Refuting Protestant John Wayne Wardell's Appeal to Hebrews 1:1-2 as a Proof-Text Against Latter-day Saint Claims to Modern Public Revelation

In a recent work critical of “Mormonism,” John Wayne Wardell (Protestant) offered the following criticism of Latter-day Saint claims to modern public revelation and a defense of Sola Scriptura through an appeal to Hebrews 1:1-2

 

Mormon believers feel quite the opposite, that the Book of Mormon is God’s new revelation. Yet traditional Christianity teaches that all written revelation ended in the era of the New Testament. Hebrews 1:1-2 is often sued in this regard as a support text: “(1) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, (2) Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed their of all things, by whom also he made the world.” This is interpreted by most theologians of the established churches to mean that with the coming of God’s son 2000 years ago, “the end of days” has begun and the end of new revelation with it. The Gospels and the other books of the New Testament are the preserved record of that revelation which is the inspired account of the life teaching of Jesus Christ, God’s final prophetic voice to the world. Thus, any additional written revelation by any professed Prophet thereafter is a multitude of years too late. (John Wayne Wardell, The Footprints of Mormonism [London: Austin Macauley Publishers, 2025], 244)

 

There are many things wrong about an appeal to Heb 1:1-2 to support the cessation of public revelation.

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.

To quote a scholarly Protestant source:

In the NT, most of the references to prophets are to ot figures or to their writings. These references are used primarily to authenticate the messianic identity of Jesus and his ministry (Matt 1:22; 2:23). In this sense, prophets are presented not only as people who proclaimed the divine word, but also as those who foretold the coming of the Messiah. John the Baptist is referred to as a prophet (Matt 11:9; 14:5; 21:26; Luke 1:76), and this is the common opinion of the people concerning Jesus as well (Matt 21:11, 46; Luke 7:16; 24:19; John 4:19; 6:14; 9:17). The early church clearly identified Jesus with the prophet like Moses (nābîʾ) foretold in Deut 18:15 (Acts 3:22; 7:37). Other prophets (prophētēs) mentioned by name are Agabus (Acts 11:27–28; 21:10); Judas and Silas (Acts 15:32); and Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen, and Saul/Paul (Acts 13:1), as well as the prophetess (προφῆτις, prophētis) Anna (Luke 2:36). The woman identified in Revelation as Jezebel also claims the title of prophet (prophētis) but is in fact a false prophet (Rev 2:20). Paul refers to the Cretan poet Epimenides as a prophet (prophētēs) in Titus 1:12. In the Pauline epistles, prophets (prophētēs) are listed alongside apostles, pastors, and teachers as those whom God has equipped to lead the church (Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:28–29; Eph 4:11). A major role of these individuals is to edify and encourage believers (1 Cor 14:3; see Acts 15:32). The New Testament, like the OT, condemns false prophets (ψευδοπροφήτης, pseudoprophētēs) for being illegitimate and for teaching false doctrine (Matt 7:15; 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; 2 Pet 2:1). (Aaron C. Fenlason, “Prophets,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al. [Lexham Bible Reference Series; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2014], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

If Wardell is correct, it means that none of the books written after the ascension (i.e., all 27 books of the New Testament) are not inspired works, but merely useful historical records en par with the importance of 1 Clement and the Didache. Furthermore, it would mean that, prior to the incarnation, Jesus was passive during Old Testament times, contrary to the early Christian belief that the Angel of the Lord and Jesus were numerically one and the same person.

For more on Heb 1:1-2 and other proof-texts for Sola Scriptura, see, for e.g.:

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura