Thursday, August 8, 2019

W.A. Beardslee on Paul's Understanding of Post-Ascension Prophets and Prophecy


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. (W.A. Beardslee, Human Achievement and Divine Vocation in the Message of Paul [Studies in Biblical Theology 31; London: SCM Press, 1961], 106-7, emphasis in bold added)

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:


Blog Archive