I was watching a movie about Jeremiah, last night. It showed the Jews rejecting him as a prophet, claiming that God hadn't spoken to him. Yet he knew that God had, and couldn't deny it. I couldn't help but feel the parallel to Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and even my own experiences with this. I have heard claims that God doesn't talk to people anymore. I have only heard of one Biblical verse remotely excuseable in being used to support this claim.
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds." Heb 1:1-2.
This Scripture is interpreted by them thus - God who before spoke through prophets isn't going to do that anymore because he has now spoken to us by his son, and he said all that needs saying to mankind.
Interestingly people professing this interpretation still read the words of those very same past prophets that they profess to be unnecessary, as only Christ's words would be relevant, if we are to believe such an interpretation. Also they read Paul, Peter, and all those other, supposedly, unnecessary people that wrote after Christ's death. Or are they admitting that revelation is needed to understand what Christ was meaning?
However I don't see this text as saying that at all. To me Paul is saying how blessed we are to have the words of the son himself, rather than just prophets. To me the text says it plainly. I would interpret it thus - God who had only spoken to people through prophets prior to Christ had then spoken to them by his Son himself. That is all it has said: Nothing about no prophets or revelation in the future.
Some use Rev 22:18 where it states not to add to this book to support the idea of a lack of continued revelation, as it would become Scripture. However that is spoken in ignorance of the fact that the book being spoken of was the book just written - the book of Revelation (which John wrote). In fact that book was written before the books of John and 1st, 2nd and 3rd John, which he wrote 2 years later. Also Deut 4:2 says the same of adding to the first 5 books of Moses, yet we have 61 more in the Bible alone. Then Prov 30:6 gives the same warning, yet on went the books thereafter. All understood that this meant not to add or take bits out of the writings of these individual prophets or apostles. It had no reference to books written thereafter.
Not only doesn't the Bible declare any end of prophets and revelation, but it declares the continuance of such after Christ's death many times. Some try to excuse this by proposing that the meaning of the word "prophet" was different for them. However the same word is used to describe the OT prophets such as Isaiah etc. Or are they proposing that the word suddenly changed meaning at the death of Christ: A prophet before Christ receiving prophecy yet one after not doing so? I would also ask, can we have a prophet not receiving prophecy? The Scriptures plainly speak of the continuation of prophets.
"And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch." (Acts 11:27)
"And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. (Acts 15:32)
"And as we tarried there many days. there came down from Jedaea a certain prophet, named Agabus." (Acts 21:10)
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." (Eph 2:20)
This verse is even saying that Christ built his church with apostles and prophets in it.
"Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit." (Eph 3:5)
Note here that apostles and prophets are there to reveal things NOT before revealed; for the church, from the Spirit. This plainly isn't an explaining of Christ's words, as some may propose.
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, propets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." (Eph 4:11)
Again we see these as being officers within his church organisation.
And what of the gift of prophecy promised to the faithful in 1 Cor 12:10?
"He that receiveth a propet 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 10:41)
What an odd statement to make if there never were to be prophets after him!
"Beware of false prophets, with come to you in sheeps's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits, Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth
evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matt 7:15-20)
Here Christ has given us direction as to how to recognise false prophets from true ones. If there never were to be any prophets after his death why would it be necessary for him to give such instruction?