Commenting
on Paul’s understanding of post-ascension prophets, W.A. Beardslee wrote:
The direction of Paul’s discussion of
prophecy is determined by the Corinthian preoccupation with the ecstatic
experience of ‘speaking with tongues’. This experience was highly prized, and
many regarded it as the most striking evidence of the presence of the Spirit.
The prophet had direct access to God, and received message was intelligible;
and Paul did not think of the inspiration which brought it as the displacement
of the human spirit by the divine, which was a frequent conception in
Hellenism. On the contrary, the prophet was in control of himself and
responsible to the community for the message. In particular, he must cede to
other prophets. Thus prophecy, unlike the ecstasy of ‘tongues’, was a community
matter. Its great value was its ability to ‘build up’ the church, and in this
it showed itself to be an expression of love, rather than of ‘gnosis’, though prophecy could exist
apart from love. Particularly noteworthy is Paul’s advice that when the
prophets speak, the rest of the rest of the church is to test what they say (1
Cor. 14.29).
What the content of such prophecies might be
Paul does not say. It would be a
revelation, a direct communication from God (1 Cor. 14.30). This implies a
contrast to ‘proclamation’ or ‘tradition’, for the content of these was fixed
in advance. Paul suggests two criteria by which to test inspired utterances:
one, that the inspiring Spirit must proclaim that ‘Jesus is Lord’ (1 Cor.
12.3); the other, that the content must upbuild the church (1 Cor. 14.4, 31).
Possibly the content of such prophecies was largely apocalyptic; that is what
is to be expected from the apparent origin of Spirit-experiences in the Church,
in connexion with the beginning of a new eschatological era (Acts 2.15-21, 33).
Guy observes that exhortations concerning the imminent end would be considered
to ‘build up’ a church in which the expectation of the end played a large part,
and holds that the appearance of prophecy in connexion with a specific
eschatological period is probably the reason for Paul’s viewing it as a
temporary phenomenon (Guy, New Testament
Prophecy, 105, 115; cf. 1 Cor. 13.8). None the less, in view of the
apparent sympathies of the Corinthians for Hellenistic gnosis, it cannot be
said that the actual content of their prophetic utterances was limited in any
specific way.
Such serves
to refute the claim that “prophets” after the ascension were inspired leaders merely and/or that Heb 1:1-2 is a valid “proof-text”
against there being post-ascension prophets who received binding revelation.
For more, including an exegesis of Heb 1:1-2, see: