Conclusion

Epiphanius noted that the Montanists “accept of the Old and New Testaments, and acknowledge likewise the resurrection of the dead, but they boast of having as a prophet one Montanus, and Priscilla and Maximilla as prophetesses, in adhering to whom they have turned from the truth.”[1] The early church did not condemn the Montanists for opposing the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, but rather condemned them on mostly prophetic grounds. Specifically, four accusations have been cited against the Montanists: the ecstatic irrational nature of the prophecies, false prophecies, misuse of Scripture, and the lifestyle of the prophets. Of these, it appears the accusation of false prophecy was the most common and the most serious.

Several conclusions about the early church can be drawn from this study for the aid of those looking to seriously apply the ancient-future paradigm. First, for each of the critics of Montanism examined, the gift of prophecy was understood to still exist. The cessation of prophecy or charismatic gifts was not the criticism; it was that the so-called prophets were false and misleading. Second, the standard by which to judge whether one is a true or false prophet has at least four criteria: awareness and logical coherence, factuality, coherence with Scripture, and lifestyle above reproach. If any of these criteria are not perfectly met, then the person in question is not a true prophet. Third, prophecy always refers to divine authority and is either true, and thus directly from God, or false, and thus directly against God. This third conclusion has specific application for the contemporary “Third-Wave” movement, which holds prophecy to be only a human report of what they think God has done.[2]

            Critics will charge these to be the opinions of some early church fathers and not necessarily biblical teaching. While these were the opinions of the fathers, these teaching were, however, based on their understanding of the Bible. Especially in light of the “ancient-future” paradigm contemporary Christians should not be so quick to dismiss those who were closer to the sources of the Bible (the apostolic authors) and contended earnestly through thoughtful argumentation for the Christian faith as they understood it. We would do well to learn from their examples: to take confidence in the authority and truth of God's word, to apply it ruthlessly in our theology and lifestyles, and act in boldness to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

The Condemnation of the Montanists

            It should be clear that the Montanists were not condemned for disregarding traditional/orthodox beliefs about the Trinity and salvation. In fact, their adherence to these doctrines led some to accept the Montanists and even join them. However, most church leaders at the time did condemn the movement. Three main sources known today for condemning Montanism: “The Anonymous,” Apollonius, and Epiphanius. From these sources four specific reasons can be assembled: the ecstatic irrational nature of the prophecies, false prophecies, misuse of Scripture, and the lifestyle of the prophetic trio.

            Two of the sources are found in the history written by Eusebius, in which he recounts why the Montanists were condemned. The first is simply known as “the Anonymous.” After asserting that Montanus was seeking leadership, the Anonymous described how the prophecies came about: Montanus “became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstacy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.”[1] He recounts that while some accused Montanus of being possessed by a demon, many were taken in by this display of power and followed the proclaimed prophet. F. David Farnell notes the standard the Anonymous used in judging the Montanists on this count: “For the Anonymous, such ecastic, irrational prophesying violated scriptural standards for prophecy…. Prophecies should come in an orderly and rational manner.”[2] The Anonymous attributed such activity by Montanus to Satan himself.

            False prophecy was the most common accusation against the Montanists, and the Anonymous accused them of this as well. One of problems in determining what exactly the Montanists said and did is that none of their own writings are currently known and very few quotes that are attributed to them. Even so, one of the quotes attributed to Maximilla says, “After me there will now longer be any prophetess. It will be the end of all.”[3] This “end of all” is understood to mean the second coming of Jesus Christ. The Anonymous was likely referring to a similar prophecy when he said, “And has not this been shown clearly to be false? For it is to-day more than thirteen years since the woman died, and there has been neither a partial nor general war in the world; but rather, through the mercy of God, continued peace among Christians.”[4]

            The third accusation leveled by the Anonymous is the misuse of Scripture. He seems to have been responding to the Montanists’ use of Matthew 23:34 when he said, “Since, therefore, they called us slayers of the prophets because we did not receive their loquacious prophets, who, they say, are those the Lord promised to send to the people, let them answer as in God’s presence: Who is there, O friends, of these who began to talk, from Montanus and the women down, that was persecuted by the Jews, or slain by lawless men? None. Or has any of them been seized and crucified for the Name? Truly not. Or has one of these women ever been scourged in the synagogues of the Jews, or stoned? No; never anywhere.”[5]

            Apollonius was Eusebius’s second source in recounting the condemnation of the Montanists. His first accusation had to do, once again, with the false prophecies of the Montanists, however, Eusebius does not record how Apollonius dealt with these prophecies. Farnell speculates that, “Since he discusses Apollonius’s refutation of Montanism right after his survey of the Anonymous, one may reasonably conclude that he may not have given details because this would have overlapped of much material already covered in the discussion on the Anonymous.”[6]

The second accusation made by Apollonius related to the practices and lifestyle of those in the movement, including Montanus. “We show that these first prophetesses themselves, as soon as they were filled with the Spirit, abandoned their husbands. How falsely therefore they speak who call Prisca [Priscilla] a virgin… Does not all Scripture seem to you to forbid a prophet to receive gifts and money? When therefore I see the prophetess receiving god and silver and costly garments, how can I avoid reproving her?”[7] This ultimately has to do with whether they were true or false prophets, since Apollonius held that, “It is necessary that all the fruits of a prophet should be examined.”[8]

Epiphanius accused the Montanists of some of these same things. He contended that the Montanists, “separated themselves, ‘adhering to spirits of error and doctrines of demons.’”[9] He too pointed to the false prophecies of the Montanists. “Everything that the [true] prophets have said, they also said rationally with understanding; and the things they said have come true and are still coming true. But Maximilla said that the consummation would come after her, and no consummation has come yet—even after so many emperors and such a lapse of time!”[10] The central point here is the false prophecy of Maximilla, but Epiphanius also alludes to true prophets speaking “rationally with understanding,” as if to say this is an essential quality of a true prophet absent from the Montanists. He clarified this later in saying, “Now what rational person who receives the ‘profitable’ message with understanding and cares for his salvation, can fail to despise a false religion like this, and the speech of someone who boasts of being a prophet but cannot talk like a prophet?”

            Misuse of Scripture is another similar accusation leveled by Epiphanius. “Apparently, the [Montanists] cited the sleep of Adam and his response to Eve’s creation in Genesis 2:21-23 as an example of proof for ecstatic prophecy.”[12] The response of Epiphanius was that, “Adam’s case was nothing like theirs… God brought the unconsciousness of sleep upon Adam, not distraction of mind… Adam’s senses and wits were not in abeyance.”[13] Epiphanius built a case condemning the Montanists for twisting scripture by showing that they changed the meaning of the text. He claimed that, “they wish to mix truth and falsehood and render senseless the minds of those who care about orthodoxy, and they gather for themselves passages by means of which they fabricate their error, claiming they have the same meaning.”[14]