There were some instances where I found the author’s use/communication/application of certain terminologies difficult to process. One of the terms that he spoke at length about is “revelation”. In textual analysis, two statements can help guide you in the process of deriving the author’s intended meaning from a text. They are “context is king” and “meanings are not in words, meanings are in people”. Both of these statements point to the fact that a word might mean nothing unless properly situated in the intended context by the reader. Which means one word can mean different things in different contexts. This is the case for “revelation”. The term comes from the Greek word apokalupsis, which simply means a disclosure or an unveiling. For our discussion, we will look at 3 different contexts within which the word can have a slightly different meaning:

1. Revelation in the ordinary sense: It is used to signify the uncovering or divulging of information that was previously hidden or unknown. 
2. Revelation in the theological sense: It is used to refer to what God has made known about himself. Dr. Otabil refers to this context as the specific canonical meaning of the word in relation to scripture.
3. Revelation in the prophetic sense: This refers to the uncovering of spiritual and physical information to a man or a woman by God. 

All three are valid and legitimate; the same word but different contexts, hence it is always important to state or clarify the context within which the word is being used. In the book, we see the author use the word revelation both in the theological and prophetic contexts. The theological definition and usage can be found on page 9, and the prophetic usage can be found on page 19 when he said that “prophets received visions, dreams, and revelations…”. Here, he was referring to “revelation” in the prophetic sense. We see Paul also use the word in the prophetic sense in 1 Corinthians 14:26 to signify the uncovering of the mysteries of God, secrets of men, and future occurrences. Hence, when Dr. Otabil stated that the word ‘revelation’ “… is often used more loosely in present-day prophetic discourse”, I didn’t agree with it. Referring to the use of the word in the prophetic context as “loose” downplays its legitimate existence and usage in any other sense apart from the theological one. Every single contextual meaning of a word is valid so long as the context is properly defined and communicated. One context (the theological one) should not be given undue prominence over others. 

Secondly, from the book, I get the sense that Dr. Otabil believes that “Pastor” is a more humble title for any man of God to take on as compared to “Prophet” even if the said man of God is called to be a Prophet. I am not quite sure of this, but there are some statements he makes on page 92 that give me this impression:

1. During the early years of the Pentecostal movement, church leaders were typically addressed in HUMBLE, relational terms such as brother, sister, pastor, or reverend minister.
2. Such restraint guards against potential spiritual abuse, preserves the primacy of Scripture, and upholds the humility and servanthood characterising true Christian leadership. 

He argues his point by referencing historical church practices and what he refers to as classical Pentecostalism. For these reasons, he concludes by saying, “given the biblical witness and the broader experience of the Christian church, it is WISE for ministers of the Gospel to avoid adopting the title ‘prophet’”. 

Of course, if you are a Pastor, you must be called one; there is no need to assume a title that doesn’t holistically define your God-given calling. But my point is, “Pastor” is an office on its own and should be treated as such. It shouldn’t be regarded as a generic title for every man of God. I believe that, so far as there were people identified in the New Testament as Prophets, we should have absolutely no qualms with contemporary Prophets being called “Prophets” in the church today -especially if they are called of God to be Prophets. Acts 13 opens by informing us that there were two distinct groups of ministers in the church in Antioch: Prophets and Teachers. Again, in Acts 11, we are told that some Prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, including Prophet Agabus. He was singled out because he gave a prophecy that came to pass about a famine coming over the whole world. The precision exhibited in the bible, in calling ministers by their actual title, is also a demonstration of doctrinal precision. The bible doesn’t mince words, and we shouldn’t either. The bible calls prophets “prophets” because they are prophets, and for those who just had the prophetic gifts, we are told so. In the case of Philip’s daughters in Acts 21, we are told they prophesied, but it was never said that they were Prophetesses. That is precision. So I expect that if someone is a prophet in the contemporary church, they should be called so, regardless of what practice was predominant throughout the history of the church after the closing of the canon of scripture. Additionally, positing that “Pastor” is a more humble title to assume somehow suggests that “prophet” is a prideful title to accept. I might be reaching, but please bear with me. What I do think is this: if God calls me to be a Prophet, then a Prophet I am. Pride is when I change my title to something else for whatever reason. 

There is one more quote from the book that I respectfully disagree with. On page 107, Dr. Otabil had this to say about contemporary prophets:

Their words do not give direction to the believer, in their day-to-day walk with God. Instead, a prophet’s ministry serves as confirmation of the direction a believer has received, either through God’s written word or the inward witness of the Holy Spirit.

I agree strongly with the first part. I believe that believers must strive to live a life daily led by the truth of God’s word and the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. Some are so dependent on their Pastors and Prophets that they are unable to make decisions and take actions without first consulting their man of God and getting confirmation to proceed. I find this to be wrong and inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible in the New Testament. Prophets are not omnipresent or omniscient, but God is. Therefore, we must all strive to know God in a way that is deeply rooted in his word and fellowship with the Holy Spirit. However, the point of disagreement in this quote for me is when the author says a prophet’s ministry is to serve as confirmation of the direction that the believer has already received. I believe this to be true and important, but it is not always the case. We are aware of prophecies in the New Testament that came as a confirmation of what the believer already knew; case in point, the story of Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem. In his farewell message to the Ephesian Elders, Paul states that the Holy Spirit had testified to him in every city he had been to that imprisonment and afflictions await him (Acts 20:22-23). This message will be subsequently prophesied by people in two other cities he visited:

1. Tyre: Some disciples urged Paul not to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21:4)
2. Caesarea: Prophet Agabus also prophesied the impending arrest of Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:11)

In this case, the believer, Paul, knew this because he had already been told by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, you can say the subsequent warnings that came had more details – but from what we are told, at least, Paul knew affliction and imprisonment awaited him. But there are some cases in the book of Acts where a prophetic word comes, and the believers involved seem to have no prior knowledge of it. Here are two examples:

1. When Agabus prophesied global famine, we are never told that the other believers already knew by the Spirit that it was going to happen. But rather, they heeded the Prophet’s warning and determined to send relief to their brethren in Judea (Acts 11:28-29).
2. In Acts 13:1-2, we are told that a group of Teachers and Prophets in Antioch met and spent some time worshipping and fasting, and the Holy Spirit instructed them to separate unto him Paul and Barnabas. This prophetic word didn’t seem to come as a confirmation of what any of them knew. It seems this group of believers received the word as a direction from God that they needed to act on, and so they did. 

I guess what I am trying to say is, in my perspective, a prophetic word can come as a confirmation of what the believer already knows from scripture and the inward witness of the Holy Spirit. But I believe there are times when the word might come as a fresh prediction or directive from God that the believer would have to pray about, then act on. Perhaps Dr. Otabil holds this view too, but it wasn’t clear from my reading of the book, or it wasn’t stated at all.

I really loved reading this book, and writing this review allowed me to re-read my favourite parts. It is an essential document every Christian must have on their bookshelves, especially in these times. It takes a more critical and theological look at the prophetic ministry, and this is exceptional because we are often told not to look at the prophetic like that. We are told not to subject the prophetic ministry and prophets to sound theological scrutiny. That is why I loved reading this so much – the author shares no experiences, just a strict adherence to the counsel of God through scripture on the subject, and I loved it. So I hope you grab a copy, read it, and do share what you learnt. 

I intimated to those close to me that I wish Dr. Otabil would do a series on the topic – you know, a classic Otabil-style 16-part, 16-week teaching on the prophetic ministry. I was looking forward to this because I wanted to understand his perspective properly and the basis for the statements he was making. So imagine my joy when I heard he had written a book on it instead. I got a hold of it the very week it came out, dug into it, and decided to do a review of the book detailing the lessons I took from it, as well as areas I need further clarification on.

The book opens with an introduction explaining why it is necessary for this generation and beyond. The author states categorically that in the past few decades, there has been a significant growth of the church in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. But just like in the other parts of the world that saw the sudden and prominent rise of Christianity, there is a lot of cause for concern regarding matters arising. Specifically in Ghana and Africa at large, we see an emphasis, Dr. Otabil refers to it as an over-emphasis, of the Spiritual Gifts, especially prophecy. This, in itself, is not bad, only that there is a need for doctrinal clarification on how the gifts are wielded and administered in the body. This, coupled with the menace of sexual immorality and other ethical issues identified amongst people in these movements, makes it an even more critical issue that requires immediate attention. The background at the beginning sets the tone for the rest of the book in a way that convinces the reader that it is important that this book exists in our time to address, head-on, the current state of the prophetic. 

Dr. Otabil proceeds to define the following terms that were used extensively throughout the book: the word of God, scripture, bible, canon of scripture, revelation, and prophecy. These are all terminologies that could be loosely defined by any serious Christian, but for the sake of communicating a single and effective message to readers, the author offered definitions at the beginning. This helped me to read the book with clarity and understanding; I enjoyed the read because of this. Personally, one of my greatest takeaways from the book is “language”; ie, the author’s use of language and apt terminologies. Many times, we know what the word of God says, but lack the appropriate language to frame our thoughts and communicate them in a way that will be fully understood by our listeners. I have personally benefited from the rich, theologically sound language used in this book. When Dr. Otabil stated in the book that “… the church must strive for clarity and doctrinal precision”, he meant it and demonstrated it in the way that he authored the book with such a high regard for precision of language.

The author defines prophecy as the “divinely inspired communication of God’s will, purpose, or plans to humanity”. Prophecy can be “forth-telling” (inspired speech about the present) and “fore-telling”(predictive) as well. From scripture, we can tell that it is not always predictive, for there are times when people extolled God and it was still referred to as prophetic – case in point, Zachariah’s prophecy in Luke 1:67-79, which is a combination of both. 

There is one prophetic utterance that Dr. Otabil refers to as the turning point between the prophetic patterns of the Old Testament and the New Testament. This is the prophecy of Joel, indicating that in the last days God would pour out his Spirit on all flesh (Joel 2:28-30). This is in sharp contrast with the norm in the Old Testament, where individuals like Prophets, Priests, and Kings were the only recipients of the Spirit of God. Joel’s prophecy signified that anybody at all, regardless of age, gender, and social status, could receive the Holy Spirit in the last days (a term the author says is synonymous with the “New Testament”). We see the fulfilment of this prophecy at the dawn of the New Testament and the new prophetic era on the day of Pentecost. The bible makes us understand that 120 people were gathered in the upper room where they were waiting for the promise that Jesus made to them. The Holy Spirit fell on them, and they all began to speak in tongues. This manifestation of the gift of tongues was specifically the speaking of foreign human languages as confirmed by the crowd of Jewish men coming from “every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5). The crowd also confirmed that they could hear them speaking about the “mighty works of God” in their own languages. It is unimaginable to make a direct connection between this event and the prophecy of Joel, essentially because Joel said nothing about tongues. It is when Peter took center stage to address the crowd that he connected the event to the prophecy of Joel in a way that commemorates the commencement of the new prophetic era, which is more congregational than vocational (I will explain subsequently). In the New Testament, the Spirit of God is poured out on all flesh, and regular folks who may not have any titles or positions in the church are filled with the Spirit of God and able to prophesy. Herein lies another proof that prophecy is not always foretelling or predictive. Peter claims the day of Pentecost was the commencement of the fulfilment of the Prophecy of Joel. However, all the 120 people didn’t foretell future events but rather they spoke about the mighty works of God under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is forth-telling and not foretelling. 

I have always classified the prophetic ministry from a biblical perspective into two categories: Old Testament and New Testament prophets. This is because of the clear distinction between the two groups of prophets. In this book, Dr. Otabil categorizes prophets and the prophetic ministry into two sets of two distinct groups, both valid and interesting.

1. Vocational and Congregational Prophets: This classification, in my view, emphasizes access to the prophetic gift and the level of participation. Vocational prophets are those whose prophetic gift defines their divinely ordained calling or office. It is predominant in the Old Testament. Some are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, and Amos. Congregational Prophets are those who did not receive a special calling from God to become prophets before they started prophesying. You will often find them within the covenant community of people who revere God. They may not have any leadership or special positions amongst God’s people, yet they have been given the gift of prophecy to speak forth the word of God. Congregational prophecy is more predominant in the New Testament and can be seen in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, when the 120 people gathered in the upper room all spoke in tongues, prophesying the mighty works of God. The interesting fact about this classification is that, although there is a concentration of each of the groups in either the New or the Old Testament, it does not mean there are no overlaps. Which means, there are congregational prophets in the Old Testament just as there are vocational prophets in the New. 
2. Canonical and Contemporary Prophecy: Canonical prophecy refers to the ministry and prophecies recorded as scripture, while contemporary prophecy refers to what is portrayed in 1 Corinthians 14 as the prophetic ministry that continues after the canon of scripture was closed. The author calls it post-canonical prophecy (again, the language). It is purposely for edification, exhortation, and encouragement. Dr. Otabil states categorically that “unlike canonical prophecy, this contemporary form is not infallible (exactly what Paul taught in 1 Cor 14). It is not preserved as scripture”. This classification is especially important to me because of my interest in the cessationist and continuationist debates. Our cessationist brethren have always refuted the continuation of the gifts of prophecy because the canon of scripture is closed. Meaning, the existence of the bible makes the prophetic gift redundant. To this, Dr. Otabil had a few things to say:
   • Prophecy has not ceased entirely. What has ceased is the kind of prophecy that produced the Word of God. 
   • Therefore, contemporary prophecy is not inherently permanent, but its discontinuation is tied to Christ’s return, not the canon’s closing.
   • Contemporary prophets do not write scripture, reveal new doctrine, or speak with the infallible authority of Moses, Isaiah, or Paul.

The existence of Contemporary Prophets raises a lot of questions that need addressing. One of such is, does their operation in the prophetic and the prophetic office qualify them for a position in the hierarchy of the local church? I was particularly interested in this because over the years, I have heard a few statements Dr. Otabil has made in connection to this very subject and have always sought clarity on it. I’m glad he takes the time to offer an explanation on this matter in this book. On page 66, he says, “while spiritual gifts are distributed throughout the congregation, they do not determine formal leadership roles, which in the early church were pastoral: elders, bishops, and overseers, not prophets or even apostles”. Although this is new to me, I agree. My view has always been that, so far as there were prophets in the early church in Acts, then all prophets should be recognised and called “Prophets” in contemporary churches as well. This is true; however, it doesn’t mean the prophetic ministry is a determinant of formal leadership roles in the church. It also implies that somebody can be a prophet, and because they preside over a congregation or church as an overseer, they would be formally referred to as an overseer, bishop, or even pastor. And it is fine! The conclusion is that such people can operate in the prophetic ministry as an office, but can have a different title depending on their formal leadership role in the church.

Finally, I want to highlight two things that the author referred to from the story of the Prophet Samuel. First, he points out the need for mentors and fathers in the faith to step aside for their proteges to have direct communion with God throughout their ministry. He used the relationship between Eli and Samuel as a reference point. When Samuel was mistaken in the dead of the night, who was calling out his name, Eli didn’t assume the position of the “Caller”. He rather pointed Samuel to God and asked him to request that the LORD speak to him directly humbly. The point here is that nobody is called into ministry by another man. God calls people and uses them. Therefore, mentors in the faith must always step aside and allow their mentees to heed the “divine summons” (as Dr. Otabil calls it, beautifully) as Eli did. 

Secondly, Dr. Otabil pointed out the fact that “the prophet’s character is as vital as his calling”. He said this to point out the need for prophets to exude the fruit of the Spirit and live a life that is God-glorifying because of their calling. This is important to point out, and it is even more useful to cite Samuel as a reference because in 1 Samuel 12:3-5, Samuel challenged the people to come up with instances where he either cheated them or administered his gift for personal gain. They couldn’t, and that speaks of the Prophet’s integrity. Prophets must recognize the exceptional calling on their lives and know that their character is as vital as that calling. 

This is the first part of my review of the book. In the next one, we will delve more deeply into points of disagreement or areas where I require further clarification. I trust that you learnt a thing or two here, and if you haven’t already, do grab a copy of the book and read it. It is good stuff!

In most cases, coagulated lies lead to the prevalence of specific sinful activities amongst people groups like families, tribes, nations, generations, etc. Other times, they may not necessarily lead to sin, but to subtle negative human traits like gullibility, lack of purpose, laziness, skepticism, loss of hope, etc. The bottom line is that if a lie you believe goes unchecked, it grows to become a monster you are not equipped to deal with. 

Let’s take, for example, Postmodernism as an intellectual movement. I am no expert on the topic, but it is a philosophy that I find interesting, especially because of its prominent yet discreet presence in the trendy ideas of today. 

• Postmodernism is a movement that is characterized by skepticism, relativism, and a critique of grand narratives and universal truths. This philosophy indicates that there are no absolutes; everything about human reality is subjective. It has influenced disciplines such as architecture, art, and literature, creating unconventional approaches and non-uniform interpretations. By its name, it is obvious that it is a reaction to the earlier prevalent philosophy of Modernism. 
• Modernism is an intellectual movement that holds to grand narratives such as objectivity, rationality, historical progress, and identity. 

I would like to go on to share two postmodern ideas, and perhaps we can see how they play out in our world today: 

1. According to postmodernism, objectivity is dead. This is a very serious idea that has severe implications. The death of objectivity implies the death of truth. It means everything is subjective; ideas find their basis in the perspectives of individuals and not in this grand, imposing reality that we call the TRUTH. Postmodernism centers the individual’s feelings and view of things as the major driving force of their life. You can imagine the kind of chaos that this will generate in public discourse, education, life, and co-existence with other humans. Before I go down the never-ending rabbit hole of this postmodern idea, let me point out its impact on humanity today. I believe this idea has both catalyzed and radicalized the atheist movement in our world today. Atheism, itself, holds to the idea of subjectivity, especially regarding morality. To the atheist, the idea of an objective moral standard that all humans are supposed to submit to is non-existent. The truth is, objective moral reasoning points back to the existence of God, who is the objective and ultimate Moral Lawgiver. So, it is no news that atheists the world over will subscribe to this. The philosophy of the day also influences the language of the day. Hence, today, you will hear a lot of people using the term “my truth” or “your truth” in their speech. This personalization of truth is often a direct reference to the individual’s perspective or opinion. But truth, by nature, cannot be personalized; it is objective. Therefore, it should be classified as “THE TRUTH”; truth should always be preceded by the definite article “the”, not the indefinite article “a” or by any personal pronoun. Opinions and perspectives can be preceded by personal pronouns, but not the truth. All this is indicative of how pervasive and influential the postmodern philosophy can be. 
2. Postmodernists do not believe in dialogue (according to Jordan Peterson). This implies that they are often unwelcoming of divergent views on a topic. Hence, they tend to only entertain ideas similar to theirs or those that affirm theirs. I believe that this gave rise to the “cancel culture” we see pervasive in our world today. Where individuals are stripped of their credibility and credentials, sometimes because they shared an idea that is not in tune with the trendy philosophy of the day. Some speakers have been banned from speaking at some universities for this reason, and public figures have been ‘cancelled’ for things they said or shared on their social media pages. To be cancelled in this generation is to be boycotted; you, your person, anything that concerns you, and anything you produce will be disregarded by the masses. 

This is what I mean by untruths coagulating into something far more dangerous than the base lie. Postmodernism is only one of such philosophies. You can imagine how deadly this reality of coagulated lies and their impact on humanity is. My focus in this write-up is on the mob mentality of most people who hold to such philosophies. Usually, you will find that they act and serve the community of people who think like them without necessarily interrogating issues. So long as they identify with an idea and the community that is pushing it, that is always ample reason to act in the interest of that group without seeking the truth. 

Moving on, I will illustrate the above-stated argument from the bible. The biblical case study for this write-up is found in Acts 19, which tells the story of Paul’s missionary work in the city of Ephesus. I won’t bore you with the details; I will only highlight the aspects relevant to this article’s theme. 

By the power of the Holy Spirit, Paul achieved great things in his ministry. Entire cities turned to God, forsaking idolatry; case in point, the city of Ephesus. Not only in Ephesus, but throughout the whole of Asia, according to Acts 19:25. This alarmed Demetrius, a silversmith and astute businessman, who made and sold silver shrines of the goddess Artemis. He gathered the craftsmen and others in the city and stirred them up against Paul’s ministry for the following reasons: 

And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship. Acts 19:27

We can draw a few conclusions based on the bible verse above, but the most outstanding claim here is that the worship of Artemis was widespread in all of Asia and the ancient world. Paul’s message seemed to draw people away from it and rather towards God. In verse 26, Demetrius states that Paul taught throughout his ministry in Asia that “… gods made with hands are not gods”. This is very consistent with Paul’s teachings, seeing that he speaks against idolatry in 1st Corinthians 8, where he said: we know that ‘an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one”. And even in 1 Corinthians 10:20, Paul states that when pagans offer sacrifices to idols, they do so to demons instead.

The point here is: Is it true that gods made with hands are no gods? And is it true that idols are just props with demonic backing? I believe these questions are legitimate. The people of Ephesus, especially the business community, should have been preoccupied by these questions and a quest to find answers, instead, they thought of the decline in the demand for their products and the waning interest in the worship of Artemis. 

Demetrius’s campaign threw the whole city into an uproar. I would like to emphasize two interesting characteristics of the riots that accompanied it. 

1. The people were enraged, and they came together chanting “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”. The chants went on for 2 hours (v. 34).
2. Now, some cried out one thing, some another, for the assembly was in confusion, and most of them did not know why they had come together. Acts 19:32.

I would like to stress the second point here because it relates to the mob mentality point I made earlier. When a lie grows to become a philosophy, religion, worldview, or even church doctrine, sometimes it tends to be a strong movement that fuels a lot of disorderliness and chaos. People often subscribe to it without knowing the full implications of their choice. Especially in the story of the revival in Ephesus, many joined in the religious chant of “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” who knew nothing about the origin of the riots. Yet they joined in the riots. The chaos is proof of who is behind the riots: the father of lies. He is behind the idea of men worshipping man-made artefacts and serving them as gods. This is why Paul refers to idols as mere props with demonic backing. Demetrius was a businessman who played on the religiosity of the people. he had selfish reasons for doing so and knew how to incite the masses to his advantage. He was looking out for his business, and presented it to the people in a way that made it seem like he was standing up for the worship of Artemis. The belief in idols had grown to the point where it was a coagulated lie in Ephesus that even influenced the kind of thriving businesses being done there. This is another testament to the pervasiveness of coagulated lies; they permeate every sphere of life and occupy every little space if allowed to. As a Christian, of course, I don’t believe idol worship is a true pursuit of GOD. The way, the truth, and the life is Jesus.

I would like to conclude by answering two salient questions:

How do you dispel coagulated lies? 

1. The GOSPEL: (So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily, Acts 19:20). This was the impact of Paul’s ministry in Ephesus.
   1. “… the gospel functions as a critique of all temples, whether the Parthenon in Athens, the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, or even … the Temple in Jerusalem itself”.  (According to NT Wright)

2. Spiritual warfare: For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion (philosophies) raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5

How do you guard against coagulated lies?

By being vigilant, keeping your eyes on Jesus, always keeping watch over your faith, and doing an inventory of your core beliefs to ensure that you are still holding strong to the core tenets of Christianity. I put the responsibility on the believer because the bible says in Colossians 2:8 that “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ”.

Just as obeying the terms of consecration leads to tremendous benefits,  disobeying the terms of consecration can lead to severe consequences. Throughout the scriptures, we are privy to the stories of people who followed through with the instructions God gave them in their consecration. On the other hand, there are stories of those who did not obey these instructions, and regardless of their background and affiliation to God, they still faced severe consequences for their actions. In the final part of this series, we will take a look at the consequences of not keeping to the terms of consecration.

Before we delve into this topic fully, I would like to talk briefly about “subjects of consecration”. This will answer the question, “what/who can be consecrated?”. Although I haven’t made the classification until this point in the series, allow me to state emphatically that human beings are not the only subjects of consecration mentioned in the bible. Especially in the Old Testament, we see the consecration of “things” as well. Which is very interesting because it makes one wonder why God will put so much value on objects. My initial response to this question is that God is uncommon (Holy) by nature therefore, any person affiliated to him and anything associated with Him must reflect his nature. This is why God often uses people or things that are consecrated unto him. 

On the basis of what I have shared so far, I will be looking at the topic of the consequences of flouting the terms of consecration regarding, 

1. Consecrated people.
2. Consecrated objects 

Individuals can either disobey instructions given to them to keep or disobey instructions regarding the handling of things/people that are consecrated to God. In both cases, there are severe ramifications that we need to pay close attention to and learn from. We will take a close look at both instances throughout scripture in the following paragraphs of this piece.

Consequences of flouting the terms of personal or communal consecration

As has already been established throughout this series, God often gives specific instructions to individuals and groups of people  that sets them apart from everyone else. This is what consecration is all about. Often, we are told the consequences that these individuals will face if they don’t obey the instructions God has given them. Some of the consequences are dire; in some instances it travels through generations. 

In our anchor bible passage (Exodus 19:22 and 24), we see the emphasis that the LORD places on his children following the terms of their consecration to the letter. God gives specific instructions concerning the state the Priests should be in before they approach him. The Priests were an already consecrated group of people (Numbers 8:5-22) but for this particular event (in Exodus 19)  the LORD was manifesting physically in their midst hence they needed to further consecrate themselves before they drew near to him.

 What are the consequences for the Priests who flout this instruction? 

God stated unequivocally that if any Priest draws near to him without being consecrated, he would break out against him. Basically, the instruction to the Priests was to consecrate themselves before they approach the LORD lest he passes a severe judgement that will lead to their destruction. The Priests did not face the consequences  stated because they obeyed the terms of consecration. However, in the story of Samson, we see how he went against the terms of his consecration to divulge the source of his power to Delilah leading to his destruction. It is important for us to take the terms of our consecration very seriously. Sin is consequential. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and we cannot continue to sin that grace should abound. Aside from sin, we are told in the New Testament to walk worthy of the call upon our lives (Ephesians 4:1). This is incredibly important and needs to be given due attention. To walk worthy of your calling is to be in consistent remembrance of your calling and acting accordingly. Your calling determines your level of consecration, therefore if you are fully aware of it and never lose sight of it, you will be able to walk worthy of it. 

Consequences of flouting the terms of handling or engagement with consecrated things. 

In the Old Testament we are told of wars and the conquests of Israel’s enemies in Israel. Israel won some of its wars especially when they were living according to the will of God and they lost wars when they rebelled against God. One thing recurs often when Israel loses its wars: the enemies of Israel enter into the temple and carry away the vessels dedicated to God. Here are a two examples of the seizing of the articles in the House of the Lord by Israel’s enemies:

1. Nebuchadnezzar seizing the vessels in the house of the Lord and carrying them away to Babylon – 2 Chronicles 36:18
2. The Philistines carry away the Ark of the covenant and setting it before their god, Dagon – 1st Samuel 5

These vessels in the temple including the Ark of the Covenant are all sacred “items” dedicated to the God Israel. In fact, in 1st Kings 8:4 the vessels are referred to as “holy vessels”. Throughout this series, we have made the point that holiness is not necessarily sinlessness but being set apart for God or being “uncommon”. Therefore, it is safe to say the vessels were consecrated to God. Israel’s enemies who desecrated the vessels by making use of them like they would any ordinary vessel or in the case of the ark, placing it next to their god, faced some very terrible consequences. This is a typical example of what it means to desecrate a sacred or consecrated “article”. Treating a consecrated vessel as you would a regular one typifies desecration. Lets take for example King Belshazzar and his desecration of the vessels of the house of the God of Israel; in Daniel 5, he throws a party and requests for the vessels of the house of God so he, his lords, his wives and concubines could drink from them. The holy vessels of the house of God were reduced to ordinary party cups or wine glasses. They didn’t just drink from the vessels but also praised idols while at it. Almost immediately after this act, Belshazzar faced the consequences of his actions. He was killed that very night and another took his place. Again, in Exodus 19:12, the LORD orders Moses to set boundaries around Mount Sinai. This was to indicate uncommonness and separateness because the LORD would descend on the mountain to talk to His people. We can say that the mountain was consecrated unto the LORD in the brief moment that He descended on Mount Sinai. Hence, there were consequences for any person or animal that came close and touched the mountain. The penalty for flouting this rule was death by stoning. The man or animal that draws near to the mountain was not to be touched but stoned to death. Such a fatal punishment for touching a mere mountain it seems, right? However, the point is, when God attaches himself to anything it becomes consecrated and therefore there are terms of engagement that are set for everybody to follow, in this case, even for animals. This is what it means for a thing to be consecrated or set apart as holy to the LORD. This is what it means to flout the terms of consecration in handling consecrated items. 

All I’ve been trying to say in this post is that, there are consequences when you desecrate or treat a consecrated person (including yourself) or article as ordinary. There are consequences that can be fatal and sometimes even affect generations after you. Therefore, we need to be intentional and circumspect in the way we carry ourselves about as consecrated individuals onto the LORD.

In the first post of this series, I spoke against the idea that one doesn’t need to observe any safety protocols amidst the COVID-19 pandemic if they have faith in God. In this post, we will be looking at how a public health crisis was dealt with in ancient times according to the instructions God gave his people. Ultimately, we all believe God is a mighty healer and is more than able to restore health supernaturally. Nevertheless, it is abundantly evident in scripture that there were times when he instructed his people to implement some physical measures to prevent infections, the spread of diseases, and to cure them. This will be the focus of this part of the series.

The coronavirus has shaken up the whole world, affecting not only human lives but industries, big corporations, and nations. According to WHO safety protocols, two major ways to prevent the spread of the virus are:

1. Humans everywhere wearing face masks in public
2. People practicing social distancing in public spaces. 

This invariably means there is a virus on the loose; it could be hanging loosely in the air you breathe.  Adhering to these safety protocols makes sense because the virus is spread through human contact. Other measures such as quarantine, lockdowns and vaccinations have been carried out all over the world to curtail the spread of the virus too. 

Christianity is a religion steeped in the supernatural. The power of God is evident in the pages of scripture. To us, the miraculous is not just a special feature of Christian ministry, it is a command from Jesus. Two times in the book of Luke, Jesus sent out his disciples and he instructed them to preach the gospel of the kingdom and heal the sick (Luke 9:2 & Luke 10:9). In Mathew 10:8 it is recorded as such:

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. 

Therefore, how do we reconcile the idea that Christians can operate in the supernatural healing power of God with the idea that we have to adhere to safety protocols during this pandemic? That is exactly what this post is about, so journey with me as we arrive at the answer. 

In both the Old and New Testaments, it is clear that leprosy was a disease that was regarded as a public health crisis because of its infectious nature. According to WHO, leprosy “also known as Hansen’s disease, is a chronic infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae. It mainly affects the skin, the peripheral nerves, mucosal surfaces of the upper respiratory tract and the eyes”. Its infectious nature poses danger to people who come into contact with lepers. Hence, in the Old Testament God gave ample instructions as to how to deal with the disease and diseased people. In Leviticus 13 and 14, God outlines a number of health safety protocols to be implemented by the people in their dealings with lepers. The instructions, or laws as they were called in Leviticus, were so exhaustive that they covered procedures from disease detection through a series of examinations to the prevention of the spread of the disease. Moses received these instructions and gave them to the Priests who were appointed by God to be the “medical officers” working to detect whether or not an individual had the disease. God outlined a number of symptoms they were to look out for before declaring the individual unclean or leprous. These symptoms include:

1.  A swelling in the skin that has turned the hair white and when there is raw flesh in the swelling, it is leprosy. Leviticus 13:10
2. A breakout of the disease on the person from head to toe that has turned white. The Priest shall declare the person clean. Most probably because at that stage, the disease is no longer infectious. Leviticus 13:12-13

It may interest you to know that God also instructed the priests to quarantine people suspected to be leprous for a period of 7 days (Leviticus 13: 21:22). This is the same God who wrought mighty miracles before and during the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. How is it that he is the one outlining disease control measures the people should adhere to to curtail the spread of a disease he could zap away in seconds? Disease Control is defined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as “the reduction of disease incidence, prevalence, morbidity or mortality to a locally acceptable level as a result of deliberate efforts…”. There is no doubt, this was exactly what God instructed the Israelites to do and so they did throughout their generations.

Here are a few more Disease Control measures God instructed the Priests to carry out to prevent the spread of the disease: 

1. Objects and surfaces that diseased people have had contact with are regarded as unclean or infectious. Therefore, they should be burnt.

And he shall burn the garment, or the warp or the woof, the wool or the linen, or any article made of skin that is diseased, for it is a persistent leprous disease. It shall be burned in the fire. Leviticus 13:52

2. Leprous people are to announce their presence in public by shouting “unclean, unclean” lest they infect others. They are to be responsible for not infecting others with the disease.

“The leprous person who has the disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head hang loose, and he shall cover his upper lip[a] and cry out, ‘Unclean, unclean.’ He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease. He is unclean. He shall live alone. His dwelling shall be outside the camp. Leviticus 13:46

Both in the Old and New Testaments, we see lepers ostracized in the Jewish society. At least in two different verses of scripture, we are told they were stationed at the gate of the city. One of such verses is 2 Kings 7:3, where it is said that there were 4 lepers at the entrance of the city gate. Also, in Luke 10:11-12, Jesus was met by 10 lepers as he entered a village. They stood at a distance and called out to him. This means they, too, were stationed outside the village – most probably a distance from the entrance of the village. Jesus healed them by commanding them to go and show themselves to the High Priest, which was the approved procedure one had to go through to be either declared clean or unclean. On their way to see him, they realized they were cleansed. These lepers were already following the disease control protocols God outlined in the Old Testament by socially distancing themselves from everybody to prevent the spread of the disease. Yet one encounter with Christ changed their story instantly. The point I seek to make here is that God is sovereign, wise, omnipotent and many more divine attributes can be used to describe him. Even though He has given us power to heal all diseases including infectious ones such as leprosy, he has also laid down certain principles in scripture that we can follow to prevent our getting infected and spreading diseases. These two realities are not mutually exclusive. The same bible that  teaches us to lay hands on the sick and they will recover, also points out to us that we can use medically approved methods to prevent the spread of diseases and cure diseases. [I have addressed this idea more extensively in my blog on healing where I cite the example of Isaiah prescribing the use of cake of figs to heal the boils on Hezekiah’s skin. Do check it out by clicking here].

To those who insist that Christians ought not follow safety protocols during this pandemic, although I may understand where you are coming from, I beg to differ. Should we apply this same understanding of faith to all other issues of safety and wellness? Wouldn’t that mean Christians ought not lock their doors at night because the bible says “… he who watches over Israel neither sleeps nor slumbers.” (Psalm 121:4)? Again, the bible says if the Lord doesn’t watch over a city, the watchman watches in vain (Psalm 127:1). Therefore, are we saying every Christian who has a security guard at post in his/her home isn’t walking by faith?

Even if it was a matter of “faith”, we should understand that different people have different “sizes” of faith. Faith in God varies from person to person usually because of their level of maturity and intimacy with God. When Jesus descended from the mount of transfiguration in Matthew 17, he referred to the faith of his disciples as ‘little faith’ because they couldn’t cast out a devil from a little boy. Therefore, I vehemently oppose this idea that is being pushed by some men of God and specific denominations based on the assumption that everybody operates at the same level of faith. I believe faith and prudence can co-exist. I can have faith in God to do the impossible and still be safety and health conscious. It isn’t a game of choosing either to have faith and act recklessly or choose to be safety and health conscious. The point is to know what God’s word says and to do accordingly. Once we have established the fact that it is a biblical truth for us as children of God to adhere to safety precautions lest we get infected by diseases, then I believe there shouldn’t be any snide comments or mockery coming from anybody (especially Christians) towards believers who want to keep safe in this pandemic.

Faith is a very important concept in Christianity. In fact, nobody becomes and stays a Christian without faith. We are justified by faith and according to Habakkuk 2:4, “the righteous shall live by faith”. This statement is quoted 3 times in the New Testament and it goes to show that the entirety of a Christian’s experience is based on faith. The writer of Hebrews defines faith as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. It is also stated in James 2:14  that faith without works is dead, therefore, the formula for faith is “belief in God” plus “acting according to that belief”. 

Faith requires you to act according to God’s word. The caveat here is that sometimes God’s word requires that you don’t act at all. Therefore, in some cases, staying put and not moving is an act of faith when it is in accordance with the word of God. One may even argue that inaction is still an action, hence, faith is still an “action word”. For example, when Jesus told his disciples after he resurrected to wait in Jerusalem for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In this instance, the disciples had every reason to scatter abroad since their association with Jesus put their lives in danger as well. But he told them to go to Jerusalem and wait. They complied; they didn’t travel or do anything else but wait for the promise and they had an experience that would forever change the course of history and affect millions of lives all over the world. Also, the movement of the Israelites in the wilderness depended on the movement of the pillar of cloud. This was how God guided them on their way to the promised land. When it moves, they move. When it stops, they stop. In Numbers 9:18-19, we are told that:

As long as the cloud remained over the tabernacle, they remained encamped. Even when the cloud lingered over the tabernacle for many days, the Israelites kept the LORD’s charge and did not set out.…

When an action is done in faith, it means it has its roots in scripture, according to the will of God or it is done at the command of God almighty. Faith is applied according to the will of God for an individual, a people, the body of Christ, or the world at large. For example, Peter was able to walk on water because Jesus gave him permission to do so. Therefore, by acting on that word, he acted in faith. It is very important that we realize how faith has nothing to do with showboating or doing things for the applause of men. 

In the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, there have been mixed reactions coming from different denominations of the body of Christ. While some denominations have gone on to emphasize and implement the World Health Organization’s (WHO) safety protocols in their churches, others have said that Christians shouldn’t follow the safety protocols outlined by WHO because doing so is proof of a lack of faith. In the past few weeks, we have also seen the outrage expressed by some men of God against churches buying into the idea of the COVID-19 vaccination. 

One of the verses that some Christians have based their arguments on against adhering to WHO’s safety protocols is Mark 16:18. It is a statement Jesus made after his resurrection in what is popularly known as the Great Commission. He said this was one of the signs that would follow all who believe in him, they will pick up serpents with their hands and if they drink any deadly poison it will not hurt them. Paul in Acts 28:3 had an experience that was close to what is stated above. He gathered a bunch of sticks to lay them on a fire that had already been set, then a viper driven out by the heat of the fire came out and fastened itself to the Apostle’s hand. He shook the snake off into the fire to the amazement of the people gathered there. Some commentaries I have read stated that this is a fulfillment of what Jesus said in the Great Commission. If this assertion is true, there are few points we need to note here from this event and what Jesus said:

1. Paul didn’t intentionally expose himself to the viper just to show that he had faith.
2. Jesus didn’t command us in the Great Commission to go looking for ways to put ourselves in harm’s way. He said, “they will pick up serpents and IF they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them”. 

“They will pick up serpents” doesn’t mean they should intentionally go looking for serpents to pick up but it means if they face the danger of being attacked by a serpent it will be rendered harmless to them. This is exactly what happened to Paul. The second part of the verse even puts things into a better perspective for us. It starts with “IF”, which is often used to introduce conditional or possible situations. So if it so happens that a Christian drinks a poisonous substance and only finds out after he/she has drunk it, it will not hurt the person. 

By definition, faith has nothing to do with intentionally putting yourself in harm’s way and expecting God to deliver you. There is a term for that, it is called “testing God”. Knowing that an act is dangerous to your health and safety but going on to indulge in it is not faith, in the bible, it is termed as testing God. Interestingly, Jesus used this term while responding to the devil’s temptations. The devil, while tempting Jesus, suggested to him that if he could jump off the pinnacle of the temple, God would send his angels to save him. In response, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6:6 when he said that “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test’”. It is the devil’s preoccupation to get us to test God in our daily lives by pushing us to defy sound logic all in the name of proving our faith or supposedly standing on some scriptures as a foundation to test God. It is important to note that the devil, during this particular temptation, quoted verses of scripture as well. 

”These “sign” miracles are given to encourage us to trust God and not to tempt Him with foolish experiments”. (from Wiersbe’s Expository Outlines on the New Testament. Copyright © 1992 by Chariot Victor Publishing, an imprint of Cook Communication Ministries. All rights reserved.)

One of the facts about faith I mentioned at the beginning of this article is that it is seen when a person acts in accordance to God’s word or a personal instruction they received from God. So you can see in scripture on numerous occasions where God commanded people to do things that would appear dangerous to them and their lives and even that of others. Yet, in those instances, to act on the word of God is an act of faith but to do otherwise is an act of fear. 

Here are a few more points on faith I noted while studying on this topic:

• Faith sometimes is necessitated when God is testing us not when we are testing God – Hebrews 11:17. In this verse, we are told that Abraham was tested by God to offer Isaac as a sacrifice.
• What is done in faith that brings salvation to one person could bring calamity to another when they do not do it in faith – Hebrews 11:29. In this verse, we are told that the Israelites crossed the parted red sea by faith but the Egyptians drowned in it. 
• By faith some people allowed themselves to be persecuted, stoned, sawn in two, and eventually killed – Hebrews 11:37. Faith doesn’t always require you to step out and do some “superhero” stuff. Sometimes, faith gives you the strength to endure painful ordeals in the name of the LORD. 

Usually, we can see defiance in faith. Defiance of natural laws, medical laws, logic, and sometimes even earthly authorities (as in the case of Moses’ birth when his parents defied the authority of the Pharaoh and hid him Hebrews 11:23). However, there are times when faith is in the simple obedience of authority and the wisdom of God. After all, we are admonished in Romans 13:1 to obey earthly authority. The President of Ghana has issued a directive that suggests that safety protocols have to be taken to safeguard the lives of citizens of this country. Defying this and calling it an act of faith is in direct contradiction of the word of God. Especially because the directive will not lead to the persecution of Christians or the church. There is a virus on the loose, what do you do? Just adhere to all the safety protocols outlined by the WHO to prevent you from coming into contact with it and also get vaccinated if possible. To defy this is to intentionally put yourself in harm’s way and endanger the lives of others which cannot be seen as an act of faith. You are testing God, not your faith in him.

The statement, “the righteous shall live by faith” is found in the following New Testament verses: Galatians 3:11 , Romans 1:17, Hebrews 10:38

Out of the 70, there was the “12”. In Luke 6:12-16, we are told that Jesus spent all night praying before he selected the 12 out of the 70. They are the most popular disciples of Jesus because the New Testament makes mention of their names and tells us stories about their ministries. Even some New Testament books were written by some of them, about the details of some events of their ministries and even named after them. They were the ones to whom the promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit was made and they waited for it together with other believers in the upper room. These ones walked more closely with Jesus. Anytime he would speak a parable to the people, he would explain it to them privately. It was to these 12 that Jesus said he would no longer call ‘servants’ but ‘friends’ (John 15:15).

Out of the 12, there was “the 3”: Peter, James, and John who seemed to be closer to Jesus than the rest. He often separated these 3 from the 12 for special assignments. For instance, when he went up the mount of transfiguration, he took these 3 along and charged them not to share the events of that day with anyone else. In Gethsemane too, he told the rest of the disciples to wait for him while he went further with Peter, James, and John. Then he went further ahead to pray alone.

Out of the 3, there was John. John in his own epistle called himself “the disciple whom Jesus loved”. In John 13:25, it was said that he leaned back against Jesus or rested his head on his chest. That’s how close he was to the Messiah. It is not surprising at all that he was the only one amongst the disciples of Christ who was present at the foot of the cross of Jesus. Also, when Jesus resurrected from the grave, he wanted to have a private word with Peter so he asked Peter to follow him. Peter noticed that John was coming along too and he expected Jesus to disallow John from following them. On the contrary, Jesus didn’t, he actually went on to ask Peter that “if it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me” (John 21:22). 

What greatly intrigues me here is that all (but one) of Jesus’ disciples abandoned him at some point in their walk with him. Once, Jesus taught about the communion and mentioned that unless the people eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, they didn’t have life. This was a hard message for some of his disciples to receive and so that was the day they left him and only the “12 disciples” remained. But even 11 out of the 12 disciples were not present at the foot of the cross. 

1. Judas had already committed suicide because of the guilt he felt after betraying Jesus. 
2. The remaining 10 had gone into hiding, leaving only John at the foot of the cross with the women. Jesus turned to him while he was on the cross and committed Mary, his mother, to his care. 

Let us never forget that Jesus had a lot of people around him, however, they left him when things got hard. When his message was too hard for them to accept, they left. When he was arrested, they left. He even said that “have I not chosen 12 of you and one of you is the devil?” in reference to Judas (John 6:70). Out of the 12 apostles Jesus prayed and hand-picked, he was betrayed by 2, Peter and Judas. This is a simple message to us: people will disappoint you and betray you, even people who came into your life by some divine orchestration. If it happened to Jesus, then we must understand that it can happen to us as well. But when Jesus resurrected, he appeared to the very people who had left his side during the hardest moment of his life here on earth. He came after them. Which means he had forgiven them even before they could have the opportunity to ask him for it. 

Let us also learn to segment our relationships just like Jesus did. There were things he told the 3, that the 12 didn’t know about. There was something he told John(as stated above) that he never told any of the other apostles. This is the kind of wisdom we must apply in organizing our relationships and segmenting our friends as well. Let us put people in circles, ranging from the smallest and closest circle to the biggest and farthest circle. Know where to put who.  With prayerful consideration, let us segment the people in our lives while knowing that we can still be hurt by such people no matter which circle they are in. And when that happens, let us do what Jesus did, forgive them.

Jesus sent out his followers expecting them to not only proclaim the gospel, but also heal those who were oppressed by demons through sickness (Luke 9:2). Jesus did so back then, and I believe he is still doing it now. The gift of healing, like all the other gifts, is not reserved for a special group of Christians. The Holy Spirit gives it as he wills and the believer is expected to desire for it earnestly to operate in it (1st Cor 12:11, 14:1). 

I have seen a few posts on social media that seek to ridicule this special gift of God to believers during the COVID-19 global pandemic. These posts seek to question where the men of God who operate in the gift of healing have been hiding in the wake of the pandemic. 

On my social media timelines, most of the people doing the mockery are atheists. Atheists according to the precepts of their worldview, do not believe in anything supernatural hence for them, to question the authenticity of the healing anointing in these times we are in is basically a projection of their worldview. You cannot fault an atheist for thinking and speaking like an atheist. However, I have seen some Christians share these same views in their posts as well. They dare men of God they call ‘Faith Healers’ to come out of hiding, walk into hospitals, demand to have access to those who have been infected by the deadly virus and heal them all. This very much sounds like a challenge. It sounds something like this, ‘if you claim to have the power to heal, prove it to us by healing the COVID19 patients’. 

There are a number of assumptions and misinformation about the healing anointing that probably led to this perception. I will try and address them. First of all, the healing anointing is not authenticated by the number of people, the kinds of people or even the kinds of diseases healed. If there was only a single healing done by Jesus during his entire ministry here on earth, it is enough proof that he can heal the sick. If he healed only blind people in his ministry, it is still enough proof that Jesus can heal. The gifts of the spirit are given for the common good of believers not to satisfy anybody’s curiosity or doubt (1st Corinthians 12:7). 

The second point I would like to establish is the sovereignty of God in the operation of the charismatic gifts, better yet, the sovereignty of God, period! God is sovereign. He takes orders from no one and answers to no one. He has the right to exercise his authority and nobody can question him on that. He gave gifts to men to operate in. He still decides who gets healed and who doesn’t, what to heal and what not to heal, when to heal and when not to heal. There were times when Jesus could minister to a multitude of people and heal all who were sick. Like in Luke 6:19, the bible says as the crowd pressed in to touch him, power emanated from his body to heal them all. You heard right, everybody was healed. But was everybody healed everywhere that the healing power of God was manifested? No! In fact there was a time when Jesus couldn’t heal anybody because of their unbelief. Then there is the story about the healing pool of Bethesda. According to John 5:4, periodically an angel came to stir up the water and right after that the water assumed some healing powers. The first person to plunge into the pool gets healed. So the sick man that Jesus met there, had been lame for 38 years and probably been at the pool for a number of years too, seeking healing. He tells Jesus how there is no one to toss him into the pool when it is stirred. And anytime he makes the move to enter it, another person goes before him and gets healed. The pool of Bethesda was a healing move of God that was in operation at the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem yet not everybody got healed when the pool was stirred. Even in this scenario, we are not told whether Jesus healed any other sick person at the pool apart from the man he spoke with. My point? The fact that not everybody gets healed doesn’t mean what happened wasn’t a move of God. The fact that no supernatural healing happens at all doesn’t mean God isn’t powerful enough to heal. Also, the fact that only a few people are healed doesn’t mean God cannot heal through his servants at all. He chooses to do as he pleases and very much according to his will and purposes for individuals. There are seasons and times for everything – including healing. 

When Christians question the authenticity of the healing anointing on the lives of some men of God during a global pandemic, they are calling into question the sovereignty of God. I know some may argue that they are rather calling out the ‘fake faith healers’ who boast of their healing powers. That is still not enough reason to make social media posts asking for the whereabouts of faith healers during the COVID 19 pandemic. Whether or not people get healed supernaturally during this pandemic does not prove the authenticity of the call of God on anybody’s life. What we are told in scripture is that we will know the fake men of God by their fruits. Their fruits here stands for their general conduct, character and behavior. Do we call out evangelists because the world is drenched in sin and many more people are dying without coming to the saving knowledge of Christ? Do we not see it as a collective responsibility to spread the gospel even in the little corners of the world that we reside? Jesus said the gift of healing is one of the signs that will follow those who believe in him (Mark 16:17-18). One must believe in Christ to be a Christian, so it is our collective responsibility as Christians to pray for the healing of the sick and even raise the dead. So the more important question to ask here is this, have we prayed to God to heal those infected by this dangerous virus? This is not the time to make mockery of anyone. We are warned in scripture that in the last days there will be pestilence (Luke 21:11). The fulfilment of any of the end times prophecy is not a dent in the ministry of any servant of God. There will be wars and rumors of wars in the end times. Do we actually think when these things happen it is enough reason to mock men of God for not praying enough? Where is the sense of responsibility that we should all have concerning things that happen in our world? When Paul became blind, God didn’t use any of the Apostles to heal Paul. No! He used a disciple named Ananias (Acts 9:17-18). The point here is, God can use anybody to heal the sick. So instead of questioning why God isn’t using faith healers to heal those infected by the virus, ask why you haven’t been used by God to do it. 

For if God’s people who are called by his name, would humble themselves and pray, he would hear their prayers from heaven and heal their land (2 Chronicles 7:14). The spread of this virus should rather drive us to pray for the sick and also for souls to be saved. It should compel us to pray, period! WIll God supernaturally rid this world of the virus? We don’t know. Will he do it through a vaccine? We don’t know. Does God heal through known traditional remedies? Yes, he does, refer to the story of King Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20. Whatever way that God chooses to bring healing to this world, it is up to him. Our responsibility here on earth is to pray and observe safety precautions to prevent the spread of the virus. 

I have always told people that my position on healing is the attitude I see Jesus exhibited in scripture when he came into contact with sick people. Anytime he did, he prayed for them. This is what I see in the bible. Do I always have the faith to lay hands on the sick and pray for them? No, I don’t. But this is something I am learning to put into practice these days. When Jesus told his followers to heal the sick in the bible, it was a command. This command still stands today. Will you obey him? 

(Thanks for reading each of the articles in the #COVID19series. I hope you learnt a thing or two about healing, God’s sovereignty and what Christians should do when faced with sickness. It is my prayer that God will heal people of their sicknesses who read any of the parts of this series, in Jesus’ name, Amen!)

In the first part of the series, I wrote largely about Jesus’ healing ministry, the healing gift of God and sickness. This was done to set the tone for the subsequent parts of this series. I came to the realization that some believers, when faced with sickness, attribute it to the sovereignty of God alone. Hence, they see it as a thing to be endured and not to be prayed against. There is not a single time we see Jesus in the gospels encounter a sick person and tell him/her ‘this is the will of God for you’. There were times he healed every sick person in the crowds (Luke 6:19). There was a time when he couldn’t heal anybody at all because of their unbelief (Matthew 13:58). And there was also a time when the healing process was gradual; Jesus had to pray more than once (Mark 8:22-26). Bottomline is, Jesus was/is against sickness. 

I would like to briefly touch on the topic of the sovereignty of God and how some people like to contrast it with the faith a believer has in God’s healing power. To some, God’s sovereignty means, when evil happens to a believer it is always a result of God exercising his sovereign power. I have heard this idea expressed only when something evil happens in the life of a believer, like sickness. If the sickness of a believer is always as a result of the sovereignty of God, then how do we pray against it? 

First of all, the sovereignty of God is in reference to his supreme power and authority. It means, God answers to nobody and he has the right to exercise this authority he has over all creation and even in eternity without any interference from anybody. Basically, to wield this power is to do whatever pleases you without having to explain yourself to anybody. But you see, God is not only sovereign, he is also good. That means he can do whatever pleases him, but the point here is that what pleases him is goodness. Apart from God, there is nobody who can navigate the intersection between sovereignty and goodness. He alone has the capacity to do that because he is sovereign and absolutely good concurrently and in equal measure.

They say ‘power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’ but God cannot be corrupted by his own power. He is not a man. We need to understand that none of the attributes of God exceed any of his other attributes. So, we cannot say God is more omniscient than he is omnipotent. All of his attributes are whole and absolute in him and that is what makes him God. So my point is, God is as sovereign as he is good; he is not more sovereign than good and vice versa. Also, we cannot assume that anytime a believer is having a hard time then it means God is exercising his sovereign power alone. He is also good, and his goodness is expressed all over scripture. That is why the bible speaks of the healing power of God. It is a reference to the point that when we encounter sickness, God’s power is available to bring healing to the person because God is good too. When a believer is going through hard times, it is because God is so good that  he will use those hard times for the good of that person who is called according to his purpose. Whatever God says or does is in the power and authority of who he is and that is all his attributes combined. So there is nothing God does that is purely because of his  sovereignty without it being ultimately good. There is nothing God says that is solely because he is omniscient and not because he is a loving and good God. We see this convergence of God’s seemingly contrasting attributes especially at the cross. His attributes that seem contrasting only appear so from a human perspective, but in God they dwell amicably in perfect harmony. For example, the cross of Jesus meant justice for the sins of the world and it meant mercy and grace for sinners. God is just and he is merciful, nobody can marry justice and mercy in one act like God did. John Njoroge of RZIM puts it this way:

It was at the Cross of Jesus where God’s justice was perfectly administered and his eternal mercy publicly displayed when God took upon Himself the punishment meant for the guilty.

Read the full article here.

Let’s take for example, a person suffering from a disease for 16 years. What should be my words of encouragement to this person? I will remind the person that God is good and he is sovereign. He is so good that he can use sickness to bring glory to his holy name. God does this in 2 ways:

1. When he gives grace to the person to endure the sickness until the day they get healed or leave this earth.
2. When he heals the person.

I will also remind this individual of the sovereignty of God and how God can overturn any situation – including sickness –  without having to answer to anybody. In the face of a global pandemic that is taking thousands of lives, I will say the same thing. God is sovereign and good. Because I believe this, I will pray continually for him to heal our world. If I resign and say that ‘well, this may actually be an act of God’s sovereignty so what’s the point praying against it?’ I am not being a good Christian. 

God’s goodness makes him as mysterious as his sovereignty does. The Psalmist said that God forgives us so that he may be feared (Psalm 130:4). Which means the reverential fear we have for God is as a result of his mercies (his goodness). God is so sovereign he can allow evil to thrive and later use it all for his glory. These two attributes of God make him mysterious. When Jesus was informed about the ill health of Lazarus, these were his exact words ‘this illness does not lead to death’ which means some illnesses lead to death (most, actually). Jesus loved Lazarus, Mary and Martha, however, he delayed in responding to their distress call. He actually delayed so that they would see the glory of God. You know how the story goes (John 11:1-16). Christ shows up at the tomb of Lazarus and resurrects him from the dead. God is good and sovereign at the same time. He is so good he used Lazarus’ illness and death to illustrate the fact that the resurrection is not an event but a person. Jesus is the resurrection and the life. He is so sovereign that he can even bring the dead back to life. Death isn’t sovereign. Death doesn’t wield ultimate power over us. This is what the resurrection of Lazarus meant, that there is one who doesn’t only bring the dead back to life but he is in himself the Resurrection and the Life. He is life: the direct opposite of death. 

God is sovereign. I couldn’t trust sovereignty in the hands of anybody apart from God. Because ‘there is none good but God’, as Jesus said. If anybody or anything apart from God was the sovereign authority in both eternity and time, since that person or entity isn’t ultimately good, we would have to expect an abuse of that power. But our God is sovereign and good at the same time. He doesn’t answer to the laws of nature. God doesn’t have to explain to us why he resurrected lazarus from the dead. He just did it for his glory and that’s that.

Job’s story typifies all that we have discussed to this point. He was a good man. If we go with the expectations of man then it means he wasn’t deserving of any evil. God himself describes Job as a ‘blameless and upright man’ and that ‘there is none like him on the earth’ (Job 1:8). The devil had no intention of attacking Job but God himself suggested it to him. God asked Satan, ‘have you considered my servant Job?’. Satan then argued that Job was only as devoted as he was to God because God had blessed him exceedingly and had mounted a hedge around him. He proceeded with his argument by stating that if God were to remove the hedge, Job would curse God to his face. Guess what God did? No, he didn’t rebuke Satan, he rather removed the hedge of protection he had put around Job and asked Satan to do whatever he wanted to do with Job but he shouldn’t touch his life. Satan inflicted all manner of evil on Job: Job lost his properties, he lost his children and he was later stricken with “loathsome sores from the soles of his foot to his crown of his head”. The question is, if God is good then why did he allow Satan to inflict so much pain on Job? God isn’t only good, he is also sovereign. This means that he still reserves the right to do what pleases him without owing anyone an explanation, including his children. So while it may not make sense to us why God would do such a thing to somebody who was blameless like Job, we have to understand that God is sovereign. In the end, this is what Job himself says about God:

“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.

Job 42:2 ESV

There you have it, Job understood that God can do anything and his plans cannot be thwarted by anybody. God does what he does because he is sovereign and we know it will all turn out for the good of his children because he is good. In fact, he is absolutely good. He is so good anything or anybody we can describe as good is utterly evil in comparison to God. At the end of Job’s story, we see God bless Job with more than he had before:

And the Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. And he had 14,000 sheep, 6,000 camels, 1,000 yoke of oxen, and 1,000 female donkeys. He also had seven sons and three daughters.

Job 42:12‭-‬13 ESV

This is the confident assurance I have in God, that he is sovereign and good at the same time. I may not like what I am going through right now, but so far as I remain submitted to his will, it will all work out beautifully for my good. My God is sovereign and good!

The healing power of Jesus Christ remains one of the most outstanding aspects of his ministry here on earth. Throughout the 4 gospels, we see records of various miraculous healings that Jesus did in those 3 years that he ministered. I finished reading the book of Luke a few months ago and one of my greatest takeaways was the fact that healing was very prominent in Jesus’ ministry. I concluded that since Luke was said to be a physician he intentionally highlighted the miraculous healings in Jesus’ ministry more than anything else – or maybe not. There are certain details about Jesus and his walk here on earth that are found in one gospel or the other and not all 4 of them. When it comes to his healing ministry, the writers of the 4 gospels did well to record many of them in their writings. I would say again, in my estimation that Luke does a very outstanding job at documenting the healing ministry of Jesus – better than the other gospel writers. 

I believe strongly that the season we find ourselves in is the reason God highlighted the healing ministry of Jesus to me a few months ago. If Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever, then how do we reconcile this truth with the COVID 19 pandemic that has taken the whole world by storm? I will deal with this topic in more detail in the subsequent post. But now, I want to lay the foundation of the healing power of God and how he works through men. More importantly, how Jesus laid the foundation of the healing ministry of God. 

Anyway, back to the book of Luke. Jesus’ ministry as recorded in the book spanned 19 chapters, from chapter 4 to 22. These chapters are documentation of how Jesus began his ministry, the selection of his disciples, his many miracles, his parables, etc. In 11 out of these 19 chapters, there is a story of either Jesus or his disciples healing sick people. This means 58% of the chapters in the book of Luke on Jesus’ ministry were on stories of Jesus’ healing ministry.

Jesus’ mandate on this earth is clearly spelled out in Luke 4:18. Amongst the numerous things he came here to do, he mentioned that the Spirit of God was upon him to enable him ‘heal the brokenhearted’ and bring ‘recovery of sight to the blind’. He also mentioned that he was sent to earth to set those who are being oppressed free. This is the reason why Jesus treated sickness the way he did in the days of his flesh. Sicknesses either have their roots in the spiritual realm or in the physical. Some of the sick people who were brought to Jesus were actually demon-possessed. Hence, he cast demons out of the sick and their health was restored. Take, for example, the story in Luke 10:14 where Jesus cast out a demon from a dumb person and after the demon had left, the man began to speak  to the astonishment of all who were gathered there. Healing the sick was very important to him to the extent that anytime he sent out his followers to go and preach the gospel in various cities, he added that they should heal the sick as well:

“ and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal”. Luke 9:2

“Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’” Luke 10:9

In the first verse, Jesus had sent his 12 disciples to go through the villages “preaching the gospel and healing everywhere” (Luke 9:6). In the second one, Jesus had sent out 72 of his followers to go and preach the gospel and heal the sick. Why was it so important to him that the sick were healed? As I have already stated, some sicknesses and diseases are caused by evil spirits, hence it was only right to deliver the sick from the oppression of demons in their physical beings either before or after they receive the gospel. 

I would like to state two important facts about sickness. Firstly, we are never told sickness is one of the things Christians are to suffer for the sake of the gospel. As such, I do not regard sickness as ‘Christian suffering’. I see it as Jesus saw it, a thing to be dealt with no matter how long the person has lived with it. Once, Jesus and his disciples met a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples asked him whose sin it was that had caused the man to be blind: was it that of his parents? Jesus answered and said, the man was blind so that the glory of God would be revealed then he proceeded to heal him. The glory of God was revealed through healing, end of story. Anytime I encounter sickness, as a follower of Christ, I must do what he did when he found himself in the same situation, that is to pray against it. 

Secondly, not every sickness has its roots in the spiritual. Sickness is a physical condition that sometimes renders some parts of the body or the entire body dysfunctional. It is important for us to understand that the operation of the healing anointing does not imply that medical science is useless. Neither should we allude every sickness to spiritual forces working against us. The bible says that if there be any sick among you, let them call the elders of the church to anoint the person and pray over the person. The prayer of faith will heal the person (James 5:14-15). This again tells us what Christians are expected to do when they are faced with sickness in their own bodies or the ill health of a brethren. Pray against it! 

Also, we see Paul in his letter to Timothy advising his spiritual son to mix water with a little alcohol for the sake of a stomach condition he had. This in no way contradicts what was said earlier. There is nothing wrong with using some prescribed medicine or concoction when you are sick. It is actually proof that not all illnesses have spiritual roots. Furthermore, in one particular case in the Old Testament, we see God speak through the Prophet Isaiah to recommend the use of a physical remedy to help cure King Hezekiah’s disease. In 2 Kings 20 he ordered for a cake of figs to be applied to the boils on Hezekiah’s skin so that he could recover. All this had to be stated because i have come across some Christians who are opposed to any form of medical intervention when they are sick. To them, God heals hence they are not prepared to have their recovery any other way than a supernatural intervention. This idea is not consistent with the teachings of the bible. The bible does command us to lay our hands on the sick and pray for them and they will recover. We are also told that sick people in the church should inform the elders of the church to pray for them. However, in some cases, we see the prescription of some medical remedy to sickness too. There is nothing wrong with that. God gets the glory still.

When I set out to write this article, my goal was to prove how integral healing was (and still is) in the ministry of the gospel. Jesus sent out his followers not to only preach, but to heal the sick as well. When we are hit with a global pandemic, as believers, it is our duty to call on God to heal our land. God heals; I believe so because this statement is consistent with scripture. God is sovereign, yes. And God is good. He doesn’t have to be either sovereign or good. Sovereignty and goodness co-habit in our God.

(Thanks for reading. This is the first of a 3-Part series. The second one will be released on Monday, 15th June,2020)