The Gift of Prophecy

Taming the Spirit

By the beginning of the second century, hints of ecclesiastical control of the Spirit become evident. Toward the end of the second century, and by the third and fourth century, this move was complete for certain theologians. This reliance on settled ecclesiastical authorities instead of uncontrollable itinerant prophets was already stated by Ignatius (To the Ephesians; To the Trallians) at the turn of the first century in his declarations about the authoritative role of the local bishop. “And so we are clearly obliged to look upon the bishop (episkopon) as the Lord himself” (Ign. Eph. 6:2). “You must not engage in any activity apart from the bishop (episkopon), but be subject also to the presbytery (presbyteriō) as to the apostles of Jesus Christ . . . without these no group can be called a church. . . . So too let everyone respect the deacons (diakonous) like Jesus Christ, and also the bishop (episkopon), who is the image of the Father; and let them respect the presbyters (presbyterous) like the council of God and the band of the apostles. Apart from these a gathering cannot be called a church” (Ign. Trall. 2:2; 3:1). Although Ignatius uses the term prophet seven times, it refers to the Hebrew Scriptures. Ignatius gives no hint of any legitimate itinerant teacher/prophet/apostle who should be considered divinely inspired. The prophetic role for him is limited to the established local leaders. Because the role of a prophet is to speak on behalf of God, there is no need of any wandering figures, since each local bishop functions as a divine emissary. GOP 207.1

This negative sentiment toward existing wandering prophets gained momentum with Cyprian in the third century, who barely uses the word “prophet,” ¹² “prophecy,” or the verb “to prophesy.” When he does use it, it is almost always in reference to the Hebrew Scriptures (past) or false prophets (present). The false prophets are like Jezebel, who destroyed the church of God from within (Epistles 51:22 [Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) 5:332]; 39:5 [ANF 5:318]). ¹³ For Cyprian, the schismatics should be expelled from any contact with the church, since they are from the evil one. He gives one example of a false prophetess that showed up among Christians. He describes that she was in a state of ecstasy performing miracles, and by her attitude she deceived many to follow her and even a deacon and presbyter to have sex with her. Cyprian also rejected her as a legitimate prophet because as a woman she was offering the Eucharist and was baptizing. Moreover, Christians of good reputation condemned her (Epistles 74:10 [ANF 5:393]). GOP 207.2

For Cyprian, it sufficed to declare Jezebel as deriving from the devil because she brought disunity to the church. Cyprian considered disrupting the unity of the church to be the most horrendous sin, characteristic of an evil spirit. Montanists, for example, who claimed to have the Spirit of God, are damned because “if they have separated themselves from the church of God, [they] can have nothing of power or of grace, since all power and grace are established in the church where the elders preside, who possess the power both of baptizing, and of imposition of hands, and of ordaining” (Epistles 74:7 [ANF 5:392]). Therefore, it is unimportant whether one performs wonders and has supernatural experiences, which can be sublime, but not always divine. For Cyprian, salvation is not attained through miracles (Matt. 7:22), because what really matters is love for the unity of the body of Christ, the church (De unitate ecclesiae 15 [ANF 5:426]). ¹⁴ The argument of love and unity resonates beautifully with the emphasis of the Scriptures, but in his effort to maintain the unity of the church Cyprian created a problematic firewall that was difficult to penetrate. GOP 208.1

The situation Cyprian articulates is that the church becomes almost immune to correction. In other words, by subordinating the divine prophetic voice to the bishops, it was perceived that God no longer needed to bring a word of reproof from outside the ecclesiastical leadership because the church was perfectly settled in the truth. For Cyprian, truth resided in the church, or its leadership. Whereas in Israel of old, God sent prophets to reprove its leaders when needed, Cyprian sets a pattern that would influence most of Western Christianity and put an end to rebuking prophets for centuries to come, at least for the majority of Christians. Therefore, how did Christianity shift from a movement founded by prophets, open to current prophetic messengers, to a structure closed to this spiritual gift as manifested in itinerant preachers/teachers? GOP 208.2

As distinct forms of Christianity developed throughout the Roman Empire, teaching not only different things about Jesus, but opposing apostolic doctrines, Christian congregations needed to face the challenge of heresy and false prophets. Echoing the worries of Jesus and the apostles themselves ¹⁵ about evil spirits deceiving the church, the Apostolic Fathers passed on the warning to the churches that they should have discernment, watching specially the behavior of so-called prophets. Not everyone who spoke in the spirit was a messenger of the Lord. Prophets, however, were not completely shunned in this generation of Christians; rather, the prophetic role was exchanged for the authority of local leaders. In Irenaeus (c. 130-220) we find a movement toward closing its door to prophets as expressed by Cyprian in the third century. Prophets by that time would be confined to the past. The official summary of beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists summarizes this well: GOP 208.3

These gifts have not always manifested themselves abundantly in the Christian church. After the death of the apostles, prophets enjoyed respectability in many circles until A.D. 300. But the decline of spirituality in the church and the resultant apostasy led to a diminishing of both the presence and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. At the same time false prophets caused a loss of confidence in the prophetic gift. ¹⁶ GOP 209.1