using these symbols to protest, they argued, was a form of free speech. Soon, the Supreme Court faced the question squarely in a case involving a youthful protestor from the nation’s heartland: is symbolic speech—messages using symbols or signs, not words—protected by the First Amendment?

The first large-scale American demonstration against the Vietnam War occurred in November 1965 when more than 25,000 protestors converged on the nation’s capital. Fifty Iowans made the long bus ride, and on the way home they decided to make their opposition known locally by wearing black armbands to work and school. One member of the peace contingent was Lorena Tinker, the wife of a Des Moines Methodist minister and mother of five children. Mary Beth Tinker, a thirteen-year-old eighth grader, followed her mother’s suggestion and became one of a handful of local public school students who wore this symbol of protest to school. This act placed her in the middle of a national controversy about student rights and freedom of expression.

In many ways, Mary Beth was a normal eighth grader. She was a good student who enjoyed singing, spending time with her friends, and taking part in church activities. What made her different was a commitment to social justice, a passion encouraged by her parents, both of whom were known for their activism. Her parents wanted their children to share their moral and social values, and Mary Beth responded eagerly to their invitation to participate with them. By the time she became a teenager, she already had attended her first protest, accompanying her father to a rally about fair housing.

Mary Beth Tinker, her brother, John, and a handful of Des Moines students planned their demonstration for December 16, 1965. The students’ aim was not to protest the war but to mourn its casualties, Vietnamese and American, and to show support for proposed peace talks. School officials, however, promised to suspend anyone who came to school wearing the armbands, and the school principal suspended Mary Beth and sent her home. She was one of five students suspended that day for wearing the offending cloth. Significantly, the school ban applied only to armbands, in other words, to students who opposed the Vietnam War; a number of students that day wore an array of other symbols, including the Iron Cross, a Nazi medal.

When the school board upheld the suspensions, the Tinkers persuaded the Iowa Civil Liberties Union to take the case to federal court. Two lower federal courts agreed with the school’s action, rebuffing the argument that the policy violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court decided otherwise. In its 7-to-2 decision, announced in February 1969, the justices held that the wearing of armbands is a symbolic act akin to “pure speech” and protected by the right to free expression. The protesting students posed no threat to the order required for effective instruction, nor did the wearing of armbands interfere with the school’s educational mission. In this instance, the balance between order and liberty was weighted on the side of the First Amendment. Students and teachers, the Court concluded, do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Symbolic speech has been the focus of some of our greatest constitutional drama. Words may be powerful and provocative, but symbols are often more inflammatory because they are visual and evoke an emotional response. We live in an age when we use pictures and symbols to convey important messages, whether in politics or the marketplace. For these reasons, the Supreme Court’s recognition of symbolic speech as a right protected by the First Amendment has been a significant development. Twenty-five years after Mary Beth Tinker put on her armband in remembrance of the war dead, Life magazine featured a handful of civil liberties cases to celebrate the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights. Mary Beth’s case was included, even though the rights of students remained, and still are, more limited than those of adult citizens. But her actions as an eighth grader expanded our conception of constitutionally protected speech to include the symbols we use to express our convictions.

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

More than most other recent decisions, cases involving symbolic speech have revealed how contentious the right of free speech remains in our society. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected individuals who burned the American flag in protest. This decision was highly controversial, and it has resulted in numerous attempts to amend the Constitution to protect the flag and, in effect, limit speech in this circumstance. The outcome of this effort is uncertain, but the debate raises important questions: What role does this right play in our democracy? How does it contribute to our liberty as Americans?

The right to speak freely, without restraint, is essential to democratic government because it helps us develop better laws and policies through challenge, rebuttal, and debate. When we all have the ability to speak in the public forum, offensive opinions can be combated with an opposing argument, a more inclusive approach, a more effective idea. We tolerate offensive speech and protect the right to speak even for people who would deny it to us because we believe that exposing their thoughts and opinions to open debate will result in the discovery of truth. This principle is an old one in Western thought. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s dissent in Abrams v. United States , a 1919 case suppressing free speech, is a classic statement of this view: “The best test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which [the public’s] wishes safely can be carried out.”

Governmental actions to deny differing points of view, even distasteful or unpopular opinions, rob us of the range of ideas that might serve the interests of society more effectively. In a case decided almost a decade before Tinker v. Des Moines , the Supreme Court found this rationale especially applicable to the classroom. “The Nation’s future,” the justices wrote, “depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues.” As a nation, we are willing to live with the often bitter conflict over ideas because we believe it will lead to truth and to improved lives for all citizens. We recognize that freedom of speech is the first freedom of democracy, as the English poet John Milton argued during his own seventeenth-century struggle to gain this right: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” The ability to speak freely allows us to pursue truth, to challenge falsehoods, to correct mistakes—all are necessary for a healthy society.

Free speech also reflects a commitment to individual freedom and autonomy, the right to decide for ourselves and to pursue our own destiny. Throughout our history, we have been so committed to individual choice that many foreign observers believe it is our most characteristic trait. We see it reflected daily in everything from advertising slogans—“Have It Your Way”— to fashion statements, but fail to recognize how closely freedom is tied to the right to speak freely. Free speech guarantees us an individual voice, no matter how far removed our opinions and beliefs are from mainstream society. With this voice we are free to contribute as individuals to the marketplace of ideas or a marketplace of goods, as well as to decide how and under what circumstances we will join with others to decide social and governmental policies.

A commitment to free speech, of course, will not resolve all conflict, not if our history is any guide. The debate is most contentious during times of war or other moments when national security is at stake. Even then—perhaps especially then—we will continue to fight over words and symbols because they express our deepest hopes and our most worrisome fears. This contest over what speech is acceptable and what is not has been a constant theme of our past. Rarely do these struggles produce a neat consensus. More often, intemperate rhetoric and bitter division have been their legacy, and this angry clamor is one of the basic noises of our history. What makes the struggle to protect free speech worthwhile is its ability to serve as a lever for change. When we practice our right to speak openly, we are defining the contours of our democracy. It is messy work, but through it, we keep the Constitution alive and, with it, our dreams of a just society.

“Free Trade in Ideas”

Jacob Abrams was a Russian immigrant and anarchist convicted of violating the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to advocate anything that would impede the war effort during World War I. In 1917 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., had written the Court’s opinion in Schenck v. United States , upholding similar convictions because Congress had a right to regulate speech that posed a “clear and present danger” to public safety. But by the time Abrams’s appeal reached the Court in 1919, Holmes had modified his views. Disturbed by anti-radical hysteria, he dissented from the majority’s decision upholding Abrams’s conviction in Abrams v. United States . His eloquent discussion of the connection between freedom of speech and the search for truth soon became the standard used by the Supreme Court to judge free speech cases until Brandenberg v. Ohio in 1972. The First Amendment, Holmes reasoned, protected the expression of all opinions “unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”

But as against dangers peculiar to war, as against others, the principle of the right to free speech is always the same. It is only the present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about that warrants Congress in setting a limit to the expression of opinion where private rights are not concerned. Congress certainly cannot forbid all effort to change the mind of the country. Now nobody can suppose that the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man, without more, would present any immediate danger that its opinions would hinder the success of the government arms or have any appreciable tendency to do so . . .

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country . . . Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Of course I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that in their conviction upon this indictment the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States.

“Malicious Words” versus “Free Communication”

In response to fears about imminent wars with France in 1798, the Federalist-controlled Congress passed a series of four acts known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. Section 2 of the Sedition Act made it a crime to make defamatory statements about the government or President. (Sedition is an action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to lead to the overthrow of the government.) The act was designed to suppress political opposition. Its passage by Congress reveals how limited the definition of the right of free speech was for some Americans only a few years after the ratification of the First Amendment.

Sec. 2 . . . That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United Sates, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

James Madison, congressman from Virginia, and Thomas Jefferson, the sitting Vice President, secretly drafted resolutions protesting the Sedition Act as unconstitutional. The Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed these resolutions in 1798. Both resolutions especially pointed to the act’s violation of First Amendment protections, as seen in the Virginia Resolution here.

Resolved, . . . That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution in the two late cases of the “Alien and Sedition Acts” passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, “the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

The Sedition Act expired in 1801 but not until a number of the Federalists’ opponents, including Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont, had been convicted of violating the law. Today, historians consider the Sedition Act to have been a gross misuse of government power. In 1798, the Kentucky Resolutions focused on the rights of states to determine the limits of free speech.

Resolved, that it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed.

Related Resources

• Timeline: First Amendment - Freedom of Speech
• Video: A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor: Freedom of Speech

Table of Contents

Trending Topics:

• Say Kaddish Daily
• Passover 2024

The Gift of Speech

What Balaam's donkey and under-represented minorities have in common.

By Adina Gerver

Commentary on Parashat Balak , Numbers 22:2 - 25:9

After the Israelites successfully defended themselves against the attacking Amorites, the Moabite king, Balak, asked Balaam to curse the Israelites in order to weaken them. Following several rounds of negotiations with Balak’s representatives and with God, Balaam accepted Balak’s charge on the condition that he would only say what God told him to.

On the journey, Balaam’s donkey suddenly swerved off the road, pressed Balaam’s foot against a wall alongside the path, and finally, simply sat down in the middle of the road. After each incident, Balaam beat the donkey, not seeing the angel of God that had blocked the donkey’s path.

After the third beating, God “opened the donkey’s mouth” and she asked Balaam: “What have I done to you that you have beaten me these three times?” God then revealed the angel to Balaam, and the angel reprimanded Balaam, who admitted his mistake. Bilaam then continued on towards Moab, where, much to Balak’s chagrin, he repeatedly blessed the Israelites instead of cursing them.

Why the talking donkey? The story would not have been substantially different without it, and, at first read, it is difficult to see what it adds. This anomalous talking donkey did not escape Jewish commentators. Midrash Numbers Rabbah (20:14) explains that God “closed the mouth of the animal [all animals], for if she spoke, they [people] could not subject her and stand over her. For this [donkey] was the stupidest of creatures and this [Bilaam] was the wisest of the wise, and as soon as she spoke he could not stand before her.”

Subjugation, in the rabbinic view, is made possible merely by the inability to speak. The donkey’s sudden, surprising voice in this story flips the power dynamic, rendering Balaam powerless in the face of her newfound authority.

Speech is a profound expression of power–and the denial of it a crippling means of oppression–around the world. Many authoritarian governments impose strict censorship of media, preventing exposure of corruption and human rights abuses to the public.

In Somalia, journalists are not permitted to interview government officials and are heavily censored. Two journalists there were recently severely beaten by militiamen.  Even a government’s written guarantee of protection for free speech is no guarantee of freedom of expression.

In Pakistan, whose 1973 constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, thirteen journalists were killed and forty more were abducted or arrested in 2008, while media that did not self-censor suffered retributive attacks.  In addition to silencing the media, repressive regimes also silence the voices of dissidents in blatant and sometimes violent ways.

Even in democracies, the voices of ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, poor people, and numerous other marginalized populations are vastly underrepresented in many societies. This silence translates into a lack of power that often leads to lack of access to basic social services and, at times, even the violation of human rights. Many NGOs work with such populations to help them make their voices heard.

CACTUS (“Center for Working Together for Community Support”), an AJWS grantee, works with rural and indigenous communities in the Mixteca region in Oaxaca, Mexico. In 2006, the community experienced violent police crackdowns against protestors who were rallying for indigenous rights and an end to government corruption. Censorship and monitoring of NGOs’ activities made the community feel powerless.

In response, CACTUS began to empower local people to speak out against injustice. In one of its projects, it facilitates a radio station, Radio Rabiosa (“Rabid Radio”), which is run entirely by teenagers. The teens use Radio Rabiosa to share music and culture, as well as information about social protest movements. Bety Cariño, CACTUS’s executive director, expressed the importance of giving voice to these teenagers: “The radio programs are the voices of the community,” she says. “We’ve never been invited to speak , never had the opportunity to articulate who we are. This breaks the silence .”

Proverbs teaches us that speech is a gift given freely by God: “A person may arrange his thoughts, but his ability to express them in language comes from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:1). Let us work to ensure that the voices of the poor and marginalized do not remain silenced, and that the power of speech, a gift from God, becomes fully accessible as a tool for blessing and justice for everyone.

This commentary is provided by special arrangement with American Jewish World Service. To learn more, visit www.ajws.org .

Join Our Newsletter

Empower your Jewish discovery, daily

Discover More

Tractate Sotah

The seventy languages of the world.

Tractate Kiddushin

Kiddushin 22

The ear that hears and the door that witnesses.

Kiddushin 68

The limits of kiddushin.

Steps to Life

To prepare people for eternal life.

Inspiration – The Gift of Speech

Speech is one of the great gifts of God. It is the means by which the thoughts of the heart are communicated. It is with the tongue that we offer prayer and praise to God. With the tongue we convince and persuade. With the tongue we comfort and bless, soothing the bruised, wounded soul. With the tongue we may make known the wonders of the grace of God. With the tongue also we may utter perverse things, speaking words that sting like an adder.

The tongue is a little member, but the words it frames have great power. The Lord declares, “The tongue can no man tame” (James 3:8). It has set nation against nation, and has caused war and bloodshed. Words have kindled fires that have been hard to quench. They have also brought joy and gladness to many hearts. And when words are spoken because God says, “Speak unto them My words” (Ezekiel 2:7), they often cause sorrow unto repentance.

Of the unsanctified tongue the apostle James writes: “The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell” (James 3:6).  Satan puts into the mind thoughts which the Christian should never utter. The scornful retort, the bitter passionate utterance, the cruel, suspicious charge, are from him. How many words are spoken that do only harm to those who utter them and to those who hear! Hard words beat upon the heart, awaking to life its worst passions. Those who do evil with their tongues, who sow discord by selfish, jealous words, grieve the Holy Spirit; for they are working at cross-purposes with God.

The apostle, seeing the inclination to abuse the gift of speech, gives direction concerning its use. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth,” he says, “but that which is good to the use of edifying” (Ephesians 4:29). The word “corrupt” means here any word that would make an impression detrimental to holy principles and undefiled religion, any communication that would eclipse the view of Christ, and blot from the mind true sympathy and love. It includes impure hints, which, unless instantly resisted, lead to great sin. Upon every one is laid the duty of barring the way against corrupt communications.

It is God’s purpose that the glory of Christ shall appear in His children. In all His teaching, Christ presented pure, unadulterated principles. He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth. Constantly there flowed from His lips holy, ennobling truths. He spoke as never man spoke, with a pathos that touched the heart. He was filled with holy wrath as He saw the Jewish leaders teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matthew 15:9), and He spoke to them with the authority of true greatness. With terrible power He denounced all artful intrigue, all dishonest practises [sic]. He cleansed the temple from its pollution, as He desires to cleanse our hearts from everything bearing any resemblance to fraud. The truth never languished on His lips. With fearlessness He exposed the hypocrisy of priest and ruler, Pharisee and Sadducee.

Guard well the talent of speech; for it is a mighty power for evil as well as for good. You can not be too careful of what you say; for the words you utter show what power is controlling the heart. If Christ rules there, your words will reveal the beauty, purity, and fragrance of a character molded and fashioned by His will. But if you are under the guidance of the enemy of all good, your words will echo his sentiments.

The great responsibility bound up in the use of the gift of speech is plainly made known by the word of God. “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matthew 12:37), Christ declared. And the psalmist asks, “Lord, who shall abide in Thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in Thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoreth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved” (Psalm 15:1–5).

“Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile” (Psalm 34:13). The wild beast of the forest may be tamed, “but the tongue can no man tame” (James 3:8). Only through Christ can we gain the victory over the desire to speak hasty, unchristlike words. When in His strength we refuse to give utterance to Satan’s suggestions, the plant of bitterness in our hearts withers and dies. The Holy Spirit can make the tongue a savor of life unto life.

The Review and Herald , May 12, 1910.

• No translate

The Review and Herald

May 12, 1910, the gift of speech.

Speech is one of the great gifts of God. It is the means by which the thoughts of the heart are communicated. It is with the tongue that we offer prayer and praise to God. With the tongue we convince and persuade. With the tongue we comfort and bless, soothing the bruised, wounded soul. With the tongue we may make known the wonders of the grace of God. With the tongue also we may utter perverse things, speaking words that sting like an adder. RH May 12, 1910, par. 1

The tongue is a little member, but the word it frames have great power. The Lord declares, “The tongue can no man tame.” It has set nation against nation, and has caused war and bloodshed. Words have kindled fires that have been hard to quench. They have also brought joy and gladness to many hearts. And when words are spoken because God says, “Speak unto them my words,” they often cause sorrow unto repentance. RH May 12, 1910, par. 2

Of the unsanctified tongue the apostle James writes: “The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.” Satan puts into the mind thoughts which the Christian should never utter. The scornful retort, the bitter passionate utterance, the cruel, suspicious charge, are from him. How many words are spoken that do only harm to those who utter them and to those who hear! Hard words beat upon the heart, awaking to life its worst passions. Those who do evil with their tongues, who sow discord by selfish, jealous words, grieve the Holy Spirit; for they are working at cross-purposes with God. RH May 12, 1910, par. 3

The apostle, seeing the inclination to abuse the gift of speech, gives direction concerning its use. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth,” he says, “but that which is good to the use of edifying.” The word “corrupt” means here any word that would make an impression detrimental to holy principles and undefiled religion, any communication that would eclipse the view of Christ, and blot from the mind true sympathy and love. It includes impure hints, which, unless instantly resisted, lead to great sin. Upon every one is laid the duty of barring the way against corrupt communications. RH May 12, 1910, par. 4

It is God's purpose that the glory of Christ shall appear in his children. In all his teaching, Christ presented pure, unadulterated principles. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Constantly there flowed from his lips holy, ennobling truths. He spoke as never man spoke, with a pathos that touched the heart. He was filled with holy wrath as he saw the Jewish leaders teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and he spoke to them with the authority of true greatness. With terrible power he denounced all artful intrigue, all dishonest practises. He cleansed the temple from its pollution, as he desires to cleanse our hearts from everything bearing any resemblance to fraud. The truth never languished on his lips. With fearlessness he exposed the hypocrisy of priest and ruler, Pharisee and Sadducee. RH May 12, 1910, par. 5

Guard well the talent of speech; for it is a mighty power for evil as well as for good. You can not be too careful of what you say; for the words you utter show what power is controlling the heart. If Christ rules there, your words will reveal the beauty, purity, and fragrance of a character molded and fashioned by his will. But if you are under the guidance of the enemy of all good, your words will echo his sentiments. RH May 12, 1910, par. 6

The great responsibility bound up in the use of the gift of speech is plainly made known by the Word of God. “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned,” Christ declared. And the psalmist asks, “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoreth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, not taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.” RH May 12, 1910, par. 7

“Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.” The wild beast of the forest may be tamed, “but the tongue can no man tame.” Only through Christ can we gain the victory over the desire to speak hasty, unchristlike words. When in his strength we refuse to give utterance to Satan's suggestions, the plant of bitterness in our hearts withers and dies. The Holy Spirit can make the tongue a savor of life unto life. RH May 12, 1910, par. 8

Modal title

Study center.

The gift of speaking

“ …since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.” — 1 Cor. 14:12b

THE key to understanding the purpose of the gifts and the purpose of the gift of speaking, according to Paul, is to build up God’s people. It is to bring that which had been divided by sin and evil back together again by the Spirit of God. Why did God give human beings the ability to communicate? Genesis 1 is a crescendo of speech that rises to the creation of human beings in God’s image and thus with the ability to communicate and it is in Genesis 2 that the gift of speaking allows for Adam to respond to God to fulfil his will for creation.

Unlike other animals, God’s will for man would not to be realised through mere instinctual obedience to nature’s law. True fruition for humankind was only possible through the gift of speaking with and responding to God as persons. And here lies the awful calamity of sin. Rather than a means of truth and order, the gift of speech served to alienate humanity from God and each other through their lies.

The depths of estrangement are reached in the futility of Babel. Babel means “tongues” and bespeak of our inability to heal the breach between man and God as well as between man and man. It is the cacophony of alienation that the Spirit is overcoming in Corinth, according to Paul.

As he argues in 1 Corinthians 12-14, through Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, God is re-uniting that which was torn asunder by calling the Corinthians to “pursue the way of love”.

This pursuit, according to Paul, should guide all the gifts and particularly the gift of speaking. Nearly every gift involves to some degree the gift of speaking. Yet it is precisely here that the danger to our unity dwells. Because the gift is by nature diverse, apart from the power and unity of the Holy Spirit, it threatens to divide rather than bring us together.

When the gift becomes self absorbed, used to build up our own self rather than the community, the gift actually begins to tear the church apart. Even tongues, prophecy, or preaching can divide if they merely are used for individual spiritual fulfilment.

Rather than building up the body of Christ, the tongue can quickly become an instrument to attack, degrade and divide. Such division reflects not the Kingdom of God but the division of Babel. This is the problem Paul faced in the church at Corinth. The very gifts bestowed upon the church to re-establish the bonds of unity were wrongly dividing the church.

The problem was not the gifts but their disorderly use. Thus, Paul affirms speaking in heavenly tongues even as he gives preference prophecy wherein God’s clear communication is manifest. In prophecy God helps the church in difficult circumstance through foretelling, exhortation and edification so that the church can address its challenges with boldness. It also includes words of consolation when we suffer. Here prophecy provides God’s solace, comfort and love during hard times.

Prophecy is clear. It is revelation thus making manifest what was previously hidden. Whereas tongues leave mystery as mystery, prophecy makes the vague comprehensible providing guidance so that the church can pursue the way of love. This is why prophecy is the orderly and appropriate word for God’s gathered people in worship.

WORDS cannot console, cannot edify, cannot exhort unless they are clear words that we understand. These are the words that help us to ride through the storms of life or to grasp the challenges before us. Thus in both foretelling and forth-telling, prophecy is the better gift, according to Paul.

Clear and articulate, prophecy tells us about God, ourselves, the world or the situation we find ourselves in. For the more we know about God, the more we love Him, and the more we love Him, the more we want to know Him better. This path of knowing and loving God requires clarity, not mystery.

There is certainly a place for mystery in that we can never know everything there is to know about God and even the greatest theologians reach the point where they must fall upon their knees in praise of God because they know God is beyond their ability to fully know Him. On the other hand, what God has revealed we are to strive to understand.

Thus, we begin to see the purpose of the gift of speaking. God in restoring creation to its true beauty draws us back into unity with Him through the word. The purpose of the word is to order the wonderful diversity of our world according to the peace of God.

The Rev Dr Thomas Harvey, a lecturer at Trinity Theological College, works with the Presbyterian Church as a Partner in Mission from the Presbyterian Church (USA).

THE TONGUE CAN DIVIDE ‘Rather than building up the body of Christ, the tongue can quickly become an instrument to attack, degrade and divide. Such division reflects not the Kingdom of God but the division of Babel. This is the problem Paul faced in the church at Corinth. The very gifts bestowed upon the church to re-establish the bonds of unity were wrongly dividing the church.’

Seeing the disabled in God’s image

In the past few decades, a number of churches across the different denominations have issued offi...

Ohana: Nobody gets left behind or forgotten in God’s family

Every 2nd and 4th Sunday of the month, those who serve in the Ohana Ministry of Sengkang Methodis...

Whither the Church and disability ministries in Singapore?

Have you entered a church where people with and without disabilities worship God in “harmon...

Gatekeepers launches a new meeting place in the heart of the CBD

The new leadership of the nearly 50-year-old marketplace ministry seeks to continue the mission o...

Saints in the marketplace

In the past few decades, there has been an avalanche of excellent books on marketplace ministry s...

How three outreach ministries in AMKTMC grew

For churches in the Emmanuel Tamil Annual Conference, the Tamil-speaking congregations are well-p...

Chasing a pipe dream

Organists are a rare breed in Singapore. Find out how the Head of Piano & Organ at the Metho...

Work as the Christian calling

In 1947, the famous British novelist, playwright and critic, Dorothy Sayers (1893–1957), made t...

A faithful and unchanging God

The new year has dawned upon a world that remains restive and anxious. The wars in the Middle Eas...

Called to serve

Meet the Members-on-Trial who were admitted in November 2023 to their respective Annual Conferenc...

The Christmas hymn with no manger, angels or shepherds

One of Charles Wesley’s most endearing Christmas hymns is surely “Come, Thou Long Exp...

The Gathering of the Gifts

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men fr...

O Come All Ye Faithful: Methodist Christmas Events in Dec 2023

Ring in the Christmas cheer this season with uplifting events from our Methodist churches and age...

Back to the garden: Growing with your spouse

When David Ang was 24, he saw a photograph of a girl in his friend’s photo album. He was at...

Marriage: Contract or Covenant?

Since the sexual revolution, which burst onto the scene in Western societies during the 1960s, th...

Ten marriage myths you may have fallen for

Fake news has become so prevalent that even reputable news outlets must check their sources and t...

God is in the valley with me – A trauma survivor shares her story

This is the true story of Jane (not her real name), who worships at a Methodist church. She share...

A healthy theology of healing

One of the most influential voices in the Word of Faith Movement is that of the late Kenneth Hagi...

Healing beyond the physical

At TRAC Healing Ministry and Cairnhill Methodist Church, we have seen God heal all kinds of sickn...

Tips to teach preschoolers the Word

Experienced educators at Methodist Preschools share tips on teaching Bible stories and Bible- bas...

Reading, meditating, hearing and doing

Christians from across the different ecclesiastical traditions—Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Pro...

By means of grace – How Disciple Agency is helping Christians live out Acts 2:42

We are all familiar with this Bible verse, or should be, for it is one of the seminal verses unde...

Yong-en Care Centre: Of good friends, teachers and church buildings

When Yong-en Care Centre was set up in 1996, it served the flats around Chin Swee Road, Jalan Kuk...

The Church’s role in being salt and light in the world

In his great Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses two metaphors to describe his Church: salt and light...

Hospitality as justice: Addressing homelessness in Singapore

In the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy’s (LKYSPP) inaugural street count of homeless p...

New Age seductions

According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Centre, roughly six in ten American adults who...

Embracing dyslexia helped her find her calling as a palliative care nurse while serving the needy

Initially labelled as lazy in school because of her poor grades, Emily Yap felt indignant and hur...

Are intergenerational mentoring and relationships possible?

In the 1950s, sociologist David Riesman coined the term “the lonely crowd”, in part t...

From earth to eternity

As I write this, my elderly mother is in hospital again. There are purple bruises on the back of ...

Biblical grandparenting: Rejoicing, Role and Responsibilities

“Congratulations, Grandpa Ho. Welcome to the club!” With these well-wishes from brothers- and...

The storied self – Reflections on ageing and the elderly

The phrase “silver tsunami” is often used to describe the extraordinary rise in the n...

5 things I’ve learnt from the first year of motherhood

It’s still early days in my parenthood journey, but I feel like God has filled the first ye...

God’s preventing grace

As we observe Aldersgate Day this month to commemorate Wesley’s transformative experience o...

Stars, planets and aliens: All in a day’s work for this theologian

If you look at Rev Prof David Wilkinson’s CV, the first thing that strikes you is that he i...

Our business is doing God’s Kingdom work

In Matthew 6:33, Jesus tells us “… seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, a...

The Christian business leader

In the past several decades, there has been a steady stream of books on business leadership.

Every member in ministry

One of the many problems that have arisen in some churches in America due to the Covid-19 pandemi...

3 signs that you’re burned out from serving

29 September, 2010. That was the day I realised I was burned out. As a young Christian undergradu...

Clashing generations: Intergenerational challenges in the Church

Anyone who has served in a church ministry is likely to be able to share an anecdote or two about...

Your worth is not dependent on your ability, or your disability

Rev Lai Kai Ming, who is the pastor overseeing the Children and Youth ministry at Barker Road Met...

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: What is it and is it relevant today?

How do Methodists do theology and approach issues? When Methodists try to answer questions about ...

Hymning our spiritual heritage

Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs have been an integral part of the life of the Christian Church ...

Behold, I am making all things new!

Our world at the beginning of 2023 is pretty much the same as it was at the end of 2022.

Answering the call

We hear the stories of two newly ordained Elders and one Member-on-Trial, all of whom were confer...

Should Christians make New Year resolutions?

Making New Year resolutions may have once been a more serious practice. Reflecting the optimism o...

Charis MC’s outreach ministry joins hands with other organisations in Joo Chiat to reach out to migrant workers

On a Sunday night, among the neon- lit signboards and back alleys along Joo Chiat Road, Gladys Ha...

O Come All Ye Faithful: Methodist Christmas Events in Dec 2022

This is the first Christmas since Covid-19 restrictions have been lifted. Many churches have resu...

A theology of Christmas carols

I hope lovers of Christmas carols will forgive me for saying that not all carols are created equa...

Behind-the-scenes: The making of the John Wesley graphic novel

“I grew up Methodist and attended Methodist schools but didn’t know much about the li...

Technological prudence

Since the dawn of what some scholars have called the modern Internet in the 1990s, the lives of m...

Digital disruptions and innovations for the post-pandemic Church

We are living in the frothing confluence of massive social, philosophical, ecological, economic, ...

Spiritual friendships

One of the many issues that the coronavirus pandemic has brought to our attention is the importan...

“We are not alone. Our kids are not judged here.”

The GEMs (God Enables Me) programme run by the Children’s Ministry at Faith Methodist Churc...

The story of the Methodist Message

So runs the tagline under the masthead on the cover of the inaugural issue of The Malaysia Messag...

Leaving a life of addiction

My name is Hannah Chun and I am married with four children. I spend most of my time with my famil...

A sacrament of divine love

As I write this article, many churches in Singapore are welcoming the return of their members to ...

How does meritocracy fit into our Christian worldview?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary refers to meritocracy as a “system, organisation, or society...

A Christian Response to the Repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code

At the National Day Rally this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the Government’s ...

Onward, Christian Soldier

I did not expect to receive an overseas education, much less to serve full-time in the Singapore ...

Roe v. Wade: What does the Lord require of us?

On 24 June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States  of America reversed the decision in Roe v....

Youth Ministry: What the pandemic taught us

Abraham Sui is the Chairperson of Youthphoria, the Youth Ministry of Aldersgate Methodist Church. I ...

On nurturing the young

An article published on the CNA website in 2021 states that according to the Singapore Census 2020, ...

Here, for a Purpose

Methodist Girls’ School celebrates her 135th anniversary this year. Commemorating Founder’s D...

Father’s Day musings – Striking a balance between work, ministry and fathering

Paul Khoo, 45, is a familiar figure in Christian fathering circles. He is one of many key volunteers...

Look, it’s a pangolin! On attentiveness and wonder for creation

Have you ever seen a pangolin in the wild? The two times I encountered a pangolin in the wild, I was...

Virtuous Living and Creation Care

The question that is receiving some attention among politicians, policy-makers and stakeholders i...

KKMC: God’s faithfulness through the generations

In the middle of Little India, an elegant white building stands at a clearing where narrow roads ...

The sacrament of the ordinary

Some Christians are prone to think that the Christian life is a series of spiritual “mountaintop�...

A mother’s story: Hope comes with small steps

“When Lucien was a newborn, I had prayed to God to not let him grow up so fast, so that I could en...

Have you gone back to church?

Bishop Dr Gordon Wong preaching at Wesley Methodist Church on Easter Sunday It’s been two weeks si...

Making missions a vision for children

The team that produced Clean Hands, Pure Hearts and Beautiful Feet Daniel could not wait to tell the...

One moment in time

Annual Meeting and Ordination in 2010 Although there have been many significant events during my lon...

The Jesus Prayer

Lent is an important season in the liturgical year because it invites Christians to observe and comm...

Keep calm and carry on serving others – A life gifted to serve

Henry (front, 3rd from right) and Mary (back, 5th from right) with Rev Philip Lim (front, middle) at...

Give your child a distinctive Methodist Preschool education

Space Buds programme Parents in Singapore are spoilt for choice when deciding the preschool to send ...

On saving the family

One of the most worrying developments that we witness in the West and also in some affluent countrie...

Three ways to have a better Lunar New Year

Ps Ian Wong, his wife Eeleen, and their four beautiful daughters To the Chinese brothers and sisters...

A time for meaningful conversations

Lunar New Year, in the recent few years, has become a season of poignant reflection for me. It was d...

Wesley on the Church

For many Methodists, John Wesley is a theologian of the Christian life par excellence. Wesley’s en...

Remember who we are

Bishop Dr Gordon Wong preaching at the opening service “Lord, what happened to all these churches?...

Nothing to do but to save souls

Hakka Methodist Church As the rousing outro of “Give Us a Vision” faded away, which signalled th...

Bright Beams Mission

Sharing the bright beams of the SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

Home » Ellen White » The Gift of Speech

The Gift of Speech

Speech is one of the great gifts of God. It is the means by which the thoughts of the heart are communicated. It is with the tongue that we offer prayer and praise to God. With the tongue we convince and persuade. With the tongue we comfort and bless, soothing the bruised, wounded soul. With the tongue we may make known the wonders of the grace of God. With the tongue also we may utter perverse things, speaking words that sting like an adder.

The tongue is a little member, but the words it frames have great power. The Lord declares, “The tongue can no man tame.” It has set nation against nation, and has caused war and bloodshed. Words have kindled fires that have been hard to quench. They have also brought joy and gladness to many hearts. And when words are spoken because God says, “Speak unto them my words,” they often cause sorrow unto repentance .

Of the unsanctified tongue the apostle James writes: “The tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity; so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.” Satan puts into the mind thoughts which the Christian should never utter. The scornful retort, the bitter passionate utterance, the cruel, suspicious charge, are from him. How many words are spoken that do only harm to those who utter them and to those who hear! Hard words beat upon the heart, awaking to life its worst passions. Those who do evil with their tongues, who sow discord by selfish, jealous words, grieve the Holy Spirit ; for they are working at cross-purposes with God.

The apostle, seeing the inclination to abuse the gift of speech, gives direction concerning its use. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth,” he says, “but that which is good to the use of edifying.” The word “corrupt” means here any word that would make an impression detrimental to holy principles and undefiled religion, any communication that would eclipse the view of Christ, and blot from the mind true sympathy and love. It includes impure hints, which, unless instantly resisted, lead to great sin. Upon every one is laid the duty of barring the way against corrupt communications.

It is God’s purpose that the glory of Christ shall appear in his children. In all his teaching, Christ presented pure, unadulterated principles. He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth. Constantly there flowed from his lips holy, ennobling truths. He spoke as never man spoke, with a pathos that touched the heart. He was filled with holy wrath as he saw the Jewish leaders teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and he spoke to them with the authority of true greatness. With terrible power he denounced all artful intrigue, all dishonest practises. He cleansed the temple from its pollution, as he desires to cleanse our hearts from everything bearing any resemblance to fraud. The truth never languished on his lips. With fearlessness he exposed the hypocrisy of priest and ruler, Pharisee and Sadducee.

Guard well the talent of speech; for it is a mighty power for evil as well as for good. You can not be too careful of what you say ; for the words you utter show what power is controlling the heart. If Christ rules there, your words will reveal the beauty, purity, and fragrance of a character molded and fashioned by his will. But if you are under the guidance of the enemy of all good, your words will echo his sentiments.

The great responsibility bound up in the use of the gift of speech is plainly made known by the Word of God. “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned,” Christ declared. And the psalmist asks, “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoreth them that fear the Lord. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his money to usury, not taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.”

“Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.” The wild beast of the forest may be tamed, “but the tongue can no man tame.” Only through Christ can we gain the victory over the desire to speak hasty, unchristlike words. When in his strength we refuse to give utterance to Satan’s suggestions, the plant of bitterness in our hearts withers and dies. The Holy Spirit can make the tongue a savor of life unto life.

— E.G. White, Review and Herald , May 12, 1910

• ← Are We Representatives of Christ?
• Fasting and Prayer →

Historical Author

This is a republished article or book excerpt from early Adventist history. The author will be credited at the end of the article.

One thought on “ The Gift of Speech ”

Words as Jesus talks about are as true as the sun rising every day. I have used them to hurt people in my youth. It was not until I was reborn that I realized that I was wrong and started to change my way of talking to my fellow man. And that’s when I noticed that people looked at me differently and with some respect that I never experienced before, I still struggle with holding my tongue when some use their words to hurt. But I try to turn the other cheek, and some times it works and some times!!!! I find it is easier to retaliate so when I find myself in that position I now just walk away. It usually works, but not always. What makes it more difficult is how sinful this world is.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

We'd appreciate it if you would take the time to go over our comment guidelines, especially if you are new here.

I have read and accepted the Privacy Policy *

• Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
• Faithfulness of God
• Saving Grace
• Adoption by God

Most Popular

• Gender Identity
• Trusting God
• The Holiness of God
• See All Essays

• Conference Media
• Featured Essay Resurrection of Jesus An essay by Benjamin Shaw Read Now
• Death of Christ
• Resurrection of Jesus
• Church and State
• Sovereignty of God
• Faith and Works
• The Carson Center
• The Keller Center
• New City Catechism
• Publications
• Read the Bible

U.S. Edition

• Arts & Culture
• Bible & Theology
• Christian Living
• Current Events
• Faith & Work
• As In Heaven
• Gospelbound
• Post-Christianity?
• TGC Podcast
• You're Not Crazy
• Churches Planting Churches
• Help Me Teach The Bible
• Word Of The Week
• Upcoming Events
• Past Conference Media
• Foundation Documents
• Church Directory
• Global Resourcing
• Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

The Gift of Prophecy

Other essays.

The gift of prophecy is a miraculous act of intelligible communication, rooted in spontaneous, divine revelation and empowered by the Holy Spirit, which results in words that can be attributed to any and all Persons of the Godhead and which therefore must be received by those who hear or read them as absolutely binding and true. Evangelicals disagree as to whether this gift is limited to the founding era of the Christian church or whether it is currently operative in the church now.

The gift of prophecy remains a controversial one among evangelical churches, concerning both the nature and duration of the gift. The Old Testament regards prophecy as an act of intelligible communication that bears divine authority, although it also allows for the possibility of false prophets. The New Testament bears remarkable continuity with the Old Testament concerning prophecy, and the NT authors regard the messages of the prophets to be the very words of God. As such, the NT seems to assume that genuine prophecies always warranted complete trust and obedience. However, the NT clearly expects the gift of prophecy to be done away with at some point in time. On the one hand, continuationists believe that the gift will continue functioning until the second coming of Christ. On the other hand, cessationists believe that the gift was tied to the authority of the founding leaders of the early church and has therefore ceased to function in the church today.

Both the nature and duration of prophecy remain controversial subjects among evangelicals. That is to say, no consensus exists regarding (1) what prophets were doing when they prophesied and (2) whether or not the gift of prophecy remains active throughout the church age. This debate is unlikely to be resolved any time soon; therefore, this essay aims to briefly explore both the nature and duration of prophecy from a cessationist perspective.

Scholars continue to debate the nature of prophecy. Some describe prophecy as the gift of inspired scriptural interpretation; meanwhile, others claim that it refers to the act of preaching. Today, a popular position defines prophecy as the act of declaring in fallible human speech what God has brought to mind. While each of these proposals has been ably defended, none of them adequately summarizes the biblical teaching regarding the essence of prophetic activity.

Old Testament

In the Old Testament, a prophet was a man or woman called by God to deliver His words to His people. Since Israel could not bear to hear the Lord’s voice directly (Exod. 20:18–19), God established the prophetic office as an answer to their request that the divine word come to them through human mediation (Deut. 18:16–18). As such, while OT prophets had secondary functions (like intercession; cf. Gen. 20:7; Exod. 32:30–31; Num. 14:17–19; 1 Sam. 12:23; 1 Kings 13:6; Jer. 27:18, 37:3), their main role was to act as spokespersons on the Lord’s behalf. This role is well-illustrated by the task given to Aaron in Exodus 7. There, God assigned Aaron to be Moses’s prophet; as such, Aaron was to communicate to Pharaoh what Moses had relayed to him. Just as Aaron was called to speak Moses’s words to Pharaoh, so the prophets were called by God to speak only His word to His people (Deut. 18:18–20).

Given this description, it should come as no surprise that the OT depicts prophecy to be an act of intelligible communication. So, for instance, when prophets were commanded by God to prophesy, they were told to proclaim words that the Lord had given them (cf. Jer. 19:14–15, 25:30ff, 26:12; Ezek. 3:17, 6:2ff, 11:4–12, 13:2ff, 20:46–48; 21:2ff; Amos 7:14–17). Moreover, when receiving their prophetic commission, the prophets are commanded to take God’s words and herald them to His people (cf. Isa. 6:8–9; Jer. 1:4–8; Ezek. 2:8–3:4). Furthermore, those who opposed the prophets did so because they heard the words of their prophecies (Jer. 20:1–2, 26:7–11, 26:20–23; Amos 7:10). In fact, even the “prophetic” activity of false prophets involved verbal communication (Deut. 13:2, 18:20–22; 1 Kings 22:10–12; Jer. 23:16). While the prophets did occasionally employ sign acts (cf. Isa. 20:1–3; Ezek. 4:1–13, 5:1–6, 24:15–24; Hos. 1:2), even these were accompanied by divine words to disclose their meaning. Therefore, it seems best to understand OT prophecy to refer to the communication of God’s words in either spoken or written form.

In addition to being communicative acts, genuine prophecies in the OT always carried divine authority. Those who prophesied did so through the power of the Spirit of God (Num. 11:24–29; Joel 2:28; cf. 2 Pet. 1:20–21) and spoke the very words that God had put in their mouths (Deut. 18:18; 1 Kings 22:14; Jer. 1:7–10; Ezek. 3:4, 3:10–11, 3:17). As a result, genuine prophecies were not merely human words but were the very words of God. This is why the prophets frequently introduced their speeches (or their books) with declarations like “thus says the Lord,” “an oracle of the Lord,” or “hear the word of the Lord.” Moreover, because true prophecy in the OT referred to the Spirit-empowered communication of God’s words, those addressed by God’s prophets were expected to receive their messages with reverence and trust (Deut. 18:15). The refusal to attend to the words of the prophets was equivalent to despising God’s own word; therefore, those who failed to heed YHWH’s prophets were subject to divine judgment (Deut. 18:19; cf. 1 Kings 13:4, 20:35–36; 2 Kings 17:13ff; Isa. 30:8–14; Jer. 29:17–19, 35:15–17, 36:27–31; 43:9–22, 44:4–6; Zech. 1:4).

It must be noted, however, that not all scholars conceive of OT prophecy as being completely authoritative. On the contrary, some believe that prophecy in the OT was a mixed phenomenon; as such, even genuine prophecy could contain errors and did not always warrant absolute obedience. Some appeal to Numbers 12:6–8, claiming that the text distinguishes between infallible prophecy and fallible prophecy. Others claim that the “band of prophets” in 1 Samuel 10:5–10 and 19:20 should be understood as members of the fallible class of prophets. Still others argue that prophets whose words are never recorded in Scripture should be viewed as having prophesied with less authority. Upon analysis however, one finds that the exegetical foundation for this perspective is slender at best. With regard to Numbers 12, it is not at all evident that the passage has two kinds of prophecy in view; instead, the text merely sets Moses apart from all other prophets. Furthermore, since God revealed himself to canonical prophets through visions, one cannot read Numbers 12:6 as a reference to fallible prophecy without also casting doubt on their authority (cf. Isa. 1:1, 2:1, 6:1–7; Jer. 1:11–14, Ezek. 1:1 8:3, 40:2; Amos 1:1–2, 7:1–9, 8:1–3, 9:1ff; Obad. 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Hab. 1:1; Zech. 1:7–11, 2:1–5, 3:1ff, 4:1ff, 5:1ff, 6:1ff). Similarly, texts like 1 Samuel 10 and 19 simply do not address the issue of prophetic authority. In fact, the passages that reference these prophetic groups say very little about them; thus, one must resort to an argument from silence if one is to see these texts as evidence for fallible prophecy. Lastly, those who argue for less-authoritative prophecy on the basis of exclusion from the canon mistakenly conflate authority with canonicity. While the two concepts are related, they are not identical: prophetic words which were not recorded for posterity could very well have been fully authoritative for their original audiences.

While the OT regards highly the authority of true prophets, it also acknowledges the reality of false prophets. Fundamentally, a false prophet was someone who claimed divine sanction for his words though neither he nor his message had been commissioned by YHWH (Deut. 18:20; Jer. 14:14, 23:21–22, 28:15, 29:8–9). According to the OT, God Himself allowed for the presence of false prophets either to test the faithfulness of His people (Deut. 13:1–3) or to bring judgment upon them (1 Kings 22:19–23; Ezek. 14:9). Scripture describes such false prophets as speaking from their own imagination rather than from divine inspiration (Jer. 23:16; Ezek. 13:2–3). At the same time, certain passages also reveal evil spirits to be the source of false prophecies (1 Kings 22:19–23). Already in the book of Deuteronomy, God had told Israel how they were to recognize and deal with false prophets. For instance, Israel was to reject any so-called prophet who called them to follow after other gods; moreover, such a man or woman was to be executed for enticing rebellion against the Lord (Deut. 13:1–3). In addition, Israel could distinguish true from false prophets by attending to whether or not their predictions came to pass (Deut. 18:22; cf. 1 Kings 22:28; Jer. 28:9). Prophets who were revealed to be illegitimate by mistaken predictions were also to be condemned to death because they had presumptuously spoken in the Lord’s name (Deut. 18:20–22; cf. Jer. 28:15–17).

New Testament

An examination of the NT data regarding prophecy reveals significant continuity with the picture painted by the OT. First of all, the NT also treats prophecy as an act of intelligible communication. For instance, the synoptic Gospels refer to Isaiah’s words as an example of prophecy (Matt. 13:14, 15:7; Mark 7:6). Zechariah’s speech is called a prophecy in the book of Luke (1:67–79). Though he incorporates a sign act, Agabus uses words when he delivers his prophecy to Paul (Acts 21:11). Paul explicitly describes prophecy as a communicative act when he says, “The one who prophesies speaks to men” (1 Cor. 14:3). And importantly, the entire book of Revelation presents itself as a prophecy (Rev. 1:3, 22:18–19).

Like the OT, the NT also portrays prophecy as being divinely inspired. The synoptic Gospels along with the book of Acts associate prophets with miraculous activities (Matt. 7:22; Mark 6:14–15; Luke 7:12–16, 24:19); in addition, Luke describes prophecy itself as being empowered by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:67; Acts 2:16–17, 19:6). In fact, he goes so far as to claim that, when prophesying, the prophets were speaking the very words of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:1–2; 21:11). Paul shares similar convictions as he ties prophecy to divine revelation (1 Cor. 13:2, 14:29–30) and views prophecy as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit’s power (1 Cor. 12:7–11; cf. 14:1; 1 Thess. 4:19–20). And while Peter does not address the topic at great length, he does affirm that the Holy Spirit himself inspired and superintended the very words of the prophets (1 Pet. 1:10–11; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Lastly, John also makes similar points regarding prophecy as he describes the prophetic nature of the book of Revelation. He notes that the message of the book came to him through divine revelation when he was “in the Spirit” (Rev. 1:1, 1:10). But John stresses the Trinitarian quality of prophecy more than his apostolic contemporaries. Thus, the book of Revelation is simultaneously his message (1:4), “the word of God” (1:2), “the testimony of Jesus Christ” (1:2; cf. 19:10), and “what the Holy Spirit says to the churches” (2:11, et al.).

This brief survey demonstrates that the NT and the OT alike regard true prophecy as from God. Moreover, the NT similarly regards the messages of the prophets to be the very words of God. As such, the NT seems to assume that genuine prophecies always warranted complete trust and obedience. While some dispute this point, the biblical material provides strong evidence in this direction. First, the book of Revelation itself stands as a witness to the authoritative nature of NT prophecy. Second, since Joel probably had in mind infallible prophecy, the apostolic claim that the promise of Joel 2:28–29 has been fulfilled strongly implies that NT prophets ministered with full divine authority. Third, the other explicit examples of prophecy in the NT are also characterized as being fully authoritative and trustworthy (cf. Acts 11:28, 13:1–2, Acts 21:11). Lastly, this portrait of NT prophecy is suggested by the fact that NT prophets functioned alongside the apostles as the foundation of the church (cf. Eph. 2:20).

We are now in a position to answer the question, “What sort of activity was prophecy?” An overview of the biblical data leads to the following definition: prophecy can be defined as (1) a miraculous act of intelligible communication, (2) rooted in spontaneous, divine revelation and (3) empowered by the Holy Spirit, which (4) results in words that can be attributed to any and all Persons of the Godhead and which therefore (5) must be received by those who hear or read them as absolutely binding and true. This leads to the second question: should we expect the gift of prophecy to continue to operate in our churches today?

The NT clearly expects the gift of prophecy to be done away with at some point in time. However, Christians disagree as to when prophecy should be expected to cease. Continuationists argue that the gift of prophecy will continue to be provided to the church until Christ returns. Most of those who adopt this position do so on the basis of 1 Corinthians 13:8–13, where Paul states that “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away” (NASB). Continuationists understand “the perfect” to refer to the second coming of Christ; therefore, they argue that only when Christ returns will prophecy (which is included in “the partial”) be done away with. While this is certainly a possible reading, cessationists are not convinced that the passage specifically addresses the temporal duration of prophecy. A look at the text reveals that it does not specify that everything “partial” will be done away with simultaneously. That is to say, 1 Corinthians 13 leaves open the possibility that some of these “partial” gifts will expire before others. Therefore, these verses do not necessarily teach that the gift of prophecy will itself be done away with at Christ’s return. Moreover, cessationists argue that Ephesians 2:19–20 is more relevant to the question at hand than 1 Corinthians 13. In the former passage, Paul asserts that the prophets and the apostles played a foundational role in the establishment of God’s church. Since the church has in fact already been established and since the apostolic office has been done away with, cessationists would argue that the gift of prophecy is also no longer operational in the life of the church.

The issue of prophecy is complex, and Bible-believing Christians can (and do) disagree regarding the nature and duration of prophecy. While I believe that the cessationist position is more likely to be correct, evangelicals should beware of making the issue a point of division within churches. For those who desire to explore the matter in more depth, the following list of resources should provide a good place to start.

Further Reading

Nature of Prophecy

• D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14
• David Hill, New Testament Prophecy
• Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutics in Early Christianity: New Testament Essays
• John MacArthur, “Prophecy Redefined: A Response to John Piper”
• John Piper, “What is Prophecy Today?”
• Richard M. Blaylock, “Towards a Definition of New Testament Prophecy” in Themelios
• Sam Storms, “Prophets and Prophecy”
• Thomas Gillespie, The First Theologians: A Study in Early Christian Prophecy
• Wayne Grudem, “Prophecy, Prophets” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology , pp. 701–710

Duration of Prophecy

• David Farnell, “When Will the Gift of Prophecy Cease?”
• Kenneth Gentry, The Charismatic Gift of Prophecy: A Response to Wayne Grudem
• Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today
• Fowler White, “Richard Gaffin and Wayne Grudem on 1 Cor 13:10: A Comparison of Cessationist and Noncessationist Argumentation”
• Richard Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost
• Sam Storms, “Ephesians 2:20 – The Cessationist’s ‘Go-To’ Text (An On-Going Response to Strange Fire)”
• Sam Storms, “Why I Am a Continuationist”
• Thomas R. Schreiner, Spiritual Gifts: What They Are and Why They Matter . See an Author Interview here .
• Thomas R. Schreiner, “Why I Am a Cessationist”
• Thomas R. Schreiner, “It All Depends upon Prophecy: A Brief Case for Nuanced Cessationism” in Themelios
• Wayne Grudem, The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today

Prophecy in Light of Extra-Biblical Backgrounds

• B. Buller, “Prophecy, Prophets” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
• Christopher Forbes, Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment
• David Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World
• Edward J. Young, My Servants the Prophets
• Geerhardus Vos, “Part Two: The Prophetic Epoch of Revelation” in Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments

This essay is part of the Concise Theology series. All views expressed in this essay are those of the author. This essay is freely available under Creative Commons License with Attribution-ShareAlike, allowing users to share it in other mediums/formats and adapt/translate the content as long as an attribution link, indication of changes, and the same Creative Commons License applies to that material. If you are interested in translating our content or are interested in joining our community of translators,  please reach out to us .

This essay has been translated into Spanish .