The Gift of Prophecy

Spirit, Scriptures, and Church Leadership

As with the Apostolic Fathers who preceded him, Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon, considered the prophetic gift as manifested in the Hebrew Scriptures. The basic understanding of a prophet remains the same, that of a divine spokesperson who proclaims the Messiah. However, whereas the Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament included the proclamation of the apostles who referred to Christ, as a manifestation of the prophetic gift, Irenaeus—in Against Heresies (Adversus Haereses) — limited the prophetic gift only to those who foretold the coming of Christ (Haer. 4. 20. 5). Thus, for Irenaeus, prophets were dead. Although the apostles had the divine spirit of inspiration since they testified about Jesus as the Messiah, they were not called prophets by Irenaeus. John the Baptist exemplifies the distinction he makes of these spiritual gifts, prophets and apostles. Whereas prophets foretold the advent of Christ, the apostles saw and testified about it. John the Baptist was the transition point because he both foretold about and witnessed Jesus. According to Irenaeus, this is why he is called by Jesus “more than a prophet,” “because, [the Scriptures state] ‘first apostles, secondarily prophets’; (I Cor. 12:28); but all things from one and the same God Himself” (Haer. 3. 11. 4). The implication is that the spiritual gift of prophecy is not manifested presently in itinerant preachers, for Christians (the church) are currently proclaiming what has already been foretold by the prophets and apostles, which is registered in the Scriptures. GOP 209.2

Based on this premise, a devastating blow was leveled to the claims of those who called themselves prophets or who were inspired after the apostles. Marcion, Valentinians, the Gnostics, Montanists, and others were clearly the target of Irenaeus. His main argument against these “vain, unlearned and also audacious” false prophets, who “set at nought the gift of the Spirit,” was that there are only four true witnesses of Jesus Christ (the written Gospels), nothing less (Marcion) or more (Gnostics, Valentinians, and Montanism) (Haer. 3. 11. 9). Following this logic, his argument limited the gift of prophecy to the time of the New Testament. His final blow to prophetic pretenders was to attach truth to the apostles. The Christian rule of faith was found in those churches that maintained apostolic contact through their bishops. GOP 209.3

True knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor curtailment; and reading without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and the preeminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God] (Haer. 4. 33. 8; italics supplied). GOP 210.1

The reference to Montanism and other groups who claimed to have the Spirit of God shows that Christians existed who still believed in the presence of prophecy, similar to the Apostolic Fathers. The issue tackled by Irenaeus and later by Cyprian was to determine its legitimacy as divine. Their answer was clear: “Where the church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the church” (Haer. 3. 24. 1). However, the groups that Irenaeus attacked also claimed the same authority and used the same basic Scriptures. The ground of debate then became hermeneutical, or the principles of interpretation (exegesis). Irenaeus, Cyprian, and later Origen articulated what would become catholic (universal) Christian belief about the spirit of prophecy, that “right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e., the church.” ¹⁷ The ecclesiological principle of determining the correct spirit led to such questions as What is the church? and Who is the church? Irenaeus and later Cyprian provide what would become the orthodox answer—the church is every congregation where an apostle instituted a leader and taught the words of Jesus. “This is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth” (Haer. 3. 3. 3). ¹⁸ GOP 210.2

Following Irenaeus and throughout the Middle Ages, the concept of prophets for most Christian thinkers was a thing of the past. ¹⁹ Although this is not explicitly stated, this is the impression they give by their limited use of the terms related to prophecy (e.g., prophesy, prophet, seer) compared to the Apostolic Fathers. When they do use it, it is primarily a positive reference to the Hebrew Scriptures or a negative label (false prophet) to current individuals who claim to have a divine message (truth) outside of the apostolic tradition contained in the church. However, even this last use is meager and general. The attitudes of Irenaeus and Cyprian became the norm. A confirmation that this was so in orthodox Christianity is the single reference to a prophet in Peter Lombard’s Sentences book 4, where he expounded the sacraments and ministries of the church under the title On the Doctrine of Signs. Quoting the work of Isidore of Seville (d. 636) about etymologies of words, Lombard’s (d. 1160) reference to a prophet is “On the Seer: ‘A seer (Lat. Vates) is so called from the force of the mind (vi mentis) and the meaning of the term is manifold: at times, it means priest, at times prophet, at times poet’ ” (Distinction XXIV. 18 [148]). ²⁰ The briefness and vagueness of this reference speaks for itself. That Lombard’s Sentences became the theology textbook of the High Middle Ages up to the Reformation is notable, which summarizes what catholic Christianity was teaching for centuries before him. GOP 210.3

This posture toward ignoring the possibility of current itinerant prophets and the confinement of divine authority in the church are just confirmation of what Ignatius suggested earlier, and to which Hermas and the Didache hinted. Bishops became endowed with the shower of the Spirit, whereas outside the church was a spiritual wasteland. The situation this created was a leadership immune to correction. In other words, by subordinating the divine prophetic voice to the duly elected bishops, it is believed that God no longer needed to bring a word of reproof from outside, because the church was perfect, settled in the truth, or thus it was thought by mainstream Christianity. However, this is not how everyone saw it. GOP 211.1