Davide's Notes

Montanism (from Montanus, who claimed to be the "mouthpiece of God") is an enigma to modern historians. Some of the uncertainties about this movement:

• is Montanism opposed to Gnosticism, or similar to it?
• did it have a Jewish or Jewish-Christian origin, or was it rooted in Phrygian pagan cults?
• what evolution did Montanism have? (e.g., consider the differences between 2nd century Montanism and its incarnation in Rome or in North Africa.)

These are the traits that separated Montanism from the Great Church:

• penchant for martyrdom. Here we could have influences from Anatolian pagan culture. The value of martyrdom and suicide was debated within Christian circles in Asia Minor in the 2nd century, where veneration of Christian martyrs was widespread. See the Martyrdom of Polycarp: there is a reference to some Phrygian Christians who pursued martyrdom "of their own free will". In the same text, it is then said that "we do not praise those who surrender themselves [for martyrdom], since the Gospel does not teach us this". Montanists appealed to the large number of their martyrs as proof of the power of the Spirit in their midst. Tertullian shares with Montanists the view that the Spirit exhorts to martyrdom. Some Phrygian tombal inscriptions with the cryptic phrase "Christians for Christians" have been attributed by some to Montanists.
  
• eschatology. Epiphanius tells us that Montanists expected the heavenly Jerusalem to descend at Pepuza in Phrygia, not Jerusalem. Maximilla declared: "After me there will no longer be a prophet, but the end".
  
• emphasis upon the Paraclete.
• ecstatic prophecy.
• mandatory sharp discipline. No second marriage after the death of a spouse (this is also in Tertullian). New and more frequent fasts.
  
• paid thaumaturgy (engaging in prophecy in exchange for remuneration).
• freedom to ministry for women in the Church. Origen asserted that the disciples of Priscilla and Maximilla were not obedient to the biblical command to let the women be silent in the churches (Cat. ad Cor 14.36).
  

At least the first three of these traits cannot be reliably documented from 2nd century records (for example, none of the earliest sources describing Montanism indicate that either Montanus or the two prophetess Priscilla and Maximilla ever appealed to the Paraclete passage in John 14.26 in support of their prophecy). And, in the same period, the Great Church shared several of these doctrines: for example, both Justin and Irenaeus expected an earthly reign of Christ to come soon. W. Tabbernee has argued that (excluding Tertullian) the early Montanists’ attitude to martyrdom was not substantially different from that of the Catholics. Epiphanius confirms that in important doctrinal issues the Montanists did not differ from Catholics, and both groups had the same view of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Montanists also accepted both OT and NT (cf. Marcion). It is only later (cf. Didymus of Alexandria) that Montanists get accused of modalism and of the doctrine that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same one.

So, what is the key point of contention? Both Epiphanius and Eusebius indicate that the main problem of Montanism is its insistence on ecstatic prophecy.

When Montanism moves to Rome, the issue is no longer prophecy but a new revelation. Hippolytus (170-236) relates the story of a leader of a church in Pontus (probably a Montanist) who, instead of paying careful attention to the Scriptures, began to believe in visions which he himself had seen. His congregation was decimated because he prophesied that the judgment would occur in a year. Many neglected their fields and sold their possessions and, when the end did not occur, were reduced to begging (Dan. 4.19). Hippolytus comments: "These things happen to uneducated and simple people who do not give careful attention to the Scriptures" (Dan. 4.20). Hippolytus stressed the importance of the authority of Scripture against visions and dreams, since he believed that prophecy had ended.

It is in Rome that Montanists started to refer to the Paraclete to support their prophecies; this was necessary because they wanted to emphasize that the revelations of the Paraclete to his prophets superceded what Christ had revealed in the gospel. In other words, Montanists claimed fuller participation in the Holy Spirit than did the apostles. Note that Tertullian as well explicitly supports the possibility of new revelations, and accuses the Catholics of fixing "boundaries for God".

From Tertullian (in his Montanistic phase, i.e. after ca. 206) we learn that the 7 "mortal sins" are unforgivable (not only the sin against the Spirit), and this may be a Montanist thought. Note though that Tertullian should not be used to reconstruct earlier Phrygian Montanism, since he has likely introduced in the doctrine his own modifications.

In the end, Montanism, with its claims to ecstatic prophecy and new revelations, posed to a Church that was developing hierarchical structures, canons and creeds, the important problem of the definition of what constitutes authority. This seems to be the core reason why it was strongly rejected and classified as heresy.

What about Montanism today? Montanist trends can easily be spotted in some more or less modern spirituality:

• Disregard for serious study of the Scripture.
• Attempts to obtain ecstatic states through which one can "prophesize" (and perhaps become  the "mouthpiece of God").
• Prophecy supercedes what has been revealed before. In particular, the contemporary epoch of the Spirit follows and overrides the epoch of Christ (modern dispensationalism).
  
• Requests for remuneration in exchange of prophetic practices.
• Insistence on some form of eschatology.
• Ministry to women.
• The Trinity fused into a single person.
• Rejection of religious authorities and emphasis on individual revelations.
  

---

Categories: Church_History