A recent article has been published on the CARM Website by Luke Wayne, Amos 3:7 and the Mormon prophet. It is an attempted critique of the long-standing LDS appeal to this verse to support the belief in modern-day revelation and prophets.
I will agree with the author that, exegetically, such is not supported by this passage. However, some of his comments are representative of the poor exegetical and scholarly skills one encounters on CARM.
We read the following “criticism” against the LDS view of modern prophets:
In fact, if one takes this as a universal promise to all nations and all times, it actually refutes Mormonism! There is calamity and disaster in cities all over the world all the time. If this promise in Amos 3:7 is universal and for all times, and if the Mormon prophet is the one true prophet of God, He should be warning each of these cities around the world of their imminent troubles. After all, calamity does not come to a city unless God does it, and God does nothing without first revealing it to His prophet. We can easily test this theory by checking if all these cities and nations were warned by the Mormon prophet prior to their disasters. They were not. So if the typical Mormon interpretation of Amos 3:7 were true, it would still prove their own claims false!
The author clearly does not know Hebrew. The term translated as "secret" is the Hebrew סוֹד which means "council." This passage is in reference to the divine/heavenly council. To see a scholarly paper on Amos 3:11 (which also addresses the theology of v.7) and its implications of the divine council/council of the Gods, see David L. Bokovoy, Invoking the Council as Witnesses in Amos 3:13
In an attempt to support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, the author concludes his essay thusly:
Finally, while there are both men (Acts 13:1) and women (Acts 21:9) in the New Testament church who are rightly called prophets, God's revelation through His servants "the prophets" ended with John the Baptist (Matthew 11:13). It was superseded by God's greater and final revelation in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2). The coming of Jesus was the great fulfillment of all that came before (Luke 24:44) and the ushering in of the new and better covenant (Hebrews 8:13). God now communes with His people in Christ through the indwelling of the Spirit and has already made Himself and His judgments known in Jesus. There are no grounds for the Mormon idea that Christians today must be under an unending chain of governing prophets. Not Amos nor any biblical author puts forward such a claim.
Matt 11:13 (and its parallel in Luke 16:16), nor does Heb 1:1-2, exegetically-speaking, allow for such readings to be valid. Let us exegete the relevant texts--
With respect to Luke 16:16/Matt 11:13:
Jeff Lindsay, in answering the question, "Didn't Christ say that there would be no prophets after John?" quotes an answer given by Raymond Woodworth, which I will quote in part:
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS
"The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it." (Luke 16:16)
In their attempt to undermine the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, some individuals quote Luke 16:16 to show that prophets ended with John and are no longer needed, claiming that the belief in living prophets is unbiblical. However, the "John" mentioned in Luke 16:16 is John the Baptist (see Matthew 11:12-13). If it were true that living prophets ended with him, then there certainly would not have been prophets of God long after John's death (e.g., Acts 11:27; 21:10-11). So, what does Luke 16:16 really mean; and more specifically, what are "the law and the prophets"?
Simply stated, the law and the prophets are books of Old Testament scriptures:
1. The law is a book.
". . . cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal 3:10)
2. The prophets is a book.
". . . as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness?" (Acts 7:42)
3. The law and the prophets are read in a synagogue.
"And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on." (Acts 13:15)
4. Things are written in the law and in the prophets.
". . . so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets." (Acts 24:14 )
5. The law and the prophets are scriptures.
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." (Luke 24:27)
The law and the prophets are two of the three main groups of Jewish scriptures; which over time Christians called the "Old Testament," and Jews called the "Tanakh" (a.k.a. the Hebrew Bible). The Hebrew Bible is divided into three groups of books: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. During the time of Christ, the third group or division was called "the psalms":
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the psalms concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:44-45)
Realizing that the law and the prophets are books of Old Testament scriptures helps us to better understand other New Testament verses. For instance, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)
In other words, Christ came not to destroy the scriptures, but to fulfill them (for more examples, see Matthew 22:36-40, Luke 16:19-31, and Acts 28:23).
As Christians in general and Latter-day Saints in particular, it is important not to confuse or equivocate between "the law and the prophets" and "apostles and prophets." The former are books of scriptures, while the latter are members of the true church of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11). Nevertheless, the question still remains: why were the law and the prophets until John?
They were until him in the same sense that they prophesied until John:
"And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Matthew 11:12-13)
The law and the prophets prophesied until John because they were prophesying of Christ. When Jesus came after John, He fulfilled those scriptures concerning Christ, as they are written in the law and in the prophets (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:27, 44-45).
The apostle Paul testified:
"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come: that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26:22-23)
Therefore, Luke 16:16 refers to the fulfillment of the scriptures, "the law and the prophets," concerning Christ. But this verse says nothing about "apostles and prophets" as living servants of God, who received new revelation, prophesied, and served in the church long after John's death. "The law and the prophets" were until John, not "apostles and prophets."
Prophets after Christ
Another scripture some wrest along with Luke 16:16 is Hebrews 1:1-2:
"GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ."
Some argue that God spoke unto the fathers by the prophets "in time past" during the Old Testament. But now that we have Jesus, we no longer need prophets. Therefore, they say that there will be no true prophets after Christ.
Deceitfully, they neglect to mention that, when God spoke unto us by His Son, one of the things He said He would do is send us prophets (Matthew 23:34, Luke 11:49). God also said by His Son that, if we receive those He sends, we receive Him (John 13:20). Since we will be judged in the last day by what Christ has spoken, shouldn't we heed His words and accept those He sends (John 12:48-49)? So, how can it be true that we no longer need prophets or that there will be no true prophets after Christ?
The fact of the matter is they, who cite Hebrews 1:1-2 to support their argument against true prophets after Christ, are reading into these verses their own ideas (i.e. eisegesis). Hebrews 1:1-2 states that (a) "GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets," and (b) "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, . . ." But nowhere does it say that (1) we no longer need prophets nor that (2) there will be no true prophets after Christ. These last two statements are their private interpretations. And according the Bible, these interpretations are false.
Interpretation (1): We no longer need prophets. The apostle Paul refuted this interpretation in one of his epistles written years after Christ's Ascension. Paul compared the church to the body of Christ, where every member of the church is an essential member of Christ's body. Note that Paul specifically identified "prophets" as current members of the New Testament church:
"But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you: . . . Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." (1 Corinthians 12:18-22, 27-31)
Hence, as "the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee," neither can one member of the church say unto a prophet, "I have no need of thee"; for all the members of the body of Christ need to be "fitly joined together," so that, by working together as a whole, they "maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love" (Ephesians 4:16, cp. 2:21).
To be sure, Paul gave additional reasons why and how long we need prophets in the church:
"And [Christ] gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Ephesians 4:11-14)
Thus, the reasons why we need prophets along with the other members of the church are: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: . . . That we hence forth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine."
How long we need these members in the church is: "Till we all come in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God." Have we achieved these ends? No! Then, we still need prophets along with the other members of the church.
Interpretation (2): There will be no true prophets after Christ. The Bible contradicts this interpretation, bearing record that there were true prophets in the church after Christ's Ascension (Acts 13:1, 15:32, 1 Corinthians 12:28). These prophets in the New Testament not only taught and preached, but they also received new revelation and prophesied (Ephesians 3:1-6, Acts 11:27-30, 21:10-11). In fact, apostles and prophets formed the very foundation of the church, of which Jesus Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-21). And since these apostles and prophets had a testimony of Jesus, the "spirit of prophecy" was present in the very leadership of the church (Revelation 19:10). This also means that the apostles themselves were prophets as well, who received and brought forth further revelation and prophecy after Christ (e.g. the Book of Revelation).
Even in the latter days, the Bible foretells that God will pour out His spirit, and our sons and daughters will prophesy (Joel 2:28). In addition, the Bible reveals that in the last days there will be two witnesses who will prophesy 1,260 days. These prophets will also have power to devour their enemies with fire, to shut heaven that it does not rain, to turn water to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues as often as they will. After they prophesy, they will be killed and lie in a street in Jerusalem for three and a half days. Then God will raise them from the dead, and they will ascend up to heaven in a cloud (Revelation 11:1-12). As the Lord lives, there will be true prophets in the latter days like those in the Old Testament. Therefore, those individuals who claim there will be no Old Testament-style or -type prophets in the latter days, "do err, not knowing the scriptures."
"The Law and the Prophts" is not about the office of prophets, but two of the divisions of the Law of Moses. Taking the absolutist hermeneutic the author took in his article/video, this would force him into becoming a modern disciple of Marcion, rejecting at least two of the thredivisionsns of the Old Testament!
That Luke 16:16 is about the divisions of the Old Testament (the Torah [Law] and the Nevim [prophets]) can be seen in any scholarly commentary on the Bible. Take, for instance, the following from a conservative Evangelical Protestant on Luke 16:16-17:
In each of its nine uses in Luke-Acts, “Law and Prophets” designates not a historical epoch but a body of sacred Jewish literature, “the Old Testament” (16:16, 9, 31, 24:27, 44; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23) . . . John and the Pharisees therefore adhered to the theological framework of the “Law and the Prophets.” This proclamation of “the kingdom of God” does not arise with John, but with Jesus, for whom the “kingdom of God” (see at 4:43) is the dominant theme of his proclamation and ministry, as well as of his disciples (9:2; 10:11). “The good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and all are being pressed [Gk. biazetai] into it” (v. 16; my translation) . . . What remains of “the Law and the Prophets” with the advent of the gospel era? Are they superseded and supplanted by the fulfillment of the gospel? The concept of salvation unfolding in successive historical stages or dispensations, discussed above, might suggest so. V. 17, however, maintains the validity of “law” in the era of “gospel,” the “promise” in the era of “fulfilment”: “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than to drop a serif from the law” (my translation; cf. Matt 5:18). Solomon’s dedicatory prayer at the completion of the temple in Jerusalem declared that not “one word” of God had failed (1Kgs 8:56); Jesus declares that not “one keraia” will fail. Keraia means a “little horn,” i.e., not one pen-stroke of the law will fail. Marcion, the second-century heresiarch who sought to purge the gospel of Jewish elements and influences, substituted “my words” for “the law,” thus retaining Jesus and dispensing with Israel. This is a violent misunderstanding of Luke’s theology. Especially in the infancy narrative, but also in the Elijah-Elisha typology of chaps. 7-9 and the recurrent emphasis on Jerusalem throughout the Gospel. Luke reminds readers that “the Law and the Prophets” provide the indispensable pretext and context for the gospel. Israel is the nourishing “root,” to use Paul’s metaphor (Rom 11:18), from which the olive tree grows, and which supports the tree. The extravagant contrast between “heaven and earth” and a minute pen-stroke, a “little horn” (Gk. keraia) of a Hebrew letter in “the Law and the Prophets,” expresses the issue in Hebrew hyperbole The rise of the gospel does not signal the “fall” (Gk. piptein) of the law. “Law and Prophets” are more durable than the physical universe. They are the presupposition and promise of the gospel, which is their fulfillment. (James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Luke [Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2015], 463, 464)
With respect to Heb 1:1, this does not state that there would be no prophets or apostles after Jesus. Let us actually exegete the text:
The problem is that, by taking the absolutist view that many critics (e.g., Kurt Van Gorden in his booklet, Mormonism) is that it would preclude the letters of Paul, the Catholic epistles, the Revelation of St. John, etc., being divinely inspired Scripture, because for it to be "God-breathed" revelation, God would have to inspire the authors of such texts. Indeed, it would mean that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was not inspired when he wrote it, as it would preclude post-ascension revelation!
In reality, all that these verses state is that God spoke in the past through the prophets and during the time of Christ, through His Son, Jesus Christ. It does not touch upon the question of post-ascension revelation, apostles, and prophets, so in reality, critics who bring up this passage against LDS teachings are, essentially, begging the question.
Interestingly enough, appealing to such an absolutised reading of Heb 1:1-2 results in one rejecting the personal pre-existence of Jesus; to quote Dave Burke, a Christadelphian apologist:
I find it interesting that you cite Hebrews 1:1-13 as your text and then completely ignore verse 1. Perhaps it’s because you’re not sure how to deal with this verse, which clearly states that God formerly spoke to people through His prophets, but has spoken through His Son ‘in these last days.’ Such a statement has obvious implications for the concept of Jesus’ pre-existence and undermines the popular claim that OT angelic theophanies were actually appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.In response to this, the Evangelical apologist in the debate answered Burke rather cogently. In spite of my disagreement with this critic about the essentials of the gospel, I think he is spot-on in (1) answering the common Socinian abuse of this pericope (Anthony Buzzard often appeals to this text, for instance) and (2) that it does not preclude post-ascension prophets and apostles (this point will be fleshed out more later in this section):
You seem to reach for arguments from silence a lot, Dave. I said nothing specifically about verse 1 because I had a lot of ground to cover and little room to cover it. Verse 1 poses absolutely no problem for my Christology. God spoke in the past in the prophets; in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son. This statement has no implications, obvious or otherwise, as to when the Son began to exist. Nor does this statement mean that the Son could not have spoken as the preincarnate angel of the LORD. By your reasoning, the order is rigidly (1) prophets and no Son, (2) Son and no prophets. But we know, as it turns out, that there were prophets after the Son came (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). The author’s point is simply that the revelation that came through the Son “in these last days” represents the climax, the high point, of the history of revelation. (source)Furthermore, note that the New Testament affirms true prophets after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus:
And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. (Acts 11:27-28)
Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul (Acts 13:1)
And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)
And God hath sent some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (1 Cor 12:28)
Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge . . . And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets. (1 Cor 14:29, 32)
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his apostles and prophets by the Spirit. (Eph 3:5)
Even in the teachings of Jesus, there is an expectation of true prophets that would come after Him:
Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city . . . (Matt 23:34; cf. Luke 11:49)
Additionally, Christ not only would send/commission prophets, but His followers were to accept them as true prophets of God:
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. (Matt 10:40-41; cf. John 13:20; 15:20)
While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matt 7:15), this only makes sense is there would be true prophets that would have to be distinguished from false prophets (cf. Matt 7:15-20).
Furthermore, in Rev 11:3-12, there is a promise of two eschatological prophets who would serve as two (true) witnesses of God against a fallen world and who would be killed.
All these considerations blows the author of the piece out of the water.
Finally, with respect to Luke 24:44, absolutising this passage and its reference to "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" refutes, not supports, sola scriptura, as this would preclude the New Testament being authoritative Scripture!
For an essay that accuses Latter-day Saints of Scripture-wrenching, the amount of eisegesis packed into such a short article does show the lack of exegetical abilities of CARM's contributors (cf. Matt Slick's eisegesis of 1 Cor 4:6 to support sola scriptura as another example).
Finally, with respect to Luke 24:44, absolutising this passage and its reference to "the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms" refutes, not supports, sola scriptura, as this would preclude the New Testament being authoritative Scripture!
For an essay that accuses Latter-day Saints of Scripture-wrenching, the amount of eisegesis packed into such a short article does show the lack of exegetical abilities of CARM's contributors (cf. Matt Slick's eisegesis of 1 Cor 4:6 to support sola scriptura as another example).