Prophecy Today

Christians believe God spoke to the Hebrew prophets and we affirm that the New Testament books were divinely inspired.

But did God speak directly to people after the New Testament era? And does God speak directly to people today?

If so, who has heard from God?

This is the tricky part “because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 Jn 4:1).

I am suspicious of most contemporary “prophets” who claim to hear from God because their messages often don’t match with the Bible, they have given false prophecies, or they seem to have a lot to gain by acting like a prophet. In my mind these things disqualify people from being genuine prophets. Also, we are not supposed to instantly accept any prophecy: “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all” (1 Thess 5:20). 

In some cases, it takes time to discern between true and false prophets because we have to examine their fruit. Jesus said, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt 7:15-16). “Ferocious wolves” makes me think of people who are in it for themselves. Listen to Paul’s words to the elders in Ephesus: 

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)

The wolves attack the flock by distorting the truth in order to gain a following. They want to have their own disciples. It’s all about them.

So who did God speak to after the New Testament?

Montanus (2nd century)

In the second century a man named Montanus claimed to hear directly from God. He and his female followers—Priscilla and Maximilla—were known for their ecstatic utterances as if they were being controlled by supernatural power. Here is what Brittanica says about the Montanist sect:

The members exhibited the frenzied nature of their religious experience by enraptured seizures and utterances of strange languages that the disciples regarded as oracles of the Holy Spirit.

Convinced that the end of the world was at hand and that the New Jerusalem mentioned in the New Testament was about to descend near the Phrygian village of Pepuza, Montanus laid down a rigoristic morality to purify his followers and detach them from their material desires.

Well, the end of the world didn’t happen and the New Jerusalem didn’t descend near Pepuza. Despite these failed prophecies, the Montanist Church grew and endured for about six centuries, complete with its own bishops and presbyters.

Many have noted that the “frenzied nature” of these prophets does not match Paul’s words: “The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets” (1 Cor 14:32). Moreover,

the most fundamental innovation of Montanist teaching was the theory of an authorized development of Christian doctrine, as opposed to the older theory that Christian doctrine was preached in its completeness by the apostles and that the church had merely to preserve faithfully the tradition of their teaching. The Montanists did not reject the apostolic revelations nor abandon any doctrines the church had learned from its older teachers. The revelations of the new prophecy were to supplement, not to displace, Scripture. (CCEL)

Montanists wanted to add their new revelations to the Scriptures. Indeed, the movement was also known as “New Prophecy.” If God continues to speak, however, in the same way as he did through the Bible, what will stop these revelations from eventually displacing Scripture? New prophecy always trumps old prophecy because the newest revelation is the most complete.

How did the Church respond?

About a century later, many Church authorities simply asserted that prophecy ended with the apostles. But at the time, the Church concluded that Montanus and his followers were led by a deceitful spirit and expelled them. Here is what Eusebius writes in the early fourth century:

There is said to be a certain village called Ardabau in that part of Mysia, which borders upon Phrygia. There first, they say, when Gratus was proconsul of Asia, a recent convert, Montanus by name, through his unquenchable desire for leadership, gave the adversary opportunity against him. And he became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning.

Some of those who heard his spurious utterances at that time were indignant, and they rebuked him as one that was possessed, and that was under the control of a demon, and was led by a deceitful spirit, and was distracting the multitude; and they forbade him to talk, remembering the distinction drawn by the Lord and his warning to guard watchfully against the coming of false prophets. Matthew 7:15 But others imagining themselves possessed of the Holy Spirit and of a prophetic gift, were elated and not a little puffed up; and forgetting the distinction of the Lord, they challenged the mad and insidious and seducing spirit, and were cheated and deceived by him. In consequence of this, he could no longer be held in check, so as to keep silence.

Thus by artifice, or rather by such a system of wicked craft, the devil, devising destruction for the disobedient, and being unworthily honored by them, secretly excited and inflamed their understandings which had already become estranged from the true faith. And he stirred up besides two women, and filled them with the false spirit, so that they talked wildly and unreasonably and strangely, like the person already mentioned. And the spirit pronounced them blessed as they rejoiced and gloried in him, and puffed them up by the magnitude of his promises. But sometimes he rebuked them openly in a wise and faithful manner, that he might seem to be a reprover. But those of the Phrygians that were deceived were few in number.

And the arrogant spirit taught them to revile the entire universal Church under heaven, because the spirit of false prophecy received neither honor from it nor entrance into it.

For the faithful in Asia met often in many places throughout Asia to consider this matter, and examined the novel utterances and pronounced them profane, and rejected the heresy, and thus these persons were expelled from the Church and debarred from communion. (5.16.7-10)

If Montanism was embraced by Church leaders, Christianity today would be a mess. We would not have a fixed core of belief because modern-day prophets would continually supersede first-century apostles.

Thomas Müntzer (1489-1525)

In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther battled with a radical reformer named Thomas Müntzer. Müntzer argued for the necessity of direct revelation from God and advocated for violence in support of religion. He believed only prophets—those who hear directly from God—were able to properly interpret the Bible. He founded a church and encouraged the elect to slaughter the ungodly. Roland Bainton writes, “The real menage of Müntzer in Luther’s eyes was that he destroyed the uniqueness of Christian revelation in the past by his elevation of revelation in the present” (Here I Stand, 202). Unless we make an important distinction (more on this below), this is what always happens when we allow new revelations: they eclipse prior revelations.

I have given two examples of what I consider to be false prophets in church history. What about true prophets after the New Testament?

Julian of Norwich (c. 1343-1416)

I think Julian of Norwich (c. 1343-1416) had genuine revelations from Christ. In fact, her Revelations of Divine Love is the most astounding Christian literature I have ever read. She was an anchoress, meaning she lived in permanent seclusion and she received these visions on her deathbed, from which she eventually recovered. Her writings highlight the love of Christ, which is a thoroughly biblical concept. Since she lived an ascetic lifestyle, there was nothing for her to gain materially from her message.

Joan of Arc (c. 1412-1431) 

I also think—underscore the word “think”—that Joan of Arc (c. 1412-1431) received revelations from above. But Joan of Arc is a particularly challenging example because many of her revelations were focused on warfare and I don’t see anything like that in the New Testament. And she actually claims to have received guidance from the saints and Michael the archangel.

Why not conclude that Joan of Arc was hallucinating?

She was a peasant girl in France who dressed in male clothing and led men into battle—something completely unheard of in her time period. And ultimately she only received suffering and death for her revelations. At the age of 19 she was burned at the stake. In 1920 after reviewing all the evidence the Roman Catholic Church canonized her as a saint. There’s a lot more to say, but for me this one is more of a wholistic impression: her entire life seems surreal and her sanity seems to be in place throughout her trial, which you can read here. Before making your own judgment on Joan of Arc’s revelations, first read a biography of her life, such as this one.

Key Distinction

The Catholic Church makes an important distinction in this matter. Catholic Answers says,

The term private is widely acknowledged to be misleading, and some sources use other terms. The Council of Trent, for example, used the term “special revelation.”

Whatever term one prefers, the idea is to distinguish these revelations from the body of revelation found in Sacred Scripture and Tradition. That revelation is binding on the entire Church throughout all its history. It is thus sometimes called public revelation because it is directed to everyone in the Church.

Private revelation by contrast is directed to a narrower audience. It may be directed to a single person, to a group of people, or even to the entire Church in a particular age, but it is not directed to all of the Church throughout history.

Public revelation is binding; private revelation or “special revelation” is not. You don’t have to agree with me or the Catholic Church on Julian of Norwich and Joan of Arc.

It continues,

In 2010, Benedict XVI explained:

Ecclesiastical approval of a private revelation essentially means that its message contains nothing contrary to faith and morals; it is licit to make it public and the faithful are authorized to give to it their prudent adhesion. A private revelation can introduce new emphases, give rise to new forms of piety, or deepen older ones. It can have a certain prophetic character and can be a valuable aid for better understanding and living the Gospel at a certain time; consequently, it should not be treated lightly. It is a help which is proffered, but its use is not obligatory (Verbum Domini 14).

In the 1700s, Benedict XIV observed that the Church accepts these revelations only “as probable” and added, “It follows that anyone may, without injury to the Catholic faith, give no heed to these revelations, and differ from them, provided he does so modestly, not without reason, and without contempt.”

The lack of contempt is needed because one needs to show respect to the Church authorities who approved them, but if one thinks there is a good reason not to accept a particular, approved apparition, the Church holds that one is free to do so.

So Catholics should carefully consider the private revelation and should not show contempt toward it, but they are not obligated to accept it.

Scripture

Here’s the thing, especially for Protestants: We cannot allow new revelations to surpass the Scriptures. Why not? Paul told Timothy,

the Holy Scriptures . . . are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:15-16)

The Scriptures, not prophecies, are able to make us “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The Scriptures, not prophecies, are “God-breathed.” The Scriptures, not prophecies, are useful for “teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.” After Paul makes these statements he gives Timothy this charge: “Preach the word,” which must mean, “Preach the Scriptures.”

Jesus is God’s ultimate revelation to humanity. And Jesus authorized his apostles to go out and spread his message. Consequently, the first believers “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42). Moreover, the New Testament books were chosen because of their connection to an apostle—either authored by, influenced by, or contain teaching corresponding with the apostles’ teaching. Ultimately, then, the Christian faith is rooted in the Christ proclaimed by the first-century apostles. They were his eyewitnesses. When modern prophets eclipse first-century apostles the core of Christianity is gutted. Christian revelation must maintain the priority of the Scriptures, which come from the apostles, who were authorized by Christ.

Conclusion

There are two paths forward: (1) conclude that genuine prophecy ceased with the apostles so all contemporary prophecies are false (2) conclude that true prophecy still occurs but it must be distinguished from false prophecy and true prophecy must not be allowed to rise to the level of Scripture. Believers are not required to accept a specific private revelation, but they must accept the Scriptures. Prophecies “will cease” (1 Cor 13:8), but “the word of the Lord endures forever” (1 Pet 1:25).

For an exploration of prophecy in the New Testament, see this post.