montanus: case study in church history: part 1

A Time of Tension
The mid to end of the second century was a time ripe for a schismatic such as Montanism to come on the scene. The events in church history leading up to this time period had created a tension that would cause a person with radical ideas such as Montanus to be welcome to those who may be have been confused about the mixed messages that were pervasive during this time period. The locus of these mixed messages centers around the work of the Holy Spirit, and specifically His gift of prophecy; the way this issue had been dealt with up to the time of Montanus, although with good intentions, had not addressed the topic in a systematic manner that, while addressing the problems, would clearly emphasize the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.

Church writers during this time period were reactionaries. They addressed a need as it came up; Tillich observes that the theologians of the time period developed their systems in opposition to heresies, “The greatness of theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian is that they saw this danger, and used the Logos doctrine to develop constructive theological ideas in relation to the religious movements of their own period.”[1] While Tillich is noting the strength in this, there is an inherent weakness as well in that the tendency is to only address the wrong and not to clearly lay out what is right. In the midst of the confusion, Montanus finds his place in during this time in church history.

The confusion of this time period can be demonstrated through observing several facets of the church up to the time Montanus came around. Hopefully, these will clearly illustrate the tensions of ideas. First, there was an awareness of problems with abuse of the gift of prophecy. Evidence from early on shows that there were false prophets going around attempting to promote themselves and deceive the people among whom they “ministered.” The Didache demonstrates this problem in XI:2, “But if the teacher himself being perverted teaches another teaching to the destruction [of this], hear him not, but if [he teach] to the increase of righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord.”[2] In this section the writer is attempting to provide an objective way of determining whether or not someone was a false prophet.
While at the point of the writing of the Didache (somewhere between 70 and 110 A.D.)[3], they could not declare that there was no longer a gift of prophecy because all of the apostles had not yet passed off the scene, they felt that they had to do something to combat the abuses of those who would deceive people with their “prophetic” messages.
The Didache places us into the situation between the church polity of the Pastoral Epistles and the establishment of Episcopacy, or between St. Paul and Ignatius of Antioch. The Apostolic government was about to cease, and the Episcopal government had not yet taken its place. A secondary order of Apostles and Prophets were moving about and continued the missionary work of the primitive Apostles.[4]

A second demonstration that helps to build the tension is the heresy of Gnosticism. Flourishing between the first and third centuries, Gnosticism made its assertions based on secret traditions that were in opposition to biblical writings.[5] Some believe that Paul himself was combating early forms of Gnosticism as early as the writing of Colossians.[6] While it is not the purpose of this paper to outline the beliefs of this heresy, it is interesting to observe as does Tillich that, “The problem which the Gnostics posed for the church was in the realm of authority, the question whether the Holy Scriptures were decisive over against the secret teachings of the Gnostics.”[7] Tillich goes on to observe that the Gnosticism of the day was reacted against so strongly that the church was pushed into a more rigid expression and the work of the Holy Spirit was thereby minimized. Anything that smelled like a special work in an individual, (the gnosis) was looked at with suspicion. Thus, this set the scene up for a suspicion and depression of any work of the Holy Spirit that would be considered special. The heresy of Gnosticism was prior to and contemporary with Montanism, and Tillich concludes that Montanism was a reaction against the rigid development of the spirit of order.[8]

Third, the Apostle John had passed off the scene less than one hundred years before this. His words freshly written in his gospel and Revelation were still ringing in the ears of the early church. While modern theologians would view John’s promise of the Paraclete as having been fulfilled after Pentecost in Acts 2, it may be that the believers, not having access to all Scriptural documents of the first century, were looking for the promised Paraclete with which John laces his gospel. Not only that, but the eschaton would have been on their minds as well as they read about Christ from John’s book of Revelation. Groh notes, “Christianity in Asia Minor had long treasured the Gospel of John with its promise of the Paraclete, and was the setting for the eschatological prophecy of the Book of Revelation.”[9] With the expectation of the coming of the Lord having been disappointed, the apostolic fathers began to establish this order mentioned above, thus a tension is acknowledged in the second century, and Montanus comes on the scene to answer the questions.

The Beginning of Montanism
Montanus came from the village of Ardabau in Phrygia, an area in Asia Minor. Frend suggests that he was possibly a priest of Cybele, a goddess of nature and fertility.[10] While there is no clear testimony to Montanus’ prior involvement in the religion of Cybele, it is of note that Phrygia was known for its frenzy and fanaticism in worship of Cybele,[11] because similar practices are found in Montanus’ teachings later on. In fact, Boer asserts that Montanus, “expressed his new religion in the old religious manner. It was thus natural for him to emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit.”[12]

The writings of Eusebius state that Montanus was converted to Christianity, and shortly after his conversion he began to babble and prophesy in a manner contrary to what had been accepted in the church thus far.[13] Burgess observes that Montanus claimed to be the inspired organ of the Holy Spirit, and describes Epiphanius as accusing Montanus of claiming to have a fuller revelation of the Spirit than the church possessed.[14] There is a controversy over the exact dating of these events. Some would place it at 155,[15] while others would place it around 170.[16] With either date, the movement is seen to have begun in the mid to late second century A.D.. Montanus' form of religion was to take over the area of Phrygia and dominate it.[17]

Before long, Montanus was joined by two women who had abandoned their husbands to follow Montanus and prophesy with him. Their names were Priscilla and Maximilla. They took up the same ecstatic behavior that Montanus had manifested, and all three continued their work together under the umbrella of a claim to the Paraclete, Montanus even in his ecstasy denying his humanity and claiming to be God.[18] Montanus taught that through him the age of the Paraclete had come. He taught that this was the beginning of the New Prophecy that would accompany the eschaton,[19] which would culminate in the Parousia coming down in the village of Pepuzza near Philadelphia.[20]

Montanist Teachings
The Montanists believed their prophecy was exclusive and was the final revelation to man.[21] Additional Montanist teachings alongside the claim to new revelation from the Paraclete and the coming down of the Parousia in Pepuzza include the teaching that Christians should not avoid persecution, the teaching that any type of remarriage is sinful, the teaching of strict asceticism, including dietary rules, and the teaching that certain sins could not be forgiven after baptism.[22]

While these teachings appear to be very legalistic, Montanism still was attractive for two reasons. First, it offered a vibrant work of the Holy Spirit in contrast to the perceived deadness that an anti-Gnostic orthodoxy was spawning; second, the rules combated the perceived sinful excesses that that this anti-Gnostic orthodoxy was spawning. This was so influential, that around the year 207, Tertullian converted to Montanism. Much of what is known about the teachings of the Montanists comes from the writings of Tertullian.[23]

Some of those who opposed Montanism were Irenaeus, and Eusebius. While these men came from a tradition that did not deny the existence of prophecy or its exercise in the church, they reacted strongly against the way it was exercised by Montanus and the authority Montanus placed upon his prophecy as superseding that of the apostles and even Christ.[24] Another who opposed Montanus from a standpoint of an end of prophecy with the death of the last apostle was Hippolytus of Rome.[25] These men and their views will be discussed in a later chapter in this paper.

The Decline of Montanism
The Montanist movement continued on with force in Phrygia. However, as time progressed, the promised Parousia did not come. The Montanists organized a church to rival their opponents, but found themselves guilty of the same orthodoxy with which they would accuse their opponents.[26] They continued on in weakness until the sixth century when they were exterminated by the church under Justinian.[27] The rise and fall of this movement can be seen to be prescriptive of a cycle of action and reaction in the church. The best way one can learn from this event is to study the ensuing reactions and observe how to remain in a state of delicate balance on a firm foundation when excesses reveal themselves.


[1]Paul Tillich, A Complete History of Christian Thought (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1968), 37.

[2]Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: The Didache and Kindred Documents in the Original (London: Pendleburys Church House, 2001 [reprint of the 1885 edition]), 64.

[3]Ibid. 62.

[4]Ibid.

[5]Stanley M. Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984), 35.

[6]J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1879),74.

[7]Tillich, A Complete History of Christian Thought, 38.

[8]Ibid. 40.

[9]Dennis E. Groh, “Montanism,” The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity 2nd ed. vol. 2, 778.

[10]W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 253.

[11]W. Le Saint, “Montanism,” New Catholic Encyclopedia vol. IX, 1078-1079.

[12]Harry R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 63.

[13]A New Eusebius, ed. by F. Stevenson (London: SPCK, 1965), 108.

[14]Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, 49.

[15]S. M. Burgess, “The Holy Spirit, Doctrine of: The Ancient Church Fathers,” Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 419.

[16]Groh, “Montanism,” 778.

[17]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 254.

[18]A History of Christianity vol. 1, ed. by Ray C. Petry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 90.

[19]Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, 63.

[20]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 254.

[21]Ibid.

[22]“Montanists,” A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 461.

[23]Ibid.

[24]Burgess, The Holy Spirit: Ancient Christian Traditions, 51.

[25]Ibid. 52.

[26]Frend, The Rise of Christianity, 256.

[27]Burgess, “The Holy Spirit, Doctrine of: The Ancient Church Fathers,” 420.