#STRask - If We Don’t Need to Learn to Hear God’s Voice, How Do You Explain These Verses?

Episode Date: September 11, 2025

Questions about why, if we don’t need to learn to hear God’s voice, there’s a command to earnestly desire the gift of prophecy, why we would need to learn how to use other spiritual gifts but not this one, and why there are men who don’t perceive God’s voice in Job 33:14.   You say we don’t need to learn to hear the voice of God, but we’re commanded to “earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:1) and to “earnestly desire to prophesy” (1 Cor. 14:39), and passages like these seem to be prescriptive texts (1 Cor. 14:37; 1 Thess. 5:20; Rom. 12:6). Just as someone who has been given the gift of teaching by the Holy Spirit has to learn how to exegete a passage, so those with the gift of prophecy have to learn how to hear God’s voice. If it’s impossible to miss God’s voice, why are there men who don’t perceive his voice in Job 33:14?

Welcome to Stand to Reason's hashtag St.R. Ask podcast. I'm Amy Hall. And I have Greg Kokel here with me. Amazingly. I happen to be here today. Who else, right? So, yes. Today, Greg, we have a lot of questions about your views. on hearing the voice of God. I don't know if people know, but you're working on a book on this or you're planning to. That's it. Well, I've been working on it for years. Now I'm getting to the point where I've got to put out a book proposal.

That means I get a deadline and now I've got to finish it. So it's actually really helpful to you to hear these objections and be able to respond to them and think through them and see how they fit in with what you're saying the Bible teaches about this. Sure. So this is going to be really helpful today. And I just want to also point out, because I know a lot of your listeners disagree with you on this, but you have, we have a three-part article series on the website, does God whisper. So if you want to hear more about Greg's view on this, just look that up on our website at STR.org, and you can get more information beyond what we hear today. And by the way, that book is almost completely an exegesis of verses that are you.

as counter examples to my view. And so what I try to show is the verses that you're reading, like my sheep hear my voice from John 10, for example, they don't mean what you think they mean when you read them in the context. And in most cases, reading the context is all that's necessary to see that the point that they think it makes is not the point the author is actually making.

But there's a whole bunch of verses that I go through that will help people understand. So today we had, there was a quote of yours that we posted on X, and then Sam had responded to with a few different tweets with some objections. So we're going to go through those today. Sure. First I'll read the quote that was posted. It says, don't worry about learning to hear the voice of God. If God wants to say something to you, it will be impossible to miss it.

Right. And I think this was posted to match your, it might even be directly from. that article you wrote, what was it the name of it again? It's called When God Speaks. Yes. And in that I make the case very briefly, my concern about the broader received tradition among, frankly, most evangelicals that having a conversational relationship with God where you talk to him and then he talks back to you specifically through some, in some way,

whether, you know, it's like a voice or whether it's an impression in your mind or you sense that God is saying this or whatever, the phenomenology is not important. It's just the idea that a two-way conversation is a central part of being a mature Christian. And an almost indispensable part, some of the writers will imply. And I take exception with that. I don't think that that's a skill you have to learn. It is never addressed that way in the New Testament, and there is my point here, and this is going to be challenged in some of the question, which is fine, is that to say that you have to learn to hear the voice of God is a libel on God because it means that God's trying and failing. He's trying to talk. In fact, that's the way some people will put it. Well, God's trying to speak to you, but, you know, you're too busy or the rock and rolls up too loud or something like that.

and so therefore you can't hear the voice of God. And my point was, you can't learn to hear the voice of God because if God's not speaking, there's nothing to hear. And that's another question that needs to be answered. Is God, do we learn from Scripture that God is speaking consistently, directly to every Christian as part of their Christian heritage, you know, the new birth and all that? And if he's not speaking, well, then there's nothing to hear. if he is speaking, you can't miss it because I know of no place in Scripture where God

attempts to speak to somebody and they don't hear. That is, the person that God is attempting to speak to. Now, I'm using the word attempting. I wouldn't use that, actually, because God doesn't attempt, he doesn't try, because he doesn't fail. When God speaks, those to whom he's speaking here. And when I say here, they comprehend the point or the words that are being communicated, all right? That doesn't mean the people follow them necessarily or obey them, or when they hear, they fully comprehend the significance. The point that I'm making here is that God's communication when it's done is clear because God doesn't try, all right? God's communication scripture is clear. We can read the words. Now, understanding what the words mean, that's a process

of interpretation. Sometimes that's harder. And a lot of people just ignore it. So they don't listen to God's words in scripture. But we, of course, we're using the word listen in a very different sense there. And so that's my specific point. And you'll see when we get to some of the challenges that some of the challenges misunderstand that point. So let's go ahead. Okay. So here is his first tweet. I love your work, but biblically speaking, we're commanded to, quote, earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially prophecy, 1 Corinthians 141, and earnestly desire to prophesy, 1 Corinthians 1439. It's a prescriptive text non-exclusive to Corinth, and then he has a few more verses there. So that passage, Paul is addressing the church in Corinth. in those chapters about abuses of the gifts and the importance of tongues with interpretation,

because when you have tongues with interpretation, you have understanding of the revelation. So you have a tongue that's a revelation, but without an interpretation, it's not to be understood. It can't be understood. You have to have a kind of translation with that is that's a separate spiritual gift that was part of the mix that were available to the early Christians. So, by the way, I'm not at all addressing the question of cessationalism. Do these gifts continue on into the present day? That's a separate issue.

And I'm actually not a cessationalist. Cessationist. Sorry. Oh, well, sometimes I'm a sensationalist, but not a cessationist. Thank you for the clarification. So in this particular passage, what's curious is the 1st Corinthians 14 is where you find Paul's lesson of the bugle. And the lesson of the bugle is, if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will respond for battle? And of course, the bugle was comms in battle back then, and you have to hear the bugle to know

what to do, advance or retreat. And you've got to know the difference because it's dangerous. And he's using that as an illustration. And he said, unless a person with the mouth or with the tongue speak words that are clear, how will it be known what is being said? So this act. actually supports my broader point. In addition to that, the person, that was about how if you speak in a tongue, you have to have someone to interpret. Yeah. So he says, don't do it if there's not an interpreter. So you're not, if you can't understand it, they were supposed to speak down and not say it.

Right. So it's not even that it's still valuable to hear something that you can't understand. He was completely saying you have to have the understanding. That's right. So, if that's the application, and I'll get to the spiritual gift part in a moment, but I want to see the, in this very chapter, he's making a point that God's revelation has to be clear in order to be followed. If it's ambiguous, if it's unclear, like tongues without interpretation, it can't be followed. And yet there are multitudes of people, and this is inherent of the idea that you, You have to learn to hear and discern the voice of God.

What they're saying is that God is speaking in a somewhat illegible. That's writing. What am I thinking here? What's the parallel? Indistinct or not clear way that we have to develop some skill to decipher. Well, that's completely contrary to Paul's point, lesson of the bugle and his whole point about tongues without interpretation. All right. So we have to keep that in mind.

He's not going to be suggesting something here that is contrary to that broader principle he's developing, which is consistent with my point. In fact, in the article, the solid ground, when God speaks, because I believe he does speak, but there are certain patterns we see in the New Testament. And one of them is that it's clear, you know, and usually supernatural in the Book of Acts, so it can't be missed, all right? So when God speaks is clear, and so we don't want to adopt a point of view that says, well, we have to clarify what God's trying to tell us. We're the ones who's got to straighten it out.

That's not Paul's point here, you know. Well, there's the tongue. Maybe I can figure out what that tongue means on my own. No, it's a revelatory gift that it translates or interprets the tongue. Okay, so now back to the particular point that Sam has raised, and that. is earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially prophecy. So, here's what Paul is saying that, because he's making it clear that he's not putting down gifts.

And, in fact, 1 Corinthians 12, he goes through a whole thing about different kinds of gifts that are meant to serve the body of Christ. Okay. Now, what's interesting in that passage is he's identifying the nature of the gifts vis-a-vis or relative to the body, that a gift is like a body part, you have some people who are the eye, you have some that are the ear, you have some that are the hand. Not everybody has all these gifts. They are distributed as needed by the Holy Spirit.

So when he says that you should desire earnestly the spiritual gifts, especially that you prophesy because that is a revelatory gift, he is telling the local, body, that in the local body, they should be a whole body, functioning with all the different parts, not any individual having all the gifts, but some individuals, this one, and some individuals that one. And so when Paul says, you know, desire earnestly the spiritual gifts, he is talking to the body. He isn't talking to individual Christians that every Christian should desire the spiritual gifts. We know this because he says explicitly in the passage that not everyone has all the

gifts, but the spirit distributes the gifts as he will. Now, I'm running a risk here because you have 1st Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 that covers the same ground. So I'm not sure if it's the Corinthians passage as I'm not reading it right in front of me or the Romans passage that makes the point that not everybody gets every gift, all right? Clearly, though, this particular passage is encouraging the local body to function in various ways that the Spirit gives gifts so that that body can be a whole functioning body. It is not saying everybody should learn to prophesy. And in fact, being able to prophesy is not something you learn.

It's a revelatory gift. And keep in mind, when prophecy in the Old Testament took place, if you got it wrong, you were a dead man, because the requirement for the prophet was to be perfectly accurate with everyone. The reason is it's a revelatory gift. It's God speaking through the prophet, and God doesn't get his prophecies wrong. If the prophecy doesn't come true, then it wasn't from God. You spoke presumptuously, you die. Now, that was the criteria for the Theocracy. It's not the criteria in the New Testament, but capital punishment, but the principle is still the same.

So, nothing about the 1st Corinthians 14 statement, earnestly desire, spiritual gifts, and especially prophesy, in any way undermines the point that I was making because it doesn't apply to that particular point, which is that everyone can learn to hear the voice of God, but it's the thing that's learned. So you have the everyone part, I don't think that's biblical, and the learn to hear, that's not biblically sound either. Okay, so to follow up on that, he says, of course, the Holy Spirit distributes the gifts, but just because we can't learn to have a gift on our own doesn't mean we can't learn to have a gift with the Holy Spirit. For example, not everyone with the gift of teaching instantly became a perfect teacher on day one. Got it.

The teacher may learn exegeting. Yeah. So that's a very good point regarding certain gifts. And so I'm just going to backtrack a little bit on something I said. When it comes to revelatory gifts, whether that gift is the ability to write scripture or the ability to prophesy or to have an interpretation of a tongue, those are revelatory, okay? That is a totally different category than someone who has to learn to be more effective

at exegeting the scripture that's already revealed, inherently and clearly. There are the words right there, okay? And by the way, Peter makes this point in Second Peter that when it comes to Revelation, he said, first of all, we're not making the stories up about what happened with us to Jesus. Okay, we were there. And then he says, and you have a more sure, or you have made more sure, the prophetic word. And then he describes that these are people that are not doing it on their own. It's not their own interpretation.

It's not an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. So now what I'm doing is properly distinguishing between in the gift mix, a revelatory gift where God is responsible for the accuracy and a non-revelatory gift like helps and administrations and teaching and preaching. where the Holy Spirit helps us, but we are in the position that we need to develop that gift. It's just a different category, and it strikes me that it's obviously a different category. You don't learn to prophecy. No prophet did. He got annoyed by the Spirit and prophesied.

Like I said, the standard was if you make a mistake, you're a dead man. That's the way it worked. So there are people now, I'm not sure if it's so much anymore, but where people were kind of trying to learn how to prophesy, and they would practice prophesying, you know, you don't practice prophecy. It's a revelatory gift. The disciples didn't practice writing scripture until they were pretty sure they got it right, and then they sent that out to the churches.

I think this is, God, here, you know, whatever. No, that's not how it worked. So this challenge fails to distinguish between a revelation. where God is specifically and precisely revealing himself through the gift, revelation, and other gifts that are meant to serve the body of Christ that you grow and develop in. And in fact, in 2 Timothy, too, he says we're to be diligent to accurately handle the word of truth. So he is talking about learning how to use how to exeat there. Excellent point.

But I can't think of any place that's similar for the other revelatory. even in a certain sense, we don't have to look around for it because when you reflect on the nature of a revelatory gift, it is God, the nature of revelation is God secures the accuracy, not the skill of the prophet. Look at, Balam's donkey spoke as God enabled it to speak, chastising Balim in the book of numbers, all right? The donkey didn't learn to speak Semitic languages and then spewed this out. No, it was God that accomplished that particular task.

Okay, let's go to his next question. I don't know how far we'll get. We'll probably go into the next show with this. So his next question is, if it's impossible to miss God's voice, why are there men who don't perceive his voice in Job 3314? And we'll just stop there for now. Yeah, there's a couple of references. Okay, so I turn to Job 3314, and here's what the birth says.

Indeed, God speaks once or twice, yet no one notices it. And frankly, I put a question mark here. I'm not sure what this is what's going on. I didn't pursue that at all. But now that we're there, let's take a closer look. Okay, this is part of a longer discourse. Now, keep in mind, what Job is a long book in which Job is facing a problem, and he's got a bunch of friends that are trying to counsel him,

and they give him counsel that isn't good. that isn't sound. And in this case, you have Elihu, who claims to be speaking for God here in this chapter, and he's addressing Job. Now, what's a little bit unclear to me is, it looks like this whole section is Elihu chastising Job. Now, if you study the book of Job, here's one thing that you take away. You can't trust Ellie Hughes counselors. They get it wrong time after time after time. You mean Job's counsel. What did I say? Elie Hu, but wasn't he the one that, the only one that God didn't chastise it then? Well, yeah, well, yeah, it may be. I'm not sure, but I'm just saying as a general thing. Keep in mind, these are, these are, these are, he was actually, well, I'll just

leave that for now. But I'm just saying, you have to keep in mind, this is Ellie Hu speaking. speaking. And then it says, he says, reading in verse 12, now, behold, let me tell you, you are not right in this, for God is greater than man, which is a point that God makes towards the end, chastising Job. But why do you complain against him that he does not give an account of all his doings, which is Job's complaint? Indeed, God speaks once or twice yet no one notices. All right. Now, that seems at face value immediately like, well, God's talking and people don't, Hear it. Okay, but we continue. In a dream, a vision of the night, when sound sleep falls on men, when they slumber in their beds, then he opens the ears of men and seals their instruction, that he may turn man aside from his conduct and keep man from pride. He keeps back his soul from the pit and his life from passing over into shield. Wow. Well, well, verse 15 to 18, seems to contradict verse 14. God speaks and they don't hear it. What do we make of that? Because then God's doing something that really has an effect on them to communicate what God wants to communicate

to them. Be careful. Don't go this way. Don't fall into this bit. And so now I've got to understand verse 13 in light of the rest. And I'm just going to take a shot at it. And by the way, this is another important point. You don't build a solid biblical case. on an unclear passage, especially in this case where it's all the way back in the oldest book of the Bible, the book of Job, and there is an ambiguity about it, all right? I think what he means, God speaks once or twice yet no one notices it. His point is that he is not speaking a kind of verbal thing that you notice. he works in a different way, and that's what follows in verse 15, in a dream, a vision of the night,

when sound sleep falls on men while they slumber in their beds. Then he opens the ears of men and seals their instructions. So in this passage, it's not saying people aren't hearing it. It's saying they are hearing it in a different way, but not through their ears in the sleep. He opens their ears, and of course, this has got to be taken metaphorically because they're asleep, so they're not hearing voices. But it's the way that God is communicating truth. Now, am I right about my interpretation?

I don't know. It's not a bad one, but I could be mistaken. Point being, you can't build a doctrine on something that is ambiguous or equivocal. It could be this or it could be that. So that would be my answer to the indeed God speaks once or twice shit. No one notices it. Applying the principle, never read a Bible first. This is Elihu speaking.

And then you have the rest of this passage that seems to be. a direct contradiction of what seems to be the plain sense of that verse in isolation. And that's why I don't think we can trust it to make that particular point. Plus, the other, the other, the other point is, is that how is it, and back to my original point that I make in the piece, how is it that God speaks with an intention? He's not just speaking into the air, okay? He has a purpose. In fact, Elijah makes that really clear.

his word will not return void, but will accomplish the purpose that he has for it. Okay, so what is the purpose? This seems to say he speaks with purpose and the purpose isn't fulfilled. Now that's a question on the character of God. So these are all challenges or difficulties to taking this verse as a counter example to the point that I'm making, not only biblically, but in a sense with regards to the character of God. Okay, we're going to stop there and join us on the next episode because we will continue with Sam's objections and we'll get through all of these before we're done. So thank you so much for listening.

If you have a question, send it on X with the hashtag STR Ask or you can just go to our website at STR.org. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kogel for Stand to Reason. Thank you.