[THO] The Disappearance of the Christian Prophet From The Early Church

What follows is a paper I wrote in my first year studying Theology. Because of some material I am engaging with this semester I wanted to have this on hand for easy reference, I thought some of you post-pentecostals might enjoy it. Bibliography on request. (Prepared for Prof.Kevin Coyle, April 3, 2000)

=====

The office of the prophet has seen a considerable resurgence in the last century especially within the Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. Many contemporary Christian authors have attempted to provide guidelines for those pursuing the office of prophet.1 In light of such developments, it is interesting and worthwhile to develop an understanding of the history of the Christian prophet as a phenomenon and to explore the reasons that the prophet, as an office, disappeared from the early church within the first few centuries.

Prophets held a place of deep respect for the Jewish people. Since the days of Noah prophets functioned as the voice of God to the people, revealing to them the will of God and serving as teachers of religion.2 True to the its Jewish roots, the apostolic church also embraced the prophetic office as the voice of God to the church. The Christian prophet fit nicely into the Greco-Roman cultural worldview, which included the oracle as a legitimate profession.3 The Greco-Roman oracle was similar to the Judaic prophet in that they were both channels for their respective gods. Both the Jewish roots of the Christians and the existence of oracles made the inclusion of prophets in the makeup of the early church an expected and natural development.

The prophet represents the “contemporary voice of God to his [or her] generation.”4 The Old Testament shows prophets fulfilling many functions in relationship to presenting this contemporary voice. Old Testament prophets confronted sin such as Nathan confronted David after David had grossly abused his kingly authority by stealing another man’s wife.5 These prophets predicted the future of Israel (usually as a warning) as Isaiah predicted the God’s judgement on King Hezekiah.6 They declared the power and presence of God as Elijah did when he called down the fire of God to consume the sacrifice on Mount Carmel.7 And the Old Testament prophets taught Israel to remember the promises of their God.8 The long history and proven impact of the prophet with the Jewish people is reflected in the early church through their continuation of this office.

From its inception, the Christian church embraced the office of the prophet. Jesus himself is understood as a prophet.9 The prophetic ministry of Jesus included the same features the Old Testament prophets displayed. He confronted the sin of the people even overturning the tables of the corrupt moneychangers in the temple10, predicted the destruction of the temple as well as his own death11, displayed the power and presence of God12, and continually taught the people to remember the promises of God. The fact that these events were recorded in the gospels shows that the stage was set for the continuance of the prophetic office in the church.

It is the church’s union with Christ that solidifies the place of the prophetic office in the early church.13 The church does not question the actions of such prophets as Agabus, Judas and Silas, but accepts their actions as a normal aspect of the Christian community. It was not an unusual event for a known Christian prophet such as Agabus to stand up and predict a famine, or bind the apostle Paul’s wrists as a prediction of the treatment Paul would face at the hands of the Jews in Jerusalem. 14 The prophet was also expected to teach in the church as did Judas and Silas in Antioch.15 Unfortunately, the accounts of the normal activities of the prophets in the apostolic church are few; one can infer from this that the role did not cause a major problem in the developing church, otherwise the office would have commanded more of the literature. It is not until the church begins to seriously look at its own structure that the role of prophet comes into question.

Simply prophesying does not make one a Christian prophet. The prophetic gifts are seen in the New Testament accompanying the impartation of the Holy Spirit and the prayers of the elders.16 The encouragement in first Corinthians that all believers should desire to prophesy does not indicate that Paul desired a church where everyone held the office of prophet, but rather that he believed that this gift was available to the common disciple.17 The office of prophet was reserved for “a select number of ‘leading men’ (cf. Acts 15.22) who exercise considerable influence in the Christian community.”18 To be a Christian prophet in the apostolic church meant that one not only possessed and exercised the gift of prophecy, but also held office in the church to teach and preach.19 The Christian prophet fulfilled the same role as the Jewish prophet had fulfilled for the Israelites.20

The prophet as an office within the early church had a very short life. Even towards the end of the apostolic period the Pauline pastoral epistles hint at a movement towards a new tripartite church governmental structure consisting of bishop, deacon and elder.21 These new roles eventually absorb all of the duties of the roles listed in Ephesians: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.22 Exactly how long the office of prophet remained is hard to determine because the focus of the early writings, including canon, was more concerned with the evolution of this new governmental structure than the established offices springing from the church’s Judaic roots. Moreover, the references to prophets that we do find in the early literature predominantly refer to either Christ as the Prophet or the Old Testament prophets; the Christian prophet, it seems, quietly disappeared from the scene.23

The reasons for this gradual disappearance of the office of the prophet are various and complex. The church began at a time when any government operating from a central point of administration proved to be a considerable challenge, especially for an organization of questionable status with the Roman Empire.24 This presented problems for the administering of such mobile ministries as the apostles, prophets and evangelists. It is no wonder that the church gravitated towards the stationary, local church roles of bishop, deacon and elder. As well, the influence of the extremes exhibited by pagan prophets and oracles, coupled with the Jewish idea that a prophet was beyond question, created a concern that heretical prophets would do much damage to the church in general.25 These factors created a climate in which the church, in seeking to address these issues, began a process of systematically dismantling the office of the prophet.

Although the Roman Empire had well established trade routes, methods of travel were slow. Because letters needed to be entrusted to travelers, correspondence could take months to travel between cities.26 This made it extremely difficult to provide an effective central administration for the newly developing Christian church. No express methods of communication were available to maintain accountability between the mobile ministers (apostles, prophets and evangelists) and the church as a whole. This was especially problematic with the office of prophet because of the prophets’ reliance on the Spirit rather than the teaching of the church.

The church initially begins in Jerusalem with a “group of Judaic Christian elders” and practically no official structure apart from this.27 By examining the Pauline epistles in chronological order, one can see a response to the growing awareness of this problem.28 The initial letters to the Thessalonians show simply a call of order in the church with no real governmental vision. The next groups of Pauline epistles (Galatians, Romans and the Corinthian epistles) preach that the Christian should maintain an overall sense of responsibility to the Christian community. This involves using one’s giftedness to serve the church. The attempt in first Corinthians to provide a list of offices in the church is still loose containing what seem to be both offices and gifts.29 It is difficult to imagine an office of helps or varieties of tongues in the church. Finally, in Ephesians we find the first pure office list.30 This list is a refinement of the previous Pauline attempts. Once we get to the pastoral epistles we see hints of a completely new governmental structure emerging with bishops, deacons and elders.31

As the church moved out from Jerusalem, it began to loose its Jewish character and look for a more effective way to govern itself. This is further augmented by the fact that the church begins to spread, through proselytization, to the gentiles. In Comby’s words “the Christian faith was no longer tied to Judaism.”32 The church needed stronger local leadership than a council of elders in Jerusalem could provide. Much of Paul’s struggles with the church in Jerusalem consisted of confronting the Judaizers who were resisting this evolution and trying to maintain the original Jewish structure in the church.33

Despite these efforts to organize the church, the fact that the apostles and prophets were free to roam wherever they pleased created a problem. The issue was not so much with prophetic groups, but with individuals claiming a prophetic office. There was nothing to stop anyone from claiming prophetic inspiration and deceiving the Christians. Ash tells us that in the writings of Lucian of Samosata, a second century Greek writer, such a situation is described. Peregrinus profited from “the gullibility of some Christian communities.”34 He became prophet and leader to many within a short period of time, which is reflective of both the spiritual hunger and the inherent trust the early Christians expressed for the prophets.35 Fortunately the Christians did eventually wise up to Peregrinus’ scheme and abandoned him.

The Jewish tradition of respecting the prophets and the Greco-Roman acceptance of ecstatic oracles contributed to the idea that the prophets, because they are divinely inspired, are beyond testing.36 The Didache gives direct voice to this fear in saying that you “shall not attempt or dispute with any prophet who speaketh in the spirit; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven.”37 The inference is that to speak against a genuine prophet was to speak against, and therefore blaspheme, the Holy Spirit. Jesus claimed that the only unforgivable sin was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; the Didache presented an interpretation of this scripture.38 When individuals can claim such power and authority in the community, the community is in danger of those who, like Peregrinus, abuse this power and authority.

The danger of prophets introducing heresy was one that Paul recognized. First Corinthians introduces the idea that prophets should judge the prophecies of other prophets.39 First John, which was written late in the first century, warns that many false prophets have gone into the world and gives us the mandate to “test” the spirit of the prophet.40 The Didache, which represented the teaching of the twelve Apostles, attempted to address this problem by establishing rules for judging the prophets rather than the Pauline mandate to judge the prophecy.41 The Didache states that “by their disposition they therefore shall be known, the false prophet and the prophet.” 42 It is clear that the test of a prophet now included judging the fruit of the prophet’s actions and words. This reveals the obvious gravity felt by the church experiencing visitations from prophets and apostles.

The appeal of the gospel to the common person was a major proponent in the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. The church was not overly discriminate with regards to its adherents’ social standing.43 Christianity considered everyone to be equal before God and therefore opened wide its arms to any who would come; this drew the members of society who were less fortunate such as the poor, slaves, women and children.44 Many of these people would not have been well educated; therefore, they would have been less likely aware of what to expect from their Christian teachers. This would be especially true of the Christians in rural areas whom the urbanites considered uncivilized.45 The rural areas were primarily populated with farmers to whom education would have been a rare luxury. The leadership of the evolving church would have been aware of this situation. The rumors already surrounding Christianity in the urban centers continually brought the threat of persecution to the fore of their minds, the last thing they needed was more controversy.46

As more and more gentiles became Christian, they brought with them a whole array of new worldviews. The fact that Christianity could identify with the mystery cults created an appeal amongst those people who were looking for a new spiritual experience. The mystery cults offered religious experiences often including a personal encounter with a deity; a personal encounter with Christ was also fundamental to Christianity.47 The mystery religions also brought an openness to mystical experiences to which the ecstatic prophet conformed.

History has left us the Montanist crisis to help us better understand how the early church responded to the ecstatic Christian prophet. The Montanist sect, claiming to be Christian, was accused of practicing wild and uncontrolled prophecy, an extreme form of the ecstatic prophecy known to the Christians.48 This Montanist prophecy form is described as being like the prophecies of the pagan oracles.49 Also, the rural nature of this sect drew the suspicion of the developing urban church. The Montanist sect experienced conflict with the steadily developing urban Christianity despite the sect’s best efforts in appealing to Rome to become a recognized part of the developing Christian religion.50

Montanus, who initiated this sect, lived in the village of Ardabau, Phrygia, where there was considerable occult influence from the pagan religions.51 It is not surprising that the Montanist sect would adopt, or at least be accused of adopting, a rather extreme form of ecstatic prophesying as the local pagan worship of Cybele included “ecstatic visions, wild frenzy, and fearful self-mutilations.”52 Stewart-Sykes offers an alternative possible influence, that of the cult of Apollo; but, in either case the feared influence was the pagan forms of prophesying.53 This cultural understanding was compounded by the fact that Montanism was a rural form of Christianity which the urban Christians saw as being tainted with paganism, especially in the Montanist understanding of the prophet.54 The movement’s founders, Montanus and two women Priscilla and Maximilla, all claimed special revelation from the Holy Spirit and took up a prophetic office.55 The Montanist sect was serious enough about the office of prophet that successive leaders were sometimes handed prophetic mantles from the founders.56 The prophetic mantle refers to Elijah’s passing of his office to Elisha in second Kings.57 However, as the Montanist sect grew institutional, we see that they themselves end their days without prophets.58

Reading the anti-Montanist statements in Eusebius, one can sense the alarm with which this sect is viewed. But, in the midst of the criticisms, there are valuable lessons to be learned. The emphasis on the fruit of the prophet is one that every generation of Christians should take to heart.59 It is reminiscent of the law concerning the messages of false prophets.60 The early church would have felt the distrust more acutely because of its relative newness, difficulties in administering remote incidents, proximity to cultural acceptance and trust for prophetic voices.

How the church responded to the Montanists in a sense reveals how they dealt with their own prophets. The Montanists evoked an attitude of distrust from the institution of the church towards the prophets. As well the growing emphasis on the developing nature of the urban church left little room for travelling ministries such as the prophet. Graham Cooke, a contemporary Christian Prophet, gives his opinion that “prophecy usually goes into decline when church leaders usurp their authority and try to control what is said and done in the body of Christ.”61 This statement may be a bit strong but the room for the Christian prophet to operate in the church was continually shrinking. This would also account for the decline of apostles in the church.

The early church initially needed the prophets and apostles to help spread the gospel. Even after dismantling the office of the prophet the church held that the role was critical to the ongoing development of the Christian church. The assertion that “the prophetic gift must continue in the whole Church until the final coming” echoes the epistle to Ephesus.62 The movement from an initially Judaic church government to a tripartite structure gave the church considerable local power to address such roles in the church. The Didache shows the continuance in changing attitudes towards both apostles and prophets. The Didache represents the last real instruction on the issue of prophets. The reason for this is that the end of the prophet as an office had been determined, and as we shall see, it was the solidification of the role of bishop as the only voice in the church that brought the extinction about.63

The bishop, in absorbing the prophetic role, brings greater control to the governance of the church. Eventually the bishop becomes the only official voice within the church. As Ash explains “once Ignatius’ [Bishop of Antioch] oracle ‘do nothing without the bishop’ became accepted, the prophet’s essential authority and freedom was dealt a mortal blow.”64 The prophetic gift is then rendered “a harmless and sometimes forgotten tool” for the church.65 As the bishop became the clear authority in the church the authority of all other roles were removed. All we are left with is the bishop as the “‘prophetic’ man” and the only official voice in the church.66

The office of prophet is also redefined by the early literature to refer only to the Old Testament prophets of the person of Jesus Christ.67 By associating the prophet with a bygone era, the questions of where the prophet had disappeared from the church were skirted. The prophet literally became a person of the past, leaving the bishop to govern the church of the day.

The disappearance of the prophetic office from the structure of the church remedied the problems of potential heretical influence and the need to develop strong local government. The growing church felt it could get along better without the encumbrance of the prophetic office. The church began to shake off its Judaic heritage and give itself more fully over to the emerging governmental structure. Hence the stage was set for the complete dismantling of this role in the early church. The challenge for us today is to understand the problems that the early church sought to solve by dismantling the prophetic office, and to determine if the church would be best served by reinstating the Christian prophet in our midst today.

====

1. A partial list of recent authors on the topic of the prophetic within the contemporary church includes Mike Bickle, Graham Cooke, David Pytches and John & Paula Sandford. I have included bibliographic information in the bibliography.
   
2. Israel Mattuck, The Thought of the Prophets (London: George Allen and Unwin ltd., 1953), 22.
   
3. James Ash, “The Decline of Ecstatic Prophecy in the Early Church,” Theological Studies 37 (March 1976), 228.
   
4. “Prophet”, The Revell Bible Dictionary, ed. by Lawrence O. Richards, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1990), 825.
   
5. 2 Samuel 12:1-15
   
6. 2 Kings 20:16-18
   
7. 1 Kings 17:20-40
   
8. An example would be the major and minor prophetic scriptures.
   
9. Graham Cooke, Developing Your Prophetic Gifting, (England: Sovereign Word, 1994), 21.
   
10. For example Matthew 21:12
    
11. For example Matthew 24:1-2, Matthew 20:17-19
    
12. For example Matthew 12:15
    
13. Charles Grierson, “Prophet”, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, eds. James Hastings, et. al. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1909), II, 441.
    
14. Acts 11:27-29, Acts 21:10-11
    
15. Acts 15:32
    
16. Acts 19:6, 1 Timothy 14:4
    
17. 1 Corinthians 14:1-5
    
18. E. Earle Ellis, “The Role of the Christian Prophet in Acts” in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1978), 139.
    
19. Ellis, “Prophet in Acts,” 130-1.
    
20. David Smith, The Life and Letters of St. Paul (New York: Harper & Row, 1920), 72.
    
21. All three members of the tripartite ministry are present 1 Timothy 3:1, 3:8, and 5:17.
    
22. Ephesians 4:11
    
23. Ash, “Decline,” 244-5.
    
24. Jean Comby, How to Read Church History, (London: SCM Press, vol.1, 1985), 20.
    
25. Ash, “Decline,” 239.
    
26. Comby, History, 20.
    
27. Robert Payne, The Making of the Christian World, (New York: Dorset Press, 1966), 76.
    
28. The chronology of the Pauline epistles was determined from the following sources which are included in the bibliography: David Smith The Life and Letters of St. Paul, The Interpreter’s Bible, and the Spirit Filled Life Bible study notes.
    
29. 1 Corinthians 12:28
    
30. Ephesians 4:11
    
31. 1 Timothy 3:1, 3:8, 5:17
    
32. Comby, History, 13.
    
33. Albert Henry Newman, A Manual of Church History (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, vol. 1, 1904) 94-5.
    
34. Ash, “Decline,” 233.
    
35. Lucian, “The Death of Peregrinus” in A Treasury of Early Christianity (New York: Mentor Books, 1960), 217-8.
    
36. Jonathan Draper, “Social Ambiguity and the Production of Text: Prophets, Teachers, Bishops, and Deacons and the Development of the Jesus Tradition in the Community of the Didache” in The Didache in Context (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 296.
    
37. Hoole, Didache, 82.
    
38. Matthew 12:31
    
39. 1 Corinthians 14:29-31
    
40. 1 John 4:1
    
41. Ash, “Decline,” 233.
    
42. Charles Hoole, trans., The Didache (London: David Nutt, 1894) 82.
    
43. Comby, History, 28.
    
44. Comby, History, 28.
    
45. Alistair Stewart-Sykes, “The Original Condemnation of Asian Montanism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 50 (January 1999), 11.
    
46. Comby, History, 30.
    
47. Comby, History, 24.
    
48. Stewart-Sykes, “Asian Montanism,” 9.
    
49. Stewart-Sykes, “Asian Montanism,” 10.
    
50. Newman, Manual, 204.
    
51. Eusebius, The History of the Church, trans. by G. A. Williamson, (New York: Dorset Press, 1984), 218.
    
52. Newman, Manual, 204.
    
53. Stewart-Sykes, “Asian Montanism,” 10.
    
54. Stewart-Sykes, “Asian Montanism,” 2.
    
55. Eusebius, History, 217.
    
56. William Tabbernee, “Montanist Regional Bishops: New Evidence from Ancient Inscriptions,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (Fall 1993), 249.
    
57. 2 Kings 2:14
    
58. Ash, “Decline,” 242.
    
59. Eusebius, History, 224-5.
    
60. Deuteronomy 13:1-9
    
61. Cooke, Gifting, 21.
    
62. Eusebius, History, 222 see also Ephesians 4:11-3.
    
63. Ash, “Decline”, 228.
    
64. Ash, “Decline,” 235.
    
65. Ash, “Decline,” 236.
    
66. Ash, “Decline,” 235.
    
67. Ash, “Decline,” 248.